News Round-Up: Finnish Court Convicts MP for “Hate Speech”, IOC Bans Males from Women’s Sports, Ofcom Probes Climate Remarks
Twice a week, the editorial team of Freedom Research compiles a round-up of news that caught our eye – or what felt like under-reported aspects of news deserving more attention.
Over the past few days, the following topics attracted our attention:
Finnish Supreme Court Finds Päivi Räsänen Guilty of “Hate Speech”
IOC: Women’s Sports for Biological Women Only from 2028
Ofcom Investigates Climate Remarks on TalkTV
Finnish Supreme Court Finds Päivi Räsänen Guilty of “Hate Speech”
Finland’s Supreme Court passed its ruling this week on one of Päivi Räsänen’s online writings, in which she had referred to homosexuality as a psychosexual development disorder, and found the accused guilty of insulting homosexuals as a group and hence inciting hatred against them. The court thus overturned the earlier acquittals by the district court and the court of appeals, which had ruled that the writings, though offensive, did not constitute punishable hate speech, reports Yle. Päivi Räsänen is a Member of the Finnish Parliament and a former government minister.
The court’s final ruling emphasized that it is erroneous to refer to homosexuality as a psychosexual developmental disorder. In the court’s view, Räsänen’s writings did not treat homosexuals as equal to heterosexuals, as heterosexuality was presented as the normal standard toward which a homosexual could strive. In the court’s view, these statements by Räsänen insulted homosexuals as a group on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Räsänen’s statements in question come from her 2004 online pamphlet “He created them male and female. Homosexual relationships call into question the nature of the Christian view of humanity,” which was published in 2007 on the websites of the Finnish Lutheran Foundation and the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese. However, because Räsänen reposted the pamphlet on her Facebook page in 2019 and 2020, the Supreme Court could find her now guilty of inciting hatred. The court imposed a fine of 20 daily rates, which amounts to 1,800 euros, based on Räsänen’s income.
The other defendant was Bishop Juhana Pohjola, a representative of the Finnish Lutheran Foundation. The court found that, as he was a member of the foundation’s board, publishing the text in question served the foundation’s interests. The court sentenced Pohjola to a fine of 20 daily rates for inciting hatred against the group. The court imposed a fine of 5,000 euros on the foundation.
The court found that Räsänen’s offensive writings were not so much a matter of religion or religious belief, but rather opinions based on the author’s social and medical views. Thus, the court ruled that freedom of religion does not protect the presentation of opinions unrelated to religion under the guise of religious writing. Freedom of speech was central to the court proceedings, while freedom of religion carried less weight.
At the same time, the Supreme Court noted that the punishment imposed on Räsänen and Pohjola does not conflict with freedom of speech and religion, which are guaranteed by both the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. In the court’s view, the European Court of Human Rights has taken a strict stance on generalizing statements that attack an entire group – such as homosexuals – or portray such a group in a negative light. The court further emphasized that Räsänen made all of these statements in her capacity as a member of parliament and a doctor, and that the topics in question stemmed from her political activities. In the court’s view, her position and medical training have increased the potential harm of the statements. Finally, the court ordered that the offensive paragraphs be removed from Räsänen’s Facebook page and elsewhere on the web. The latter, however, pertains only to specific paragraphs and sentences and does not prevent the rest of the text from being published.
Päivi Räsänen said at a press conference that the Supreme Court’s decision came as a shock to her. “I was prepared for a completely different ruling, and therefore I am not even ready to comment on it,” Räsänen said, but promised to decide after a thorough analysis whether to appeal the ruling to the European Court of Human Rights. In any case, Räsänen does not consider herself at fault and sees no need to apologize, as her writing was and remains lawful and did not constitute an insult to anyone, but rather expressed the truth of the Bible. Räsänen emphasized that she had confirmed in all of the court proceedings that the 2004 text was now outdated, yet the court still declared the text unlawful. Räsänen stated that she is concerned about freedom of speech and that the court ruling gives everyone a reason to self-censor themselves in the future.
Finance Minister Riikka Purra wrote on the ruling: “Freedom of speech took another severe blow today through the Supreme Court’s decision. Whatever your opinion may be regarding the message in question (or its wording), defend freedom of speech. It is of critical importance for a functioning democracy and a healthy society.”
Minister of Justice Leena Meri has also expressed her opinion on the case, writing that freedom of speech is a central fundamental right and that the Penal Code must be clear, precise, and predictable. According to the minister, it is unthinkable that citizens would not know in advance which words or topics could lead to punishment. Both ministers believe the law must be amended.
The prosecutor sought punishment for Räsänen also for inciting hatred against a group on social media. Räsänen posted a message on Twitter (now X), Instagram, and Facebook in the summer of 2019, in which she asked the church leadership for their reasons for becoming an official partner of the Pride event. “How does the church’s doctrinal foundation – the Bible – align with the idea that shame and sin are being celebrated as pride?” she wrote, quoting supporting verses from the Bible.
The Supreme Court dismissed this charge, finding that although Räsänen expressed her opinion on sexual acts between people of the same sex in a negative tone, given the context, the message cannot be considered criminally offensive to homosexuals.
IOC: Women’s Sports for Biological Women Only from 2028
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced that starting in 2028 – that is, beginning with the Los Angeles Summer Olympics – only biological women will be allowed to compete in women’s categories. The goal is to end the years-long controversy surrounding men who identify as women and individuals with differences in sexual development (DSD), who have always had natural advantages over women in every sport, reports the BBC.
