NY Times Article, February 9, 2016
“A Three-Ring Circus in Finland: Soldiers, ‘Loldiers’ and Asylum Seekers,” written by Richard Martyn-Hemphill, describes the recent events regarding refugees taking place in areas across Finland. This title plays on two meanings of “three-ring circus”, which, according to Webster Dicitonary, is defined as “1: a circus with simultaneous performances in three rings” and “2: something wild, confusing, engrossing, or entertaining.”
According to the New York Times article, the recent asylum-seekers in Finland have been facing dual-ended welcomings upon their entrance into the country. In an attempt at “protection” against the political refugees and the uncertainness that they bring for current inhabitants of Finland, a patrol group of “soldiers” has formed, tracing the more dangerous neighborhoods of their cities and watching out for the safety of their fellow citizens. In response to such a formation has come the rise of another group, calling themselves “Loldiers.” Dancing around in clown costumes and making noise, the members of this group attempt to mock and rile-up their strict counterparts. What a sight this must be!
Both parties go to a bit of an extreme to rest their cases; “the clowns declined to break character to give interviews, though the clown who was arrested at the demonstration said afterward that he had made the police laugh when he was taken to the station,” while, “soldiers emerged… over the past few weeks, playing off resentment of the elite, distrust of the Finnish news media, frustration over growing unemployment and fear prompted by a sudden influx of foreigners — all coming alongside accompanying reports of sexual assaults and terrorist attacks across the Continent in 2015.” I feel it would be interesting to witness how the two opposing groups interact, as it seems so far for each to be their own form of non-violent protest. The specific actions then bring into question the activity of each side. Who has a stronger argument? Which act of protest is more effective? Do the clowns accurately symbolize or portray the ridiculousness of their opponent’s’ extremist action? Are the clowns a bit far-fetched themselves?
The third group, of course, being the asylum-seekers themselves, feel despite the two intense opinions of some Finn extremists, they have “nonetheless been made to feel welcome by volunteers and instances of local hospitality.” Good thing, because, of course, there will always be extreme actions taken by those of strong opinion. It’s just funny to see the actual clowns emerge as the chosen mockery of a formal political protest. As the quirky title suggests, this situation is both pretty crazy and entertaining. Obviously not an actual circus, this title does accurately describe the striking events at hand and the interconnected rings in which the three sides have developed: the soldiers, the loldiers, and the asylum-seekers in one.
Emily Weiss
02.09.2016