Unpacking the EU Digital Services Act

Man on his phone in a digital realm design
Man on his phone in a digital realm design

Given the impact of digital services on the online and offline world, states, or, in this case, a supranational union with delegated powers, are increasingly seeking to regulate this domain. We live in an age where Big Tech holds unprecedented power—the annual revenue of these giants economically places them ahead of many states’ annual budgets. The DSA is the EU’s first comprehensive and binding regulation of digital service providers in more than twenty years.

What is the Digital Services Act?

Although it purports to create “a safe online environment,” the DSA is among the most dangerous censorship regimes of the digital age.

The DSA is a legally binding regulatory framework that gives the European Commission authority to enforce “content moderation” on very large online platforms and search engines (those with more than 45 million users per month) that are established, or offer their services, in the EU.

Most of its provisions came into force in February 2024. Platforms that fail to comply with the regulation face massive financial penalties and even suspension. Through the platform’s compliance with the DSA, individuals can suffer censorship, suspension from online platforms, and criminal prosecution (under national law).

The stated objective of the DSA is “ensuring a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, addressing the dissemination of illegal content online and the societal risks that the dissemination of disinformation or other content may generate, and within which fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the EU] are effectively protected, and innovation is facilitated”.

The Commission claims that the DSA creates “legal certainty,” “greater democratic control,” and “mitigation of systemic risks, such as manipulation or disinformation”—but, in reality, it is an authoritarian censorship regime antithetical to democracy.

Why is the DSA an extreme threat to fundamental freedoms?

The DSA requires platforms to censor “illegal content,” which it broadly defines as anything that is not in compliance with EU law or the law of any Member State (Article 3(h)). This could result in the lowest common denominator for censorship across the whole EU. Furthermore, authoritarian governments could adopt the blueprint, claiming that Western liberal states endorse it.

The DSA is deeply flawed. It is built on the idea that “bad speech” is best countered by censorship rather than robust discussion. Furthermore, the DSA gives the European Commission broad power over how platforms handle speech, which undermines the free expression essential to democratic societies.

If a censorship law such as the DSA is the “gold standard,” as the Commission has praised its own construct, authoritarian governments of the world will readily adopt the model.

Allowing “illegal content” to potentially be determined by one country’s vague and overreaching laws pits the DSA against international law standards that require any restrictions on speech to be precisely defined and necessary. This is extremely problematic given the increasing number of absurd so-called “hate speech” laws potentially criminalizing peaceful speech throughout Europe.

  • Example 1: Germany’s highly controversial NetzDG Law, enacted in 2017, forces digital service providers to enforce sweeping online restrictions on certain kinds of content, linking to provisions of the criminal code and including the broad offence of “insult”. A person in Germany could see something “insulting” online that they claim is illegal under German law, file a complaint under the DSA, and trigger a take-down of the content for all countries in the EU, including countries where “insult” is not a criminal offense.

  • Example 2: The DSA forces digital service providers to block specific people or messages, even those that come from outside the EU, from being heard by Europe. A Latin American president says something that a German believes violates German law. Under the DSA, that speech could be blocked (“content moderated”) from all EU countries.

How does the DSA censor speech?

The DSA is at the heart of Europe’s censorship industrial complex, consisting of a number of interwoven regulations and codes that give an unaccountable bureaucracy broad power to censor speech. Censorship occurs through vast “content moderation” networks coupled with a powerful enforcement mechanism to force platforms to comply.

“Content Moderation”

The unelected and largely unaccountable Commission has positioned itself under the DSA to enable sweeping censorship in the name of “public safety” and “democracy”. It does this through a complicated mega-structure that allows the Commission to pull the strings of censorship, making private enterprises complicit and forcing them to comply with the threat of draconian fines.

The DSA creates a censorship industrial complex consisting of an expansive web of outsourced content flaggers, national coordinators, monitoring reporters, and other authorities, with the European Commission at its head. This is a business model dependent on finding content to censor and inconsistent with the standards of the rule of law.

The structure is intentionally unnavigable for the regular citizen to determine what is allowable speech. As platforms have the obligation to moderate content, the Commission can hide behind the DSA to claim that it itself is not censoring speech.

The DSA applies directly to all Member States without requiring national implementation. National regulators work with existing legal frameworks, and they create new structures to apply the DSA alongside domestic laws. In the event of a conflict, the DSA overrides national laws.

Content is policed by so-called “trusted flaggers,” including NGOs and private entities, and may even include law enforcement agencies like Europol. This deputizes organizations with their own agendas to enforce censorship at scale.

This system of “flaggers” reports content that they deem “illegal” to the platform. The platform must prioritize flagged content for removal. If the platform deems the content illegal, it must quickly remove it or disable access (by geo-blocking or hiding visibility).

Very large platforms also are obligated to proactively prevent “illegal content” by conducting regular risk assessments to identify how their services may spread “illegal content”. Under Article 34, these include “negative effects on civic discourse and electoral processes, and public security” and “effects in relation to gender-based violence, the protection of public health and minors and serious negative consequences to the person’s physical and mental well-being”. The efforts include: adapting their design, terms and conditions, algorithmic systems, advertising, content moderation, including for “hate speech,” and awareness-raising measures.

Enforcement

A powerful enforcement mechanism ensures compliance. Under the threat of enormous financial penalties and suspension, digital service providers are forced to censor and potentially suspend individuals, and individuals may even be criminally prosecuted.

Penalties for Individual Users:

  • If, after content is flagged, the platform deems it illegal after its own review, it must remove it or disable access and notify the account.

  • If individuals persistently post “illegal content,” platforms can suspend their accounts (after having issued a warning and with an obligation to be proportionate and for a reasonable period of time).

  • Every Member State has a designated Digital Services Coordinator to enforce compliance with the DSA. The Coordinator can seek court orders to rule on the “illegal” nature of content on platforms and then fine and potentially suspend online platforms. If a user posts content that the platform suspects violates criminal laws in so far as it is “involving a threat to the life or safety of a person or persons” (Article 18(1)), the platform is required to notify the police, triggering potential domestic prosecution.

    • This could happen under one of the many over-broad “hate speech” criminal laws in Europe. If the “hate speech” was subjectively determined to threaten the life or safety of a person or persons, it is possible that even peaceful speech without a real threat could be prosecuted (e.g., if, in the case of Päivi Räsänen, someone argued that her Twitter bible post endangered those who identify as LGBT).

Penalties for Platforms

  • Platforms evaluate content under the threat of crippling fines with every incentive to censor and none to uphold free speech. They face little to no punishment for unjustly banning content and enormous penalties if they refuse to censor.

  • If a platform refuses to remove or restrict access to “illegal content” after it has been flagged—especially by a “trusted flagger” or regulatory authority—the platform may face serious repercussions.

  • The Digital Service Coordinators have broad powers to investigate platforms, issue orders, impose fines, and escalate cases to the European Commission. When dealing with very large platforms, the Commission can override the Coordinators at any time, giving it direct control over censorship enforcement. For these platforms, the Commission has the same powers as the Coordinators but lacks the requirement of “independence” to which the Coordinators are subject. (Article 50(2)).

  • The Commission or national regulators can impose fines of up to 6% of the platform’s global annual turnover for non-compliance, amounting to billions. If non-compliance persists, platforms may face periodic penalty payments. Finally, it can restrict access to the platform within the EU or suspend operations.

Enhanced Enforcement

  • The planned “European Democracy Shield” will strengthen the DSA and impose even stricter regulations on online speech. Its stated aim is to protect the EU from foreign information manipulation and interference, particularly in the digital realm, focusing on the integrity of elections and political processes. Together with the DSA, it can be weaponized to target peaceful expression, further empowering unelected bureaucrats to censor.

  • The DSA grants emergency powers that allow the European Commission to demand additional censorship measures from online platforms during times of crisis, without sufficiently precise definitions or limitations.

    • Crisis is defined as “where extraordinary circumstances lead to a serious threat to public security or public health in the Union or in significant parts of it” (Article 36(2)); “Such crises could result from armed conflicts or acts of terrorism, including emerging conflicts or acts of terrorism, natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes, as well as from pandemics and other serious cross-border threats to public health” (para 91).

    • The Commission may adopt a decision requiring very large platforms to take certain actions in response to the crisis: 1) assess how their services contribute to a serious threat, 2) apply measures to prevent, eliminate, or limit the threat, 3) report back to the Commission on those measures.

    • The potential extraordinary measures it identifies are: “adapting content moderation processes and increasing the resources dedicated to content moderation, adapting terms and conditions, relevant algorithmic systems and advertising systems, further intensifying cooperation with trusted flaggers, taking awareness-raising measures and promoting trusted information and adapting the design of their online interfaces”. (para 91)

    • In a worst-case scenario, the European Commission could crack down on speech at will whenever it decrees a crisis and force platforms to “mitigate risks”. This would prevents citizens from accessing information and sharing views, handing extraordinary power to bureaucrats to control narratives in times of upheaval. 
Paul Coleman's quote concerning the EU and the US on the DSA and censorship.

Is there recourse for a censored individual or platform forced to comply with the DSA?

The DSA severely limits the power of national courts to protect citizens’ free speech rights. National courts become the censorship long arm of the Commission. International appeal is possible but costly and onerous.

Appeal Options for Individuals

A censored individual can try to appeal directly to the platform, use a certified out-of-court dispute resolution mechanism, or appeal to the Digital Services Coordinator. While the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies offer a relatively easy appeal option (5 euros for the individual to submit), their decisions are not binding, and the platforms are only required to engage in good faith. If the platform does not, it leaves the individual user with only more expensive and lengthy judicial recourse. Faced with that reality, many are likely to just submit to censorship or preemptively self-censor.

Judicial Recourse

Individuals or the platform can technically challenge censorship in national courts, but the courts are required to comply with Commission decisions. Article 82 states: a “national court shall not take any decision which runs counter to that Commission decision. National courts shall also avoid taking decisions which could conflict with a decision contemplated by the Commission in proceedings”.

