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
Last week 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.
