In March 2021, a group of Finnish and international researchers issued a statement on a case that illustrates a broader societal problem: the silencing of people who speak about racism. The immediate context was the treatment of Dr. Faith Mkwesha’s underage son in Helsinki, who was violently restrained and detained after a ticket inspection—while his white friend, equally without a valid ticket, was let go without consequence. When Dr. Mkwesha raised concerns publicly, she herself became the subject of a police investigation for slander.
This case is more than an isolated dispute over a ticket inspection; it represents the structural barriers that prevent racialised people from voicing their experiences of injustice.
Unequal Treatment and Its Implications
The different handling of two youths—one Black, one white—points to the racialised logics of control in security practices. Private and public security forces are entrusted with the right to use force, making their actions a matter of public interest. Transparency, accountability, and openness to critique should therefore be non-negotiable. When criticism is instead met with legal threats, it discourages victims and families from reporting discriminatory practices.
The Chilling Effect of Legal Sanctions
The researchers highlight a central risk: if speaking about racism exposes individuals to criminal charges, public debate and accountability are stifled. This chilling effect not only isolates victims but also undermines democratic oversight of institutions. Experiences of racism—whether in transport, policing, healthcare, or education—must be articulated freely if societies are to address systemic inequality.
Security, Scrutiny, and Trust
In any democracy, institutions wielding coercive power must earn legitimacy through transparency and proportionality. The Finnish case resonates with broader European and global debates: how can societies ensure security while also protecting civil rights? The solution lies not in silencing critique, but in developing non-discriminatory practices and listening to those directly affected.
Towards a Culture of Respectful Dialogue
Creating an atmosphere where Black, Brown, and other racialised individuals can safely voice their experiences is not just a matter of individual justice—it is a matter of public trust. The researchers call on Finnish society, particularly security institutions, to foster conditions where critical voices are valued rather than punished. This aligns with international human rights principles: the right to dignity, equality, and freedom of expression.
Looking Ahead
The episode raises a crucial question: will Finland, like many European countries, confront the racial biases embedded in its institutions, or will it continue to protect those institutions from criticism? The answer will determine whether future generations feel empowered to speak out—or silenced into submission.
True progress requires that experiences of racism can be voiced without fear of retaliation. Only then can societies begin the difficult but necessary work of dismantling discriminatory structures and building trust across communities.
