Europe is facing a free speech crisis. Although it is codified in the EU’s charter of fundamental rights, member states are undermining freedom of speech through the unchecked proliferation of ‘hate speech’ laws.
Beginning August 31st, Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen stood for a two day trial at the Helsinki Court of Appeal for publicly sharing her Christian convictions on marriage and sexuality.
It all began when Räsänen learned that her church leadership decided to officially sponsor the Helsinki Pride Parade in 2019. She took to X (formerly Twitter) to ask how their decision could be reconciled with biblical teachings and attached an image of a Bible verse to support her argument. As a result, she was subjected to a total of 13 hours of police interrogations. Eventually, she was charged, almost unbelievably, with agitation against a minority group, which falls under a section of the Finnish criminal code titled War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. In April 2021, the Finnish prosecutor general formally charged Räsänen with three counts of agitation against a minority group for publicly voicing her opinion on marriage and human sexuality in a 2004 church booklet, for comments she made on a 2019 radio show, and the tweet directed at her church leadership in 2019.
Räsänen faced trial at the Helsinki District Court in 2022. Although she was unanimously acquitted of all charges, the prosecution stubbornly appealed the decision, refusing to accept that Räsänen’s expression of religious convictions is protected by free speech. The process has dragged on for over four years, and could continue for several more, locking Räsänen in a grueling and costly legal battle.
One chilling outcome of this case is that more people will engage in self-censorship for fear of legal repercussions. No one can be sure that their beliefs on certain topics will be protected by the law. That’s because ‘hate speech’ is vague, subjective, and arbitrarily enforced. It’s a style of law that is proliferating across Europe.
The expansion of these censorship laws is not confined to EU member states. In December 2021, the European Commission proposed to include ‘hate speech’ next to human trafficking and terrorism on the list of EU crimes; a qualification which denotes “particularly serious” offenses with a “cross-border dimension.” All EU states are required to implement minimum standards to combat these crimes. The matter is currently pending, but if it goes into effect, free speech will be threatened across the continent. Speech offenders could be chased across the borders of member states. The truly ominous aspect of the situation is that due to the lack of legal clarity concerning the definition of ‘hate speech,’ those in power determine what is offensive and punishable. Even objectively true statements could be prosecuted if they are deemed offensive. As the prosecutor stated at Räsänen’s trial: What matters is “not whether it is true or not but that it’s insulting.”
In Räsänen’s case, the prosecution argued that although she can cite the Bible, it’s her interpretation and particularly the publication of her views regarding Bible verses that is criminal. Today, Christian views and Bible verses are judged in court. Tomorrow it may be any other opinion that the state dislikes.
This stands in stark contrast to the conclusion that the European Court of Human Rights reached in the landmark case of Handyside v. United Kingdom. Namely, that freedom of speech is applicable not only to information or ideas that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that “offend, shock, or disturb” the state or any sector of the population.
We need to be reminded not to be intolerant towards certain beliefs in the name of tolerance. Censorship is a dangerous path that leads to repression and fear. Sadly, this is a lesson we thought we had already learned in Europe’s previous century. Democracy requires the freedom to share and discuss ideas. It also entails being exposed to some views we might disagree with. Although it is Räsänen who stands in the Helsinki court, freedom of speech is on trial. Time will tell how much Europe still values this fundamental right.
‘Hate Speech’ Laws Threaten Fundamental Rights
Europe is facing a free speech crisis. Although it is codified in the EU’s charter of fundamental rights, member states are undermining freedom of speech through the unchecked proliferation of ‘hate speech’ laws.
Beginning August 31st, Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen stood for a two day trial at the Helsinki Court of Appeal for publicly sharing her Christian convictions on marriage and sexuality.
It all began when Räsänen learned that her church leadership decided to officially sponsor the Helsinki Pride Parade in 2019. She took to X (formerly Twitter) to ask how their decision could be reconciled with biblical teachings and attached an image of a Bible verse to support her argument. As a result, she was subjected to a total of 13 hours of police interrogations. Eventually, she was charged, almost unbelievably, with agitation against a minority group, which falls under a section of the Finnish criminal code titled War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. In April 2021, the Finnish prosecutor general formally charged Räsänen with three counts of agitation against a minority group for publicly voicing her opinion on marriage and human sexuality in a 2004 church booklet, for comments she made on a 2019 radio show, and the tweet directed at her church leadership in 2019.
Räsänen faced trial at the Helsinki District Court in 2022. Although she was unanimously acquitted of all charges, the prosecution stubbornly appealed the decision, refusing to accept that Räsänen’s expression of religious convictions is protected by free speech. The process has dragged on for over four years, and could continue for several more, locking Räsänen in a grueling and costly legal battle.
One chilling outcome of this case is that more people will engage in self-censorship for fear of legal repercussions. No one can be sure that their beliefs on certain topics will be protected by the law. That’s because ‘hate speech’ is vague, subjective, and arbitrarily enforced. It’s a style of law that is proliferating across Europe.
The expansion of these censorship laws is not confined to EU member states. In December 2021, the European Commission proposed to include ‘hate speech’ next to human trafficking and terrorism on the list of EU crimes; a qualification which denotes “particularly serious” offenses with a “cross-border dimension.” All EU states are required to implement minimum standards to combat these crimes. The matter is currently pending, but if it goes into effect, free speech will be threatened across the continent. Speech offenders could be chased across the borders of member states. The truly ominous aspect of the situation is that due to the lack of legal clarity concerning the definition of ‘hate speech,’ those in power determine what is offensive and punishable. Even objectively true statements could be prosecuted if they are deemed offensive. As the prosecutor stated at Räsänen’s trial: What matters is “not whether it is true or not but that it’s insulting.”
In Räsänen’s case, the prosecution argued that although she can cite the Bible, it’s her interpretation and particularly the publication of her views regarding Bible verses that is criminal. Today, Christian views and Bible verses are judged in court. Tomorrow it may be any other opinion that the state dislikes.
This stands in stark contrast to the conclusion that the European Court of Human Rights reached in the landmark case of Handyside v. United Kingdom. Namely, that freedom of speech is applicable not only to information or ideas that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that “offend, shock, or disturb” the state or any sector of the population.
We need to be reminded not to be intolerant towards certain beliefs in the name of tolerance. Censorship is a dangerous path that leads to repression and fear. Sadly, this is a lesson we thought we had already learned in Europe’s previous century. Democracy requires the freedom to share and discuss ideas. It also entails being exposed to some views we might disagree with. Although it is Räsänen who stands in the Helsinki court, freedom of speech is on trial. Time will tell how much Europe still values this fundamental right.
READ NEXT
No Whites, Please.
French Prime Minister François Bayrou: Portrait of an Eternal Centrist
Realism Vindicated