The Italian Supreme Court ruled against Christian community Breccia di Roma after lower courts affirmed that Evangelical places of worship “can look different” than other denominations.
Continue reading
This story originally appeared in The Federalist on 8 August 2024
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
GENEVA (12 July 2024) – Elon Musk has weighed in after a teenage girl was separated from her parents by Swiss authorities, because her parents refused her puberty blockers. The girl has been housed in a government shelter for over a year.
“This is insane,” commented the owner of “X” and Tesla CEO, adding, “This suicidal mind virus is spreading throughout Western Civilization”.
The case, currently unfolding in Swiss courts, centres on parents who responded to the mental health struggles of their daughter, who expressed “gender confusion,” with care and support, including obtaining mental health care.
Concerned that their daughter was being pushed to make hasty and potentially irreversible decisions, they declined “puberty blockers” and explicitly rejected her school’s attempt to “socially transition” her. The school disregarded the parents’ explicit instruction.
The school and the state child welfare agency, Service de Protection des Mineurs (SPMI), then brought a case against them in court.
“And that has meant for us many sleepless nights, a lot of deep pain, and a sense of hopelessness,” the father said.
“This is insane - This suicidal mind virus is spreading throughout Western Civilization"
For seeking to protect the health and wellbeing of their daughter, they now face a legal stand-off over their fundamental rights as parents to care for their child who, residing in a government shelter, is being encouraged to pursue dangerous medical interventions to “transition.”
Also commenting on the case, parental rights campaigner Billboard Chris said: “No child has ever been born in the “wrong body”. As parents, we have the duty to guide and protect our children as they navigate puberty – steering them away from harmful ideologies, and empowering them to feel confident in their own skin.”
Billboard Chris also asked: “Where are the Swiss politicians condemning this child abuse and violation of parents’ rights?”
“Their child has been taken away simply for trying to protect her from harm.”
Dr. Felix Boellmann, lead lawyer on the case for ADF International, said: “Children who experience discomfort with their biological sex deserve to be treated with dignity and need compassionate mental health care, which these parents have gone to great lengths to provide.
“As a result, they are now living every parent’s worst nightmare. Their child has been taken away from them simply for trying to protect her from harm.
Amy Gallagher, the mental health nurse who is suing the UK Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, said: “This case is terrifying. These parents have had their child taken from them by a State that is captured by gender ideology. I trust in faith and hope that the parents, with support from ADF International, will convince the legal authorities in Switzerland that this is not the path to take and the child is united with her parents swiftly. The Swiss authorities should take in to account the outcomes of the Cass Report and the increasing view that affirmation of transgenderism is dangerous.”
Kellie-Jay Keen: “global push to destroy families and access our children.”
Women’s rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen sees “a global push to destroy families and access our children. The erasure of female language, particularly around motherhood is part of this. Mothers are the protectors of children, fathers are the protectors of families. The state does not know or love our children better than parents.
“Similar stories of state kidnap of children who have parents who recognise the harm of the quasi-religious authoritarian cult of trans have been reported in Canada, USA, Australia and I suspect many have gone unreported elsewhere.
“I have been raising the alarm for some time about this overreach. One must ask who is pushing this and why they might be doing it. Nothing I’ve come up with is anything other than malevolent.
“Parents must not sleepwalk into surrendering our most important duty, protecting our children. Trust your instincts and talk to your children.
“In the UK, many schools refuse to use “son”, “daughter”, “child” or “children”, and prefer to use “your young person”. We must fight this creep of erasing both the relation to our children and the fact they’re children.”
More reactions, quotes and full background can be found here. To support the case and the parents click here.
Berlin (03 July 2024) – The Higher Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht) of Berlin-Brandenburg has acquitted pharmacist Andreas Kersten of the charge of breach of professional duty, dismissing an appeal by the Berlin Chamber of Pharmacists. The Chamber has been ordered to cover Mr Kersten’s legal fees. While ruling in favour of Kersten, the Court failed to uphold the freedom of conscience of pharmacists in Berlin.