Individuals or platforms can take their cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), but this is a complex and costly process with strict requirements. The CJEU system takes 1-2 years for a ruling, sometimes longer, and rarely grants interim relief measures.

Is the DSA a problem only for Europe?

The DSA is a digital gag order with global consequences because it can censor you no matter where you live. Because the DSA applies to “Very Large Online Platforms” and search engines accessed within the EU but with a global presence, DSA censorship impacts the entire world.

Extraterritorial Applicability

The DSA explicitly states its extraterritorial applicability as it covers platforms used by people “that have their place of establishment or are located in the Union, irrespective of where the providers of those intermediary services [the platforms] have their place of establishment”. (Article 2(1))

While the DSA states in Article 9(2)(b) that takedown orders should be “limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve its objective,” there remain grave extraterritorial concerns.

De Facto Global Censorship Standards

Platforms may be inclined to adapt their international content moderation policies to EU censorship. If platforms deem something “illegal” under EU rules, that content may be banned everywhere, even in countries with strong free speech protections.

In its letter to European Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee wrote: “Though nominally applicable to only EU speech, the DSA, as written, may limit or restrict Americans’ constitutionally protected speech in the United States. Companies that censor an insufficient amount of ‘misleading or deceptive’ speech—as defined by EU bureaucrats—face fines up to six percent of global revenue, which would amount to billions of dollars for many American companies. Furthermore, because many social media platforms generally maintain one set of content moderation policies that they apply globally, restrictive censorship laws like the DSA may set de facto global censorship standards.”

Europe in the Dark

Individuals outside of Europe could find themselves censored within Europe. This could happen to even a head of state or individual with enormous international reach. In the worst case, blocking content from reaching the 500 million inhabitants of the European Union has the potential to cut an entire continent out of the conversation—a draconian move with world-changing impact.

What is ADF International doing to challenge the DSA?

The DSA is irreconcilable with the human right to free speech. It must be repealed or substantially reformed to protect open discourse and fundamental freedoms in the EU and across the world. We cannot allow the DSA to become the global model for digital speech control.

ADF International is committed to challenging violations of free speech resulting from the DSA and building critical momentum to repeal or substantially reform this censorial framework. We are working to amend or strike down the parts of the DSA that undermine freedom of expression.

There is no disagreement that certain expression is illegal (e.g. child exploitation, incitement to terrorism) and every social media platform has a legal obligation to restrict this content. The DSA goes far beyond this. Instead, the DSA has created a censorship mega structure to ban “illegal content” without defining what “illegal content” is. Over time, this mega structure could censor speech that any person in any EU country considers “illegal” according to whatever law is either in force now or may be passed in the future. Behind the 100+ pages of complex legislation hides a blank cheque for censorship.

What can be done to challenge the DSA at the European level?

  • Equip Member States to initiate an action for annulment before the CJEU – Articles 277 and 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU): Grounds to invoke include the lack of competence of the Commission, an infringement of the Treaties and the EU Charter (free speech), and a misuse of powers. This could result in having the DSA or parts of it declared “inapplicable”.

  • Mobilize Member States in the Council to repeal the DSA through a political decision: Repealing legislation once adopted is very difficult, and the procedure is similar to that for adopting the legislation. The Commission could initiate the repeal, but that appears politically unlikely. Instead, Member States in the Council can build a critical mass and take action.

  • Preliminary reference procedure before the CJEU – Article 267 TFEU: In the course of national litigation, any party or the judge, ex officio, can raise a question of EU law, particularly on its interpretation. Such questions could include the conformity of the DSA (e.g., the definition of illegal content under Article 3(h) and the obligation to act against illegal content under Article 9(2)(b)) with Article 11 of the EU Charter (freedom of expression and information). The decision to submit the reference to the CJEU rests entirely with the national judge, except for the situation when the case is at the court of the last instance, and the question of interpretation of EU law is necessary to decide the legal question at issue.

  • Engage in the DSA review process: According to Article 91 of the DSA, by 17 November 2025, the Commission shall evaluate and report to the European Parliament, the Council, and the European Economic and Social Committee. The scope of this first review is limited, and it will be followed by another review in 2027 and then every five years.

The Finnish Line: The Supreme Case of Päivi Räsänen After 6 Years

Päivi Räsänen’s case has been ongoing for 6 years. Now her fate rests at the Finnish Supreme Court

A Nation Watches as One of Its Most Respected Leaders Goes to the Supreme Court for Speaking Her Faith

Päivi Räsänen’s case has been ongoing for 6 years. Now her fate rests at the Finnish Supreme Court

The case of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen is more than a legal battle; it’s a test of Europe’s commitment to democratic values.

As one of Finland’s most respected politicians, Päivi now faces the Finnish Supreme Court for peacefully expressing her Christian beliefs online.

Her story is a powerful reminder of what it means to be a Christian in today’s pervasive culture of censorship. It also demonstrates unwavering faith in the face of prosecution and punishment for so-called “hate speech”.

ADF International is proud to stand alongside Päivi as her legal ordeal reaches its 6th year.

A Life of Conviction

Päivi was still a very young girl when her parents decided she could go to the church in their small village of Konnunsuo, just inside the Finnish border from Russia. It’s a region known for hundreds of beautiful lakes and one less beautiful prison, where Päivi’s father worked, tending the gardens. While he and his wife were not Christians, they respected the faith and didn’t feel it would do little Päivi any harm to learn a bit of the Bible.

Time would prove them both wrong and right about that, but as a child, Päivi was fascinated with the things she learned in those Sunday morning classes.

“It was very, very affecting and important for me,” she remembers, nearly six decades later. “I was about 5 or 6 years old, and I remember well, even at that age, those talks the teachers shared with us about Jesus.”

Biblical concepts like grace and sin, salvation and judgment, she says, “were so concrete. Even as a small child, you have to think about these issues. And I remember praying that I would have my sins forgiven, and that Jesus would come into my life.”

How seriously Päivi took her new conversion became clear shortly afterward, when the prison warden came riding along the road by her family’s house on his bicycle. She urgently waved for him to stop. He did, looking down into her big, earnest, little-girl eyes to ask what was wrong.

“Do you love Jesus?” she asked. “You can’t get to heaven if you do not know Him.”

Embarrassed, the warden looked around and saw Päivi’s mother, standing nearby. “You should take your baby out of that Sunday school today!” he yelled. “Before she loses her mind!”

If her mother was concerned about her husband’s boss’s opinion, she didn’t show it. Päivi stayed in Sunday school. But it was by no means the last time Päivi spoke up for her faith. Or drew sharp opposition for doing so.

The Start of Päivi’s Career

Although she went to the University of Helsinki to study medicine, Päivi spent at least as much time there sharing her faith. For five years, she led a student missionary group in weekly door-to-door visits around campus, drawing other young people into discussions about moral values and cheerfully engaging them with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“It was an important time in my life,” she remembers, “an important schooling. Every week, I was discussing quite difficult issues with students from different backgrounds and areas of study. I had to think very thoroughly about how my faith stands — how the Bible stands — in the face of these difficult questions. I learned to discuss ideas. I learned to debate.”

Her extracurricular evangelism also changed her life in another way. Twice during those years, Päivi joined other Christian students from all over Finland on mission trips to London, led by a tall, smiling young man named Niilo Räsänen.

He and Päivi took a shine to each other, began to date, and soon were married. They went on to raise four daughters and a son, as Niilo became a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church and head of one of the denomination’s seminaries.

Päivi, meanwhile, went into general practice medicine. She quickly developed a reputation as both an excellent doctor and a thoughtful, outspoken defender of life.

“I had decided already during my studies that I would not end the life of a child in the womb,” she says. In her spare time, she wrote books and pamphlets on the subject. That led to television and radio appearances, where she drew on those debate skills she’d honed back in college. Her strong, winsome arguments began to attract wide attention. People asked if she was interested in standing for office — perhaps campaigning for a seat in Parliament.

“At first I refused,” she says. “I thought it was not my place.” But people continued to urge her to run … and one of those urging was her husband.

“Actually, I think I was the first,” Niilo says. “But she wasn’t interested.” One day, though, he drove her through Helsinki, past the building where Parliament met. He pointed at the building. “Look at your future workplace,” he told her.

The 1990s brought a severe economic recession to Finland. Päivi’s patients were hit hard by what was happening and often poured out their worries to her.

“I could see a lot of problems in people’s lives,” she says — problems born of what was happening in her country’s politics and culture. “I thought I would like to try and influence the society and improve the welfare of the people. To not only give them medicine, but to try to heal the consequences of these problems.”

A person in Parliament could do that, she decided. The next time someone suggested she stand for office, Päivi was ready. “I answered, ‘Yes.’”

Päivi as a Parliamentarian

Päivi Räsänen has served continually in the Finnish Parliament since 1995. For 11 of those years, she acted as chairman of the Christian Democrats, a party she chose for its support of her Christian values and unswerving opposition to abortion. For four years, she also served as her nation’s minister of the interior, overseeing internal national security and migration issues.

Päivi reading her Bible at parliament

“I have felt, very deeply, that this has been my calling,” she says. “I’ve been happy to have the opportunity to influence our society, our country, and to try to make better living conditions for people, especially families and children and the elderly.

“In some ways, it is very similar to working as a doctor. People come to you to talk about their problems, and then you try to find some solution. That’s been my work in Parliament.” She’s learned, she says, that “politics is one way to show love to your neighbour.”

You might think that attitude would have enhanced Päivi’s interactions with Finland’s religious leaders — “church affairs” was another aspect of her responsibilities as minister of the interior, and her work brought her into contact with most of the prominent clerics of her country.

Still, even knowing these leaders so well, she was stunned to learn, in the summer of 2019, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland — her own denomination and the one in which her husband served as a pastor — had pledged its full support for an upcoming Helsinki Pride event.

“I knew that our church at that time was already quite divided,” Päivi says, “and there was a lot of progressive liberal thinking among our pastors.” Still, “that the whole church leadership had decided to support the event, publicly and financially, was a strong disappointment to me — and to many other Christians.”

