Finnish MP Convicted After Expressing Christian Views on Marriage and Sexuality
In 2019, Finnish Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen challenged her church’s sponsorship of an LGBT Pride event in a pointed social media message. Translated to English, she wrote:
“#TheChurch has announced that it is an official partner of #SETA’s #Pride2019. How does the Church’s doctrinal foundation, the #Bible, reconcile with the fact that shame and sin are being turned into a source of pride?”
The post, which included an image of the Bible opened to Romans 1:24–27, ignited a firestorm. It set into motion a six-year legal battle that would test the limits of free speech in Finland.
Räsänen was subjected to approximately 13 hours of police questioning regarding her religious beliefs. The prosecutor subsequently laid against Räsänen three charges of “incitement against a group of people” (hate speech). In addition to the social media post referencing Romans 1:24–27, Räsänen was also charged for making available online a pamphlet she wrote in 2004 regarding sexuality and marriage, and for comments she made during a 2019 radio debate.
Both the District Court and the Court of Appeal acquitted her on all counts, finding that her statements fell within the scope of protected expression. However, the prosecutor persisted. Although the charge relating to the radio debate was eventually dropped, the prosecutor appealed the remaining acquittals to Finland’s Supreme Court.
In a narrow 3–2 decision, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between the different forms of expression at issue. It upheld Räsänen’s acquittal regarding her social media post but convicted her for making her 2004 pamphlet available to the public. According to the Court, the pamphlet contained statements that insulted homosexuals based on their sexual orientation and therefore crossed the legal threshold into hate speech.
The Supreme Court’s Analysis
In acquitting her for the social media post, the Supreme Court emphasized context. It concluded that the post was primarily concerned with theological interpretation and church policy. On that basis, the Court found that it could not reasonably be interpreted as an attack on homosexual persons. The expression was framed as part of a religious and doctrinal discussion and therefore remained protected.
The pamphlet, however, was treated differently. In that document, Räsänen described homosexuality as a “psychosexual disorder” and a form of “sexual deviation.” The Court interpreted these statements not as theological claims, but as assertions about medical and social reality. Because such characterizations conflict with contemporary medical consensus, the Court concluded that they were misleading and harmful.
More importantly, the Court held that these statements undermined the dignity and equality of homosexuals as a group. By portraying homosexuality as disordered or deviant, the pamphlet was said to stigmatize individuals based on their sexual orientation.
The Court also placed weight on Räsänen’s professional status as both a physician and a Member of Parliament, reasoning that her words carried greater authority and thus posed a heightened risk of harm. On that basis, it found the restriction on her speech to be justified.
The Tension in the Supreme Court’s Reasoning
While it is welcome news that the court declined to criminalize expression connected to biblical and theological matters, its broader reasoning raises difficult questions. Central to the Court’s decision is the distinction between religious claims and medical or social claims. This distinction ultimately allowed the Court to treat parts of the pamphlet as unprotected and, therefore, punishable.
In practice, however, that line is not so easy to draw. The pamphlet itself appears to apply a biblical worldview to social and psychological matters. This creates a grey area: when a religious believer describes certain conduct as “disordered” based on scripture, is that a theological judgment, a scientific claim, or something else?
This ambiguity matters because it determines whether speech receives strong legal protection. If such statements are categorized as religious belief, they are more likely to fall within the sphere of protected expression. If they are treated as empirical claims about identifiable groups, they may be subjected to greater scrutiny under hate speech laws.
The Court’s approach also raises a broader issue about the relationship between criticism of conduct and respect for persons. The decision suggests that describing a form of conduct as “deviant” or “disordered” may amount to denying human dignity. But this conclusion is not all that obvious. In many contexts, individuals routinely characterize behaviours—such as substance abuse or casual sex—as unnatural or immoral without implying that those who engage in such conduct are less worthy of respect or equal treatment under the law. Preserving that distinction is crucial to maintaining robust protections for freedom of expression.
This tendency in free speech cases to conflate disagreement with hate has become increasingly common in the Canadian administrative context. For example, British Columbia nurse Amy Hamm was recently fined and suspended by the BC College of Nurses and Midwives for publicly asserting that biological males cannot become women—an assertion her professional regulator characterized as discriminatory and derogatory.
Moving Forward
Räsänen says she may appeal the decision to the European Court of Human Rights. That court has the authority to review national rulings for compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes protections for freedom of expression and religion. However, it does not automatically hear every case. If the European Court chooses to hear Räsänen’s appeal, hopefully it will restore a more balanced and principled approach to freedom of expression in Finland.
