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
Nick, re your post at 11:15AM, you write, “I believe in private, free enterprise.” I get the “private” enterprise, but what is “free” enterprise? Unregulated? If that’s the case, surely you’d concur that greed requires regulation, and the prime example of that is the 2008 collapse.
I believe in private enterprise, too, but I also believe that a firm social net is required for the losers in the capitalist game. A civilized society does not let them starve in the streets as we walk by in Gucci apparel. It also discourages foul play and bad faith by enforceable laws, unlike our current system, which, as Wolin describes, makes our political process not a democracy but inverted totalitarianism where the faceless corporations control policy, and the ordinary citizen enjoys a meaningless vote as its bread crum.
Other than that, I think we agree. 🙂
Best regards.
No doubt small business owners would like to dump all regulation and some regulation should be dumped.
I’m a loyal customer to my local businesses. They are small businessmen. No Walmart or Home Depot for me. I’m glad I can depend on regulation to know the food is safe, the kitchen is clean, their employees are safe, their product is safe and ‘as advertised’, they pay taxes and FICA, and at least minimum wage, and they won’t cheat me, their concrete isn’t mostly sand, and they don’t dump toxic waste into the street or water supply.
Unfortunately, small businessmen are not immune from moral lapses, fraud, and theft. We can rid of all regulations once the human race is perfected.
I would suspect that it is not only France that is clamping down on free speech in Europe.
The science Geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org
Steve and Nick
Read the article on forced arbitration in the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html?_r=0
This forced arbitration is the privatization of our justice system.
Slyvestre, I just saw your post with the link to the NYT article on arbitration. No, that wasn’t me. I didn’t read the article, but I will later today.
Best regards.
steve, Out of my respect for you I read the piece. You may find this hard to believe, but if you have read my comments here over time, you would know I have many of the same thoughts as Wolin vis a vis large corporations running the world. But, here is where I split from most of the people who are in the Wolin/Zinn camp. I believe in private, free enterprise. I believe the way to puncture the corporate stranglehold is to not help small business owners but just to leave them the hell alone. Having operated a small business for 30 years, I did not want ANY help from the govt. I just wanted them to not hurt me. But, they did in many ways. When you look @ most of the impediments for small business, it is an unholy alliance by corporate lobbyist making laws to handcuff competition.
Here’s a point where we may agree. If you want to break the stranglehold corporations have on us, the only way that can be done is by destroying the duopoly. The duopoly gives people the illusion of choice. “There is no freedom w/o choice” and Dem/Rep has devolved into not much of one. In the 1970’s, only 15% of people who left Congress became lobbyists. It is now over 50%. I have shilled for this author since his book came out. This Town, by Mark Leibovich, a NYT Magazine writer, shows just how all controlling the duopoly has become. DC is now the wealthiest city in the US. All they make are laws and regulations!!
Well said up to your conclusion. lol. Don’t get me wrong, breaking up the duopoly would be a good start but in my opinion, it would not cure the overall problems nor have multi-party systems faired much better than ours.
Interestingly enough I just got into a huge argument with two good friends the other night on a similar issue. But it’s complex to explain which is one of the problems with the libertarian movement. It cannot be explained in 30 second sound bites that are so often used by the statists to push their agendas. When I tell people, which Milton Friedman noted in his book, Free to Choose, that 100% of the 1928 and 1932 platforms of the American Socialist Party were enacted into law in this country without any of their party members ever getting elected, people don’t know what to say. And 85% of the platforms of communism have also been enacted in our country. These laws are in a direct violation of our Constitution and bill of rights, yet somehow and in someway they have been enacted.
Why is this important. Because all social policy takes way one or more individual rights, and almost always the core of our rights, that of property. Taxation is a usurpation of property rights. Should we acquiesce our property rights for the public good? I don’t really know for sure the answer to this question but I can tell you that once you give up one right, government appears to have the propensity to usurp others.
To me if we cannot restrain government from usurping those rights, the majority should not be willing to give up, there is little hope that we can ever restrain government.
Secondly, if people are not willing to stand up and defend their individual rights, the majority will end of with none.
