The situation in Europe is challenging, and we live in times when national security must understandably be seriously considered.

This responsibility falls on the political leadership; it is their duty. Just as it was during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this is a different matter. The comparisons made by the Finns Party to Sanna Marin’s government regarding the closure of Uusimaa are not sustainable. At that time, people could still travel for valid reasons, such as children visiting their parents, work-related duties, and medical treatment. If someone was unable to get to their cottage or visit relatives then, it cannot be compared to the current circumstances, where weaponized individuals are at the border.

The border law divides opinions within our own group as well as among citizens. However, we must strive for dialogue and open the perspectives through which decisions and statements are made.

It is always beneficial for a party and society to have open discussions about difficult issues. It is also important that opinions and viewpoints can and should be expressed.

Only a discussing party and society are attractive and lively. 🌹🌹🌹

From my perspective as a child rights lawyer, I have tried to highlight the challenges and problems of the border law from the perspective of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child during this process.

The core issue, on which we mostly agree, is that the situation is worrying, and it is essential that we have the means to prevent a situation where many weaponized individuals are at the border. Is the urgent deadline set by the government appropriate? Would it be possible to have a better law with more time for thorough preparation?

The government is, of course, responsible for clarifying what the current legislation allows and what it does not. However, it seems that our legislation is already sufficient at this point, and this entire process may not have been necessary?

Now, however, under the leadership of the Finns Party and the National Coalition Party, the matter has progressed so far that citizens are afraid. They fear that without this poorly and hastily prepared border law, we would not be safe if Russia were to take certain actions at the border.

For some, it is clear that no legislation, whether current or potential, can protect us. Legislation does not concretely secure the border; it requires resources, personnel, and concrete actions, as well as the application of the law in the field.

The most important question is what will actually be done at the border if vulnerable people, such as children, women, and the elderly, are brought there. How do we treat them? How will we respond when water runs out, diseases begin to spread, and people get sick? These are real questions if people are stopped at the border. Such situations have already been seen and considered in other parts of Europe. News images have brought them into our living rooms.

Regarding the border law:

📌 The law aims to prevent asylum seekers coming to the eastern border from entering Finnish territory and from applying for asylum in Finland.

📌 This undermines the constitution, violates EU law, and international human rights treaties.

📌 It is not only about our constitution, which can be deviated from; it is primarily about international human rights treaties, from which there is no possibility (by majority decision) to deviate.

On deviation from the constitution:

📌 The constitution’s Section 23 permits deviations from fundamental rights, not Section 73. Section 73 only concerns the legislative process in cases of deviation. Section 23 pertains to exceptions to the fundamental rights stipulated in the respective chapter of the constitution, not human rights. If deviations are made from fundamental rights under the authorization of the relevant paragraph, the exceptions must still be “in accordance with Finland’s international human rights obligations,” as stated in the section.

Respected experts have made statements:

📌 18 constitutional law experts heard by the Constitutional Law Committee have stated that the law cannot be enacted because its foundations are too challenging.

📌 Additionally, researchers, lawyers, and cultural figures have gathered hundreds of names to support the commitment to humane border operations if vulnerable individuals are brought there.

Noteworthy regarding the application of the law:

📌 If the law is in conflict with EU law, it cannot be applied.

📌 In practice, the law would not function, as the border guard would not be permitted to use it. 📌 The border guard has a duty of office and is responsible for their actions independently.

You can read the latest expert opinions here:

The situation is expected to be resolved within a week, and I hope it will be done based on open discussion and expert assessments.