Tim Stanley in the Telegraph highlights the chilling case of Finnish MP and former Interior Minister (i.e., Home Secretary) Päivi Räsänen, whose prosecution by the state for her traditional Christian views on sex is a “canary in a coal mine” showing free speech in the West is dead – sacrificed in favour of banning ‘insults’.
Päivi Räsänen is a doctor, longstanding MP and former interior minister. In 2019, police opened an investigation into her for “incitement against a minority”. The accusation is based upon a tweet in which she asked why the Lutheran Church sponsored a Pride event; a debate in which she said God intends us to be straight; and a booklet she authored nearly 20 years ago that argued homosexuality is a developmental disorder.
The Finnish police concluded that no crime had been committed, but the prosecutor-general decided to charge her anyway. In 2022, Räsänen went to court: three judges, no jury, no witnesses and not even a victim to say they took offence. The judges decided in Räsänen’s favour; the prosecutor, who won’t take no for an answer, simply brought the case back via appeal. The second trial wrapped up last week, and if Räsänen is found guilty, she could face jail.
According to Paul Coleman, the executive director of ADF International, a religious advocacy group that threw its weight behind Räsänen, the prosecutor opened by insisting that this case is not about theology: you can quote the Bible as much as you like, the issue is how you interpret it, and Räsänen had done so in such a way that caused harm.
By Coleman’s account, the trial then became very theological indeed, with undergraduate-level questions such as: “What is the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament? Why are some passages of the Bible interpreted literally?”
It’s this line of inquiry that I think establishes Räsänen’s story as a canary in a coal mine. Until now, progressives seemed content to try to separate religion from the public sphere. But here we witness an agent of the state taking a big step into the private sphere, seeking not only to silence a point of view but also to challenge its intellectual basis and refute it.
There’s no escaping the inquisition. Räsänen might evoke the defence that she hates sin but loves the sinner, but the prosecution stated that this isn’t good enough in a modern society. Calling actions a sin insults the people who do them, and given that one’s identity can be defined by acts, it amounts to an attack on their very being. One might reply that many Christians feel a calling to evangelise, so stopping them from performing that particular action threatens their identity, too. Thus we see the consequences of European countries passing well-intentioned equalities legislation that seeks to safeguard every characteristic under the sun. Sexual preference is protected; so is religious belief. But what happens when they come into conflict?
Even if the judges once again find in Räsänen’s favour, the problem, of course, says Stanley, is that the case was brought at all. And it fits a pattern.
Here in the U.K., a street preacher was arrested in 2019; this year, a Tory councillor says he lost his job after tweeting that pride is a sin (indeed it’s the sin that led to Satan’s rebellion and humanity being cast out of Eden). A different Tory councillor, Anthony Stevens, tweeted his sympathy for these people – and was in turn arrested for an alleged hate crime. Stevens did not appear publicly to endorse the theology of either man; he was standing up for their right to express it. Not to be able to say something is bad enough. Not to be able to say that someone should be able to say something is surreal.
At one point the Finnish prosecution reportedly said of one of Räsänen’s arguments: “The point isn’t whether it is true or not but that it is insulting.”
“How dumb, depressing and scary,” says Stanley.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It’s not just “insults” though, is it? It’s anything that goes against the establishment narrative on any subject- covid, AGW, men remain men from conception likewise women, mass immigration etc
Yes we must now all spend the rest of our lives walking on egg shells, avoiding irrefutable facts about basic human biology at all costs, so as to avoid hurting the feelings of somebody somewhere who is catastrophically mentally ill. PTSD might ensue for the poor victim of reality and then where would we be? Even the GBBO got into trouble and have retreated, like chickenshit serfs, to pander to and comply with the demands of the Cult of Woke. Pathetic;
”Wokeness is predatory. Its perpetrators wander the lonely cultural abyss that they have created and if they spot any sign of life, they instantly pounce on it and denounce it in feverish hyena howls. Anything that hasn’t been denounced yet for some sort of thoughtcrimes will soon be as the starving wokes assail it.
Now it’s the turn of the ‘Great British Bake Off’ because its hosts wore sombreos.
To quote the Simpsons, which predicted the future, “massive complaints from two people.”
https://www.frontpagemag.com/wokeness-comes-for-the-great-british-bake-off/
I didn’t realise that had happened to GBBO. I never watch the BBC. Or ITV or C4, for that matter…
You’re not missing much. Programmes worth watching on those channels are few and far between. I think the last BBC programme that engaged me enough to want to watch it was Blue Lights, which was brilliant, but that was 4 or 5 months ago.
