France: Le Pen fined 30,000 euros for latest 'gas chamber' remark

[simple1]

In two French surveys – a 2014 report on tolerance submitted to the French government, and a report by a French think tank – over half of the respondents who supported the National Front espoused anti-Semitism.

Even some French “observant Catholics” have shown anti-Semitic attitudes, according to a 2014 survey by a French think tank FONDAPOL cited in the report. Twenty-two percent of practicing Catholics surveyed said there too many Jews in France, while 16 percent of all those surveyed answered that way.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/18/france-might-not-have-any-jews-in-the-future-and-h/?page=all

So over half the respondents espoused anti-semitism. Can you hazard a guess that how many Nu Europeans espouse anti-semitism? I'll tell you. All of them 100%. And yet you tirelessly champion their cause. Le Pen antisemite very bad. Muslim colonists antisemite very good. Would you agree there is a problem with this logic?

Try as you may with false accusations, but I have never supported Islamist ideology / those supporting anti-antisemitism, whereas you regularly sympathise with or post actual support for neo-Nazism.

Currently Marie Le-Pen's Front National conveniently rejects it's traditional support for anti-antisemitism, in an endeavour to appeal to the mainstream, whilst as shown above many of it's membership have not changed their core bigotry.

Edited April 7, 2016 by simple1

[Steely Dan]

In two French surveys – a 2014 report on tolerance submitted to the French government, and a report by a French think tank – over half of the respondents who supported the National Front espoused anti-Semitism.

Even some French “observant Catholics” have shown anti-Semitic attitudes, according to a 2014 survey by a French think tank FONDAPOL cited in the report. Twenty-two percent of practicing Catholics surveyed said there too many Jews in France, while 16 percent of all those surveyed answered that way.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/18/france-might-not-have-any-jews-in-the-future-and-h/?page=all

Let's not conflate France and Europe's longstanding antisemitism with imported antisemitism from North Africa and the Middle East, the latter being the proxy vehicle for your modern leftist Antisemites who don't want to get their own hands dirty.

http://www.thetower.org/article/the-holocaust-the-left-and-the-return-of-hate/

The real irony being that laws put in place as an indirect result of the holocaust are being used to shield the new Antisemites from scrutiny. Though I hate Mr Le Pen I would gladly forego any laws relating specifically to the holocaust in exchange for greater freedom of speech.

Edit; to clarify my point, the lessons of the holocaust for the liberal-left Europeans were that nationalism was the cause of evil and internationalism was the antidote. To Jews the notion of Zionism (Jewish nationalism) was that nobody else could be trusted to defend them. Roll on to 67 and the left had cemented its notion that Israel was a relic of old European nationalism and colonialism. Returning full circle to holocaust denial, the left uses it to beat down its own far right nationalists but is completely blindsided to Muslim antisemitism, which is in their DNA. Your Washington post link is a classic example of this.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Steely Dan

[simple1]

In two French surveys – a 2014 report on tolerance submitted to the French government, and a report by a French think tank – over half of the respondents who supported the National Front espoused anti-Semitism.

Even some French “observant Catholics” have shown anti-Semitic attitudes, according to a 2014 survey by a French think tank FONDAPOL cited in the report. Twenty-two percent of practicing Catholics surveyed said there too many Jews in France, while 16 percent of all those surveyed answered that way.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/18/france-might-not-have-any-jews-in-the-future-and-h/?page=all

Let's not conflate France and Europe's longstanding antisemitism with imported antisemitism from North Africa and the Middle East, the latter being the proxy vehicle for your modern leftist Antisemites who don't want to get their own hands dirty.

http://www.thetower.org/article/the-holocaust-the-left-and-the-return-of-hate/

The real irony being that laws put in place as an indirect result of the holocaust are being used to shield the new Antisemites from scrutiny. Though I hate Mr Le Pen I would gladly forego any laws relating specifically to the holocaust in exchange for greater freedom of speech.

Edit; to clarify my point, the lessons of the holocaust for the liberal-left Europeans were that nationalism was the cause of evil and internationalism was the antidote. To Jews the notion of Zionism (Jewish nationalism) was that nobody else could be trusted to defend them. Roll on to 67 and the left had cemented its notion that Israel was a relic of old European nationalism and colonialism. Returning full circle to holocaust denial, the left uses it to beat down its own far right nationalists but is completely blindsided to Muslim antisemitism, which is in their DNA. Your Washington post link is a classic example of this.

