Finland, the UK and freedom of speech

[Turmericisfashionable]

The Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen has strong religious views on homosexuality (and some other issues, including abortion). Over 20 years ago she wrote a pamphlet called "Male and Female He Created Them – Homosexual Relationships Challenge the Christian Concept of Humanity" . In the pamphlet, she described homosexuality as a "sexual deviation" and an "aberration of psychosexual development".
She and her publisher (a Lutheran bishop) have very recently been prosecuted for this (so over 20 years after publication), for hate speech against gay people. They were convicted by Finland's Supreme Court. Päivi Räsänen is now taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
She has now been denied clearance to travel to the UK, she assumes because of her conviction, as has the Lutheran bishop publisher. She is supposed to give a speech at a religious freedom conference in Belfast in August.

' she described homosexuality as a "sexual deviation" and an "aberration of psychosexual development".

'sexual deviation' is technically accurate, I think - I deviate from the majority sexual orientation and who knows why I alone out of my family turned out lesbian - possibly 'an aberration of psychosexual development', who knows?

I've been called worse, and in more dangerous situations, e.g. threatened by a group of violent young men calling me a dirty dyke. [I escaped unhurt, they ran away when some other people approached where they had me cornered ].

I've also developed a thick skin about being told by religious people that my homosexuality is sinful. A lot of religions have that written into to their 'terms and conditions', I'd be in a constant state of outrage if I paid attention to all the 'homosexuality is an abomination against God's will and the natural order' attitudes in the world.

I would love it if people stopped having those attitudes to me and my sexual orientation, but as long as the constitution and legislation and society in general protect my human rights as a lesbian, I just grit my teeth and think here we go again🙄 when I encounter homophobic views, whether motivated by religion or just plain ol' prejudice.

I think it's a can of worms if you start criminalising [that's probably not the correct legal term] the expression of things that are part of widely-held religious beliefs- see the thread about Kirralie Smith, who campaigned against marriage equality in the past, and now campaigns for women's sex-based rights, from an avowedly Christian position.

She has been fined heavily for saying that a transwoman is a man. Australian law calls that 'vilification'. Others would call it free speech.

I would be uncomfortable supporting her right to call a transwoman a man, because I agree with it, but denying her right to say - like Päivi Räsänen - that gay marriage is wrong, because I disagree with it.

.

What I find interesting is that if you asked the average Russian or Chinese whether they have freedom of speech then they would strongly argue that they do. Whereas other countries (Western) would be of the opinion that no they don't. The Chinese or Russian authorities claim that there is freedom of speech but some people are typically arrested for "Disrespecting State Authorities" in Russia or "Inciting Subversion of State Powers ".

Similarly in the UK if you asked the average person whether there is freedom of speech then they would strongly argue that there is. However the view from people in other countries such as the US or Australia or even Russia they would be of the opinion that no they don't. The UK authorities claim that there is freedom of speech but some people are
arrested people typically for "hate speech " or "incitement to violence ".

Ahhh but it's different will be the response but there seems to be a fair dollop of hypocrisy going on here.

West European governments arrest people for online words to cause all online users to self- censor.

I’m surprised by this one, because it sounds a lot like an internal church matter.
I ought to be able to criticise my church for taking a public position on all sorts of things. I should be able to argue against them organising a pro Palestine, Israeli solidarity, pro life, pro women’s rights, Reform take back our country, or any other kind of march.

Isn't this a case of she just doesn't qualify for the ETA due to what's happened? With a criminal record which I'm assuming this classes as ETA is not the correct method and would need a Visa instead.

I find her beliefs offensive but she should not be criminalised for them. It’s a slippery slope and inevitably it leads to those with the most power deciding what it is right or wrong to say or believe.

Maybe, but she was convicted in March and ETA was approved in June and then cancelled in July. The UK authorities explained that the information provided in her application suggested she was “not eligible for an ETA”.

So they changed their minds, without new information, for some reason.

There is a distinction, dependent on whether state or non-state actors are involved. One of the infuriating things about the Amnesty débâcle is that they departed from their founding goal of holding state actors to account for abusing the rights of individuals - including by criminalising criticism of the state itself.

Non-state actors (individuals and NGOs) should be free to express any opinion and lobby for any law change, provided they don't incite or commit crime. Creating a shit list of 'anti-rights' actors ignores that most of them are arguing for a rebalancing of rights within the existing internationally agreed rights framework (and even the ones that want to change the framework should be met with arguments, not silenced).

