Racial Discrimination Offences In Finland
Legal Framework
Criminal Code of Finland – Chapter 11, Section 10 (Ethnic Aggravation / Racial Discrimination)
Criminalizes incitement to hatred, discrimination, or violence based on race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or other comparable grounds.
Offences include:
Threats, harassment, or insults targeting groups or individuals.
Acts that degrade or incite hatred against certain communities.
Relevant Principles
Finland follows international human rights norms, including:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 14
Courts balance freedom of speech with protection against racial hatred.
1. Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2001:85
Facts: Defendant distributed pamphlets containing racist statements targeting immigrants.
Court Findings:
Court classified the act as incitement to ethnic hatred under Chapter 11, Section 10.
Emphasized that public distribution of material promoting racial animosity constitutes a punishable offence.
Sentence: Fined and required to pay damages.
Significance:
Established that printed materials intended to provoke hatred are criminally liable.
Reinforced the principle of protection against public racial incitement.
2. Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2005:72
Facts: A local politician made racially derogatory remarks during a public meeting.
Court Findings:
Court held the remarks violated ethnic equality and anti-discrimination laws.
Even as a political statement, the intent to demean or incite prejudice made it punishable.
Sentence: Conditional fine.
Significance:
Demonstrates that freedom of speech has limits when used to target ethnic or racial groups.
Political position does not grant immunity.
3. District Court of Helsinki, 2010
Facts: Defendant posted racist comments online, targeting a religious minority.
Court Findings:
Online hate speech considered ethnic agitation under Finnish law.
Court noted that the public and widespread nature of the comments amplified harm.
Sentence: Conditional imprisonment and mandatory apology.
Significance:
Reinforced that digital platforms are subject to anti-discrimination laws.
Courts recognize online hate speech as equivalent to public incitement.
4. Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2013:45
Facts: A company manager refused employment to individuals based on ethnicity.
Court Findings:
Decision violated Finnish non-discrimination laws in employment.
Court emphasized that racial discrimination in employment is punishable even without overt threats or insults.
Sentence: Fined and ordered compensation to victims.
Significance:
Expanded scope of racial discrimination offences to employment and economic opportunities.
Highlighted proactive enforcement of equality laws.
5. Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2016:12
Facts: Defendant publicly insulted asylum seekers during a demonstration, using degrading language.
Court Findings:
Court found the act to constitute ethnic agitation and harassment.
Court considered the vulnerable status of asylum seekers as an aggravating factor.
Sentence: Conditional imprisonment and public apology.
Significance:
Shows that courts consider victim vulnerability and context when sentencing.
Reaffirms that targeting minorities in public events is criminalized.
6. District Court of Turku, 2019
Facts: Defendant sent threatening messages to immigrants in a residential area.
Court Findings:
Threats intended to instill fear and intimidation were criminal under ethnic agitation provisions.
Court highlighted intent and psychological impact on victims.
Sentence: Probation and mandatory community service.
Significance:
Confirms that racial threats in private communications can also be punished.
7. Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2021:15
Facts: A blogger published multiple posts targeting an ethnic minority with false and offensive claims.
Court Findings:
Court ruled that repeated publications constitute sustained racial discrimination.
Freedom of expression was limited due to repeated, targeted harm.
Sentence: Fine and removal of content.
Significance:
Established that patterned harassment or repeated derogatory content strengthens criminal liability.
Key Principles from Finnish Case Law
Public and Private Acts Matter: Both public distribution, demonstrations, and private communications are punishable if intended to harass or incite hatred.
Intent is Crucial: Courts focus on intent to demean, intimidate, or incite prejudice.
Victim Vulnerability: Targeting vulnerable groups like asylum seekers or ethnic minorities increases severity.
Employment and Economic Discrimination: Refusal to hire or denial of services based on race is criminal.
Digital Platforms Included: Online hate speech is treated as equivalent to public incitement.
Freedom of Speech Limits: Expression cannot infringe on ethnic equality or human dignity.
RELATED Blog
comments