On Wednesday, the Antwerp Court of Appeal ruled that a banner reading “Stop Islamisation” is not racist, as the court could not establish that it was motivated by “racism and xenophobia.”
The judgement was in line with a decision of the Council of State, which also saw no objections to the slogan "Stop Islamisation" a few years ago and therefore overruled a decision of the city of Ghent to prohibit a demonstration, De Standaard reports.
Such a banner is merely a “printed document expressing an opinion,” the court of appeal found, and therefore only a jury of the people can pass judgement.
Related News
- Man faces six months in prison for giving Nazi salute in Fort Breendonk
- European Court: Facebook users responsible for others’ hateful posts
“A victory for free speech,” Vlaams Belang chairman Tom Van Grieken called it. “Dissident opinions do not belong in a court of law. We will continue our fight against immigration and islamisation. Because stopping islamisation is not the same as racism.”
Banner was unfurled in Mechelen
The case started about a year ago, when a judge in Mechelen came down hard against an action by Voorpost (a satellite organisation of Vlaams Belang) in which a banner with the slogan “Stop Islamisation” was unfurled.
That judge’s verdict spoke of a “fearful image” that “incites hatred and discrimination” and of an “absolute lack of normality,” handing down a six-month prison sentence and hefty fines.
But because the message appeared on pamphlets and a banner in print, it was considered a “press offence.”
Press offences are decided by a jury of the people, unless they are racist or xenophobic, which made the Mechelen judge’s ruling unsteady.
Far-reaching consequences if not appealed
The conviction was based on inciting hatred or violence against the Muslim community (religion, not race), but the facts said to only be “possibly” inspired by racism and xenophobia.
Criticism focused on the fact that neither judge nor prosecutor substantiated these claims: malice was not shown, nor was incitement to violence.
Politicians hoped that an appeal would be lodged because otherwise the verdict would have far-reaching consequences, such that even the public prosecutor's office sounded the alarm.
