Finnish Branch of Extinction Rebellion Faces Possible Ban

Finnish Member of Parliament Kaisa Garedew (Finns Party) considers the citizens' initiative to ban Elokapina a very welcome proposal. She justified her view by stating that Elokapina - the Finnish branch of Extinction Rebellion - has caused all kinds of difficulties and costs to society in recent years: blocking Helsinki's main street, defacing the valuable pillars of the Parliament House, engaging in civil disobedience, and wasting the resources of the judiciary and the police. Additionally, a member of the movement has publicly fantasized about assassinating Minister of Finance Riikka Purra (Finns Party).

Last October, the National Police Board announced that it was considering filing a lawsuit to dissolve Elokapina and was currently gathering evidence for the case. Thus, the citizens' initiative can also be seen as supporting police actions.

MP Garedew also pointed out—at the very least, justifiably—that "if Elokapina were truly more interested in the environment than in spectacles involving illegal actions, it would leave innocent Finns alone and focus its efforts on countries that genuinely destroy nature and whose pollution levels are a real problem."

It remains to be seen whether Elokapina's activities will be banned in Finland. Nevertheless, I am glad that the operations of activist organizations that function by destroying private and public property and disrupting people's lives are now being questioned. Such organizations are unnecessary in a country with a functioning democracy, where all people already have freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Criminal Attack Against Finnish Democracy
Why Were Violent Protests Acceptable for George Floyd but Not for the UK Child Murders?
Challenges of democracy: Reflections on political violence and rhetoric in Finnish politics

Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?

In 2012, Finland joined the Ottawa Treaty, effectively prohibiting itself from using anti-personnel mines in the event of a Russian attack. The treaty was championed at the time by socialist president Tarja Halonen, who justified the decision by citing accidents caused by landmines, particularly in developing countries.

However, the irresponsible use of mines has never applied to the Finnish military, which has always ensured that civilians are kept away from minefields.

Perhaps for this reason, the Finnish far-left jurist Martin Scheinin came up with the claim that mines could pose a danger to migrants brought into Finland as hybrid warfare tools by Russia. This comment has mostly sparked amusement, as by the same logic, Russian tanks transporting asylum seekers should also be allowed to cross the border without resistance.

The discussion about the security risks caused by the Ottawa Treaty began in Finland about a month ago, when the Commander of the Finnish Defence Forces, Janne Jaakkola, stated that Finland's security environment has changed since 2012. Many ordinary citizens had already been contemplating the same issue since the start of the war in Ukraine.

Thus, on Finland’s Independence Day, December 6, a campaign was launched to gather supporters for a citizens' initiative calling for Finland to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines. The initiative quickly gathered the required 50,000 signatures and was submitted to the Parliament's office today.

It remains to be seen whether Parliament will approve the initiative or ignore the will of the Defence Forces Commander and the people, thereby discarding one of the most effective means of defending the country’s 1,300-kilometer border with Russia.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's useful idiots in Finland
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
Finland after the Russian war in Ukraine