Rima Hassan, a French left-wing politician and lawyer of Palestinian origin, and a member of the European Parliament for the “France Unbowed” party, said that within two years, 22 lawsuits were filed against her because of her political positions, while the French judiciary does not care about prosecuting those responsible for this genocide, nor those who justify it publicly.
Hassan, the first French woman of Palestinian origin to be elected to the European Parliament, and known for her supportive stance on the Palestinian cause, is preparing for a new trial after being referred to the French judiciary on charges related to “glorifying terrorism.”
In an exclusive interview, she considered the measures taken against her since the beginning of her term to be clearly political in nature, and stressed that they not only aim to silence her, but also target everyone who defends Palestine.
Hassan considered the measures taken against her since the beginning of her term to be clearly political in nature, and stressed that they not only aim to silence her, but also target everyone who defends Palestine.
Hassan is proud of the role of French citizens, associations, organizations and civil initiatives who are engaged in the struggle for Palestine despite the increasing restrictions on basic freedoms, but she realizes that the political picture is very worrying, given that what is happening to her is unprecedented.
She adds: “This is the first time a member of the European Parliament has been placed in police custody on ‘caught in the act’ because of a social media post, in a clear circumvention of the safeguards provided by parliamentary immunity.”
She emphasizes that what is worrying is the selective use of the law to target political positions, particularly those that condemn violations of international law or express solidarity with the Palestinian people, which is accompanied by the growing normalization of pro-Israel rhetoric.
The following is the text of the dialogue:
You are confidently heading towards the trial. How are you managing this case, especially since it goes beyond your person and your specific position? Do you see it as a legal interpretation of a specific publication, or a broader trial of your political stance on Palestine and Gaza?
Since my election, I have been subjected to a political, media, and even judicial targeting campaign with no other aim than to distort my struggle for the Palestinian cause and to silence everyone who raises their voice for Palestine, like me.
Hassan: Within two years, 22 lawsuits were filed against me because of the political positions I expressed in the course of my parliamentary duties, which is about one lawsuit per month.
The numbers alone are enough to illustrate the extent of what I am facing. In two years, 22 lawsuits were filed against me because of the political positions I expressed in the course of my parliamentary duties, which is about one lawsuit per month. Nineteen of them were dismissed without any action being taken, and three are still pending.
Do you feel that your trial carries a deterrent message to pro-Palestinian voices within Europe? And what does it reveal, in your opinion, about the limits of solidarity with Palestinians in the European public sphere?
The measures taken against me since the beginning of my term are clearly political in nature. They are not only aimed at silencing me, but also at anyone who defends Palestine and openly supports it. They are part of a broader pattern of escalating repression of voices in solidarity with Palestine.
Since the beginning of the genocide, we have witnessed an unprecedented escalation in the repression of pro-Palestinian voices. The number of prosecutions has risen dramatically, student movements are subjected to police interference, seminars and conferences are banned, employees are dismissed from their jobs, and other measures are taken, all pointing in the same direction.
This course of action reflects a political approach adopted by the French authorities since the early days following October 7th. On October 10, 2023, the former French Minister of Justice, Éric Dupond-Moretti, issued a circular calling on judges to rely on the existing legal arsenal, particularly legislation relating to terrorism and the “separatism” law, to prosecute statements deemed highly extremist.
This clearly reveals how the political authorities exploited this issue to impose their version of events, using the charge of “glorifying terrorism” as a tool to suppress voices
condemning the crimes committed by Israel and the complicity of the French government. Those who should be brought to justice are the perpetrators of genocide, not those who condemn it.
If it was a message of deterrence, how would you describe the positions of the pro-Palestinian movement? And what is the extent of the alliance and solidarity with you? We want to shed light on this so that the facts reach readers in the Arab world.
At the civil society level, associations, organizations, and civic initiatives, along with citizens engaged in this struggle, are doing everything in their power, despite the increasing restrictions on fundamental freedoms, to condemn the ongoing genocide and defend the Palestinian people's struggle. This mobilization deserves full appreciation, despite the escalating repression and intimidation attempts it faces.
On the political front, the picture is even more alarming. In France, the “France Unbowed” movement is among the few political forces that consistently and unequivocally defend this cause. And in the European Parliament, the Left group, to which I belong, is among the few that still keep the Palestinian issue at the heart of political debate, condemning the crimes committed in Gaza and Europe’s political and moral responsibility for what is happening.
As a member of the European Parliament and a well-known activist in defense of the Palestinian cause, does parliamentary status protect freedom of political opinion, or does it make its holder more vulnerable to targeting and accountability?
Parliamentary immunity is supposed to guarantee the protection of freedom of expression and the independence of European parliamentarians in carrying out their duties against state pressure and interference. All the measures taken against me since I entered politics have stemmed from positions I expressed while performing my duties as a Member of the European Parliament.
