Defence filed in Bible Tweet “hate speech” case headed to Finland’s Supreme Court 

  • 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) 
       
  • Prosecution calls for tens of thousands in fines and censorship of MP’s Bible-Tweet; ADF International supports Räsänen’s legal defence  

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."

- Päivi Räsänen

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.”  

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

WHO Pandemic Agreement: free speech experts welcome progress as negotiations near conclusion

Giorgio Mazzoli in front of the UN in Geneva. The WHO pandemic treaty is negotiated by UN member states.
  • Earlier versions of the text required parties to “combat” or “prevent” undefined concepts like “misleading information”, “misinformation”, and “disinformation”.  
  • ADF International spearheaded global advocacy to ensure pandemic treaty upholds freedom of expression. 
  • Latest negotiating text addresses free speech concerns – vigilance against potential regression crucial as negotiations resume today. 
Giorgio Mazzoli in front of the UN in Geneva. The WHO pandemic treaty is negotiated by UN member states.

GENEVA (30 April 2024) – The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, a new international treaty due to be adopted in June, has drawn worldwide criticism for its potential crackdown on freedom of expression as part of pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. An earlier version required the “management” of so-called “infodemics,” defined as “too much information … during a disease outbreak” causing “confusion” as well as “mistrust” in health authorities, regardless of the veracity of the information in question. A more recent version of the agreement included language mandating parties to “cooperate, in accordance with national laws, in preventing misinformation and disinformation,” essentially granting individual states the discretion to define which information fits within these categories, and potentially censor it.    

Global advocacy efforts to protect free speech yielded fruits as the latest proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement removed the vague mandates for parties to “prevent” misinformation and disinformation. In a significant shift, the current text no longer contemplates the imposition of potentially sweeping restrictions on freedom of speech to address these phenomena. Instead, it recognizes the importance of building trust and ensuring timely, transparent, accurate, science- and evidence-informed information.  

"It is vital that the Pandemic Agreement safeguard freedom of expression against potential censorship threats. We commend WHO Member States for acknowledging the critical importance of government transparency and accountability in sharing pandemic-related information, rather than endorsing arbitrary speech suppression."

- Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International

“Long-awaited development” 

“It is vital that the Pandemic Agreement safeguard freedom of expression against potential censorship threats. We commend WHO Member States for acknowledging the critical importance of government transparency and accountability in sharing pandemic-related information, rather than endorsing arbitrary speech suppression. We trust that these advances will be consolidated in the final text without any rollbacks on language protecting fundamental freedoms,” said Giorgio Mazzoli, human rights expert and Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International, who led the legal organisation’s global advocacy effort.   

Negotiations continue today 

Today marks the resumption of negotiations on the draft text, scheduled to conclude on May 10th. Later next month, the World Health Assembly (WHA) is expected to adopt the agreement, aimed inter alia at strengthening the WHO’s role in preventing, preparing for, and responding to future pandemics. 

Over the last months, ADF International warned that the agreement could severely restrict freedom of expression, a fundamental human right that encompasses the right to impart, seek and receive information under international law. ADF International has highlighted the potential human rights implications of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and offered legal advocacy to key stakeholders. 

“Freedom of expression, especially during pandemics, is essential to ensure scrutiny and accountability over critical public health decisions. It is imperative that the Pandemic Agreement does not lead to a lowering of existing standards by promoting incursions into free speech in the name of public health, when it is possible for both to be upheld in careful balance. As negotiations near their final stages, Member States must steer clear of any regression in this area,” concluded Mazzoli.  

 

Further information: 

  • October 2023: Negotiating text which required states to combat so-called infodemics: https://t.co/wdrlqG1pHO 
  • March 2024: Negotiating text which demanded that parties cooperate “in preventing misinformation and disinformation”: https://t.co/wdrlqG1pHO 
  • April 2024: new draft without vague mandates and the confirmation of the importance of freedom of information: https://t.co/vtmrw4elmv 
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Germany plans to unveil censorship zones which violate freedom of speech and free assembly

Pavica Vojnovic standing outside of a facility which is inside of a censorship zone.

All of Germany must reject this bill because whether pro-life or not, censorship zones would ensnare everyone

Pavica Vojnovic outside of an abortion facility where censorship zones silence pro-life speech.

The German government is planning to introduce so-called censorship zones in certain locations – just like the UK. These censorship zones around abortion facilities are established to silence the pro-life view. These zones are not “pro-choice”, they’re no-choice.

And their actions deliberately ignore recent rulings by the Federal Administrative Court. Several weeks ago, the federal government approved a draft law on censorship zones to be established in certain locations in front of and around German abortion-related facilities in which certain opinions can no longer be expressed and certain peaceful activities prohibited.

What are censorship zones?

Censorship zones are areas defined by the local administration or even the legislature where specific opinions, actions or gatherings are prohibited. These zones censor certain expressions of opinion, hence the name ‘censorship zone’.

A look at Great Britain shows where restrictions on peaceful prayers can lead. In recent months, several people have been arrested there due to local censorship zones. The arrests occurred because individuals were quietly praying on a public street. The zones there have led to even silent prayer and, thus, thoughts being criminalized. We must not stand for this. Here’s why: 

Censorship zones violate fundamental freedoms

Censorship zones are advanced under the guise of protecting women, but they are levied against peaceful individuals who in no way condone the harassment of women. After all, harassment is already prohibited under German criminal law.

What is most dangerous, however, is the fact that certain opinions are banned because they’re unpopular. Even if we disagree on abortion, we should agree that basic human rights—like free expression and free thought—are too important to throw out the window. 

