The case under review concerns Päivi Räsänen, a member of Parliament and medical doctor, and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola, who were accused of “incitement to hatred” against a national group for disseminating content deemed offensive to the homosexual community.

The Supreme Court of Finland was called to rule on Räsänen’s liability regarding the writing and publication of a 2004 pamphlet – also distributed online – titled “Male and Female He Created Them: Homosexual relationships challenge the Christian concept of humanity”. The pamphlet was considered offensive to the LGBTQ+ community for describing homosexuality as a “psychosexual disorder.” Furthermore, the Court evaluated the criminal relevance of statements made by Räsänen on her social media platforms in 2019. On that occasion, the politician criticized the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland’s support for Helsinki Pride 2019, describing it as a “sinful and shameful” act and attaching a biblical citation. The prosecution therefore concerned both the dissemination of discriminatory content through the 2004 publication (accessible online between 2019 and 2022) and the offensive messages directed at the Pride movement via social media. The Court partially overturned the decisions of the lower courts – which had acquitted the defendants on all counts – reaching different conclusions based on the specific content analyzed and the context in which it was published.

 

The Finnish judges held that some statements contained in the 2004 pamphlet were offensive and based on erroneous data. In particular, defining homosexuality as a “psychosexual developmental disorder” was considered scientifically false in light of modern medicine. The Supreme Court recognized a denigrating scope in the statements of Räsänen addressed to homosexuals as a group, because of their sexual orientation. On the contrary, for other passages contained in the writing, the judges excluded the existence of offensive intent or content. Furthermore, the Court clarifies that it is possible to defend the traditional concept of family without resorting to expressions that insult or degrade sexual minorities. Although the freedom of religion includes the right to manifest one’s beliefs, it cannot be invoked to justify activities that violate human dignity or the fundamental rights of third parties, especially where the offensive parts of the article do not concern religious dogmas or sacred texts, but social and medical arguments. Finally, the very role held by Räsänen, member of the Parliament and doctor, was considered an aggravating factor of the dangerousness of her assertions. The authority deriving from these positions increases the capacity to influence public opinion negatively and to strengthen discriminatory attitudes. Consequently, the Supreme Court condemned the member of the Parliament for “incitement to hatred”.

 

On the contrary, despite the language used in the messages on social media addressed against the Pride movement could result offensive, the Finnish judges established that the tweet fell within the perimeter of the freedom of expression and religion, as it was inserted in an internal debate within the Church and aimed at criticizing its leadership, without directly inciting hatred or violence. According to the Supreme Court, the message of Räsänen against the support of the Church for Pride must be evaluated in its entirety, including the attached biblical citation. In contesting the patronage of Pride by the Church, the defendant had supported her thesis by recalling a biblical passage critical toward homosexuality and using terms such as “shame” and “sin” in consistency with the sacred text. Despite the negative connotation of the terms in common language, according to the judges, the use of biblical citations to support a doctrinal position does not constitute, in this case, a punishable offense. The Court, therefore, established that the message does not configure the crime of incitement to hatred: the conduct was deemed a legitimate expression of the freedom of religion and of speech, thus confirming the acquittal already pronounced in the previous levels of judgment for this specific count of indictment.

 

(Comment by Laura Restuccia)