have a far greater mastery of the language involved than do the Members of this Committee., and they are in a far better position to gauge the likely impact of the statements in the social context prevailing in the State party. The State party’s decision not to prosecute was neither arbitrary nor a denial of justice. Incitement to Racial Discrimination 4.In concluding that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements “contained elements of incitement to racial discrimination,” the Committee is apparently referring to the statements suggesting that immigration be limited to “highly qualified people” and that immigrants be denied social welfare. These statements do not, however, advocate discrimination on the basis of “race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.” Moreover, the statements do not constitute “incitement” to discrimination. To constitute “incitement,” there must at least be a reasonable possibility that the statement could give rise to the prohibited discrimination. In the statements that the Committee finds to be “incitement to discrimination,” Mr. Sarrazin puts forward some ideas for possible legislation. The possibility that an individual’s advocacy of legislation will contribute more than trivially to the enactment of legislation is minuscule. Indeed, the concept of incitement to legislation is, to my knowledge, a novel one. Mr. Sarrazin’s statements do not constitute incitement to discrimination. Dissemination of Ideas Based on Racial Superiority 5.The Committee has also concluded that the interview with Mr. Sarrazin “contained ideas of racial superiority.” The Convention, which refers in article 4 to the prohibition of the “dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred,” is unusual among human rights instruments in referring to the penalization of speech without an express link to the possibility that such speech will incite hatred or violence or discrimination. Because of the absence of such a link, the dissemination clause poses particular risks of conflict with the right to freedom of thought and expression affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This potential conflict did not go unnoticed in the treaty negotiations. Several states objected to the clause precisely because of its possible conflict with free speech rights. The concerns of these states were addressed through the inclusion of the “due regard” clause in Article 4. This clause specifies that the State parties’ obligations under article 4 are to be exercised “with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention.” In view of this negotiating history, any construction of the term “racial superiority” should be heedful of the need to safeguard the free exchange of opinions and ideas on matters of public concern. 6.It is open to question whether the term “racial superiority” in article 4(a) encompasses statements of superiority on the basis of nationality or ethnicity. Expressions of national or ethnic pride abound in popular discourse, and such expressions are often hard to distinguish from boasts of national or ethnic superiority. Criminalizing such statements risks chilling speech far removed from the central concerns of the Convention. To avoid