Key Takeaways
- Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen was convicted of “hate speech” for a 2004 pamphlet and a 2019 tweet citing biblical passages that describe homosexual acts as sinful.
- Although Finnish courts twice acquitted her, the Supreme Court overturned the acquittals by a 3‑2 vote, finding her statements punishable hate speech.
- The conviction led the United Kingdom to deny her Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA) because UK rules bar entry for anyone whose offence caused “serious harm,” which authorities classified her crime as.
- Räsänen argues the case reflects growing hostility toward Christianity in the post‑Christian West and maintains that her remarks affirm biblical teaching while affirming the equal dignity of all people.
- She is appealing the conviction to the European Court of Human Rights, supported by Alliance Defending Freedom International, and plans to run for re‑election in Finland next year.
Background and Visa Denial
When Päivi Räsänen, a longtime member of Finland’s Parliament and a outspoken Christian, booked a flight from the United States to Helsinki with a layover in London, the United Kingdom initially approved her Electronic Travel Authorization. Days before departure, UK authorities notified her that the authorization had been cancelled. The cancellation was based on the UK’s ETA rules, which state that entry clearance must be refused when an applicant “has committed a criminal offence, or offences, which caused serious harm.” British officials deemed her Finnish hate‑speech conviction to fall under that category, despite the case still being under appeal in European courts.
The Origin of the Controversy
Räsänen’s legal troubles began in 2019 after she criticized the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland for sponsoring an LGBTQ+ Pride event. In a tweet she asked, “How does the doctrine of the church, the Bible, fit together with the fact that shame and sin are raised as a matter of ‘pride’?” accompanying the message with a photo of a 2004 pamphlet titled As Man and Woman He Created Them. The pamphlet cited Romans 1:24‑27, describing women exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones and men committing shameful acts with other men. The tweet and pamphlet became the basis for prosecutors’ hate‑speech charges.
Acquittals and the Supreme Court Reversal
Initially, the Helsinki District Court acquitted Räsänen in March 2022, and the Court of Appeal upheld that acquittal in November 2023. Prosecutors persisted, arguing that the lower courts had failed to grasp the “degrading and dehumanizing” nature of her statements toward homosexuals. In March 2024, Finland’s Supreme Court issued a split decision: a 3‑2 majority convicted Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola of hate speech for expressing their beliefs on Christianity and sexuality in the 2004 pamphlet. The majority held that declaring homosexuality a “deviation from the original, God‑created sexuality” constituted punishable hate speech, insisting that such views should be framed as a “normal variation” instead.
Räsänen’s Defense and Beliefs
Räsänen maintains that her remarks reflect a traditional Christian understanding of marriage and gender, not hatred toward individuals. She emphasizes that she has repeatedly stated all people are equal because they are created in the image of God and that she herself is a sinner in need of grace through Jesus Christ. She argues that the prosecution conflates doctrinal disagreement with personal animus, claiming that calling a behavior sinful does not imply that practitioners are inferior. Her defense cites the widespread use of similar language in sermons, Catholic catechisms, and other Christian teachings, suggesting that selective prosecution targets only certain voices.
Reactions from LGBTQ+ Advocates
The LGBTQ+ rights organization SETA welcomed the conviction, expressing hope that it would encourage more reporting of hate speech against “rainbow people” and lead to additional prosecutions that courts would treat seriously. SETA pledged to monitor publications for similar viewpoints and to pursue legal action where possible. Räsänen noted that, to her knowledge, no comparable charges have been brought against other Christians in Finland, though she worries that the precedent may chill free expression among believers who discuss biblical teachings on sexuality.
Claims of Hostility Toward Christianity
Räsänen attributes the case to a broader “hostility” to Christianity in the post‑Christian West, arguing that secular authorities have lost sight of the Bible’s core message of grace and redemption. She contends that the legal system’s focus on protecting the dignity of homosexuals has resulted in an overly expansive interpretation of hate speech that silences orthodox Christian viewpoints. Despite the personal cost, she sees the trial as an opportunity to share the gospel, recalling a conversation with a young atheist homosexual who, after speaking with her, embraced Christianity and described finding a path to eternal life.
Implications for Free Speech and Religious Expression
The conviction raises significant questions about the limits of free expression when religious beliefs intersect with protected characteristics such as sexual orientation. Räsänen warns that many Finns now feel uncertain about what may be said legally, leading to self‑censorship among pastors, educators, and laypeople who fear criminal liability for articulating traditional Christian teachings. She stresses that defending the right to voice doctrinal convictions is not merely a personal matter but a safeguard for the pluralistic exchange of ideas essential to a democratic society.
Looking Ahead: Appeal and Political Future
Räsänen and Bishop Pohjola have appealed the Supreme Court’s ruling to the European Court of Human Rights, with Alliance Defending Freedom International providing legal representation. Simultaneously, she intends to run for re‑election in Finland’s parliamentary elections next year, marking her first campaign as a “convicted criminal.” Regardless of the judicial outcome, her case continues to fuel debate over how societies balance anti‑discrimination protections with the freedom to express religious beliefs, a discussion that resonates far beyond Finland’s borders.