January 16, 2015

"Right after the French Revolution, France abrogated its old laws making blasphemy a crime—and so Charlie Hebdo’s blasphemous depictions of Muhammad are not a crime."

"At the same time, France’s press laws, which date to the late nineteenth century, make it a crime to 'provoke discrimination, hatred, or violence toward a person or group of persons because of their origin or belonging to a particular ethnicity, nation, race, or religion.' In other words, you can ridicule the prophet, but you cannot incite hatred toward his followers. To take two more examples, the actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted and fined for having written, in 2006, about France’s Muslims, 'We are tired of being led around by the nose by this population that is destroying our country.' Meanwhile, the writer Michel Houellebecq (whose new novel was featured in the issue of Charlie Hebdo that came out just before the attack) was brought up on charges, but acquitted, for having said in an interview that Islam 'is the stupidest religion.' Bardot was clearly directing hostility toward Muslim people, and was thus found guilty, while Houellebecq was criticizing their religion, which is blasphemous, but not a crime, in France."

From the New Yorker article "Why French Law Treats Dieudonné and Charlie Hebdo Differently."

19 comments:

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...

France is not the USA. Who knew?

David said...

La loi est un âne.

Jim Gust said...

A distinction without a meaningful difference.

Seems like truth should have been a defense for Bardot.

n.n said...

Hebdo fast and furious plunging of decapitated and dismembered babies in a toilet. The Muslims could have had an absolute field day with this selective satirist. The liberal societies would be absolutely apoplectic, skirmishing over loose heads, legs, and arms in order to abort the artists' right to free speech.

Be said...

Not to mention the Blasphemous Galliano.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galliano#Controversy

Or M Guerlain, for what it's worth.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Guerlain

TCom said...

"the actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted and fined for having written, in 2006, about France’s Muslims, 'We are tired of being led around by the nose by this population that is destroying our country.'"

When she said this, there were already hundreds of 'no-go' zones in France where Muslims were colonizing and fragmenting off parts of France for themselves.

But she's convicted anyway. Truth has no relevancy to these people. Muslims can come in and be so hostile to the native authorities and populace that they are effectively ceded land, but to point it out, that's illegal.

Countries this stupid don't deserve their sovereignty. Let them collapse and be a lesson to others.

mccullough said...

I prefer the Muslims to the French.

RecChief said...

"Multiculturalism is the twin of appeasement," says Victor Davis Hanson

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Time for those wimps to finally go all in and get themselves a 1st amendment.

And a 2nd amendment wouldn't hurt, either.

traditionalguy said...

Interesting that the French did a complete overthrow in their revolution, including the Royalty's men running the Catholic Church in France.So blasphemy there is a civic duty.

But the rest of Europe's Royalty would never let their subjects talk evil of their appointed Clerical Lords. And the lure of cheap labor of Muslim immigrants has seduced all of Europe into Multicultural hell.

Anonymous said...

"Countries this stupid don't deserve their sovereignty."

This country elected Obama twice. I'm not sure we're in much of a position at this point to call the French stupid.

We live in the Era of Stupid.

The Godfather said...

Thanks. Now I understand the rationale for the distinctions the French authorities are applying.

As a practical matter, I don't think the distinctions work in a reliable way: It will be hard in many cases to determine whether, e.g., a particular Charlie Hebdo cartoon is insulting the Muslim religion (permissible) or is inciting hatred against those who follow that religion (impermissible). For that reason, the French approach seems to lend itself to prosecutorial abuse, or at least the appearance thereof.

The US approach is better, nes pas?

Je sui not un robot.

RecChief said...

I thought hashtag diplomacy was fucking stupid, but that didn't prepare me for the idiocy of James Taylor diplomacy.

Clearly, what's needed here, rather than an iron spine show of solidarity is a washed up baby boomer who sings pussy songs. "You've got a friend" will show those frenchmen we've got their backs, said John Kerry, to himself, in impeccable French.

RecChief said...

just a reminder, this is a religious war. you can try to placate them, but they will cut your throat at some point.

RecChief said...

no matter how hard you lobby for a "two state solution" or the 1967 borders

Achilles said...

@RecChief

I know you know this. Just saying The problem isn't Israel, or the crusades, or colonization.

The problem is we aren't Muslim.

Diamondhead said...

The article describes "The Germans should have finished the job in 1945" as a "joke." I'm guessing he's never played the Catskills.

Marc in Eugene said...

I too suspect that it is a distinction that cannot be impartially adminstered or applied. There are two films in France, both dealing with religious conversion. The protagonist in the one becomes Catholic or some sort of Christian (it is called L'Apôtre, and is available gratis on YouTube), the lead in the other other becomes Muslim. The public screening of which one has been prohibited (in specific jurisdictions, not nation-wide) as an incitement? Now the fact is that this L'Apôtre has been controversial since its release and perhaps it is a crap movie with puerile acting and an insipidly sentimental script etc etc and perhaps the conversion-to-Islam film has sympathetic actors and doesn't stink otherwise. Still. It is, given the situation in France, entirely possible that the only reason the conversion-from-Islam film has been controversial is because, well, Michel Houellebecq doesn't have his France in Soumission electing a president who has declared he wants to restore the Most Christian King Louis XX as head of state.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Racism is the new blasphemy. Je suis Char Char.