Many friends confided to her their intention to resign from the church. Päivi seriously considered joining them. “I was praying, ‘What should I do now? Should I leave the church, too?’”

The Tweet That Sparked a Trial

But, on her knees, her Bible open before her, “I received a very clear vision,” Päivi says, “that now was not my time to jump out of this sinking boat — that I should try to wake people up. I was especially worried about our young people losing their trust in the Bible, with the leadership of the church teaching something so much against what the Bible teaches.”

“What the Bible teaches.” After a moment, she reached for her cell phone, turned to Romans 1:24-27, and snapped a photo. She pulled up her X (formerly Twitter) account, attached the picture, called it to the attention of the Evangelical Lutheran leadership, and added one simple question:

“How does the doctrine of the church, the Bible, fit together with the fact that shame and sin are raised as a matter of pride?”

She pressed “Tweet.”

And her life changed, forever.

Explain this word, 'sin', she was asked.

Päivi’s communique thoroughly rocked “the boat” and woke up everyone in it. Including Päivi.

A few weeks after she had posted the tweet, she opened a newspaper and read — to her astonishment — that local police had received a complaint about her message and were investigating. Their evidence would determine whether the nation’s chief prosecutor would bring her to trial for her beliefs.

“At first, I didn’t believe it,” Päivi says. “I thought, ‘No, no, this must be from a summer intern who doesn’t know what he’s saying.’” But a call to her local precinct confirmed that officers were indeed looking into the matter. When could she come in and speak with them?

Over the next few months, Päivi would be required to sit for a total of 13 hours of police interrogation.

“It was an absurd situation,” she remembers, “sitting there in a small room in the station, being interrogated about my Christian beliefs.” The policeman asking questions kept an open Bible on the table between them. He pointed at it as he probed her theology: “What is Romans about?” “Tell me about the first chapter.” “Walk me through Genesis.” “Explain this word, ‘sin.’”

Päivi found the whole thing almost laughable. “Just a few years before, I was the [cabinet] minister in charge of police, and now I was sitting here, being interrogated.” But the people of Finland understood what was happening: one of the most well-known political figures in their country was being detained at police headquarters for quoting Scripture to bishops.

“Someone joked on social media that maybe we were going to have Bible studies at the police station,” Päivi says, smiling. “But … these discussions were very good. I had the opportunity to [share with] that policeman very thoroughly the teachings of the Bible, from Genesis to the message of the Gospel … because he asked me to.

“Do you really want to hear this?” she asked him. “Because this has been such an important book to me. When I read it, I understand the message of the Gospel: that Jesus has died for my sins.”

“It was lovely,” she says, smiling, “telling that to the policeman.”

She left an impression. “If it were up to me,” he told her, after their last discussion, “you wouldn’t be sitting here. I hope we don’t have to meet like this again.”

Charged With “Hate Speech”

They didn’t. But Päivi had to wait more than a year to learn that the Finnish prosecutor general was formally charging her with three counts of “agitation against a minority group” — one, for publicly voicing her opinion on marriage and human sexuality in a 2004 pamphlet distributed at her church; two, for comments she made on the same topics on a 2019 radio show; and three, for the tweet directed at the leadership of her church.

Under Finland’s criminal code, “agitation against a minority group” falls under the section of “war crimes and crimes against humanity” punishable by tens of thousands of dollars in fines — and up to two years in prison.

Päivi knows better than most the penalty for breaking this particular law. After all, she was a member of the Finnish Parliament when it unanimously adopted these changes to the country’s criminal code 13 years ago.

“In Finland, as in all European countries, you have a law that prohibits so-called ‘hate speech,’” says Elyssa Koren, legal communications director for ADF International. Like most such laws, she says, this one carries with it the possibility of criminal charges. That’s not all the laws have in common.

These laws are often presented, Koren says, as a way “to reduce social tensions, to curb hostility, to foster conditions of peace. It’s a very reductive way of looking at societal problems … the idea that if you have less ‘hate speech,’ you’ll have less hate.” Unfortunately, she says, the laws are also “vaguely worded, overly broad, and don’t define ‘hate.’”

“‘Hate,’ really, is just in the eye of the beholder,” she says. “And what happens is what we’ve seen with this case: people are prosecuted for perfectly peaceful expression in the name of preventing ‘hate.’” When the law was passed in the Finnish Parliament, “nobody was much aware what the consequences would be. Päivi’s case is the litmus test for how the law will be applied to religious speech.”

Päivi says she sees now that she and her colleagues underestimated the implications of the law they all voted for. Many serving with her in the Finnish Parliament, she says, believe that “if I were to be convicted, then we would have to change the law.

“I’m not the only one in Finland who has spoken and taught about these issues,” she says. “There are thousands and thousands of similar writings. If my writings are banned, then [many] sermons and interviews and writings would be in danger. If I were convicted, it really would start a time of persecution among Christians.”

Which, unfortunately, seems to be the idea.

“‘Hate,’ really, is just in the eye of the beholder.”

Päivi Räsänen

Faith Under Fire

Päivi and her co-defendant — Bishop Juhana Pohjola, who is charged with publishing the 2004 pamphlet on marriage and sexuality Päivi shared with her church — were stunned when the prosecutor opened her case against them by showing Bible verses on a courtroom screen. Her ignorance of Christian theology was palpable, and she made no secret of her determination to see Päivi and Bishop Pohjola punished for views so contrary to contemporary secular morality.

“It’s become clear,” Koren says, “that they are not prosecuting Päivi Räsänen … they’re really prosecuting the Bible and Christian beliefs at a very high level. What’s at stake is the fundamental question of whether people — particularly people in the public eye — have the freedom to voice their Christian convictions in the public space.”

“What the prosecutor essentially is calling for,” says Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, “is the criminalization of the orthodox Christian position on fundamental Christian doctrine regarding marriage, sexuality, sin, and so forth. It’s shocking to see such brazen anti-Christian legal argumentation within a criminal context.”

Even more unsettling, Coleman says, is the fact that “there’s nothing unique about the situation in Finland. It doesn’t have worse law than anywhere else. It has a better legal system than most places. If this can happen in Finland, it can happen in any Western country.”

In fact, he says, “the same censorial sentiments exist in the U.S. — at all heights of power. On almost every college campus. In all of the major companies, particularly Big Tech. They exist in much of the U.S. political system and in the mindset of many law professors.

That line — between what we’re seeing take place in Finlans and what could very soon happen in the U.S. — is far smaller than most people realize. Or want to admit.”

A Ruling Due Before the Supreme Court

In March 2022, the Helsinki District Court unanimously acquitted Päivi and Bishop Pohjola of all charges, saying, “It is not for the district court to interpret biblical concepts.” A month later, the prosecutor appealed that ruling — something she is allowed to do under Finnish law. In November 2023, the Helsinki Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court’s acquittal.

The prosecutor then appealed both decisions to the Finnish Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case.

What the prosecution has secured, Koren says, “is another year or two during which Päivi is still under this pressure. Her reputation and her integrity as a civil servant are clouded by the fact that she continues to be criminally prosecuted for her peaceful expression.”

Still, Niilo says, “We don’t worry. Whatever happens, we will take it as God’s will and see what comes next.”

Paivi and Paul

“It’s remarkable,” Päivi says, “how God uses this.” From the beginning, she says, “I had a deep, deep feeling this was in God’s hands, that He was opening a door. There’ve been so many opportunities to testify about Jesus … before these courts, in front of police officers, even to those who vehemently disagree with me. It’s given me a lot of joy.

“I’ve received messages from people who’ve told me that, as they’ve followed the trials and listened to my interviews, they’ve started to read the Bible and pray. They’ve found Christ.

“I got a call from a 22-year-old man who told me that he knew almost nothing about Christianity but was listening to a radio interview where I said, ‘If you want to know Jesus, you can pray, He will come into your life.’ He has been a Christian now for over two years. Jesus came into his life.”

As a lawyer who feels called to defend freedom of religion and speech,” Coleman says, “it’s been the great privilege of my career to be [able] to support and defend Päivi. I’m not exaggerating by saying she is, ultimately, the reason why we exist.

“She’s tough. Really tough. Yet … always smiling, always kind. Over the past five years, I’ve sat through two trials with her, sat around her kitchen table, seen her in every context in between. She’s just such an unbelievably authentic person. The same in every context, whether being cross-examined for her faith, or hosting us for dinner after the hearing.”

During one hearing, Coleman says, “the prosecutor — who, bear in mind, has said horrible things about her and wants to put her in jail — was visibly unwell. And, at one of the breaks, Päivi just went over to sit with her, ask how she was doing, connect with her on a human level.

“She wasn’t doing it for the cameras,” he says. “No one saw it. But I thought, ‘What a remarkable person this is.’ It’s just such a privilege to be called as a ministry to stand alongside her and say, ‘We’ve got your back.’”

“I have received much more during this legal process than I have lost,” Päivi says. “When I was young, I read from those texts where Jesus says that, when they take you in front of courts and kings, you’ll be His witness, and He will provide what to say. I could never have believed I would ever be in this kind of situation. But I think it’s increased my trust in God.

“What I’ve found is that what God has promised, He is faithful [to do]. He really works as He has said. Jesus is alive, and He stands by His word. And He is good.”

Conclusion: The Assault on Freedom of Expression

At the heart of Päivi’s case is a growing trend across Europe: the weaponization of vague and subjective “hate speech” laws to suppress peaceful expression. The implications of this case extend far beyond Finland. What does this mean for ordinary European citizens if a respected parliamentarian can be prosecuted for a tweet?

International law, and that of Finland, guarantees freedom of speech and religion, yet cases like Päivi’s show how these rights are increasingly being violated or reinterpreted to serve ideological ends. If she were to be convicted, it would mark a dangerous shift towards state control over individual freedoms.

The principle at stake is not whether one agrees with Päivi’s beliefs. It’s whether a European democracy can still allow space for diverse opinions in the public square. Once the state decides which views are acceptable and which are not, the door opens to widespread censorship.

