The Joni Valkila Ruling: Finland Backs Scrutiny of Harmful Faith Practices

Joni Valkila (on the right) and Jari-Pekka Peltoniemi (on the left) from 2014. Taken on their way to meet Minister of Justice Anna-Maja Henriksson to discuss how the Finnish government could respond to harmful practices within Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Article Written and Published by: Miss Usato, November 26th, 2025

“There are no probable grounds to support the suspicion that Valkila committed incitement against a group of people.” – Prosecutor General

A landmark ruling from Finland’s Prosecutor General clears human-rights advocate Joni Valkila of accusations that his reports on Jehovah’s Witnesses amounted to hate speech. The decision confirms that documenting abusive religious practices is protected speech and validates the experiences of survivors whose stories helped expose systemic harm. This article explores the events between 2013 and 2025, based on legal Documents from Finland and Quotes from Joni Valkila himself.

The Long Fight of Joni Valkila

In September 2013, a young Executive Director of UUT — Uskontojen Uhrien Tuki, (Support for Victims of Religion) sat down to write a report he knew would be controversial. His name was Joni Valkila.

Joni: “Between 2013 and 2016, I wrote a series of reports on serious issues within Jehovah’s Witnesses, including the operation of judicial committees, shunning, the blood ban, the silencing of victims of sexual crimes, the position of women, children’s rights, and broader deficiencies in the realization of fundamental and human rights. I prepared these reports together with Jari-Pekka Peltoniemi. Our work was successful in drawing national attention, and major Finnish news outlets published stories based on our findings.”

The document he published on September 17th, 2013, titled “Report to the Ombudsman for Children: Serious Deficiencies in the Realization of Children’s Rights Among Jehovah’s Witnesses,” would become the first step in a twelve-year saga that tested the boundaries of free speech, religious power, and state responsibility.

As Joni explained, the report detailed stories about children in Jehovah’s Witness families who lived in fear of Armageddon, death, and divine punishment. It quoted former members describing how they felt “forced to participate in door-to-door preaching” and how “many had experienced corporal punishment during childhood” –Something millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses have dealt with since the beginning of the Organization in the late 1800’s. The document was submitted to Finland’s Ombudsman for Children and picked up by major media outlets. It also put Joni on the radar of the Finnish Prosecutor General.

You can read Joni’s reports here: Joni’s Reports on Jehovah’s Witnesses

Each report was quietly handed to authorities, researchers, and journalists. Each one was evidence-based, citing internal Witness manuals, medical experts, legal cases, and the lived stories of those harmed.

And years later, those same reports would be the basis of a criminal accusation.

Joni: “Jehovah’s Witness leaders were not pleased with our work and attempted to silence us through legal means. They filed a complaint with the police, claiming our writings harmed them. Initially, the police declined to investigate and issued a 19-page explanation supporting their decision.”

To this day, Joni is still advocating for the harmful practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Below is a photo of him in the Bogarting Court House of Appeals in Oslo, Norway, with other former Jehovah’s Witnesses supporting the Jehovah’s Witnesses vs. Norway trial. The trial surrounds the decisions on whether the Organization should remain de-funded as a Religion for their views and actions upon children baptized into their faith.

The Accusation: Hate Speech for Telling the Truth

On September 17th, 2013, through October 13th, 2025, according to the case file, Joni was suspected of kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan, meaning ‘incitement against a group of people,’ Finland’s version of hate-speech law.

The claim was that his reports “defamed or insulted Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

This was not a mild inquiry. The Finnish state scrutinized Joni’s work for years. The pre-trial file included:

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ internal instruction manuals
expert testimony from a psychotherapist treating former Witnesses
statements from a former Witness elder
statements from a current Witness elder
extensive legal and scholarly material
reports authored by Joni between 2013–2016

Joni told investigators he had acted entirely within the mission of UUT. His goal was plain: “-To support those who have encountered difficulties in religious communities… to highlight problems… to ensure that victims receive help, and to influence legislation so that religious communities act in ways that respect fundamental and human rights.”

He stressed that UUT did not target Jehovah’s Witnesses as people, only the harmful practices documented in their leadership instructions.

He denied any wrongdoing.

