When Free Speech Is Prosecuted: Päivi Räsänen’s Case Explained for Americans

In Finland, a big uproar has arisen over Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen’s (Christian Democrat) brief visit to the U.S. Congress, where she spoke about the attempts to restrict her freedom of speech. For this reason, it is worth reflecting on what happened in this blog as well. So let us start from the beginning.

It all began when Päivi Räsänen happened to write the words “a disorder of psychosexual development,” by which she meant a person’s sexual orientation toward their own sex. The Finnish prosecution service seized on this, interpreting the words as incitement against a group of people.

However, it is a biological fact that the sexuality of organisms has evolved precisely so that their genes can mix, that is, recombine, in their offspring. For this reason, sexuality is naturally directed toward the opposite sex, although behaviors related to one’s own sex are also common in nature.

In this sense, homosexuality—especially as the primary mode of sexual behavior—is indeed a kind of developmental disorder. However, that does not make a person better or worse than others, nor has Räsänen claimed so.

* * *

I do not know whether what I have written above has been understood in the district court and the court of appeal, but in any case it is right that they acquitted Räsänen of the charges. It seems clear, however, that the prosecutor has not understood the matter any better either before bringing the charges or after the court decisions, but is continuing the process to the Supreme Court while also continuing to violate Räsänen’s freedom of speech.

Thus, Päivi Räsänen and Finland have undoubtedly gained a bad international reputation among people who consider freedom of speech to be an important value. Such people are found especially in the United States, but of course also elsewhere, including Finland.

* * *

The case in question actually resembles a situation in which a woman living in a violent relationship goes public to tell about her husband’s actions, after which his relatives criticize her for sullying the honor of her family and spouse. In this analogy, “violent relationship” = “demands to ban freedom of speech,” “woman” = “Räsänen,” “man” = “the prosecutor,” “relatives” = “the media criticizing Räsänen.”

I do not believe that any reasonable person would think, in the above analogy, that the woman is the one sullying anyone’s honor. Nevertheless, the Finnish journalistic community has no difficulty accusing Räsänen of damaging our country’s reputation when she speaks in the United States about the continued attempts to restrict her freedom of speech.

I can only guess at the reasons for this, but I suspect that it has to do with a wokist worldview that has taken root in our journalistic community, which prevents our journalists from logical thinking, especially when a Christian worldview and a value-liberal worldview are in opposition. This view of mine is supported, among other things, by recent research findings.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Predictions Based on the Opinion Polls in the UK
Jesuit Morality in Crime Reporting on Immigrants
On Freedom, Debate, and the Murder of Charlie Kirk

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Onko Päivi Räsänen Suomen maineen likaaja?

Defiant children and Chinese palace dogs

A person equipped with common sense knows well that one should be cautious when dealing with someone larger and stronger than oneself. Finland operated with good success in this manner after the Second World War, as the Soviet Union and later Russia did not direct a military attack towards our country.

The same logic still applies, but with the difference that now Finland, as part of NATO, is stronger than Russia, which fails to understand its changed position. However, the matter is somewhat insignificant, as Russia's blustering holds no more significance than the tantrums of a defiant child to its father.

This, of course, does not mean that we should not approach our large eastern neighbor with goodwill and avoid unnecessary confrontation. Yet, we should not and must not yield any kind of authority over ourselves to the dictator whose behavior resembles that of a defiant child.

The analogy holds true in the sense that this individual seems as incapable of understanding his own position as a defiant child facing difficulties. In this regard, we received an excellent example from the news this morning, reporting how he lied about his army's actions in Ukraine as smoothly as a defiant child throwing stones at a window with a handful of rocks in hand amidst shattered glass.

Certainly, in world politics, there are figures even more ludicrous than the Russian dictator. One such person holds power in North Korea, resembling a mentally disturbed Chinese palace dog growling and baring its teeth at a wolfhound.

Or what should one think of his threats to thoroughly destroy the United States?

The original thought in Finnish:
Uhmaikäisiä ja kiinanpalatsikoiria

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Desperate cry of Russians
History of Finland XV: Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine
Incapable of learning but capable of genocide