BREAKING: Finland’s Supreme Court Convicts Parliamentarian for 2004 Church Pamphlet “Insulting” Gay People
Finland’s Supreme Court has found parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen guilty of “hate speech” for “insulting” gay people by expressing her beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics in a church pamphlet from 2004. ADF International, which is supporting Räsänen, has more.
In a narrow 3-2 decision, the Finnish Supreme Court has found parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen guilty of “hate speech” on one charge relating to the expression of her beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics in a 20 year-old church pamphlet. Räsänen has been criminally convicted for publishing the 2004 pamphlet for her church, alongside Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola. The conviction is for “making and keeping available to the public a text that insults a group”. The Supreme Court unanimously acquitted Räsänen for her 2019 Bible verse tweet.
Räsänen was previously unanimously acquitted on all charges by two lower courts.
The long serving parliamentarian and former Minister of the Interior has been convicted for “hate speech” under a section of the Finnish criminal code titled “war crimes and crimes against humanity”. The medical doctor and grandmother of 12 was tried in early 2022 and again in 2023 for expressing her beliefs in a 2019 tweet, which included a Bible verse, in addition to a 2019 radio debate and 2004 church booklet.
After the prosecutor appealed for a third time, the Supreme Court, which heard the case in October 2025, has now ruled on two of the three original charges: concerning the tweet and the church booklet. The Supreme Court was not asked to rule on the radio debate as the prosecution did not appeal it, so Räsänen’s acquittal for the debate stands.
“I am shocked and profoundly disappointed that the court has failed to recognise my basic human right to freedom of expression. I stand by the teachings of my Christian faith, and will continue to defend my and every person’s right to share their convictions in the public square,” stated Päivi Räsänen after receiving the judgment.
“I am taking legal advice on a possible appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. This is not about my free speech alone, but that of every person in Finland. A positive ruling would help to prevent other innocent people from experiencing the same ordeal for simply sharing their beliefs,” added Räsänen.
The Court found Räsänen and the Bishop guilty for having “made available to the public and kept available to the public opinions that insult homosexuals as a group on the basis of their sexual orientation”. It held that: “It must be taken into account that the text forming the basis for the conviction did not contain incitement to violence or comparable threat-like fomenting of hatred. The conduct is therefore not particularly serious in terms of the nature of the offence.”
The pamphlet was authored by Räsänen in 2004. The Court convicted her on the basis that: “After a preliminary investigation into the matter was launched in 2019, Räsänen continued to share the article on her own internet and social media pages in 2019 and 2020.”
With regard to the 2019 Bible verse tweet in which Räsänen questioned her church leadership’s decision to sponsor a Pride event, the Court unanimously held that it did not meet the criteria for the offence of incitement as she “justified her opinion by citing a biblical text” among other things.
The Supreme Court has imposed criminal fines of several thousands of Euros and ruled that the impugned statements must be “removed from public access and destroyed”.
The high-profile trial received significant global attention, particularly after the prosecution attacked core Christian teachings and cross-examined Räsänen and the Bishop on their theology.
Before the Court of Appeal, the Finnish State prosecutor, Anu Mantila, claimed that: “You can cite the Bible, but it is Räsänen’s interpretation and opinion about the Bible verses that are criminal.”
Coordinated by ADF International, Räsänen’s legal defence highlighted the strong protection that freedom of speech enjoys in international law, in addition to being integral to Finnish democracy.
“Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy. It is right that the Court has acquitted Päivi Räsänen for her 2019 Bible verse tweet. However, the conviction for a simple church pamphlet published decades ago – before the law under which she has been convicted was even passed – is an outrageous example of state censorship. This decision will create a severe chilling effect for everyone’s right to speak freely,” stated Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International.
“This ruling is a stark reminder that no democracy is immune from the erosion of fundamental freedoms. Punishing peaceful expression, especially when it is based on deeply held religious convictions, undermines the very foundation of free societies,” said Kristen Waggoner, CEO, President and Chief Counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The marxo-fascist concept of “hate speech” has no place in the legal system of any free society because it’s part of the marxo-fascist attempt censor opinions the madleft don’t like. The form that this censorship takes is to place us under undemocratic coercive control. For this reason the concept of hate speech is fundamentally a hate-filled totalitarian concept.
Exactly, which is why the totally alien concept of “Hate Speech” and “Hate Crime” must be abolished and removed from all western legal systems.
I agree. And besides, hate is a perfectly valid human emotion.
