Model Training Materials: Hate Speech, Defamation and National Security European Court of Human Rights Féret v. Belgium: A Belgian politician was the editor of his party’s publications. His party distributed anti-immigrant publications which included xenophobic slogans and advocated discriminatory policies. The Belgian courts, after waiving his parliamentary immunity, convicted him of incitement to discrimination or hatred, and imposed a penalty of community service, a suspended prison sentence and a 10-year ban on serving in Parliament.38 The European Court of Human Rights found that Belgium had not violated the politician’s freedom of expression. The conviction was provided by law, met a legitimate aim and was necessary for meeting that aim.39 The Court stressed that free political discourse was of fundamental importance in a democratic society but also noted that being a parliamentarian did not protect the individual from responsibility for disseminating hate speech. In contrast, xenophobic language by candidates during an election could carry a heightened risk of generating harmful reactions by the public.40 The Court, examining the leaflets in question, determined that they clearly incited racial hatred and it accepted the reasoning of the Belgian courts in convicting the parliamentarian. The Court also noted the Belgian court’s decision not to impose a prison sentence and did not find the penalty to be disproportionate. 41 Erbakan v. Turkey: Turkish courts sentenced a former Prime Minister to one year’ imprisonment and a fine on charges of inciting hatred or hostility in a speech. His conviction was based on allegations that the speech made distinctions between nonbelievers and believers and portrayed other political parties as opposed to Allah.42 The European Court of Human Rights held that the conviction violated Mr. Erbakan’s right to freedom of expression. Turkey had not shown that the prosecution had demonstrated that the speech had or would likely have led to any imminent danger or present risk. Imposing criminal sanctions on a well-known politician was not proportionate, particularly given the interests of maintaining free political debate in a democratic society. Genocide Denial 16 July 2009, Application No. 15615/07, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-93626, only in French but summarised in English at https://bit.ly/3WBgDnf. 39 This was not a case where the Court held that the “abuse of rights” provision in the European Convention was triggered, so it applied the normal three-part test. 40 Ibid., para. 77. 41 Ibid., paras. 78-80. 42 6 July 2006, Application No. 59405/00, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-76232; only in French but English summary at https://bit.ly/3E3q9Iz. 38 The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 11