Guilty Pleasures

Lenis v. Greece

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres: The Apotheosis of Homer (1827)

In a case that rocked Greece and caught the attention of human rights advocates across Europe, Lenis v. Greece pushed the boundaries of free speech, hate speech, and religious influence on political matters. At the heart of this saga is Amvrosios-Athanasios Lenis, the Metropolitan of Kalavryta, whose inflammatory remarks against the LGBTQI+ community sparked outrage, and ultimately, a legal showdown in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

Setting the Stage: Religious Authority Meets Political Debate

In 2015, Greece stood at a cultural crossroads as the Hellenic Parliament prepared to debate legislation introducing civil unions for same-sex couples [§4]. This proposed law marked a significant milestone for LGBTQI+ individuals rights in a country where the Greek Orthodox Church holds immense influence. As the debate gained momentum, Amvrosios-Athanasios Lenis, a senior Orthodox Church figure, unleashed a scathing public attack on homosexuality. His blog post, dramatically titled “THE SCUM OF SOCIETY HAVE REARED THEIR HEADS! Let’s be honest SPIT ON THEM”, denounced homosexuality as a “social felony” and called for its outright condemnation [§5].

Lenis’s words were incendiary, not merely condemning homosexuality on moral grounds but dehumanizing individuals who identified as LGBTQI+ individuals. He labeled them as “scum,” “defective,” and even “mentally ill,” urging his readers to “spit on them!” and “blacken them out!” [§5]. The media quickly picked up the story, with headlines decrying the “raving” of the Metropolitan and highlighting his inflammatory rhetoric [§6]. Lenis’s post spread like wildfire, drawing both outrage and legal attention.

The Legal Fallout: Charges, Acquittals, and Appeals

Lenis’s hateful remarks didn’t go unnoticed by Greek authorities. He was charged under Article 1 of Law no. 927/79, amended by Law no. 4285/14, which prohibits public incitement to violence or hatred based on sexual orientation, as well as under the Criminal Code for abuse of ecclesiastical office [§8]. However, Lenis initially dodged accountability when a local court acquitted him in 2018, concluding that his harsh words were directed at politicians supporting same-sex unions rather than at homosexual individuals themselves [§9].

But this acquittal didn’t sit well with the public prosecutors, who promptly appealed. In January 2019, the appellate court delivered a different verdict, finding Lenis guilty of incitement to hatred and abuse of ecclesiastical office [§10]. The court’s judgment was based on a detailed review of the article, concluding that Lenis’s hateful speech wasn’t aimed solely at politicians. Rather, his remarks specifically targeted homosexuals and sought to strip them of their humanity and dignity [§10]. Lenis received a seven-month prison sentence, later reduced to five months, suspended for three years [§11].

Lenis Appeals to the ECtHR: The Free Speech Defense

Taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights, Lenis argued that his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated [§31]. He claimed that his words, while harsh, were an expression of his religious beliefs and political opinions, directed at politicians, not individuals. Lenis even tried to argue that the phrase “spit on them” was metaphorical, implying disdain rather than an actual call for violence [§31].

But the ECtHR wasn’t convinced. In its assessment, the Court reiterated that while freedom of expression is a fundamental right in democratic societies, it is not absolute [§36]. Article 10 protects the right to voice opinions that may shock, offend, or disturb, but it also allows for restrictions, especially when speech crosses the line into hate speech or incitement to violence [§37]. The ECtHR found that Lenis’s article clearly went beyond religious or political critique. It was a direct attack on the LGBTQI+ community, aimed at inciting hostility, fear, and exclusion [§47].

The Court rejected Lenis’s argument that his words were metaphorical. Phrases like “spit on them!” and “blacken them out!” were not abstract expressions but clear incitements to violence, especially in the context of a national debate on LGBTQI+ individuals rights [§48]. Moreover, the Court emphasized the power dynamics at play: Lenis wasn’t just an ordinary citizen expressing his views—he was a high-ranking religious leader with significant influence over his followers [§49]. His words carried weight, and the potential for harm was far greater due to his authority.

The Court’s Verdict: No Protection for Hate Speech

The ECtHR ultimately applied Article 17 of the Convention, which prevents individuals from using Convention rights to undermine the rights of others [§52]. Lenis’s hateful rhetoric, the Court found, aimed to dehumanize and incite violence against a vulnerable minority, falling squarely within the scope of Article 17. By invoking this article, the Court ensured that Lenis could not use the shield of free speech to justify hate speech and violence [§54].

Moreover, the Court underscored the particular vulnerability of LGBTQI+ individuals, noting that discrimination based on sexual orientation is as serious as discrimination based on race or ethnicity [§53]. The dehumanizing language Lenis used, combined with his position of power and the national reach of his blog, posed a real threat to social cohesion and the safety of the LGBTQI+ community [§51]. As a result, the Court declared Lenis’s application inadmissible, upholding his conviction and sending a clear message that freedom of expression does not extend to hate speech designed to incite violence or hatred [§57].

Final Thoughts: Free Speech vs. Hate Speech

The Lenis v. Greece case serves as a stark reminder of the limits of free speech, particularly when it is used as a weapon to marginalize and harm others. The ECtHR’s decision reflects the fundamental principle that while free speech is essential to a functioning democracy, it cannot be exploited to incite hatred or violence against vulnerable groups. Lenis’s attempt to hide behind religious expression to justify his vitriol failed, as the Court recognized the real-world harm such speech could cause, especially when it comes from a figure of authority.

This case reaffirms that speech promoting discrimination, exclusion, and violence—whether it comes in the form of religious rhetoric or political discourse—has no place in a democratic society. Freedom of expression is a vital right, but it must be exercised responsibly, with respect for the dignity and rights of all individuals.