The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently settled an important case about boycotts of Israel.

The case was brought by Jean-Claude Fernand Willem, the former mayor of a small French town called Seclin. Back in October 2002, he announced that the town was going to boycott Israeli goods. After a complaint from the local Jewish community, the state prosecutor charged him with inciting discrimination under the 1881 Press Act. He was ultimately found guilty and fined.

Mr Willem took the case to the ECHR on appeal, claiming that his boycott call was protected under Article 10 of the European Declaration on Human Rights: the right of free speech.

He lost.

The 6-1 judgment is in French, and can be read here. The ECHR has upheld French anti-discrimination law and its application in this case. A few excerpts from the judgment are below:

the Court finds that the claimant was not convicted for his political views but an incitement to an act of discrimination.

…

The Court understands that the complainant’s intention was to denounce the policies of Prime Minister of Israel, but believes that the justification of the boycott as expressed … were a discriminatory measure and, therefore, wrong.

…

In these circumstances, the Court considers that the reasons advanced by the French courts to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression were “relevant and sufficient” for the purposes of Article 10

This is a significant development. The key points that court determined are:

1. Freedom of speech doesn’t override anti-boycott laws. Some (including UCU) have claimed in the past that boycott calls are just a form of criticism of Israel, and therefore should be protected speech. We have always rejected this claim, and the court ruling explicitly accepts this. A call for a boycott is not just speech.
2. It is reasonable to consider a call for a boycott as an incitement to discrimination, and therefore a country is allowed to make it illegal.

This ruling doesn’t create new law in the UK. However, it does strengthen the cases where anti-discrimination law already applies, particularly as in the case of UCU’s policy to encourage a boycott of Israeli academics.