More than a year after the attack on October 7, 2023 by Hamas in Israel, which caused the death of 1,200 people and the capture of 251 hostages held in the Gaza Strip, effects are still visible in France. The Versailles judicial court recently judged a case of condoning terrorism in connection with the situation in the Middle East.
Between a case of domestic violence and drug trafficking, Mr. F. was called to the stand by the president of the hearing. Free under judicial supervision, the man from Magny-les-Hameaux got up from a bench in the audience and walked forward. This 47-year-old computer scientist is accused of advocating terrorism. The case was postponed until January 2024 to carry out a psychiatric assessment which revealed no psychological problem.
The acts alleged against Mr. F. took place on October 20, 2023. The defendant first published the following message on the social network X: “Long live Hamas! Long live Abu Obeida #freepalestine.” Then the next day, in a series of replies to a Tweet, he wrote: “You’re right, it’s not Netanyahu’s fault! This is the very existence of Israel! Israel must disappear! » Both publications were reported on the Pharos platform. After telephone and computer investigations, investigators arrested the individual on January 4, 2024 at his mother’s home in Magny-les-Hameaux.
After recalling these elements of the procedure, the judge began to ask a series of questions. Whether it was Mr. F. or the chair of the audience, everyone took the time to weigh their words by pausing several times.
– “Do you recognize that you are the author of these publications and can provide details on the acts of apology for terrorism with which you are accused? asks the magistrate.
– Yes I recognize my publications… I have no sympathy for Hamas. But, following the statement by the President of the National Assembly on her unconditional support for Israel, I wanted to respond to her because Israel had started to bomb Gaza. I’ve seen horrible videos of a father and son with their heads exploded. The unconditional support for Israel I found scandalous!
– In your opinion, does the publication constitute an infringement?
– Yes, I consider that to be true. But I was shocked that the President of the National Assembly called for unconditional support for Israel. But we can also qualify what Israel is doing as a terrorist act. Say “Long live Hamas!” ”, it was provocation!
– You publish on a public account, you are on X. When you say that it is a provocation, are you aware of the impact that these publications can have?
– Yes. It was provocation. When I hear unconditional support for Israel, I have the right to say “Long live Hamas”.
The chair of the hearing then focused her questions on the current situation. Its objective was to find out whether the defendant felt regret. “I would not have published this message,” replied Mr. F., adding, “I would not have lowered myself to the same level as the President of the National Assembly. » He paused for a moment before continuing: “This publication was completely useless and it served no purpose. »
The computer scientist, accused of advocating terrorism, continued to justify himself by making a difference between the acts of terrorism perpetrated in France and the Hamas attack. He also argued in relation to history. “At one point, Yasser Arafat or Nelson Mandela were considered terrorists and then they won the Nobel Peace Prize. You see terrorist, we don’t know what it is,” he looked straight at the president of the audience.
The magistrate recalled several elements of the 47-year-old man’s journey. A computer scientist by profession, he has been unemployed since 2016 following burnout. Mr. F. is already known to the police for his former links with the ultra-left movement. His criminal record includes one mention: a conviction by the Paris judicial court in 2016 to five years of imprisonment, two of which were suspended for acts of aggravated violence and participation in a group with the aim of committing crimes. damage. The president wished to return to these facts.
– « I clearly made a mistake. A serious error. I was punished. What more can I tell you?, Mr. F tells him.
– I don’t know, the judge replied.
– That’s all!
– Finally, when someone publishes comments that can… (she pauses for a long time) being vehement and possibly calling for violence with “we must make Israel disappear”, do you understand that we can ask you for explanations especially in relation to this judicial record?
– I consider these to be two different things.
– When you have already been convicted by the courts, you must avoid being noticed again.
– When I said “Long live Hamas”, I didn’t know that I would have to deal with justice… Then, I didn’t say “Long live Daesh!” “They are two different things.”
The prosecutor then began his argument by citing article 421-2-5 of the Penal Code which defines the apology of terrorism as “the fact of directly provoking acts of terrorism or publicly advocating these acts” . In relation to the defendant’s arguments, the public prosecutor clarified that “anything which can constitute a terrorist act is defined according to the public prosecutor’s office without distinction between the acts which are all included”.
Considering the context of the offense, the attack of October 7 was already qualified as a terrorist act and the apology for terrorism can be accepted since the publications were made on a social network intended for the public. “I propose that you enter into the process of conviction through a sentence of two years of imprisonment accompanied by a probationary suspension with the obligation to undergo psychological care and to work. I also request a deprivation of eligibility for a period of 5 years and the registration of Mr. F. in the judicial file of perpetrators of terrorist offenses (Fjait),” requested the prosecutor to conclude his indictment.
Faced with these requisitions, Mr. F.’s lawyer first focused her remarks on the context and consequences of the publications. “The apology for terrorism must be determined in a national context. Furthermore, if we condemn Mr. F., it is because we consider that his remarks are at the origin of a terrorist act. But this is not the case,” emphasized the defense, specifying that the account used by the accused was followed by 63 subscribers.
The defense then relied on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to freedom of expression. “It is not up to judicial institutions to recognize whether Hamas is a terrorist organization. Terrorism is a vague term. There is no doubt about the terrorist acts of Daesh. On the other hand, when we are in the heart of current events abroad, it is more complicated to determine what is terrorist or not. The Middle East is an eminently complicated setting. We must not take sides here at this bar. We must stand for one thing, one of the guardians of our society: freedom of expression. Mr. F. is in no way a terrorist. This is why I am asking for the acquittal,” argued the lawyer.
After deliberation, the Versailles judicial court found Mr. F. guilty of advocating terrorism. He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment with probationary suspension with obligations to provide care and find work. As an additional penalty, the judges retained ineligibility for five years and registration with the Fjait which prohibits him from exercising certain professions, particularly in the public service.