Thanks, but I do not need a lecture from you to comprehend the background of issues in Europe.

We obviously interpret information differently. For me the article was clear on issues being created by some in the Muslim community as well as, for balance, some Front National members and others in French society.

The article is based upon a US based organisation "Human Rights First" report, an organisation that has received recognition from both sides of politics e.g. Senator McCain and Hilary Clinton.

Edited April 8, 2016 by simple1

[Steely Dan]

In two French surveys – a 2014 report on tolerance submitted to the French government, and a report by a French think tank – over half of the respondents who supported the National Front espoused anti-Semitism.

Even some French “observant Catholics” have shown anti-Semitic attitudes, according to a 2014 survey by a French think tank FONDAPOL cited in the report. Twenty-two percent of practicing Catholics surveyed said there too many Jews in France, while 16 percent of all those surveyed answered that way.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/18/france-might-not-have-any-jews-in-the-future-and-h/?page=all

Let's not conflate France and Europe's longstanding antisemitism with imported antisemitism from North Africa and the Middle East, the latter being the proxy vehicle for your modern leftist Antisemites who don't want to get their own hands dirty.

http://www.thetower.org/article/the-holocaust-the-left-and-the-return-of-hate/

The real irony being that laws put in place as an indirect result of the holocaust are being used to shield the new Antisemites from scrutiny. Though I hate Mr Le Pen I would gladly forego any laws relating specifically to the holocaust in exchange for greater freedom of speech.

Edit; to clarify my point, the lessons of the holocaust for the liberal-left Europeans were that nationalism was the cause of evil and internationalism was the antidote. To Jews the notion of Zionism (Jewish nationalism) was that nobody else could be trusted to defend them. Roll on to 67 and the left had cemented its notion that Israel was a relic of old European nationalism and colonialism. Returning full circle to holocaust denial, the left uses it to beat down its own far right nationalists but is completely blindsided to Muslim antisemitism, which is in their DNA. Your Washington post link is a classic example of this.

Thanks, but I do not need a lecture from you to comprehend the background of issues in Europe.

We obviously interpret information differently. For me the article was clear on issues being created by some in the Muslim community as well as, for balance, some Front National members and others in French society.

The article is based upon a US based organisation "Human Rights First" report, an organisation that has received recognition from both sides of politics e.g. Senator McCain and Hilary Clinton.

Not wishing to lecture you, agreed the same info can be interpreted differently by us. I would observe that you appear to approve of the conviction of Le Pen just as you do the prosecution of Geert Wilders, whereas I don't approve of the prosecution of Geert Wilders, and I'm uneasy over the conviction of Mr Le Pen, even though I despise the man. Free speech does have a price, no free speech has a larger one in my opinion.

[simple1]

In two French surveys – a 2014 report on tolerance submitted to the French government, and a report by a French think tank – over half of the respondents who supported the National Front espoused anti-Semitism.

Even some French “observant Catholics” have shown anti-Semitic attitudes, according to a 2014 survey by a French think tank FONDAPOL cited in the report. Twenty-two percent of practicing Catholics surveyed said there too many Jews in France, while 16 percent of all those surveyed answered that way.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/18/france-might-not-have-any-jews-in-the-future-and-h/?page=all

Let's not conflate France and Europe's longstanding antisemitism with imported antisemitism from North Africa and the Middle East, the latter being the proxy vehicle for your modern leftist Antisemites who don't want to get their own hands dirty.

http://www.thetower.org/article/the-holocaust-the-left-and-the-return-of-hate/

The real irony being that laws put in place as an indirect result of the holocaust are being used to shield the new Antisemites from scrutiny. Though I hate Mr Le Pen I would gladly forego any laws relating specifically to the holocaust in exchange for greater freedom of speech.

Edit; to clarify my point, the lessons of the holocaust for the liberal-left Europeans were that nationalism was the cause of evil and internationalism was the antidote. To Jews the notion of Zionism (Jewish nationalism) was that nobody else could be trusted to defend them. Roll on to 67 and the left had cemented its notion that Israel was a relic of old European nationalism and colonialism. Returning full circle to holocaust denial, the left uses it to beat down its own far right nationalists but is completely blindsided to Muslim antisemitism, which is in their DNA. Your Washington post link is a classic example of this.

Thanks, but I do not need a lecture from you to comprehend the background of issues in Europe.

We obviously interpret information differently. For me the article was clear on issues being created by some in the Muslim community as well as, for balance, some Front National members and others in French society.