What the Prosecutor decided

On November 12, 2025, the Finnish Prosecutor General’s Office issued its official decision. It was not subtle. “I decline to bring charges because there are no probable grounds supporting the suspect’s guilt.” — Deputy Prosecutor General Jukka Rappe

Over nearly 20 pages of legal reasoning, the prosecutors concluded that every single allegation Joni had ever published had objective basis backed by evidence.

Women’s Status

Internal Jehovah’s Witness rules explicitly state that:

“the man is the head of the woman,”
women may hold no leadership positions,
a woman may read at meetings only if no qualified man exists,
and a man’s status must be re-evaluated based on his wife’s actions.

The prosecutor concluded: “The allegation of the subordinate status of women cannot be regarded as defamatory or insulting; it has an objective basis.”

Children’s Status

Internal rules require children to “willingly submit to their father.”
Elders must reassess a father’s worthiness if an adult child leaves the faith — meaning fathers are expected to police even adult children’s religious choices.

The prosecutor: “This allegation has an objective basis.”

Silencing Sexual-Offense Victims

Evidence showed:

Jehovah’s Witnesses handle sexual offenses internally
Victims’ reports were doubted
One victim was instructed “not to speak of the matter again to anyone.”
Internal rules require elders to contact HQ before police

Prosecutor’s conclusion: “This allegation cannot be considered defamatory; it has an objective basis.”

Corporal Punishment

Former members provided accounts of being physically punished. Witness literature described “discipline” in terms consistent with physical force. “This allegation has an objective basis.”

Invasion of Privacy

Evidence included:

elders investigating dating, sex, and family matters
required reporting of others’ “sins”
cases of surveillance, including watching someone with binoculars. “The allegation of privacy violations has an objective basis.”

Psychological Manipulation / Indoctrination

Internal instruction requires members to obey leaders “willingly and submissively,” avoid outsiders, and support decisions even without understanding them. “This allegation has an objective basis.”

Shunning & Psychological Violence

Prosecutors reviewed:

official instructions requiring avoiding both disfellowshipped and disassociated members
guidance that family outside the home should have “minimal contact”
testimony from a psychotherapist describing depression, PTSD, and suicidality caused by shunning

The ruling: “Shunning constitutes serious psychological and spiritual violence.”

Blood-Transfusion Pressure

Internal materials showed systemic pressure — spiritual, social, and procedural — to refuse blood. “This allegation has an objective basis.”

Education

Internal materials warned of “dangers” of higher education and required leadership review if someone pursued university studies. “The allegation of a negative attitude toward education has an objective basis.”

Free Speech, Human Rights, and the Point of it All

The Prosecutor General emphasized that Joni’s reports were aimed at:

The Minister of Justice
The Ombudsman for Children
lawmakers
and public debate

They were meant to inform society, not attack a population. The ruling stated: “Critique of a religious community should not be assessed differently from criticism of immigration policy… Such criticism is permitted.”

And finally: “None of the reports use degrading terms… the tone is factual.”

The conclusion was unmistakable: “There are no probable grounds to support the suspicion that Valkila committed incitement against a group of people.”

The Legacy of the Decision -AvoidJW Closing comments

Joni: “The decision confirms that we are free to continue speaking openly about problems among Jehovah’s Witnesses or any other religious group in Finland. I never expected any other outcome, but being suspected of a hate crime was certainly unpleasant. I am not against Jehovah’s Witnesses; I am for them. I wish they would be protected from serious violence, which I consider shunning to be.”

Joni Valkila spent more than a decade documenting hidden harms. Harms experienced by children, abuse survivors, ex-members cut off from their families, and Witnesses caught between the threat of death and the ban on blood.

He gathered their stories respectfully, cited his sources, and delivered evidence to the people with the authority to change things.

For that, he was nearly prosecuted.

Instead, Finland has now firmly affirmed that the right to expose harmful religious practices is protected speech.

The state validated not just Joni, but the thousands of former Witnesses whose experiences he faithfully carried into the public record.

It is a decision that strengthens democracy.
It is a decision that protects victims.
It is a decision that confirms that truth, responsibly told, is not a crime.

We thank Joni and others who have pushed back to expose the harmful rules, practices, and decisions the Organization has set in stone in hopes that one day, the organization will be held accountable.