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
There’s an extensive report from 2014 titled, How America Gives in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. The tracked donations in the 2012 IRS tax records. This is pretty remarkable, the top 17 most generous states all went to Romney in the 2012 election.
The 10 most generous states are: Utah, MS, AL, TN, GA, SC, ID, AR, NC
The ten tightwad states: NH, ME, VT, NJ, RI, MA, CT, WI, HI
Gee, the generous states are red and the tightwad, blue. Having been born and raised in CT, and lived in WI since the 80’s, they both making the tightwad list is consistent w/ my experience.
um…freedom of speech anyone?
—————————————————————–
Writing on Facebook can result in being locked up if you are a Palestinian citizen of Israel.
That became clear in mid-October when 19-year-old Anas Khateeb was arrested and charged with incitement over three comments he had posted on the social media website. The comments read: “Jerusalem is Arab,” “long live the intifada” and “I am on the waiting list.”
In the past week, a magistrate’s court in Akka (Acre) — a city in present-day Israel — extended his detention until 26 November.
His treatment is being perceived as an attack on the right to free expression by Palestinians. The charge of incitement is viewed as absurd. None of the three posts explicitly called for violence.
And none of them received more than 70 “likes,” indicating that Khateeb was unlikely to foment unrest on any significant scale. Under Israeli law, incitement only occurs if there is a strong possibility that a speech or text will encourage acts of violence.
Khateeb’s arrest has been part of a wider crackdown on Palestinians living in present-day Israel, where they make up about 20 percent of the population.
Adalah, a human rights group, has calculated that approximately 100 Palestinian activists were arrested in Israel within the space of a week in early October. In most cases, requests by police to extend the detention of these activists were approved by courts.
https://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-jails-teen-intifada-facebook-post/14970?utm_content=bufferb6ed7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
let the biding start for why we should make an exception for Israel…especially in light of the french incident above.
Amend?
You need to send it to Mars.
Arthur Brooks? ARTHUR BROOKS?
The head of the pre-eminent conservative think tank, American Enterprise Institute whose sole aim in life is to bury liberals.
THAT Arthur Brooks?
steve, I need to amend my comment, Arthur Brooks is not liberal.
Let’s hear it for Don Blankenship!
Chamber of Commerce Owner of the Year! Nothing like an American small businessman to build a great America (and it only took a few dead coal miners.)
I
Steve, Those facts be a mofo! If you were to read the Kristof piece, which you didn’t[just Google it], you would see both he, and the liberal author, Arthur Brooks, were incredulous like you. Brooks then crunched the numbers again and saw they all added up. I’m sorry if the FACTS don’t comport w/ your world view. But, your condescension is always a good defense mechanism. I have said many times, liberals have condescension down pat. There are other pieces on this topic. Liberals are tightwads. Nicholas Kristof is as liberal as you, but he is intellectually honest. Try it sometimes. Intellectual honesty can hurt @ first, like lifting weights. But, once you get into intellectual honesty, it gets easier..even can be addictive. My friends and family always tell me I’m too honest and direct sometimes. Finally, I don’t do links because of a horrible mistake I made a long time ago. I vowed to never make the same mistake twice. However, you seem to have little interest in reading something that doesn’t comport w/ your world view, even when it comes from a very liberal source. Very Zinn like. He’d be proud of you.
And speaking of immigration….
Haven’t these folks read about the NEED for immigration? They need to read up on world birthrates and check out Japan. I think Merkel understands the problem and that’s why she has been supporting a generous immigration policy.
Too bad crazy hate blinds people about so many things that are really in their best interest.
steve,
don’t we (or didn’t we) train those SA troops at the School of the Americas? Probably don’t have the name quite right, but you’ll know.
Sylvestre writes, “don’t we (or didn’t we) train those SA troops at the School of the Americas? Probably don’t have the name quite right, but you’ll know.”
Good point. You mean guys like General Manuel Noriega, who we install and 41 attacks without congressional approval and extracts on federal criminal charges? I’d guess Noriega was going to leak what was really going on between the drug trade and Air America, so 41 had to shut him up. Or General Efrain Rios Montt in Guatemala, who orchestrated the mass murder of those savage Indios? Or one of every seven members of General Augusto Pinochet’s intelligence agency?
(http://www.soaw.org/about-the-soawhinsec/soawhinsec-grads/notorious-grads)
It’s apparently now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, a euphemistic adaptation for Assassination, Inc., which forces American Exceptionalism, the idea that we have everyone’s welfare in mind, even though sometimes it ends in lots of innocent people getting killed, on the unwilling.