The article is based upon a US based organisation "Human Rights First" report, an organisation that has received recognition from both sides of politics e.g. Senator McCain and Hilary Clinton.

Not wishing to lecture you, agreed the same info can be interpreted differently by us. I would observe that you appear to approve of the conviction of Le Pen just as you do the prosecution of Geert Wilders, whereas I don't approve of the prosecution of Geert Wilders, and I'm uneasy over the conviction of Mr Le Pen, even though I despise the man. Free speech does have a price, no free speech has a larger one in my opinion.

As I recall Wilders was charged with incitement of hatred & discrimination.

Personally I find the issue of 'free speech' quite complex. Last year a senior Australian politician observed people have the right to be bigoted - he was referring to anti Muslim commentary. Where should the law draw the line as we both know such speech does lead to to physiological and physical violence by both sides of politics, innocents do suffer.

France has deported Islamic hate speech preachers with which I agree.

On a personal note my wife has on three occasions been subject to spiteful anti Asian comments on public transport in Oz, I would have loved to see the bastards ending up in jail for a while.

Edited April 8, 2016 by simple1

[Ulic]

Just wondering if these fines are ever collected or are they symbolic.

[geriatrickid]

Quite a mild remark, when compared to the vile nonsense that had been spray painted on the walls around Mr Le Pen's Hossegor residence last time I passed. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Whoa.The people who were murdered in gas chambers were not the ones who allegedly spray painted Le Pen's walls were they? What do millions of kids, disabled, and the aged who presented no threat to anyone do to merit being murdered. Le Pen has 24/7 security and CCTV he can certainly make an effort to pursue the alleged wrongdoers.

[Asheron]

Let's not conflate France and Europe's longstanding antisemitism with imported antisemitism from North Africa and the Middle East, the latter being the proxy vehicle for your modern leftist Antisemites who don't want to get their own hands dirty.

http://www.thetower.org/article/the-holocaust-the-left-and-the-return-of-hate/

The real irony being that laws put in place as an indirect result of the holocaust are being used to shield the new Antisemites from scrutiny. Though I hate Mr Le Pen I would gladly forego any laws relating specifically to the holocaust in exchange for greater freedom of speech.

Edit; to clarify my point, the lessons of the holocaust for the liberal-left Europeans were that nationalism was the cause of evil and internationalism was the antidote. To Jews the notion of Zionism (Jewish nationalism) was that nobody else could be trusted to defend them. Roll on to 67 and the left had cemented its notion that Israel was a relic of old European nationalism and colonialism. Returning full circle to holocaust denial, the left uses it to beat down its own far right nationalists but is completely blindsided to Muslim antisemitism, which is in their DNA. Your Washington post link is a classic example of this.

Thanks, but I do not need a lecture from you to comprehend the background of issues in Europe.

We obviously interpret information differently. For me the article was clear on issues being created by some in the Muslim community as well as, for balance, some Front National members and others in French society.

The article is based upon a US based organisation "Human Rights First" report, an organisation that has received recognition from both sides of politics e.g. Senator McCain and Hilary Clinton.

Not wishing to lecture you, agreed the same info can be interpreted differently by us. I would observe that you appear to approve of the conviction of Le Pen just as you do the prosecution of Geert Wilders, whereas I don't approve of the prosecution of Geert Wilders, and I'm uneasy over the conviction of Mr Le Pen, even though I despise the man. Free speech does have a price, no free speech has a larger one in my opinion.

As I recall Wilders was charged with incitement of hatred & discrimination.

Personally I find the issue of 'free speech' quite complex. Last year a senior Australian politician observed people have the right to be bigoted - he was referring to anti Muslim commentary. Where should the law draw the line as we both know such speech does lead to to physiological and physical violence by both sides of politics, innocents do suffer.

France has deported Islamic hate speech preachers with which I agree.

On a personal note my wife has on three occasions been subject to spiteful anti Asian comments on public transport in Oz, I would have loved to see the bastards ending up in jail for a while.

Jail time for words? What other totalitarian ideas do you support?

[SheungWan]

Holocaust denial is incredibly stupid.

Almost as stupid as outlawing it.

Holocaust denial is not stupid it is the justification of murder. The stupids are those running in front of, alongside and behind Le Pen.

[Asheron]

Holocaust denial is incredibly stupid.

Almost as stupid as outlawing it.

Holocaust denial is not stupid it is the justification of murder. The stupids are those running in front of, alongside and behind Le Pen.

