Remind me what the Päivi case is all about...
It's about Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish Christian politician who has just been convicted by the country's Supreme Court after expressing traditional, Biblical views on sexuality.
That sounds pretty terrible, and a real blow to the freedom to express Christian views on these matters...
That's certainly how many have interpreted it. No less an august institution than The Washington Post described it as "a free speech farce" in an editorial. "Finland is often ranked as the happiest country on Earth, but that's only if you like cold winters and harsh limitations on freedom of expression," it thundered. "If Finland is able to do this to a sitting member of its legislature and a clergyman [Päivi's co-defendant, Lutheran bishop Juhana Pohjola] who chairs an international organisation with millions of members, no less notable person can feel comfortable expressing similar views in public."
Website First Things said: "This is not a matter of one panel of judges getting the balance slightly off. The problem is the framework itself. Hate speech laws vest in the state a power to decide which opinions may be expressed and which must be suppressed. Once that power exists, it will be exercised. Across Europe, we see that it is most routinely exercised against anyone whose views the prevailing consensus finds uncomfortable."
One evangelical leader in the UK adds: "The case has been reported as a gross infringement of Christians’ rights to freedom of religions and expression, with fears that it will criminalise the use of Biblical texts or preaching about homosexuality from a Biblical perspective. This is how it has been covered by some of the evangelical press."
I sense there's a "but" coming...
And you'd be right. The same British evangelical leader continues, writing on Facebook: "The decision is more nuanced than this, and it is important that Christians accurately reflect what the court decided."
Who is this fringe commentator, then? Presumably someone who knows nothing about legal matters?
Er, no. It's John Stevens, National Director of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC). He also happens to be someone who studied Law at Cambridge University. And turns out that unlike many of us, he has actually read the whole legal judgement, albeit understandably in English, rather than the original Finnish.
Go on...
Stevens notes that in fact "the decision was a partial victory for Päivi Räsänen and her right to religious freedom. The charge in relation to the tweets quoting Bible verses in 2019 was rejected. They cited Romans 1v27-28. The court held that this did could not be considered as ‘insulting to homosexuals’ even though the expressions have negative connotations.
"The Court took a high view of the right to religious freedom, which includes practice and publishing beliefs, and said that ‘the threshold for intervening by criminal means in the discussion of the interpretation and significance of a scripture considered sacred in a religious community as a guideline for the community’s activity must be high.’
"This aspect of the decision protects the right of Christians to quote Biblical texts and express and defend their religious beliefs about homosexuality, as long as this is not done in a way that constitutes direct hate speech. The decision does not therefore criminalise the Bible or evangelical teaching about homosexuality, but rather protects it," he says. [en's bold type emphasis].
So what was all the fuss about?
"Päivi Räsänen was convicted on the other charge related to the pamphlet, and fined €1800. The reasoning is important for the wider ramifications of the case," John Stevens explains in his Facebook post.
"The Finnish Constitution makes it a criminal offence to ‘make available to the public or otherwise disseminate or keep available for public information, opinion or ore hate message that threatens, slanders or insults a group on the basis of race, skin colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, religion or belief, sexual orientation or disability.’ Those who do this ‘shall be convicted of incitement against a national group.’
"The allegation concerned a pamphlet published in 2004 entitled ‘He created them as men and women. Homosexual relationships challenge the Christian concept of humanity.’ The reasons for the charge was that this article had been kept available on a website. The article contained a chapter on ‘The Bible and the Church.’
"The court interpreted the application of this law in the light of the protections of freedom of religion and freedoms of expression in the European Convention on Human Rights (which is also incorporated into British Law).
"The court held that the article had insulted homosexuals as a group, but not by reason of the Biblical and religious materialistic it contained. The offence consisted in a very specific paragraph of the article which stated that ‘scientific evidence irrefutably shows that homosexuality is a disorder of psychosexual development,’ denying that it is a natural variation of sexuality, claiming it is possible for sexual identity to be integrated towards a normal heterosexual emotional life, and stating that gay culture is part of the totality of sexual deviance.
"The court concludes that this insulted homosexuals as a national group because it associated all homosexuals with a disorder of psychosexual development. The author was not here presenting views based on sacred texts or religious conviction, but ‘argumentation based mainly on the authors social and medical views.’ The court decided that ‘freedom of religion does not protect the presentation of opinions that are not related to religion within the frame of reference of religious conviction.’
"Claims in the article that casual and changing relationships are the most common relationship model in the gay community were found to be generalising but not insulting."
