Finnish court finds Christian parliamentarian guilty of ‘hate speech’
The Supreme Court of Finland convicted parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen on one charge of hate speech related to a 2004 pamphlet she co-authored. The conviction, decided 3-2, was for "making and keeping available to the public a text that insults a group" under the Finnish criminal code. Räsänen was acquitted of charges stemming from a 2019 tweet where she quoted a Bible verse and questioned the Church's sponsorship of an LGBT Pride event. This ruling overturns previous acquittals by two lower courts in 2022 and 2023 regarding the tweet, pamphlet, and a radio debate. Räsänen expressed shock and disappointment, stating she will consider appealing the decision to the European Court of Human Rights.
about 10 hours ago
Finland's Supreme Court unanimously acquitted parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen of hate speech charges over her 2019 Bible tweet quoting Romans 1:24–27, ruling that citing Scripture in public debate does not constitute a criminal offense.1 2 3
In a 3-2 split decision, the court convicted Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola for distributing and keeping available a 2004 church pamphlet on marriage and sexuality, deeming it an insult to a group based on sexual orientation under Finland's criminal code.1 2 3
The tweet questioned the Evangelical Lutheran Church's sponsorship of an LGBT Pride event, sparking prosecution.1 3
Räsänen, Finland's former interior minister, faced charges over the tweet, pamphlet, and a 2019 radio debate; lower courts acquitted her twice in 2022 and 2023.1 2 3
Prosecutors appealed the tweet and pamphlet in October 2025; no appeal occurred on the radio debate.1 3
Räsänen expressed shock, reaffirming her Christian beliefs on marriage and ethics while defending freedom of expression.1 2 3
She plans to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights to protect public sharing of convictions.1 2 3
ADF International called the pamphlet conviction "Orwellian," noting it predated the law and followed a "witch hunt" after the tweet.1 2
Experts like Paul Coleman warned of a chilling effect on free speech, especially for unpopular religious views.2
U.S. Rep. Riley Moore labeled it a trend of prosecuting Christians in the West, urging U.S. action.1 3
Father Benedict Kiely called Räsänen a "canary in the coal mine" for European religious freedom.1 3
The ruling raises concerns over selective application of hate speech laws to religious expression, despite no incitement to violence.2
A similar case in Iceland involves a Catholic chancellor facing investigation for explaining Church teaching on homosexuality.2
How does the Catholic Church define hate speech in its canon law?
The Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law (1983) does not provide an explicit definition of "hate speech" as a standalone term. Instead, it regulates specific public expressions or acts that incite hatred, contempt, or animosity toward religion, the Church, its authorities, or public morals through penal canons. These provisions focus on protecting the faith, ecclesiastical authority, and the common good, imposing "just penalties" for violations via public means such as assemblies, writings, or social communication.
Canon law penalizes speech or communication that targets the Church or faith in ways akin to modern concepts of hate speech, but always in a ecclesiastical context:
Blasphemy, harm to public morals, and incitement against religion/Church: Canon 1368 punishes anyone who, through public events, assemblies, published writings, or social communication, "utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church." This covers expressions that publicly mock sacred realities or stir hostility toward Catholicism as a whole, emphasizing the public nature and medium of the offense.
Incitement against Church authorities: Canon 1373 targets those who "publicly incites hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical office or duty, or who provokes disobedience against them," with penalties like interdict or others. Here, the focus is on speech fostering division or rebellion specifically against the Pope (Apostolic See) or bishops (Ordinaries) due to their official roles.
These canons do not broadly criminalize disagreement or criticism but target public incitement to hatred or contempt, distinguishing them from private opinion or legitimate debate. Physical acts motivated by contempt for the faith or Church (e.g., violence against the Pope, bishops, clerics, or faithful) are also penalized separately, underscoring that speech offenses are non-violent but gravely disruptive.
No canons directly address "hate speech" against other groups (e.g., based on race, ethnicity), as canon law's penal focus is internal to the Church's mission and worship, not secular anti-discrimination law.
These provisions reflect the Church's understanding of speech's power to harm the common good of the faithful and scandalize believers (cf. canonical tradition preserved in the Code). They align with natural law principles against calumny and the Eighth Commandment, but are enforced pastorally through ecclesiastical tribunals, not civil courts.
In summary, while undefined as "hate speech," canon law penalizes public incitement to hatred/contempt for the Church, its religion, or authorities via specified media, prioritizing the defense of faith over broad censorship. For application, consult a canon lawyer or diocesan authority, as interpretations consider context and intent.