It's called freedom of expression, not "justification of murder".

[simple1]

Thanks, but I do not need a lecture from you to comprehend the background of issues in Europe.

We obviously interpret information differently. For me the article was clear on issues being created by some in the Muslim community as well as, for balance, some Front National members and others in French society.

The article is based upon a US based organisation "Human Rights First" report, an organisation that has received recognition from both sides of politics e.g. Senator McCain and Hilary Clinton.

Not wishing to lecture you, agreed the same info can be interpreted differently by us. I would observe that you appear to approve of the conviction of Le Pen just as you do the prosecution of Geert Wilders, whereas I don't approve of the prosecution of Geert Wilders, and I'm uneasy over the conviction of Mr Le Pen, even though I despise the man. Free speech does have a price, no free speech has a larger one in my opinion.

As I recall Wilders was charged with incitement of hatred & discrimination.

Personally I find the issue of 'free speech' quite complex. Last year a senior Australian politician observed people have the right to be bigoted - he was referring to anti Muslim commentary. Where should the law draw the line as we both know such speech does lead to to physiological and physical violence by both sides of politics, innocents do suffer.

France has deported Islamic hate speech preachers with which I agree.

On a personal note my wife has on three occasions been subject to spiteful anti Asian comments on public transport in Oz, I would have loved to see the bastards ending up in jail for a while.

Jail time for words? What other totalitarian ideas do you support?

Post removed to enable reply.

I have ignored previous similar posts by you in the past month or so. However, I'm getting tired of your nonsense so...

Racist abuse against an individual in a public place is a criminal act under law in Australia; up to you if you believe racist acts should not be criminalised, I don't.

As an example you have previously posted support for forcible deportation of all Muslim heritage people from Sweden, you support totalitarian ideology, not me.

Edited April 8, 2016 by simple1

[geriatrickid]

Holocaust denial is incredibly stupid.

Almost as stupid as outlawing it.

Holocaust denial is not stupid it is the justification of murder. The stupids are those running in front of, alongside and behind Le Pen.

It's called freedom of expression, not "justification of murder".

Freedom of Expression is not an absolute. It goes hand in hand with responsible behaviour. You know the old US Supreme court judge who put it in perspective; freedom of expression/speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theatre?

One has an obligation to be truthful and to not spread intentional lies. We know conentraion camps existed and that millions died. Those who deny their existence do so only to inflict injury to others. Not the best of motives.

[Asheron]

Not wishing to lecture you, agreed the same info can be interpreted differently by us. I would observe that you appear to approve of the conviction of Le Pen just as you do the prosecution of Geert Wilders, whereas I don't approve of the prosecution of Geert Wilders, and I'm uneasy over the conviction of Mr Le Pen, even though I despise the man. Free speech does have a price, no free speech has a larger one in my opinion.

As I recall Wilders was charged with incitement of hatred & discrimination.

Personally I find the issue of 'free speech' quite complex. Last year a senior Australian politician observed people have the right to be bigoted - he was referring to anti Muslim commentary. Where should the law draw the line as we both know such speech does lead to to physiological and physical violence by both sides of politics, innocents do suffer.

France has deported Islamic hate speech preachers with which I agree.

On a personal note my wife has on three occasions been subject to spiteful anti Asian comments on public transport in Oz, I would have loved to see the bastards ending up in jail for a while.

Jail time for words? What other totalitarian ideas do you support?

Post removed to enable reply.

I have ignored previous similar posts by you in the past month or so. However, I'm getting tired of your nonsense so...

Racist abuse against an individual in a public place is a criminal act under law in Australia; up to you if you believe racist acts should not be criminalised, I don't.

As an example you have previously posted support for forcible deportation of all Muslim heritage people from Sweden, you support totalitarian ideology, not me.

Nonsense and totalitarian to think that words shouldn't lead to jail time?

Stop spreading lies about me as i have never ever said that all muslims should be deported from Sweden. I have however said that anyone who does commit a crime should be deported.

So what was said that was so racist against your wife? Under swedish law it's also perfectly fine to say anything to a white person without getting convicted for hate crime all the while you can't basicly even look at any minority at the bus without the police knocking on your door. I have hard time believing it would be that much different in Australia.

Furthermore, what heritage do "muslims" have? To my knowledge anyone can convert to islam. You clearly associate islam with arabs, bit ignorant?

[Asheron]

Holocaust denial is incredibly stupid.

Almost as stupid as outlawing it.

