Religion Is Still on Trial in Finland

I n our modern age, you can be canceled at the drop of a tweet. In many parts of the world, and perhaps less recognized, you can be charged as a criminal for it, too. Lest this only conjure up images of a repressive dictatorship, think again. Criminal censorship — in which the state leverages the force of the law to silence and sanction free expression — is pervasive and proliferating in the West.

Everyone should know the story of Päivi Räsänen — grandmother, medical doctor, longtime member of Finland’s Parliament, and former minister of the interior. In 2019, Päivi took to Twitter to express concern that her church was hosting a Pride parade. In her tweet, she referenced the Bible. For this, she was charged with “hate speech,” tried under Finnish criminal law, and, thankfully, unanimously acquitted on March 30 of last year.

But this was not the end of the story as we hoped it would be. Unsatisfied, the state prosecutor appealed. The Finnish legal system allows prosecution to appeal a “not guilty” verdict all the way to the supreme court. Consequently, Päivi will be back in court this summer to defend her basic human right to free speech yet again, championing the fundamental freedoms of every person as she goes. Four years since her tweet, it’s eerily apparent that the desire to make an example out of Päivi knows no bounds.

In Päivi’s words: “I can’t believe that even after being acquitted, I’m on trial again for the simple act of tweeting about my beliefs four years ago. By continuing its campaign to censor certain beliefs, the prosecution is setting a dangerous precedent of intolerance against free speech.” While the case has taken a substantial toll on Päivi, her commitment to justice is untiring. Päivi evinces a clear sense of mission — she believes she was made for this moment and promises to take her case to the highest legal levels if need be.

“Now it is time to speak. Because the more we are silent, the narrower the space for freedom of speech and religion grows. If I’m convicted, I think that the worst consequence would not be the fine against me, it would be the censorship,” states Päivi. Her concern, in particular, is for young people facing fears about what they can and cannot say in a climate of crippling censorship. As she notes, increasingly, “young people have to be silent about their faith not to hinder their careers or social acceptance.” She’s fighting not just for herself, but also for them and for all people who have the right to speak in accordance with what they believe.

Cancel culture and criminal censorship exist in a kind of chicken-or-egg relationship. Which comes first? While their originating order may be too intertwined to disentangle, what we can see clearly is their symbiosis — cancel culture emboldens the government to stifle free speech. Vice versa, state censorship laws breed a culture of intolerance. These phenomena feed off each other, perpetuating the silencing and sanctioning of free expression throughout society.

Finland’s Criminal Code restricts free speech in the name of prohibiting “hate.” As sweepingly noted on the Police of Finland website, if “crimes are motivated by hate, they can also be hate crimes.” This most evidently begs the question: Who then is the arbiter of this undefined and absurdly ambiguous concept of hate? Päivi expressed no hate nor violence of any kind, and yet for expressing a view shared by many, in line with her Christian faith, she was charged criminally as a perpetrator of hatred.

Most alarmingly, it is clear that it is Päivi’s Christian faith itself that has been on trial throughout this ordeal. From the start, the Bible featured front and center in the police interrogations and court proceedings to which Päivi was subjected. In court, the prosecution read aloud from the Old Testament, shamelessly conducting cross-examination on the details of Christian theology. It rapidly became clear that Päivi’s trial, and that of Bishop Juhana Pohjola, charged alongside her, was nothing more than a modern-day inquisition.

This is no fringe “hate crime.” When a respected Finnish parliamentarian of nearly 20 years’ service is put on trial twice for sharing her convictions in a tweet four years ago, you know that regard for free speech in Europe has hit a new low. And when elected officials are publicly penalized in this way, we can be sure that the contagion of self-censorship will be severe. The societal ramifications of silencing those in the public eye are immense. Everyone who cares about free speech should be outraged by the Finnish state’s vindictive campaign against Päivi Räsänen.

We all have the right to share our beliefs without fear of censorship. Criminalizing speech shuts down public debate and degrades and infantilizes people capable of hearing things with which they disagree, posing a grave threat to our democracies. Päivi is right — as she asserts, “Now is the time to fight for these freedoms.” The hope is that the second time around, the court will once again rule in favor of Päivi’s fundamental right to free expression, ultimately affirming that there can be no free society without free speech.