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
steve:
And that will get me going on our broken government procurement system, where we overpay and contractors under deliver.
No accountability when they spend “free” taxpayer money that “grows on trees.”
Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any other model.
Here is an interesting article about how many people were raised out of poverty in the last 20 years, and why making similar improvements in the next 20 will be more difficult:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim
Contrast this with the USSR. I have a friend from Maldova, which was socialist. Owning a business was forbidden. Her father ran a black market business, so his family ate better and had warmer clothes, but they had to hide it. They were always afraid their neighbors would turn them in for owning a business.
One of the charities that I admire is Heifer International, which combines charitable giving with seeding small businesses. They give livestock to impoverished people, teach them how to raise them, and require that they give at least one of the offspring (depending on the species) to someone else to pay it forward. Then they have livestock that are the basis for a small business. Chickens provide eggs and meat, a buffalo is used as a tractor which increases crop yields by its work and manure. By teaching them animal husbandry, and given them the livestock to get started, they make people self reliant, instead of desperately dependent on that next gift of a bag of rice. That’s what really ends poverty – self reliance.
Sylvestere:
“I think Mr. Manville sure did. Shipbulders sure did. Roofing and siding people sure did. Contractors sure did.”
OK. Let me clarify. I have never heard of any pro-capitalism consumers say they want zero regulations. Yes, you are right that the former owners of asbestos producing companies who are wearing no pants because they lost them in lawsuits that benefitted lawyers more than plaintiffs would likely want no regulations. And tobacco companies would probably love not to be regulated, I assume. But those would be the biased opinions of those who would directly benefit, and I doubt the tobacco company executives would want the asbestos companies deregulated, and vice versa.
But modern capitalism is regulated. It’s not a mainstream idea that we should have anarchy in business. Pro capitalists want regulations to be reasonable. I’ve illustrated several examples of unreasonable regulations above. There are some politicians and voters who assume that all regulations are beneficial, but that is not the case.
“CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.” That was not the case. Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case. Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.”
I’ve watched Megyn Kelly grill candidates with tough questions – Mike Huckabee on religion, Bush on Common Core and Immigration, Carson on experience, Trump on his attitude towards women. Those are the tough questions we need to be able to differentiate candidates. But mocking candidates is not asking the tough questions so voters can be informed.
I did not see the CNBC debate, but Republicans complained that it was unfair.
This is the letter from the Republican Chair to NBC outlining why they canceled their debate. I assume they had similar concerns with Telemundo.
Since this is a debate to determine who will win the Republican nomination, it makes zero sense to debate in a venue so clearly adversarial to the entire party. It would do more damage than benefit. Apparently, one of the questions was if the candidate was running a comic book campaign. Any venue, Left or Right, needs to overcome personal bias and give each candidate a level playing field.
https://gop.com/nbc-letter/?
Hsk:
It wont be the politicians who reform themselves, it will be the general public when we’re sick and tired of pay-to-play politics. We get what we deserve when we allow the politics as usual to stand.
Sylvestere:
“Do you object to the law that mandates that all drivers must carry liability insurance?”
That often comes up in debates on the healthcare mandate, and it is a valid point. If you’re going to drive, you should be able to clean up your mess if you get into an accident. I do not know if this is still the case, but people were allowed to get a bond to prove financial responsibility in lieu of insurance, if they preferred. However, you can choose not to drive, and use public transportation, and get around it. You cannot get around the healthcare mandate without getting fined.
It is troubling to be forced by the government to buy something you don’t want. What if you’re a granola bar type who eschews conventional medicine? What if you want some type of plan that allows coverage for complimentary alternative medicine like chiropractic, vitamin supplements, or meditation, instead of just supporting conventional pharmaceutical companies?
On the other hand, there is a valid point that not having health insurance costs the general public when you get sick and cannot pay the astronomical hospital fees.
Karen S., you always make pretty darned well reasoned arguments and I enjoy reading them. Re: “[T]here is a valid point that not having health insurance costs the general public when you get sick and cannot pay the astronomical hospital fees.”
