THE OFFICE OF THE CNCDH Paris, January 22, 2026 Subject: Bill to Combat Renewed Forms of Antisemitism Dear Members of Parliament, A bill registered with the President of the National Assembly on November 19, 2024, aims to combat renewed forms of antisemitism. To this end, it introduces several amendments to the Penal Code, the Internal Security Code, and the 1881 law on freedom of the press. On January 20, the Law Committee amended the text to take into account the recommendations made by the Council of State in its opinion of May 22, 2025. The first two articles of this new version raise serious questions about their conformity with the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, the Bureau of the CNCDH (National Consultative Commission on Human Rights) calls on the members of the National Assembly to reject these two articles during the examination of the text in plenary session on Monday, January 26.
The CNCDH Bureau recalls that the Gayssot Law of July 13, 1990, aimed at suppressing all racist, anti-Semitic, or xenophobic acts, entrusted the CNCDH with the mission of independent national rapporteur in this area. Since 1991, through its annual reports, it has informed public authorities about the state of racism and anti-Semitism in France, cross-referencing ministerial data with data from an annual survey conducted by researchers (the Barometer). It also evaluates public policy in this area and contributes to monitoring France's compliance with its international commitments regarding the elimination of racial discrimination.
The resurgence of antisemitic acts after October 7, 2023, is undeniable and requires unwavering mobilization from authorities at all levels: educational, police, and judicial. The members of parliament who introduced the bill believe that calls for the destruction of Israel and comparisons to a Nazi regime represent "« renewed forms of antisemitism »"requiring an evolution of the legal framework. In doing so, they are extending the definition of antisemitism, aligning it with that used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).".
The CNCDH has already had several opportunities to express its reservations regarding this definition. In its 2018 report on racism, it called for vigilance against the temptation for some to enshrine it legally and insisted on the importance of not conflating antisemitism with legitimate criticism of a state and its policies, which is a fundamental right in a democracy. It can therefore only reiterate its criticism of the underlying assumption of this proposed law, namely, that there is an "inherent" link between hatred of Jews and hatred of the State of Israel. Not only is this entirely unfounded, but it also implies a highly problematic relationship of "forced" solidarity between Jews, regardless of their personal beliefs and/or nationality, and this state. Beyond the questionable premise that underpins the explanatory memorandum, certain provisions of the proposed law have given rise to a number of criticisms.
The changes made to Article 1 have the effect of extending the scope of Article 421-2-5 of the Penal Code relating to incitement and the glorification of terrorism. By targeting incitement "« implicit »"to acts of terrorism on the one hand and, on the other hand, the fact of "« minor[er] or to trivialize acts of terrorism in an outrageous manner », The bill deviates from the principle of legality in criminal matters, guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and from the requirement of predictability in criminal law, repeatedly emphasized by the European Court of Human Rights in its interpretation of Article 7 of the eponymous Convention. By definition, understanding the implicit nature of a statement leaves too much room for interpretation for legal professionals to satisfy these principles. Furthermore, criminalizing implicit statements can only encourage trials based on intent, which undermine the presumption of innocence, another fundamental right guaranteed by the aforementioned texts (specifically Articles 9 and 6).
Regarding the gross minimization or trivialization of terrorist acts, the chosen approach is inspired by the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation concerning Holocaust denial. The CNCDH Bureau draws your attention to the fact that this jurisprudence refers to crimes classified as such by an international court. Concerning terrorist acts, in the absence of any international consensus on their definition, the penal code adopts a purely national definition, which is complex and somewhat tautological, making their legal application difficult: in other words, uncertainty surrounds what constitutes an "act of terrorism" within the meaning of this provision. The classification of criminal acts as "terrorist" should therefore be the subject of an open debate for all, regardless of the legitimate moral condemnation these acts may provoke. However, in the future, this type of debate could fall under the scope of the new provision in the proposed law, since it could be interpreted as a minimization or trivialization of the acts in question. This would constitute a serious infringement on freedom of expression and academic freedom.. It is therefore appropriate to adhere to the interpretation of the glorification of terrorism given by the Court of Cassation, namely the fact "« to publicly encourage to pass a favorable judgment on these offences or their perpetrators ».
The reservations expressed regarding the vague and uncertain nature of the additions to the offense of advocating terrorism also apply to Article L. 227-1 of the Internal Security Code, concerning the administrative closure of places of worship. Indeed, as this is an administrative policing measure, this new ground for closure, left to the discretion of public authorities, increases the risk of arbitrariness.
Article 2 introduces a new offense that criminalizes public calls for the destruction of a state recognized by the French Republic. Geopolitical issues must be subject to broad freedom of expression in order to fuel debates of general interest within the academic community and, more broadly, in the public sphere. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasized that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning freedom of expression and one of its corollaries, the right to information, leaves little room for restrictions in the area of political discourse or matters of general interest (see, in particular, the judgment...). Baldassi v. France of June 11, 2020). Such an offence will have the effect of deterring legitimate and healthy debates in a democratic regime on the relevance of recognizing a new State, on the legitimacy of the form of government adopted by a State, or on the historical conditions of its creation.
Articles 3 and 4 These provisions respectively broaden the eligibility criteria for anti-racist associations wishing to join legal proceedings as civil parties and incorporate into law the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation clarifying the scope of the aforementioned offense of Holocaust denial. These provisions therefore do not require any particular comment from the CNCDH.
In conclusion, the CNCDH Bureau wishes to emphasize that the current legal framework already allows for the prosecution of all antisemitic acts and speech when they are disguised as anti-Zionism or criticism of the State of Israel. The fight against antisemitism does not require new offenses but rather the full and fair application of the laws of July 29, 1881, on freedom of the press.
The Bureau of the CNCDH thanks you for your attention to this letter and asks you to accept, Madam Members of Parliament, the assurance of its distinguished consideration.
The members of the CNCDH Bureau
View the full document