ECHR Féret vs. Belgium - Ban on Discrimination vs. Freedom of Speech 1- 0?
A discussion of the judgment of the European Court of Human
Rights in the matter Féret vs. Belgium dated 16 July 2009
Statements FN Politician Féret
On 16 July 2009 the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg ("ECHR") rendered a
judgment (link for the French speakers among
us) in proceedings instituted by the Belgian politician Féret
against Belgium. As the then chairman of the Belgian Front
National, Féret grumbled at immigrants and asylum seekers.
In pamphlets he had, among other things, called for a
"Belgians and Europeans first" policy for the
distribution of work. Immigrants should go back to where they
came from. Asylum seekers' centers should be converted into
shelters for the homeless, he was fighting the
"islamification of Belgium", only people with European
roots should be allowed to apply for asylum, stricter
rules should be introduced to determine who is still allowed to
own real estate in Belgium (it does not clearly say so, but I
assume that Féret meant that non-Europeans had better keep their
hands off Belgian real estate), families from outside Europe
should be discouraged from taking up residence, all sans
papiers are criminals (because they are illegal) and, to
top it all, ethnic ghettos should be created in order to protect
the Belgian people from the danger of the advancing Islam.
In Belgium, Féret was sentenced to a community service order (or
10 months' imprisonment) under anti-discrimination laws and was
barred from standing as a candidate for re-election for 10 years.
He contested this sentence as being an unacceptable infringement of
his freedom of speech. Féret eventually applied to the ECHR.
Judgment of the ECHR: Inciting Hatred Not Protected by
the Freedom of Speech
Féret lost his case, but only just (4-3). According
to the ECHR, the interest of fighting discrimination and racial
hatred outweighed the interest of Féret's freedom of speech,
which in itself deserves the highest protection as he is a
politician. The ECHR found that Féret had crossed the boundaries of
the acceptable by inciting hatred against foreigners and by
systematically criminalizing foreigners. The ECHR emphasized that
inciting hatred suffices to cross this boundary. It does not have
to concern calls for violence (although I think that, for instance,
his call for the creation of ghettos comes rather close).
This judgment was rendered by the Small Chamber. Féret can still
lodge an appeal before the Grand Chamber.
Please find below some relevant considerations from the judgment
in French:
"La tolérance et le respect de l'égale dignité de
tous les êtres humains constituent le fondement d'une société
démocratique et pluraliste. Il en résulte qu'en principe on
peut juger nécessaire, dans les sociétés démocratiques, de
sanctionner voire de prévenir toutes les formes d'Speech qui
propagent, incitent à, promeuvent ou justifient la haine fondée sur
l'intolérance (y compris l'intolérance religieuse), si
l'on veille à ce que les « formalités », « conditions », «
restrictions » ou « sanctions » imposées soient proportionnées au
but légitime poursuivi.
En ce qui concerne la teneur des propos incriminés, il
ressort des tracts que le message véhiculé par ceux-ci, en plus de
reposer sur la différence de culture entre les ressortissants
belges et les communautés visées, présentait ces dernières
comme un milieu criminogène et intéressé par
l'exploitation des avantages découlant de leur installation en
Belgique et tentait aussi de les tourner en dérision. Un
tel discours est inévitablement de nature à susciter parmi le
public, et particulièrement parmi le public le moins averti, des
sentiments de mépris, de rejet voire, pour certains, de haine à
l'égard des étrangers.
La Cour estime que l'incitation à la haine ne
requiert pas nécessairement l'appel à tel ou tel acte de
violence ni à un autre acte délictueux.
A cet égard, la Cour rappelle qu'il est d'une
importance cruciale que les hommes politiques, dans leurs discours
publics, évitent de diffuser des propos susceptibles de nourrir
l'intolérance (Erbakan c. Turquie, no 59405/00, 6 juillet 2006,
§ 64).
La Cour ne conteste pas que les partis politiques ont le
droit de défendre leurs opinions en public, même si certaines
d'entre elles heurtent, choquent ou inquiètent une partie de la
population. Ils peuvent donc prôner des solutions aux problèmes
liés à l'immigration. Toutefois, ils doivent éviter de le faire
en préconisant la discrimination raciale et en recourant à des
propos ou des attitudes vexatoires ou humiliantes, car un tel
comportement risque de susciter parmi le public des réactions
incompatibles avec un climat social serein et pourrait saper la
confiance en les institutions démocratiques.
La Cour a examine les textes litigieux divulgués par le
requérant et considère que les conclusions des juridictions
internes concernant ces publications étaient pleinement justifiées.
Le langage employé par le requérant incitait clairement à
la discrimination et à la haine raciale, ce qui ne peut
être camouflé par le processus électoral. En conséquence, la Cour
estime que les motifs des juridictions nationales pour justifier
l'ingérence dans la liberté d'Speech du requérant étaient
pertinents et suffisants, compte tenu du besoin social impérieux de
protéger l'ordre public et les droits d'autrui,
c'est-à-dire ceux de la communauté immigrée."
Limited Relevance for Prosecution of Dutch Politician
Wilders
Perhaps not entirely surprising, the word is around now that Geert
Wilders, who is currently being prosecuted for what some people
consider to be similar statements, has to watch it now. I doubt
whether Wilders can be compared to this gentleman of the Front
National (which has meanwhile thrown Féret out, by the way). I
am not familiar with the details of Wilders' election program,
but I do think that his ideas are less far-reaching than Férets. At
least I have never heard our Venlo man call for the creation of
ghettos for foreigners and for barring non-Europeans from getting
asylum. Not everybody agrees with the idea that Féret and Wilders
may not be compared that easily, as shown by this
site which lists similarities between Féret
and Wilders. Whatever the similarities, this judgment in any
case does not seem particularly good news for Wilders.
What Is More Important: the Freedom of Speech or the Ban
on Discrimination?
The real question is, of course, whether it is better to
have the Férets of this world say their piece so that everybody can
judge for themselves, or whether we should make them cloak their
message in more acceptable language, while, of course, they still
mean or think the same (and will want to execute their ideas as
soon as they come into power). In line with European tradition, the
ECHR seems to prefer the wolf in sheep's clothing. This is a
tricky question, which is looked at differently in Europe than, for
instance, in the United States, where the beloved First Amendment
(guaranteeing the freedom of speech) is rather sacred, except in
cases of inciting violence or other imminent lawless actions. Which
system is better? It is in any case striking that the United States
now has a black president, whereas the European countries with
their strict anti-discriminatory legislation have not yet come this
far.