Date when decision was rendered: 5.11.1997

Judicial body: Helsinki Court of First Instance = Helsingfors tingsrätt = Helsingin käräjäoikeus

Reference: Report No. 233; R97/5299

Reference to source

Registry of the Helsinki Court of First Instance

Helsingfors tingsrätts registratorskontor

Helsingin käräjäoikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

racism, racial discrimination, criminal charge, freedom of the press,
rasism, rasdiskriminering, brottsanklagelse, tryckfrihet,
rasismi, rotusyrjintä, rikossyyte, painovapaus,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 11, section 8 of the Penal Code, Act on the Freedom of the Press

= strafflagen 11 kapitel 8 §; tryckfrihetslagen

= rikoslaki 11 luku 8 §; painovapauslaki.

CERD-2-1, CCPR-20-2, CCPR-26, ECHR-14 (no direct reference to either in the judgment)

Abstract

A was charged with incitement to racial hatred for statements included in articles in a sales publication that was publicly distributed.A was editor-in-chief of the publication in question.Out of the 150 copies, about 50 were distributed to book shops, but only 10 were sold.The rest were distributed for free.

In the court of first instance, A's lawyer stated that the allegedly derogatory remarks were placed within quotation marks, indicating that they were not intended as derogatory but to emphasize the situation and invoke a discussion.The notion of obtaining a sort of "final solution", which was included in the text, was intended to imply expulsion, according to A's lawyer.He also stated that A was of the opinion that all races in principle are equal, but that he wanted to bring about a discussion on multiracial societies.The statements were not intentional but ill-considered.During the pretrial investigation, A had admitted that certain statements were ill-considered and stated that he had not used them subsequently.

According to the public prosecutor, A had surely understood that he incited and also intended to incite to violence, hostility and discrimination.

The court of first instance concluded that it had been proven that A had in public by means of his articles in a publication spread statements which threathened, libelled, and insulted groups of black people and refugees who live in Finland by calling them defamatory names and inciting others to take measures that offended the groups' human dignity.A was sentenced to FIM 900 in fines.The chairperson of the court would have dismissed the charges as the statements did not incite to undertake any measures against any groups of people.

17.4.1998 / 31.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 4.4.2001

Judicial body: Turku Court of First Instance = Åbo tingsrätt = Turun käräjäoikeus

Reference: Report no. 01/1082; R01/586

Reference to source

Registry of the Turku Court of First Instance

Åbo tingsrätts registratorskontor

Turun käräjäoikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

racism, freedom of expression,
rasism, yttrandefrihet,
rasismi, ilmaisuvapaus,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 2, section 17 of the Penal Code, section 12 of the Constitution Act

= strafflagen 2 kapitel 17 §, grundlagen 12 §

= rikoslaki 2 luku 17 §, perustuslaki 12 §.

ECHR-10, CCPR-19

Abstract

ABSTRACT: A had published in the Internet homepage of an association a caricature and a writing concerning Islam and muslims.The picture as well as the writing were considered offensive and A was charged with incitement to racial hatred.A referred to freedom of expression and claimed that his statements were based on facts presented in the media.The court of first instance also referred to freedom of expression as prescribed in the Constitution Act, the ECHR and the CCPR and noted that the exercise of this right carries with it duties and responsibilities.In the court s view, it was possible to use a sharp or provocative style in a caricature.However, in this case, the picture was extremely rude and had no factual content.It had the essential elements of incitement to racial hatred as provided for in the Penal Code.The court held that the same applied to A s use of the word cutthroath when referring to muslims.In addition, A s writing as a whole had a hostile and insulting tone.A was sentenced to a fine.The court of appeal did not change the decision of the first instance court (Turku Court of Appeal, decision of 21 November 2002, Report No. 2962; R01/1485).The Supreme Court did not grant A leave to appeal (decision of 23 December 2003).

13.2.2004 / 13.2.2004 / JKOSKIMI