ARGUABLY the most significant reflection so far on the egregious conviction of Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen for ‘hate speech’ has come from an unlikely source – an Anglican theologian.
On Christian Today Dr Martin Davie argues that the international media coverage of the case has largely failed to get to grips with the underlying cultural reasons for Räsänen’s conviction.
On March 26, Finland’s Supreme Court found the former Interior Minister (equivalent of the Home Secretary) guilty on a 3-2 verdict of the crime of incitement against a minority group because of what she had written in a 2004 pamphlet, Male and Female He Created Them – Homosexual Relationships Challenge the Christian Concept of Humanity.
Davie provides a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court judgment against Räsänen, who has just announced her intention to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. The offence for which she was convicted is spelled out in paragraphs 45-47, 51 and 57-58 of the judgment where she is referred to as ‘A’.
In paragraphs 45-47 the judgment declares: ‘A has stated, among other things, that the underlying cause of sexually abnormal emotional life is disorders related to psychosexual development and that the scientific evidence inexorably demonstrates that homosexuality is a disorder of psychosexual development. She has denied the claim that homosexuality is a natural and healthy variation of sexuality. She has also stated that under certain conditions it is possible that sexual identity will be integrated towards a normal heterosexual emotional life and found that gay culture is part of the sexual abnormality as a whole.’
The judgment goes on to quote the 2020 ‘expert opinion’ of the National Institute for Health and Welfare which the court claims ‘shows that, according to modern medicine (psychiatry), homosexuality is considered to be part of the normal spectrum of sexuality’.
The judgment continues: ‘It is not considered a physical or mental illness or a comparable disorder, and there are no medical grounds to characterise homosexuality as a psychosexual developmental disorder, psyche disorder, developmental disorder or developmental abnormality in relation to heterosexuality or psychopathological disorder or perversion.
‘The claim of homosexuality as a disorder of psychosexual development is thus, in the light of the prevailing medical perception, an incorrect claim that can be considered insulting homosexuals.’
Davie argues that the judgment makes three things clear. First, Räsänen was found guilty of making a supposedly scientifically incorrect statement about the nature of homosexuality, namely, that it was ‘a disorder of psychosexual development’.
Secondly, the reason her statement must be ruled incorrect is because the Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare said in 2020 that ‘there are no medical grounds to characterise homosexuality as a psychosexual developmental disorder’.
Thirdly, because her incorrect view could contribute to psychologically harmful ‘discriminatory attitudes’ to homosexual people, she was therefore guilty of the crime of incitement against them.
‘These three things point in turn to three ideas that have become dominant both in Finland and in the Western world in general,’ Davie declares.
The first idea is that science is ‘god’ in the sense of the supreme and indisputable arbiter of truth. For the Finnish judges, the correctness or incorrectness of Räsänen’s theology was irrelevant. That was just her religious opinion. If she had simply said that those engaging in same-sex activity were sinners against God and would be damned at the last judgment, there would have been no problem. It is because she has refused to ‘follow the science’ (to use the phrase popularised during the covid event) that she has become criminally liable.
The second idea is that science is a god who declares truth through authorised sources. Just as in the past statements by the Church would be regarded as authoritative, now it is the statement of the ‘National Institute for Health and Welfare’ (and parallel bodies in other countries) to whose judgement all must submit.
The third idea is that even if an individual has not incited harm to the lives or property of a group of people, they can nevertheless be regarded as guilty of criminal activity if they cause psychological harm by making ‘incorrect and insulting statements’ against such people (what is sometimes referred to by the shorthand term ‘hate speech’).
Davie, an upholder of the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage, concludes: ‘This victim-centred authoritarianism is precisely what we see on display in the conviction of Räsänen. Dissent is being criminalised by a liberal state to protect the alleged victims of conservative Christian teaching. Cultural, or in this case, legal power is being used to shut down scientific discussion.
‘What all this means is that in their response to the conviction of Räsänen, Christians need to be specific in their criticism. Rather than appealing in general terms to the need to protect freedom of speech, Christians need to explain the specific reasons why her conviction was problematic along the lines I have sketched out in this article.’
