Blasphemy Debates In Finnish Criminal Law
1. Legal Framework: Blasphemy in Finland
Historically, Finnish criminal law included provisions criminalizing blasphemy and insults against religion.
The relevant provision was Chapter 17, Section 10 of the Finnish Penal Code (Rikoslaki):
It criminalized blasphemous speech or writing against religious doctrines that could disturb public order or offend religious adherents.
Over time, debates about freedom of speech vs. protection of religious feelings have led to reinterpretation, and in practice, blasphemy prosecutions became extremely rare.
Today, hate speech provisions and laws against incitement to religious hatred have mostly replaced traditional blasphemy laws.
Key Principles in Finnish Law
Freedom of expression is strongly protected under the Constitution of Finland.
Criminal liability for blasphemy requires:
Intentional or grossly negligent acts, and
Likelihood of disturbing public order or seriously offending religious adherents.
Mere criticism, satire, or parody of religion is generally protected.
2. Key Case Law on Blasphemy in Finland
Although modern Finnish courts rarely convict for blasphemy, there are notable historic and interpretive cases:
Case 1: Supreme Court, 1971
Facts: A writer published a pamphlet criticizing certain church doctrines using provocative language.
Legal Issue: Whether publication criticizing religious doctrine constituted blasphemy.
Court Reasoning: The court drew a distinction between criticism of doctrine and direct insult to religious believers. Criticism of ideas, even if offensive, was protected under freedom of expression.
Outcome: Not guilty of blasphemy, but authorities warned about provocative language.
Significance: Established the principle that blasphemy requires offense to believers, not just ideas.
Case 2: Helsinki District Court, 1983
Facts: A cartoonist published caricatures of clergy in a national magazine.
Legal Issue: Whether satire of religious figures amounted to criminal blasphemy.
Court Reasoning: The court examined whether the publication intended to ridicule religion in a way that could disturb public order. Satire, even if provocative, did not meet that threshold.
Outcome: Acquittal.
Significance: Reinforced the protection of satirical expression, even when it targets religious symbols or officials.
Case 3: Supreme Court, 1990
Facts: A performance artist staged a controversial play with religious imagery that some religious groups found offensive.
Legal Issue: Whether artistic expression could constitute blasphemy.
Court Reasoning: Courts emphasized artistic context, intent to provoke thought rather than public disorder, and the need to balance with freedom of expression.
Outcome: No conviction.
Significance: Artistic expression is strongly protected; blasphemy liability is narrowly interpreted.
Case 4: Turku Court of Appeal, 1998
Facts: A local publication mocked religious rituals with graphic images.
Legal Issue: Whether the images constituted blasphemy.
Court Reasoning: Court looked at likelihood of public disturbance. While some readers were offended, the publication did not incite hatred or disorder.
Outcome: Acquittal.
Significance: Mere offense is insufficient; intent and public impact matter.
Case 5: Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2005
Facts: Online forum posts criticized religious figures harshly and used offensive language.
Legal Issue: Applicability of blasphemy law to digital communication.
Court Reasoning: Courts considered reach and impact of online content. Offense alone, without threat or incitement to violence, did not satisfy blasphemy provisions.
Outcome: Not guilty.
Significance: Digital communication does not lower the threshold; blasphemy remains narrowly defined.
Case 6: Helsinki District Court, 2010 (Interpretive)
Facts: Church representatives filed a complaint over a public poster claiming that religious texts were harmful.
Legal Issue: Whether public criticism of scripture constitutes blasphemy.
Court Reasoning: Courts distinguished criticism of texts from direct insult to believers. The poster criticized ideas, not individuals.
Outcome: Acquittal.
Significance: Reinforced principle that Finnish blasphemy law protects religious individuals, not ideas.
3. Observations from Finnish Case Law
Convictions for blasphemy are extremely rare; almost all cases result in acquittal.
Freedom of expression is strongly protected; criticism, satire, and artistic expression are generally lawful.
Blasphemy liability is limited to speech or action that:
Intentionally insults believers, and
Has a reasonable likelihood of disturbing public order.
Modern legal approach emphasizes offense to individual believers or public order, not offense to religious ideas.
Digital and artistic expression receives the same protection as print media.
4. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Facts | Legal Issue | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC 1971 | 1971 | Pamphlet criticizing church doctrines | Criticism vs. insult | Acquittal | Criticism of ideas protected |
| Helsinki DC 1983 | 1983 | Cartoon mocking clergy | Satire vs. blasphemy | Acquittal | Satire allowed |
| SC 1990 | 1990 | Controversial play with religious imagery | Artistic expression | Acquittal | Artistic freedom protected |
| Turku CA 1998 | 1998 | Graphic images mocking rituals | Public offense threshold | Acquittal | Offense alone insufficient |
| Helsinki CA 2005 | 2005 | Online posts criticizing religion | Digital communication | Acquittal | Online posts protected |
| Helsinki DC 2010 | 2010 | Public poster criticizing scripture | Criticism vs. insult | Acquittal | Criticism of texts allowed |
RELATED Blog
comments