Hate Crimes Targeting Immigrants In Finland
Introduction
Hate crimes targeting immigrants in Finland are prosecuted primarily under the Finnish Criminal Code provisions concerning incitement against a population group. There is no standalone “hate crime” statute, but the law criminalizes public acts that threaten, defame, or insult individuals based on ethnicity, nationality, religion, or other protected group status.
Key Legal Points:
Incitement against a population group (ethnic agitation) – Section 11 of the Criminal Code criminalizes public statements that threaten, insult, or spread hatred against a group.
Aggravating circumstances – When hate motivation is present, it can increase the sentence of related offences like assault, threats, or property damage.
Freedom of speech limitation – Political discussion and criticism are allowed, but statements must not cross into public threats or discriminatory generalizations.
Case Law Examples
Case 1: Teuvo Hakkarainen (2017, Keski-Suomi District Court)
Facts:
Member of Parliament Hakkarainen posted public statements on Facebook claiming all Muslims were terrorists and suggested restricting Muslim immigration.
Legal Issues:
Determining whether public statements about immigration were protected political speech or constituted incitement against a population group.
Court Reasoning:
While political debate is protected, the court found that Hakkarainen’s statements threatened and insulted Muslims as a group, generalizing them as inherently criminal.
Outcome:
Convicted of incitement to hatred.
Ordered to remove posts and pay 20 day-fines.
Significance:
Demonstrates that public figures are accountable when statements cross the line into ethnic defamation or threats.
Case 2: Anti-Immigrant Facebook Posts (2019, Helsinki Court of Appeal)
Facts:
Defendant posted derogatory content in Facebook groups targeting immigrants and asylum seekers, accusing them of criminality and making offensive remarks.
Legal Issues:
Whether this constituted protected political expression or unlawful incitement.
Court Reasoning:
Court distinguished between political debate and posts that threaten, insult, or defame a population group. The posts were purely derogatory and did not contribute to public discussion.
Outcome:
Upheld district court decision: fined 50 day-fines.
Significance:
Clarifies that online hate speech toward immigrants is criminally punishable when it is threatening or insulting.
Case 3: Violent Anti-Immigrant Posts (2020, Espoo District Court)
Facts:
A man posted threatening messages online wishing for violence against immigrants, including calls for expulsion and harm.
Legal Issues:
The posts were assessed under incitement to hatred and threats.
Court Reasoning:
The court emphasized the violent nature of the posts, noting they went beyond opinion into explicit threat and harassment.
Outcome:
30-day suspended prison sentence imposed.
Significance:
Illustrates that threats of violence targeting immigrants are taken seriously and can trigger custodial sentences.
Case 4: Insults Toward Asylum Seekers (South Karelia, 2019)
Facts:
Individual posted insulting and threatening comments on social media against asylum seekers.
Legal Issues:
Determining if statements were public and constituted incitement against a population group.
Court Reasoning:
Posts were found to target asylum seekers specifically and to contain threats and insults, crossing the line of permissible speech.
Outcome:
Fined 30 day-fines (~€1,600).
Significance:
Demonstrates criminal liability for ordinary citizens spreading ethnic or racial hatred online.
Case 5: Police Sergeant Suspected of Racist Messaging (Helsinki)
Facts:
Police officer sent racist messages via mobile phone targeting immigrants.
Legal Issues:
Incitement against a population group by a law enforcement officer; breach of public trust.
Court Reasoning:
Messages qualified as threats/insults toward a protected group.
Given the officer’s public role, the case had heightened seriousness.
Outcome:
Officer suspended pending investigation; criminal proceedings initiated.
Significance:
Highlights that public officials are held accountable and that hate crimes within institutions are taken seriously.
Case 6: Far-Right Political Activist Convictions (Junes Lokka, 2018–2022)
Facts:
Lokka posted anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim content online and in public speeches.
Legal Issues:
Whether extremist statements were protected political expression.
Court Reasoning:
Courts ruled his statements constituted incitement against a population group, repeatedly targeting immigrants and Muslims with threatening rhetoric.
Outcome:
Repeated fines imposed; multiple convictions upheld through appeals.
Significance:
Confirms that political figures cannot evade liability for consistent hate speech targeting immigrants.
Case 7: False Racism Allegation Case (Helsinki, 2021)
Facts:
A mother accused public transport guards of racist treatment toward her son (Black teenager) on social media.
Legal Issues:
Whether her posts were defamatory or crossed into criminally punishable false accusations.
Court Reasoning:
Court determined the posts were false and publicly harmed the reputation of identifiable individuals.
Outcome:
Fined 60 day-fines, and ordered to pay €6,000 compensation to each guard.
Significance:
Demonstrates courts balance protecting individuals from ethnic harassment and false allegations; misuse of “hate claims” can itself lead to liability.
Legal Principles Illustrated
Role of Motivation – Hate motivation aggravates penalties but is not a separate offense.
Job/Public Position Matters – Offenses by public officials carry added weight.
Online Speech Liability – Social media posts are treated as “public” statements.
Threat vs. Opinion – Threats, insults, or defamation against a group cross legal boundaries; policy critique alone is insufficient.
Repetition & Persistence – Repeated acts of incitement are punished more severely.
Conclusion
Finnish courts actively prosecute hate crimes targeting immigrants, particularly online threats, public speeches, or posts.
The legal framework emphasizes proportionality, public protection, and freedom of speech limitations.
Case law demonstrates accountability across private individuals, politicians, and public officials, ensuring that immigrant communities are legally protected against threats, insults, and incitement to hatred.
RELATED Blog
comments