Päivi Räsänen is taking her ‘hate speech’ conviction to the European Court of Human Rights. The Finnish MP and former Interior Minister announced her appeal on 7 May, the final legal stage of a seven-year prosecution.

Räsänen, represented by ADF International, a key ally of HRLA, was convicted in March over a 2004 church booklet titled ‘Male and Female He Created Them’, which reflected mainstream Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality. Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola was convicted alongside her for publishing it. The Supreme Court ordered that the offending portions be “removed from public access and destroyed”.

Two lower courts had unanimously acquitted Räsänen on all charges. The state prosecutor appealed regardless. The Supreme Court split 3–2. The charge sits under Finland’s 2011 incitement against a group provision, which appears in a section of the criminal code headed ‘war crimes and crimes against humanity’.

The majority’s reasoning is worth careful attention. The Court accepted that the booklet “did not contain incitement to violence or comparable threat-like fomenting of hatred”. Despite that finding, it concluded the statements had insulted a group on the basis of sexual orientation, and that this was sufficient to ground a criminal conviction.

That reasoning ought to trouble anyone interested in the rule of law. A criminal conviction recorded against a sitting parliamentarian, for a 22-year-old church publication, where the court itself accepts there is no incitement and no serious harm, illustrates how far ‘hate speech’ laws have drifted from the principles that traditionally underpin criminal liability.

The parallels with Australia are unmistakable. HRLA client Lyle Shelton is now in his seventh year of vilification proceedings over a blog post about Drag Queen Storytime. He was vindicated at first instance, then faced a fresh appeal that overturned the result. As in Räsänen’s case, no court has found incitement to violence in what he wrote. The complaint turns on whether his words may be considered offensive to a protected group.

The European Court of Human Rights has held that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects ideas that “offend, shock or disturb”. Räsänen’s appeal will test whether that principle still constrains the use of ‘hate speech’ law against peaceful religious speech.

HRLA will continue to monitor this case closely. Its outcome is relevant to the future of similar laws in Australia.