Jokamiehenoikeus: Why Canadians need to think Finnish about Nature


As different as they are in other ways, most Finns I’ve met have the same attitude toward being outside. It’s where Finns belong: “let’s get out into nature, as often as possible, and as soon as possible!” Whether it’s picking berries, or cross-country skiing, or walking, or a swim and sauna, Finns LOVE the outdoors. The land is their birthright. “No trespassing” signs are odd and out of place. They just don’t seem patriotic.

I knew this about Finns, but until recently I didn’t know the word behind this attitude. It’s jokamiehenoikeus, “Everyman’s Right.” I first discovered its parallel in England and Scotland. There it’s called either “The Right to Roam” (UK) or, more accurately, “the right of responsible access” (Scotland). But whereas in Scotland and in England the laws that allow public access to private land for recreational activities are a recovery of the ancient “commons” understanding of land lost hundreds of years ago, in Finland the practice was never abandoned. There, it’s so much a part of culture that it never had to be made (or re-made) officially into law. Everyman’s (everyperson’s) right is just assumed. In Finland, as one website says, nature is both wild and free. If you’re English-speaking, as I am, you can find handy explanations of  Everyperson’s Right here: and here:

fullsizeoutput_28daAs a Canadian who knows and loves Finns and has enjoyed the few times I’ve travelled through Finland, I’d like my country to have the same healthy attitude to the outdoors. Unfortunately, we don’t. There are many, complicated, reasons for this, including our proximity to the United States (whose narcissistic, individualistic culture of ownership affects us whether we like it or not), our legal heritage mostly from British background, and the incredible fact that much of western Canada was once the private domain of the Hudson’s Bay Company granted to that company by the British King (without asking the First Nations of course), and then sold to the young nation of Canada to develop in part by pushing its original inhabitants onto small, poverty-stricken pieces of marginal territory.

We Canadians have a complicated relationship to our land. We stole it, many of us didn’t come from terrains that look like it, and most of us live in cities with little access to it. Our laws tend to favour private ownership to the detriment of public access. I was stunned, when I first moved to Quebec in the 1980s, to find lakes with seemingly no public swimming allowed, anywhere. “How could this be?” I thought, with two young children in their swim suits in the car and nowhere to swim or picnic. And yet, it’s my belief that many Canadians would change this inherited, selfish attitude to land, if we could. This last summer I wrote an online piece titled “Why Canadians Need the Right to Roam.” It has since had 33,000 views. It was reprinted in the Huffington Post, the Ottawa Citizen, the National Post, and the Narwhal, and led to my being a guest for interviews on three different CBC radio shows about the topic. For Canada to have anything like jokamiehenoikeus, we would have to change much about ourselves. Because it’s not just land-owners who would have to evolve. We, the general public, would have to learn to be more responsible. Land-owners will only see the benefits of allowing limited public access if there ARE benefits, and if littering, vandalism, theft, and other problems don’t arise. The Canadian public must grow up learning to be be as respectful of nature as Finns are. It can happen. But it will probably take a generation.

It’s a worthwhile cultural project. Maybe, in the coming years, Canadians will be asking Finns to show them how to live with nature in a more symbiotic, respectful, and spiritual way. We should be asking our First Nations the same questions, right now. In this way, we will learn and grow. And then perhaps, some day, we too will enjoy Everyperson’s Right.


8 replies on “Jokamiehenoikeus: Why Canadians need to think Finnish about Nature”

Well said! One thing I noticed and loved when I was in Finland this summer was how much they were outdoors. The parks were filled with people at all times and never once did I feel threatened when seeing small groups of young adults or adolescents siting in parks chatting away. It was liberating in a way to roam the outdoors with the Finns. (and they never got in my personal space)

Out here on the Prairie I roam not just through the Grasslands park, but over and under fences of local farms and ranches. And when I do happen upon their owners I ask what my friend Robert says: ‘I don’t know where I am but is it ok if I’m here?” I also know a couple of ranchers who winced at the notion of putting up No Trespassing signs, but did anyway because hunters were snooping around without notification.

One of my favourite characters in Mother’s Apron, a monologue in 7 aprons, is a cowboy moaning the end of the open range.

“Jeremy Gibbons. That man has sounded my death knell.” He held up a piece of wire covered in spikes. “See this? Barbed wire. It’s called: Goodbye to the open range. Gentlemen, just shoot me now.” He knocked back his drink. “This’ll be the story of this country – hunters become herders. Gatherers become gardeners: You! You accuse us roamers and hunter-gatherers of threatening the civilized values of roads and train tracks and farm fences. But we’re like the Indians, we need to keep moving. And not in a straight line…. Well, we’ll adapt alright, in time… but not to ravage with that bloody plow!”

Sent from Outlook


Thanks Madonna. I love what you wrote. Even though it’s easy to romanticize the ranchers, it’s true that the whole concept of “wilderness” only comes into play once we fence off a section of land, especially for the plow, and try to control it so much that everything outside of it becomes the “outside” and “dangerous” or “wild.” We saw just how similar ranchers were to some of the FN views of land when we were all together aiming ourselves at Cypress Hills

Thanks for this! Glad to hear that your excellent Right to Roam piece went so far afield!! I was just reading in the Walrus about a group called “sovereign citizens” who take the whole idea of private property to a whole new level. They’re not likely to have any roamers on their land… yikes. Frightening times we live in. Perhaps it was always so.

Maybe so, but you’re right….feels frightening now. What a crock of idolatry the term ‘sovereign citizens’ is. I hope none of them pretends to be biblical Christians. Thanks for your comments!

Yup, you’re right Anderson Anderson. We went walking on private land recently in southern Ontario and I felt a bit like a criminal! Odd that one should feel that way when all you are doing is communing with nature.

glad you’re out there in the wilds, Robert Robert (even if only the wilds of Ontario)! Thanks for taking the time to read this. There should be some way, while not leaving a mess or being a nuisance, to experience non-urban environments for picnicking, picking berries, or just enjoying nature without feeling threatened. Even walking on public roads sometimes is made to feel like trespassing….

Leave a Reply to agjorgenson Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s