Supreme Court of Finland Convicts Lawmaker for Hate Speech
In a narrow 3-2 decision, the Supreme Court of Finland ruled that Paivi Räsänen, a lawmaker from the Christian Democratic Party, was guilty of “incitement against a group” due to a 2004 publication that criticized homosexuality.
Räsänen, who previously held the position of interior minister, has faced legal scrutiny in recent years over allegations of “hate speech” against the LGBTQ+ community. These accusations stem from her writings in 2004, radio remarks in 2018, and social media commentary in 2019 that included biblical references. While she was acquitted by both the Helsinki District Court and the Court of Appeal, the matter ultimately reached the Finnish Supreme Court.
The court’s findings on Thursday centered around a work published by Räsänen in 2004, titled “Man and Woman He Made – Homosexual Relationships Challenge the Christian Concept of Humanity.” Additionally, the Luther Foundation Finland was found guilty for reposting related content online in 2019.
The Supreme Court clarified that the charges against Räsänen involved two specific offenses related to publications that “denigrate homosexuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.”
In its statement, the court highlighted a phrase from Räsänen’s text, noting she described homosexuality as a “sexual deviation,” characterizing it as an abnormality in psychosexual development.
Moreover, while ruling that Räsänen’s comments were indeed derogatory towards homosexuals as a group, some other statements in the case were not classified as such. The court dismissed a third charge relating to her social media posts encompassing Bible verses, arguing that, in their broader context, those posts didn’t offend homosexuals, even though they criticized same-sex sexual activity with terms like “shame” and “sin.”
The Supreme Court levied fines against Räsänen and the manager of the Luther Foundation Finland, mandating the removal of “illegal texts” from their materials.
Following the verdict, Räsänen expressed worry about the implications for free speech in Finland. She noted the ruling wasn’t unanimous and suggested that individuals consider whether appealing to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) might be prudent.
She stated, “Freedom of speech is essential when diverse opinions exist. Regardless of this decision, we hope that constructive discussions can continue, even on sensitive topics, under the shield of freedom of speech and religion.”
Räsänen also reflected on the lengthy legal proceedings, implying that the drawn-out process could stifle freedom of speech and religion by fostering a climate of self-censorship.
In closing, she asserted that her efforts to advocate for free speech and religious teachings were not in vain, despite the ruling.
