The French government, along with several agencies highly supportive of the government of Israel, had brought legal proceedings against French activists for calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. The charges had been brought under French anti-racism laws. The tribunal of the 17th magistrate’s court of the Paris law courts, which specialises in matters regarding freedom of expression, has now ruled, and found in strongly favour of the activists and the boycott.

In brief: the tribunal rejected the accusation of racism and underscored the legitimacy of calls for boycott. It insisted on the distinction between the members of a nation and the government of a state, and said that the right to criticize a state and its practices is based in fundamental rights of freedom of expression. It added that calling for a boycott of Israel clearly could not be racist, since many Israelis themselves call for it. [Not that anyone was confused about this in the first place; but it's useful to see it established in law - ed.]

The tribunal judges stressed that:

“Since the call for a boycott of Israeli products is formulated by a citizen for political motives and it is part of a political debate relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a debate concerned with a matter of general interest with international significance, the offence of provocation to discrimination, based on the fact of belonging to a nation, is not constituted.”

The judge explained that the article of law cited by the plaintiffs aganst the boycott (article 24, paragraph 8, Law of 1881) is designed to “fight any form of racism” and cannot be cited in order to forbid a call for boycott “suggesting a certain form of conscientious objection, which each of us is free to express or not to express” and “launched by non-governmental organisations without prerogative powers”.

Relying on the decisions of the Court of Cassation and of the European Court of Human Rights, the tribunal pointed out that:

“Criticism of a State or its policies cannot be regarded, in principle, as infringing the rights or dignity of its nationals, without seriously affecting freedom of expression in a world now globalized, whose civil society has become a major actor, and since no ‘criminal offence against a Foreign State’ has ever been established under substantive law or international common law, because this would be contrary to the commonly accepted standards of freedom to express opinions”.

The tribunal added that “the other calls from certain sectors of civil society for the boycott of such and such products coming from a country or a company are numerous, without having ever been incriminated as misuses of freedom of expression”.

Here the judge lists a great many previous and recent calls for the boycott of products, tourism in certain countries, Olympic games in others, among which the boycott of the Year of Mexico in France in 2011 and the boycott of Burmese products by Carrefour.

The judge also insists on the fact [those calling for boycott] can never be accused of “provocation to discrimination, violence or hatred against a group of people because they belong to the Israeli nation, since certain sectors of Israeli opinion support the BDS call”. (He explicitly refers to the declaration of the Israeli Women’s Coalition for Peace, Israelis who ask international artists not to come and perform I Israel, and to the support given by many personalities from Desmond Tutu to French ministers, parliamentarians or intellectuals, whom we cannot suspect of any form of racism.)

Examining the opposite views presented by the plaintiffs [opposing the boycott], the tribunal points out that: “The confrontation of points of views is very likely to convince us that the peaceful and unrestrained call for the boycott of Israeli products is an integral part of the opinion debate generated everywhere in the world by the preoccupations linked with the settlement of a conflict which has raged for more than 60 years.”

BDS ACTION BEYOND REPROACH
Regarding the publication of [a] BDS video by Olivia Zémor on the website www.europalestine.com and its content, the tribunal concluded that:

“The publication of a video lasting a few minutes, during which activists called for the consumers of a supermarket not to buy products from Israel and to support such a boycott for political reasons, on a matter of general interest with international implications, which has mobilised the international community for years, until now in vain, with the aim for a peaceful settlement: does not constitute in any of its elements an offence of provocation to discrimination, hatred or violence against a group of persons on the grounds of belonging to a nation, in this case Israel”.

Likewise, “The language of the presentation, unquestionably militant, is indissociable from the call for a boycott, which the defendant is free to support in order to express her views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

[Adapted from a posting by Europalestine]