This is true, but if we’re going to tax the public, I’d rather have it go toward funding health care than a $43 million gas station in Iraq to support the military-industrial complex and our fiat currency:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/02/afghanistan-43m-gas-station-colossal-waste-us-taxpayer-money/
Best regards,
stevegroen – I cannot believe you stooped to citing Fox News. You should be sooo ashamed. 😉
Paul writes, “stevegroen – I cannot believe you stooped to citing Fox News. You should be sooo ashamed. ;)”
Well, when in Rome . . . and, besides, it’s the only cite I could give that you folks would believe. 🙂
Karen writes, “And don’t forget that well built infrastructure we gifted to Iraq that ISIS now enjoys. Great roads and buildings.” And don’t forget all the people we’ve killed, disenfranchised, and compelled to migrate, so that we can maintain control of the oil, gas, and petrocurrency.
What I forgot to mention is that I personally believe that minimum wage should be tied to inflation, and based on some sort of index. Whatever we agree that minimum wage should be able to buy. Not a middle class lifestyle for a family of 5 on one salary, obviously. That’s not its purpose. But enough to rent a room, buy groceries, and get started. Statistically, the vast majority of minimum wage earners get a raise within one year. What we need to focus on is ensuring businesses thrive, so there are those opportunities to get that raise and advancement. In the meantime, instead of having minimum wage jump every so often by large gaps, make it a planned increase every 5 years, tied to inflation, so that businesses can plan.
Hsk:
I do think that big campaign donors get major concessions in pay-to-play politics.
I also think that the rich pay the freight in taxes, something even Bill Maher was forced to admit. I do not dislike the rich for their success. Get the money out of politics and you remove any undue influence of money. Because Big Ag and Big Unions also pay-to-play, not just Big Business.
It’s not just Big Business that is responsible for the income gap. Sometimes, government intervention is to blame as well as voter hypocrisy. Obamacare caused my health care costs to skyrocket. How many middle class people can afford that before they break and fall back into poverty? What about the minimum wage hike that causes jobs to dry up? Minimum wage was never intended to support a family of 5 with a single wage earner in a middle class lifestyle. It’s the entry level job, not the end point. What about all those votes that drive the cost of business up so high it makes it difficult to hire more people? My husband is self employed in the construction industry. His cheapest worker costs him $1200/month just in work comp premiums alone. We Californians are very conscientious voters. We always seem to vote for higher regulations, higher minimum wage, higher fees on gas to make everything cleaner. But then, when it comes time to pay for our own products or projects, what do we do? Many people pay under the table for illegal aliens to mow their lawns, watch their kids, or remodel their houses. Go onto any job site and survey how many people speak zero English. We buy products made in China because it’s now too expensive to buy American made for most things. When the price of goods goes up because the price of labor just increased with minimum wage, we shop elsewhere or buy online out of state. Instead of supporting the industries we just made more expensive to operate, we undercut them. We price shop, and the team of illegals with no minimum wage, no taxes, no work comp, no insurance, no bond, will always undercut the legal business owners.
We cannot lay all our ills at the feet of Big Business.
That is the essence of government and it has always been like that.
HSK – and it always seems like the poor and middle class get the short end of the stick when politicians try to “help us” and just end up helping their campaign donors.
Maybe Americans only want to prohibit Spanish free speech.
Telemundo has also been dropped from Republican debates. As you know, NBC has already been ‘deleted’.
I believe Jeb! hopes the Republicans will reconsider. (Jeb! speaks Spanish.)
Jeb! could be America’s first Latino president, if he could only get Rubio and Cruz from being such pests.
Frogs and free speech. Croak til you croak.
Karen
Do you object to the law that mandates that all drivers must carry liability insurance?
Yes, I do not like government mandates/ Not that I’m apposed to every individual one, but collectively they bankrupt the middle and lower classes especially those with little disposable income. We have a huge and growing wealth disparity because the wealthy will always obtain greater welfare benefits then the majority. Corporate welfare has always been the maintain of the economic and politically connected.
“I’ve never heard of anyone saying they want companies to produce asbestos.”
I think Mr. Manville sure did. Shipbulders sure did. Roofing and siding people sure did. Contractors sure did.