Europe’s commitment to democracy demands better. The Finnish Supreme Court now has a decision to make, and the world is watching. Time will tell, but one thing is certain: Päivi Räsänen will not be silenced.

ADF International is honoured to stand by her side, just as we’ve done for the last six years.

Facebook’s Commitment to Winding Back Censorship

Zuckerberg announces censorship windbacks

Practice what you preach, allow free speech

Zuckerberg announces censorship windbacks

After we – and many other free speech groups – spent years sounding the alarm on the suppression of open conversation online, Mark Zuckerberg has this week committed to winding back censorship across all Meta platforms – including Facebook, Instagram, and Threads.

In a monumental announcement, the CEO admitted that the third-party “fact-checkers” employed to moderate content on Meta were “too politically biased”, and that it’s “time to get back to our roots around freedom of expression.”

This isn’t just good news for Instagrammers and influencers. It marks a sea change in the public landscape, indicating an expectation that our right to free speech will be honoured—whether on or offline.

We can celebrate this important milestone and will be watching closely to see if Zuckerberg follows through on his promises. But at ADF International, we’re still keenly aware that the threat to free speech comes not only from privately run internet platforms but also from governments.

Our Cases of Online Censorship

Take Päivi Räsänen. This Finnish member of parliament will soon be heading to a criminal trial at the Supreme Court because of a Bible-verse tweet she posted in 2019. It wasn’t a social media platform that censored her Christian view—it was the state authorities. The case is due before the Finnish Supreme Court this year.

Or take Chris Elston, a.k.a viral internet sensation Billboard Chris. Last February, he posted about his disapproval of the WHO’s selection of an infamous transgender activist to be on a panel setting guidelines for global transgender policy.

It wasn’t a social media platform that decided that his opinion shouldn’t be heard—it was the Australian authorities. We’re supporting his fight for free speech as he goes to court in March, alongside “X,” who wants to be able to host his viewpoint without government interference.

It’s easy to become discouraged as we live through an era where speaking the truth can land you in legal trouble. But this week, we mark yet another clear indication that we’re moving the needle in the right direction.

What Is the Censorship Industrial Complex and How is it Affecting Our Free Speech Rights?

The Censorship Industrial Complex and what you need to know

A Global "Censorship Industrial Complex" Demands a Global Response

The Censorship Industrial Complex and what you need to know

What was once confined to dystopian fiction has now become an undeniable reality; censorship has become one of the most pressing issues in our digital age. Under the banner of combating “mis-, dis-, and mal-information,” sweeping laws and regulations are being deployed to muzzle voices and suppress free expression on an unprecedented scale.

At its core, censorship is about power—who has it and who gets to decide what is said and what isn’t. This has led to what can be termed the “censorship industrial complex”—a robust and dangerous alliance of governments, international institutions, tech giants, media outlets, academic institutions, and advocacy groups collaborating to control the flow of information, primarily online.

Much like the “military-industrial complex” that US President Dwight Eisenhower warned about in 1961—an influential alliance between government and defence contractors—the “censorship industrial complex” suggests a similar coalition, this time with the intent to control public discourse. Eisenhower warned that when government and industry become too connected, they end up putting corporate or political interests above the public.

As said in the Westminster Declaration: “We understand that words can sometimes cause offence, but we reject the idea that hurt feelings and discomfort, even if acute, are grounds for censorship.” If we fail to address this growing web of censorship, the right to free speech will be chipped away, piece by piece.

How Global Censorship Laws Impact Free Speech Across Borders

The “censorship industrial complex” operates on a global scale, from the suppression of religious speech and political dissent in authoritarian countries to the increasing censorship of conservative or religious perspectives on social media in democratic countries.

The global fight for free speech has reached a critical point, complicated by the vast web of censorship laws across countries. Speech allowed in one country is restricted or criminalized in another, preventing people from sharing ideas across borders. 

And in democratic countries in Europe and the Americas, the threats to free speech are mounting and severe.

“Hate Speech” Legislation as a Tool for the Censorship Industrial Complex

This year, the Irish government debated a “hate speech” law that, if adopted, could criminalize the possession of “hateful” material with up to five years in prison. This law raised alarm among free speech advocates, who asserted that vague definitions of “hate” could lead to suppressing legitimate discourse.

In June, ADF International briefed Irish lawmakers on the dangers and gathered free speech advocates in Dublin to oppose the draconian bill. While the Irish government signalled it would not proceed with the bill, similar legislation likely will be attempted again in the future.

Similarly, in April, Scotland passed a law criminalizing “stirring up hatred” against protected categories, including transgender identity, with a possible seven-year prison sentence. This law also includes ambiguous terms that could criminalize speech perceived as “offensive”.

Wherever these laws are put in place, the term “hate” isn’t clearly defined, opening the door for anything deemed offensive to be categorized as a “hate crime.”

The free speech crisis is far from restricted to one bill in one country. As we’ve seen, restrictive legislation spreads and with it, the erosion of our fundamental freedoms.

Digital Censorship as a Cornerstone for the Censorship Industrial Complex

A peaceful online statement can lead to criminal charges or even prison time in many parts of the world, and the threat of financial penalties is used to pressure and intimidate tech giants like X to censor unwanted speech, leaving anyone at risk for sharing their beliefs.

ADF International is supporting the legal defences of several individuals whose free speech rights have been attacked at national and international levels. Their cases transcend national borders, emphasizing the international nature of the “censorship industrial complex”.

Our Legal Work Against Digital Censorship

Former Mexican congressman Gabriel Quadri was convicted of “gender-based political violence” for tweets on transgender ideology and fair play in female sports. Civil society leader Rodrigo Iván Cortés was convicted of the same for his peaceful expression. Both were sentenced to publish court-written apologies daily on social media and placed on an offender’s registry.

Finnish Parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen has faced charges, trials, and hours of police questioning since a 2019 tweet quoting the Bible’s Book of Romans, in which she questioned her church’s support of a Pride parade.

Citizen journalist and Canadian Billboard Chris was censored for tweeting the truth that a trans-activist shouldn’t serve on a World Health Organization panel for children. Australia’s “E-Safety Commission” tried to force X to take the post down and when X refused, they forced the platform to geo-block it.

Egyptian Father of five Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo has spent over two years in prison for being part of a Facebook group created for those interested in converting to Christianity.

In Nigeria, Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu was brutally killed by her classmates after she posted a message in a class WhatsApp group, thanking Jesus for helping her with her exams. Her murder was filmed and widely shared. Rhoda Jatau, who allegedly shared a video of Deborah’s killing, condemning it, was also accused of blasphemy. She spent 19 months in prison before being released on bail. In December 2024, following a two-and-a-half-year legal ordeal, a judge in Bauchi State, Nigeria, acquitted Rhoda Jatau of “blasphemy” charges.

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

“Online Safety” Clampdown in Europe

Two major pieces of online speech legislation were passed in Europe over the last two years: the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA).

The UK’s Online Safety Act aims to “combat harmful content online” by requiring platforms to moderate it or face penalties. However, it has the clear markings of censorship.

A U.S. Congressional Committee has criticized this law, along with the UK’s recent nationwide “buffer zones” legislation, calling it part of a “tsunami of censorship” threatening free speech in America.

The House Judiciary Committee pressed concerns about free speech in the UK and Europe highlighting on Twitter (X):

“Generally speaking, they require platforms to censor alleged hate speech and harmful content…The UK’s laws mirror or go beyond the EU’s laws & include Orwellian practices to investigate speech.”

The Financial Stakes and the Censorship Industrial Complex

“What do platforms risk if they don’t comply? Penalties are as high as six percent of global revenue from the EU’s DSA and 10% of global revenue from the UK’s OSA. Billions of dollars for most major platforms.

“The Digital Services Act and Online Safety Act enable bureaucrats in the EU and the UK to put platforms out of business. So now, social media companies and their employees are incentivized to overregulate speech on their platforms to preserve their business.”

ADF International’s Executive Director, Paul Coleman, stated, “If British politicians do not act to protect free speech, all other considerations aside, the UK will continue to suffer severe reputational harm on the world stage.”

Award-winning author and journalist Michael Shellenberger recently spoke at the European Parliament about the threats posed to free speech by the DSA at an event attended by ADF International. His message to the EU and President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen was simple: “Back off your attacks on freedom of speech.”

Our Georgia Du Plessis participated in a roundtable discussion at the Parliament with Shellenberger, MEP Fernand Kartheiser, and former MEP Rob Roos about the DSA and freedom of expression. ADF International is committed to ending the free speech crisis.

Online Censorship Under the Guise of Cybersecurity

Barbados is debating a cybercrime bill that could imprison people for up to seven years for causing “annoyance” or “emotional distress” online.

Under the proposed law, it would be a criminal offense to “publish, broadcast, or transmit data that is offensive” or share content that might subject someone to “ridicule, contempt, or embarrassment.” Even vague notions like “annoyance” and “inconvenience” could lead to prosecution.

Such laws will be used to stifle dissent, intimidate critics, and force self-censorship. The risk? Peaceful expression could be criminalized under the guise of cybersecurity.

We brought this issue before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, DC, emphasizing that freedom of speech is under direct threat.

While governments have a duty to combat real online crimes like hacking or incitement to violence, targeting “annoyance” crosses a dangerous line. These regulations, which are supposedly designed to protect the public, are increasingly being weaponized against the public.

The proposed legislation raises a critical question: who defines what is offensive or annoying? Without clear definitions, enforcement becomes arbitrary and ripe for abuse. History shows us how such vague laws can pave the way for authoritarian crackdowns on free speech.

The chilling effect is real: people self-censor to avoid crossing invisible lines and even face the threat of imprisonment.

Ban of ‘X’ in Brazil

Brazil has also been grappling with extreme censorship, making it one of the Americas’ most restrictive countries for free speech.

In August, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes blocked X in the country, citing concerns over “misinformation” and “hate speech” affecting the national elections. He didn’t want Brazilians freely engaging in dialogue online in such a way as to impact the elections, so he abused his office to shut down X.

