By targeting Muslims, and not just Islam, the writer exposes himself to a conviction for incitement to racial hatred.
Through Nicholas Bastuck
Prosecutions. Michel Houellebecq risks one year in prison and a fine of 45,000 euros.
Published on
En attacking “Muslims” in the latest issue of the magazine Popular Front, Did Michel Houellebecq leave the free field of controversy and religious criticism to venture into the swamps of incitement to racial hatred? It will be up to the judges to say so after the complaint filed on December 28 by the Grand Mosque of Paris, which targets article 24 of the law on freedom of the press of 1881. This offense punishes by one year in prison and 45,000 euros fine for provoking “to discrimination, hatred or violence against a person or a group of people because of their origin or their (…) religion”.
The legal prognosis is always risky but, for many lawyers, the cause is heard: acquitted twenty years ago for having declared that Islam was “the dumbest religion”the author of Elementary particles would have, this time, crossed the red line. Professor emeritus of public law, Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet has always fought against “censorship laws” who “place freedom of expression under the communitarian tyranny of militant minorities”. However, this reader of Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès says to herself “shocked” by the words of the winner of the Goncourt 2010. “He is good for a conviction, and I think he assumes it. The Pleven Law [qui instaure en 1972 les délits d’injure, de diffamation et de provocation racistes, NDLR] sanctions this type of statement, which does not target a religion, or even Islamists, but the entire Muslim community. »
READ ALSO
EXCLUSIVE. Michel Houellebecq responds to the accusations
Ridge line. Lawyer and author (Press law practiceDalloz), Me Christophe Bigot wants to be cautious: “It is not enough, for the offense of provocation to be constituted, to give rise to a negative feeling with regard to a community. The Court of Cassation requires an “urge” – even implicit – to commit an act of rejection. We are on a crest line: discriminatory remarks must be condemned, but immigration, like religion, is a debate of general interest. The offense of provocation must not derive into an offense of opinion. »
Another press affairs specialist, Mr.e Renaud Le Gunehec is more categorical: “It will be discussed in court, but the first passage proceeds from a very affirmative and pejorative essentialization of Muslims, without any distancing, and Michel Houellebecq seems to include himself in the “ethnic French population” that he talks about. The inciting aspect, necessary to constitute the offense of provocation, is perhaps absent, but this passage could be requalified as a racist insult or defamation. On the second passage, where he evokes a “Bataclan Upside Down”, he may argue that he is indulging in a form of prediction rather than affirmation, but the statement is shocking and peremptory. His defense will not be easy. »
“Civilization”. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recalls that freedom of expression “also applies to ideas that offend, shock or disturb”. “It nevertheless becomes intransigent towards any hate speech against a minority, nuance Geneviève Tillement, from the University of Lorraine. Jurisprudence is unpredictable, but the risk of condemnation is great. » A few days before the Grand Mosque’s complaint, the ECHR confirmed the condemnation, in France, of the remarks of Éric Zemmour, who had denounced in 2016 a “invasion” of Muslims. ” The applicant [Zemmour] was not limited to a criticism of this religion or a rise of fundamentalism in the suburbs” but “nurtured a feeling of generalized rejection” towards Muslims ” in their whole “, in them “presenting as a threat” ; those “negative assertions” are “likely to stir up a cleavage” while“It is of the utmost importance to fight against racial discrimination”judged on December 20 the court of Strasbourg§
Philippe MATSAS/Leextra via opal