Belgian police arrest Lois McLatchie Miller and Chris Elston, for peacefully displaying a sign that read: “Children are never born in the wrong body”
Continue reading
Italian Christian community forced to pay tens of thousands in taxes or make “structural modifications” to their place of worship to satisfy the authorities’ demands that their space look more like “a conventional church”
Represented by ADF International, the church had filed an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights, which has rejected the case
Strasbourg/Rome (March 24, 2025) – In a blow to religious freedom, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that the case of Breccia di Roma, an Evangelical church in Rome, is inadmissible. The church, represented by ADF International, had appealed to the Court after Italian authorities classified its place of worship as a “shop” due to its non-traditional appearance, which led to a demand for around 50,000€ in taxes and fines.
Despite the church’s argument that the modest architecture of its place of worship does not detract from its use for religious practice and that the Italian Tax Agency’s classification violated its right to worship freely, the ECtHR has decided not to intervene. The decision effectively upholds the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation’s ruling, denying the church the tax exemption granted to other religious buildings in Italy.
“This ruling is disappointing, as it fails to recognize the right of churches to freely determine the manner of their worship. We continue to believe that the government has no right to dictate the appearance of a place of worship."
Court dismissal despite strong legal case
Even though the church went up to the highest domestic court claiming a violation of its religious freedom, the ECtHR denied hearing the case claiming “non-exhaustion of domestic remedies”. The Court provided no explanation as to why it does not consider the church to have “exhausted domestic remedies,” given that Breccia di Roma has no other domestic avenues left to pursue. The court also rejected the church’s claim of having been unjustly discriminated against, despite two lower instance courts in Italy having ruled in Breccia di Roma’s favor on this matter. The decision is final. Breccia di Roma must now pay tens of thousands in taxes or make “structural modifications” to their place of worship to satisfy the authorities’ demands.
In recent years, “inadmissibility” has become the most common outcome of any application pending before the ECtHR. The court received 28,800 new applications in 2024, and 34,650 in 2023. At the same time, the court declared 25,990 pending applications inadmissible in 2024, and 31,329 in 2023.
“It is highly regrettable that Breccia di Roma will not receive justice from the European Court of Human Rights.This religious group was unjustly discriminated against because its chosen place of worship does not look like a conventional church in the eyes of the authorities. The small community is now burdened with thousands of Euros in taxes from which other religious buildings in Italy are exempted."
ADF International remains committed to advocating for the protection of religious freedom and ensuring that churches can operate without unnecessary discrimination based on their appearance or practices.
Breccia di Roma can be supported here.
Case background
The Evangelical Christian community, Breccia di Roma, which uses a former shop as it’s place of worship, obtained authorization to change the building’s intended commercial use – in part, so that the applicable taxation would align with the religious, i.e. non-commercial, nature of their activities.
The Italian Tax Agency, however, claimed that the interior architecture of Breccia di Roma’s worship space was not sufficiently religious in appearance. Therefore, it required the church to pay commercial taxes. Despite winning in the lower courts, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation sided with the authorities. With no further avenues for justice in Italy, the church turned to the European Court of Human Rights, which has now declined to decide their case.
“We don’t make money —we bring people together closer to Christ. Granted, our building does not match the Great Synagogue, a mosque, or any of the basilicas in Rome. Also, because our resources are limited, we meet in a comparatively unspectacular building. But why would a state punish us for that? Our church is not worse or less spiritual, just because our architecture is different,” De Chirico asserted.
Further details on the case can be found here.
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.
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.
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 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.
“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?’”
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.
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.”
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 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.”
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.”
“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.”
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.
X-owner Elon Musk accused of being in ‘conspiracy’ with ‘populists and the far right’ during debate at the Council of Europe
UK Labour MP called out by MEP for criticising Mr Musk and Meta’s free speech policy and for voicing ‘support for Britain’s notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during last summer’s riots’
STRASBOURG (1 February 2025) – European politicians on Thursday called for social media censorship to “protect democracy” and criticised X and Meta’s free speech policies during a debate at the Council of Europe.
Politicians at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) called for censorship, in the form of tackling so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech” online, and voted in favour of a report on social media content regulation.
