What is the expertise of RT's reporters if the story tells (quite rightly) that this is only a temporary ruling? Does the court condemn this deportation temporarily or what the headline has to do with the story? Has it been made known by Russian media that the daughter don't want to send her mother to Russia, because she doesn't trust that she'd be taken properly care there. Isn't this something that RT and other Russian media should write about? How many old women suffer in bad conditions within Russia? No that's not interesting of course. Much more interesting to write about one that Finnish don't want to take care. Even though she's again in hospital and being treated with tax payers money. And why does these old people suffer while some Russian oligarchs are basically bathing in gold? Maybe they should be taxed a little more? Like we do in Finland, so we can arrange the welfare for old people. Why we should pay taxes to organize this to Russians so their oligarchs can use the saved money to buy even bigger yachts? And should Russians living in Finland welcome also all the Somalians' and other refugees' mothers and relatives? To be taken care of by Finnish tax payers, which Russians living here should be too? Or is it just for Russian grand mothers we should care for? Of course this is very sad for the family, but this has to be thought out considering the big picture. But the most interesting thing is to think the purpose of these Finno-phobic articles organized by who everyone may guess (relatively) freely...

Condemn is just to give an adverse judgement, so of course it can be temporary, you can condemn someone to death, then you could clear them on appeal, reprieve them or pardon them, hence they wouldn't be codemned to death anymore - so in my view RT is spot on! So what is the issue other than to try to taint RT in some way, was that the purpose of the comment! Now this case is about Finland deporting a grandmother, it isn't about elderly care in Russia, so staying on topic, it is about the law and compassion. Of course in Law, this woman is totally in the wrong. But in the end, in every humane system, there must be a notion of compassion, of humanity, not just a letter of the law interpretation of statutes. Because no legal system is perfect, and we are human! Now the issue really is, how do we make sure people are not taking advantage, not abusing the system. Everyone tries to work their position to best advantage. So the job is to tell the genuine cases from the ones trying it on, NOT to end humanity or compassion, because the call is difficult and can be wrong in some cases. This is the job of a court to make the decision. Having said that the Strasbourg court is a useless political monster, masquerading as a court, so it would be better to handle it locally in a sensible manner or start to develop a competent non political court. I don't know the full facts in this case; on face value, this lady looks old, frail and would have a better end to her life with her daughter, regardless of the country she was intended to be sent back to. So in my view, leave her with her daughter. I really scoff at the scaremongering of millions more will come, or let one in and everybody will come. Instead better to be strong and make decisions, rather than hide your ineptitude to maek decisions or political stunts behind a letter of the law approach. Humans need to be treated humanely, not as balls to be placed here or there.

In Webster's dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condemn) condemn is defined: 1 : to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation 2 a : to pronounce guilty : convict b : sentence, doom 3 : to adjudge unfit for use or consumption 4 : to declare convertible to public use under the right of eminent domain As the court didn't make any other decission than stop the deportation process until further investigation the headline is completely off. About grandmother: And I agree about having the compassion being important, but in Finnish juristical system one of the leading princibles is equality. And if one gets reason to stay because of that then every single case can use this as an example and expect equal treatment. My personal opinion is that she should be able to stay but the family should pay the costs and not the tax payers. About RT's reporting: This just seems to be one part of media war againts Finland originating from some political leaders from Kremlin. The reason for this is anybody's guess. If they want to push Finland to join Nato, it's going good. All of these problems for Russians living in Finland suddenly started after kidnapped boy Anton had been successfully returned home to Finland. All the "Russians are treated bad in Finland" stories in Russian media originate from the same source: "human rights activist" Johan Bäckman. This modern day Otto-Ville Kuusinen is a Kremlin puppet or just few cards short of the deck.

The dictionary doesn't help you, even using your first definition 1 : to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or So two thngs to note: a. They have declared the deportation wrong at this moment, it can be wrong because they need more time to consider the case, because the deportaion is without merit...... b. There is no use of irrevirsible,final .... basically indicating that things can change. So again I say RT is fully correct. The problem is that you are used to use the western style of the word, that is used for spin, whilst RT are just doing literal language. So it isn't worth debating. The only point that I make is that you can't wade into RT, because of a cultural difference in word useage. Regarding equality, well in truth, true equality never exists before the law in any jurisdiction. Better lawyers, get better results, better political position and connections get better results, relations with prosecutors and police get better results.... That is just the way it is an imperfect system, we can only try to make it as good as we can, by trying to make it as public as possible for people to see. Now actually once you have that transparency, it actiually allows you to be flexible and compassionate. Becuase on odd occasions, when you need deviate, to secure justice. people can see you have deviated, they can support or oppose. This is the beauty of having an open system of justice. This is how law evolves in a common law way, which makes the approach the most powerful in the world. The very publicity and openness built into such a system, prevents the one case turning into the thousands. Nothing is perfect so don't look for it. But a system that generally follows the letter, but has discretion, executed in a transparent, open visible manner is the best you can hope for. Rejoice in the strength of the system, not its occasional possible failing in being abused. The people will correct that! Your seems is your own!

Trying to twist black to white doesn't help you here. I think it's basically silly to argue about one word. But it's plain here that the wording used by RT is just trying to make the story read like the Strasbourg court had made it very very much wrong to deport the old lady. And as this clearly was not the case, as is seen from the court's decision: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J6TAGK0E7r4/TBkI-LT0NyI/AAAAAAAABFg/DkVSiu37lGE/s1600/ecthr_antonova.jpg This is just bad and non-objective journalism. As you probably know most people read the headline and make their impression of the actual facts on that. Most won't bother to actually read the story that thoroughly to change their minds. That's why it should be important to keep facts straight starting from the headline. Altogether better question is why is the story of one grand mother so important that it's main news. This I think is the important question here. There can never be total objectivity and equality in court system. But it is important to remember that the rulings of the courts are more trustworthy and objective when the judges don't take emotional stand in the cases. Or make their rulings based on popular opinion caused often by people who shout the loudest. This will be hard on individuals sometimes but better for society in general. At least I prefer it this way.