A 2004 pamphlet explaining traditional Christian views of sex and marriage is “hate speech,” Finland’s Supreme Court ruled on March 26, fining a member of parliament, a Lutheran bishop, and a church group hundreds of dollars. The verdict, the culmination of years of prosecutions, sends a chilling message on free speech, advocates warn.
The Supreme Court of Finland delivered a split decision in a closely watched case involving Paivi Rasanen, a longtime lawmaker and former interior minister. Also convicted was Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola, whose church foundation published the pamphlet.
The court unanimously upheld Rasanen’s acquittal over a 2019 social media post quoting the Bible but convicted her for statements contained in a church pamphlet first published more than two decades ago. Finnish law allows prosecutors to appeal acquittals.
The conviction is for “making and keeping available to the public a text that insults a group.”
The case, backed by legal advocacy group ADF International, has drawn international attention as a test of the boundaries between hate speech laws and religious expression in Europe.
Rasanen, speaking at a press conference following the ruling, called the verdict “a difficult and disappointingly mixed ruling” and warned it creates uncertainty about fundamental freedoms. She said the decision “sends a troubling and contradictory message about the state of fundamental freedoms in Finland.”
The court found that certain statements in the 2004 pamphlet—written to outline a traditional Christian understanding of marriage and sexuality—constituted criminal “insult” under Finland’s hate speech statutes. The ruling requires fines for Rasanen, Bishop Juhana Pohjola, and the church-affiliated foundation that published the material.
According to defense attorney Matti Sankamo, the penalties include income-based fines of 1,800 euros ($1,560) for Rasanen, 1,100 euros ($1,270) for Pohjola, and approximately 5,000 euros ($5,770) for the church foundation. He also said portions of the pamphlet deemed unlawful must be removed from circulation.
The conviction comes after two lower courts unanimously acquitted Rasanen of all charges, highlighting divisions within Finland’s judiciary. Legal observers noted the Supreme Court decision was narrowly split, underscoring the contentious nature of the case.
Prosecutors argued that specific language in the pamphlet—including a statement describing homosexuality as a “psychosexual disorder”—met the threshold for criminal liability. Defense attorneys countered that the document must be understood in its full religious and historical context, not through isolated phrases.
Rasanen said the prosecution of decades-old material raises broader concerns.
“This case has never been only about me,” she said. “It has always been about whether Finland will remain a country where people are free to speak, write, and live according to their conscience, without fear or criminal prosecution.”
Legal experts involved in the case emphasized that the ruling hinged on Finland’s criminal code provision prohibiting expressions that “threaten, defame or insult” groups based on protected characteristics. Advocates for Rasanen argue the “insult” standard is vague and subject to broad interpretation.
Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International and part of Rasanen’s legal team, said the decision illustrates how such laws can be applied inconsistently. Over the course of the proceedings, he noted, multiple judges had reached opposite conclusions about the same material.
“This just goes to show how these vague and subjective laws can be interpreted however you want,” Coleman said, adding that the court examined the pamphlet “line by line” to determine which statements were permissible.
The case originated in 2019 after Rasanen criticized her church’s support for an LGBT Pride event in a social media post that included a Bible passage. That post triggered a police investigation, which later expanded to include the earlier pamphlet and additional public comments.
Authorities ultimately pursued multiple charges, though most were dismissed during earlier proceedings. The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves only the pamphlet-related conviction in place.
Coleman warned the ruling could lower the threshold for what constitutes illegal speech. “These laws were originally aimed at extreme speech that leads to violence,” he said. “What we’re seeing now is an expansion into areas like theological debate.”
The court did not find that Rasanen’s statements incited violence or hatred but concluded that certain passages were nonetheless insulting under the law.
Rasanen said she is considering an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. She indicated the case is likely to remain part of a broader debate over free speech and religious liberty.
