I SHARE Saleh Mohammed’s wish that French President Emmanuel Macron could just say one word – “Sorry” – for his fourteen words, namely, “Islam is a religion that is currently experiencing a crisis all over the world”.

The fourteen words look like – in two words – hate speech.

According to Macron’s countryman Jean-François Flauss, who was a professor at the University of Paris II (Pantheon-Assas), European jurisprudence very clearly condemns any form of hate speech in principle.

In the European Court of Human Rights case of Jersild v. Denmark (1995), the court affirmed that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (on freedom of expression) should not be interpreted in such a way as to limit, derogate from or destroy the right to protection against racial discrimination under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

See Flauss, Jean-François (2009) “The European Court of Human Rights and the Freedom of Expression,” Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 84: Iss. 3, Article 3.

The case may have been decided twenty-five years ago, but in later years the court has continued to explain that “remarks aimed at inciting racial hatred in society or propagating the idea of a superior race cannot claim any protection under Article 10 of ECHR.

It also says that “expressions that seek to spread, incite or justify hatred based on intolerance, including religious intolerance, do not enjoy the protection afforded by the Article, and, finally, and that the protection granted by Article 10 does not apply to “concrete words constituting hate speech that might be offensive to individuals or groups.”

Hate speech is not limited solely to the domain of racial or religious discrimination.

It was defined way back in 1997 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to encompass “all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination, and hostility against minorities, migrants, and people of immigrant origin.”

See the Committee of Ministers to Member States on “Hate Speech” (1997).

An attack against a religious group is incompatible with the values proclaimed and protected by the ECHR. In the case of Norwood v. United Kingdom (2004) a British citizen displayed a poster in his house window with the following text: “Islam out of Britain – Protect the British People” accompanied by a photo of the World Trade Center in flames.

The court decided that the words qualified as religious hate speech. According to the court, the words and images appearing on the poster constituted an attack against all Muslims in the United Kingdom.

Macron may wish to assert France’s uncompromising liberalism – as exemplified by Charlie Hebdo’s publication of derogatory drawings of the Prophet Muhammad – as a lifeblood of its democracy.

But a democratic society must also defend its basic principles. It has the duty to fight against abuses, committed in the exercise of freedom of speech, that openly target democratic values, of which pluralism is one.

Like Saleh, I am encouraged by Macron’s “we must help this religion to structure itself in our country so that it is a partner of the Republic”.

How about one word to start it off, Mr President.

“Sorry.” – November 1, 2020.

*Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.