'Hate' shouldn't even be a word in the law, except for sentencing guidelines, where it's relevant to deterrence, recidivism, and the need for rehabilitation and reparation.

Would hate speech laws have stopped the Holocaust, Srebrenica, or Rwanda? No, because they weren't about hurty words, but violent people (state-backed, in two out of three cases).

The Finnish politician

Who - outside (or outwith) the UK has no rights in UK law.

I agree with many on here that we should be able to say what we think and believe without being hassled by the police, dragged through the courts and fined and/or imprisoned. As long as we are not inciting violence. I worry about the way that things are going in the UK, with the Scottish Hate Crime Act, in relation to "insults" in particular. It's easy for the courts to interpret these things in the way that the government in power wants them to. This legislation was brought in by a government that was (and still is) extremely focused on trans rights.

4Offences of stirring up hatred
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)the person—
(i)behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or
(ii)communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and
(b)either—
(i)in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or
(ii)a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group.

The protected characteristics are:

(a)age,
(b)disability,
(c)religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation,
(d)sexual orientation,
(e)transgender identity,
(f)variations in sex characteristics.

No one should be arrested for an ideological view. In fact all points of view should be encouraged for reasonable debate. Free speech matters.

And its exactly what the UK has lost. People are scared to say jokes at this point. They don't know what they are not allowed to say. Self- censorship, as intended.

West Europe too

I hate the idea that someone can be prosecuted for what they've said or written (is that hate speech right there?) even if it's very unpleasant. That's up to the point where they're advocating violence, and I don't think calling down damnation from God (one's own God, that is) reaches that point. The line between what's legal and what isn't is always going to be extremely fuzzy, and in fact Päivi Räsänen was only convicted by a single vote on their Supreme Court.

And once the machine to enforce the right kind of speech gets put into action, who'll be at the controls, someone you like or someone you don't? Apparently in Scotland that's a problem to be faced. This looks like the kind of solution that could easily get worse than the problem.

Wasn't aware of this about Scotland. Who's backing it ?

Doesn't the bible say that men having sex is an abomination? Is the bible banned in Finland?

Ridiculous. I agree that unless inciting violence (or harassing people), expressing views even I disagree with them shouldn't be banned.

Doesn't the bible say that men having sex is an abomination?

As ever, the immediate question back is "Which one ?"

I don't think its a real sin, or anything

Someone found guilty can be sent to prison for up to 7 years!

It was brought in by the SNP / Greens government. There are loads of places where you can go to submit a complaint, apparently. One of them being a sex shop in Glasgow. There was a lot of encouragement for people to complain.
I think they were anticipating lots of successful prosecutions of Terfs. But on the day the legislation came into force, JK Rowling published an open letter in which she called various well-known transwomen men, and challenged the government to go for a prosecution. She also said that she would financially support any woman who was charged due to calling transwomen men. This seems to have had a chilling effect on the legislation, but it's there in law, and JKR won't be around forever.

JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over Scottish hate crime law - BBC News

I remarked a while back

"Free speech for everyone! Except Nazis, of course!"
"But who decides who's a Nazi?"
"We do!"

Not wanting to derail this thread, but is it the case that sex is not a protected characteristic under this Scottish hate crime legislation, and neither is philosphical belief?

That's right. Though the Scottish government have supposedly decided to add women at some point.

But I imagine they'll want transwomen to be included in that, and will draft it accordingly.

They are not actually. The UK turns down visa applications all the time. Including from Muslins. We have a right to do this.

The man you are talking about is a UK citizen who had been in prison (not for hate speech but for promoting democracy) for a long time. I am ambivalent at the idea of letting non-citizens (like this Finnish woman) into the UK. I also feel uncomfortable with their own countries (Finland) prosecuting them on the basis of their words.

A better equivalent would be if KJK for example wasn't allowed back into the country after visiting elsewhere because some trans activists accused her of hate speech. That would be an aberration. It would be more of an aberration if she had been arrested elsewhere. I am against homophobia. But I don't think UK citizens (Christian, Muslims whoever) accused of homophobia or trans phobia etc should have their rights as citizens removed

We don't have freedom of speech in the UK.

We have freedom of expression under UK law. And it's qualified not absolute. However I agree that a UK person in the UK should have the right to call gay sex an abomination, or say that trans women are men. I also don't think anyone should have their citizenship removed for their words, even when those words exceed the limits of freedom of expression (eg inciting violence).