The Central Council of Jewish Communities in Finland has lodged a formal complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman concerning what it describes as the unlawful and discriminatory conduct of the police in connection with nearly daily demonstrations held for almost a year outside the Jewish Community Centre of Helsinki.
The Community Centre, located at Malminkatu 26, houses the Helsinki Synagogue—the only Jewish house of worship in the city—as well as a daycare (Gan Jeladim), a preschool, and the Helsinki Jewish School, which covers grades 1 to 9.
According to the complaint, since November 2024, protesters have regularly gathered in the immediate vicinity of the Centre, targeting Jewish children and community members with offensive, contemptuous and distressing messages, often shouted from only 30 to 40 metres away.
While the demonstrations are nominally linked to the war between Israel and Hamas, the Council maintains they are deliberately and almost exclusively directed at individuals identified or presumed to be Jewish, holding them collectively responsible for alleged atrocities in Gaza. Many community members, including parents of young children, have described the situation as threatening and said it has gravely undermined their sense of security.
The Council notes that a criminal complaint was filed in November 2024 regarding offensive and antisemitic acts by demonstrators, but the Helsinki Police Department decided not to initiate an investigation, finding no crime had occurred. A letter subsequently sent by the Helsinki Jewish Community to the Ministry of the Interior requested that the police relocate the demonstrations away from the Community Centre to protect children and community members.
In its response, dated 2 December 2024, the Ministry referred primarily to the constitutional right to freedom of assembly and stated that the demonstrations were deemed “appropriate” by the police. It did, however, acknowledge that protesters had directed shouting at synagogue visitors and that one demonstrator had been removed for frightening children. No further measures were taken, and the demonstrations have continued daily, reportedly with growing participation and increasingly aggressive rhetoric.
The complaint argues that the police have failed to safeguard the fundamental rights of Finland’s Jewish minority, including equality before the law, religious freedom, and the protection of children. It asserts that the police have misunderstood the Assembly Act, interpreting it too narrowly by assuming they may relocate demonstrations only in cases of physical danger or proven criminal acts. The Council contends that the law also allows relocation when protests unreasonably disturb bystanders, which in this case clearly applies to community members and visitors to the Centre.
The Council accuses the police of failing to weigh the right to freedom of assembly against other constitutional rights—specifically the rights of Finnish Jews to equal treatment, religious freedom, and the protection of children. Had such a balance been properly struck, it argues, the demonstrations would have been relocated long ago.
According to the complaint, demonstrators have carried placards and shouted slogans such as “Stop genocide,” “Stop killing children,” and “You are spilling my family’s blood.” They have compared Israel’s actions to those of the Nazis and likened Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto. The Council states these expressions have been directed personally at Jews, often calling them by name or commenting on their appearance, and that protesters have said they demonstrate outside the synagogue because “Zionists are hiding in Europe’s synagogues.”
It notes that on days when protests were not held outside the Community Centre, similar demonstrations took place in front of the Chabad Lubavitch Jewish Cultural Centre in Kruununhaka, which also houses a Jewish daycare.
Citing definitions adopted by both the European Union and the Finnish government from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), the Council argues that holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions, or comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, constitutes antisemitism. It adds that these demonstrations therefore fall outside the legitimate exercise of free expression or assembly.
The Council further states that the protests have endangered safety and caused unreasonable disturbance under Section 10 of the Assembly Act. It refers to the 2 October 2025 demonstrations—coinciding with Yom Kippur and an antisemitic attack on a synagogue in Manchester—when protesters reportedly waved signs, shook fists and accused Jewish families of child murder and genocide throughout the day. One demonstrator allegedly followed worshippers on a bicycle, continuing to shout at them.
The Council says such behaviour has left many community members, particularly children, in fear. It argues that police patrols have been insufficient to prevent or monitor verbal harassment and that the threat to psychological safety and the erosion of a sense of security should have been considered sufficient grounds for relocation.
The complaint also highlights the rights of Jewish children, citing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Finnish constitutional provisions prohibiting discrimination. It argues that by allowing protests along the route to the Jewish school and daycare, the police have exposed children to repeated antisemitic abuse, thereby violating their rights to safety and non-discrimination.
Finally, the Council accuses the police of infringing upon the freedom of religion guaranteed by Section 11 of the Constitution and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, noting that the synagogue’s proximity to the protest site has deterred some congregants from attending religious services for fear of verbal assault.
While the Council believes antisemitic slogans should not be permitted at any public demonstration, it confines its current request to asking that the protests be relocated to a site where they would not interfere with Jewish religious, educational, or community life. It argues that such a relocation would impose only a minor restriction on freedom of assembly compared to the significant harm caused to the Jewish community.
The complaint concludes by urging the Parliamentary Ombudsman to investigate what it calls the erroneous and partially unlawful conduct of the police and to instruct authorities to give due weight to other fundamental rights when assessing the location of demonstrations. It adds that Finnish Jews currently have no other effective means of legal redress and would welcome any further steps the Ombudsman may take to protect their fundamental rights.