This follows the European Union last week doubling down on online censorship through the Digital Services Act (DSA), with the same justification of “protecting democracy”.
During Thursday night’s debate, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg were singled out as threatening democracy with their free speech policies.
Belgian politician Christophe Lacroix said: “Why is Elon Musk in the US government?… There is a conspiracy, in any case a conjunction of interests between populists and the far right and the billionaire owners of social networks to effectively interfere in the electoral process.”
UK Labour MP Cat Eccles said Mr Musk’s “rise of influence” was “something we should all be worried about” and criticised Meta for its new free speech policy, which she characterised as “abandoning fact checking”.
She also indicated support for the notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during Britain’s riots last summer, saying: “While we must value freedom of expression, we must remember that it does not protect individuals from the consequences of their actions. In the UK we saw this play out recently with the horrendous Southport murders last summer and subsequent riots, with people arrested and charged for inciting hatred and violence on all sides.”
French politician Sandra Regol said free speech online posed a threat to “our democracy” and “diversity”.
She said: “We’ve heard a lot about freedom of expression. It’s supposed to be the guarantor of this diversity, it’s supposed to be the guarantor of our democracies and, in a crazy, absolute reversal of values, it’s now the tool that’s destroying this diversity.”
Three amendments were proposed in Thursday’s debate to preserve freedom of expression and they were all rejected.
But an amendment to the report calling for collaborating “with journalists and fact-checking organisations to effectively combat disinformation” was adopted by two-thirds majority.
This puts Europe further at odds with the US regarding free speech, after President Trump last week signed an executive order to end federal government censorship.
Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser said:
“Free speech is under serious threat in Europe. It was deeply concerning to see politicians at the Council of Europe calling for online censorship in the name of ‘protecting democracy’.
“Democracy is impossible without free speech, but for some reason, too many politicians, including from the UK, can’t seem to grasp this.
“Labour MP Cat Eccles voiced support for Britain’s notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during last summer’s riots in the country.
“European politicians should consider how their support for censorship and their attacks on the free speech policies of American citizens Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg’s platforms will affect our relationship with our vital ally the United States.
“The US has made its commitment to free speech clear and US Vice President JD Vance already threatened last year to withdraw US support for NATO if the EU censors X.
“For the sake of truly preserving European democracy and also good relations with America, all attempts to impose censorship in Europe, including through the Digital Services Act, must end.”
Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International, a global organisation dedicated to protecting fundamental freedoms, including at the European institutions, stated:
“We are living in a new bipolar order of speech. On the one hand, Europe is doubling down on censorship, while the US is recommitting to its free speech heritage.
“This will usher in an unprecedented era of tension within the West itself over this most basic of human rights, and it is the responsibility of all who value freedom to side with the protection of free speech.”
EU doubled down on social media censorship with DSA last week
Last week, the European Commissioner in charge of enforcing the DSA, Henna Virkkunen, announced a number of measures to further crack down on speech, including doubling the number of staff working on enforcement from 100 to 200 by the end of 2025.
The Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into full force in February 2024, is an EU regulation that aims to tackle “misinformation”, “disinformation”, and “hate speech” online.
By requiring the removal of so-called “illegal content” on social media platforms, it censors free speech both within and outside the EU and could even affect the speech of US citizens online.
On the DSA, Mr Coleman commented:
“Last week, the European Commission made clear that it will be increasing its efforts to suppress speech, arguing that the Digital Services Act is needed to ‘protect democracy’ from so-called ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ online.
“As we saw clearly from Thierry Breton’s letter to Elon Musk this summer, warning him not to breach the DSA ahead of his interview with Donald Trump, the DSA will be used to censor views disfavoured by those in power.
“The DSA poses a grave threat to the fundamental right to freedom of expression, guaranteed to every person under international law. It is not the place of any authority to impose a narrow view of acceptable speech on the rest of society.
“The effects of the DSA will not be confined to Europe. There are legitimate worries that the DSA could censor the speech of citizens across the world, as social media companies could regulate their content globally to comply with European standards.”
Other measures announced by Commissioner Virkkunen included making a previously voluntary code of conduct on “illegal hate speech online” legally binding and advancing a framework called the European Democracy Shield (EDS).