Kersten was charged in 2018 when he exercised his freedom of conscience to refrain from selling a potentially abortifacient drug, the “morning-after pill,” in his pharmacy. The Court held that Kersten was relying on a letter from the federal Ministry for Health, which stated that pharmacists may exercise their conscience in such situations. According to the Court, he had no reason at the time to seek more legal information, resulting in his acquittal.
“Even though I have been acquitted, I am dismayed by the reasoning rejecting our freedom of conscience. Now pharmacists could be forced to give up their beloved profession simply for staying true to their convictions."
However, in the oral judgment (a written judgment will follow), the presiding judge explained that the duty to provide drugs (including the morning-after-pill) overrides the freedom of conscience – a stance at odds with international human rights law protecting conscience. He noted that a pharmacist who could not reconcile the dispensing of certain drugs with his conscience would have to give up his profession.
“I am relieved that the Court has rejected the sanction demanded by the Chamber of Pharmacists against me. I became a pharmacist to promote health, even to save lives. I cannot reconcile selling the so-called ‘morning-after pill’ with my conscience because of the potential to end a human life, however early. The first instance court initially backed my stance, finding no fault in my conscientious objection. But even though I have been acquitted, I am dismayed by the reasoning broadly rejecting our freedom of conscience. Now pharmacists could be forced to give up their beloved profession simply for staying true to their convictions,” said pharmacist Andreas Kersten after the judgment was handed down.
Background: Charges for exercising conscientious objection
Since 2018, the Berlin Chamber of Pharmacists has been pursuing professional proceedings against pharmacist and (then) owner of the Undine pharmacy, Andreas Kersten. He had declined to stock and sell the “morning-after pill” for reasons of conscience. The Berlin Administrative Court’s chamber for Healthcare Professional Claims ruled in Kersten’s favour in November 2019.
At the time, the court held that pharmacists could invoke their freedom of conscience. However, the Chamber of Pharmacists appealed against the judgment, resulting in Kersten’s protracted wait for justice.
Freedom of conscience in jeopardy
On 26 June 2024, the higher court upheld Kersten’s acquittal in this specific case. It dismissed the Chamber of Pharmacists’ appeal in its entirety and ordered it to pay the costs of the proceedings.
“After more than five years of legal uncertainty, it is now clear that Andreas Kersten did not culpably breach his professional duties. We welcome this finding. However, the reasoning behind the judgment is egregious. In the oral judgment, the Court stated that pharmacists will have to choose between their convictions and their profession in the future, at least in Berlin,” said Dr Felix Böllmann, Director of European Advocacy for ADF International, which has supported Kersten’s case for six years.
Böllmann continued: “The Berlin Higher Administrative Court’s reasoning is in direct contradiction to international law. Fundamental freedoms must be effectively guaranteed, not just on paper. But the Court’s reasoning contravenes freedom of conscience. It is entirely inappropriate for the Court to argue that someone must exit their profession for choosing to exercise their freedom of conscience – this is an argument the European Court of Human Rights rightly rejected years ago.“
“Morning-after pill”: abortifacient effect
In addition to other side effects, the morning-after pill has a potential abortifacient effect.
“No one should be forced to take an action that clearly contradicts their conscience – especially when it comes to life and death. Any pharmacist or doctor who experiences coercion because of this is welcome to reach out to our team. Together we can defend freedom of conscience. A free state committed to basic human rights should never allow what amounts to a professional ban on the grounds of conscience,” Böllmann concluded.
“Our daughter was robbed of her childhood, damaged, and disturbed. It is unacceptable that primary school children are being subjected to radically inappropriate content and that protective barriers against abuse are falling."
Making matters worse, the Upper Austrian Directorate of Education failed to respond to the parents’ complaints, once made aware of the situation. The parents’ case is based on the fact that not only were they not informed by the teacher as to the nature of her “courses,” but also they were met with a lack of transparency on the part of the Directorate. The Directorate has discontinued disciplinary proceedings against the teacher, a significant development that the parents discovered only from media reports.