Holocaust denial is not stupid it is the justification of murder. The stupids are those running in front of, alongside and behind Le Pen.

It's called freedom of expression, not "justification of murder".

Freedom of Expression is not an absolute. It goes hand in hand with responsible behaviour. You know the old US Supreme court judge who put it in perspective; freedom of expression/speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theatre?

One has an obligation to be truthful and to not spread intentional lies. We know conentraion camps existed and that millions died. Those who deny their existence do so only to inflict injury to others. Not the best of motives.

To be crystal clear, so that people like ******* or others on this forum don't get confused; i do not deny that concentration camps existed nor that millions were murdered in them. I however demand that people are free to deny openly.

I assume you talk about law: no one has an "obligation" to be truthful nor not to spread intentional lies. If that was the case something like 100% of the worlds population commit a "crime" each day. But how is law really any kind of measure for what is right or wrong? I mean, Apartheid was legal. So was murdering jews.

Your example of "yelling fire in crowded theatre" versus "concentration camps didn't exist" does not hold. First example is clearly forbidden, and rightfully so, as you will put human lifes at risk by doing so. And to test that "concentration camps didn't exist" you can go the nearest crowded theatre and stand in the middle of it and yell as high you can "concentration camps didn't exist" and see how many people will start to trample on each other. My guess is that you will most likely be escorted out by security from the property.

To shorten everything down: feelings nor emotions are not more important than freedom of speech.

[simple1]

Not wishing to lecture you, agreed the same info can be interpreted differently by us. I would observe that you appear to approve of the conviction of Le Pen just as you do the prosecution of Geert Wilders, whereas I don't approve of the prosecution of Geert Wilders, and I'm uneasy over the conviction of Mr Le Pen, even though I despise the man. Free speech does have a price, no free speech has a larger one in my opinion.

As I recall Wilders was charged with incitement of hatred & discrimination.

Personally I find the issue of 'free speech' quite complex. Last year a senior Australian politician observed people have the right to be bigoted - he was referring to anti Muslim commentary. Where should the law draw the line as we both know such speech does lead to to physiological and physical violence by both sides of politics, innocents do suffer.

France has deported Islamic hate speech preachers with which I agree.

On a personal note my wife has on three occasions been subject to spiteful anti Asian comments on public transport in Oz, I would have loved to see the bastards ending up in jail for a while.

Jail time for words? What other totalitarian ideas do you support?

Post removed to enable reply.

I have ignored previous similar posts by you in the past month or so. However, I'm getting tired of your nonsense so...

Racist abuse against an individual in a public place is a criminal act under law in Australia; up to you if you believe racist acts should not be criminalised, I don't.

As an example you have previously posted support for forcible deportation of all Muslim heritage people from Sweden, you support totalitarian ideology, not me.

Nonsense and totalitarian to think that words shouldn't lead to jail time?

Stop spreading lies about me as i have never ever said that all muslims should be deported from Sweden. I have however said that anyone who does commit a crime should be deported.

So what was said that was so racist against your wife? Under swedish law it's also perfectly fine to say anything to a white person without getting convicted for hate crime all the while you can't basicly even look at any minority at the bus without the police knocking on your door. I have hard time believing it would be that much different in Australia.

Furthermore, what heritage do "muslims" have? To my knowledge anyone can convert to islam. You clearly associate islam with arabs, bit ignorant?

I have a clear memory of a post you made wishing for all Muslims to be deported from Sweden, not just those convicted for a criminal offense. Apologies if incorrect.

Am I not correct there are non Arab Muslims living in Sweden e.g. Kurds & Turks.

Edited April 9, 2016 by simple1

[SheungWan]

Freedom of Expression is not an absolute. It goes hand in hand with responsible behaviour. You know the old US Supreme court judge who put it in perspective; freedom of expression/speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theatre?

One has an obligation to be truthful and to not spread intentional lies. We know conentraion camps existed and that millions died. Those who deny their existence do so only to inflict injury to others. Not the best of motives.

To be crystal clear, so that people like ******* or others on this forum don't get confused; i do not deny that concentration camps existed nor that millions were murdered in them. I however demand that people are free to deny openly.

I assume you talk about law: no one has an "obligation" to be truthful nor not to spread intentional lies. If that was the case something like 100% of the worlds population commit a "crime" each day. But how is law really any kind of measure for what is right or wrong? I mean, Apartheid was legal. So was murdering jews.

