Are there plans to make dissent, or “thought crimes,” punishable in Finland? It seems so, because new terms such as “anti-authority” have been introduced in Finland. “Anti-socialism” is also being used more and more often. Both new labels are also intended to be introduced into legislation. The Orpo government intends to do this without any broader investigation, research, or discussion. The new definitions are intended to be used as justification for increasing the authorities’ powers.
The Orpo government's proposal to Parliament for legislation on criminal intelligence was sent for comment on February 19, 2026. The purpose is to allow the use of intelligence methods on a "threat basis" when it is not a question of an actual crime or the preparation of one.
According to Section 3 of the new Chapter 5b to be added to the Police Act, “Criminal intelligence may be targeted at a person who, based on the person’s statements, threats or behaviour or circumstances, can be assumed to be participating in activities referred to in Section 3 that seriously threaten the security of an individual or society.”
The explanatory memorandum to the law also states that "at the same time, general hostility towards authorities has increased and the threshold for threatening and even violence against authorities has lowered."
The exact same sentence is also used in the Ministry of Justice's report (2026:2) on amending Section 10 of the Constitution and violating the protection of domestic peace. The aim is to do this so that intelligence can be targeted at the space currently protected by domestic peace.
In 2021, Head of the Investigation Bureau of the Finnish National Criminal Police Timo Kilpelainen stated in Verkkuutis (December 5, 2021): "The so-called criminals of the old alliance respected the police, but today criminal groups and factions with foreign backgrounds have entered the field of activity, and this kind of anti-police and broader anti-social behavior is visible."
Kilpeläinen puts foreign organized crime on the same level as “anti-socialism.” Apparently, the signal is that if you publicly criticize the power structures of, say, the Finnish mainstream media and political elite, you are “anti-social” and therefore a criminal.
The police have claimed in several news reports, including Aamulehti (7.9.2023), that “anti-authority” has increased. However, it is not stated how this “anti-authority” is measured and what kind of indicators are monitored. The Finnish mainstream media also does not question the claims, as questioning would probably be interpreted as “anti-authority”.
Germany as an example
It seems that the Finnish authorities have copied both terms directly from Germany. In Germany, too, it is not about illegal activity, but about “slandering” and “incitement” of society. So basically, it is about disagreements and dissatisfaction that have been observed among the population and that may also be growing.
In 2021, in the aftermath of the corona crisis, the German domestic intelligence service BfV (Bundesverfassungsschutz) introduced a new concept, which it called “delegitimization of the state relevant to the protection of the constitution” (Verfassungsschutzrelevante Delegitimierung des Staates).
It was defined in 2022 in the BfV's public annual report as follows:
"Actors involved in this phenomenon seek to suspend the basic constitutional principles or significantly weaken the functioning of the state or its institutions. They denigrate democratic decision-making processes and legislative, executive and judicial institutions, publicly challenge their legitimacy and demand that official or legal orders and decisions be disregarded. This type of delegitimization usually does not occur by directly questioning democracy itself, but rather by persistent agitation against democratically legitimized state representatives and institutions and their decisions. ja by smearing them. This can undermine trust in the entire state system and weaken its ability to function. Such incitement is contrary to fundamental constitutional principles, such as democracy and the rule of law. "
The same agency, the BfV, has since stated that the phenomenon is in practice so small that it no longer needs to be monitored. It is noteworthy, however, that the critical attitude towards vaccinations and corona restrictions was intended to be elevated as a “phenomenon” to the ranks of movements that endanger the constitution, as one of the threats.
In Germany, they have succeeded in creating an image of “good citizens” and then “others” who are “anti-social.” They are apparently trying to do the same in Finland.
Apparently, a “good person” does not criticize society, but a “bad person” does. A good person thinks that the security police are God’s creation, a bad person dares to question it. However, society is such a diverse structure that it seems absurd to even talk about “anti-socialism.” Perhaps it would be more honest to say that the elite is worried about criticism directed at them, but does not want to say this out loud.
In parallel with this process, the Finnish Ministry of Justice has a draft law on “harmful intelligence activities”, which “criminalizes the systematic, damaging influence on Finnish social decision-making on behalf of a foreign state and the dissemination of untrue information regarding Finnish decision-making or social conditions” (Ministry of Justice project number OM089:00/2023).
The allegations of anti-social and anti-authoritarian behavior have sparked a debate about how wrong-thinkers should be punished. Apparently, the Ministry of Justice has seen major problems with the law in question. This is not surprising, as it is a criminal law concerning “wrong thinking.”
The point is probably that if someone presents false and therefore obviously “anti-authoritarian and anti-social” views, they want to frame the whole matter as an influence operation by a foreign intelligence service. This would also criminalize political dissent.
Photo: Yumi Kimura, source: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0
7 comments on the post “Is the Orpo government copying the threat of "thought crimes" from Germany?"
Reply
You must log in to comment.
The same echo is in the footsteps. It is probably no coincidence that Germany is once again leading the way in the persecution of citizens. At least three elements are needed for this operation: attitudes, laws and interpretations of laws. Germany has not broken free from its tradition of persecuting dissidents. The finger was usually pointed at East Germany, but it was forgotten that in West Germany there was a complete ban on anyone who wanted to be to the left of the Democrats. And the West German judiciary was full of judges who had worked with the Nazis.
