Better in their words…

From National Review, March 2026, By PÄIVI RÄSÄNEN

• Because I wrote a church pamphlet decades ago, Finland’s Supreme Court has found me guilty of hate speech.

While some European leaders may insist that free speech is alive and well on our continent, what has happened to me tells a very different story.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of my country, Finland, delivered a ruling that should alarm anyone who values democratic freedoms. In a deeply contradictory judgment, it unanimously upheld my acquittal for a Bible verse shared on X in 2019, and in a narrow 3–2 decision, convicted me of “hate speech” for a church pamphlet I wrote over twenty years ago.

I have served in the Finnish Parliament for over 30 years, including as Minister of the Interior. I am also a medical doctor and a proud grandmother. In the 2019 X (then Twitter) post, I shared my Christian views on sexual ethics, questioning my church’s decision to sponsor a Pride event and including an image of a Bible verse from the Letter to the Romans.

That post triggered a criminal investigation that ultimately swelled into three charges: for the tweet, a radio debate that same year, and a pamphlet I authored for my church in 2004, which discussed the same issues of sexuality. I was charged for “hate speech” under the “War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity” section of Finland’s criminal code. Alongside me, Lutheran bishop Juhana Pohjola was charged for publishing the pamphlet.

Two lower courts unanimously acquitted us of all charges. The Finnish state prosecutor nevertheless pressed on, appealing to the Supreme Court and prolonging the process into a six-year legal ordeal.

Finland’s highest court has confirmed my acquittal for the tweet. The acquittal for the radio debate still stands as well. That is right and just. But now the bishop and I are “criminals” for peacefully sharing our beliefs in the public square by way of the pamphlet.

I wrote the pamphlet years before the law under which I have been prosecuted was passed. In finding me guilty, the Court acknowledged that the content in question did not incite violence or hatred. Even so, it ruled that expressing those views in that context was criminal.

It’s evident that European “hate speech” laws are incompatible with free societies. The criminalization of so-called “hate speech” introduces rampant legal ambiguity: If beliefs are lawful in one setting but punishable in another, how is any citizen to know where the line is drawn?

The Supreme Court has ordered us to pay fines and ruled that the statements in the pamphlet be “removed from public access and destroyed.” This is censorship reminiscent of Europe’s darkest totalitarian days.

If a decades-old church publication can be erased by judicial order, then no one who has ever expressed a belief in the public square can assume their words are beyond reach. This is what “hate speech” laws allow. Past expression can be revisited, judged, and suppressed.

Ask yourself: What have you written over the years? A blog post, a comment, a paper for school, a pamphlet for your community? Under a standard like this, any peaceful expression could become the subject of a criminal investigation.

This case has never been only about me. It has been about whether Finland — and Europe broadly — will remain places where people are free to speak, write, and live according to their conscience without fear of prosecution.

It is also not about whether you agree with my views. In a free society, disagreement is not just tolerated; it is essential to the society’s proper functioning. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to debate, to dissent, and yes, sometimes to offend. Without that freedom, democracy cannot survive.

The length and intensity of the process to which Bishop Pohjola and I have been subjected should concern us all. After nearly seven years of investigation and litigation, the peaceful sharing of our views in the public square has culminated in a criminal conviction. And when the cost of speaking out carries costs like this, we know that the chilling effect is immense.

I am now considering an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in the hopes that the fundamental human right to free expression will remain secure for everyone. But more is required than a legal appeal. Across Europe, laws that allow for the punishment of peaceful expression must be repealed.

My case shows with absolute clarity that it is time for Europe to reclaim its commitment to free speech. “Hate speech” laws can no longer be allowed to remain on the books. A free society cannot endure if its citizens must constantly second-guess whether their peaceable words, past or present, may one day be deemed criminal. Europe does not need more mechanisms to police speech; it needs stronger protections to preserve it.