Le Pen To Stand Trial For “Inciting Racial Hatred” Due To Criticism of Muslims In France

Le_Pen,_Marine-9586Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s far-right National Front, has been criminally charged with inciting racial hatred in the latest example of the rollback on basic free speech rights in France and other European nations. I have been a critic of the crackdown on free speech in France, including the hypocrisy of the government in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. In this case, Le Pen compared Muslim street prayers to a Nazi-like occupation, a statement that should be clearly protected as political speech in France. Instead, she will be pulled before a tribunal in another example of how free speech is being eviscerated by anti-discrimination and hate speech laws.

We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. We have seen comedians targets with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here).

In this case, Le Pen made the comment during her campaign to take over leadership of the party from her father in December 2010. She complained that there were “10 to 15” places in France where Muslims worshipped in the streets outside mosques when they were full: “I’m sorry, but for those who like talking a lot about World War II, if it comes to talking about the occupation, we can talk about it, because that (Muslims praying on the street) is the occupation of territory. . . It is an occupation of part of the territory, suburbs where religious law is applied. Sure, there are no armoured vehicles, no soldiers, but it is an occupation nonetheless and it weighs on residents.”

Rather than simply answer such arguments with argument, critics sought charges for inciting racial hatred. Notably, the investigation ended without charged but a complaint by an association led to a judicial inquiry which was opened in January 2012.

libertyThe FN is clearly anti-immigrant but so are a sizable number of Europeans. This is a debate that is occurring around the world, including in the United States. To use criminal law to chill or punish speech is a denial of the very right that defines Western Civilization. I hold no brief for Le Pen, but her trial is a threat to the free speech of all French and illustrates the absolute hypocrisy of the French government joining the rally in support of free speech after the Paris shootings. If you truly want to “Stand With Charlie,” you can start by standing with free speech.

Source: Yahoo

65 thoughts on “Le Pen To Stand Trial For “Inciting Racial Hatred” Due To Criticism of Muslims In France”

  1. Another attack on free speech. I wonder if Muslims or others who supported the concept that Charlie Hebdo journalists deserved to be killed will also be charged…..oh I forgot the perpetrators in that atrocity were Muslim and they have rights.

    It is disturbing to see the way in which language (of course only certain “offensive ” language by certain kinds of people) is punished but actions that result in death are excused and explained when the perpetrators are of certain groups.

    I believe in free speech. Don’t like the speech fight it with more speech. If your are offended and decided to kill, you have lost any sympathy I might have had for your position.

  2. Mr. Schulte,

    And I don’t want you to sell me a calculator or American propaganda. I’m an American just as much as you Jonathan Turley or Darren Smith. I don’t have to think the way our Founding Fathers thought to have valid reasoning and sound logic. For some reason, y’all appear to think that way or the person is not as “good” or “pure”. This is a superficial and dangerous perspective.

  3. Our last president’s ancestors greatly profited off the Nazi regime. Sorry to hurt your ego, but that’s just fact…

    1. chipkelly – one of the problems with IBM and the Holocaust is the number of researchers. You cannot control that many people. You cannot be assured that translations are correct. IBM is correct to question the methodology, it is shaky at best.

      Black has targets in his sights. There is no question about it. And when you have targets you tend to slant information yourself. You overlook information that would exonerate the target.

      BTW, much as I have read or watch things about the Holocaust, I have never heard the name of IBM come up. The Germans have always been famous for their record keeping. Read The Nightingale. You will learn a lot about how the Germans got the number of Jews they ended up with.

  4. Wealthy people are fleeing France like refugees. Soon the gravy train will halt. “Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.” Ask any Greek.

  5. Mr. Schulte,

    I see that you still deny basic truths. IBM products were used at concentration camps, that wasn’t supporting the Nazi regime?? The State religion promulgated on here is as strong as ever…. liberty be damned.. The majority on the Turley blog are interested in accumulation of power and exploitation to maintain said power…. liberty is s not really important.

    1. chipkelly – I sell you a calculator, you can use it where ever you want. Some companies were taken over by the Socialist Nazis. However, I could use a cite to the use of IBM products in concentration camps.

  6. If she had been a member of their Liberal party and made that statement, she would have just been told to tone it down. Since she is a member of their Conservative party, it’s a crime and an opportunity to take the opposition out.

