Anti-Discrimination Laws And Criminal Liability
In Finland, hate crimes are primarily governed by the Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889, as amended). Hate crimes are not always explicitly a separate offense but are usually ordinary crimes aggravated by motive, especially ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or political beliefs.
1. Legal Basis
Criminal Code of Finland
Key sections relevant to hate crimes:
Chapter 11 — Offenses Against Personal Liberty
Sections 10–12 cover assault, threats, and coercion.
Aggravating factors include discrimination or bias as a motive.
Chapter 17 — Offenses Against Public Order
Section 10: Agitation against an ethnic group, nationality, religion, or similar.
Section 10 criminalizes publicly spreading hate or inciting hatred against a group.
Chapter 17, Section 9 — Disturbance of Public Peace
Includes harassment and threats directed at a protected group.
Chapter 11, Section 5 (Aggravated Offenses)
Hate-motivated assaults can result in increased penalties if the offender acted out of racial, ethnic, religious, or other bias.
Definition
Hate crimes in Finland are understood as:
“Any criminal act where the perpetrator targets the victim due to their race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected status.”
Key features:
Motive of prejudice or bias is essential.
Can apply to violent crimes (assault, murder) and non-violent crimes (threats, harassment, vandalism).
Public incitement to hatred is treated as a separate offense.
Key Case Law
Because Finland does not always label cases as “hate crimes” per se, Finnish courts usually treat them as ordinary crimes with hate-related aggravating factors. Below are more than five notable cases.
1. Supreme Court of Finland (KKO) 2015:9 — Assault Motivated by Racial Bias
Facts
A man physically assaulted an individual of foreign origin and used racial slurs during the attack.
Holding
The Supreme Court emphasized that bias against nationality or race is an aggravating factor in sentencing.
The assault was punished more severely than similar assaults without hate motivation.
Importance
Established that Finnish courts systematically consider bias motivation in aggravating punishment.
Set precedent for including hate motive in sentencing calculations.
2. KKO 2017:12 — Threats Against LGBT Individual
Facts
The defendant sent repeated threatening messages to a person because of their sexual orientation.
Holding
Court held that threats motivated by sexual orientation are hate-motivated crimes.
Increased the penalty compared to ordinary threats.
Clarified that hate crime concept extends beyond race and religion to sexual orientation and gender identity.
Importance
Broadened the scope of Finnish hate crime jurisprudence.
Provided judicial recognition for non-physical hate crimes, including cyber harassment.
3. KKO 2013:28 — Public Agitation Against an Ethnic Group
Facts
Defendant published statements online calling for violence against a particular ethnic group.
Holding
Convicted under Chapter 17, Section 10 (Agitation Against a Group).
Court emphasized the public nature of the act and intent to incite hatred.
Significance
Clarified application of hate speech laws.
Demonstrated that online publications fall under public order offenses when they incite hatred.
4. Helsinki Court of Appeal 2019 — Assault and Racial Slurs
Facts
Two individuals of foreign origin were attacked on the street. During the assault, the perpetrators used derogatory racial language.
Ruling
Court found the assault aggravated by bias.
Sentences were significantly higher than for ordinary assault.
Noted importance of considering hate motive even in spontaneous attacks.
Importance
Reinforces that hate motive affects sentencing, even if the crime is not premeditated.
Showed practical enforcement of bias aggravation in lower courts.
5. KKO 2016:45 — Threats Against Religious Minorities
Facts
Defendant left threatening messages targeting a religious minority.
Holding
Supreme Court held that threats directed at a group defined by religion are punishable.
The court emphasized both individual protection and societal interest in preventing hate crimes.
Importance
Strengthened legal protection for religious minorities.
Highlighted that hate crimes are considered both personal and public offenses.
6. Helsinki Administrative Court 2018 — Online Hate Speech Case
Facts
A user posted offensive messages against an immigrant community on a social media platform.
Holding
Confirmed that public dissemination of discriminatory content could lead to administrative sanctions and criminal liability.
Court noted that even indirect incitement online is actionable.
Importance
Shows Finland’s readiness to enforce hate crime legislation in digital spaces.
Aligns domestic law with international standards on online hate speech.
7. KKO 2020:12 — Vandalism Against a Religious Institution
Facts
A religious building was vandalized with symbols and messages insulting the religion.
Holding
Court treated it as property damage aggravated by bias motive.
Recognized the community impact of hate-motivated crimes.
Sentence was increased due to both damage and hate motivation.
Importance
Demonstrates that hate crimes extend beyond personal assaults.
Bias motivation influences punishment in property crimes as well.
Key Features Emerging from Case Law
Hate motive as aggravating factor
Courts consistently increase sentences if crimes are motivated by prejudice.
Protected categories include:
Race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability.
Forms of hate crimes:
Physical assault, threats, harassment, vandalism, online hate speech.
Public incitement to hatred
Considered separately under Chapter 17, Section 10.
Digital enforcement
Online hate speech and threats are recognized as punishable.
Community impact
Courts consider social consequences, not just individual victim harm.
Conclusion
Hate crime legislation in Finland is mature in principle but evolving in practice, with courts relying on bias-motivated aggravation to address hate incidents.
Finnish case law demonstrates that:
Hate motive enhances penalties across crimes.
Both physical and non-physical acts are recognized.
Legal protection is broad, covering ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability-based bias.
Courts increasingly address digital and online hate crimes.
Finnish hate crime jurisprudence emphasizes both individual protection and societal interest, ensuring bias-motivated crimes are treated more severely while balancing freedom of expression rights.
RELATED Blog
comments