Freedom of Expression and Harsh Criticism: The Limit of Racist Remarks in Property

In Cambrai, as in many towns in the Nord, pedlars knocking on doors to sell their wares are a daily reality. When these pedlars are of African origin, some residents complain, sometimes vehemently. A question then arises: how far can one criticise these practices without falling foul of the Law of 29 July 1881, which punishes incitement to racial hatred?

Can a property owner who writes a harsh letter denouncing the methods of pedlars be prosecuted? Can a management company that circulates an internal note on the subject risk a conviction? The answer is nuanced, and the decision of the Court of Cassation of 3 March 1980 (No. 78-91.949) is the perfect illustration.

This judgment, handed down within the jurisdiction of Douai, sets a limit: criticising specific behaviours, even in harsh terms, is not in itself an offence of incitement to hatred, provided the attack targets methods and not ethnic origin. A subtle distinction, but crucial for any property professional called upon to comment on neighbourhood tensions.

The Facts: A Story Like Many That Happen Every Day

Let's go back to the early 1970s. In Strasbourg, pedlars from Africa roam the streets selling various items. Their presence and methods—sometimes pushy—provoke reactions. A local newspaper publishes a very critical article, describing the situation as a "scourge" and denouncing the "aggressive methods" of these sellers. The Human Rights League (LDH) takes legal action, arguing that the article constitutes incitement to racial hatred, prohibited by Article 24, paragraph 5 of the Law of 29 July 1881.

At first instance, the criminal court convicts the authors of the article. But on appeal, the court reverses this judgment, acquitting the defendants. The LDH appeals to the Court of Cassation. The question put to the Supreme Court is clear: does a piece of writing that sharply criticises the presence of pedlars of African origin, on account of their methods, constitute the offence of incitement to racial hatred?

The Court of Cassation, in its judgment of 3 March 1980, says no. It approves the appeal judges who had analysed the disputed writing as "a diatribe against the real or supposed abuses" of peddling, and not as incitement to hatred towards people of African origin. The attack targeted behaviours, not an ethnicity. This distinction, simple as it seems, lies at the heart of freedom of expression.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The legal basis invoked by the LDH was Article 24, paragraph 5 of the Law of 29 July 1881. This provision punishes incitement to hatred or violence against a group of people on account of their origin or ethnic belonging with a fine of €45,000 and one year's imprisonment. But for the offence to be made out, the remarks must incite hatred, not merely be unpleasant or aggressive.

The trial judges—the court of appeal—had found that the newspaper article targeted the "methods" of the pedlars, not their African origin. The Court of Cassation validates this reasoning: even if the terms used are harsh, even if the criticism is acerbic, it remains within the limits of freedom of opinion and expression, guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which protects freedom of expression).

The Court thus draws a fundamental distinction between criticism of behaviours (lawful) and stigmatisation of an ethnic group (unlawful). It recalls that the press law does not prohibit speaking ill of a practice, even if that practice is carried out by persons of a particular origin. What is prohibited is calling for hatred against those persons because of that origin. In this case, the article denounced specific abuses, without generalising or calling for discrimination.

This decision is part of a consistent line of case law: the Court of Cassation firmly protects freedom of expression, especially when it concerns debates of general interest. It does not hesitate to overturn abusive convictions that could have a chilling effect on legitimate criticism.

What This Means for You — In Practical Terms

For a landlord in Sin-le-Noble, this decision means you can express your dissatisfaction with aggressive commercial practices in your neighbourhood without fearing a conviction for incitement to racial hatred, provided you remain factual and do not attack a community. For example, if you write to the mayor to complain about pedlars knocking at 10 pm, you are protected. However, if you write "all Africans are thieves", you cross the line.

For a tenant, this case law can help if you are accused of making racist remarks about a neighbour who is a trader. Your defence could be: I was criticising a method, not an origin. But beware: judges examine every word. A comment like "those people are all the same" can be held against you.

For a management company in Cambrai that circulates an internal note about nuisances caused by pedlars, caution is required: mention the facts (noise, times), not origins. If you write "African pedlars are responsible for the nuisances", you risk an action for defamation or incitement to hatred. If you write "pedlars, regardless of origin, create nuisances through their methods", you are within the permitted framework.

In figures: a conviction for incitement to racial hatred can result in a fine of up to €45,000, plus damages (often between €1,000 and €10,000). Not to mention legal fees. It is therefore better to weigh your words.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Before writing, distinguish between substance and form: criticise a specific behaviour (e.g., "pedlars knock at all hours"), not a category of persons ("Africans are noisy").
• Use neutral and factual language: avoid qualifiers like "scum", "scourge", "invasion". Prefer "significant presence", "methods perceived as aggressive".
• Never generalise: avoid terms like "all", "always", "systematically". Every sentence should be traceable to a verifiable fact.
• Consult a lawyer before publishing: if your text could be seen as controversial, an external legal opinion can save you from a lawsuit. A 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you thousands in defence costs.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1980 decision is not isolated. It is part of a line of judgments protecting freedom of expression, even when unpleasant. For example, in a judgment of 12 September 2000 (No. 99-84.400), the Court of Cassation held that remarks criticising immigration in very harsh terms, but without calling for hatred, did not constitute an offence. Conversely, in a decision of 20 February 2007 (No. 06-80.286), it convicted an elected official who made generalising remarks about "Roma", as they incited discrimination.

The trend is therefore clear: courts are protective of freedom of expression, but they punish as soon as discourse goes beyond criticism to become a call for hatred or discrimination. Since the 2000s, with the rise of identity-based discourse, vigilance has increased: judges examine the overall context, the tone, and prior publications. An isolated article will pass, but a systematic campaign of denigration will be punished.

Looking to the future, the question of the impact of social media arises. The same distinction applies: a tweet criticising the methods of pedlars in Cambrai is protected; a tweet calling for "chasing out Africans" is unlawful. The 1980 case law therefore remains fully relevant.

Frequently Asked Questions

• Can I be prosecuted for speaking ill of African pedlars at a leasehold meeting? Yes, if your remarks go beyond criticism to become a racist attack. But if you denounce specific facts (noise, dirt), you are protected.
• What if a neighbour calls me a racist because I criticised pedlars? Gather evidence (recording, witnesses) and consult a lawyer. Defamation is an offence, but you can also be prosecuted for racist remarks if you have crossed the line.
• Can a management company ban pedlars from the building? Yes, via internal rules, provided they target all pedlars without distinction as to origin. A ban targeting "African pedlars" would be discriminatory and unlawful.
• What are the time limits for bringing an action for incitement to racial hatred? The limitation period is 3 months from publication (Article 65 of the 1881 Law). After this period, you cannot file a complaint.
• How much does a legal action for this type of dispute cost? Legal fees range from €1,500 to €5,000 for first instance proceedings. A conviction can add up to €45,000 in fines and damages.

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

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