Conviction Le Pen for Hate Speech was Justified - Dark Clouds Gathering over Wilders?
A discussion of the judgment of the European Court of Human
Rights dated 20 April 2010
Statements Le Pen Have Resulted in a Conviction in France
In a recent judgment, the European Court of Human Rights
(published only in the French language) has
rejected a complaint of the politician of the Front National
Jean-Marie Le Pen. Le Pen complained against his conviction for
inciting hatred in France. His conviction was based on, amongst
other things, the following statement: 'The day there
are no longer 5 million but 25 million Muslims in France, they
will be in charge. And the French will press their backs against
the wall, will step off the sidewalk with their eyes fixed on
the ground. If they do not do so, they will be told: "Why
are you looking at me. You wanna fight?" Then you'd
better start running, before you're beaten up.'
Just like Dutch politician Wilders, Le Pen also based his
defense on the argument that he did not mention Muslims as
representatives of a faith, but of a political
doctrine.
Broad Protection of the Freedom of Expression
of Politicians
The Court first emphasized that the freedom of expression in the
political debate merits the highest protection. This also applies
if statements 'shock, offend or disturb', or if they are
exaggerated or provoking. In Dutch case law this doctrine has been
elaborately referred to by the Court of Appeal of The Hague in the
political corruption affair of the municipality of Delft (also
called the Gondola affair), which has been discussed here on
Media Report.
ECHR: Freedom of
Expression Does Not Protect Hate Speech
Still, Le Pen's reliance on the freedom of speech was not
successful. According to the European Court, with his statements Le
Pen tried to create a sense of insecurity: the fewer Muslims, the
safer the citizens. He placed Muslims directly opposite 'the
French' and inspired feelings of hatred and rejection towards
Muslims, according to the Court. His conviction for sowing hatred
was therefore also necessary in a democratic society and an
acceptable restriction of his freedom of speech.
In elaborate
comments on the judgment, Professor
Dirk Voorhof justifiably pointed out the consequences which this
judgment may have in the proceedings against Wilders. Before,
the media already mentioned the judgment in the Féret vs
Belgium case of the same Court as a judgment that could be
unpleasant for Wilders. On Media Report I already wrote about
the
Féret case: in my opinion, the
statements of the former leader of the Belgian Front National
Féret cannot be directly compared with the statements for which
Wilders now stands trial. That comparison seems somewhat more
likely with the Le Pen ruling. It indeed seems that the judgment
of the Court in the Le Pen case is not very positive news for
Wilders.