Finland / District Court of Länsi-Uusimaa

Country

Finland

Title

Finland / District Court of Länsi-Uusimaa

View full Case

Year

2021

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Wednesday, August 18, 2021

Incident(s) concerned/related

Incitement to violence or hatred

Related Bias motivation

Migrant status

Groups affected

Migrants

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

District Court of Länsi-Uusimaa (Länsi-Uudenmaan käräjäoikeus / Västra Nylands tingsrätt) - National court

Key facts of the case

X had participated in an anti-migrant discussion on another person’s open and public Facebook page. In his comments X called migrants “child rapists”. He also suggested that contract killers are hired to hunt down migrants as animals and to kill a couple of migrant children as a warning. Migrants should be intimidated so that they would leave the country. X had targeted migrants in general, not any specific ethnic or religious group.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The court held that “migrants” form a group which falls within the scope of the Criminal Code provision which prohibits threats, defamation and insults against a population group on the basis of, e.g., national or ethnic origin or religion. The court noted that this was a typical case of ethnic agitation, which consists of sporadic, insulting and defaming comments made in the context of an online discussion. The threats with violence and death, however, make the offence particularly reprehensible. X’s comments were generalising, stigmatising and harmful. The posts were open for all Facebook users to see and it has been possible to share them with an unlimited number of people.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

According to the Criminal Code, the sanction for ethnic agitation is a fine or imprisonment for at most two years. The court noted that in a majority of the cases where a person has been convicted of ethnic agitation, the sanction has been a fine. Also in this case, the prosecutor had requested a 50-day fine. However, the court held that X’s offence could not be settled with a fine. X had not only defamed migrants as a group but had threatened them with violence and death.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

X was sentenced to 30 days of conditional imprisonment. The court held that X’s comments were harmful and dangerous, and therefore the sanction should be imprisonment rather than a fine. However, the court did not find any particular circumstances in the case that would require an unconditional sentence. On the other hand, the court decided that the duration of the probationary period, during which the sentence can be enforced, should in this case be longer, namely a little over two years. According to the Criminal Code, the maximum probationary period is three years.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

(p. 9): “…siltä osin kuin [X] on esittänyt tappo- ja väkivaltauhkailuja, kysymys on tavanomaista moitittavammasta kiihottamisrikoksen muodosta. Kokonaisuudessaan tapa, jolla [X] on käsitellyt maahanmuuttajia viesteissään, on ollut voimakkaasti leimaavaa ja erittäin vahingollista.” “… insofar as the threats of violence and death are concerned, [X]’s actions constitute a particularly reprehensible form of ethnic agitation. Overall, the way in which [X] has referred to migrants in his posts has been strongly stigmatising and extremely harmful.”

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.