    They better remember what goes around, comes around.

  7. In my opinion this prosecution is entirely arbitrary. I suspect that prosecutions such as this are largely dependent upon the whims of the powers to be.

  8. And the Extreme Court will “interpret” the Constitution to mandate a “Cultural Revolution.”

  9. Davidm

    Let’s see here, it’s OK to single out certain types and discriminate against them as long as you are a specific certain type that is doing the discriminating. It’s OK to wave the banner of freedom while you take it away from others. It’s OK to impose your own particular fantasy world on the general public while specifically being a servant of the general public. And so on, and so on. You are in fine form today, funny as ever.

    1. issac wrote: “it’s OK to single out certain types and discriminate against them as long as you are a specific certain type that is doing the discriminating.”

      We discriminate against behavior that is dangerous. That is the job of government. That’s why we have laws against murder, stealing, drug abuse, etc. Employers are allowed to discriminate against drug addicts by conducting drug tests for this reason as well. Some forms of sexual behavior are very dangerous. If we cared about our neighbor, we should discriminate against dangerous forms of sexual behavior. The homosexual activists created a campaign to legitimize their dangerous forms of behavior which has shortened their lifespans, spread numerous diseases through their community, and increased mental illness like depression. Many people have been deceived by this campaign. Five Supreme Court Justices were deceived into thinking this is a gender equality issue, when the truth is that marriage is defined by gender disparity biologically. All I can do is keep pointing you to the facts. You can choose to believe the manufactured lunacy if you want, but if you do, it will only hurt civil society and increase hatred in society against those who see the truth.

  10. Some in the world criticize America for doing so much business with COMMUNIST China, a/k/a Red China.
    Why also do Republicans call their states where they hold reigns of power: “Red States”?

  11. chipkelly – it has always been a hard call on what companies did and did not do in the run up to 1939 and for US companies, late 1941. Is it in the businesses interest to stay there? Are they making money? The mere fact they are there does not mean they are supporting the Nazis, just doing business.

  12. Indeed, according to US Govt documents and studies, Hitler and his brethren were influenced by America’s (led by the men in the picture at the top of this blog) treatment of Native Americans.

    Pluralism?? Of certain populations maybe. Liberty?? For some maybe.

  13. “My observation was that French under their Vichy government were hand in hand with the Germans for the Holocaust.”

    The United States helped finance the Nazi Regime. This post may get scrubbed since it goes against U.S. actions, but it is nonetheless true. Wonderful American companies including IBM, Ford, and Standard Oil run by gentleman who attended schools like GW, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, Northwestern, U of Chicago, etc (elite US institutions) supported the Nazi regime. It’s too bad that jingoism cannot be channeled to wanting better domestic outcomes instead of raw hatred for everything not American or related to elite American interests. Then, maybe, we would not have supported the Nazi regime (while fighting it… real intelligent statesmen we’ve always had we’re told). And maybe basic elementary truths would actually be stated by most media outlets instead of parades of propaganda.

  14. I was here on Planet Earth during your World War in 1944 as an observer for my Planet Remulak. My observation was that French under their Vichy government were hand in hand with the Germans for the Holocaust. You all might know that under the deal with Hitler, the Vichy government under Marshal Petain kept control of about a third of France up until late in the war. Those people, mostly Catholic, have little concern for the rights of others and wish to deport outsiders.

  15. andrea olmanson wrote: “She could have resigned from her job and taken a different one that didn’t interfere with her religious beliefs.”

    Kim Davis is an elected official who has a duty to ALL the people of her State, not just the homosexual perverts who want to force her to sanctify their sodomy. The Constitution says NOTHING about gay marriage. Wise people will acknowledge this and stay with the rule of law rather than an errant Supreme Court who expressed an opinion that was beyond their Constitutional powers. Kim Davis is correct NOT to resign her position. She should uphold her oath of office and the Constitution. If the State changes their laws to match the Supreme Court’s ruling, then she should resign. Until the law is changed, she has a duty to uphold the law.

  16. It would be nice if “civil libertarian” law professors actually stood up for free speech for all and not simply people of their class and viewpoint.

  17. JT doesn’t mind when his people murder and pillage people exercising free speech “rights” but when it’s his people being attacked all of a sudden all rights have been “eviscerated”. George Carlin wasn’t this much of a jokester.

Comments are closed.