ADF International filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights about the prohibition, representing five Brazilian legislators who were prevented from reaching their audience of millions ahead of a national election.

In September, over 100 global free speech advocates – including UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, journalist Michael Shellenberger, five US Attorneys General, and Senior UK, US, European, and Latin American politicians and professors united in an open letter to call for free speech to be restored in Brazil.

The United States’ Role in Dismantling the Censorship Industrial Complex

The incoming Trump administration is poised to tackle the global censorship issue.

President Trump’s first major policy statement since his victory outlined his plan to restore free speech. He asserts that this fundamental right has been diluted by federal officials who have worked with tech executives to suppress views they don’t like.

Documents uncovered through lawsuits and released by X owner Elon Musk reveal how US agencies collaborated with social media platforms to remove content.

The US’s approach could have wide-ranging effects on censorship laws worldwide, as the US plays a significant role in setting international precedents around free speech and Internet governance.

The US may encourage other countries to protect free speech and, in so doing, work to end the global censorship crisis.

Conclusion: The Censorship Industrial Complex Threatens Our Freedom of Speech

The “censorship industrial complex” is a network of ideologically aligned governmental, nonprofit, media, tech, finance, and academic institutions that are colluding to censor vast swaths of speech they claim threatens democracy, including speech on a wide array of critical social and political issues.

They are weaponizing terms like “hate” and “misinformation/ disinformation” to censor speakers directly, pressure digital platforms to censor, and threaten to shut down platforms that refuse to bend the knee to censorship demands.

Throughout history, those in power have always sought to censor speech with which they disagree.

We must confront the “censorship industrial complex” and safeguard the right to free speech if we are to ensure a future where ideas can flourish without fear of suppression.

The Race to Save Girls’ and Women’s Sports is Worth Running

Save girls' sports

We must keep female sports for women and girls only

Save girls' sports UN and ADFI

Ensuring equal opportunity and fairness is the cornerstone of all sport.

However, local, national, and international policies increasingly allow males who identify as female to compete in sports reserved for women and girls. The whole reason sex-based sports categories exist is to ensure fair competition by accounting for physiological differences, therefore enabling sports to reward genuine merit and excellence. 

And yet, gender ideology is playing a significant role in the attempt to erode this biological foundation by claiming that gender identity—how one personally experiences one’s gender—may not necessarily align with one’s biological sex.

This radical ideology argues that each person should be permitted to compete on a sports team that aligns with their gender identity rather than biological sex, contributing to egregious violations of the rights of female athletes when males are allowed to invade their sports and spaces.

Gender Ideology’s Role in Undermining Women and Girls’ Sports

When laws and policies lose touch with the biological reality that men and women are inherently different, it’s women and girls who suffer the most.

Every woman and girl, from aspiring young athletes to seasoned professionals, deserves fair and safe access to spaces dedicated to female athletes. The future of women’s sports—and the opportunity for every girl to dream and compete—depends on this vital commitment to fairness.

A recent story out of San Jose State University in California illustrates the growing concerns around fairness in women’s sports. The university’s women’s volleyball team added a male player to its roster, prompting several other teams to cancel their matches against SJSU. While no official reasons for these forfeits have been given, the implications are clear.

A Matter of Fairness

Dr. Gregory Brown, an exercise science professor, has extensively explored the topic of male advantages in sports. In a white paper, he highlights that male athletes generally have a jumping advantage of approximately 15-20 percent over female athletes. Additionally, males spike the ball with greater speed, giving them a 29-34 percent edge in this area. Moreover, men generally possess greater height and muscle mass, providing clear benefits on the volleyball court.

It’s abundantly clear why female volleyball players wouldn’t want to compete against male athletes.

According to a recent UN report from August 2024, no less than 600 female athletes in 29 different sports have lost in competitions to male competitors. And we know the issue is not simply about medals. It’s about the countless opportunities, including academic and professional, a female athlete forfeits when a male displaces her. It’s also about basic safety, both on and off the playing field.

When female-only spaces such as locker rooms and restrooms are open to males, the privacy, safety, and security of women are compromised at the most basic level.

As debates over fairness and safety in women’s sports intensify, legal and policy frameworks worldwide are being scrutinised more closely. And the demand for clear, principled policies safeguarding female athletes is growing urgent. Thankfully, a bold response is emerging on the international stage.

Calling on Leaders to Ensure Fairness in Girls’ and Women’s Sports

ADF International, alongside our colleagues at Alliance Defending Freedom in the United States, is advocating for the rights of female athletes, standing up for the truth that female sports must be female-only if they are to be safe and fair.

In October, ADF International convened a panel to bring this critical conversation to the UN. Addressing government leaders and UN officials, the event brought together prominent advocates for protecting women and girls’ sports. Among the speakers were former West Virginia State University athlete Lainey Armistead, British Olympian swimmer Sharron Davies, CEO and President of Alliance Defending Freedom Kristen Waggoner, and the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls Reem Alsalem.

Armistead joined a lawsuit to defend a law in West Virginia ensuring that only women compete on women’s sports teams. That lawsuit has passed through the court system, and Alliance Defending Freedom asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Joining Waggoner at the UN, Armistead said: “I’m here today because we’ve all seen what happens when males are allowed to compete on women’s teams.

From track to boxing to swimming, it’s demoralising and unfair—and just plain wrong.” Armistead recounted stories of women being sidelined and even injured in these situations. She highlighted that just one male athlete had already displaced nearly 300 female athletes in West Virginia.

Davies underscored that the biological differences between men and women put female athletes at a distinct disadvantage, stressing the need for safety measures in women’s sports. Waggoner, alongside the athletes, affirmed that equality and non-discrimination—especially regarding sex—are core principles of international human rights law. “When female sports aren’t protected,” Waggoner warned, “it does grave harm to women and girls.”

Waggoner concluded with a plea: “Our hope at ADF is that the international community will turn its attention to this critical issue—ensuring women and girls can pursue sporting opportunities should they desire, and protecting female athletes… Our plea to the world is to learn from the mistakes that have been made and that are now being corrected, so that your daughters, so that my daughter, can walk into a future of fairness and safety in sport.”

The International Implications

In 2021, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) revised its guidelines on transgender athletes, aiming to adopt a “more inclusive” approach to sports. However, this shift inevitably raised serious concerns about fairness and safety for female athletes.

In response, several international and national sports federations—including the World Aquatics, World Athletics, World Rugby, and the International Cycling Union—have decided to protect female-only categories. These organisations affirm that biological and physical differences remain relevant to fair competition in sports, so they’ve reinforced these categories to protect competitive balance and safety.

What the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Says

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Article 3 of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women affirms that women are entitled to fully enjoy and be protected in all human rights and fundamental freedoms—whether in political, economic, social, or civil spheres. This includes specific rights such as freedom from discrimination, access to the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health, and protection from torture or any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.

While the Universal Declaration does not directly mention sports, activities related to sports are widely recognised as part of the broader rights to education and cultural participation, as outlined in Articles 26 and 27. These rights affirm that everyone should be able to engage in sports and cultural activities that foster personal growth, community, and equality.

How We Can Ensure Girls’ and Women’s Sports Remains Fair

Establishing female categories has never been about division; rather, it’s about empowering women and girls and creating a fair playing field.

By raising this issue on an international stage, we’re bringing crucial attention to the challenges women and girls face as their sporting opportunities are impacted by the inclusion of males in female sports.

Conclusion: Laws Must Reflect Basic Fairness

We aim to uphold laws that recognise the fundamental biological differences between men and women. Through global alliances and strategic advocacy at both national and international levels, we believe meaningful change is within reach.

At its core, this issue is about protecting the dignity and respect female athletes deserve. We must ensure that the future of women’s sports remains a fair arena where women can compete without facing disadvantages from biological disparities or gender ideology. Protecting these principles is essential to preserving the integrity of female sports for generations to come.

This is a matter of basic human rights, and we must reaffirm, without hesitation, the imperative of safety and fairness in sports for women and girls.
Will you stand alongside us?

“Hate Speech” Element Dropped from Censorial Irish Bill

What's the purpose of "hate speech" laws? Text with Irish flag. "Hate speech" elements were dropped in Sept. 2024.

Inform yourself about the Irish “hate speech” bill, and you’ll find the censorial truth.

UPDATE 21 September 2024: In a win for free speech, the Irish government dropped “hate speech” from proposed legislation. ADF International briefed Irish lawmakers on the dangers and, in June, gathered free speech advocates in Dublin to oppose the draconian “hate speech” bill.

Hate speech laws in Ireland increase censorship

Censorship. It’s an elusive term animated throughout history with growing relevance today. “Hate speech” laws loom large over Western political and social conversations. Blasphemy laws criminalize faith-based speech and belief in countries like Nigeria and Pakistan. By now, almost everyone is aware of censorship.

Some may think of George Orwell’s 1984; others, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. Censorship takes many forms – like book burning and imposing “newspeak” – but Ireland now leads the dystopian cause with its hotly debated “hate speech” bill.

And so, as the state-driven tide of censorship sweeps the world, Europe stands at the forefront of the ongoing conversation. Why? Because almost every Western nation has introduced “hate speech” laws enabling authorities to enforce penalties for certain speech they deem unpopular or unorthodox.

These laws are introduced under the guise of combatting “a rise of hate”, or offensive speech that can make people feel insulted or uncomfortable. But criminalizing speech is not the answer. Rather, allowing more robust speech that facilitates open debate instead. That’s why we stand against so-called “hate speech” laws like the proposed one in Ireland.

“Hate Speech” Dropped From New Law – What It Means

Thankfully, the Irish government has indicated it will not proceed with the most censorial elements of the proposed “Hate Speech” Bill.

With the world watching, the people of Ireland said ‘no’ to state censorship, and it’s working.

The Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill 2022, currently stuck in the Irish Senate, will proceed without the draconian speech elements that had previously been advanced. Remember, incitement to hatred remains illegal under existing law.

Minister for Justice Helen McEntee has recognized that there is a lack of consensus on the proposed bill’s “hate speech” restrictions.

