In a recent Facebook post Finland’s Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Riikka Purra reignited controversy with a declaration that appears to veil deep-rooted prejudice under the guise of protecting “Finnish values” and gender equality. Her remarks that are laced with inflammatory rhetoric and an alarmingly narrow interpretation of equality have been widely criticized for targeting Muslim women and perpetuating discriminatory stereotypes.
Published: 24/07/25 | 23:43
Purra’s post champions the banning of burkas, niqabs and even headscarves worn by young Muslim girls stating that such garments represent “primitive” values and symbols of “subjugation.” According to her, Finnish women must “protect what has been achieved,” implying that the presence of visibly Muslim women threatens the very fabric of Finnish gender equality. But this assertion is not only baseless but it is profoundly hypocritical.
To be clear Muslim women choosing to wear religious clothing are not symbols of oppression but they are exercising the very agency and freedom that Purra claims to defend. Her portrayal of veiled Muslim women as passive victims is reductive and deeply patronizing as if wearing a hijab or burka is inherently oppressive then what of Christian nuns who also cover themselves in accordance with their faith? Why is a nun’s attire deemed holy and dignified while a Muslim woman’s choice to cover is vilified as subjugation?
This double standard reveals the truth that Purra’s so-called feminism is conditional. It uplifts some women while denigrating others and particularly those whose identities do not align with her narrow cultural ideal. When she says “it’s not about the clothes,” yet proceeds to call burkas “sacks” and their presence in schools “karma,” she exposes the contradiction at the heart of her argument. If it isn’t about the clothing then why is she calling for legal bans on specific garments worn by specific communities?
Even more troubling is the implicit suggestion that Muslim women are not capable of independent thought and that their choices must be legislated, “corrected,” or outright banned. This is not feminism but this is cultural authoritarianism. And it is an insult to the many Muslim women in Finland and around the world who have chosen to wear religious garments out of personal conviction, spirituality and pride.
Does Purra’s definition of “values” begin and end with attire? If so, should we also scrutinize the suits and professional dress worn by Finnish officials and executives? If clothing defines values then why aren’t corporate elites and politicians being forced to wear casual attire to prove their equality? Why does only the Muslim woman’s wardrobe invite scrutiny, control and public condemnation?
The heart of the matter is that Purra is not promoting equality but she is policing identity. Her post is not a defense of women’s rights but it is a thinly veiled attack on multiculturalism, religious freedom and the right to self-expression. She invokes the need to protect Finnish culture yet in doing so she draws a disturbing line between who belongs and who doesn’t. By insisting that visible signs of Islam are incompatible with Finnish values she effectively states that Muslim Finns are inherently foreign no matter how long they have lived in this country or how committed they are to its society.
This rhetoric is not just ignorant but it is dangerous. It emboldens racist assumptions, justifies discriminatory policies and sows division in a society that claims to value inclusivity and freedom. And it raises the question that if Purra’s version of Finnish culture cannot accommodate religious diversity then what is it really worth?
If she truly believes in equality she should defend the rights of all women whether they choose to cover up or wear revealing clothing not just those whose choices mirror her own. True freedom lies in the ability to choose one’s path without fear of judgment, discrimination or state interference. Muslim women like all women deserve that freedom.
Riikka Purra’s words are not a defense of values but instead they are an attack on them. And in a country that prides itself on democracy, dignity and human rights her stance should not be applauded. It should be condemned.
