KKO:2026:27 – Agitation against a population group

Diary number: R2024/57
Issued on 26 March 2026
ECLI:FI:KKO:2026:27

Background and the issue before the Supreme Court

When serving as a Member of Parliament, ‘A’ authored a booklet on the request of a certain foundation titled ‘Male and Female He Created Them – Homosexual Relationships Challenge the Christian Concept of Humanity’. After a pre-trial investigation was started on whether A had committed the offence of agitation against a population group, A shared the text on their internet and social media pages in 2019 and 2020. ‘B’, representative of the foundation and a diocese, had made the decision to publish the text on the websites of the foundation and the diocese. The prosecutors requested punishment in counts 1 and 2 for A and B for the offence of agitation against a population group. According to the charges, A and B had made available to the public or kept available to the public opinions that were derogatory towards homosexuals as a group based on their sexual orientation.

Count 3 of the charges pertained to a post published by A on their social media accounts in response to an announcement of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland that the Church would support Helsinki Pride 2019. According to the charges, A claimed in the post that homosexuality is shameful and a sin and therefore insulted homosexuals as a group based on their sexual orientation. A published an image with verses from the Bible along with the text.

The District Court had dismissed all charges. The Court of Appeal did not change the District Court’s judgment.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether A’s conduct described in counts 1 and 3, and B’s conduct described in count 2 fulfilled the legal description for agitation against a population group.

Applicable provision and principles of assessment

According to chapter 11, section 10 of the Criminal Code, a person who makes available to the public or otherwise disseminates among the public or keeps available to the public information, an opinion or another message where a certain group is threatened, defamed or insulted on the basis of its race, colour, birth, national or ethnic origin, religion or belief, sexual orientation or disability or on another comparable basis shall be sentenced for agitation against a population group. The punishment for agitation against a population group is between a fine and up to two years of imprisonment.

In relation to the penal provision, the Supreme Court referred to the preparatory work of the Act, in which it is stated that when applying the penal provision for agitation against a population group and determining punishment, it is important to consider the provision in relation to the freedom of expression protected by section 12, subsection 1 of the Constitution of Finland and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court deemed that when considering whether the legal description of agitation against a population group is met, in addition to the freedom of expression, the freedom of religion must also be taken into account, considering the content of the text referred to in counts 1 and 2 in its entirety as well as the Bible verses included in the post referred to in count 3 and the relation of the post to the activities of the Church. The case required case-specific consideration in which the human dignity and equality of the members of a group protected by the provision must be weighed against the freedom of expression and religion of the person that publishes an opinion about the group. In the consideration, the severity and offensiveness of the expressed opinion had to be considered along with how necessary it is to intervene with a person’s freedom of expression and religion because of the opinion.

The Supreme Court also reviewed judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) pertaining to freedom of expression and religion. The Supreme Court noted that in the judgments, when assessing whether freedom of expression can be restricted, the ECtHR had considered the context in which the statements claimed to be an agitation offence were made. In other words, the statements must be considered by also taking into account their publication method and their target audience as well as whether the statement pertained to political or social debate that arouses public interest. Furthermore, the content of the statement, how the content is presented, and the risk that the statement has harmful consequences must be taken into account. In addition to freedom of expression, the case pertained to freedom of religion, and the same points must be considered when assessing whether it can be restricted. Weighing different viewpoints, their relationship to one another, and the context of the statement is therefore significant when considering restrictions on freedom of expression and religion. In line with the judgments of the ECtHR, the core of the issue is whether the statement under assessment can be viewed as a direct or indirect exhortation to violence or as a justification for violence, hate or bigotry.

Assessment by the Supreme Court

Counts 1 and 2

In their text, among other topics, A stated that homosexuality was a disorder of psychosexual development and described homosexuality as sexual deviation. The Supreme Court deemed that this part of A’s text insulted homosexuals as a group based on their sexual orientation. However, the Court did not consider all cited parts of the text insulting.

In the Supreme Court’s view, the topics discussed in the text were related to A’s political activities and topics arousing public interest, and it was justified to consider that A contributed to current social debate arousing public interest with their text. A’s status as a Member of Parliament and a person with medical training and the strong religious context of the text were deemed conducive to increasing the potential harmful effects of the text. The text was considered to have been available to the public without restrictions and therefore to have the potential to reach a wide audience at the time of the offence. In the Supreme Court’s view, the incorrected and insulting claims about homosexuals made in the text were conducive to upholding and increasing negative or even discriminatory attitudes towards homosexuals. The Supreme Court deemed that intervention with the conduct through criminal law was necessary despite A’s freedom of expression and religion.

The Supreme Court deemed that the text insulted homosexuals based on their sexual orientation, that considering the conduct punishable was not in conflict with the freedom of expression and religion, and that A’s conduct therefore met the legal description of agitation against a population group. A was considered to have been aware that their opinions could be deemed insulting towards homosexuals as described in the provision on agitation against a population group, and that A could therefore be deemed to have committed the offence intentionally. A was deemed to have committed the offence of agitation against a population group between 4 November 2019 and 24 January 2022.

The Supreme Court also considered that the representative of a diocese and the foundation that published A’s text had committed the offence of agitation against a population group between 4 November 2019 and 24 January 2022.

Count 3

The Supreme Court deemed that A’s text had to be assessed as a whole that included the text A had written and the associated Bible verses. When A criticised on social media the decision of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland to support Helsinki Pride, A justified their opinion with Bible verses discussing sexual acts between people of the same sex in a negative context, and used the words ‘shame’ and ‘sin’, which A borrowed from the Bible verses.

The wider context and the purpose of the text were assessed when considering its legality. When the text was published, A served as a Member of Parliament and member of a parish council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. At its time of publication, A’s text related to the current issue of the Church taking part in Helsinki Pride. A’s purpose was to criticise the decision of the Church’s leaders to support Helsinki Pride. The text therefore contributed to a current social debate arousing public interest, namely the activities of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, a public body with a significant role in Finnish society. The core content of the critique in A’s text was an opinion presented in the form of a question according to which the Church’s decision to support Helsinki Pride was not in line with the theological foundation of the Church, meaning the Bible. The text therefore contributed to the debate on how the Bible should be interpreted and what significance should the different interpretations be given in the decision making of the Church. Considering the importance of freedom of religion as a human right, the Supreme Court deemed that the threshold should be high for intervention through criminal law in debates concerning the interpretation and significance of scripture regarded as holy by a religious community and serving as its moral guideline. The Supreme Court deemed that considering the context in which A’s text was published, A’s conduct could not be considered insulting to homosexuals according to the legal description for agitation against a population group. The charges in count 3 were dismissed.

Punishment

The Supreme Court ordered both A and B, who had published the text authored by A in question, to pay a fine in the amount of 20 unit fines and the foundation to pay a EUR 5,000 corporate fine. In addition, the defendants were ordered to remove the sections referred to in counts 1 and 2 that were considered illegal from the online publications of the text.

Referendary’s report and differing opinions

The referendary and two members of the Court considered, based on the grounds provided by them, that restricting the freedom of expression and religion was also not necessary for the part of counts 1 and 2. They would have dismissed the charges in these counts as well.