Your example of "yelling fire in crowded theatre" versus "concentration camps didn't exist" does not hold. First example is clearly forbidden, and rightfully so, as you will put human lifes at risk by doing so. And to test that "concentration camps didn't exist" you can go the nearest crowded theatre and stand in the middle of it and yell as high you can "concentration camps didn't exist" and see how many people will start to trample on each other. My guess is that you will most likely be escorted out by security from the property.

To shorten everything down: feelings nor emotions are not more important than freedom of speech.

Odd isn't it, that those who are so very keen to defend the rights of Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers, cannot quite bring themselves to openly defend the 'freedom of speech' rights to those who openly advocate paedophilia. Nor would they be standing up and defending the free speech rights of those advocating support for more Paris bombings. No, its the Holocaust deniers that they wish to wrap their friendly arms around and if 'free speech' doesn't quite cut it then relativise it into the long grass. Liberal cover with nasty repercussions.

[Asheron]

Freedom of Expression is not an absolute. It goes hand in hand with responsible behaviour. You know the old US Supreme court judge who put it in perspective; freedom of expression/speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theatre?

One has an obligation to be truthful and to not spread intentional lies. We know conentraion camps existed and that millions died. Those who deny their existence do so only to inflict injury to others. Not the best of motives.

To be crystal clear, so that people like ******* or others on this forum don't get confused; i do not deny that concentration camps existed nor that millions were murdered in them. I however demand that people are free to deny openly.

I assume you talk about law: no one has an "obligation" to be truthful nor not to spread intentional lies. If that was the case something like 100% of the worlds population commit a "crime" each day. But how is law really any kind of measure for what is right or wrong? I mean, Apartheid was legal. So was murdering jews.

Your example of "yelling fire in crowded theatre" versus "concentration camps didn't exist" does not hold. First example is clearly forbidden, and rightfully so, as you will put human lifes at risk by doing so. And to test that "concentration camps didn't exist" you can go the nearest crowded theatre and stand in the middle of it and yell as high you can "concentration camps didn't exist" and see how many people will start to trample on each other. My guess is that you will most likely be escorted out by security from the property.

To shorten everything down: feelings nor emotions are not more important than freedom of speech.

Odd isn't it, that those who are so very keen to defend the rights of Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers, cannot quite bring themselves to openly defend the 'freedom of speech' rights to those who openly advocate paedophilia. Nor would they be standing up and defending the free speech rights of those advocating support for more Paris bombings. No, its the Holocaust deniers that they wish to wrap their friendly arms around and if 'free speech' doesn't quite cut it then relativise it into the long grass. Liberal cover with nasty repercussions.

Of course laws are different in each and every nation but in general in democracies or constitutional republics you can/can't/should be able to/shouldn't be able to do the following:

It is wrong say the following because they are meant to bodily harm people:

"I want more bombings because "X" reason and someone has to do it now".

"I want more beheadings of people in the group "X" and someone has to do it now".

"Yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre".

"I want people to shot white policemen because white policeman "X" shot black thug "Y".

It is not wrong to say the following as they are not meant to bodily harm people (your feelings/emotions are still not important):

"There were no concentration camps".

"There were concentration camps".

"The moon is made of cheese".

"The moon is not made of cheese".

"There was a lunar landing".

"There was no lunar landing".

"Muhammed is the most perfect person to ever live".

"Muhammed was a paedophile".

"Muslims didn't fly planes into WTC".

"Muslims did fly planes into WTC".

"I don't want people from nation "X" in my nation".

"I want people from nation "X" in my nation".

Advocating paedophile is surely not freedom of speech as it will most definately cause bodily harm to another human being. No one is saying "put jews/mulism/atheists/whatever in gas chambers" by saying "there were no concentration camps".

There is an "uproar" in USA right now about some people standing on the flag of that nation. I say, so what, it's within their rights to do so. But they can't set the flag on fire because THAT can lead to bodily harm if/when the fire spreads.

See the difference now?

Edited April 9, 2016 by Asheron

[Asheron]

Jail time for words? What other totalitarian ideas do you support?

Post removed to enable reply.

I have ignored previous similar posts by you in the past month or so. However, I'm getting tired of your nonsense so...

Racist abuse against an individual in a public place is a criminal act under law in Australia; up to you if you believe racist acts should not be criminalised, I don't.

As an example you have previously posted support for forcible deportation of all Muslim heritage people from Sweden, you support totalitarian ideology, not me.

Nonsense and totalitarian to think that words shouldn't lead to jail time?

