such a serious incursion on free expression, the term “racial superiority” is best understood to cover statements of superiority based on innate or immutable characteristics. 7.In any event, Mr. Sarrazin’s statements did not express the view that Turks as a nationality or ethnic group were inferior to other nationalities or ethnic groups. Some of the statements, considered in isolation, might be understood to assert that some aspects of Turkish culture inhibit Turks in Berlin from succeeding economically. But it is often claimed, including by commentators of unimpeachable integrity and sensitivity to the problem of racial discrimination, that the culture that prevails among particular national or ethnic groups inhibits their economic success. For example, Amartya Sen, has written that “[c]ultural influences can make a major difference to work ethics, responsible conduct, spirited motivation, dynamic management, entrepreneurial initiatives, willingness to take risks, and a variety of other aspects of human behavior which can be critical to economic success.” The dissemination clause should not be construed to prohibit the expression of such views. “The right to freedom of expression implies that it should be possible to scrutinize, openly debate and criticize belief systems, opinions and institutions, including religious ones.” The claim that the culture or belief system that prevails among a national or ethnic group inhibits their chances of achieving a particular goal is not outside the scope of reasoned discourse, and it is not prohibited by the Convention. 8.Moreover, other portions of the interview indicate that Mr. Sarrazin was not asserting that Turkish culture leads inevitably to lack of economic success. Mr. Sarrazin’s main point appears to have been that the provision of social welfare leads to habits and ways of life that inhibit economic success and integration. Thus, he notes that the same immigrant groups that in Germany and Sweden are economically unsuccessful are successful in other countries, such as the United States. The reason for this disparity, he (mistakenly) asserts, is the fact that immigrants in Germany and Sweden receive social welfare, which gives them a disincentive to integrate, whereas the United States does not provide immigrants with social welfare and, as a result, immigrants from these groups do integrate and succeed economically. Elsewhere in the interview, Mr. Sarrazin asserts that, “[i]f the Turks would like to integrate, they would have parallel success with other groups, and it would not be an issue any more.” Thus, Mr. Sarrazin does not appear to have been asserting the inferiority of Turkish culture or Turks as a nationality or ethnic group. Instead, he appears to have been making an argument about the impact of certain economic policies on the incentives of Turkish immigrants to integrate and thus to succeed economically. In any event, the State party was not acting arbitrarily in construing his statements this way. 9.It is true that, in expressing these ideas, Mr. Sarrazin at times employed denigrating and offensive language. But such language does not change the fact that it was not arbitrary for the State party to conclude that the statements were not ideas of racial superiority. The right to freedom of expression extends even to statements framed in sharp and caustic terms. State Party Discretion Not To Prosecute