This article looks at how domestic acts of ideologically-motivated violence have been treated in Finnish public discussion with a particular focus on how the word "terrorism" has and has not been used to characterize such incidents. The work demonstrates that Finnish public debate has, with certain notable exceptions, primarily avoided labelling any violent attacks in the country as terrorism. This reluctance stems from Finnish traditions of crisis management, counterterrorism, and politics. Furthermore, the propensity to use the term "terrorism" cannot be explained by such characteristics of the attack itself as the number of casualties or whether it was perpetrated by ingroup or outgroup members. Rather than "what has happened," the question of calling or not calling an act terrorism comes down to the question of "what needs to be done." The article contributes to academic debate by investigating a surprisingly under-researched aspect of how the term terrorism is used in public discussion while also shedding new light on the debate in Finland, a country seldom touched upon by research of terrorism and political violence.

No abstract

No abstract

Over the last two decades, the prevention of violent radicalisation, extremism and terrorism has become a major policy issue in Europe, and educational institutions’ central role in it has become widely acknowledged. However, what has rarely been addressed is that living in today’s media-centred world, in which terrorism receives much dramatic attention, news about violent extremist attacks reach every student and can significantly impact their emotions, beliefs, attitudes and feelings of safety. Since little attention has been given to how educators have addressed issues of violent radicalisation, extremism and terrorism with their students, this study relies on data-driven content analysis to investigate Finnish educators’ experiences regarding two issues in particular: first, what kind of themes associated with violent radicalisation, extremism and terrorism have been brought up in classroom discussions? Second, what provided the impetus for these discussions? The discussions in educational institutions dealt with the motives behind ideologically motivated violence, extreme ideologies, security concerns, immigration and ethical considerations. Recent violent attacks, curriculum content, students’ experiences and jokes requiring educators’ intervention provided the impetus for such discussions. The study findings are important for developing educational approaches to address violent radicalisation, extremism and terrorism-related issues in a pedagogically and ethically sustainable manner and to create ‘safe spaces’ for the discussions.

The major terrorist attacks in Western countries during the last fifteen years have had consequences way beyond the countries in which they have happened. The article provides a primary source-based account of the development of counterterrorism policy in Finland, which is one of those countries with a low national threat level. The article demonstrates the significant role that international pressure, through obligations, recommendations, and social learning, plays in developing national counterterrorist policies. The article calls also into question whether the pressure to comply with international pressure always contributes toward sound national counterterrorism policies that foster political resilience to terrorism.