Split Supreme Court Convicts Member of Parliament for Incitement Against a Group – Goes Against Both District and Court of Appeal Decisions

After being acquitted in both the district court and the court of appeal, the Christian Democratic Member of Parliament and physician Päivi Räsänen has now been convicted of incitement against a group. The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a clear shift in the legal landscape—and raises questions about the boundary between freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and criminal statements.

The Supreme Court finds Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen guilty of incitement against a group by a vote of 3–2. The verdict concerns a text that she originally published in 2004 and republished in 2019, where she, among other things, describes homosexuality as a deviation and as something contrary to a Christian view of humanity. This has been reported by, among others, Yle.

The court places particular importance on Räsänen’s position as a public figure—both as a Member of Parliament and as a physician—and holds that her statements, as such, had a greater spread and potential influence.

According to the Supreme Court, she must have understood that the phrasing was offensive and that the publication contributed to sustaining a view in which homosexuals are not viewed as equals. Räsänen is sentenced to day-fines and is ordered, together with others involved, to remove the contentious material from the internet.

Acquitted for Bible Quotes on Social Media

At the same time, the Supreme Court acquits Räsänen on another count concerning social media posts made during Pride 2019. In those posts, she quoted the Bible and questioned the church’s cooperation with the identity-political rainbow movement.

Here, the court made a different assessment and emphasized that the threshold for intervening in religious and theological discussions must be high. In their context, the posts were not deemed to meet the criteria for incitement against a group, even though they could be perceived as negative.

Sharp Change of Course from Previous Courts

The ruling marks a clear shift compared to previous court instances. In the Helsinki District Court, Räsänen was fully acquitted. The court did note that some statements could be perceived as offensive, but found that they fell within the boundaries of freedom of expression and religion. Limitations on these rights were considered to require very strong reasons, which, according to the district court, were not present.

The Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion and emphasized that the statements were made in a religious and societal context, where the primary purpose was not to disparage a group but to express a belief in an ongoing societal debate.

Now, the Supreme Court has made a different judgment. It places more weight on how the statements might be perceived and spread, and less on the religious context emphasized by previous courts.

Long Legal Process Initiated by the Prosecutor General

The case has an unusually long background. As early as 2020, the police judged that there were no grounds to initiate a preliminary investigation. However, the following year, the Prosecutor General decided on their own initiative to proceed with prosecution.

The indictment consisted of three parts: the pamphlet, the social media posts, and statements in a radio program. All were tried in court, but only the pamphlet has now resulted in a conviction in the Supreme Court.

Split Court – and Continued Legal Process

The fact that the verdict was decided by the narrowest possible majority—three judges to two—underlines that the legal question is difficult and controversial.

Räsänen herself has responded strongly, describing the verdict as a shock. She has announced that she intends to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Landmark Ruling with Far-reaching Consequences

Since the verdict comes from the highest court, it sets a precedent. It clarifies—and, to some extent, redefines—where the boundary lies between permissible religious advocacy and criminal incitement.

The decision means that the legal situation is now different from what previous courts decided. While the district and appeals courts emphasized protection for statements made in religious or societal contexts, the Supreme Court notes that such statements can still be criminal—especially when they reach a wide audience and are expressed in categorical or derogatory terms.