Absolutely true! So is “anger”, which the brainwashed, enfeebled population of the West needs to remember.
The problem is that this does seem to legitimise hatred towards Jewish people which should be condemed. Hate is only acceptable when the target of the hatred is something that everyone would regard as evil
Hatred and Wrath, Revulsion and Hostility are completely natural emotions, given to humans by God, regardless of the “target” as you put it, whether it be people, animals, plants, buildings or places on earth.
No group of humans can legitimately claim to the world, “You’re not allowed to hate us, because we’re special. You’re allowed to hate everyone else except us. If you hate us or criticise us, we’ll have you arrested and thrown into prison.”
Does this include hatred of Jewish people, who are a minority, by hate-filled people marching on the streets of major cities? There are things which are perfectly legitimate subjects of hatred and those which are not.
There’s nothing everyone regards as evil. Just a lot of things where people who are very much opposed to them believe everyone should regard as evil.
To use a current example from Germany: A female AfD MP has just been cleared of incitement of group hatred against a group (Volksverhetzung) because she critizied (in a manner unknown to me) a self-confessed paedophile online. The court found that, while he had been chastized for his “sexual orientation” (quote) he wasn’t a group and hence, the charges could not possibly apply.
This suggests that the factually correct claim that paedophile sex is a crime could be regarded as incitement of group hatred against a group and that’s the place where we stand: Torturing pre-teen children for one’s own sexual gratification may still be a crime. But it must no longer be called a crime.
What about the events of October 7th in Israel? Everybody should regard this as an absolute moral evil. The fact that there are some who don’t is a very deep problem. There are moral absolutes in the world. The fact that in Britain today to term abortion has been decriminalised for the ‘mother’ while use of the N word is considered an offence that will get you arrested.
Then the people who do not regard such things as a moral evil are wrong. There is an absolute good in the world and it is not just a matter of opinion.
The totalitarian give away is that hate and hate speech is actually not actually as forbidden as they pretend. You can hate things and express hatred, as long as it’s directed at the “right” things.
You can hate Putin all you like. You can hate “racists”. You can hate Trump. You can hate “fascists”. And you can hurl all the insults you want at all of them.
It isn’t about “hate” it’s about mind control. Totalitarianism, basically.
It’s good that we live in Western Liberal Democracies that defend freedom
It is, isn’t it?
Like “British values” that Sir Keir often talks about….
That’s why the alien abomination called Hate Crime & Hate Speech must be abolished in the West.
“After the prosecutor appealed for a third time…” WHAT????!!!
Why is anyone allowed to appeal the same decision three times? Is there no limit to wasting taxpayers money? One appeal should be enough.
So this is just like the referenda in various countries which voted to leave the EU: make them vote again & again until they submit to Communism.
Is there a similar Communist Duo controlling Finland, as in Brazil with the Communist Gnome Lula and Communist Demon de Moraes, and in Britain with Communist Starmer and Communist Hermer?
All leading to the Global Kritocracy = “Rule by Judges”.
Prosecutors shouldn’t be political, and shouldn’t be able to make multiple attempts. An appeal should only be allowed where new evidence is uncovered, just as with defendants. Going all the way back to 2003 is unforgivable. Disgusting.
Spot on!
Surely it’s a cretocracy- rule by cretins
Yes! 🙂
Interestingly, Muslims are allowed to say that homosexuality is sinful. Christians are not.
Sooner or later they will have to ban the Bible though. As it happened in communist countries.
Well in Finland you are already prevented by law it seems from interpreting the Bible in a manner which the state disapproves of
Excellent point!
Tripple or quadruple jeopardy. Not thought worthy of adverse note?
So is there no statute of limitations on things like this. I am looking over my shoulder now because of things I shouted at other kids when they ganged up on me (my Mum made me into a fatty, so was a constant target of bullying), especially the one with ginger hair.
Off-topic biological men are now banned from competing against women at the Olympic Games – when you write lines like that, you know it’s a clown world now.
But can all the biological women who queue up to compete against the men still do so?
I’d be curious to know the stats on that one…
Man is a biological category which either refers to the set of all humans or to a male specimen of the species human.
How can someone be convicted of acting wrongly before there was a law against it? This sets a very interesting precedent, in fact it actually does my head in.
Marine lePen was retrospectively convicted of a crime which didn’t exist at the time. Judges are benders in most countries.
President Trump was accused of lying because the number he quoted was subsequently modified to make his original quoted number inaccurate later.