Restricting hate speech is often a contentious point from the perspective of human rights. Last week, the Court issued a judgment on such speech in the French case of Soulas and others. Soulas was the publisher of a book written by Guillaume Faye entitled 'La colonisation de l'Europe' (the colonisation of Europe; see picture). In the book, Faye argued that Europe was gradually being overtaken by Muslims and that they had already established control over some territories (certain banlieues of Paris for example). The skirmishes in these places with the authorities were indeed, according to the author, the start of a civil war which was a necessary step in the 'reconquista' by Europeans of territories lost to the enemy, Muslims. An ethnic war was thus a necessary solution, Faye argued. Soon after the publication of the book the author, the publisher and the publishing firm were prosecuted. The former two were ordered to pay fines of 7,500 euros each for violating a law which prohibited the incitement of hatred and violence against a specific group.
In Strasbourg, the applicants complained that their conviction by France violated their freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 ECHR. The Court first indicated that the issues addressed in the book - immigration and integration of foreigners - were issues of general importance. It then went on to state that addressing possible problems arising from such immigration was a task for national authorities, which should be given a large margin of appreciation since so much depended on the historical, demographic and cultural context. The Court indicated that the book was written in an accessible style and addressed itself at a large audience. It was polemical and tended to present the effects of immigration as catastrophic. After mentioning that the fight agaisnt racism in all its manifestations is of high importnace, the Court considered that the reasons given by the national courts for the conviction were relevant and sufficient: the book aimed to nurture feelings of rejection against certain communities by calling them the enemies in an ethnic war. The French courts had remained within the permissible margin of appreciation. Read more ...
In Strasbourg, the applicants complained that their conviction by France violated their freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 ECHR. The Court first indicated that the issues addressed in the book - immigration and integration of foreigners - were issues of general importance. It then went on to state that addressing possible problems arising from such immigration was a task for national authorities, which should be given a large margin of appreciation since so much depended on the historical, demographic and cultural context. The Court indicated that the book was written in an accessible style and addressed itself at a large audience. It was polemical and tended to present the effects of immigration as catastrophic. After mentioning that the fight agaisnt racism in all its manifestations is of high importnace, the Court considered that the reasons given by the national courts for the conviction were relevant and sufficient: the book aimed to nurture feelings of rejection against certain communities by calling them the enemies in an ethnic war. The French courts had remained within the permissible margin of appreciation. Read more ...
Source: ECHR BLOG
Posts