Comprehensive Sexuality Education: A Global Agenda
Felix Böllmann, Director of European Advocacy for ADF International, states: “What happened to these Austrian children demonstrates the catastrophic implications of an agenda that seeks to indoctrinate children outside of the control of their parents.”
The radical indoctrination of children through “sexuality education” curricula is a global problem. The World Health Organization (WHO), UNESCO, and other actors within the United Nations system have dedicated enormous resources to the international promotion of so-called “comprehensive sexuality education” (CSE) to children without parental consent. CSE guidelines are rife with examples of the extreme sexually-explicit, ‘information’ children are to be taught from a very young age under the guise of “empowering” them.
Böllmann continues: “Austria guarantees parental rights, recognising that parents are best positioned to protect their children, and these rights are likewise enshrined in international law.
Parents should not have to fear the worst when they send their children off to school. No parent should have to worry that their child will be subjected to deeply problematic images and ‘information’ at the hands of their teacher.
That is why we are pushing back against the surreptitious importation of this radical and explicit content–in this school, for the benefit of these students and their parents. But also for other children and parents who may not yet be aware of the materials being used in schools across Europe.”
The ideology behind “comprehensive sexuality education” assumes that children should be sexualised from the first moments of their life. For example, Uwe Sielert, a proponent of extreme sexual pedagogy, worked together with the WHO Regional Office for Europe to develop the “Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe” in 2010. These standards promote an aberrant vision of sexuality education for children, far removed from basic sexual health information, in direct violation of the guaranteed rights of parents to raise and educate their children in line with their own worldview and free from harm. They lay the groundwork for cases such as that of these Austrian children who have been subjected to such content at the hands of their teacher.
“Parents have a great responsibility to protect their children from harm, but they can’t do that if they don’t know what is happening behind classroom doors. And children have the right to be protected from harm. Exposing children to radical ‘sexuality education’ thus violates the rights of both children and their parents,” Böllmann says.
Comprehensive Sexuality Education: A Global Agenda
At issue in this case is the compulsory participation of young students in classes containing graphic sexual content in the name of “diversity” education, without the knowledge or consent of their parents, ultimately made possible by European-wide “comprehensive sexuality education” standards.
Students’ testimony details the disturbing content to which they were subjected, including how their teacher made them watch a graphic film and repeatedly described sexual practices in detail with words and pictures, even when the children objected. After the lessons, the children reported being “disturbed” and were visibly unable to process what they were shown and why.
“Our daughter was completely distraught when she came home from class. The content was in no way age-appropriate sex education, but rather deeply ideological content aimed at sexualising our children,” says the mother of one of the students.
ADF International is backing the legal defense of these parents to hold both the school and Austrian authorities accountable for the failure to respect their parental rights.
“ADF International is committed to supporting these parents in the defence of their basic human rights. The school must be held responsible for its duty to uphold the rights of parents to oversee the education of their children. The same applies to the duty of Austrian authorities to abide by the country’s international law commitments on parental rights,” Böllmann concludes.
Court in Türkiye issues decision supporting the government on cases banning foreign Christian workers from the country under “N-82” codes designating them “risks to national security”
Continue reading
Strasbourg (13 June 2024) – The European Court of Human Rights has upheld the right to life by striking down a challenge seeking to permit assisted suicide in Hungary. Hungarian national Dániel Karsai, diagnosed with a progressive neurodegenerative condition, had sought to undermine Hungary’s legal protections for life by challenging its ban on assisted suicide.
“Instead of abandoning our most vulnerable citizens, society should do all it can to provide the best standards of care."
In its decision, the Court affirmed that prohibition of assisted suicide is in line with the country’s obligations under international law to protect life. Additionally, as the court pointed out, “the majority of the Council of Europe’s member States continue to prohibit” euthanasia and related practices (§ 165).
“We applaud today’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights, which upholds Hungary’s essential human rights protections. Although we deeply empathize with Mr. Karsai’s condition and support his right to receive the best care and relief possible, it is clear from other jurisdictions that a right to die quickly becomes a duty to die. Instead of abandoning our most vulnerable citizens, society should do all it can to provide the best standards of care,” said Jean-Paul Van De Walle, Legal Counsel for ADF International.
