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.

I did see a story where a gay man beat a woman so badly she was hospitalised. She texted a friend about what had happened and used a homophobic slur describing the attack. The friend then reported her to the police and she was charged with a hate crime and dragged to court. Idk where in UK that was tho

I was startled by that list, too. Shouldn't it include things like race, sex and marital status? It looks like the Scottish government thinks its entire population is 'LGBTQIA'.

It's a horrible story. The word she used was 'faggot'. She was concussed. No-one was prosecuted for the assault.

www.msn.com/en-gb/crime/general/terrified-and-naked-mum-of-four-arrested-after-texts-branded-hate-speech/ar-AA1RC2ta

Race was already covered by existing legislation, and marital status is something of a second tier protected characteristic under the Equality Act (it's only protected in the workplace, and there's no protection from perceptive or associative discrimination).

So the only stand-out omissions are sex (such as female sex) and non-religious belief (such as GC belief). Funny, that 🤔

Was he gay? The MSN article doesn't say he was gay, and of course the women said she was not claiming he was gay by using the word 'faggot'.

When I was a child we used the word 'faggot', meaning an annoying person - 'stop annoying me, you little faggot' would just mean 'you annoying little so-and-so'.

It derived from 'faggot' meaning a bundle of sticks, i.e. something of low value.
In parts of England, it's a kind of meatball. But when we used it, it only meant an annoying person.

So the explanation given
Kinney maintains she had no intention of using the word as hate speech. She explained that in her local area, the word is used as slang for a 'weak person' rather than a reference to sexuality. 'It was never about anyone's orientation,' she said. 'It's just a word people here use when someone acts out or causes trouble.'
seems perfectly valid and verifiable, and if her assailant[s - there was more than one] was not gay, that would make it even more likely she was using the word in a traditional, colloquial, regional way.

Maybe there was more to the text message which made it clear that she was using 'faggot' as a homophobic slur, but even then - 11 police officers to arrest and charge her, resulting in a 12-month community order, 72 hours of unpaid work, 10 rehabilitation activity days, and a £364 fine, was outrageous.

This happened in Dec 2025 - I didn't know about it at the time.

Tbf, although I agree it would be quite plausible to use the term 'faggot' when talking to a young child, I think when you're talking about an adult, the meaning is pretty clear. But of course, the way she was treated was disgraceful. She should not need to justify herself.

So what's the punishment for calling a woman a bitch or a slag? And when you're not being physically assaulted by her?

Yes as a kid I heard it used in school. I can't believe she was convicted, on the info you told me.

Are UK citizens living in a world where if they make an edgy joke with their brother or a discussion on ethnic groups in their own home can they be prosecuted for it?

That's terrible. He probably got away with it by accusing her of a hate crime. Like that's worse than being beat

If I remember the report rightly, she was telling a friend[s] in a text message that she had been assaulted, and used the word in reference to the man who had attacked her.
She didn't speak it in public, she was not addressing the man in question, and as [as far as I can see] he was not gay, so it's as likely as not that she was using it as many of us have heard it used informally.

But even if she did use it as a homophobic slur - in a private message, in a moment of distress, fear and pain - the punishment was unbelievably disproportionate.

Didn't this happen in Nazi Germany ? Report your friends, report your family

It's hugely disproportionate

My understanding is that it wasn't a friend as such but someone she blamed for the attack on her by the man. So I think that person then went running to the police for the hate speech against her violent friend/family member. Still really really wrong that the police responded to that and not the initial attack.

If it was a paying speaking engagement she might need a visa rather than an ETA in any case.

It's a point of view. I don't agree with it - and scriptural support for it is dubious - but that doesn't mean she should not be able to say it. There is no right not to be offended.

This is a very worrying case. No-one appears to have been charged with the assault on this woman.

Reminds me of the treatment of Henry Novak.

The Scottish government have been very clear that it must be possible to prosecute someone for hate speech even if they spoke to someone in their own home. So the scenario of a parent expressing their gender critical views in a discussion or argument with their teenager, and the teenager bringing a complaint against them, which leads to an arrest and prosecution, is a very real one. You could also be prosecuted for lending a friend a "transphobic" book, and your home could be searched for evidence, no doubt including your phone and laptop being confiscated.

God rest his soul.

The prosecution was for republishing it in 2019

My opinion on it is 1 she was speaking scientifically 2 she believes orientation can be shaped in adolescence and that the default is heterosexual. If you believe it or not, does her opinion warrant a charge ? I think its important to have free speech, and then we can all really learn from each other.

From what I've read, she was found guilty BECAUSE she was speaking scientifically. If she had said "In Genesis God created humans male and female and ordained that they should live together in pairs, therefore homosexuality is an aberration" I think she would have got off. There is some protection for religious belief, but not for scientific belief.

She was speaking scientifically in the sense that she claimed that homosexuality is a scientifically proven disorder of psychosexual development and genetic degeneration. But that's not really scientific is it? Its nonsense. And even more concerning when she is a doctor by profession so can be viewed as speaking from medical knowledge.
Claiming something as fact that isn't is quite different to expressing a religious belief (while the beliefs may be "fact" to the believer everyone else knows they are just beliefs) so probably doesn't fall under the same protections as religious beliefs.