Shall we rely on GoFundMe when your grandmother needs to go into the home, just like the millions of other Americans who are unable to care for themselves and have run out of money – the ones that Medicaid now takes care of?
Oh, yeah. Right. Just watch those dollars roll in for some bedridden, broken, frail man or woman suffering from dementia.
Right. Check out Romney’s charity. All to the church. And you better believe he claims every penny.
Me? I donate. I don’t deduct.
Problem solved on unfair dabate formats!
“New G.O.P. Debate Format Forbids Questions About Things Candidates Said, Did
The chairman of the R.N.C. said that the deal addressed concerns about the previously broadcast debates, which he called “abusively fact-based.” Andy Borowitz
Also, kindly Dr. Carson has chosen the next moderators: Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin. Glenn Beck is on standby.
Dusty says: ‘This is what Medicaid or Medi-Cal is for. Millions of people who are not even citizens are covered under this program’.
Here’s a larger view:
But while federal law generally bars illegal immigrants from being covered by Medicaid, a little-known part of the state-federal health insurance program for the poor pays about $2 billion a year for emergency treatment for a group of patients who, according to hospitals, mostly comprise illegal immigrants. Most of it goes to reimburse hospitals for delivering babies for women who show up in their emergency rooms, according to interviews with hospital officials and studies.
The funding — which has been around since the late 1980s and is less than 1 percent of the cost of Medicaid — underscores the political and practical challenges of refusing to cover an entire class of people. Congress approved the program after lawmakers required hospitals to screen and stabilize all emergency patients regardless of their insurance or citizenship status.
————————————————-
Or I suppose you could decide to throw the woman in labor out the door. And the baby? Well, we don’t care about the baby. We only care when it is a zygote. THEN it is precious.
Sylvestre: Re the anchor baby about to be dropped in the local ER, there’s another view as to why those mothers and their prenatal children are here to obtain citizenship at every peril.
We’re talking about Latin Americans, aren’t we? Those whose countries have been dominated and destabilized for nearly two centuries by our foreign policy and puppet governments and their henchmen trained by the US military. This can all be traced back to our meddling for the business class. “War is a racket,” related double Congressional Medal of Honor winner, Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler.
There’s an argument that these women DESERVE free childbearing care here, because our foreign policy everywhere in the Americas has been so destructive, denying development unless it meets with our policy goals.
stevegroen – we do not deny development in Central or South America. They can develop what they want (short of nuclear weapons).
Paul writes, “stevegroen – we do not deny development in Central or South America. They can develop what they want (short of nuclear weapons).”
Potatoe!
stevegroen – it is good to see you spelling potatoe correctly.
It is a ridiculous comparison to think that charity would EVER be able to provide a safety net for American citizens. Absolutely ridiculous.
And the reason for the government tightwads is because the Republicans are tightwads. Tightwad is the plan. Starve ’em out. My lord, 90% of these commenters are forever moaning about taking their money and giving it to the poors.
Get real..
Slyvestere wrote “It is a ridiculous comparison to think that charity would EVER be able to provide a safety net for American citizens. Absolutely ridiculous.”
In 1900 when government did not provide a safety net nor was there an income tax, groups like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Churches and Synagogues provided the charitable needs of our society. We were of course the wealthiest per capital nation in the world. Now that government provides our alleged safety net, high school truancy and drop out rates, homelessness and poverty are at all time highs and we are the largest debtor nation in the world.
Yeah, absolutely ridiculous. I can tell Slyvestere, your still stuck in the matrix because you have not yet figured it out, that the two party system is just one cabal with factions vying to gain higher positions within the cabal. Many call them the Demopublicans or Republicrats but they are both extremely good at playing the adversarial roles to deceive the American Public. You are watching to much main stream media and reading the wrong books because the data is out there to prove this point. The voting records are the biggest tell tale sign. Just enough Democrats will jump ship or vice versa to obtain the necessary votes to take away the rights of the Citizens to provide special interests their benefits.
In the book by Prof. and economist Thomas DiLorenzo “How Capitalism Saved America, he provides the evidence that almost all legislation is designed by special interests to gain benefits at the expense of everyone else. This has of course been shown by various other economists over the centuries. Even Adam Smith understood this. Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman clearly describes this and the evidence in his book “Free To Choose”.