So where in fact does this leave things?
"The result of the decisions, in relation to both the tweets and the article, was to uphold the right to religious expression. This was not restricted or criminalised," writes Stevens.
"The expression of the medial and social views of the author that homosexuality was always a disorder was judged insulting, because it was applied to the whole group. The court held that the right to freedom or expression is not absolute, and there was no protection for making an insulting claim which was incorrect according to modern psychiatry.
"It is still disturbing that the expression of the author’s medical and social opinion was judged to be insulting and a criminal offence and not protected by the right to freedom of speech, and it is likely that this will be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. We should pray it will be overturned and this conviction quashed. It amounts to a form of blasphemy law protection for current psychiatric understanding of homosexuality, which is liable to change and debate. It was only in 1987 that homosexuality was depathologised by the American Psychiatric Association.
"However the case does not support the criminalisation of religious-based views about homosexuality, including Biblical teaching, even though these may be insulting and applied to homosexuals as whole group." [Again, en's bold type emphasis, also below].
And what does he conclude?
"We need to be careful not to draw the wrong conclusion from this case and fear that our right to express our religious convictions about homosexuality have been curtailed and threatened. They have not, but rather seem to have been protected. What we cannot do it make medical and social truth claims about homosexuality in general that are rejected as false by the medical establishment. As Christians we ought to make our arguments on biblical and theological grounds, not on the basis of secular psychology/psychiatry.
"The current law provides us with strong protection for the expression of our religious views about homosexuality, and we should not be afraid to speak, tweet or write about our beliefs."
Anyone else got anything useful to say about this?
Yle says...
Hang on, who?
Yle. It's the Finnish national public broadcaster. It operates three national television channels, eight radio channels and services, and 23 regional radio stations.
Ok, and what does its analysis say?
Yle makes not dissimilar points to Stevens. It explains: "The Supreme Court made a clear distinction between religious points of view and erroneous medical claims.
"The chair of the Council for Mass Media in Finland (JSN), Eero Hyvönen, told Yle on Friday that Finland continues to offer freedom of speech rights. The JSN is the Finnish media sector's self-regulatory body.
"According to Hyvönen, general criticism or opinions considered offensive are acceptable forms of free speech, but offensive speech that specifically targets or discriminates against a particular group of people is not protected speech.
"In its decision, the high court said that the booklet's offending passages did not concern religion or beliefs. Instead, they were opinions based on the author's social and medical views."
And it criticised The Washington Post, saying that the paper "did not address the legal reasoning behind the court's decision. The editorial did not mention that the ruling was based on the finding that making medical claims in a religious context was not a protected form of religious freedom."
In one sense, The Washington Post is right: it is a freedom of expression issue - but not about the free expression of a Christian view of sex and marriage. It is about freedom to say science proves all homosexuality is a psycho-sexual disorder, and to view all homosexuals in this way for public policy formulation. It is important not to mix those up.
What does Päivi herself say?
"Tiedoksi ote ajantasaisesta ICD 10 diagnoosiluettelosta, jota lääkärit käyttävät päivittäin.Psykoseksuaalisen kehityksen häiriö ei ole solvaava eikä vanhentunut nimike. Tähän vetosin myös oikeudessa."
Meaning?
She states that describing homosexuality as a psychosexual development disorder is "not an offensive nor outdated term" since it is in a "diagnosis list that doctors use daily". The diagnosis list is something called ICD-10, version 2019. This is the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases, a standardized, alphanumeric coding system developed by the World Health Organisation to classify over 14,000 diseases, symptoms, and injury causes.
At one point, it says: "Sexual relationship disorder: The gender identity or sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual) is responsible for difficulties in forming or maintaining a relationship with a sexual partner."
Päivi adds: "I haven’t used this diagnostic list as any proof of what homosexuality is, but solely for the purpose that the term 'psychosexual development disorder' cannot be considered an insult or even outdated, because it is found in our diagnostic list."
What next?
Lathan Watts, vice president of public affairs for Alliance Defending Freedom, writes: "For now, the future remains uncertain for Räsänen and Pohjola as they take counsel from their legal team. The future of free speech in Europe is buffeted by tempestuous waves of doubt as well. So, may this verse of 'Be Still, My Soul' be of reassurance:
'Be still, my soul! Your God does undertake to guide the future as He has the past.
Your hope, your confidence, let nothing shake; all now mysterious shall be bright at last.
Be still, my soul! The waves and winds still know His voice who ruled them while He dwelt below'.”
