Essay | The Finland of the security talk seems fragile

I pondered security and insecurity, mine, Finland and the world. That's what others seem to think too.

The main theme of the presidential election is security. It is said that there is broad agreement on the matter. At the same time, there is a competition to see who paints the security situation in the darkest colors. Mika Aaltola proposed the “fortification” of Finland. Jussi Halla-aho says that Russia has been a security threat to Finland “for the past 1,200 years”.

The Finland of the security talk seems fragile. Twenty daily asylum seekers are such a big threat that the border must be closed. The news includes moment-to-moment monitoring: “Three asylum seekers on bicycles arrived in Raja-Jooseppi at 1 pm.” The Minister of the Interior holds briefings daily.

Security control also reaches people's minds. The University of Helsinki library now has “safe space instructions”. According to the announcements that appeared in the elevators and toilets, no assumptions can be made about anyone's gender identity or ethnic identity. If you offend someone else, you must apologize, but you can ask for help if necessary.

Similar guidelines for kindergarten behavior were circulated in huge letters at the discussion event organized at Kiasma, the museum of contemporary art. The conversationalists appear in the back row as small, the safety instructions as large. As the work of the light art event is reflected on the facade of the university, a content warning is repeated over the loudspeakers.

The goal of safe space regulations and content warnings is to protect society's diversity, “vulnerable minorities”. But can an open society with diverse groups ever be completely safe? Does a person come to understand minorities if he is warned about their existence?

If there is freedom of speech in the country, someone is always offended by something said, or for example what is shown in art. If the country has a democracy, those in power are not immune from criticism. If the borders are open, all kinds of people will cross them, there's nothing you can do about it.

As a child, my generation traveled in cars without safety belts and safety seats. We cycled without a helmet, fell and got bruises. Many started heavy drinking and loose sex relationships at the age of 14 or 15. We considered it a natural part of human growth that you get antsy. We were afraid of nuclear war and expected that people of the future would travel to Mars. We wouldn't have expected them to start thinking about whether the library is a safe enough place to meet people.

The fruits of safety culture were tasted during the corona period. The ways of spreading the virus were unknown. Governments all over the world took action and issued regulations. Borders and schools were closed in Finland. The senior population, which was more than 800,000, had to be in “quarantine-like conditions”.

Many provisions did not have a clear legal basis. The law did not recognize “quarantine-like conditions” or the possibility of closing borders to Finnish citizens. In the conditions of an infectious disease, the apparently liberal ministers and parties of the governing parties still moved Finland into the world, where laws and regulations suddenly did not matter as much as security.

A time of crisis leadership is often described as difficult, but it seems easy. Wartime presidents and prime ministers are regularly admired heroic figures, while in stable peacetime governments fall over petty scandals. Countering threats overrides any other need. At the same time, it creates space to rule and power for those who claim to guarantee security.

Abraham Maslow developed a hierarchy of needs, which the pyramid describes teaches that a person can strive towards friendship, love and self-fulfillment only when the basic physiological needs have been satisfied. Safety comes first.

“

Countering threats overrides any other need.

The problem is, however, that also regulations regarding the freedom of movement of citizens or the freedom of art are part of what we call a safe society.

I feel safe when I can trust the decision-makers to distinguish between regulations and recommendations. When the country is governed transparently according to the law and not by the charisma of the leaders. When you can leave the country and arrive there according to your own choice. When we trust that a person knows how to navigate the library by himself.

More? security talk a sense of security or insecurity?

I remember the early 2000s. The September 11th attacks on New York got everyone talking about the terrorist threat. Security announcements (“if you see suspicious bags, report them immediately”) and armed guards appeared on metro trains in major cities. In airplane security checks, toothpaste tubes and nail scissors were used.

I had traveled by plane without much thought that the plane might crash or be hijacked. But now the thought could not be avoided. On a metro ride in a big city, I looked at the people sitting on the opposite bench, and I wondered who could be a terrorist. Previously, those strangers would have been innocent fellow passengers.

Also, the safe space instructions on the library wall make me think of everything that could go wrong. Do I perhaps relate to other people in a boring way? Now have I behaved in a disturbing manner, am I not nice?

Continuous safety talk is not innocent care. It is also a way to consolidate the group and gain popularity for the leaders. It's a way to control people's bodies, to get them on their guard.

They say we close our borders because, unlike Russia, we are a safe state governed by the rule of law. But the corona era shows that Finns also give up their basic freedoms easily when they are told about external threats.

If this is a safe state, then suggest, dear presidential candidates, in what direction it should be taken. Tell me where to put the billions after the fighter jets have been bought and the border fences have been erected. Present some vision of a country that is something other than a fortress with padding in every corner! From a country that is oriente
d outward and not inward, to an open and at the same time also insecure future.

I will wait for the elections, where the candidates will also reach the upper steps of the hierarchy of needs. Because the world is ultimately open and dangerous, and that's exactly why it's valuable.

The author is a linguist and a free thinker.