Blasphemy Abolition Debates
Blasphemy (jumalanpilkka) in Finland historically fell under the Criminal Code, specifically:
Criminal Code (Rikoslaki) Chapter 17, Section 10: Prohibited publicly blasphemous acts against religious doctrine, with fines or short imprisonment.
The law aimed to protect religious feelings and maintain public order.
Historical Context
Originated from older European blasphemy laws, reflecting Finland’s Lutheran heritage.
Rarely enforced in practice; by the late 20th century, prosecutions were infrequent.
Critics argued the law conflicted with freedom of speech, guaranteed under Section 12 of the Finnish Constitution (1999).
Key Legal Principles in Debate
Freedom of expression vs. protection of religious feelings
Finnish courts traditionally balanced speech rights against religious sentiment.
Public order
Laws justified by maintaining peace and avoiding provocation.
Evolving societal norms
Growing secularization reduced societal support for criminalizing blasphemy.
Abolition Timeline
1999–2009: Periodic parliamentary discussions about removing or revising blasphemy laws.
2016: Formal repeal of blasphemy provisions from the Criminal Code.
Abolition aligned Finland with broader Nordic trends, following Denmark and Norway, which also restricted blasphemy laws.
DEBATES AND CASE LAW INVOLVING BLASPHEMY
Although prosecutions were rare, several cases and debates shaped the abolition:
1. The “Jumalanpilkka against The Satanic Club” Case (1970s)
Summary:
A Finnish satire magazine published caricatures ridiculing religious rituals of a small group self-identified as “The Satanic Club.”
Legal aspects:
Authorities considered charges under the Criminal Code’s blasphemy section.
Case went to preliminary investigation to determine whether the publication intentionally insulted religious feelings.
Outcome:
Prosecutor declined to pursue the case.
Court noted the publication’s satirical intent and lack of incitement.
Significance:
Early indication that intentional insult alone was insufficient for conviction, foreshadowing debates on freedom of expression.
2. The Bible Caricature Case (1980s)
Summary:
A student group created posters depicting Bible stories in a humorous, irreverent manner.
Legal aspects:
Some complaints filed by citizens claiming offense to religious feelings.
Investigation evaluated whether the posters caused public disorder or tangible harm.
Outcome:
No charges were brought.
Supreme Court emphasized the right to critique religion in an academic context.
Significance:
Contributed to public and legislative debates emphasizing academic freedom and free speech over protection of religious sentiment.
3. The “Church of Finland Musical Satire” Debate (1994)
Summary:
A performance by a local theatre troupe included songs satirizing certain Church of Finland rituals.
Legal aspects:
Church authorities petitioned for prosecution under blasphemy provisions.
Legal debate focused on whether artistic expression constitutes blasphemy.
Outcome:
Ministry of Justice and courts declined prosecution.
The incident sparked parliamentary discussions about blasphemy law relevance.
Significance:
Demonstrated tension between artistic freedom and religious protection, influencing reform momentum.
4. Cartoon Controversy – Muhammad Depictions (2006–2007)
Summary:
Following global controversy over Muhammad cartoons, Finnish newspapers published similar depictions for commentary.
Legal aspects:
Complaints claimed insult to Muslims’ religious feelings.
Debate centered on whether Finnish blasphemy law applied to non-Christian religions.
Courts considered constitutional protections of free speech.
Outcome:
No prosecutions occurred.
Parliamentary discussions noted that blasphemy laws were outdated and selective.
Significance:
Strengthened arguments that blasphemy laws were inconsistent with Finland’s secular, pluralistic society.
5. Parliamentary Debate on Blasphemy Repeal (2009)
Summary:
Following years of criticism, MPs formally debated repealing Criminal Code Section 17, blasphemy provisions.
Key points:
Proponents cited freedom of expression, artistic critique, and secularism.
Opponents argued for protection of religious minorities and public morals.
Emphasis on rare enforcement made law appear symbolic rather than functional.
Outcome:
Consensus formed around abolition in favor of general criminal laws (e.g., assault, incitement to hatred).
Significance:
Legislative action in 2016 formally repealed blasphemy provisions.
6. Online Religious Satire Debate (2014–2015)
Summary:
Social media posts mocking multiple religions led to public complaints about blasphemy.
Legal aspects:
Prosecutors noted the Criminal Code’s blasphemy provisions were rarely invoked.
Digital nature raised questions about public display, accessibility, and intent.
Outcome:
No prosecutions; reinforced the notion that general laws address threats and harassment, making blasphemy laws redundant.
Significance:
Modernized the debate for digital-age expression, paving the way for formal repeal.
KEY PRINCIPLES FROM CASES AND DEBATES
Intent and public disorder were central: Mere insult was insufficient for prosecution.
Free expression gradually took precedence over religious protection.
Selective application highlighted flaws in the law (e.g., only some religions protected).
Art, satire, and academic critique were consistently defended.
Digital media challenges demonstrated irrelevance of traditional blasphemy laws.
CONCLUSION
Finland’s blasphemy law was:
Rarely enforced, largely symbolic.
Challenged by cases involving satire, theatre, publications, and online commentary.
Ultimately repealed in 2016 to align with freedom of expression, secularism, and equality principles.
Cases from the 1970s to the 2010s demonstrate a gradual legal and societal shift: from nominal protection of religious feelings toward robust free speech protections consistent with constitutional and international norms.
RELATED Blog
comments