The title of DiLorenzo’s book is the story of how the Pilgrims almost all died under a system of collectivism until William Brewster changed the land ownership from the group as a collective to individuals utilizing private property rights as ownership interests. Thanksgiving appears to be a celebration of not just the Pilgrims survival but of Capitalism. It’s called the Pride of Ownership Principle and why socialism and communism don’t work over time. We of course learned this in Middle School but for some reason, seem to ignore common sense in favor of the alleged safety net; one that requires socialistic policy to obtain.
What is really absolutely ridiculous is that people think we can sustain a mixed economic model even though it has plagued us now for close to 100 years. The so-called private/public partnership seems to favor the rich at the expense of the middle class.
To me the greatest story of the failure of collectivism is the history of the telephone system in the ex-soviet union.
When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, American’s were receiving free telephones for opening up bank accounts. Banks were literally giving them away for free. For the first time Americans were free to travel to Russia and what they found was an archaic telephone system from the 1960s that had never been upgraded or improved.
When there are no private property rights, there are no advantages to improving anything. No one would benefit by improving or replacing the telephone system because it was owned by the collective we call the nation state/government. Even if somebody would try to improve something, the higher ups try to steal the idea to make themselves look good because Party position and not production is how you gain more benefits in a socialistic/communistic collective.
In the US, we have lost 43,000 factories over the last 12 years and many more before that. Instead of focusing on reducing the power of the collective and increasing private property rights , we are increasing centralized power and usurping greater and greater individual rights to increase the alleged safety net.
Many people are spending their time and money trying to gain their fair share of the collectives treasury. How much money will be spend this election cycle vying for political power?
steve, The more people think the govt. is taking care of people in need the less generous they are. The liberal columnist for the NYT, Nicholas Kristof, did a column on 12/20/08 titled, Bleeding Heart Tightwads. He cites a book by Arthur Brooks titled, Who Really Cares. In the book, Brooks talks about how conservatives are more generous w/ charitable contributions to the tune of 30%. He also cites a Google study that shows conservatives even more charitable than Brooks found, that study showing conservatives almost TWICE as generous as liberals. This comports w/ my personal experience working in the restaurant biz and bartending. As far as tipping, the most generous tippers are the blue collar waiters, waitresses, and bartenders who depend on tips. Liberal elitists are more likely to stiff you than any other demographic.
We have talked about my personal commitment to the homeless. There is no way a bureaucrat is more caring than someone who does it from the heart. It’s not even the same ballpark. The govt. is a huge toilet when it comes to taxpayers money whether it’s for helping the needy, military spending, whatever.
Nick writes, ” He also cites a Google study that shows conservatives even more charitable than Brooks found, that study showing conservatives almost TWICE as generous as liberals. . . .”
Even if this were true that conservatives contribute more, it doesn’t make them “TWICE as generous as liberals.” Talk about linear conclusions.
That conservatives contribute and therefore are twice as generous is a fiction. I’d guess more liberals use the standard deduction on their federal returns. Wouldn’t you? I’d also guess the “Google study” was a look at Dept. of Treasury records showing that the haves and have mores claims more charitable contributions as itemized deductions to reduce tax whereas the have nots who use the standard deduction claim no charitable contribution because there is no tax break for contributions using the standard deduction..
Take away the tax break and see just who is giving away the most money as a fraction of either income or wealth when their names won’t be painted mid-court or on the marquee as a condition.
Nick , Absolutely right. It the same with many social policies. We think government is regulating Doctors so we do not always search out the best Doctors, thinking that one is just as good as the next. Come to find out that Doctors are in mass, prescribing Chemo and Radiation for some cancers that cannot possibly be cured with them. A similar situation occurred with hysterectomies in the 1960 and 1970s. Also, Doctors often prescribe the wrong antibiotics because they misdiagnosed the underlying problem. According to JAMA, about 100,000 people in North American die each year from respiratory diseases because of misdiagnosis and/or misprescribing the wrong drugs.
I thought the regulators did quite well with Bernie Madoff and the 2008 meltdown, don’t you think?
Patriot. The problems is that we have been tremendously misled and are being constantly bombarded with propaganda. As an example, it is a hard sell to convince people that medical licensure laws do more harm than good, even though the evidence is overwhelming. They do not see the correlation between private property rights and licensure laws. They do not understand that licensure laws take away our inalienable right, a right to work. They are willing to acquiesce this right for the public good, not understanding that this than opens the right for attorneys to create the BAR associations and prohibit all non-Bar members from the practice of law. We now even license pedicurist and barbers. The members of our Judiciary and BAR have become a cartel of some of the wealthiest and more politically powerful members in our society. The average person just doesn’t see this and is easily suede by “public opinion”. Now that they have so much power, try stopping them.
