I have been writing for years about the alarming decline of free speech in France where citizens are routinely investigated and prosecuted for criticism groups or religions. We discussed this trend most recently with the prosecution of far right politician Marine Le Pen for her exercise of free speech against immigration. Now, France’s Supreme Court (the Court of Cassation) has upheld the shocking prosecution of twelve anti-Israel activists for protesting Israel and supporting the global boycott movement of Israeli goods. It is an appalling moment for a nation that once embodied the very essence of Western Civilization and freedoms.
As many of you know, I am a huge fan of France and love visiting the country. However, the rapidly declined free speech rights in France (as with crackdowns in England, Canada, and other nations) is incredibly depressing.
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 the case of Le Pen, 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.” That is all that it takes now for a political leader to be prosecuted in France.
The most recent case is the outgrowth of the global campaign in favor of “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions” (BDS) of Israel. These campaigners were targeting France’s Carrefour supermarkets and protested while wearing shirts emblazoned with “Long Live Palestine, Boycott Israel.” They handed out pamphlets in the eastern city of Mulhouse alleging that the sale of Israeli goods supports “war crimes” in Gaza. They also chanted slogans like “Israel assassinates, Carrefour is complicit.” That would seem to be core political advocacy protected under even the most narrow definitions of free speech. Yet, a dozen activists – Laila Assakali, Yahya Assakali, Assya Ben Lakbir, Habiba Assakali, Sylviane Mure, Farida Sarr, Aline Parmentier, Mohammad Akbar, Jean-Michel Baldassi, Maxime Roll, Jacques Ballouey and Henry Eichholtzer – were found guilty of inciting hate or discrimination. They were convicted under the bizarrely misnamed French Freedom of the Press law which forbids “discrimination, hatred or violence toward a person or group of people on grounds of their origin, their belonging or their not belonging to an ethnic group, a nation, a race or a certain religion.”
Pascal Markowicz, head of the legal department at the Conseil Représentatif des Institutions juives de France (the umbrella group for French Jewish organisations), celebrated the obvious denial of free speech, stating “If they say their freedom of expression has been violated, then now France’s highest legal instance ruled otherwise.” Well that is certainly true, but it also true that this was a denial of free speech. It is merely a denial with the authority of a court, not an unusual situation but a disappointing one in France where freedom of speech once united that nation. Others celebrated a high court saying that BDS is essentially hate speech. Markowitz reportedly amplified this position by saying “BDS is illegal in France.”
I previously wrote about the hypocrisy of French and other leaders marching as “Friends of Charlie” after the Hebdo massacre. This celebration of free speech was followed by mass arrests of people for expressing their views in France.
We have many readers in France and that country still has many who believe strongly in the inviolate position of freedom of speech as a human right. They are clearly however in the minority as France plunges into speech controls and censorship.
Jonathan Turley
France, the new Saudi Arabia. Wonderful…. At least they haven’t yet resorted to beheadings as punishment. Of course the US jails, tracks and kills freedom of speech and protest at an alarming rate. ‘Protest’ zones enforced by militarized police, jailing the whistle blowers and rewarding the liars, FBI tracking and infiltrating environmental groups. Stay focused…..
When government strips away the freedom to speak it doesn’t take with it the freedom to think. The civil outlet for opinions is speech and without that freedom they should expect uncivil results.
Dave, It appears to me that The Supreme Court of France just proved Hitchens wrong. It is government that takes away our rights and not public opinion. Public opinion is generally a regurgitation of various statist memes propagated through and by the main stream media so I understand what Hitchens is trying to say. It is so hard to break free of the propaganda machine. Trump leading in various polls is a great example.
Free speech is being suppressed on most campuses here in the USA. I would worry less about the French and more about ourselves and the anti-blasphemy laws that Obama wants passed.
After May 10, 1940 the French quit the short war with the Germans and agreed on a compromise whereby Vichy France (roughly one third of the country) remained under control of the Vichy French and Marshall Petain. Through the war they helped round up gypsies and Jews and participated in the Holocaust. We overlooked it at war’s end and only prosecuted Petain. The Frogs are in denial.
