At least one hundred and ten lawyers seized the prosecutors of Nanterre, Versailles and Créteil on Friday June 4 – and are preparing to do so in Paris and Bobigny – for “incitement to discrimination and hatred”, after a leaflet from the National Rally on unaccompanied minors. Under the title, “Did you know? “, the far-right party assures that“an unaccompanied foreign minor costs the department €40,000 per year. 60% are actually adults. (Senatorial Report 2017) They are responsible for the explosion of insecurity. (Example: 2 offences/crimes per day in Bordeaux in 2020). Only our elected officials will put an end to this scandal! » and further : “Rather than funding unaccompanied foreign minors or helping to house illegal immigrants, elected officials, we will invest more in the education of our children, the well-being of our elders and the integration of people with disabilities. »
The lawyers, often specialists in these unaccompanied minors, jumped up when they read the leaflet. “We cannot allow political debate to be demagogically limited to hate speechprotests M.and Emmanuel Daoud. With figures that are a big nonsense, and to the detriment of a population as vulnerable as these children are. » The lawyers dispute that the majority of foreign minors cared for by Childhood Social Assistance (ASE) are delinquents or “60% major”, the dozens of wandering children in the streets, particularly damaged and polydrug addicts, are hardly supported by child protection. Unaccompanied minors represent less than 10% of children cared for by the ASE, for a daily price of up to 23 euros, or 8,395 euros per year – far from the 40,000 euros announced.
The report, written by Mr.are Catherine Delanoë-Daoud and Emmanuel Daoud, is solidly argued in law. The Court of Cassation indeed considered, on March 17, 2015, that this offense was characterized when “the incriminated texts tend to arouse a feeling of rejection or hostility, hatred or violence, towards a group of people or a person because of a specific religion”the European Court of Human Rights confirmed in 2008 that the law of 1881 made it possible to punish remarks intended to give “a negative image of the targeted communities” as soon as they “were intended to provoke in readers a feeling of rejection and antagonism”. Jurisprudence requires, on the other hand, that the group targeted be targeted as such and as a whole, and not when the remarks target only certain people in the group. This is indeed the case here.
You have 65.08% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.