The Helsinki Court of Appeals ruled decisively in favor of free speech. On November 14th, it unanimously dismissed criminal ‘hate speech’ charges against Finland’s member of parliament of almost thirty years, Päivi Räsänen. This seminal ruling was a necessary and common-sense decision, and should be celebrated by all committed to the defense of fundamental freedoms. While it’s certainly encouraging that Räsänen, former minister of the interior for Finland, was acquitted of all charges for having publicly expressed her deeply-held beliefs on marriage and sexuality, it should have never come this far.
The case began in 2019 when Räsänen questioned her church leadership’s decision to sponsor the Helsinki pride parade via a Twitter post. This sparked a criminal investigation into her past, which led to a total of 13 hours of police interrogations into her biblically-informed beliefs. Räsänen was landed with three criminal charges for “agitation against a minority group” under a section of the criminal code on war crimes and crimes against humanity. She was charged for the views she expressed in the tweet, as well as in a 20-year-old church pamphlet she wrote, and during a 2019 live radio debate. Further, she faced two grueling trials under the scrutiny of international media.
Anyone watching should see this overblown reaction by state authorities and ask themselves: what if this happened to me? No doubt the imposition of criminal charges for peacefully expressing religious conviction is deeply disproportional and disturbing. Yes, the Court of Appeals ultimately has come down on the side of human rights and granted her acquittal, but tweeting Bible verses is not a crime. And it was never the place of the court to inform us of this basic reality.
Räsänen’s prosecution subjected her to the mercy of state authorities with nearly unlimited resources. ADF International supported her defence by highlighting the egregious violations of human rights at play. Yet, the ordeal still came at a great personal toll. Consider the enormous investment of Räsänen’s time, all the while serving as a full-time elected official. Fortunately, the appeal court has dismissed the arguments of the state prosecutor entirely, upholding the ruling and legal reasoning of the lower court and ordering the prosecution to pay tens of thousands in legal fees to cover Räsänen’s costs.
The reality is none of us would stand a chance if the full power of the state was leveraged to comb through every expression we ever have voiced to find something that could be construed as offensive by someone. One can hardly keep up with the pace of cancel culture. The list of terms or beliefs deemed unacceptable seems to grow by the minute. Case in point: even the designation ‘woman’ is up for debate these days.
Worldwide, as Räsänen’s case exemplifies, we are seeing a trend toward the censorship of peaceful individuals punished for daring to voice their views in public. Mexican Congressman Gabriel Quadri has been convicted for expressing concern that men who identify as women have taken spaces in Mexico’s Congress reserved for women. Rodrigo Iván Cortés, civil society leader and former Mexican congressman, similarly has been convicted of ‘gender based political violence’ for referring to a transgender-identifying congressional representative as a “man who self-ascribes as a woman.”
Of course, this is all sold to us as necessary to protect the disadvantaged. But as the rules of what can and can’t be said are continuously rewritten by those in power, be aware that dangerously vague and inherently subjective ‘hate speech’ laws lend themselves all too easily to legal abuses with very real consequences.
One might have the right opinion today, but twenty years down the road you could have the police at your doorstep. All concerned with the safeguarding of our democratic societies should defend our free speech rights without reserve, even and especially for those with whom we disagree. After all, who’s to say what will be censored next? While we take a moment to applaud Räsänen’s victory, let us not let up the rallying cry in support of speech for everyone.
Why Was Finnish MP Taken To Court For Tweeting Bible Verses?
Photo by Alliance Defending Freedom
The Helsinki Court of Appeals ruled decisively in favor of free speech. On November 14th, it unanimously dismissed criminal ‘hate speech’ charges against Finland’s member of parliament of almost thirty years, Päivi Räsänen. This seminal ruling was a necessary and common-sense decision, and should be celebrated by all committed to the defense of fundamental freedoms. While it’s certainly encouraging that Räsänen, former minister of the interior for Finland, was acquitted of all charges for having publicly expressed her deeply-held beliefs on marriage and sexuality, it should have never come this far.
The case began in 2019 when Räsänen questioned her church leadership’s decision to sponsor the Helsinki pride parade via a Twitter post. This sparked a criminal investigation into her past, which led to a total of 13 hours of police interrogations into her biblically-informed beliefs. Räsänen was landed with three criminal charges for “agitation against a minority group” under a section of the criminal code on war crimes and crimes against humanity. She was charged for the views she expressed in the tweet, as well as in a 20-year-old church pamphlet she wrote, and during a 2019 live radio debate. Further, she faced two grueling trials under the scrutiny of international media.
Anyone watching should see this overblown reaction by state authorities and ask themselves: what if this happened to me? No doubt the imposition of criminal charges for peacefully expressing religious conviction is deeply disproportional and disturbing. Yes, the Court of Appeals ultimately has come down on the side of human rights and granted her acquittal, but tweeting Bible verses is not a crime. And it was never the place of the court to inform us of this basic reality.
Räsänen’s prosecution subjected her to the mercy of state authorities with nearly unlimited resources. ADF International supported her defence by highlighting the egregious violations of human rights at play. Yet, the ordeal still came at a great personal toll. Consider the enormous investment of Räsänen’s time, all the while serving as a full-time elected official. Fortunately, the appeal court has dismissed the arguments of the state prosecutor entirely, upholding the ruling and legal reasoning of the lower court and ordering the prosecution to pay tens of thousands in legal fees to cover Räsänen’s costs.
The reality is none of us would stand a chance if the full power of the state was leveraged to comb through every expression we ever have voiced to find something that could be construed as offensive by someone. One can hardly keep up with the pace of cancel culture. The list of terms or beliefs deemed unacceptable seems to grow by the minute. Case in point: even the designation ‘woman’ is up for debate these days.
Worldwide, as Räsänen’s case exemplifies, we are seeing a trend toward the censorship of peaceful individuals punished for daring to voice their views in public. Mexican Congressman Gabriel Quadri has been convicted for expressing concern that men who identify as women have taken spaces in Mexico’s Congress reserved for women. Rodrigo Iván Cortés, civil society leader and former Mexican congressman, similarly has been convicted of ‘gender based political violence’ for referring to a transgender-identifying congressional representative as a “man who self-ascribes as a woman.”
Of course, this is all sold to us as necessary to protect the disadvantaged. But as the rules of what can and can’t be said are continuously rewritten by those in power, be aware that dangerously vague and inherently subjective ‘hate speech’ laws lend themselves all too easily to legal abuses with very real consequences.
One might have the right opinion today, but twenty years down the road you could have the police at your doorstep. All concerned with the safeguarding of our democratic societies should defend our free speech rights without reserve, even and especially for those with whom we disagree. After all, who’s to say what will be censored next? While we take a moment to applaud Räsänen’s victory, let us not let up the rallying cry in support of speech for everyone.
READ NEXT
No Whites, Please.
French Prime Minister François Bayrou: Portrait of an Eternal Centrist
Realism Vindicated