Freedom of association

Participants agreed that Finland had a very strong and diverse civil society, organised under umbrella organisations that were respected and heard by the authorities. CSOs could, for example, have productive meetings with the police administration in ways that some participants felt would not be possible in most countries. Civil society played an important watchdog and advisory role, which complemented action by the independent office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, whose mandate was quite broad (covering the National Prevention Mechanism against torture, and monitoring the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), etc.), and whose recommendations on amending legislations were almost always followed. The role of the National Human Rights Institution 
was entrusted to the Human Rights Centre (HRC), which mainly focussed on awareness raising and capacity building on human rights. CSO consultationsran in a smooth and efficient manner, although some participants had the feeling that the timing was sometimes unclear, and that the timeframe offered for involvement of civil society had shortened over the last years following one of the legislation drafting processes.

Participants explained that Finnish CSOs benefitted from a strong tradition of public funding which stemmed from various levels: European, national, regional, and municipal – a variety of sources which ensured their independence. This structure was all the more appreciated because the majority of the Finnish CSOs were small or medium sized, limiting their capacity for fundraising. One participant 
believed that ministries varied in their levels of exigence concerning CSO reports on the use of public money, but that reporting requirements were always very demanding, and sometimes too costly both in time and money.

Participants also explained that the stable situation offered by the large availability of public funding could evolve, and that reflecting on the future of funding was essential for CSOs. One of the challenges was the emergence of new issues such as COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine, which could divert funding channels from the usual recipients. Another challenge was the foreseen reform of the state monopoly on gambling, which generated funds that traditionally benefitted social and health CSOs. As funds would now only stem from the state budget, there could be a risk that funding policies could change according to the priorities of the government in power. Additionally, the possibility for the State to transfer the provision of some services in areas like health or development cooperation to the civil society sector raised questions. Although such transfers were framed by law, some participants felt it important to ensure that fundamental rights guarantees and public service requirements would not be lost in the transfer. Also, entrusting CSOs to be service providers could make it more difficult for them to play their role as watchdogs. Concerning the end of the state monopoly on gambling, the Finnish authorities informed that the objective was to fully compensate the funding gap through the state budget. A working group had been established to reflect over future 
funding models, including the challenge of avoiding priority changes according to the wishes of political majorities.

Freedom of assembly was considered well-protected, with authorities playing an active role to safeguard and promote it. Despite this overall excellent level of protection, participants felt that the police were sometimes puzzled by new forms of activism, such as non-violent disobedience led by climate protesters. A few examples were given of measures taken by law enforcement authorities which could have a chilling effect on freedom of assembly. One case concerned the use of tear gas by police to disperse a sit-in, which was followed by criminal charges against the policemen. The other case concerned charges of aggravated action against a public building filed against dozens of 
protestors. Regarding the former, the police response was considered disproportionate as it concerned a non-violent sit-in, and the charges brought against them were seen to have the potential to prevent such actions in the future. One participant concluded that cases of police abuse were rare, but that when they occurred, there was a risk of inconsistent action, such as more severity against certain types 
of demonstrators and more clemency with others. More human rights training was advocated as one of the ways to address such challenges.

Participants agreed that the main challenges against freedom of assembly did not stem from the authorities but rather from the rise in hate speech stemming from far-right groups which particularly threatened progressive demonstrators, such as climate activists, ethnic or sexual minorities, and women. Human rights defenders lived in a largely secured environment compared to other countries, but also faced an increase of hate speech, in particular online, which was overwhelmingly under-reported.