Incitement to Racial Discrimination: When a Political Leaflet Escapes Conviction

Imagine for a moment: you own a flat in Mont-de-Marsan. A neighbour, a local elected official, distributes a leaflet in your neighbourhood that says: 'No cathedral in Mecca, no mosque in Strasbourg.' You wonder: is this legal? Can one really oppose a place of worship without risking conviction? This question, which seems political, actually touches on discrimination law and freedom of expression, two principles that often clash in property disputes.

The decision we are about to analyse, handed down by the Court of Cassation on 30 May 2007, provides a surprising answer: the Court of Appeal that acquitted two regional councillors of incitement to racial discrimination was upheld. Why? Because the comments in the leaflet, although controversial, did not exceed the permissible limits of freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

If you are a property owner, tenant or developer in Saint-Paul-lès-Dax, this case indirectly concerns you: it sets a boundary between what can be said in a public debate and what falls foul of criminal law. Full analysis below.

The facts: a story like any other

In 2000, the Alsace Regional Council voted a subsidy for the construction of a mosque in Strasbourg. Two regional councillors, Patrick X and another, drafted and distributed a leaflet entitled 'No cathedral in Mecca, no mosque in Strasbourg.' The leaflet protested against this vote, arguing that public money should not fund a Muslim place of worship.

The 'Grand Mosque of Strasbourg' association filed a complaint for incitement to racial discrimination (a criminal offence under the Press Law of 1881). The Criminal Court convicted the two elected officials. However, on appeal, the Alsace Court acquitted them, ruling that their comments fell within a legitimate political debate and did not incite racial hatred.

The association appealed to the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on 30 May 2007 (judgment no. 06-84.328), upholding the acquittal. The reasoning: the leaflet criticised a financial decision, not Muslims as a group. It did not exceed the limits of freedom of expression.

The court's reasoning — explained

The Court of Cassation relied on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression, including for comments that 'offend, shock or disturb'. This is not a blank cheque: the comments must be assessed in their context.

Here, the leaflet targeted a public subsidy, not a religious community. The judges considered that the message was a political stance on the use of public funds, and not an incitement to racial discrimination (which requires an intention to provoke hostile acts against a group).

The Court recalls that incitement to discrimination (Article 24 of the Law of 29 July 1881) requires a strong intentional element: the author must have intended to provoke discriminatory acts. However, the leaflet contained no call to boycott Muslims, exclude them or treat them differently. It was a political opinion.

This decision confirms established case law: comments made in the context of a public debate, even if heated, benefit from broad protection. This is not a change but a classic application of ECHR principles.

What this means for you — in practice

For landlord-owners: You have the right to express an opinion on a property project (e.g., construction of a mosque near your building in Saint-Paul-lès-Dax). But beware: if your comments explicitly target a community and call for discrimination (e.g., 'Do not rent to Muslims'), you risk criminal conviction (up to €45,000 fine and 1 year imprisonment).

For tenants: If you are a victim of discriminatory comments from your landlord or a neighbour, you can file a complaint. However, this decision shows that courts distinguish between an opinion and incitement. A critical leaflet about a property project may not necessarily be penalised.

For co-owners: Debates at general meetings can be heated. Expressing opposition to a project to build a place of worship in the co-ownership is permitted, as long as the comments remain factual and do not stigmatise a religion.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Stay factual: If you oppose a property project, base your arguments on objective grounds (planning, noise, traffic) rather than generalisations targeting a community.
• Avoid catchy slogans: A headline like 'No mosque in our neighbourhood' could be interpreted as discriminatory. Prefer neutral wording: 'Opposition to the construction project on Rue X'.
• Keep evidence: In case of a dispute, retain written records (emails, minutes) showing that your comments were part of a debate on a matter of general interest.
• Consult a lawyer before distribution: If you are an elected official or association leader, have your leaflets or statements reviewed by a professional to avoid criminal classification.

Further reading: related case law and developments

The European Court of Human Rights has issued similar decisions. In Leroy v. France (2008), it condemned France for penalising a provocative press cartoon, ruling that freedom of expression prevails unless there is direct incitement to violence.

Conversely, in Peringek v. Switzerland (2015), the Court upheld a conviction for denial of the Armenian genocide, as the comments were contrary to public order. The trend is clear: courts protect political debate but penalise explicit hate speech.

For the future, this 2007 decision remains a benchmark: it reminds us that freedom of expression is a shield, not a weapon. French courts continue to apply a strict proportionality test between the right to express an opinion and protection against discrimination.

Frequently asked questions

Can I be sued for discrimination if I refuse to rent to a person of Muslim faith? Yes, refusal to rent based on religion is a criminal offence (Article 225-1 of the Criminal Code), punishable by up to 3 years imprisonment and a €45,000 fine. Freedom of expression does not cover discriminatory acts.

Is a leaflet criticising the construction of a mosque always legal? Not necessarily. If the leaflet calls for hatred or discrimination (e.g., 'Let's prevent Muslims from settling here'), it may be penalised. The line is fine: the 2007 decision acquitted because the leaflet targeted the subsidy, not the believers.

What should I do if I receive a discriminatory leaflet in my letterbox in Mont-de-Marsan? Keep the leaflet, report it to the town hall or police. You may also consult a lawyer to determine whether a complaint is justified. The limitation period for this offence is 3 months from distribution.

Can a local elected official say anything at a public meeting? No. Comments made in the course of an electoral mandate benefit from relative immunity, but discriminatory or insulting comments can be prosecuted. Immunity does not cover criminal offences.

How much does a consultation cost to find out if my leaflet is legal? A 30-minute consultation with a specialist lawyer typically costs between €80 and €150. At Maître Zakine's firm, the first consultation is €45.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) could save you months of litigation — and often much more. Book an appointment →