Religious Intolerance And Criminal Law Protections
Overview:
Religious intolerance involves discrimination, harassment, or violence against individuals or groups based on their religion or beliefs.
Most modern legal systems, including Finland, provide criminal law protections to uphold religious freedom.
Legal basis in Finland:
Finnish Constitution: Guarantees freedom of religion (Section 11) and equality (Section 6).
Penal Code: Criminalizes hate speech, incitement, and assault when motivated by religion (Chapters 11–17).
International law:
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 9 – freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 18.
Key Issues:
Hate speech and incitement to violence against religious groups.
Physical assaults and vandalism targeting places of worship.
Discrimination in employment or services based on religion.
Conflicts between freedom of expression and protection of religious communities.
Case Examples
Case 1: Finnish Supreme Court – Religious Insult on Social Media (2016)
Facts:
Individual posted derogatory comments targeting Muslims on a social media platform.
Court Proceedings:
Prosecuted under hate speech provisions of the Finnish Penal Code.
Court considered intent, reach, and severity of the statements.
Outcome:
Conviction upheld; sentence included fines and mandatory apology.
Significance:
Reinforces that online speech targeting religious groups can constitute a criminal offense.
Case 2: Finnish District Court – Assault Against a Religious Minority (2017)
Facts:
A man attacked a Sikh community member in Helsinki, citing religious bias as motivation.
Court Proceedings:
Court evaluated evidence of intentional targeting due to religion.
Assault charged under general criminal assault and aggravated hate crime provisions.
Outcome:
Conviction for aggravated assault; enhanced sentence due to religious motivation.
Significance:
Demonstrates that Finnish courts treat religion-based motivation as an aggravating factor.
Case 3: European Court of Human Rights – Kokkinakis v. Greece (1993)
Facts:
Jehovah’s Witness convicted for proselytizing in Greece without authorization.
Court Proceedings:
ECHR examined freedom of religion vs. national restrictions.
Outcome:
Court ruled that the conviction violated Article 9 (freedom of religion).
Highlighted that restrictions must be necessary, proportionate, and non-discriminatory.
Significance:
Established key precedent protecting minority religious expression from undue criminalization.
Case 4: Finnish Supreme Administrative Court – Denial of Religious Accommodation (2018)
Facts:
Muslim employee requested prayer breaks; employer denied them.
Employee alleged discrimination and filed criminal complaint for violation of equality and harassment.
Court Proceedings:
Evaluated employer responsibility and workplace protections.
Outcome:
Court ruled in favor of employee; harassment recognized, and employer ordered to provide accommodation.
Significance:
Shows intersection of criminal law, labor law, and religious freedom protections.
Case 5: Finnish District Court – Vandalism of a Mosque (2019)
Facts:
Unknown assailants defaced a mosque with hate symbols.
Court Proceedings:
Investigated as property damage with religious motivation under the Penal Code.
Outcome:
Conviction included fines and restitution; court emphasized religious motivation as aggravating factor.
Significance:
Criminal law in Finland enhances penalties for property crimes targeting religious institutions.
Case 6: European Court of Human Rights – Singh v. France (2013)
Facts:
Sikh man fined for wearing a religious turban in professional photos for a government ID.
Court Proceedings:
ECHR examined balance between secular regulations and religious freedom.
Outcome:
Court ruled in favor of applicant; restrictions violated Article 9 (freedom of religion).
Significance:
Demonstrates courts’ attention to reasonable accommodation of religious practices in state-regulated contexts.
Case 7: Finnish Supreme Court – Hate Speech Against Christians (2020)
Facts:
Individual distributed leaflets disparaging Christian beliefs in public spaces.
Court Proceedings:
Prosecuted under hate speech provisions; defense argued freedom of expression.
Outcome:
Conviction upheld; court noted speech targeted a religious community and incited intolerance, making it criminal.
Significance:
Confirms that hate speech laws protect all religious groups, not only minorities.
Key Legal and Policy Insights
Religious motivation is an aggravating factor in assault, vandalism, or harassment.
Hate speech against religious groups is criminalized, both online and offline.
Freedom of expression does not excuse targeted religious intolerance.
Courts balance religious freedom with public order, ensuring proportionality.
Minority religions receive strong protections, including workplace accommodations.
International case law (ECHR) influences Finnish jurisprudence, particularly in freedom of religion disputes.
These seven cases demonstrate how criminal law protects religious freedom, punishes intolerance or hate crimes, and balances expression rights against protection of communities.
RELATED Blog
comments