Former BBC reporter, Ann-Louise Graham, raises a timely question about freedom of expression in an age of shifting legal boundaries. Could what we publish today one day be judged under laws that do not yet exist?
A Christian woman in Finland has recently been convicted of ‘hate speech’ by the country’s Supreme Court for expressing her biblical beliefs about marriage. Päivi Räsänen, a long-standing member of parliament, was charged under a section of the country’s criminal code concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity for authoring a church pamphlet in 2004 titled As Man and Woman He Created Them. This is the third time that prosecutors have brought a case against Räsänen, despite two lower courts previously acquitting her of all charges. She is considering an appeal to a top European court.
The case against Päivi Räsänen, who is also a medical doctor, former Minister of the Interior, and an active leader within the Lutheran Church, is important, not least because of its timeline.
READ MORE: Good Hang with Amy Poehler: A gentle reminder that what we say behind backs truly matters
It began in 2019, when Dr Räsänen posted a tweet containing an image of Romans 1:24–27 on what was then Twitter, aimed at the leadership of her church and questioning their decision to officially sponsor an LGBT event. This led to hours of police questioning and to three charges of ‘agitation against a minority group’ being brought against Dr Räsänen: one relating to the tweet, one to a radio debate in which she expressed her views, and one to a church booklet written some 15 years earlier.
Dr Räsänen stood trial in March 2022, together with a Lutheran bishop who had agreed to publish the church booklet. Both were acquitted.
Dr Räsänen stood trial in March 2022, together with a Lutheran bishop who had agreed to publish the church booklet. Both were acquitted. Following an appeal, both were tried again and acquitted in late August 2023. Despite these two acquittals, prosecutors appealed to the Supreme Court, resulting in Dr Räsänen and Bishop Pohjola standing trial for a third time. This time, in a March 2026 verdict, Dr Räsänen was acquitted in relation to the 2019 tweet, but both she and Bishop Pohjola were convicted of ‘hate speech’ in relation to the church booklet and fined thousands of euros.
Perhaps this is simply another story about the overreach of hate speech laws. According to Alliance Defending Freedom International (ADF), the case represents a dangerous precedent: “The conviction for a simple church pamphlet published decades ago—before the law under which she has been convicted was even passed—is an outrageous example of state censorship.”
According to other commentators, however, it reflects what has been described as a ‘doctrine of fear’, in which self-censorship is born not from an explicit ban, but from calculated uncertainty.
READ MORE: Misogyny, hate crimes and terrorism: terminology matters
If Dr Räsänen can be convicted for a religious opinion she expressed and wrote some twenty years ago, it sows a troubling seed of doubt. Will I, or will you, be charged in the future for what we write and express today? As one commentator observed, this is arguably reaching back into the past and punishing religious expression in the present. In relation to the issue of free speech, the concern that keeps returning to my mind is the problem of self-censorship. Of course, we must all work within the parameters of existing laws. But cases like Dr Räsänen’s lodge doubts about any public, outside my own home, stand I should or should not take in relation to my religious beliefs.
According to Anu Mantila, the Finnish state prosecutor, it was Dr Räsänen’s views on the Bible that were problematic, not her use of the Bible
According to Anu Mantila, the Finnish state prosecutor, it was Dr Räsänen’s views on the Bible that were problematic, not her use of the Bible: “You can cite the Bible, but it is Räsänen’s interpretation and opinion about the Bible verses that are criminal.” The message is clear: cite the Bible, but without interpretation or opinion. If that is the case, I do not need to point out how deeply problematic that is. Päivi Räsänen is considering taking her case to the European Court of Human Rights, she says this is not just her battle.
READ MORE: ‘Families Like Ours’ is a Danish drama with Kingdom values
I will continue to watch this case closely. In the meantime, you and I must consider very seriously whether our religious beliefs are to be held silently, or whether they should still be expressed publicly. Jesus warned that His followers would face opposition and be brought before authorities for their faith but promised that the Holy Spirit would guide and strengthen them [Luke 12:12]. Again, when told to remain silent the disciples prayed for boldness, insisting that they must speak about what they had seen and heard [Acts 4:19–20].
Cases like Dr Räsänen’s raise difficult questions for all of us: how do we faithfully express our beliefs in a world where saying what we believe may carry legal or social consequences? As we reflect on her situation, we are challenged to consider what it truly means to live out our faith publicly and responsibly.
No comments yet