France’s Assemblée Nationale was set to debate an important bill for freedom of expression on April 16th. Though it was withdrawn before the debate, the government plans to introduce a similar law in June. The bill, dubbed the Yadan Law after its proposer, MP Caroline Yadan, was said to be a measure to reduce antisemitism. Since the onset of the Hamas and Israel conflict in 2023, antisemitic acts have risen in France. In the bill’s Statement of Reasons, Yadan stated, “In the first half of 2024 alone, 887 antisemitic incidents were recorded in France.” Yadan explained her reasoning for the bill as “combating renewed forms of antisemitism, to fill a legal void in the face of speeches that have changed in nature, but not in intention.” However, if it had passed, this bill would have harmed France’s democracy by limiting freedom of expression and reducing the inclusivity of political participation. 

The Yadan Law

The bill included four articles. Article 1 expanded an existing law that criminalizes inciting or glorifying terrorism to include indirect incitements. This is punishable by a five-year prison sentence and €75,000 fine. Article 1 also sanctioned speaking of terrorism as legitimate resistance and inciting others to think favorably of terrorism or its perpetrators. Additionally, it criminalized “trivializing, minimizing, or relativizing acts of terrorism” with a one-year prison sentence and €45,000 fine. Article 2 created a new offense of “inciting the destruction or denial of a State or of publicly advocating its destruction or denial.” Article 4 expanded the Gayssot Act, which criminalizes the denial of crimes against humanity, specifically Holocaust denial. This expansion included denial, trivialization, and relativization, “even if presented in a disguised or hesitant manner, through insinuation, analogy, or comparison.” Yadan made clear that any comparison between Israel and the Nazi Regime is “an outrageous trivialization of the Holocaust.” 

Opposition and Support

Opponents argue that the bill would have had the opposite of its intended impact by creating false solidarity between all Jews and the government of Israel. Critics also reject the bill’s assertion that anti-Zionism is a type of antisemitism. Protests emerged across France, and a petition against it amassed over 700,000 signatures. 

 On the other hand, proponents of the bill thought it would curb anti-semitic acts by criminalizing hateful speech against Israel. Yadan views hatred of Israel as hatred of all jews and states, “Calls for the destruction of this state, because it constitutes a collective of Jewish citizens, are a veiled way of attacking the Jewish community as a whole.” Additionally, Pro-Israel PM Sebastien Lecornu supported the bill because he views the characterization of Israel’s war on Gaza as a genocide as a relativization of the Holocaust. If it had been passed, by Yadan and Lecornu’s standards, anyone who labels it genocide would face prison and a €45,000 fine.

Is Freedom of Expression Under Attack? 

Most of the criticism of the bill centers on freedom of expression. Lawmakers and protestors argued the bill exploits the fight against antisemitism to suppress and criminalize legitimate criticism of the government of Israel and the war in Gaza. Concerning Article 1’s clause on indirect incitement and glorification of terrorism, the Syndicate of French Lawyers (SAF) warned that criminalizing indirect incitement would require judges to determine intent and implied meaning, which could breed thought policing. The SAF also argued that “In a context of tension and pressure to conform, minority viewpoints or explanations could become dangerous for anyone who dares to express them.” 

In practice, by treating criticism of the state as an attack on the Jewish people, the bill would have criminalized forms of legitimate political speech. Even if it wasn’t outright punished, speech regarding Israel would be suppressed because of the fear of retribution. For example, based on Article 2, common speech such as “Free Palestine” could be illegal based on inciting denial or destruction of the state of Israel. Beyond criminalizing many legitimate forms of political speech, it also called for immense interpretation and subjectivity that would have been disproportionately used against pro-Palestine voices.

Implications for Democracy in France

Had the bill been passed, or if the alternate version in June passes, what would this mean for the state of democracy in France? According to Dahl’s explanation, a democratic government must be continually responsive to the preferences of its citizens. For a government to be responsive, it must provide the opportunity for the formulation of preferences, signifying those preferences to the public and government, and to have preferences weighed with no discrimination based on content or source. The Yadan Law would make citizens less likely to formulate opinions that criticize the Israeli government because of fear of punishment or a lack of exposure to suppressed forms of speech. Citizens would not be able to signify their preferences in public without fear of penalty. Additionally, criminalizing speech against the state of Israel is plainly discriminatory based on content. 

Dahl also explains that for these three opportunities, citizens must have eight guarantees, two of which are freedom of expression and freedom to form and join organizations. If the Yadan Law had passed, it would have been used disproportionately against pro-Palestine organizations; the guarantee of freedom to form and join organizations would have been threatened. As Dahl explains, the necessary dimensions for polyarchy, approaching but not reaching full-fledged democracy, are inclusiveness and public contestation. Inclusiveness is based on “the proportion of the population entitled to participate on a more or less equal plane in controlling and contesting the conduct of the government.” The Yadan Law, by disallowing parts of the population to openly express their opinions, would reduce the inclusiveness of France’s democracy. 

Overall, the Yadan Law hid behind a facade of fighting antisemitism while criminalizing speech that critiques the government of Israel. This would reduce freedom of expression and may even have put Jewish French citizens at risk. Freedom of expression is critical for inclusiveness and public contestation, the foundations of democracy. If the law had passed or the new version in June does, democracy in France will be deeply wounded.