About a week ago, the wellbeing services county of North Savo announced that it would, for the first time, take part in Pride flag-flying and Pride events, as well as provide related training for its staff. Naturally, a fuss was made.
Last week, I happened to visit Helsinki, where Pride Week was already well under way even before Saturday’s main event. From there, the debate over our own wellbeing services county’s participation in Pride flag-flying looked rather strange. In Helsinki, Pride was visible everywhere. Are we here in Savo even living in the same decade as the capital?
Now that in 2026 we have, thankfully, reached a point here as well where openly opposing equality for sexual and gender minorities looks mainly ridiculous, those wanting to pick a fight over the issue had to shift the discussion to decision-making.
Participation in Pride was prepared and proposed by the wellbeing services county’s rainbow network. The final approval was given by the wellbeing services county’s management group, made up of officeholders.
In a public organisation, it is of course important to know who decides on the use of funds and on statements made in the organisation’s name. What is interesting, however, is why Pride flag-flying in particular becomes such a major matter of principle and politics. The wellbeing services county constantly makes decisions related to values, communications, staff and equality without them being turned into political bones of contention.
Equality legislation obliges public authorities to promote equality. To promote it. It is not a matter of politicians’ personal opinions.
> It seems that when openly opposing the issue itself is no longer socially acceptable, the fight is created by shifting the discussion to decision-making.
The law, of course, does not say specifically that public authorities have a duty to take part in this particular Pride event or fly flags in its honour. Still, it is odd to ask why politicians in particular should have had to make the final decision on whether or not to participate in Pride.
Let me repeat myself: public authorities have a duty to promote equality, and officeholders constantly make practical decisions related to that duty.
It seems that when openly opposing the issue itself is no longer socially acceptable, the fight is created by shifting the discussion to decision-making. This becomes problematic when grassroots equality work is presented in a questionable light.
Of course, there must be a responsible person or body approving the use of funds and statements made in the organisation’s name. But it does not follow that every act promoting equality should be taken through a separate political approval process.
If that happens, taking sexual and gender minorities into account may become precisely the exception that always requires special permission from politicians. And then one can indeed ask what decade we are really living in here.