Asbestos, thalidomide, Round Up, Agent Orange, DDT, the bee killing chemicals. SOMEBODY manufactured, marketed and sold that stuff to consumers.
stevegroen – 2008 was a regulated collapse controlled by the Federal Reserve banksters using monetary regulations allowed by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, to expand and then contract the money supply. That is how all boom and bust cycles occur, first expanding the money supply by granting excessive loans then contracting it by reducing the number of loans. The 1st Great depression was the lending of money to buy stocks on leverage. Of course you will have to read those economists like Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard or Amity Shlaes to see the evidence. Isn’t it interesting how the main stream media never mentions all the Authors who to not prescribe to their memes.
Since 1913 they have been involved as the prominent instigator in the various boom and best cycles to date including the crash of 1929, recessions of 1933, 1962, 1973, 1981, 1990, 1999, 2008 to present. You can of course believe the main stream media for their analysis that it was the stock markets, etc. but those are memes created so that you will not blame the real culprit. OF course they are behind the wars as well.
hskiprob – having taught several current wars I would say they are not behind the wars.
Paul C. and you would be wrong. The lenders are a prominent player in the money necessary to pay for the good and services of war. Where do you think the military contractors get the money to pay for their manufacturing plants? They borrow it and then get paid back by the government when they buys the goods and services. The manufacturers then pay back the banksters + interests. War is almost always a racket. Our revolution is one of the exceptions. FYI: The BIS financed some of Hitler’s war efforts. The Germans sold government and utility bonds in the beginning and many Americans sadly bought them prior to the war not knowing what was planned and coming down the pike by the central banksters. This sadly is not written in most of our history books to cover up the real reasons we send our young people off to wars. Money for the ruling class.
hskiprob – there is a difference between funding a war started by a country and actually getting the country to start the war. Now it could be said that American banks caused WWII because the Nazis came into power after they withdrew their loan following the stock market crash. Hitler had told the Germans exactly what would happen if the loans were called in, and it all came true. However, the bankers were doing what bankers do.
Paul, as you know that is only a part of the story. It’s just like not many people know that America was building our military infrastructure two and a half years before the war here in W. Palm Beach and even an airstrip in the Bahama, as if it was all planned.
As I have been writing, it’s the nature of the beast. Back in the 1980s I met a guy that had a bunch of German Weimar Republic bearer Bonds. His granddad told him he had been forced to buy the Bonds from the owners of the Cruise Line, if he wanted to keep his cruise ticketing concession. The money from those bonds were used to help build the German military industrial complex. The Banksters are the ones who are the brokers in all the bond issuances. Not only did grandpa help fund the war, he got stiffed on the gold backed bearer bonds by the German Government and the American Government stood back and did nothing to help him get his money back and this was before the war even started.
Significant evidence suggest that FDR and Churchill set up the sinking of the Lusitania to get the US to enter WWI.
Or how about the number one rule in naval warfare. Never ever have all your ships in port a the same time. Yet on that fateful day in 1945, low and behold, the entire 5th fleet was in Pearl Harbor at the same time. Coincidence?
The U.S. military budget is $600,400,000,000 annually. Is that not enough motive to create false flag events, fictitious enemies, start wars and invade other countries who are not willing to play along with your games. What do you think the banksters cut of this is. Remember, they are also lending the money to the CEOs to build their mansions knowing that they are going to be paid back because the taxpayers and the printing press are the ones really paying the bills. Corporate welfare is a politicians best friend and if you notice not many of the existing bunch of Presidential candidates are talking much about cutting the defense budget even though it is larger than the next 11 countries combined.
When General Smedley Butler wrote his book, War Is A Racket, he obviously knew what was going on. We have to remember that writers and film makers will be employed to provide both sides with a voluminous amount of propaganda to hide the true working of warfare and they have done it in almost every war the U.S. has been in, making it difficult to know the specifics and the truth.
hskiprob – the Lusitania is an interesting problem. Wilson had promised not to get into to war. The Germans took out ads telling the passengers the liner was carrying munitions and was a target. Although it upset the American people, it was not enough to get us into war. It was the Zimmerman telegram that tipped the scales.