The Minister for Justice is reported as saying: “The incitement to hatred element [of the bill] does not have a consensus, so that will be dealt with at a later stage.”

Pro-censorship actors may seek to bring in a separate new law in the future.

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

The Irish “hate speech” bill seeks to criminalize the possession of material “likely” to incite hatred. This includes memes and photos saved on devices, with up to five years of jail time. Yes, photos on personal devices. Yet, there is no clear definition of what “hate” entails.

Therefore, this is a dangerous trajectory. ADF International highlights the dangers of the “hate speech” bill while briefing Irish lawmakers on how to uphold freedom of speech.

What are “Hate Speech” Laws?

So-called “hate speech” laws are ambiguously worded laws that criminalize certain speech beyond what is acceptable in a democratic society.

Despite having no basis in international law, all European Union Member States have vague and subjective “hate speech” laws. The United Nations, EU, and Council of Europe concur that “hate speech” lacks a universally agreed-upon definition. Nonetheless, the European Commission seeks to make “hate speech” an EU-wide crime on the same list as trafficking and terrorism.

These laws, with the wrong police and prosecutor, can be weaponized against any person and any form of speech. Thus, explicitly violating the state’s obligation to protect free speech.

Do “Hate Speech” Laws Deter Hate?

The short answer is no. But because “hate speech” laws rely on vague terms such as ‘insult,’ ‘belittle,’ and ‘offend,’ they are inconsistently interpreted and arbitrarily enforced. Oftentimes, the threat of serious criminal penalties accompanies charges.

Rather than combat hate, the criminalization of speech based on subjective criteria creates a culture of fear and censorship.

An offence is considered hateful in reference to the hearer or reader, making it subjective with little to no regard for the content of the speech itself. They are incompatible with free societies. 

How the Proposed Irish "Hate Speech" Law is Different than Others

The Irish “hate speech” bill would move the needle further. If passed, we could expect commonplace prosecutions like Päivi Räsänen’s for posting a Bible verse on “X” in 2019 about her biblical worldview on marriage and sexuality. In fact, Ireland’s censorial law would go even further than Finland’s.

We’re ramping up public advocacy to expose the unprecedented dangers of what the Irish government is doing. All have the right to live and speak the truth without fear of censorship or retaliation. That’s why we’re asking Irish lawmakers to uphold their obligation to protect free speech under international human rights law.

Consequently, the Irish “hate speech” bill has two major facets that other laws like Finland’s do not include. For example:
  • It leaves the issue of gender open-ended by including a list of “protected characteristics” allowing for unlimited “gender identities” like ‘non-binary’ and ‘two-spirit’. These self-identities would receive protection supported by criminal law.
  • It allows authorities to criminalize private possession of memes or any content “likely” to incite violence or hatred “…against a person or group of persons on account of their protected characteristics”.

This means “misgendering” someone could land you a criminal prosecution, fine or worse. If the Irish “hate speech” bill becomes law, Irish police would have the power to search phones, camera rolls, and emails for prosecutable content.

It’s paramount that we all spread awareness about the dangers of this bill.

Why Ireland is Pushing This Now

The Irish government claims that the law is necessary following rising incidents of violence in the country, which many tie to uncontrolled migration. But peace and security on the streets do not require “hate speech” laws suppressing peaceful speech.

With key terms deliberately undefined, how are we to know what kind of speech could be subject to prosecution? “Hate speech” laws are Western blasphemy laws by another name; both are state driven.

The thought of Irish police raiding homes and phones to seize banned books and memes invokes thoughts of Orwell and the darker moments of the last century. 

Our right to freedom of expression is protected by numerous international human rights treaties. The European Court of Human Rights even affirmed that the right to freedom of expression protects not just popular ideas but also those that shock, offend, and disturb.   

Yet, some argue that unpopular speech should be censored by the state. But where is the logical stopping point?

Have We Learned Nothing From Finland? 

“Hate speech” laws are detrimental to a society seeking to protect freedom of speech or thought. In Finland, we’ve supported Päivi’s defence for almost five years with two unanimous acquittals. She was charged with three counts of “hate speech” because of her “X” post, a pamphlet she authored for her church, and comments she made during a radio programme.

In January 2024, the state prosecutor appealed her case to the Finnish Supreme Court. On 19 April, the high court agreed to hear the appeal, so Päivi will face her third criminal trial in three years. However, the legal process is Päivi’s punishment because the state has unlimited funds to prosecute offenders of their “hate speech” laws. Prosecutions cost taxpayer funds, while reputations sometimes become irreparably harmed.

If Päivi’s now famous “hate speech” case took place in Ireland, she could be prosecuted for simply possessing the pamphlet she wrote for her church congregation on the biblical definition of marriage, even if it was never published online.

Ireland should be a place where important conversations about issues that matter – even about controversial and sensitive topics thrive. When these conversations are shut down, we all lose out.

Conclusion: Ireland Must Reject Its New “Hate Speech” Bill

In summary, “hate speech” laws leave the door wide open to state censorship and oppression. And yet, the Irish government has been moving forward with a new bill to criminalize “hate speech” since 2022.

This could be one of the most far-reaching clampdowns on free speech by a modern democracy. It implicates memes, jokes, and books. Instead of protecting free speech and public safety, this law is poised to set a draconian precedent of intolerance against those who express beliefs outside the state-approved orthodoxy. 

Unpopular speech needs the most protection, and in a free society, free speech is required. Individuals should be able to express their beliefs without fear or oppression. The Irish “hate speech” bill is a far cry from the liberal democratic ideals the Irish government claims to profess.

The Irish government has chosen to uphold freedom of speech.

Brazil, Elon Musk, X, and Censorship: What You Need to Know

freedom of speech is universal

The Brazilian Supreme Court blatantly violated free speech rights by banning X after the company’s chairman, Elon Musk, declined to censor disfavored views.

This story originally appeared in Alliance Defending Freedom on 6 September 2024

When Elon Musk bought Twitter (now known as X) in 2022, he did so with the stated purpose of restoring free speech on a platform that had been credibly accused of censoring disfavored views. And no matter whether one agrees with everything Musk has said or done since then, it is clear he has taken meaningful steps toward achieving that goal.

Unfortunately, many in the United States and around the world have opposed Musk’s attempt to advance free speech. This opposition has become painfully apparent in Brazil, where the country’s highest court is engaging in blatant and unacceptable censorship against Musk and X.

Brazil’s highest court violates free speech rights

In 2019, the Brazilian Supreme Court gave itself the power to carry out criminal investigations into “fake news,” defamation, slander, and threats against the honor of the Court. This was a dangerous abuse of power, and the consequences of such a draconian measure have now been laid bare.

Fast forward five years, and Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes and Musk have been engaged in a dispute stemming from de Moraes’s demands that X censor messages the justice disfavors. On Aug. 28, 2024, de Moraes gave Musk 24 hours to name a legal representative for X in Brazil.

Musk declined to name a representative because Brazil had threatened the previous representative with jail time. On Aug. 30, de Moraes officially suspended X nationwide in Brazil. In addition, he froze the bank accounts of Starlink, another company partially owned by Musk that provides internet via satellite.

In his order suspending X, de Moraes said the platform presented a “real danger” of “negatively influencing the electorate in 2024, with massive misinformation, with the aim of unbalancing the electoral result, based on hate campaigns in the digital age, to favor extremist populist groups.”

In other words, the suspension was not solely motivated by X’s lack of legal representation. It was motivated, at least in part, by de Moraes’s fears that allowing certain speech on X might lead to an electoral result he personally would not like.

Despite de Moraes’s clear violation of free speech, the full Brazilian Supreme Court upheld the order on Sept. 2. Under the ruling, Brazilians who attempt to access X using a VPN will face a fine of around $9,000.

Supreme Court order flouted multiple laws

It takes only a basic understanding of free speech to see the major problems with this order. Once the government begins censoring or pressuring others to censor messages based on vague criteria and subjective terms like “misinformation,” it opens the door to widespread suppression of any views the government doesn’t like.

For this reason, national and international law protect free speech in Brazil, and the Brazilian Supreme Court clearly violated both.

First, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice.”

X is certainly a medium through which many Brazilians wish to express, think about, and discuss ideas. Recent estimates prior to the shutdown said roughly 40 million Brazilians use the social platform. By suspending X because it refused to censor information that they disliked, de Moraes and the rest of the court violated those users’ rights to engage in free expression on the platform.

In addition, Article 220 of the Brazilian Constitution states that “any and all censorship of a political, ideological, and artistic nature is forbidden.” But given de Moraes’s reasoning that X could “negatively” affect elections in 2024 to “favor extremist populist groups,” it’s hard to read the justice’s order as anything other than censorship of a political and ideological nature.

Brazilians, just like Americans, have the fundamental right to free speech, which is why ADF International did not sit idly by when the Brazilian Supreme Court issued its dangerous decision.

ADF International takes action

Following the illegal order, ADF International worked around the clock to respond. Within 24 hours, attorneys submitted a petition asking the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (which has jurisdiction over Brazil) to intervene and defend free speech.

“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas,” said Tomás Henriquez, ADF International’s Director of Legal Advocacy for Latin America. “Intervention by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is key because without free speech, all human rights are jeopardized.”

Musk himself even thanked ADF International for the quick and important work to defend free speech.

While Brazilian officials may claim to protect democracy, they are actually undermining it by manipulating what information citizens can share and access. Free speech is a fundamental right for all people worldwide, and we must continue defending it when it comes under attack.

Across The Globe, Pointing Out Men Can’t Become Women Could Land You In Court

Gabriel Quadri, censored for stating biological reality.

This story originally appeared in The Federalist on 8 August 2024

Picture of Elyssa Koren
Elyssa Koren

Legal Communications Director

The world has been shocked to see riots erupt throughout the United Kingdom following an appalling stabbing in Southport, England, last week, where three children died.

But we should be alert to how the response of Britain’s new Labour government to the disorder is creeping beyond a crackdown on violence. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said on Monday that social media companies should address “misinformation,” which suggests this crisis could be exploited to censor peaceful speech online.

