Paris celebrated free speech today with the return of attacked satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which quickly sold out its millions of copies as people expressed support for the expression of controversial opinions.
That would all make a much better story, however, if France didn’t use the exact same day to arrest scores of people for “hate speech,” announcing a planned crackdown on unacceptable language.
France’s Justice Ministry ordered arrests of “racists” nationwide, and by evening 54 had been detained on various speech-related offenses, including a high profile comedian arrested for “supporting terrorism.”
The timing is outright bizarre, with the “Je suis Charlie” movement celebrating freedom of speech, and the Interior Ministry petitioning the rest of the European Union to work together to “eliminate hate speech” online.
The arrests centered around people saying things, either online or in public, which police found unacceptable. One man, a 20-year-old in Orleans, was arrested for saying “long live the Kalashnikov.”
False flag operation to silence all those opinion the establishment deems undesirable (among other things)?
The cry for "False Flag Operations" is totally retarded. As if the only thing that could be pulled would a shadowy government that in reality can't get its act together even when on-stage.
In truth, no need for "False Flag Operations" at all. Just take a chance at doing what you want by hitching it to some random daily event.
that could be too
I wasn't asserting that it was a false flag operation, just questioning whether it was. That's some "random daily event" though. I agree that the strongest argument against false flags is government incompetence. But it's not the government that we know that would orchestrate these things but indeed other forces, who aren't all that incompetent and usually succeed in their plans over time.
La Main Rouge, English: The Red Hand, was a terrorist organisation operated by the foreign Department of the French intelligence service External Documentation and Counter-Espionage Service (French: Service de Documentation Extérieure et de Contre-Espionnage, SDECE) in the 1950s, which pursued the goal to eliminate the supporters of Algerian independence and the leading members of the Front de Libération Nationale (FLN) during the Algerian War.
Several explosives attacks took place in the Federal Republic of Germany, like the assassination attempts of the arms dealer Otto Schlüter on 26 September 1956 and 3 June 1957, and the killing of Georg Puchert (alias Captain Morris) on 3 March 1959. This would ultimately never be clarified.[1]
On 27 November 1959, the then 30 years old Christian Durieux gave an interview in which he claimed the attempts against the lives of Schlüter and Puchert and the bomb attack in the port of Hamburg against the cargo ship Atlas on 1 October 1958, all on behalf of La Main Rouge. He also claim responsibility for the assassination of Algerian exiled Amédiane Ait Alcene.[1]
The freighters Emma en route from Tangiers to Gibraltar on 30 July 1957, and Alkaira in Ostend on 13 April 1959 were destroyed by explosive charges planted by La Main Rouge.[1]
In particular the apparent inaction of the French authorities was seen abroad as a note of the French Government that they have caused the aggressive crackdown on supporters of the FLN.
In 1985 New Zealand was basking in its position as leader of the anti-nuclear movement. As a country it had clearly punched above its weight. Then, just before midnight on the evening of 10 July, two explosions ripped through the hull of the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior, which was moored at Marsden Wharf in Auckland. A Portuguese crew member, Fernando Pereira, was killed in the explosions. The Rainbow Warrior had been involved in protests over French nuclear testing in the Pacific. French Secret Service (DGSE) agents were sent to prevent it leaving for another protest campaign at Mururoa Atoll.
Ship half sunk at dock
Rainbow Warrior after the attack
Two DGSE officers, Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart, were arrested on 24 July. Both were charged with murder, pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. The case was a source of considerable embarrassment to the French government. While the attack was on an international organisation rather than New Zealand itself, most New Zealanders did not make such a distinction. The fact that it was committed on New Zealand territory by a supposed friend produced a sense of outrage and a serious deterioration in relations between New Zealand and France.
Zionists have wanted Dieudonne incapacitated for a long time. They'll also prefer to call you 'racist' as they crucify you…rather than the done-to-death 'anti semite.'
Most of human social behavior comes down to Us versus Them.
