A ruling from the Finnish Supreme Court rekindles the debate on the limits of freedom of religious expression in Europe.
On March 27, 2026, the Supreme Court of Finland rendered a very divided decision in the case between the state and Päivi Räsänen, a deputy from the Christian Democratic Party, and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola. By three votes to two – the narrowest possible majority – the two religious and political leaders were found guilty of inciting hatred for a theological pamphlet published more than twenty years ago, in which Résänen defended, based on biblical texts, a traditional conception of marriage.
The conviction relates specifically to the public availability of a text deemed insulting to a group. It is pronounced under the section of the Finnish penal code relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity – a qualification which has not failed to surprise legal observers. The two convicted will have to pay criminal fines of several thousand euros, and the incriminated passages of the pamphlet will have to be removed of traffic and destroyed.
Two acquittals, one conviction
The judgment is contrasting. The Court unanimously acquitted Räsänen for two other cases: a tweet published in 2019 citing a biblical verse, and a statement made the same year during a radio debate. These two acquittals, widely commented on during previous trials, are therefore confirmed.
Still, the condemnation for the pamphlet, originally written for members of his church, constitutes a notable precedent. The Court itself recognized that the text did not call for violence or hatred – while maintaining the guilt of the defendants.
The defense maintains its positions
Far from retracting, Päivi Räsänen published in the hours following the verdict an extract from the WHO International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), in force in Finland, which lists disorders of psychosexual development under the code F66 – a category including a sub-entry relating to ego-dystonic homosexuality, that is to say experienced as problematic by the person themselves. The MP saw a medical and not offensive justification for the terms used in her pamphlet, arguing that this terminology remains in use in the official diagnostic tools used daily by Finnish doctors.
She said she was “shocked and deeply disappointed” by the decision, and is considering an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. “It is not only my freedom of expression that is at stake, but that of every Finnish citizen,” she said.
A worrying signal for freedom of religious expression
The affair has lasted for almost seven years. It illustrates a growing tension, observable in several European countries, between anti-discrimination legislation and the right to publicly express traditional religious beliefs. The question posed is not trivial: to what extent can a liberal democracy criminally repress the expression of an opinion – whether it is in the minority or considered offensive – without undermining the very foundations of freedom of conscience?
The organization ADF International, which provided legal defense for the defendants, announced its intention to continue the fight and described these so-called “anti-hate speech” laws as a serious threat to the democratic debate.
The outcome of a possible appeal in Strasbourg will be closely followed, well beyond the Finnish borders.
Crédit photo : DR
[cc] Article written by the editorial staff of breizh-info.com and proofread and corrected (spelling, syntax) by artificial intelligence. Breizh-info.com, 2026, dispatches free to copy and distribute subject to obligatory mention and do follow link to the original source.