The fear is that the unrest in the UK will be used as an excuse to further infringe on free speech online in the country. In fact, there are many parts of the world where a perfectly peaceful tweet could land you criminal charges or even a prison sentence.

For example, take note of what happened in 2022 to congressman Gabriel Quadri in Mexico. Quadri was prosecuted for his Twitter posts on the dangers of transgender ideology, including comments about keeping female sports safe and fair.

As millions opine freely on the myriad controversies at the Olympics, this should give us pause. Both Quadri and civil society leader Rodrigo Iván Cortés were convicted for “gender based political violence,” including “digital violence,” and punished in an absurd and demeaning manner for peacefully expressing the truth about biological reality online.

A testament to the pound of flesh the state demands from those who dare to speak against its orthodoxies, Quadri and Cortés were ordered to publish a court-written apology on X every day at set times and placed on an offender’s registrar. Having exhausted all avenues for justice in Mexico, ADF International is appealing their cases to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Prosecution in Finland

Look too to what has transpired over the last five years in Finland, a country with deep roots in the rule of law. Longstanding parliamentarian and grandmother Päivi Räsänen is being criminally prosecuted for a Bible verse she tweeted in 2019.

Quoting from the book of Romans, Räsänen objected to her church’s decision to sponsor a pride parade. For this, she endured hours of police interrogation, three criminal charges, and two onerous trials. Despite being unanimously acquitted at both, she soon will be tried again at the Supreme Court of Finland, where ADF International is backing her legal defense.

Räsänen’s case, in a supposedly free country, demonstrates that the censorial vigor of the state knows no bounds when it comes to silencing expressions of truth that expose the ideological falsehoods of the day.

Räsänen stoked no violence and evinced no hate, and yet she is being prosecuted for “hate speech” under the “war crimes and crimes against humanity” section of Finland’s criminal code, which carries a potential prison sentence of two years. You better believe that if a much loved, and oft re-elected, civil servant of more than 20 years can be tried for a tweet, then the citizens of Finland are going to think twice before they hit post.

Cases in the EU, Australia, Ireland, Scotland, Brazil

In Australia, street advocate Billboard Chris was censored for tweeting the truth that trans-activist Teddy Cook should not serve on a World Health Organization panel for children’s transgender policy given Cook’s aberrant sexual practices.

Chris posted a Daily Mail article on X entitled, “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED: Australian activist plugs bondage, bestiality, nudism, drugs, and tax-funded sex-change ops – so why is he writing health advice for the world body?” Australia’s “E-Safety Commission” tried to force X to take the post down.

When X refused, they forced the platform to geo-block it, and now, Chris, supported by ADF International, and alongside X, is suing in defense of his right to speak freely.

The Irish parliament is currently debating a “hate speech” law, which, if adopted, could criminalize the possession of “hateful” material with up to five years in prison. And in April, Scotland passed a law criminalizing “stirring up hatred” against protected categories, including transgender identity, with a possible seven-year prison sentence.

As is always the case where these laws take root, “hate” is undefined. Consequently, it’s open season for a “hate crime” when such a transgression could be literally anything under the sun perceived as hateful by an offended party.

Brazil is undergoing a crisis of extreme censorship, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas. Earlier this spring, a Supreme Court judge threatened to wield his authority to shut down X in the country. 

Journalists, including American author Michael Shellenberger, are being criminally investigated for exposing the state’s censorial crimes. Now X is deploying its legal team to preserve free speech on the platform in Brazil.

At the international level, the European Commission is advancing efforts to make “hate speech” an EU crime, on the same legal level as trafficking and terrorism. Most recently, the European Commission has accused X of violating the EU Digital Services Act, triggering the promise of legal action from Elon Musk, who claims that X resisted an “illegal secret deal” to comply with EU rules to censor “misinformation.”

Raising our Voices in Resistance

Everyone must be free to peacefully debate the issues of our time, online or wherever they may find themselves, without fear of government punishment. But across the world state-driven censorship is proving to be one of the most insidious problems of our age. And it is not by accident that the brunt force of the state is often leveraged to silence expressions of basic truth, in particular in the digital space.

Next time you reflexively exercise your free speech rights by firing off a tweet, remember those who have incurred the wrath of the state simply for doing the same. We must vigilantly resist the rising tide of censorship, and also the urge to self-censor, instead raising our voices to advocate for those silenced and sanctioned for nothing more than a tweet.

From Belgium to Canada, Euthanasia Signals a Deep Crisis of Meaning

Growing euthanasia practice in Canada spells a deep crisis of meaning

Nobody should be offered death as the solution to suffering

Growing euthanasia practice in Canada spells a deep crisis of meaning

In 2002, Belgium and the Netherlands became the first countries to legalize euthanasia. Since then, other countries have followed suit, and more countries are considering it.

Whether called “euthanasia”, “assisted suicide”, “medical aid in dying”, or “MAID”, the act involves a medical professional intentionally and prematurely ending a patient’s life. 

At the outset, legislators frequently stress that euthanasia should be seen as a last resort, intended to be a compassionate approach to end a person’s suffering.

However, the experience of countries that have legalized euthanasia shows that more and more people seem to be requesting to die than anyone imagined or expected.

This is often because many people lack the social, economic, psychological, and palliative care support they need to live. 

In 2016, Canada legalized euthanasia nationwide and has since become the fastest-growing euthanasia regime in the world, posing a somber warning to the rest of the world. 

Rising healthcare and social security costs, the widespread reality of cognitive and mental health challenges, and conceits about autonomy and control are just some of the factors that will make euthanasia one of the most dramatic life issues of the 21st century. 

Like our other Generational Wins—our core priorities—preventing euthanasia is not only a legal battle but also a cultural one. Advocates like Amanda Achtman in Canada are focused on raising awareness about euthanasia in the public square from a cultural standpoint through her Dying to Meet You project. 

How euthanasia gains popularity

Across jurisdictions, public opinion about euthanasia has been driven by court decisions, political campaigns, lobby groups, and media.

When a doctor in the Netherlands euthanized her mother in the 1970s, the physician was treated leniently and given a weeklong probation rather than a long prison sentence. This sparked the erosion of norms surrounding a doctor’s responsibility to do no harm, even upon the patient’s request.

In Belgium, the euthanasia law was ushered in following the political victory of a left-wing coalition in the 1999 federal election that defeated the Christian Democrats. 

In Canada, the lobby group Dying with Dignity has campaigned for more than 40 years to promote and expand legal euthanasia. Exerting considerable pressure, this organization has lobbied politicians, mounted legal challenges, and run marketing campaigns to bolster public support for “MAiD”.

Proponents of euthanasia will usually highlight the stories of individuals who are suffering profoundly and who seem to be making the request to die with full consent and even with the support of their family and friends. Similarly, such stories have become the basis for influential movies and even advertisements.

Since all human beings suffer, the prospect of avoiding or eliminating it is a temptation. Without question, a suffering or vulnerable person summons relief and help; killing the person is never the appropriate way to end his or her suffering.

Once euthanasia is legalized, it will not be limited

When the Canadian government legalized euthanasia, they enacted certain so-called “safeguards”. At first, the patient’s death needed to be deemed “reasonably foreseeable.” Only adults capable of consenting could receive euthanasia. They had to make their request in writing before two witnesses and undergo a mandatory 10-day reflection.

Not even five years later, the government began loosening the requirements and expanding euthanasia to broader demographics. This is because if euthanasia is seen to be a reasonable means of ending suffering, then there is no serious basis on which a person should be excluded from having the option. 

On the grounds of equality, euthanasia was expanded to persons suffering but not imminently dying, to persons with disabilities and various neurological conditions, and to others. Unfortunately, this has led to a tremendous devaluing of life within the public healthcare system.

A man with disabilities says he’s been offered euthanasia “multiple times.” A woman with disabilities says a nurse accused her of being selfish for not considering euthanasia. One woman says she was offered MAiD instead of cancer treatment. A mother says her 23-year-old son, who has diabetes and partial vision loss, was scheduled to die by MAiD until she intercepted the process and went to the media. 

Legal euthanasia is destroying the doctor-patient relationship and eroding trust between healthcare professionals and families. Prematurely ending a patient’s life through killing is completely different than helping a person to live well until their natural death.

Tackling euthanasia and assisted suicide as a new threat to life 

Some people do not have strong opinions about euthanasia because they figure that it is a matter of individual freedom and personal decision. That is what Tom Mortier thought until he received the shocking call that his mother had been euthanized. His mother had struggled with depression but was otherwise physically healthy. Her psychiatrist did not think she satisfied the legal requirements for euthanasia under Belgian law. But Tom’s mother was diagnosed with “incurable depression” and then euthanized by an oncologist with no psychiatric expertise. 

Robert Clarke, the Deputy Director of ADF International, represented Tom Mortier before the Court of European Human Rights. In October 2022, the Court ruled that Belgium violated the right to life of Tom Mortier’s mother. 

ADF International intervened in another recent euthanasia case. In Hungary, a man suffering from ALS challenged his country’s ban on assisted suicide. ADF International argued in favour of Hungary’s existing stance and defended the country’s obligation to protect the right to life because there is no “right to die.” In June 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of Hungary’s right to prohibit assisted suicide to protect life. 

While winning legal cases is important, it’s also important to win in the court of public opinion.

Canada and beyond: Dying to Meet You

A glimmer of hope is Canadian Amanda Achtman, and her mission is to prevent euthanasia and encourage hope throughout her home country and beyond. She founded a project called ‘Dying To Meet You’ through which she engages people in conversations on suffering, death, meaning, and hope. A key feature of her advocacy involves giving a platform through short films to those whose voices have been sorely lacking from the euthanasia debates. In one short film, she interviews Christine Nagel, an 88-year-old woman who decided to get a tattoo that says, “Don’t Euthanize Me.”

In another, Achtman interviewed Eulalia Running Rabbit, an Indigenous Canadian woman who says, “I don’t think it’s right for the government to push euthanasia on the Nations. We really believe the Creator is the one who’s going to take us back.” In another, she interviewed Roger Foley, a Canadian man with disabilities who says he’s been offered euthanasia “multiple times” as he fights for the support he needs to live. 