According to IOC President Kirsty Coventry, the decision was preceded by an analysis by medical experts, which found that men always have advantages over women in all sports due to greater strength, power, and endurance. Even a very small difference can determine victory or defeat in competition. “So it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category. In addition, in some sports it would simply not be safe,” said the IOC president. These claims have also been confirmed previously by the UN, whose report states that men do indeed have gender-specific advantages over women and that, due to “trans women,” more than 600 female athletes had lost more than 890 medals by 2024.
According to the IOC, gender will henceforth be determined by SRY gene testing – that is, the presence of the sex-determining Y chromosome will be identified through a test that an athlete must take once in their lifetime. “The IOC considers that SRY gene screening via saliva, cheek swab, or blood sample is non-invasive compared to other possible methods,” the organization stated. Athletes who do not take the test may still compete in other categories for which they have qualified. “For example, they are eligible for any male category, including in a designated male slot within any mixed category, and any open category, or in sports and events that do not classify athletes by sex,” the IOC stated.
Until this decision, the IOC had left gender rules to the discretion of individual sports governing bodies and had not implemented a uniform approach. For example, in track and field, swimming, cycling, and rowing, men were prohibited from competing in women’s categories. In many other sports, however, men who identified as women were still permitted to compete in women’s categories, if they suppressed their testosterone levels.
According to the supporters of the Olympic Committee’s decision, track and field and boxing have recently used genetic testing successfully. This is a reliable, confidential, and proportionate approach supported by both sports scientists and the majority of athletes. Supporters also believe that genetic testing is far more humane than requiring a transgender person or someone with DSD to suppress their natural testosterone levels. This would also avoid the intense media coverage that has accompanied many such cases.
Critics of the decision, however, argue that genetic testing is unnecessary, invasive, costly, and carries a high risk of false positives. Some critics have gone so far as to label the system “gender policing” and a step backward, arguing that such a test violates athletes’ rights and may lead to stigmatization and psychological stress. The test is said to fail to reflect “the complex nature of gender.”
The IOC did in fact employ the SRY gene test in the 1980s, but abandoned it in the 1990s. The test had produced false-positive results, and there were fears that female athletes would be penalized for natural variations.
The first openly transgender woman, New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard, competed in the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo. No known transgender women competed in the Paris Olympics last year, but a scandal was caused by Algerian boxer Imane Khelif, who won the gold medal in women’s middleweight boxing despite having been disqualified from the world championships just a year earlier for allegedly failing a gender test. Khelif has already announced that she will undergo gender testing in order to compete in the Los Angeles Olympics.
Ofcom Investigates Climate-sceptical Remarks on TalkTV
The UK communications regulator Ofcom is being accused of Orwellian tactics after launching its first investigation in over a decade into alleged climate-sceptical comments, which tightens the already strict restrictions on free speech, according to the Daily Mail.
Initially, Ofcom did not pursue complaints about discussions of climate change in two programmes aired on the TV channel Talk last year. One complaint concerned a remark by a TalkTV guest, who said that “it was a deliberate effort to create fake anxiety… out of something that is false.” The programme discussed a report by the UK Health Security Agency on how climate change could affect mental health and what the government’s messaging on the issue should be. The second complaint concerned a statement by a guest on another programme, in which he described the Labour Party’s energy policy as “suicidal,” “driven by pseudoscience in many cases,” and “a kind of cultish behaviour.” That programme discussed the potential impact of climate change and carbon-neutrality policies on the population.
However, Ofcom changed its mind after the climate activist group Good Law Project (GLP) lobbied it and demanded an explanation for the initial decision. Subsequently, Ofcom performed a U-turn and now considers that so-called climate-skeptical claims may violate the Broadcasting Code. As a result, the impartiality and potentially misleading nature of the statements must be re-examined.
According to Toby Young, head of the Free Speech Union, these complaints come from climate activists who want to use the government agency to advance their agenda and silence opposing views. “The pretence that the science of global warming is ‘settled’ and that anyone who challenges any aspect of the environmentalist agenda, including Net Zero, is a ‘denier’, has long been a tactic of climate alarmists to silence dissent,” said Young. The Free Speech Union believes Ofcom should simply treat such complaints as nuisance and reject them, as it has done since 2017.
Conservative Party member Craig Mackinlay criticised the move as well: “Ofcom runs the risk of becoming an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’ – truly dangerous territory in a supposed democratic society.” Mackinlay added that all fields of science evolve and change, and they should be given the freedom to do so. “As a libertarian Conservative, I take a simplistic view of broadcasting content – if I don’t like what I’m listening to or watching, I simply turn it off. We should perhaps do the same to Ofcom, saving millions of pounds by closing this unloved, out-of-control quango,” said Mackinlay.
The GLP has previously attacked the Labour government over its climate and carbon-neutrality policies, arguing that they do not go far enough. The group has also threatened the government with legal action, claiming that “[Keir] Starmer’s climate framework is so full of holes that it breaches our right to family life”. Furthermore, the group has sought to overturn a Supreme Court ruling stating that the terms “woman” and “sex” refer to biological sex. This year, the organisation unsuccessfully challenged a ruling by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that trans women should not be allowed to use women’s restrooms in the workplace or public institutions. Regarding Ofcom’s recent change of heart, a GLP spokesperson wrote that right-wing channels had been allowed to spread dangerous climate lies unchecked for too long, and finally Ofcom had listened. The spokesperson added that Ofcom must curb the fossil fuel propaganda dominating the media.
Since January 2020, 1,221 complaints regarding climate change have been filed with Ofcom. None of these cases have been deemed a violation of the Broadcasting Act.
Free speech is a cornerstone of democracy.
If there is no free speech then there is no real democracy.
The Finnish court has spoken of free thought and speech in a negative tone and that is an extreme offense toward humans as a group. The court's use of force and coersion to harm that group is an extremist violence against humanity that must be remedied and defended against for the sake of humankind.