And the surest way to release the stranglehold of Big Money on politicians is to reform campaign contributions. Right now, it is pay-to-play, whether the players are Big Oil, Wall Street, or Big Unions. They are the constituents that the politicians look out for, because they cannot afford to anger them and lose their contributions.
Standing up for the people sounds great, but if you can’t compete without getting millions of dollars in donations, then you’re for sale.
So we need to take the money out of politics.
Campaign reform is like asking bureaucrats not to vote for the budget that would fund their jobs, because its for the public good to reduce government spending and balance the budget. They could care less if the budget is balanced as long as they keep their jobs. Politics is about one thing. Getting benefits at the expense of everyone else and is totally manipulated by special interest groups trying to get their fair share. Thinking that you can stop the wealthy from manipulating the system they control is a pipe dream. The will always find away around the system, even if they have to do it under the proverbial table.
When I hear people say this I just think of the word naïve. Karen S., I don’t know how old you are but now that you know what to look for you will start to see. I’ve been hearing the cliché “campaign reform” out of both parties for 45 years, each having their share of power but only complain when it is they that are not in the majority.
I remember Jimmy Carter saying “the income tax system in this country was a disgrace to the human race. I have been told that it will be improved all my life but it never happens.”
This is why we need to defend our own robust Free Speech here. It is immaterial whether we agree or disagree with that speech.
steveg: modern capitalism is governed by regulations. I’ve never heard of anyone saying they want companies to produce asbestos. The free market economy refers to consumers deciding what they want to buy, and producers meeting that need. Government interferes with the free market when it decides what the consumer is allowed to have, and then forces that consumer to buy it. For example, the government took away all choice in health insurance, and forces consumers to buy what amounts to exactly the same plan, but with slightly different deductibles. You cannot choose, for example, to get a less expensive plan that provides 15 forms of birth control with a reasonable copay. Nope. It’s got to be 26 with no copay, but that jacks up the premium and deductible. Another example of an unreasonable regulation is the one against bread crumbs being on the counters in bagel restaurants (NYC). Or the ADA regulations having so little tolerance that if you hang a bathroom mirror a 1/4 inch off you will successfully be sued by shakedown lawyers. Another instance of absurd regulations is here (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/03/another-california-coastal-commission-horror-story.html) where a campground operator was forbidden to fill in a hole created when a tree fell, even though that hole exposed dangerous electrical wires.
Regulation is of course necessary to protect public safety, but it must be reasonable, produce a benefit, and use common sense.
Hiskiprob writes, “stevegroen – 2008 was a regulated collapse controlled by the Federal Reserve banksters using monetary regulations allowed by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, to expand and then contract the money supply. That is how all boom and bust cycles occur, first expanding the money supply by granting excessive loans then contracting it by reducing the number of loans. The 1st Great depression was the lending of money to buy stocks on leverage. Of course you will have to read those economists like Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard or Amity Shlaes to see the evidence. Isn’t it interesting how the main stream media never mentions all the Authors who to not prescribe to their memes. . . . Since 1913 they have been involved as the prominent instigator in the various boom and best cycles to date including the crash of 1929, recessions of 1933, 1962, 1973, 1981, 1990, 1999, 2008 to present. You can of course believe the main stream media for their analysis that it was the stock markets, etc. but those are memes created so that you will not blame the real culprit. OF course they are behind the wars as well.”
Interesting comment. Regarding the 2008 collapse being regulated, would it have happened without Glass-Steagall having been gutted by Congress and neo-lib Bill Clinton’s signature?
Isn’t the real problem that the Fed can expand the money supply in the first place? There is no money. The US is equitably solvent but its balance sheet doesn’t allow a money supply. Why are the foxes in charge of the henhouse?
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the foundational problem as I see it is the fact that we have no value in the printed dollar, that is, unless we strong-arm its use as the petrocurrency. Hence, we see all the destabilization in the Middle East, and now emigrants from Syria, and to hell with who gets killed there so long as we protect “banksters'” quality of life. It’s a pathetic morality which controls our government, all based on greed.
And I’ll tackle the Wolin piece later, too.
steveg
Thanks for reponding. No way to find it – 1500 comments and counting. But it must not have been you. I think you would have remembered – it was a hell of an article. Makes paying the subscription easy.