The EDS uses fact checkers and NGOs to combat so-called “foreign information manipulation, interference, and disinformation”.
Under the DSA, social media platforms can face massive fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover for failing to remove so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech”.
Senior Counsel, Europe, ADF International
The European Digital Services Act (DSA), which took effect last February, has been hailed as a landmark law designed to bring order to the digital world. Yet, beneath the surface of supposedly protecting democracy, lies a framework fraught with overreach, ambiguity, and the erosion of fundamental freedoms.
The EU Commission claims that the Digital Services Act is needed to “protect democracy” by tackling so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech” online. It promises to create a safer online space by holding digital platforms—particularly “Very Large Online Platforms” (VLOPs) such as Google, Amazon, Meta and X—accountable for addressing these terms.
However, its implementation raises grave concerns. By mandating the removal of broadly defined “harmful” content, this legislation sets the stage for widespread censorship, curtailing lawful and truthful speech under the guise of compliance and safety. The result will be a sanitized and tightly controlled internet where the free exchange of ideas is stifled.
Ultimately, the EU Digital Services Act will allow the silencing of views online that are disfavoured by those in power.
Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a democratic society and includes the right to voice unpopular or controversial opinions. For this reason, ADF International is committed to ensuring that the right to freedom of speech is firmly upheld.
The Digital Services Act’s regulatory framework has profound implications for free speech.
Under the DSA, tech platforms must act against “illegal content”, removing or blocking access to such material within a certain timeframe. However, the definition of “illegal content” is notably broad, encompassing vague terms like “hate speech”—a major part of the DSA’s focus.
The DSA relies on the EU Framework Decision of 28 November 2008, which defines “hate speech” as incitement to violence or hatred against a protected group of persons or a member of such a group. This circular definition of “hate speech” as incitement to hatred is problematic because it fails to specify what “hate” entails.
Due to their vague and subjective nature, “hate speech” laws lead to inconsistent interpretation and enforcement, relying more on individual perception rather than clear, objective harm. Furthermore, the lack of a uniform definition at the EU level means that what is considered “illegal” in one country might be legal in another.
Given all this, tech platforms face the impossible task of enforcing uniform standards across the EU.
The effects of the DSA will not be confined to Europe. There are legitimate worries that the DSA could censor the speech of citizens worldwide, as tech companies may impose stricter content regulations globally to comply with European requirements.
Tech platforms aren’t just removing clear violations—they’ve also started removing speech that could be flagged as “harmful”. If you post a political opinion or share a tweet that some might find offensive, it might get flagged by an algorithm. To avoid massive fines or penalties, platforms will err on the side of caution and remove your post, even if it’s perfectly lawful.
Platforms rely on the automated removal of “harmful” information. These tools are widely known to be inaccurate, often fail to consider context, and therefore flag important and legal content. And if it’s not the algorithms that flag your content, it may be regular users who disagree with what you’re saying.
There are many instances in which “hate speech” laws have targeted individuals for peacefully expressing their views online, even before the DSA came into effect. ADF International is supporting the legal defence of Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish Parliamentarian and grandmother of 12, who stands criminally charged for “hate speech”.
Päivi shared her faith-based views on marriage and sexual ethics in a 2019 tweet, a radio show, and in a 2004 pamphlet that she wrote for her church, centred on the Biblical text “male and female he created them”.
Päivi endured two trials and years of public scrutiny before she was unanimously acquitted of “hate speech” charges by both the Helsinki District Court and the Court of Appeal. Despite her acquittal, the state prosecutor has appealed the case, taking it to the Finnish Supreme Court.
It’s obvious that these laws aren’t only about combatting hate and violence; rather, they may target any speech deemed controversial or that challenge the status quo.
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 InformationThe penalties for failing to comply with the EU Digital Services Act are severe.
Non-compliant platforms with more than 45 million active users could be fined up to 6% of their global annual turnover. For tech platforms like Google, Amazon, Meta, and X, this means billions of euros. So, even the biggest tech companies can’t afford to fall short of the DSA regulations.
