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?

How Extremist Activists Endanger Hunters in Finland

Finland has a very large population of cervids, such as moose and deer. Due to their large numbers, they cause significant damage by destroying young forest plantations and causing traffic accidents. On the other hand, they provide hunters with both a hobby and food.

The balance of this whole system is overseen by the Finnish Wildlife Agency, which grants hunting permits for cervid species in such a way that each population remains viable and healthy. At the same time, attention is also paid to ensuring that predator populations—especially wolves—remain strong and safe for people, so that they do not need to hunt humans moving in nature due to lack of food. Wolves have not generally been hunted in Finland in this millennium, except for individuals that have threatened humans or specialized in attacking livestock.

This equation seems to be too difficult to grasp for those belonging to the Animal Liberation Front. That is why they have made hunting towers used by hunters dangerously unsafe by sawing them.

The police are currently investigating these crimes and searching for the perpetrators. According to Member of Parliament Sanna Antikainen (Finns Party), it would be important that the police and prosecutors treat these acts as endangerment of life rather than mere vandalism. This wish is worth supporting, so that various political activist groups, which are resorting to increasingly harsh measures, would be made to comply with the law and avoid endangering other people.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Demonstration Demonstrated the Selfishness of the Demonstrators
Organized Vandalism in Helsinki, Finland
Greta Thunberg in Search of a Greater Thrill

Ukraine Risks Losing Western Trust by Muzzling Corruption Watchdog

The Ukrainian parliament decided yesterday to approve a law that limits the independence of the country's anti-corruption bureau and the anti-corruption prosecutor's office. The law came into force immediately with the signature of President Zelensky.

In practice, this means that corruption investigations will now fall under the authority of the Prosecutor General – who is appointed by the President – thereby stripping the investigation process of its independence from the country’s top leadership. As a result, it effectively prevents any meaningful investigation into corruption linked to Zelensky and his administration.

The change is reportedly driven by suspicions of collaboration between anti-corruption bodies and Russian operatives. If these allegations are true, the matter is of course extremely serious and cannot be ignored. This is the case even though, from an external perspective, the measures taken by the administration appear questionable.

On the other hand, it is clear that – as one of the most corrupt countries in Europe – Ukraine has no place in the European Union until its deeply rooted “customary” corruption has been thoroughly eradicated. Therefore, this decision may seriously damage the country’s aspirations to become part of the Western community. And if the new law is found to enable corruption within the top leadership, it is highly likely that it would also collapse the EU countries' willingness to continue military support for Ukraine.

For this reason, perhaps the most important domestic political task for Zelensky’s administration is to demonstrate through its future actions that the purpose of the new law was not to shield the country’s elite from corruption investigations, but solely to eliminate the identified security risk linked to Russia. To support this, it is essential that the actions of Ukraine’s top officials are closely and credibly monitored as a condition for continued Western economic and military support.

PS 21:20. It seems that Zelensky has understood the risks brought by the change, or at least is yielding to the pressure from citizens. That’s good, because – as I wrote – the risks were too great. Nevertheless, Ukrainians must figure out how to keep the Russians out of Ukrainian affairs.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Can Trump Resist the Kremlin’s Lure? 
Finnish Winter war showed the way to help Ukraine
Will an attitude lead Ukraine into EU?