Finland’s Minister of Social Security Sanni Grahn-Laasonen (NCP), has publicly declared that burkas and niqabs have “no place” in Finnish schools which is a statement that once again dresses cultural prejudice in the clothing of “women’s rights” and “children’s freedom.” Posting on X Grahn-Laasonen claimed that face coverings are unsuitable for schools framing her position as a matter of equality, safety and children’s rights.
Published: 13/08/25 | 11:00
She argued that children should be “allowed to live freely in Finnish society” and suggested that no one in Finland should have to cover their face. While she briefly acknowledged that headscarves present a “difficult question of religious freedom,” her focus was unmistakably on policing the attire of Muslim girls and women.
The language is familiar disturbingly as it mirrors the rhetoric of Finance Minister Riikka Purra who last month called for a total ban on burkas, niqabs and even headscarves in schools. Purra’s earlier comments were steeped in the same contradiction: defending “freedom” by restricting it and presenting Muslim women as passive victims needing state intervention to be “liberated.”
The core problem here is not whether one personally approves of a niqab or burka but it is the assumption that Muslim women cannot freely choose them. Grahn-Laasonen’s position reduces religious clothing to a symbol of oppression while ignoring the reality that for many it is an act of agency, conviction and spiritual pride. The hypocrisy is glaring as it is evident that Christian nuns can cover themselves in devotion and be celebrated but when Muslim women do the same it becomes a “safety risk” or a sign of “oppression.”
This is not feminism but it is selective feminism. It supports the rights of some women while undermining others particularly those who do not fit into a narrow culturally approved image of womanhood. By insisting that visible Islamic dress is incompatible with “Finnish freedom,” Grahn-Laasonen draws an arbitrary line between who belongs in Finnish society and who doesn’t. That is not equality but that is cultural exclusion.
The argument also collapses under its own logic. If clothing is a defining marker of societal values then why not legislate against corporate suits, formal uniforms or any attire that could be linked to historical hierarchies? Why is only the Muslim woman’s wardrobe singled out for control, surveillance and public condemnation?
Grahn-Laasonen’s statement, much like Purra’s, is not about protecting women but instead it is about controlling identity. It imposes an external judgment on what liberation should look like stripping Muslim women of the right to define it for themselves. It also feeds into a dangerous narrative that paints Muslim Finns as perpetually foreign no matter how deeply rooted they are in the country’s roots.
Such rhetoric does not protect Finnish values, instead it erodes them. A society that claims to stand for democracy, dignity and freedom cannot selectively apply those principles based on religion or culture. True equality means defending the right of all women to dress as they choose whether that choice aligns with mainstream tastes or not.
If Grahn-Laasonen and Purra truly wished to promote freedom they would advocate for the autonomy of all women including those who wear a headscarf, niqab or burka. Anything less is not liberation but it is state-sanctioned discrimination.
