To Call or Not to Call it Terrorism: Public Debate around Ideologically Motivated Violence in Finland, 1990-2015

Even though Finland is known as a country with little terrorism, there have still been incidents during the recent years that have been called terrorism in the public debate. Contrary to what might be expected, the most serious acts of violence have not been among them. The paper investigates the contestation around domestic incidents of ideologically-motivated violence in Finland, and in particular the debate around whether the acts should be labelled as terrorism or not. In addition to looking at the different ways in which ideologically-motivated violence is constructed within public debate, the work also examines several background factors that have influenced the labelling and not labelling of various acts as terrorism. The study reveals that phenomena such as a particular movement’s international connections, the assailants’ ideological leanings, a propensity for the repetition of similar attacks, and the domestic traditions of crisis management perform a role in determining whether acts of violence trigger public debate on terrorism. The paper encompasses the years 1991–2015 and examines a series of attacks and attempted attacks perpetrated by anarchists, the far-left and far-right, animal rights activists, lone operators, and actors motivated by political grievances against Middle Eastern governments. Also included are two failed attacks initially attributed to Salafi-jihadists but later confirmed as the doing of anarchists. The analysed data encompasses media coverage from three major Finnish publications, parliamentary debates that touch upon specific attacks or ideologically-motivated violence more generally, and government documents produced by agencies and departments such as the Finnish Security Intelligence Service and the Ministry of the Interior.