EIT: Jean-Marie Le Penin tuomitseminen kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan oikeutettua

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin katsoi, että sananvapaudella ei voitu perustella lausuntoja, jotka Suomen rikoslaissa vastaavat lähinnä kiihottamista kansanryhmää vastaan ("incitement to discrimination, hatred and violence towards a group of people because of their origin or their membership or non-membership of a specific ethnic group, nation, race or religion"). Valitus oli siten ilmeisen perusteeton, eikä sitä otettu tutkittavaksi.

The Court reiterated that it attached the highest importance to freedom of expression in the context of political debate in a democratic society, and that freedom of expression applied not only to “information” or “ideas” that were favourably received, but also to those that offended, shocked or disturbed. Furthermore, anyone who engaged in a debate on a matter of public interest could resort to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation, provided that they respected the reputation and rights of others. When the person concerned was an elected representative, like the applicant in this case, who represented his voters, took up their concerns and defended their interests, the Court exercised the strictest supervision of interferences with his freedom of expression.

The applicant’s statements had been made in the context of a general debate on the problems linked to the settlement and integration of immigrants in their host countries. Moreover, the varying scale of the problems concerned, which could sometimes generate misunderstanding and incomprehension, required considerable latitude to be left to the State in assessing the need for interference with a person’s freedom of expression.

In this case, however, Mr Le Pen’s comments had certainly presented the “Muslim community” as a whole in a disturbing light likely to give rise to feelings of rejection and hostility. He had set the French on the one hand against a community whose religious convictions were explicitly mentioned and whose rapid growth was presented as an already latent threat to the dignity and security of the French people.

The reasons given by the domestic courts for convicting the applicant had thus been relevant and sufficient. Nor had the penalty imposed been disproportionate. The Court found that the interference with the applicant’s enjoyment of his right to freedom of expression had been “necessary in a democratic society”. His complaint was accordingly rejected.

EIT:n päätös kokonaisuudessaan (ranskaksi): Le Pen c. France

Palaa otsikoihin