A Finnish MP defending Biblical standards on sex and morality has pledged to continue her fight for free speech following a decision by the country’s top prosecutor to appeal against her acquittal.
Dr Päivi Räsänen’s vow follows the Finnish Prosecutor General Raija Toiviainen’s decision to appeal against the unanimous ‘not guilty’ verdict of the District Court by going to the Court of Appeal.
Räsänen and Lutheran bishop Juhana Pohjola were originally charged with insulting homosexuals, but the District Court ruled that their statements were within the law, determining that they never wished to offend but spoke out of concern about Christian ethics. However, Toiviainen has said she interprets the rulings on Räsänen and Pohjola differently than the court, hence the state’s appeal.
Räsänen welcomed the prospect of the case going up to the Supreme Court, as a further not guilty verdict would set a precedent protecting freedom of speech and religion for all Finnish people. She added: ‘I am happy that this decision will lead to the discussion of the Bible’s teaching continuing in Finnish society. I am ready to defend freedom of speech and religion in all necessary courts, and as far as the European Court of Human Rights.
‘The District Court found that the prosecutor had made untruthful claims concerning my texts, for example she alleged that I said homosexuals have a tendency to sexually abuse children, and that they are genetically degenerated, or that they are nor created by God the same way as heterosexuals – these allegations were unanimously rejected by the Court. I have never said anything like this and I certainly do not think like this.
‘The prosecutor has deliberately misinterpreted and manipulated my statements about theological concepts. She argues that the Biblical concepts ‘sin and shame’ that were included in my Tweet makes people inferior. Speaking about sin does not defame anyone, but speaks about our situation before God. If the teaching of the Bible on sin was made illegal, the core message of Christianity about grace, Jesus’s sacrificial death by which He reconciled our sins, would be made empty.
‘According to the legal principles and the Constitution, you can only impose a criminal penalty for an act which is defined as crime in law. I still trust that our judiciary bases its rulings on the ‘truth’, unlike the approach of the prosecutor. I am confident of victory and I encourage others to use their foundational rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion’.