Thirdly, people are so much in conflict as to which rights should and should not be acquiesced or protected, how can any form of democracy provide adequate results.
My conclusion. Once you give up one right(s) it opens the door to all of our rights being usurped. Of course this precludes the existence of government, since governments can only exist if it’s citizens, we collectively are willing to acquiesce some property rights (our money) for the public good.
Then what happens you get the tax consumers voting to increase taxation and the tax producers voting to decrease taxation and the social conflict begin all over again.
The same thing is happening here, people. The French apparently don’t love freedom enough as witnessed by their voluntary move towards Socialism. We are headed down the same path and when the anesthetic wears off for the still sleeping masses it’s going to be SO late in the game. Such is the power of the “God of self-calming” as Gurdjieff calls it.
Here’s something fun for the whole family speaking of mind numbing talking points: The 2011 pre-Sandy Hook gun control propaganda manual. Note the extremely large font used throughout so the average American moron doesn’t have to strain too hard to “get it”.
https://gunbanner.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf
Enjoy!!
Not much into International Zionist Banking conspiracies.
Issac at 9:18 am – as many often do, we all make the erroneous assumptions that our governments are speaking on behalf of the majority. Lord knows how much they try to instill/brainwash their memes into our Citizenry but I can tell you for one, our state persons have never spoken on my behalf nor on the behalf of many of our Citizens. Sadly many people watch the Sunday morning shows like Meet the Press who are the spokespersons for the ruling oligarchs and their constant promotion of their memes and they are paid great sums of money to do this. People like Brian Williams come to mind.
Nick, I do not know what public opinion is nor can I rely on the main stream media to tell me what public opinion is. The only thing I can rely on the main stream media to do, is trying and most likely succeeding at manipulating and inciting public opinion and that the government(s) are in collusion.
Remember the BIS was financing both sides of the WWII and the predecessors such as the Warburg’s and Rothschild’s, WWI. I think it would be foolish to discount the Catholic churches, the Muslin Mosques and Jewish Synagogues involvements as well.
The dogma worshipers, as I like to call them, have long affected societies, each claiming to be God’s chosen people. We cannot as human being appease them nor can we allow governments to appease them by denying us our inalienable rights, that we have had to so vigorously fight for and defend.
The church and state have always colluded to tithe and tax, respectively, one using psychological and the other physical manipulations. Are either really acting in the best interest of the majority? History does not suggest they are.
The French banking system has been one of the primary participants in the BIS for many years. I’ll give you three guesses who are the primary powers behind the BIS. The International banking cartel made up off
Zionists and other groups such as from the Catholic Church. It hard to say because they are quite secret but we do not a large number of them are Jewish which would attest to this conviction.
FYI: The Bank for International Settlement (BIS) is the central bank and clearing house for all the government central banks for the world. Representatives from the central banks for the various countries meet at least every two months at its headquarters in Basil, Switzerland.
Boy would I like to have a fly with a microphone on those walls but I can assure you they are not looking out for the best interest of the majority.
steve
Forgive the off-the-wall question. Yesterday, there was a great NYT front page article on arbitration and a ‘steve’ wrote a couple of comments that sounded a lot like you. Crazy, I know. But, was it you?
Slyvestere writes, “steve Forgive the off-the-wall question. Yesterday, there was a great NYT front page article on arbitration and a ‘steve’ wrote a couple of comments that sounded a lot like you. Crazy, I know. But, was it you?”
Honestly, I don’t remember. Too much Mountain Dew, I suppose. Can you provide a link to the comment? I have posted there before, but I don’t know that I did yesterday, and I don’t recall reading an article on arbitration, but, again, that’s the Power of the Dew!
Best regards.
An article on Sheldon Wolin (by Chris Hedges and posted yesterday at Truthdig) pretty much sums up what’s going on. Free speech is indirectly proportional to what Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism here in America (and its Western allies).
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/sheldon_wolin_and_inverted_totalitarianism_20151101
If you dare, read it, and see what I mean.
PC frequently rules on the Turley blog.