ADF International, along with UK-based NGO Care Not Killing, intervened in the case of Karsai v. Hungary, arguing that Hungary’s legal prohibition on assisted suicide must be upheld in line with the obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 2) to protect the right to life.
Court: States are not required “to provide access” to assisted suicide
In its submission to the Court, ADF International highlighted the inevitable abuses that ensue when legal protections for the right to life are eradicated. The brief explained: “Removing such provisions from law creates a dangerous scenario where pressure is placed on vulnerable people to end their lives in fear (whether or not justified) of being a burden upon relatives, carers, or a state that is short of resources.”
The court held, as submitted by ADF International, that there is “no basis for concluding that the member States are thereby advised, let alone required, to provide access” to assisted suicide. (§ 143)
Seeking to legalize assisted suicide
Karsai, 46, wished to resort to assisted suicide before his physical condition further deteriorates. Hungary protects the lives of its citizens, including the vulnerable, by criminalizing the act of assisting somebody to end their life, whether the act is committed in Hungary or abroad. Mr. Karsai maintained that if he were to pursue assisted suicide outside of Hungary, the Hungarian Criminal Code would apply to anyone assisting him.
The ruling in Karsai v. Hungary confirms the 2002 decision made by the ECHR in Pretty v. UK, which involved a woman with ALS. Back then, the Court similarly ruled that the British ban on assisted suicide did not violate the Convention and was designed to prevent abuse of the vulnerable.
In today’s decision, the Court noted that “it is part of the human condition that medical science will probably never be capable of eliminating all aspects of the suffering of individuals who are terminally ill” (§ 158). However, it emphasized that “this heightened state of vulnerability warrants a fundamentally humane approach by the authorities to the management of these situations, an approach which must necessarily include palliative care that is guided by compassion and high medical standards” (ibid.).
Legalisation leads to abuses
“Worldwide, only a tiny minority of countries allow assisted suicide. Wherever the practice is allowed, legal ‘safeguards’ are insufficient to prevent abuses, proving most harmful to vulnerable members of society, including the elderly, the disabled, and those suffering from mental illness or depression. Suicide is something society rightly considers a tragedy to be prevented and the same must apply to assisted suicide. Care, not killing must be the goal we all strive towards,” Van De Walle explained.
ADF International argued in its brief that there is no so-called “right to die” but, in fact, a clear right to life. This position, in line with both European and international human rights law, underscores the dangers that would ensue from forcing Hungary to allow assisted suicide, highlighting that the intentional taking of human life can never be safe.
The European Court of Human Rights also recognised these dangers in the October 2022 ruling in Mortier v. Belgium, in which the the Court found that Belgium violated the right to life in the circumstances surrounding the euthanasia of Godelieva De Troyer.
As argued in ADF International’s intervention: “Despite alleged ‘safeguards’ and a ‘strict’ legal framework, young adults are euthanised because of ‘incurable depression,’ elderly people because of symptoms related to ageing, prisoners because of lack of access to appropriate mental health care or because of psychological suffering, twins because of becoming blind – to mention only some examples, among many others.”
Euthanasia and assisted suicide widely prohibited and rejected as “unethical”
Of the 46 Member States of the Council of Europe, only six have legalized assisted suicide. Legislators in the vast majority of countries have rejected the practice. The World Medical Association consistently and categorically has rejected the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide as unethical. Countries that have legalized euthanasia now allow the intentional killing of children, those who are physically healthy, and those who have not given their consent.
In Resolution 1859 (2012), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated unequivocally that: “Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.”
“Once we as a society open the doors to intentional killing, there is no logical stopping point. How do we distinguish between the person we talk down from the bridge and the person we let die at the hands of their doctor? The state is obligated to protect the fundamental value of human life. We should not set in motion legal changes that undermine this obligation to the detriment of all of society,” noted Van De Walle.