If a platform repeatedly fails to comply with the DSA, the EU Commission can impose a temporary or permanent ban, which could result in the platform’s exclusion from the EU market entirely. For platforms that rely heavily on this market, this would mean losing access to one of the world’s largest digital markets.
The risks are high, and tech platforms will scramble to ensure they comply—sometimes at the expense of your fundamental right to free speech.
The US, the EU, and the UK take different approaches to regulating online speech. While Section 230 protects platforms from liability in the US, the Digital Services Act and the UK Online Safety Act enforce stricter content moderation rules, requiring platforms to remove “illegal” and “harmful” content or face severe penalties.
Below is a comparison of how each framework handles platform liability, free speech, and government oversight:
| Feature | USA (Section 230) | EU (Digital Sservices Act) | UK (Online Safety Act) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | First Amendment protects free speech; Section 230 shields platforms from liability. | EU regulation on transparency and accountability, resulting in content moderation. | UK law regulating online content to prevent harm, with strict enforcement. |
| Platform Liability | Section 230 protects platforms from liability for most user-generated content. | Large platforms must remove illegal content or face penalties. | Platforms must remove harmful but legal content or face fines. |
| "Hate Speech" | Protected unless it incites imminent violence. | Platforms must remove illegal "hate speech". | Requires platforms to remove content deemed harmful, even if legal. |
| "Misinformation" | Generally protected under free speech laws. | Platforms must take action against "systemic risks" like "disinformation". | Platforms must mitigate risks from "misinformation", especially for children. |
| Government Censorship | The government cannot censor speech except in rare cases (e.g., incitement to violence). | “Trusted flaggers” can flag content for removal, but independent oversight applies. | The regulator (Ofcom) enforces rules, and platforms must comply. |
In the digital age, we rely increasingly on digital technology to impart and receive information. And it’s essential that the free flow of information is not controlled by unaccountable gatekeepers policing what can and cannot be said.
ADF International’s stance is clear: this legislation will result in dangerous overreach that threatens the very freedoms it claims to protect.
In January, our legal team attended a plenary session and debate at the EU Parliament in Strasbourg regarding the enforcement of the DSA. The discussion brought to light significant concerns across the political spectrum about how the DSA may impact freedom of speech and expression, and rightfully so.
Several members of the EU Parliament (MEPs), who initially favoured the legislation, raised serious objections to the DSA, with some calling for its revision or annulment. A significant point of contention was the potential for what they termed “shadow content banning”—removing content without adequate transparency.
This includes cases where users might be unaware of why their content was banned, on what legal basis, or how they can appeal such decisions. Most of the time, they’re left with nothing but a generic AI response and no explanation.
Some MEPs, like French MEP Virginie Joron, referred to the DSA as the “Digital Surveillance Act”.
Despite intense opposition, the EU Commission representative and the Council of the EU representative promised to enforce the DSA more rigorously. They vowed to double down on free speech by enforcing more thorough fact-checking and anti “hate speech” laws “so that “hate speech” is flagged and assessed [within] 24 hours and removed when necessary”.
They failed to provide comprehensive responses to the concerns raised about the DSA’s potential to erode fundamental rights, leaving critical questions about its implementation and implications unresolved.
The EU Digital Services Act’s enforcement mechanisms are riddled with ambiguity. Terms like “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “hate speech” are too wide and vague to serve as a proper basis for silencing speech. These terms are too easily weaponized, enabling those in power to police dialogue and suppress dissent in the name of safety.
By placing excessive pressure on platforms to moderate content, the DSA risks creating an internet governed by fear—fear of fines, fear of bans, and fear of expressing one’s views. If the DSA is allowed to stifle open dialogue and suppress legitimate debate, it will undermine the very democratic principles it claims to protect.
Policymakers must revisit this legislation, ensuring that efforts to regulate the digital sphere do not come at the cost of fundamental freedoms.
Europe’s commitment to freedom of speech demands better. Through our office in Brussels, we at ADF International are challenging this legislation because it’s not up to governments or unaccountable bureaucrats to impose a narrow view of acceptable speech on society.
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.
You need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou are currently viewing a placeholder content from Facebook. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou are currently viewing a placeholder content from X. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More Information
