This morning, the Finnish Extinction Rebellion, in collaboration with the Swedish group Återställ Våtmarker, defaced the Finnish Parliament House to gain visibility for their political views. That is why I won’t discuss their goals in this writing but will briefly present my own opinion on their actions.
Defacing the Parliament House was a direct attack on Finnish democracy, which is based on decisions made by representatives elected by the people. In making these decisions, all political perspectives are represented according to the weight they hold among the Finnish population.
However, this is not acceptable to the Extinction Rebellion activists and the Swedes involved in the defacement, as they demand for themselves a dictatorial right to decide on the nation’s common affairs. In other words, through their actions, they appear to be criminal usurpers of power who should receive the maximum legal punishment for their deeds and be held financially responsible for the costs - estimated to exceed 10 000 euros - incurred.
In this context, the Kone Foundation, established by the Finnish elevator manufacturer Kone Corporation, finds itself in a peculiar situation. It has publicly funded the activities of Extinction Rebellion, which, at least in the public's mind, makes it partially responsible for what happened. And it doesn't help that you say the funding you approved hasn't been earmarked for defacing the Parliament House.
In this situation, I expect the foundation to take responsibility. That is, to publicly announce the immediate cessation of its funding for the Finnish Extinction Rebellion, to refuse any involvement in paying for the damages caused by the activists, and to unequivocally condemn their actions.
Although the Kone Corporation is not directly responsible for the actions of its foundation, it would be good if the company also condemned the incident and, in one way or another, reprimanded its foundation for its reckless use of funds. This, of course, only if the company supports representative democracy and does not feel sympathy toward criminals—and even then, only if they care about their international reputation.
Finally, I do not believe that the action taken today will increase the acceptability of the activists' goals among ordinary people. On the contrary, it will probably - and hopefully - turn against them.
Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Relationship Between the Professor and Teemu Selänne
Challenges of democracy: Reflections on political violence and rhetoric in Finnish politics
Is the Finnish left-wing radicalizing?
The Swedes allow the peat to be raised.
ReplyDeleteWhy hasn't Sweden banned the raise of peat?
They are primarily to blame for this act.
Technical answer. In Sweden, it was decided through a democratic process that peat is considered renewable energy, and therefore acceptable for use.
DeleteIt should also be noted that in scientific terms peat is rather slowly renewable than nonrenewable, and for example, in Sweden, all peat has formed during the last 10,000 years (since the ice age). Additionally, it is known that in Finland, more peat has formed every year despite active use.
Finally, I want to note that no one else can be blamed for a crime except the criminals themselves. This also applies in this case.