As reported by Christian Daily:
The Supreme Court of Finland on Thursday (March 26) found a former government minister guilty of “hate speech” for her biblical views on marriage following two prior acquittals by lower courts.
In a 3-2 decision, the court ruled against Päivi Räsänen for expressing her beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics in a 20-year-old church pamphlet. The court also criminally convicted Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola for publishing the 2004 pamphlet, according to legal rights group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International.
The court levied fines of several thousand euros on both Räsänen and Pohjola and ordered the removal and destruction of the impugned statements.
The Supreme Court's opinion (full text) says in part:
1. A, who is a doctor by training, has written an article at the request of the X Foundation ...: "Male and female he created them. Homosexual relationships challenge the Christian concept of humanity." The length of the article is approximately 20 pages.... A's article was published in 2004 in the Foundation's Z publication series as a printed booklet....
2. With A's permission, the article was subsequently published in 2007 on the Foundation's website and in 2014 on the Foundation's renewed website and on the website of the Diocese of Y. After the pre-trial investigation in the case had been launched in 2019, A has further disseminated the article on her own internet and social media pages in 2019 and 2020.
3. B, in turn, as the Foundation's agent and member of the Board, as the Diocesan Dean of the Diocese of Y, and as the person responsible for the Z publication series and the Diocese's website, has decided to publish the article on the websites of the Foundation and the Diocese....
18. On the basis of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, it may be concluded that, notwithstanding the protection of freedom of expression, a criminal sanction may be imposed mainly where fundamental and human rights can be considered to have been violated in the form of incitement to hatred or violence....
51. The Supreme Court states that the article has a religious framework, but ... the writing is clearly divided into two different parts. The passages of the article alleged to be insulting in the indictment have not been so much a question of confession of religion or faith, as of presenting views based on texts considered sacred by religion or otherwise based on religious beliefs, but rather argumentation based on the author's social and medical views. The Supreme Court considers that freedom of religion does not protect the fact that opinions that are not related to religion are expressed in the framework of religious writing. In the assessment of the statements referred to in the indictment, freedom of speech is therefore of central importance, and freedom of religion has considerably less weight.
52. A was a Member of Parliament in writing her essay and making it available to the public. ... [T]he topics discussed in the article have been related to A's political activities and the issues raised in it. In addition, the article was related to topics of general interest, and A's article can be considered to have participated in a topical social debate that aroused public interest. In accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, restrictions on political and social debate must, as a rule, be approached with particular restraint.
56. ... [P]oliticians and persons expressing religious opinions also have a duty to avoid expressions that promote intolerance and other unjustifiably offensive expressions in their public speeches. At the heart of freedom of speech and freedom of religion is the expression of opinions and beliefs, but the exercise of these freedoms is subject to restrictions based on the protection of other people and groups. The Supreme Court states that it is also possible to defend the concept of marriage and family in accordance with religious beliefs in a way that avoids insulting sexual minorities. In other words, it is possible to participate in the discussion without using expressions that insult homosexuals as a group on the basis of their sexual orientation....
58. On the basis of the above, the Supreme Court finds that the statements described in paragraph 45 have insulted homosexuals as a group on the basis of their sexual orientation, that the classification of the conduct as punishable is not in conflict with freedom of speech or religion, and that A's conduct thus fulfils the criteria of incitement against an ethnic group in Chapter 11, Section 10 of the Criminal Code.
