This article-based dissertation examines the criminalization of, and the case law related to religious insult (or breach of the sanctity of religion, here acronymized as BOSR) in Finland between the late 1990s and 2018. By analysing parliamentary materials, and decisions of the Prosecutor General and the Finnish courts via discourse analysis, the study demonstrates how the categories of religion and the sacred are used to demarcate the area which is the target of special protection. These categorizations are linked to wider societal concerns; it is investigated how these categorizations and the related discourses connect with different conceptions regarding society, and with the different interests of various stakeholders. Issues raised are discussed in the context of theoretical work regarding the discursive study of religion and Durkheim-rooted conceptualizations of the sacred in the fields of the study of religion and sociology.

The four articles making up the analytical part of this work mainly use different sets of data. Described as a whole, the data of this study is composed of 10 parliamentary documents, one pre-trial investigation report by the police, 11 decisions of the Prosecutor General, and 15 court rulings. As secondary material, 9 pieces of legal scholarship were taken into account. There are three main emphases that define the usage of this material in the articles. Firstly, the parliamentary materials are assessed in a single article in order to encapsulate the political and legal background of the law on religious insult in Finland. Secondly, two cases identified as being central are analysed in individual articles, respectively. Thirdly, the final article of this work provides an overview of the criminalization of religious insult by utilizing all the acquirable materials from the Prosecutor General and the courts. The dissertation presents four key findings.

Firstly, it is found that the contemporary BOSR cases investigated have mostly been connected with Islam by the officials, but also with Christianity and Judaism. Despite this focus on three of the publicly best-known “world religions” in Finland, the officials’ decisions are not very predictable, as it is not always clear why one particular case is advanced by the officials while another is not. From the perspective of religious communities, the provision on BOSR is applied quite rarely, and will therefore most likely appear to be relatively ineffective. A tentative international comparison is also presented, pointing out that Finland is among few European countries – alongside Poland, Italy, Germany and Greece – that still actively apply such legislation.

Secondly, the category of the sacred, as it becomes defined in the legal practice, refers primarily to well-known and publicly visible things that known “world religions” hold sacred, such as the Prophet Muhammad or the Quran in Islam, or God in Christianity. It is observed that the BOSR charge frequently co-occurs with a charge of ethnic agitation (Chapter 11, section 10 of the Finnish Criminal Code) and as BOSR is considered to be a less serious a crime, BOSR is not treated as the primary charge in such cases. The language deemed to be criminal often has overlaps within the categories of religion and ethnicity (for example, terms for non-white immigrant groups are used to refer to Muslim immigrants, and vice versa). Furthermore, the ethic agitation section itself has “religion” as one of the criteria for defining a protected group. It is found that the category of “sacred” is the key instrument by which the BOSR charge is distinguished from the ethnic agitation charge.

Thirdly, regarding the category of religion, as stated, the cases have concerned either Islam, Christianity or Judaism. The law makes use of the category of “registered religious community”, as defined by the Act on the Freedom of Religion. Indeed, in the “mosque case”, a guilty verdict on BOSR was overruled by the appellate court on the grounds that the attacked group in question was not a registered religious community. However, looking at the cases as a whole, the category of registered religious community rarely has a pivotal role in the verdicts, as the defendants have typically attacked Islam, Christianity or Judaism in general, not a particular registered community. Instead, in the legal practice “religion” often becomes defined along the lines of Finnish lay discourse regarding religion.

Fourthly, the legal practice, as it depends upon the prevalent lay understanding of religion – i.e. what is commonly thought to be “religion” in Finland at the moment – potentially makes it more difficult for lesser known groups, identifying as religious (e.g. “non-world religions”, such as pagan groups), to benefit from the law. More generally, as religious sentiments are placed as a target for special protection, the protected status itself elevates religion, and insults towards it, as a politicized societal question. Anti-Islamic politicians such as Jussi Halla-aho have managed to make use of this criminalization, as it has granted them more media space, the opportunity to claim the martyrdom of freedom of speech, and an opening to mount criticism towards the official, relatively pro-multiculturalist consensus. The fact that most of the convictions have indeed concerned Islam also suits their narrative.