HELSINKI (21 May 2024) – Former government minister and sitting Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen has submitted her defence to the Finnish Supreme Court ahead standing trial a third time for her Bible-verse tweet.
The State prosecutor appealed the case despite the Christian grandmother of 12 being acquitted unanimously of “hate speech” charges before both the Helsinki District Court, and the Court of Appeal. The charges are found under the “war crimes and crimes against humanity” section of the Finnish Criminal Code.
Commenting on the submission of her defence, Räsänen said:
“The heart of the trial is the question of whether teachings linked to the Bible can be displayed and agreed with. I consider it a privilege and an honour to defend freedom of expression, which is a core right in a democratic state.
An acquittal by the Supreme Court would serve as a stronger precedent than lower court rulings for subsequent similar charges. It would provide a clearer and stronger safeguard for the freedom of Christians to present the teachings of the Bible – and it would strengthen the principle of freedom of expression in general.”
The Bible on Trial
Police investigations against Räsänen started in June 2019. As an active member of the Finnish Lutheran church, she had addressed the leadership of her church on Twitter/X and questioned its official sponsorship of the LGBT event ‘Pride 2019’, accompanied by an image of Bible verses from the New Testament book of Romans.
Following this tweet, further investigations against Räsänen were launched, going back to a church pamphlet Räsänen wrote 20 years ago, based on the text “male and female he created them.”
“This was not just about my opinions, but about everyone's freedom of expression. I hope that with the ruling of the Supreme Court, others would not have to undergo the same ordeal."
Police investigations against Räsänen started in June 2019. As an active member of the Finnish Lutheran church, she had addressed the leadership of her church on Twitter/X and questioned its official sponsorship of the LGBT event ‘Pride 2019’, accompanied by an image of Bible verses from the New Testament book of Romans.
Following this tweet, further investigations against Räsänen were launched, going back to a church pamphlet Räsänen wrote 20 years ago, based on the text “male and female he created them.”
Over several months, Räsänen endured a total of thirteen hours of police interrogations about her Christian beliefs – including being frequently asked by the police to explain her understanding of the Bible.
A “chilling effect” on religious freedom
Her legal team, backed by ADF International, have submitted to the court that the case should be dismissed and costs to be awarded to Räsänen.
The defence argue that Räsänen has the right to freedom of expression in international law, and that so-called hate speech laws do not extinguish that right.
The defence have further highlighted the fact that Räsänen has consistently underlined that all people have dignity and should not be discriminated against – inconsistent with the behaviour of somebody guilty of spreading “hate”.
The submission from the defence reads:
“Vague or far-reaching laws against advocacy of hatred, or blasphemy, offence to religious feelings and similar offences are not only arbitrary; they can also lead to the direct and structural marginalization of religious or belief communities.”
The parliamentarian’s case will again be heard alongside Bishop Juhana Pohjola, who faces charges for publishing Räsänen’s pamphlet two decades ago.
Their cases have garnered global media attention, as human rights experts voiced concern over the threat posed to free speech in Finland.
To find out more about the case, and to contribute to Päivi’s legal defence, click here.
Lorcan Price, Irish Barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International, supporting Räsänen’s legal defence said:
“This is a watershed case in the story of Europe’s creeping censorship. In a democratic Western nation in 2024, nobody should be on trial for their faith – yet throughout the prosecution of Päivi Räsänen and Bishop Pohjola, we have seen something akin to a ‘heresy’ trial, where Christians are dragged through court for holding beliefs that differ from the approved orthodoxy of the day.
The state’s insistence on continuing this prosecution after almost five long years, despite such clear and unanimous rulings from the lower courts is alarming. The process is the punishment in such instances, resulting in a chill on free speech for all citizens observing. ADF International will continue to stand alongside Räsänen and Pohjola every step of the way as they face their next day in court. Their right to speak freely is everyone’s right to speak freely.”
Long-serving Parliamentarian and grandmother Päivi Räsänen to stand trial a third time for expressing Christian beliefs on marriage and sexuality on “X” (formerly Twitter)
Continue reading
