or years, Europe presented freedom of expression as one of its most recognisable political hallmarks. Almost a foundational principle: the right to express uncomfortable, even unpopular opinions, provided they did not involve violence or coercion. The problem begins when that principle collides with newer and more open-ended legal categories, particularly those linked to hate speech. That is precisely where Päivi Räsänen’s case begins.
The former Finnish Minister of the Interior, a medical doctor by training and one of the historic figures of Finland’s Christian Democratic movement, has spent nearly seven years immersed in a legal battle that has evolved into something much larger than a national judicial process. Räsänen was investigated, interrogated and eventually prosecuted for publicly expressing traditional Christian views on marriage and sexuality. The case originated from social media posts, public statements and a booklet written more than two decades ago for a church community. Two courts acquitted her. The Finnish Supreme Court, however, ultimately reached a different conclusion through a narrow three-to-two decision.
Räsänen is now taking her case to Strasbourg, where the European Court of Human Rights will have an opportunity to rule on a question that extends well beyond Finland. Because a judgment on Räsänen may ultimately be also about the future of public debate in Europe.
After nearly seven years of legal proceedings and a narrow 3–2 ruling, what do you believe your case says about the current state of freedom of expression in Europe?
My case shows clearly that there is a crisis of free speech in Europe. Nobody should face years of criminal prosecution and be convicted for peacefully sharing their beliefs. Freedom of expression is endangered by “hate speech” laws that are highly subject to interpretation. These laws make it possible for states to silence dissent and censor those who disagree with prevailing social norms.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member