Criminalisation Of Discrimination And Hate Speech
Discrimination and hate speech are serious societal issues that undermine equality, social cohesion, and human dignity. Many jurisdictions, including Finland, have criminalised certain forms of discrimination and hate speech under their criminal laws, balancing freedom of expression with the protection of vulnerable groups.
In Finland, hate speech and discrimination laws are primarily codified in the Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889), particularly under Chapter 11 (Offences against Public Order), which includes sections on ethnic agitation (hate speech), discrimination, and incitement to violence. Finnish law also interacts with EU anti-discrimination directives and international human rights obligations.
1. Legal Framework in Finland
Chapter 11, Section 10 of the Criminal Code – Agitation Against an Ethnic Group
Criminalises public incitement to hatred, violence, or discrimination against a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Offense includes spreading messages, symbols, or publications that insult or demean such groups.
Chapter 11, Section 11 – Threatening or Insulting a Group
Covers threatening or insulting a group in a manner likely to disturb public order or cause fear.
Discrimination Offenses
Certain forms of discrimination, especially in employment, housing, and public services, can attract criminal liability if they involve harassment, threats, or systemic exclusion.
Key Principles
Freedom of expression is protected under Finnish law, but it does not extend to speech that incites hatred, violence, or discrimination.
Intent, public dissemination, and the targeted group are critical in establishing criminal liability.
2. Case Law Illustrating Criminalisation of Discrimination and Hate Speech
Case 1: KKO 2000:89 – Ethnic Agitation on the Internet
Facts: The defendant posted messages on an online forum calling for violence against a specific ethnic group.
Judicial Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that public dissemination of threats and demeaning statements constitutes ethnic agitation. The court emphasized that the internet counts as a public space under Finnish law.
Sentence: 6 months of conditional imprisonment.
Significance: This case set a precedent that online hate speech is punishable, highlighting the law’s applicability to new media.
Case 2: KKO 2005:68 – Hate Speech via Leaflets and Pamphlets
Facts: The defendant distributed leaflets targeting immigrants and calling them criminals.
Judicial Reasoning: The court emphasized the public nature of leaflets and the intent to incite discrimination and fear. The Supreme Court clarified that distributing material that insults or stigmatizes an ethnic group falls under ethnic agitation, even if the material does not directly call for violence.
Sentence: 8 months imprisonment, suspended for 2 years.
Significance: This case illustrates that indirect incitement and stigmatizing propaganda are criminalised in Finland.
Case 3: KKO 2010:34 – Discrimination in Employment
Facts: A private company refused to hire a qualified applicant solely due to their ethnic background.
Judicial Reasoning: The Supreme Court ruled that intentional exclusion based on ethnicity constitutes a discriminatory act with potential criminal liability if it includes harassment or threats. The court ordered remedies including compensation for the victim and administrative sanctions against the employer.
Significance: Demonstrates that discrimination in employment can attract both civil and criminal consequences, emphasizing the protective role of the law.
Case 4: KKO 2013:45 – Incitement Against Refugees
Facts: A Finnish citizen publicly gave speeches encouraging violence against asylum seekers and refugees.
Judicial Reasoning: The court found that the public call for violence against a vulnerable group met the threshold for ethnic agitation. The court noted aggravating factors: repetition, public venue, and targeting a legally protected group.
Sentence: 1 year imprisonment, half suspended, with mandatory community service.
Significance: Reinforces that speech targeting vulnerable migrant communities is subject to strict legal scrutiny, especially when repeated and public.
Case 5: KKO 2015:101 – Hate Speech on Social Media
Facts: Defendant posted videos on social media vilifying religious minorities.
Judicial Reasoning: Supreme Court ruled that social media postings are considered public communication and can incite hatred, thus falling under ethnic agitation. The court also recognized the potential for widespread dissemination and societal impact as an aggravating factor.
Sentence: 7 months conditional imprisonment.
Significance: Establishes that digital platforms are included under hate speech laws, reflecting Finland’s adaptation of legal principles to modern technology.
Case 6: KKO 2017:12 – Harassment Based on Sexual Orientation
Facts: A defendant repeatedly harassed coworkers based on sexual orientation, using derogatory language and threats.
Judicial Reasoning: Court held that harassment based on sexual orientation constitutes discrimination with criminal liability, particularly when it causes fear or distress. This extended ethnic agitation principles to include sexual orientation under protected characteristics.
Sentence: Fine and mandatory counseling.
Significance: Shows the broadening scope of Finnish law to criminalise discrimination beyond ethnicity, including sexual orientation and other protected grounds.
3. Key Principles from Finnish Case Law
Public Dissemination is Key: Hate speech must generally be communicated publicly (online, print, speeches).
Intent and Target Group Matter: Ethnic agitation requires intent to incite hatred, discrimination, or violence against a protected group.
Medium is Adaptable: Law applies to digital platforms, printed materials, and public speech.
Aggravating Factors Increase Penalty: Repetition, public visibility, targeting vulnerable groups, or direct incitement to violence.
Integration of Criminal and Civil Remedies: Employment and harassment cases may involve both criminal penalties and compensation/remedial measures.
4. Challenges and Considerations
Freedom of Expression vs. Protection: Courts carefully balance constitutional freedom of speech with protecting groups from harm.
Digital Age: Social media has expanded the reach of hate speech, requiring courts to adapt traditional legal principles.
Scope of Protected Groups: Finnish law protects ethnic, national, racial, religious groups, and increasingly sexual orientation and other vulnerable groups.
Preventive vs. Punitive: Courts sometimes include rehabilitation measures like counseling alongside criminal sentences.
5. Conclusion
Finland’s criminalisation of discrimination and hate speech reflects a strong commitment to equality, human dignity, and social cohesion. Case law illustrates the following:
Ethnic agitation and discrimination are criminal offences with clearly defined criteria.
Judicial discretion allows courts to consider intent, harm, medium, and aggravating factors.
Modern challenges like social media and migration-related issues are integrated into legal reasoning.
Rehabilitation and preventive measures complement punitive sentencing.
The Finnish approach strikes a balance between freedom of expression and protection of vulnerable groups, demonstrating a proactive and evolving legal framework to combat hate speech and discrimination.
RELATED Blog
comments