In addition to writing, speaking, and appearing on podcasts and in documentaries about euthanasia, Achtman also organizes events to engage diverse faith and culture communities in end-of-life conversations. For example, she recently organized an event at Adath Israel Congregation in Toronto featuring Rabbi Dr. David Novak, a renowned Jewish thinker who wrote his dissertation on suicide.

During his presentation, Dr. Novak stated, “Nobody really lives unless they’re convinced that somebody else wants them to live. […] And this is an indictment of our much-praised Canadian health service: that it is now recommended to people that they would be better off dead than alive.”

Hope for a wounded world

Achtman is committed to advancing a positive and proactive alternative vision to a euthanasia society because, as she puts it, “As long as euthanasia is legal in Canada, my generation cannot grow up properly. Our growth and development are stunted when we lack opportunities to be called out of ourselves.”

To learn more about her and Dying to Meet You, visit the project online. 

Conclusion: Every single person has dignity

Euthanasia is one symptom of our wounded world. The person who asks for euthanasia is really wondering whether someone will love them enough to push back.

As euthanasia becomes more of a risk across Europe and throughout the West, it is crucial that we redouble our efforts to protect life. Whether at the beginning, end, or in between, every life has a purpose, and every life is worth defending.

A ‘Culture Conversation’ with Nancy Pearcey, American Christian Author and Apologist

How should Christians respond to the transgender movement?

Nancy Pearcey is a prominent author and Christian apologist who dedicates her scholarship to the intersection of faith and culture. Pearcey explores how Christianity must be lived as a worldview that touches on every area of life.

Pearcey offers a steadfast and courageous witness for today’s Christians, advocating for a conception of the human person as an integrated being, body, and soul, who should be valued accordingly. Our Sophia Kuby sat down with Pearcey to explore how this understanding should inform the Christian response to the issues of our day.

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Watch the full interview above:

Q: Arguably, your book Love Thy Body is more relevant today than even when you wrote it in 2018. You identify the dualistic, fragmented view of the person as the key to understanding where we are headed as a society. Why is that?

A: This dualism, this split, may be the most important key to understanding what happens in our culture today. We tend to treat euthanasia, abortion, transgenderism, the hookup culture etc., as individual issues. But if we can recognize the underlying worldview, it will be so much easier to respond because we’re digging deeper as to what’s really driving the secular culture on these issues.

What’s under the surface translates into a split about the human person such as body and mind or values and facts, science and morals, all of these splits. Once you understand that, there really is no surprise anymore, no matter how radical it gets.

Once you split the body from your mind and your identity you have something entirely disincarnated. And the body has no significance. Like everything makes sense in a way. It’s not right, but Christians need to understand this worldview because that way you are not surprised by secular conclusions.

Q: You explain how [dualism] it’s the same secular worldview that drives euthanasia. How so?

A: For proponents of euthanasia, if you are mentally disabled, if you no longer have a certain level of cortical functioning, then you are no longer a person, even though you’re obviously still human. And at that point, in this view, you’re not a person anymore. You’re only a body.

And so, you can be unplugged—your treatment withheld, your food and water discontinued, and your organs harvested. So, once again, you see how being human is no longer enough for human rights. You have to achieve a certain level of awareness or cognitive ability in order to earn the status of personhood. And anyone who falls short is considered a non-person. So, we are seeing the emergence of a new category now which is the human non-person.

On the other hand, the pro-life view is inclusive. If you are a member of the human race, you’re in, you count. You have the full rights as a member of the moral community.

What’s under the surface translates into a split about the human person such as body and mind or values and facts, science and morals, all of these splits. Once you understand that, there really is no surprise anymore, no matter how radical it gets.

Once you split the body from your mind and your identity you have something entirely disincarnated. And the body has no significance. Like everything makes sense in a way. It’s not right, but Christians need to understand this worldview because that way you are not surprised by secular conclusions.

Q: There is a worldview thread connecting abortion and euthanasia to questions of sexuality. Can you explain?

A: The connecting thread is the division of the body from the person. We see this in the hookup culture. The entire premise is that sex can be purely physical, cut off from the whole person.

The mistake people make is to assume that there are two very distinct elements in a relationship: one emotional and one sexual, and they pretend like there are clean lines between them. There is a fundamental despair stemming from the belief that the body doesn’t mean anything. [It’s] no wonder the hookup culture is leaving behind a trail of wounded people.

People are trying to live out a secular ethic that does not fit who they really are. The Christian ethic is incarnational. And science is on our side. Science has shown the interconnection of body and person, for example, with the discovery of hormones like oxytocin. We are designed to bond. And Scripture teaches that we are embodied spirits. Both body and spirit are part of our identity.

And so, you can be unplugged—your treatment withheld, your food and water discontinued, and your organs harvested. So, once again, you see how being human is no longer enough for human rights. You have to achieve a certain level of awareness or cognitive ability in order to earn the status of personhood. And anyone who falls short is considered a non-person. So, we are seeing the emergence of a new category now which is the human non-person.

On the other hand, the pro-life view is inclusive. If you are a member of the human race, you’re in, you count. You have the full rights as a member of the moral community.

What’s under the surface translates into a split about the human person such as body and mind or values and facts, science and morals, all of these splits. Once you understand that, there really is no surprise anymore, no matter how radical it gets.

Once you split the body from your mind and your identity you have something entirely disincarnated. And the body has no significance. Like everything makes sense in a way. It’s not right, but Christians need to understand this worldview because that way you are not surprised by secular conclusions.

Q: How do you respond to those who hold the view that you can be born into the wrong body?

A: What we need to realize is that it is a profoundly disrespectful view of the body to pit the mind against the body and then say it’s only the mind and feelings that count.

Would God create people to be torn in two conflicting directions like this? Not the Christian God. Things like conflict, self-division, and self-alienation are results of the fall, not creation. And yet today, it’s widely accepted that if somebody feels that sense of inner division, a conflict between the body and the mind, then it is your feelings and desires that count.

The Christian ethic is holistic. The mind and emotions are meant to be in tune with our body. And so, it’s an ethic that overcomes self-division and self-alienation, and ultimately leads to a sense of internal unity, wholeness, and self-integration.

Q: So how does this apply to the worldview driving the transgender movement?

A: This involves the same split view of the person, the same devaluing of the body. Transgender activists argue explicitly that your gender identity has nothing to do with your physical body, with your biological sex.

I watched a BBC documentary that said that at the heart of the debate is the idea that your mind can be at war with your body, and it is the mind that wins. So, in this view, your body has been reduced to a meat skeleton. I recently came across a Kickstarter page for a documentary titled “I Am Not My Body.” That title says it all. My body is not part of my authentic self.

This is a radically separate, divided, fractured, fragmented view of what a person is. That’s the core of what’s being taught to young people all the way down to kindergarten—that your body has no meaning at all.

Q: How should Christians respond to this extreme devaluation of the body?

A: Even secular people are saying that transgenderism involves body hatred. So what this means is that Christians have a wonderful opportunity to show that a Biblical ethic expresses a positive view of the way God made us as physically embodied beings, that the biological correspondence between male and female is not some evolutionary accident. It’s part of the original creation that God pronounced very good.  

There is a turning point for people who identify as transgender when they can say: “I finally came to trust that God had made me my sex for a reason, and I wanted to honor my body by living in accord with the Creator’s design.” This is a beautiful language. This is not guilt, shame, and self-loathing. This is positive: I want to honor my body.

So, number one, we must learn how to use positive language. “Live in tune with your body. Live in harmony with the Creator’s design.” Let’s face it, Christians are known for having a negative message. We have to start with a positive message that our body is God’s creation, and that a Biblical ethic shows us how to honor and respect it.

Next, we have to be proactive. I’ve told Brandon’s story. Brandon was sort of the classic case before he was even walking. His babysitter told his mother, “He’s too good to be a boy,” by which she meant he was gentle and sweet-natured. By elementary school, he was coming to his parents weeping, saying: “I don’t fit in anywhere,” because he didn’t feel like a boy.

By his early teens, he was scouring the internet for information on sex reassignment surgery. So, what did his parents do? They made sure he knew they loved him just the way he was. They did not try to change him.

They said it is perfectly acceptable to be a gentle, sensitive boy. It does not mean you are really a girl. His parents said it may mean that God has gifted you for one of the caring professions like counselor or healthcare worker. His parents’ favorite line, which they said over and over again, was: “It’s not you that’s wrong. It’s the stereotypes that are wrong.”

Brandon did not transition. He did finally accept that it is scientifically impossible to actually change your sex.

Q: As we assess the toll that these ideologies are taking across the world, is there hope? What does the future hold? 

There is good news. First, there are an increasing number of people who are “de-transitioning.” People who have gone through this are turning around and accusing the clinics of fast-tracking them. Some are bringing the clinics to court.

There are a couple of cases working their way through the courts in the US, and some states are banning medical interventions for minors. European countries are changing their policy. They are pulling back in England, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, France, Wales, Scotland, Germany, and the Netherlands.  

We must continue to assert the revolutionary nature of Christianity, which teaches that the material world is made by the supreme deity, who is a good God, and therefore it is intrinsically good. Yes, the world is fallen, but the fall is like a beautiful masterpiece that a child takes a magic marker and scribbles on.  

Yes, it’s defaced, but the original beauty still shines through. And that’s what we need to help people see—that the world still shows the original beauty of God’s creation. The Incarnation is the ultimate affirmation of the dignity of the human body. And what’s more, when Jesus was executed on a Roman cross, he did escape the physical world, as Gnosticism teaches we should aspire to do. But what did he do then? He came back in a physical body—a bodily resurrection.

God is not going to scrap the material world as if He made a mistake the first time around.  

He’s going to restore it. The resurrection of the body, as affirmed in the Apostles Creed, is an astonishingly high view of the physical world. There’s nothing like it in any other religion or philosophy.