ADF International
Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen announced today that she will take her conviction for “insulting a group” to the European Court of Human Rights, setting up a test of how far free speech and religious expression are protected under European law.
The Finnish Supreme Court found her guilty in March 2026, by a narrow 3–2 majority, for disseminating a 2004 pamphlet to her religious community. In that text, Räsänen outlined the Christian conception of marriage as a union between a man and a woman and questioned certain practices from that doctrinal perspective.
The ruling itself acknowledges that the content did not include incitement to violence or threats,but concludes that it is “insulting” to a group based on sexual orientation.
In 2022 and 2023, two lower courts acquitted Räsänen of all charges. The prosecution appealed twice until the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. The result was a split decision: unanimous acquittal for the tweet—considered protected by freedom of expression—and conviction for the pamphlet, because its continued public availability made it subject to criminal sanction.
The origin of the case dates back to 2019. That year, Räsänen published a tweet in which she criticised her church’s decision to support an LGBT Pride event, accompanied by a biblical quotation. The prosecutor then opened an investigation that was later expanded to include the 2004 pamphlet and a radio programme appearance. What began as a reaction to a specific message ended up becoming a long-running criminal case. The case has lasted nearly seven years.
The conviction relies on Finnish “hate speech” legislation, embedded in the criminal code under the heading of crimes against humanity. The court itself admits that the conduct is not “particularly serious” yet imposes fines of several thousand euros and orders the removal and destruction of the content deemed unlawful.
The appeal to Strasbourg, backed by ADF International, shifts the case into the European human rights system, where judges will assess whether the conviction is compatible with protections for freedom of expression and religion.
This case has gone from being a national proceeding to becoming a European legal confrontation over the real limits of freedom of expression and religion.
This is where the past connects with the present. A text published two decades ago, in a different legal context, ends up being sanctioned based on its current interpretation and its later dissemination. It is not only what was said that is judged but how it is read today. This is perhaps one of the most concerning elements of the case, as it opens the door to judging past expressions through the lens of the present, whatever those expressions may be.
Across several member states, hate speech laws have expanded in recent years, with broader and, at times, far more vague and flexible definitions. In Finland, even establishment figures have questioned whether the law is sufficiently precise, raising concerns about how consistently it can be applied. When everything can potentially be treated as hate speech, freedom of expression becomes restricted.
The Räsänen case is of extreme importance because it exposes the thin red line that currently exists between direct harm and offence at the EU level, specifically.
That is the axis on which the European Court of Human Rights will have to rule. Its decision will not be merely technical, as it will determine whether the European public space remains structured around the freedom to confront ideas or evolves toward a model where certain positions are excluded not for what they provoke, but for what they represent.