Päivi Räsänen’s Case Heads to Strasbourg, Testing the Boundaries of Free Speech in Europe

Newsroom (04/06/2026 Gaudium Press )  For years, Europe has defined itself by a strong commitment to freedom of expression—the right to voice even unpopular or uncomfortable views, so long as they do not incite violence. But as legal categories around “hate speech” have expanded, this principle has come under pressure.

At the center of that tension is Päivi Räsänen, Finland’s former Minister of the Interior, who is now taking her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. After nearly seven years of legal proceedings, her case has grown beyond a national dispute into a broader European debate over who sets the limits of acceptable speech.

Below is a detailed interview with Räsänen, in which she reflects on her legal battle and its wider implications.

Interview

After nearly seven years of legal proceedings and a narrow 3–2 ruling, what do you believe your case says about the current state of freedom of expression in Europe?

Päivi Räsänen:
My case shows clearly that there is a crisis of free speech in Europe. Nobody should face years of criminal prosecution and be convicted for peacefully sharing their beliefs. Freedom of expression is endangered by “hate speech” laws that are highly subject to interpretation. These laws make it possible for states to silence dissent and censor those who disagree with prevailing social norms.

You were acquitted twice, and now the Supreme Court has reached a different conclusion. What has changed: the legal interpretation or the political and cultural climate?

Päivi Räsänen:
What happened shows the inherent flaws with the vague and subjective “hate speech” law that was used to charge and convict me. Over six years, my case was considered by 11 judges across three Finnish courts.

At the Supreme Court, I was convicted, in a narrow 3–2 ruling, of “hate speech” for the church booklet I wrote decades ago, peacefully expressing my views on marriage and sexuality. Thankfully, I was acquitted regarding my Bible tweet.

The fact that three judges in the Supreme Court came to a different conclusion on the same set of facts as the eight other judges who assessed my case shows just how broadly this legislation can be interpreted and the extreme danger this poses for free speech. I would still say it was incorrectly interpreted in this case, as my expression was entirely lawful.

Your critics argue that this case is not about religious freedom but about protection against hate speech. Where do you believe the line between those two concepts lies?

Päivi Räsänen:
A free society cannot equate disagreement with a crime. Yet in my case, that is what “hate speech” laws have made possible. I was found guilty of “insult” for a publication in which I peacefully shared my Christian beliefs and stated explicitly that we are all equal before God.

My booklet did not cause any harm, and the Supreme Court admitted that it did not contain incitements to violence or comparable threats. And yet I was still criminally convicted, alongside Bishop Juhana Pohjola and the Luther Foundation Finland.

These laws grant the state the power to define “hate” in line with a particular ideology rather than remaining neutral—and to punish those who disagree. My case shows that such legislation has no place in a free society.

The Supreme Court acquitted you over your Bible-related social media posts but convicted you over a pamphlet written more than twenty years ago. How do you interpret that distinction?

Päivi Räsänen:
It is a very unclear distinction. I was acquitted for my post because I was using religious language to respond to a relevant social issue. However, the court did not apply the same assessment to the booklet, which contains over 20 scripture references and was written to help members of my church understand the debate over the redefinition of marriage in Finland at the time.

To justify my conviction, the Supreme Court isolated specific phrases from the broader context of the booklet, distorting its meaning. If a 20-year-old booklet written for my church community can be criminalised on such grounds, it should raise concerns about how “hate speech” laws are being used.

Are you concerned that cases like this could create a climate of self-censorship among politicians, journalists, or citizens?

Päivi Räsänen:
I am very concerned about the chilling effect on free speech that could be caused by my conviction. If a high-profile politician like myself can be made an example of and criminalised for peaceful expression, there is a real risk that ordinary citizens across Europe could feel afraid to voice their beliefs.

This is contrary to a free, democratic society. However, it is my hope that my case can also have the opposite effect—that many people will gain a renewed appreciation of the importance of free speech and feel emboldened to speak the truth.

You have announced an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. What do you hope to find in Strasbourg that you did not find in Finland?

Päivi Räsänen:
I hope that the European Court of Human Rights will protect my own and every person’s right to freedom of expression. This right is protected under international law and is the foundation of any democracy.

I pray that by overturning my conviction, the Court will affirm the fundamental importance of free speech across Europe and prevent others from experiencing the kind of criminal prosecution I have faced over the last seven years.

Do you see your case as a specifically Finnish episode, or as a precedent that other European countries could follow?

Päivi Räsänen:
I am not alone in Europe in being punished for expressing my beliefs. Many European countries have ambiguous “hate speech” laws that are being used to criminalise peaceful expression.

My conviction exemplifies a worrying movement against free speech in Europe, both at the national level and in EU legislation such as the Digital Services Act. My case is an important opportunity for the European Court to stop this trend.

Over the years, you have argued that this case goes beyond your personal situation. Who decides today which ideas can be expressed publicly?

Päivi Räsänen:
No state should be able to decide which beliefs can or cannot be peacefully expressed. In my case, the state has used “hate speech” legislation for this censorial purpose.

This creates a society in which fundamental freedoms are threatened, where people live in fear about what they can say, and where those who disagree with prevailing views are punished or silenced.

What question do you think Europe still avoids asking about this case?

Päivi Räsänen:
European leaders must ask themselves whether they still believe in upholding the freedoms of those with whom they disagree.

Across Europe, states are favouring secular and other perspectives over Christian beliefs. In my case, a Christian understanding of marriage and sexuality has been censored for not aligning with modern secular ideas.

If the Christian roots of our societies are rejected, the values that emerged from them—liberty, human rights, dignity—may also weaken. I am convinced that the people of Europe still believe in these freedoms, and I hope the European Court will uphold its longstanding commitment to free speech.

Conclusion

As Päivi Räsänen’s case moves to Strasbourg, it places the European Court of Human Rights at the center of a defining question for the continent: how far can governments go in regulating speech without undermining the very freedoms they seek to protect?

The answer could shape not only one politician’s legacy, but the future of public debate across Europe.

• Raju Hasmukh with files from European Conservative