Lithuanian court’s acquittal of Gražulis in LGBTQ hate speech case called absurd by victims

A Lithuanian appeals court’s decision to acquit politician Petras Gražulis of inciting hatred against LGBTQ individuals has been condemned as “utterly absurd” by those recognised as victims in the case, who have vowed to challenge the ruling before the Supreme Court.

Mantas Mackevičius, one of the recognised victims, told the Baltic News Service (BNS) the verdict effectively permits public slurs and incitement against individuals, even on camera. “Under this ruling, you could openly call people degenerates in the halls of the Seimas, spread hate speech, publicly insult them on camera, even spit on them, and claim there was no hatred,” he said.

Fellow victim Mantas Meškerys argued that a politician should not be allowed to “publicly mock and humiliate” citizens without consequence. “We are all residents of a civilised state. Everyone can have different views, vote for different parties, or prefer different dishes—that’s normal. But when a politician openly ridicules and degrades his own country’s people, and the court sees nothing wrong with that, is that still normal?” he asked.

Meškerys urged the public to consider the kind of society Lithuania is becoming: “Imagine if Gražulis had insulted you or your children. Would that feel acceptable? We must all think carefully—do we want a country where politicians mock their own people, or one where they behave like decent, cultured individuals who don’t humiliate others?”

He warned that Gražulis’s behaviour, if unchecked, would extend beyond the LGBTQ community. “This isn’t normal. There’s been enough of this nonsense,” Meškerys said. Both victims confirmed they would appeal the decision to Lithuania’s Supreme Court.

The Vilnius Regional Court had previously found Gražulis guilty in 2024 and fined him €10,000 for public statements made in May 2022 following a parliamentary debate on civil unions. Prosecutors alleged he used phrases such as “climbs a pole and shouts he’s a pederast,” “where did these pederasts come from? This is degeneracy,” and “you’re spreading venereal diseases,” while asserting “God created man and woman.” Investigators concluded Gražulis acted with direct intent, aware his remarks were being recorded and broadcast.

However, the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction on Monday, ruling that Gražulis’s statements did not meet the legal threshold for incitement. The court stated that criminal liability requires proof of a specific call to hatred or discrimination—mere offensive or derogatory remarks in public are insufficient. The prosecution had argued the evidence clearly demonstrated intentional incitement.