Stop spreading lies about me as i have never ever said that all muslims should be deported from Sweden. I have however said that anyone who does commit a crime should be deported.

So what was said that was so racist against your wife? Under swedish law it's also perfectly fine to say anything to a white person without getting convicted for hate crime all the while you can't basicly even look at any minority at the bus without the police knocking on your door. I have hard time believing it would be that much different in Australia.

Furthermore, what heritage do "muslims" have? To my knowledge anyone can convert to islam. You clearly associate islam with arabs, bit ignorant?

I have a clear memory of a post you made wishing for all Muslims to be deported from Sweden, not just those convicted for a criminal offense. Apologies if incorrect.

Am I not correct there are non Arab Muslims living in Sweden e.g. Kurds & Turks.

Of course there are muslim kurds and turks living in Sweden. There are also ethnic swedish muslims living in Sweden.

The problem in Sweden is that no matter what crime you commit your citizenship can't be revoked, it can't even be revoked if you got the citizenship on false grounds (like lying who you are etc). As swedish citizens have "aboslute right to reside in Sweden" it's impossible to deport people who commit crimes even if the criminal have several citizenships. Matter of fact it's basicly impossible to deport anyone because they committed a crime as they just make up som BS about "oh i can't eat if i get deported".

Don't know about you but i don't want criminals from other nations in my nation.

[Thorgal]

Freedom of Expression is not an absolute. It goes hand in hand with responsible behaviour. You know the old US Supreme court judge who put it in perspective; freedom of expression/speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theatre?

One has an obligation to be truthful and to not spread intentional lies. We know conentraion camps existed and that millions died. Those who deny their existence do so only to inflict injury to others. Not the best of motives.

To be crystal clear, so that people like ******* or others on this forum don't get confused; i do not deny that concentration camps existed nor that millions were murdered in them. I however demand that people are free to deny openly.

I assume you talk about law: no one has an "obligation" to be truthful nor not to spread intentional lies. If that was the case something like 100% of the worlds population commit a "crime" each day. But how is law really any kind of measure for what is right or wrong? I mean, Apartheid was legal. So was murdering jews.

Your example of "yelling fire in crowded theatre" versus "concentration camps didn't exist" does not hold. First example is clearly forbidden, and rightfully so, as you will put human lifes at risk by doing so. And to test that "concentration camps didn't exist" you can go the nearest crowded theatre and stand in the middle of it and yell as high you can "concentration camps didn't exist" and see how many people will start to trample on each other. My guess is that you will most likely be escorted out by security from the property.

To shorten everything down: feelings nor emotions are not more important than freedom of speech.

Odd isn't it, that those who are so very keen to defend the rights of Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers, cannot quite bring themselves to openly defend the 'freedom of speech' rights to those who openly advocate paedophilia. Nor would they be standing up and defending the free speech rights of those advocating support for more Paris bombings. No, its the Holocaust deniers that they wish to wrap their friendly arms around and if 'free speech' doesn't quite cut it then relativise it into the long grass. Liberal cover with nasty repercussions.

Of course laws are different in each and every nation but in general in democracies or constitutional republics you can/can't/should be able to/shouldn't be able to do the following:

It is wrong say the following because they are meant to bodily harm people:

"I want more bombings because "X" reason and someone has to do it now".

"I want more beheadings of people in the group "X" and someone has to do it now".

"Yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre".

"I want people to shot white policemen because white policeman "X" shot black thug "Y".

It is not wrong to say the following as they are not meant to bodily harm people (your feelings/emotions are still not important):

"There were no concentration camps".

"There were concentration camps".

"The moon is made of cheese".

"The moon is not made of cheese".

"There was a lunar landing".

"There was no lunar landing".

"Muhammed is the most perfect person to ever live".

"Muhammed was a paedophile".

"Muslims didn't fly planes into WTC".

"Muslims did fly planes into WTC".

"I don't want people from nation "X" in my nation".

"I want people from nation "X" in my nation".

Advocating paedophile is surely not freedom of speech as it will most definately cause bodily harm to another human being. No one is saying "put jews/mulism/atheists/whatever in gas chambers" by saying "there were no concentration camps".

There is an "uproar" in USA right now about some people standing on the flag of that nation. I say, so what, it's within their rights to do so. But they can't set the flag on fire because THAT can lead to bodily harm if/when the fire spreads.

See the difference now?

Please stick to the topic, which is a judicial French case.

French laws against racism dating from 1881. Basically it says that racism is allowed but you can't express it.