When a national leader wants to serve the interests of war profiteers he uses speech to demonize the intended target. If “hate speech” was truly disallowed, national leaders would not be allowed to go to war.
Dave, I do love it when PC comes back to bite it’s own. Matt Damon got a taste of that recently. PC is a pit bull that will turn on its master. Liberals are simply too dull witted to see that. That was an inspired clip of the great Christopher Hitchens. I fear the last intellectually honest liberal died when he did.
It’s somewhat odd. So many here are screaming about the Muslims. The Muslims aren’t the bad actors here; the French courts are the bad actors.
But the gentle readers here have read the piece and are calling for violence against Muslims. Not extremist Muslims, mind you, not even fundamentalist Muslims, no, just Muslims.
You know….and I know the dangers of the Godwin Law….it’s sorta like people looking around in horror at the carnage of the concentration camps and saying….well, if only there hadn’t had been any Jews.
And please, recognize I am referring only to this post. The Bangladeshi post is a different outrage.
hskiprop:
He notes earlier on, “It usually isn’t the Congress or the State that tries to abridge free expression…” — usually — so of course many a nation has, does, and will continue to inflict such abridgment.
The clip highlights the larger problematic context.
Nick:
PC undoubtedly remains a radiating threat, for all — including ironically those who wish to establish their version of correctness.
If you are not seeing the connection between this post and the following Muslim extremists post, well then you might be an appeaser.
Firstly, The great 2 minute clip of Hitchens should be required watching. hsk, that clip I would estimate is 10 or so years old. What Hitch is talking about is of course, PC. And, while these new European laws are a direct assault on free speech from the govt. I think he is still correct. The pernicious effect of PC, that destructive, perverted, mindset that says people have a right to not be offended, has driven the inferior government officials in Europe to APPEASE. We know those folks across the pond think you can APPEASE. We damn near lost our civilization to an insane, little man w/ a bad mustache, trying to APPEASE him.
Merely drawing an image of Mohammed incites Muslims to kill. So, those who say if the words incite violence then they must be repressed are the same as terrorists? Or, are they just Neville Chamberlain impersonators, thinking you can appease sociopath killers. The US has free speech right, Europe has it wrong. They will soon learn that. They will learn from us, not vice versa. Or, ALL their freedoms will perish.
Free Speech is a fallacy. Free Speech is one of the ways that helped the deterioration of America and its Christian culture. Really, dumping a crucifix in a glass of urine? The Fallacy is becoming more and more clear. And it shows that the people that proposed “Free Speech” were hypocrites all along. Free Speech was used as a weapon against Catholicism. And now that the Left is in power everywhere, it then seeks to restrict speech and again use restriction of speech as a weapon against Christians. Socrates and Plato were right. The Poets need to be censored. Even the Left believes that in its heart of hearts.
There is a point where ‘free speech’ becomes an incitement to violence and persecution. With a history of citizens’ rights, citizens’ freedoms, etc France finds itself now in a position where public campaigning against one religious group will lead to an enhancement to violence either by those who get on the band wagon or those who wish to retaliate. This has been evident in attacks against both Jews and Muslims.
There is a time when ‘free speech’ supports anarchy. Perhaps France has gone too far in limiting free speech to quell what might be seen as a rallying cry to persecution of Jews, by some. Perhaps there simply are no absolutes regarding freedoms as invariably one absolute freedom infringes on and limits another.
If a group of anti-Israel campaigners wish to boycott a super market selling Israeli products then they might simply try not buying products from Israel or an even more powerful statement, not shopping at the super market at all. I try and not buy products from China or Israel. I have that freedom. If I were to picket a local super market here in the US touting my opinions, I would be arrested route de suite.
It’s easy to point a finger at another country, for some Americans particularly at France. I am intimate with both countries and another two as well. The US talks the same talk and walks the same walk, sometimes a little straighter but more often than not, weaving in and out of the same affronts Turley seems to identify here.
If these public expressions against Israel or free speeches were to lead to violence, who would be the first to criticize France for allowing this to happen? There would be many many million Americans jostling for first place. Kind of takes the focus off of the pitiful and shameful circus here at home.