I still watch BBC sitcoms, but only old ones such as Only Fools And Horses, The Good Life, Dad’s Army, etc. The Thick Of It was very good but that was more than ten years ago. I loved W1A but that was six years ago. If there have been any good comedy programmes since then, I’m unaware of them, I think the BBC’s woke agenda has killed BBC comedy.
I occasionally read Hitchen’s reviews of new stuff on mainstream channels – nothing he has written has made me feel I am missing anything or could even watch more than a few minutes of any of it without smashing the television. I am afraid I am gradually withdrawing from any modern culture beyond a tiny number of shows that I know will not make me furious.
Christ on a bike, you’re persecuted nowadays for speaking out against the woke cult or Islam! Meanwhile, in Sweden, this Iraqi dude just will not stop burning Korans and did it again yesterday. I think he’s simultaneously inebriated by the liberty of free speech/expression and he’s evidently got a death wish.
”Swedish police have arrested two people and detained around 10 others after a violent riot broke out at a protest involving a burning of the Quran. Organised by Iraqi refugee Salwan Momika, its the latest incident among protests which have sparked outrage across the Middle East.
Swedish police arrested more than ten people on Sunday after scenes of violence in Malmö which followed a rally during which a copy of the Quran was burned.
Sunday’s rally, organised by Iraqi refugee Salwan Momika, who initiated similar events that angered the Muslim world, took place in a square in Malmö, a city home to a large immigrant population.
“Spectators showed their emotion after the organiser burned the writings,” the police said in a statement adding that “The atmosphere was stormy” as “violent riots” broke out in the early afternoon.”
https://www.euronews.com/2023/09/03/several-arrested-in-sweden-over-new-quran-burning
So to fight these cretins, we can’t use logic. We must simply state that we’re insulted.
We must do exactly that, to highlight the absurdity. It is also true – I, in any event, am genuinely offended that I must either be bullied (something that the same people say is dreadfully wrong) into silence or must utter untruths due to criminal-level haranguing by people I deem nothing less than fascists. People need not agree with what I deem true, but if I believe it, then I must be allowed to say so, otherwise my principles and very integrity are insulted and harmed. Why is what you or I deem offensive any less worthwhile than what some victim du jour deems offensive?
Except that when, in UK, a judge insulted a woman and her Christian beliefs by saying they had no place in a civilised society, it seems there is no redress. It’s only certain insults against the right sort of people, you see.
Are we going to see the same amount of judical zeal being applied to muslims insulting others by preaching that it’s a sin to eat pork and drink wine? Or is that a different situation, given that those who preach are muslims and that our political establishment largely agrees with both, albeit for different reasons?
It’s the professional offence-taking industry that is causing all the trouble, thanks to hate speech laws. If ‘hate speech’ laws are on the books of any country, people will deliberately look for and take offence in order to make some money, to knock a rival out of job, to self-aggrandise or simply to feel important by hurting someone else. Connected to this is ‘concern trolling’, which amounts to ‘Hello, we noticed your commercials are appearing on this website which promotes white supremacist attitudes and denies the international consensus on climate change.’ The unspoken threat is ‘if you don’t stop your ads appearing on this channel, we’re coming after you too!’
We need all these laws stripping from the books and people have to be told to grow a thicker skin. There are already laws in place for libel and slander. There are laws relating to incitement to violence.
We need to get back to ‘few laws, rigorously enforced’, rather than the disastrous hangover of our EU membership and the Blair era where everything is regulated and rigorously enforce.
Ultimately, there are too many laws here and it’s crushing us.
As for Europe: well, it’s always been a basketcase.
It isn’t about unpopular ideas or marginazing dissent it is about setting the paramaters and always has been. When you reach this point of deep capture you cannot understand this situation without reference to the corporation or joint stock company. Such entities have to behave in certain ways by law. This idea of pushing the envelope or testing the waters is integral to their predatory business model. It has advanced greatly in the last few years and will continue to do so because of the refinement of its techniques, Barring a black swan event such as war or currency collapse it will take a very long time to mount a resistance against such a force. The natives in America called it Wendigo. The plausible deniability and faceless inculpability of the corporation that infects everyone that it touches with the same destructive impetus. You have to grasp it and learn it in your soul otherwise you are helpless before it.
How can the West admit anything? It has no standard of free speech, justice etc.
https://youtu.be/h82D5ZvcALM?si=gO5k5O5atwN6GT9K