Sooner or later, it was to be expected: that citing the Bible as a source of authority could be considered a hate crime and even a crime against humanity. This is what has happened to Päivi Räsänen, a member of the Finnish Parliament for the Christian Democratic Party since 1995 and Minister of the Interior from 2011 to 2015. The case has been dragging on since 2019, and she has been tried twice, receiving an acquittal. But just last October 30, the matter reached the highest court, the Supreme Court, from which a verdict is now awaited.
Here's what happened. Räsänen wrote the following on Twitter and Facebook: "How can the doctrinal foundation of the Church, the Bible, be compatible with turning shame and sin into a source of pride?" And she added a quote from Romans 1:27, which says: "Men [...] were consumed with lust for one another, and men committed shameful acts with men. Indeed, they received the due penalty for their error." The conservative MP had reacted this way to the Evangelical Lutheran Church to which she belongs officially sponsoring an LGBTQ+ Pride event. A citizen then reported her for hate speech, and the police began an investigation, detaining her for 13 hours. Finally, in 2021, the Attorney General filed charges against her for "incitement against a minority group," under the War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Act, which carries a sentence of up to two years in prison.
Obviously, the issue now is not about discussing these people's conservative views, but whether it constitutes a crime to say that, according to their religious beliefs and their interpretation of the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. Ultimately, whether someone considers homosexuality a sin or not should leave those who don't share their religious faith indifferent. What we're talking about here is something else entirely: freedom of belief and expression, and under what circumstances this freedom can be considered a hate crime. And even, at the extreme: whether the mere act of hating constitutes a criminal offense, regardless of ethical and moral considerations.
The issue is not simple. First, because ignoring the historical contexts not only of the Bible but also of great works of literature and painting, or of technological advancements, or of economic structures, or of political events—including wars—certainly offends current sensibilities. But this doesn't diminish their value. Just as it doesn't diminish the intellectual value of great ideas having been conceived by figures whose personal morality is questionable, such as Rousseau, or Marx himself. Secondly, it seems clear that freedom of expression should not be limited by the subjectivity of the person who feels offended. It would be absurd if not being offended were to become a right, because then, rather than a more just society, emotional arbitrariness—the result of a subjective experience or a malicious intent—would turn it into an unbearable authoritarian society. Authors such as Jean Starobinski and Richard Sennett have addressed this extensively.
That there are passages in the Bible that portray a cruel and vengeful God, or that present values now incomprehensible to most of society, is undeniable. This is true of all kinds of other religious and moral texts, and will also be true of our ways of understanding life when they are judged in the future. But as long as opinions, beliefs, or ethical choices do not involve coercive and violent action against those who disagree, they should not be subject to criminal prosecution.
On the contrary, the coercive temptation against freedom of expression has long found an easy path in the condemnation of such hate crimes. And let's return to the same question: why should hatred as an emotion be prohibited if it does not translate into violent behavior against individuals or groups? Let's take the specific case of Catalanophobia, which is very explicit in sports. Its political consequences, from my point of view, are indeed condemnable and must be combated politically as well. But not criminally. It would be ridiculous to want to turn Catalanophobia—which is structural in Spain—into a crime and prohibit it by law. The recourse to a supposed hate crime is nothing more than the current expression of the notion of sin and the justification of penance—now without possible forgiveness!—against anything that doesn't fit into the official or majority ideological order.
In any case, I believe that freedom of expression—including the freedom to hate—must prevail over any authoritarian temptation to prohibit it, provided that the individual and collective freedom of choice of those who disagree is respected.