We all have the basic human right to think, act, and pray in accordance with our convictions.

Only recently, the Federal Administrative Court confirmed the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of opinion of a pro-life prayer group.

They gathered across the street from an abortion facility and quietly prayed. The police did not find harassment while observing the group in Pforzheim.

Similarly in the UK, A pro-life activist is being investigated for a third time for praying silently in a censorship zone.

She had nothing with her, did not prevent women from entering the abortion facility, and did not even speak to anyone. A silent prayer in her mind was enough to bring her to court – a serious violation of freedom of thought.

Censorship zones are clearly having serious consequences for fundamental freedoms in the UK and we cannot let the same thing happen in Germany. 

These zones silence without offering help

Censorship zones do nothing to protect women. Rather, they block women from hearing about the offers of help available to them.

The sad reality is that these zones fail the women who choose abortion out of a sense of helplessness. By banning peaceful offers of help and alternative options, many women will feel even more alone.

Shouldn’t women in crisis pregnancies have access to help and alternative options to abortion?

If the state can ban freedom of expression and assembly in front of certain establishments, why not in other places?

There is no logical endpoint for such censorship

Freedom of expression, assembly, and freedom of religion benefit all people. These fundamental rights cannot be restricted under the pretext of harassment – which is already a criminal offence.

This bill is aimed at silencing pro-life views, to get those who stand up for the lives of the unborn to self-censor and remain silent. That’s why we’re pushing back against these censorial laws – will you help us?

The bill, which was approved by the cabinet on January 24th, 2024, will now be forwarded to the Bundesrat, which can already introduce amendments. This will be followed by the legislative process in the Bundestag, which will end with a vote on the law.

As the legal impact of these zones becomes clear, we must remain committed to defending the basic human right to free expression, including preventing the proliferation of “thought crimes” where people can even be prosecuted for silent prayer.  

Will you stand alongside us for the protection of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly?

We must stand up for our fundamental rights together.

German government announces draft law introducing censorship zones around abortion-related facilities, fines up to 5,000€

Pavica und Felix
  • Proposed bill would criminalize charity volunteers praying and offering help, including vague ban on words, signs, and messages that could be potentially “confusing”
  • Legal expert Dr. Felix Böllmann: “Any form of harassment is obviously already forbidden. Peaceful prayer and offers of help, however, are strongly protected under the law”.

BERLIN (29 January 2024) – A new draft bill, announced last week by Germany’s Federal Family Minister Lisa Paus (Green Party), would introduce fines of up to 5,000€ ($5,500) for peaceful expression on public streets near abortion-related facilities. The bill would seek to create nationwide censorship zones around the facilities, criminalising messages that could be subjectively understood as “disturbing” or “confusing,” with no legal clarity as to how those terms are to be interpreted. Harassment is already fully illegal, independent of the proposed new law, which would target peaceful expression. The Federal Cabinet approved the bill last week. It will now move through the Bundesrat (Federal Council), which can introduce amendments, followed by the legislative process, including three readings in the Bundestag (Parliament).  

The UK Parliament adopted “buffer zone” legislation in 2023, expected to come into force throughout all of England and Wales soon. Existing zones under local laws already have resulted in numerous human rights violations including police interrogations, arrests, fines and criminal proceedings for silent prayer on the public street near abortion facilities, essentially resulting in “thought-crime” prosecutions. Currently, army veteran Adam Smith-Connor is awaiting trial for silent prayer in Bournemouth, England. 

Germany’s proposed new law would be in direct contravention to a 2023 decision from the country’s top administrative court upholding the freedom of assembly across the street from an abortion facility. The ruling affirmed the rights of Pavica Vojnović and her 40 Days for Life prayer group, which conducted silent prayer vigils on the public street in Pforzheim, Germany. Such an exercise of basic human rights would likely run afoul of the proposed new legislation.   

“Peaceful gatherings, prayer and offers of help should never be banned. The plans of the German government are alarming—not only do they put blanket restrictions on fundamental freedoms, but also they weaken civil society’s engagement for the protection of the right to life. Any form of harassment is obviously forbidden. But censorship zones are not pro-choice, they are no-choice and have no place in a free and democratic society,” said Dr. Felix Böllmann, German lawyer and Director of European Advocacy at ADF International.  

Bill contradicts court rulings 

In recent years, ADF International has supported the legal defense of pro-life volunteers in Germany who exercised their right to pray peacefully, including in silence, in front of abortion-related facilities. Germany’s top administration court confirmed that blanket bans on prayer gatherings are impermissible. According to the court, there is no “right to be buffered from dissenting opinions”. The new bill goes far beyond criminalising already illegal harassment to propose blanket bans on peaceful and fully legal activities such as prayer or offers of help.  

The draft bill thus contradicts standing court ruling upholding freedom of assembly and free expression on the public street in the vicinity of an abortion-related facility absent manifest infringements of third party rights.  

Restricting free expression supports abortion lobby 

“Standing law in Germany obliges the state and civil society to protect unborn life. Committed pro-life individuals must not be criminalized for the peaceful expression of their convictions. Every human being has dignity and a right to life, from the moment of conception. The state and citizens should work together to protect life. Instead, people with civil courage to uphold the fundamental right to life are now being deterred, and even potentially criminalised, for their commitment,” said Ludwig Brühl, German Communications Officer for ADF International. 

“We stand with the right of every person, including peaceful pro-life advocates, to freely express their convictions. The freedoms of assembly, opinion, and religion benefit all people. That is why we are defending these core human rights from the encroaching plans of lobby organizations and ideologues,” concluded Dr Felix Böllmann. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only