Rights are an all or nothing situation and let me explain. You cannot just have individual rights “sometimes” because what will happen is that everyone will have different opinions and as such will be willing to acquiesce one right but not another. We won’t be able to get people to agree on which rights we should acquiesce for the public good and which ones we should not and therefore protect.
We have seen what happens when attorneys dominate the legislative and political processes. I believe that attorneys are a majority in most state legislatures around the country and also in Congress. They of course control the Judiciary and do just about all the legal enforcement work for the Administration.
If we were to debate medical, dental and legal licensure laws, how long would the debate have to be to provide all the necessary evidence that one should have to be able to therefore determine what is in the best interest of the majority; what is really in the best interest of the public good.
It is a complex issue that has a macro relationship with at minimum sociology, economics and psychology and a micro relationship with such issues as insurance and medical malpractice, advanced education, government regulation, preventive and allopathic medicine, technologies, etc.
It’s easy to say “we have to protect our Citizens from unscrupulous and unexperienced doctors” but it is hard to explain, that licensure law don’t really work very well and actually cause more harm socially than good.
Our problems are truly that of education and communications, but we than have to debate whom controlled the curriculum if we are to acquiesce our property rights to pay for a department of education.
Karen said: OK. Let me clarify. I have never heard of any pro-capitalism consumers say they want zero regulations.
We’ve got a small business owner here that has left a very strong impression that government regulations are BS, they barely allow him a living, and are only out to destroy him and his business. Those opinions have been shared many times. Those opinions have not been tempered by any possibility that he finds any regulations necessary and reasonable.
I also said some regulations should be dumped.
Gotta run. I’ll try to get back later.
Well, Dusty, you could consider that health care insurance also protects the general population when people get sick. I’m including the treatment of communicable diseases and epidemics (think Ebola, TB and the Spanish flu), but primarily I’m thinking universal health insurance protects the rest of us from the costs of eventually treating those who require medical care.
And we all do eventually have to pay for their care. Unless of course, we decide to end Medicaid and prohibit uninsured people admission into hospitals and just allow people to drop dead on the streets. That’s always an option.
Karen
Telemundo was dropped because Trump is feuding with them. This should not be news. Telemundo’s executives and their audience are primarily Hispanics. Trump has described the Hispanic illegal population as being composed of rapists and murderers and intends to deport 11 million people should he become president. Trump apparently thinks Telemundo should also be deported.
No doubt such negotiation skills will also employed by President Trump when he gets Mexico to pay for that big old wall he intends to build.
“Do you object to the law that mandates that all drivers must carry liability insurance?”
Karen said; This is a valid point.
And it is a valid point, and anyone who drives should carry liability insurance……. but as Karen pointed out it is not equal to or comparable to being forced to buy medical insurance.
Liability insurance is meant to protect the other people who may be involved in your accident. You as the driver can choose a level of liability coverage that suits your own needs. There is a minimum, but if you have other assets to protect you can choose to get a higher amount of coverage.
Also pointed out is that if you chose not to drive, take public transportation, ride a bike, you are not forced to carry automotive liability insurance. You CAN opt out.
However, with Obamacare, you cannot chose the levels of coverage that suit you. For instance my perfect plan, which doesn’t exist anymore was a high deductible, LOW PREMIUM, catastrophic only plan with a Health Savings account. As a person who has no medical issues, doesn’t take medications of any kind and is in good health, weight, endurance and in general in good shape, I don’t need comprehensive coverage. Any small needs can be handled either out of pocket or with the HSA that has built up (tax free) over time. If I had a catastrophe, car wreck, broken bones, sudden onset of a major disease, the catastrophic plan would cover over the deductible. This is not an option under Obamacare and any policy that I would have gotten was loaded up with coverage that I will never ever ever EVER need, such as maternity, pediatric dentistry, birth control etc. In addition to the higher premiums and loss of tax benefits, the Obamacare deductible is just as high or higher than the catastrophic plan.
Costs more, less benefits, higher deductible. What a good deal/////not.
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.
This is also a valid point, but not a reason to destroy the medical coverage of EVERYONE.
This is what Medicaid or Medi-Cal is for. Millions of people who are not even citizens are covered under this program…..IF you can find a doctor that will take it, that it. If you are poor, you are covered. If you cannot pay, you can get covered.
And don’t forget that well built infrastructure we gifted to Iraq that ISIS now enjoys. Great roads and buildings.