Unintended Consequences of Modern Value Shifts

The world has changed significantly in this millennium. What used to be considered normal, even self-evident, is today not always even acceptable.

A startling example of this change appeared in Finland when two schoolboys got into a fierce fight, throwing punches and kicks at each other. A teacher tried to break it up by ordering them to stop, but to no avail.

So the teacher finally grabbed one of the boys and lifted him out of the situation. The hitting and kicking stopped, and no one was seriously injured.

But then something completely unexpected happened. One of the parents filed charges against the teacher, claiming that milder methods could have been used. What those methods might have been—given that the teacher had already ordered the boys verbally to stop—has never been explained publicly.

In any case, at the parents’ initiative, a legal process began that lasted a full year and a half before the prosecutor decided that the teacher’s actions would not be taken to court. It is clear that this time was extremely difficult for the teacher.

We can only guess how such a case will affect teachers’ willingness to intervene in schoolyard fights—not in a positive direction, surely. And for that reason it must be said that, as a consequence of the case I have described, school life likely became a little less safe than it once was.

For my part, I see this case as yet another indication that the value shifts of the 21st century—BLM, DEI, Woke culture, intersectional feminism, and so forth—do not make the world a better place. Instead, they seem to be leading to a decline in care for one another, double standards, less openness, and increasing social polarization in all kinds of ways, despite the fact that the stated aim was the exact opposite.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Has Modern Education Strayed Too Far — and Is It Time to Change Course?
Library Scrubs Queer Creator’s Character from Moomin Exhibit
Why Finnish Youth Are Abandoning the Green Party

The Non-Discrimination Ombudsman violates the law on openness

In Finland, there is an authority named the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman, which operates to provide statements related to its field and also comments on matters through social media. In messaging service X, this authority has most recently conveyed information stating, "The Non-Discrimination Ombudsman assesses that the closure of almost all eastern border crossing points and the concentration of seeking international protection at the Raja-Jooseppi border crossing endangers the right to seek asylum."

If one attempts to respond to the message, it is not possible, and comments can only be given from accounts specifically mentioned by the ombudsman. I am not one of those account owners, and neither is Minister of Justice Leena Meri.

This is perplexing, as the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman is a publicly funded entity serving taxpayers and should cater to the entire population. However, as evident from the above, this is not the case, prompting the question of why.

The issue at hand is why this particular authority is not inherently open to public discourse—or even public dialogue with the government of the country—but instead predefines with whom it is willing to engage.

Therefore, it is pertinent to inquire how this operational model aligns with the purpose stated in the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, which, in clear Finnish language, articulates that "the purpose of the statutory right of access to information and the obligations of authorities is to implement openness in the activities of the authorities, provide individuals and communities the opportunity to monitor the use of public authority and public funds, freely form their opinions, influence the exercise of public authority, and monitor their rights and interests."

Finally, it is worth noting that the current Non-Discrimination Ombudsman is Kristina Stenman, who previously served in the Refugee Advice Centre, assisted far-left professor Martin Scheinin and worked as a city manager. She assumed office on August 1, 2020, having been appointed by the government of Prime Minister Sanna Marin.

The original thought in Finnish:
Yhdenvertaisuusvaltuutettu ja laki viranomaisen toiminnan julkisuudesta

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Freudian slip, 9-year-old girl and cultural appropriation
A Finnish police officer is afraid to speak about the problems of immigration
"Woke" pushes American science academies to favor women in their membership selections