However, what is happening today is unprecedented. This is the first time that a member of the European Parliament has been placed in police custody on "caught in the act" because of a social media post, in a clear circumvention of the guarantees provided by parliamentary immunity.
France is sending a worrying message to other member states that the political expression of an elected representative, once it deviates from the prevailing discourse or disturbs the authorities, could become grounds for prosecution, even if he enjoys parliamentary immunity.
What is the significance of social media posts turning into legal cases, especially when they are issued by elected political figures? Do you think we are facing a legal crackdown on digital political discourse?
Turning social media posts into legal cases, especially when they originate from elected political figures, raises serious questions about the limits of free speech within a democratic space. There is no dispute about the legitimacy of resorting to the law when it comes to punishing acts that constitute clear and unambiguous crimes. However, it is troubling when the law is used selectively to target political stances, particularly those that condemn violations of international law or express solidarity with the Palestinian people.
This trajectory fosters a climate of self-censorship, as the fear of prosecution or smear campaigns deters politicians, journalists, and citizens from freely expressing their opinions. Thus, the digital space, which has become one of the most important arenas for public debate, transforms into a space where some opinions are subject to stricter censorship and penalties than others.
In your opinion, where does the right to political expression about historical events and facts end, and where does the crime of “glorifying terrorism” begin, as it is used in the French and European context today?
I think the most important thing is to understand how this charge is being used for political purposes. For several years now, political positions in support of Palestine have been legally classified as criminal offenses, with the aim of delegitimizing them and deterring those who hold them from expressing them.
The number of convictions for “glorifying terrorism” in France tripled between October 2023 and November 2024, compared to the period between January and September 2023. Today, a number of specialized judges are warning that the expansion of the use of this charge is posing a threat to public freedoms.
In the same vein, the world almost unanimously agrees that Israel is committing genocide, yet Israel is still being defended. Shouldn't this be considered part of the genocide and its justification?
While our governments are obligated, by virtue of their ratification of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to prevent and end any genocide, they continue, more than two years after it began in Gaza, to be complicit with the Israeli regime.
In contrast, in Europe we are witnessing a growing normalization of pro-Israel rhetoric, while positions supporting the Palestinian people are subject to increased monitoring, stigmatization, and criminalization in some cases.
This imbalance is clearly evident in the way political, media, and judicial bodies handle these situations. Voices condemning the crimes committed in Gaza are more likely to face skepticism, defamation, and prosecution, while other discourses receive far greater tolerance.
This double standard contributes to entrenching a form of European complicity by limiting and questioning the condemnation of violations of international law.
Your opponents argue that some of the rhetoric surrounding the Palestinian resistance may justify violence or downplay its impact on victims. How do you respond to this accusation? And how do you distinguish between defending a people under occupation and justifying attacks on civilians?
My statements have often been distorted or taken out of context. But my position has remained consistent: to defend, everywhere and for all peoples, respect for international law and the implementation of fundamental rights. Faced with the repression of voices supporting Palestine, we must not back down from this demand for justice.
How do you interpret the position of European institutions regarding your case? Did you find sufficient solidarity from within the European Parliament, or is there silence or caution reflecting the sensitivity of the Palestinian issue in Europe?
Except within my own political group in the EuropeanParliament, expressions of solidarity have remained limited. Unfortunately, this is not the first time.
Do you believe that the judicial and political treatment in Europe of pro-Palestinian discourse differs from the treatment of pro-Israeli discourse? If so, where is this disparity most clearly evident?
Yes, absolutely. The disparity in treatment is clear. On the one hand, some forms of expression are criminalized, while on the other hand, similar speeches are tolerated and even considered normal.
In France, the judiciary seems indifferent to prosecuting those responsible for this genocide, or those who openly justify it. What legal action, for example, was taken against Meyer Habib after he described the Palestinian people as a “cancer”? And what about Louis Sarkozy’s statements calling for “all Palestinians to die”? This disparity in the application of the law reinforces the perception of double standards.
What is the personal and political impact of this issue on you and on dissenting voices opposed to the European approach?
These procedures have a direct impact on my parliamentary work. They consume a great deal of time and effort, hinder the performance of my duties, and sometimes prevent me from meeting with the citizens who have entrusted me with their confidence.
However, its effects extend beyond my personal situation. It sends a deterrent message to all critical voices and to anyone who dares to oppose the prevailing political line. When resorting to the courts becomes a means of silencing political officials or citizens, the real victim is democratic debate itself.
In your opinion, if a verdict is issued against you, what repercussions do you expect for your parliamentary work, and for the movements in solidarity with Palestine in France and Europe? And if the case ends in your favor, what message will that carry?
I do not wish to comment on hypotheticals. I trust that justice will take its course. The French people elected me to represent them in the European Parliament, to defend justice, international law, and the rights of the Palestinian people, as well as the rights of all oppressed peoples. I will continue to fulfill this duty with the same determination, and I will not succumb to any attempt to silence or intimidate me.
Tags:
europe
