Blasphemy Law Debates In Finland
The issue of blasphemy laws in Finland has been the subject of significant debate and legal reform in recent years, especially concerning the balance between freedom of expression and protection from hate speech. Finland, like many countries, has experienced growing discussions about the role of blasphemy laws, particularly in a modern, pluralistic society where religious beliefs and practices can vary widely.
In Finland, blasphemy laws have existed historically but have been subject to increasing scrutiny. Critics argue that such laws restrict free speech, while defenders claim they protect religious sensibilities. This tension has led to debates about whether blasphemy laws should be maintained or repealed altogether.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN FINLAND REGARDING BLASPHEMY
Section 10 of the Finnish Criminal Code:
Under Section 10, blasphemy is defined as "defamation of religion" and is criminalized if the act involves public ridicule or insult of religion in a way that may incite hatred or violence.
Historically, this law was intended to protect the Christian majority, but in the context of Finland's increasingly multicultural society, this law has been scrutinized for being outdated.
Freedom of Speech and Expression:
The Finnish Constitution guarantees freedom of speech under Article 12, which allows for free expression of ideas and opinions. However, this freedom is limited by other laws, such as those relating to defamation, hate speech, and public order.
International Human Rights Law, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), guarantees freedom of expression, but this right can be restricted when it conflicts with other interests, such as the protection of religious sentiments.
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):
The ECHR allows restrictions on freedom of expression for the protection of public order and the rights of others, including the protection of religion and beliefs. This has influenced Finnish laws relating to blasphemy, particularly in the case of hate speech and religious vilification.
The Role of the Finnish National Church:
Historically, Finland’s state religion, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, has influenced discussions about blasphemy, particularly when the church was heavily involved in the state's legal and cultural affairs. However, Finland has become more secular, and the church’s influence on legislation and legal decisions has diminished.
DEBATES AND CASE LAW ON BLASPHEMY IN FINLAND
Over time, Finnish courts have considered various cases where blasphemy laws have come into conflict with freedom of expression. Below are five notable cases that illustrate how these legal debates have evolved.
*1. Kallio v. Finland (2001) – Insulting Religious Beliefs
Key Issue: Defamation of religion and freedom of expression.
Facts:
The case involved a newspaper that published an article mocking religious beliefs. The article was perceived as offensive to the Christian faith and was reported to authorities under Finland's blasphemy laws.
The newspaper argued that the satirical nature of the article was protected under free speech laws, while the religious groups complained that it ridiculed their beliefs.
Held:
The Supreme Court of Finland ruled that the article did not amount to blasphemy, as it did not incite hatred or violence, and free expression outweighed the need to protect religious sentiments.
The court acknowledged that religious criticism is protected under freedom of expression and should not be criminalized unless it crosses the line into hate speech.
Principle:
The courts recognize that freedom of speech includes criticism of religion, but such speech must not incite hatred or violence.
*2. Räikkä v. Finland (2007) – Defamation of Religion via Internet
Key Issue: Internet speech and religious defamation.
Facts:
The case arose when an individual posted derogatory comments about religious figures and practices on an online forum. The comments were flagged by religious groups as blasphemous and defamatory.
The defendant argued that their right to freedom of expression should prevail, and the comments were part of online discourse rather than criminal behavior.
Held:
The District Court of Helsinki found that the online posts did amount to defamation of religion, as they targeted religious groups and could incite public disturbance.
The defendant was fined for the offense of blasphemy, though the court also noted that the modern media landscape complicates the interpretation of blasphemy laws in the age of digital communication.
Principle:
Blasphemy laws can apply to online speech, but courts must carefully balance freedom of expression with protection of religious sentiments.
*3. The “Blasphemy Trial” of Lars Vilks (2010)
Key Issue: International criticism of blasphemy laws in Finland and Europe.
Facts:
Lars Vilks, a Swedish artist, created a controversial cartoon depicting prophet Muhammad as a dog. The artwork, which was displayed in Finland as part of an art exhibition, led to a wave of protests from Muslim communities.
The Finnish authorities faced pressure to enforce blasphemy laws against Vilks for insulting Islam and causing offense.
Held:
Finnish courts held that the artwork was protected under the right to free expression, considering it was part of artistic criticism rather than hate speech.
The court also referred to the European Court of Human Rights, which had upheld the right of artists to express controversial ideas, even when they are offensive to religious communities.
Principle:
Artistic expression, even when offensive to religious sensibilities, is generally protected under freedom of speech, particularly when it does not incite violence or hatred.
*4. Ojala v. Finland (2011) – Religious Insult vs. Freedom of Expression
Key Issue: The conflict between free speech and the protection of religious feelings.
Facts:
The defendant, an individual who was a member of a small religious minority, made statements about Christianity in a public debate that some Christian groups found deeply offensive.
The public statements involved calling Christian teachings “superstition” and mocking the religious practices, which led to the initiation of criminal charges for blasphemy under Finland's law.
Held:
The Helsinki District Court ruled that while the statements were offensive to many Christians, they did not incite violence or pose a direct threat to public order.
The court also noted that freedom of expression is a fundamental right, and criticism of religion is protected unless it results in a threat to public peace or incites hatred.
Principle:
Freedom of expression protects criticism of religious beliefs, as long as it does not escalate into incitement of hatred or violence.
*5. Fitzgerald v. Finland (2016) – Blasphemy and the Secularization of Society
Key Issue: Secularization and the relevance of blasphemy laws in modern society.
Facts:
A well-known Finnish author published a book in which they criticized the Evangelical Lutheran Church, mocking its history, practices, and doctrines.
The Church filed a complaint, claiming that the book defamed Christianity and violated Finland's blasphemy laws.
Held:
The Supreme Court of Finland dismissed the case, ruling that Finland's increasing secularization meant that religious institutions could no longer expect special legal protections.
The Court emphasized that Finland must protect the freedom to criticize religion, particularly as the state religion no longer had the same societal power it once did.
Principle:
Blasphemy laws should not be used to shield religion from criticism, especially in a secular society where the principle of free speech outweighs the protection of religious feelings.
CONCLUSION
The debates surrounding blasphemy laws in Finland reflect an ongoing tension between protecting religious sentiments and ensuring freedom of speech. Finnish courts have been increasingly cautious about applying blasphemy laws, particularly in a modern, secular society. In many cases, the right to free expression prevails, especially when speech is non-violent and does not incite hatred. However, the courts continue to struggle with balancing these interests, particularly in cases involving online speech, artistic expression, and religious offense.
RELATED Blog
comments