Finland Outlaws Humanity

The ability to doubt the reality of what our senses convey about the world we perceive; the curious look behind the scenes of this projection of reality in search of the truth; the ability to communicate what we found out in so doing; and the means to preserve or findings in some coded way, so that others can learn from it independent of our presence or existence (writing, audio, video, digital code): These are essential features of our humanity, the basis of our human dignity, setting us apart from the animal kingdom.

Finland just outlawed that very humanity.

On January 26 of 2026, Finland declared it illegal, with a threat of up to two years in prison, to doubt the orthodox Holocaust narrative; to look curiously behind the scenes of the mainstream’s projection of historical reality in search of the truth; to communicate what that search revealed; and to encoded these findings in such a way that others can learn from it independent of our presence or existence, especially via the internet. Here is the wording of this new section 10b of “Chapter 11. War crimes and crimes against humanity”:[1]

“Section 10b: Denial of a serious international crime

Anyone who publicly and knowingly denies, defends, or invalidates genocide, crimes against humanity, aggression, or war crimes recognized by Finland through a final decision of an international court of law, in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred against the group referred to in Section 10 or its members and to disturb public order, shall be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of two years for denying a serious international crime.”

And here’s the government proposal for the law to the Finish parliament:[2]

“MAIN CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposal suggests amending the Criminal Code. According to the proposal, a provision on penalties for the prohibition of serious international crimes would be added to the chapter of the Criminal Code concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity. This offense would be committed by anyone who publicly denies, defends, or seriously trivializes genocide, crimes against humanity, aggression or a war crime in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred against a group referred to in the provision on incitement to violence or hatred against a group of persons or its members and to disturb public order. The provisions on the criminal liability of legal persons would apply to the offense.

The proposed law is based on the European Union Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia and the related infringement proceedings initiated by the European Commission against Finland, as well as the provisions of Protocol 1 to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime.

The proposed law is intended to enter into force in autumn 2025

REASONS

1. Background and Preparation

1.1. Background

The European-Union Council’s Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law (hereinafter referred to as the Framework Decision) was adopted on November 28, 2008. Member States were required to transpose the Framework Decision into their national legislation by 28 November 2010 at the latest.

Finnish legislation was brought into line with the requirements of the Framework Decision and other international obligations through legislative amendments and additions based on Government Bill HE 317/2010 vp, which concerned, among other things, the criminalization of incitement against a group of persons (511/2011).

In 2014, the European Commission submitted a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Framework Decision (COM(2014) 27 final). In it, it considered that many countries, including Finland and Sweden, had not properly implemented all the provisions of the Framework Decision.

In February 2021, the Commission launched infringement proceedings against Finland concerning the implementation of the Framework Decision. In the Commission’s view, the prohibition of genocide and other crimes against humanity referred to in the Framework Decision is not adequately criminalized in Finnish criminal law. In January 2023, the Commission sent Finland a second formal notice on the matter.

In August 2023, the Government issued a communication to Parliament on promoting equality and non-discrimination in Finnish society (VNT 2/2023 vp). According to the communication, Holocaust denial will be criminalized (section 18). […]

2. Current situation and assessment

2.1. Finland’s international obligations concerning the criminalization of genocide and other serious international crimes

Several international conventions binding on Finland contain provisions that require the criminalization of racial discrimination and racism, as well as behavior based on racial superiority that incites hatred or violence against certain groups or individuals. These have subsequently been supplemented by provisions specifically concerning the criminalization of denying the Holocaust and other serious international crimes. […]

In 2003, within the framework of the Council of Europe, the first additional protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime (known as the Budapest Convention, SopS 59 and 60/2007) concerning the criminalization of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through information systems (ETS 189). The Additional Protocol entered into force in Finland in 2011 (SopS 83 and 84/2011). Article 6 of the Additional Protocol contains an explicit provision on the criminalization of the denial of genocide or crimes against humanity.”

The text goes on the explain that Finland initially reserved its right not to make the contestation of historical claims a crime, but then cites several decisions of international bodies (European Court of Human Rights, UN Commission, on the cases of Robert Faurisson, Otto Ernst Remer, Michael Kühnen, Roger Garaudy, Hans-Jürgen Witzsch, M’Bala M’Bala) stating that contesting the orthodox Holocaust narrative is not covered by the human right to free speech.

Finland tried to resist as long as they could, by finally caved in when being harassed by the EU Council for non-compliance with a binding international agreement.

Why did they sign it in the first place?

Endnotes