The corona restrictions and sanctions were clearly stricter in Germany than elsewhere, and unfortunately a large part of the population was caught off guard. While in Finland people were allowed to walk around without a mask quite freely, in Germany they were immediately shouted at if anyone dared to deviate.
In Germany, there is an institution called the Bundespressekonferens, which is a meeting of ministerial spokespersons in front of the media. There is exactly one questioning journalist, Florian Warweg, who practically never gets any sensible answers to his questions. There, haughty leaders grin arrogantly from their podiums.
In Germany, there are still doctors in prison who thought for the best of their patients and did not obey the orders of the authorities. Later, when it was revealed that the doctors who were in the opposition were also factually correct, this did not help them in any way. Because their crime was not that they had made medical errors, but that they did not obey.
Germany's most famous jailed dissident during the corona era is lawyer Reiner Füllmich, who has been given the full Julian Assange treatment by the state. He was kidnapped from the German embassy in Mexico and brought in irons to Germany, where he has been in solitary confinement for two years, from where he is being brought in full irons to the farcical court sessions. Since no reasonable charges have been brought, one has been fabricated for the alleged misuse of the corona association's fundraising funds. Füllmich's case is an example of the fact that even new laws are not needed, it is enough for judges to be corrupt and make arbitrary decisions if a person is perceived as dangerous to the power elite.
As an addition to the previous one. The persecution of opinion in Germany has spread widely to universities where correct thinking is required. This was reported by the well-known dissident Ulrike Guerot, who lost her own professorship and mentioned in connection with this that there is no need to directly fire people, but rather let the professorship lapse, then there will be no uproar. She mentioned the number of people fired, which I don't remember, but it was at least in the three digits.
While traditionally radical left-wing voices were not allowed, nowadays color does not matter so much. Ulrike Guerot started out in a fairly conservative environment, was close to the CDU and worked in the EU under Jacques Delors during his presidency.
Finnish authorities seem to have different fear states and threat images dominating the thought space. It is necessary to clearly distinguish between anti-social and anti-authoritarianism, because the concepts are not identical in meaning. The Constitution states that all official activities must strictly comply with the law. However, this does not mean that all official activities strictly comply with the law. According to the logic of the authorities that is presented to citizens, an authority cannot act incorrectly, because the law states that all official activities must strictly comply with the law, and therefore they are always right. However, observers and experimenters may come to different thoughts based on their experiences, which can lead to negative feelings towards the authorities, which may also lead to social demands, because the authorities are a significant influencer in the hierarchy of society. Healthy criticism is necessary in relation to official activities. This is what is wanted to be eliminated by exploiting the methods of the social hierarchy, which are also legislation. This leads to a circle of increasing power, which in practice feeds itself. Legal amendments that restrict the internationally agreed rights of citizens are already international crimes in themselves. This is possible because Finland lacks effective legal remedies in cases where crimes are committed by an official. The events of recent years provide numerous examples of this. The so-called political elite has systematically sought to nullify the factors related to this with its legal amendments. The development picture also includes the fact that the provisions on the handling of criminal cases are not followed in prosecution activities, and judgments are arbitrarily scratched based on assumptions,
"It's probably a matter of if someone presents false and therefore obviously 'anti-authoritarian and anti-social' views, they want to frame the whole matter as an influence operation by a foreign intelligence service. This would also criminalize political dissent."
Thinking in general is a crime in this development, because everything has already been thought out, and disagreement is no longer allowed. The prevailing development, one-eyed and inept lawmaking only lead to greater arbitrariness on the part of the authorities, which then provides a good breeding ground for anti-authority and anti-social behavior with its consequences.
Examples of the aforementioned developments include the recent immigration policy, Covid measures, and the fueled Russia threat with its consequences. In light of the above, there is no objective basis to assume that the authorities will always act correctly, or even follow the law.
But when our top leadership, after the EU and EMU decisions, has continued and deepened its contempt for our constitutions through the Host Nation Agreement, NATO and DCA agreements, are these actual and serious people and actors who have violated the constitution completely excluded from such cases? Obviously, because they are untouchable and can do anything as long as there is an internal consensus among these top actors about what is the “right” policy – that is, warmongering, anti-Russian and slaving away at citizens while dismantling the welfare state in accordance with the demands of the European Commission.
It seems as if the communist laws of the 1930s are being rewritten. There are no communists in the country anymore, though. They have been replaced by “dissidents” who disagree with the country’s foreign policy (just as the communists once were).
First come the laws and then the arrests. I believe that there are more of us who support an independent, non-partisan, militarily and economically non-aligned Finland than there were communists in the 1930s. So we are a danger to the Coalition-led Finland and the EU dictatorship.
In the 1930s, the Central Detective Police would usually come to the home of a suspected communist in the early hours of the morning and search the house. If even a page of Marxist literature was found, for example, the penalty was a minimum of 5 years in prison. The charge was almost always “preparation for treason”. Today, this “search” probably takes place online first.
“Nowadays, this “home search” probably takes place online first.2
That's right! And a "more sophisticated version" of being locked up in a dungeon is house arrest with closed bank accounts...
The reality in Finland is that the so-called mainstream media follows political decision-makers and their agendas, and views or truths that would question them are not easily released to the public. As much as there is rot in the United States, there is also, as far as I know, a lot of good there. One good thing is probably the respect for freedom of speech. Without broad freedom of speech, there is also no functioning democracy.