As libertarians often say, “allowing the usurpation of one right appears to open the door for others.” Once government realizes the Citizens will acquiesce their rights in favor of the public good, every enactment is than established for the public good until no rights are left to usurp.
Interestingly the pubic good can never be proven objectively, it is always a mere guess as to the benefits vs the negative ramifications of that social policy. Sadly, not 1 in 1,000 most likely understand what I’m even writing about and when I write about the IX Amendment, most can not give me an inalienable right that is not enumerated in the Constitution, yet is protected by this Amendment.
We have not educated our masses to be good citizens, we have educated our citizens to believe that they are entitled to social benefits, they themselves bear no responsible in producing and then we wonder why so many are lined up at the public coffers.
When will France prosecute anyone who publishes the Quran? It certainly is filled with hate speech.
France and much of the West (let alone the world) require yet another Hitchslap:
http://youtu.be/tRWiZ3K-C-k
If you’re not alarmed, you’re not getting the message.
The message (Republican) is to be afraid. Be very afraid. Of everything.
Oh I don’t know. The GOP seems to be doing a pretty good job of fighting free speech over here. Deleted NBC the other day.
Say. Did you know Larry Kudlow was running for Senator – as a Republican?
Anyway, turns out the candidates don’t like ‘gotcha’ questions, refuse to answer, questions about past statements and positions on policy. You know. Statements and positions that help citizens learn about the guy up there who wants to be president. They’re pushing for a change of format. They want to run 20 minute campaign statements – done in soft focus and waving fields of grain.
These guys are all ready to take on Putin, but find CNBC too mean.
Spinelli misunderstood.
Po was referring to Lisa’s rather harsh comment not the Turley post as Lisa herself understood and thus posted her second comment.
II hate it when I do that. I call out someone’s foolish remark and BANG turns out I made the mistake.
Two great posts about how free speech is on life support. If you’re not alarmed you are part of the problem.
The French “High Court” should be called the Frog Low Court.
To Po,
Your words constitute hate speech, of freedom of speech. Hate speech is a liberal meaning for stfu, because you aren’t allowed to have an opinion. So typical and predictable. hahaha
Some folks ask questions before they read. The post is by JONATHAN TURLEY! Show some respect and at least pose questions to the correct person.
“Darren, would that constitute hate speech or freedom of speech?”
It’s not speech, it’s my opinion of those horrible radicals. You love em, then go live with them. I bet you don’t say a word about their hate speech of Christians or Jews do you. Hypocrisy defines you my liberal post buddy.
G. Washington, in his Farewell Address, strongly recommends “all foreign relations are temporary.”
Look at every western government. Jews are 2% of the US population, yet Jews have overwhelming majority of power in every area of every Western so-called democracy. In some/many cases the Jewish neo-cons are dual citizens of Israel, Michael Chertoff comes to mind, Ben Bernanke, etc, etc, etc..
So whatever is the state of being in the West, you can thank the Jews who run your nation for it’s current state of being. They got us here. How do you like it?
Oh, and regarding Muslims being “woman beaters:” The Jewish Talmud has a vs. repeated every day by male Orthodox Jews: “Thank you _od you did not make me a slave, a gentile, nor a woman.” And this vs. also from the Talmud: “Even the best of the gentiles deserve only death.” And for the so-called Christian audience: “Pantera (code-name for Jesus), son of the whore Mary, boils in excrement for eternity.” Judaism alleges Pantera is the name of the Roman Centurion who purchased sex from the whore Mary, hence the code name for Jesus, Pantera. For a time Rome banned The Talmud for its obvious hate speech. While the book was banned the Rabbis edited it, then later Rome lifted the ban.
d
Yes, above really are vs. from the holiest of all holy books of Judaism, the Talmud. Why is such hate speech accepted in the West? See my earlier point who runs the West.
Darren, would that constitute hate speech or freedom of speech?
Someone needs to defend Isreal because our Muslim president sure won’t. I’m against massive immigration, especially of Muslims. You never know when they’ll turn on us and with that many, they’ll migrate to the same communities and eventually destroy them and then try to change them to their self serving male oriented, rapist, child abusing, woman beaters, and murdering Islamist ways. I hate them and hope Isreal bombs the crap out of those pigs. They don’t deserve free speech until they respect other religions.