Interesting to note that the laws were applicable to French citizens only, while discriminating all people from French former colonies who were not allowed to have French citizenship at all.

In 1972 the laws against racism where merely upgraded by implementing 'provocation' also as an act of racism.

OP refers to penalty which is classified as ' apology of a crime against humanity'. Freedom of speech can't be implemented here because his statement was provocative and included inciting hatred.

Last week a similar case against Alain Soral for also 'apology of crime against humanity' resulted in a verdict of 3 months of prison with +50.000EUR indemnities.

I won't post the quotes due to respect and due to the sensitive character of the Holocaust to other TV members.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Thorgal

[Asheron]

To be crystal clear, so that people like ******* or others on this forum don't get confused; i do not deny that concentration camps existed nor that millions were murdered in them. I however demand that people are free to deny openly.

I assume you talk about law: no one has an "obligation" to be truthful nor not to spread intentional lies. If that was the case something like 100% of the worlds population commit a "crime" each day. But how is law really any kind of measure for what is right or wrong? I mean, Apartheid was legal. So was murdering jews.

Your example of "yelling fire in crowded theatre" versus "concentration camps didn't exist" does not hold. First example is clearly forbidden, and rightfully so, as you will put human lifes at risk by doing so. And to test that "concentration camps didn't exist" you can go the nearest crowded theatre and stand in the middle of it and yell as high you can "concentration camps didn't exist" and see how many people will start to trample on each other. My guess is that you will most likely be escorted out by security from the property.

To shorten everything down: feelings nor emotions are not more important than freedom of speech.

Odd isn't it, that those who are so very keen to defend the rights of Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers, cannot quite bring themselves to openly defend the 'freedom of speech' rights to those who openly advocate paedophilia. Nor would they be standing up and defending the free speech rights of those advocating support for more Paris bombings. No, its the Holocaust deniers that they wish to wrap their friendly arms around and if 'free speech' doesn't quite cut it then relativise it into the long grass. Liberal cover with nasty repercussions.

Of course laws are different in each and every nation but in general in democracies or constitutional republics you can/can't/should be able to/shouldn't be able to do the following:

It is wrong say the following because they are meant to bodily harm people:

"I want more bombings because "X" reason and someone has to do it now".

"I want more beheadings of people in the group "X" and someone has to do it now".

"Yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre".

"I want people to shot white policemen because white policeman "X" shot black thug "Y".

It is not wrong to say the following as they are not meant to bodily harm people (your feelings/emotions are still not important):

"There were no concentration camps".

"There were concentration camps".

"The moon is made of cheese".

"The moon is not made of cheese".

"There was a lunar landing".

"There was no lunar landing".

"Muhammed is the most perfect person to ever live".

"Muhammed was a paedophile".

"Muslims didn't fly planes into WTC".

"Muslims did fly planes into WTC".

"I don't want people from nation "X" in my nation".

"I want people from nation "X" in my nation".

Advocating paedophile is surely not freedom of speech as it will most definately cause bodily harm to another human being. No one is saying "put jews/mulism/atheists/whatever in gas chambers" by saying "there were no concentration camps".

There is an "uproar" in USA right now about some people standing on the flag of that nation. I say, so what, it's within their rights to do so. But they can't set the flag on fire because THAT can lead to bodily harm if/when the fire spreads.

See the difference now?

Please stick to the topic, which is a judicial French case.

French laws against racism dating from 1881. Basically it says that racism is allowed but you can't express it.

Interesting to note that the laws were applicable to French citizens only, while discriminating all people from French former colonies who were not allowed to have French citizenship at all.

In 1972 the laws against racism where merely upgraded by implementing 'provocation' also as an act of racism.

OP refers to penalty which is classified as ' apology of a crime against humanity'. Freedom of speech can't be implemented here because his statement was provocative and included inciting hatred.

Last week a similar case against Alain Soral for also 'apology of crime against humanity' resulted in a verdict of 3 months of prison with +50.000EUR indemnities.

I won't post the quotes due to respect and due to the sensitive character of the Holocaust to other TV members.

So the issue is a moral one? Because what else can "provocative" be than about moral? And it's still not "inciting hatred" to say "concentration camps didn't exist" as it's just the refusal to accept facts. It's bizarre that democracies have limitations on words or sentences because it might offend people... that kind of slippery slope have no end as everyone and everything can and will "offend".

There is a saying, "you do not have the right to not be offended".

I'll end with quote from Thomas Sowell: "The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.".