2013: “Charlie Hebdo”, not racist? If you say so… by Olivier Cyran (former Charlie Hebdo staffer)
Doubtless I would not have had the patience or the stoutness of heart to follow, week after week, the distressing transformation which took over your team after the events of September 11, 2001. I was no longer part of Charlie Hebdo when the suicide planes made their impact on your editorial line, but the Islamophobic neurosis which bit by bit took over your pages from that day on affected me personally, as it ruined the memory of the good moments I spent on the magazine during the 1990s… http://posthypnotic.randomstatic.net/charliehebdo…
Very worthwhile statement, in translation, by Olivier Cyran. Not sure how many versions are out there, but the gist of it is that a brilliant magazine became totally neocon and alienated many of its original creative spirits as it descended into anti-Arabism and anti-immigrant bullying. It had become a truly repulsive site for people to mock women in veils and call them prostitutes, for instance, and to fantasize about disgracing all of the natives of the Mideast, except for Israel. You could get fired for mocking Israel.
Is France on the verge of becoming an apartheid state?
Free speech (must) include individuals whose (opinions) may not be
in accordance with yours or mine. Otherwise, it's hypocrisy as usual.
Je suis schizophrène.
So is there some official Department of Racists so we know which racism is celebrated and which racism is punished with prison? Or is it better to have a vague definition so everyone shuts up in order to avoid arrest?
Well the state department has or had an 'office to combat and monitor anti-semitism'. That's obviously the only type of racism that seriously matters to them.
Never let a crisis go to waste.
Also, the linked article on the arrest of Diedonne say there were 3.7 million marching in support. Before this is over I expect to see it reported that every person on the planet was there, including Charles de Gaulle who rose from the dead and was heard to declare, "Hey, wait a minute, Je sues Charlie!!"
Charlie Heebdo is free speech but Dieudonne is hate speech?
Obviously with this double standard, it's clear some French jews are the deciders on which is free speech and which is hate speech.
I honestly can't see how cartoons mocking Mohammed aren't seen as hate speech, but Dieudonne with his harmless Quenelle gesture (UP the establishment) is vile and antisemitic LOL
Like I said, obviously France has contracted out it's selective suppression of free speech to some jewish people, who decide for everyone else what is acceptable and what is not.
Cowardly frogs.
The Enlightenment turned into the Terror. The free speech movement of the Sixties in France has become hate speech which focuses on one out-group, and which calls for pogroms and expulsions, by implication (and now by false flag).
Government force — Totally corrupts the moral fabric of society
Ask any of the thousands of psychologists working for government in France and they will tell you, the fastest way to escalate hate speech and division in society is to force people to not be speaking what they be thinking. Forced by the deadly force of government, to be insincere and a guilt driven creature of government.
I'm of the mind that all this "supporting free speech" malarkey is just that. The citizens of the world are more opinionated now but they are still relatively cowardly. So, this explosion of support for freedom of the press and speech…what if what the supporters are really saying is that they are anti-Islam. Much easier and acceptable to rant against the loss of free speech when the real target is a religion.
Case in point, all those "world leaders" (well, many of them – some didn't bother to jump at the photo-op) who profess to support freedom of the press and freedom of speech don't support them in practical application. Some of the "reporters" who actually talked to some of the protestors in the streets of Paris actually showed that the underlying basis for "protesting" was more about how the clash of cultures is becoming a serious problem in France, not necessarily the pressures being put on publications.
This is becoming a world encompassing religious conflict. Personally, I believe the practicing of religion outside the home, any religion, should be prohibited. At least until they can prove that they can play nice with others.
OK, where are my meds…
Haven't seen anyone hit it 'right' just yet–have heard it said it's "not free speech," but by itself that's just alienating. Here gos: France's gov't is not alleged to have retaliated against the magazine, a non-gov't entity is alleged to have attacked it supposedly on the grounds they didn't like what it 'said' or drew. That's why it's not a 'free speech' issue, it's strictly one of criminal violence (plus the thought crime component that gos over well for … er…some). Calling it a 'free speech' issue is intended to appeal to most people's live-and-let-live 'principles'…and, yes, to scapegoat the usual enemy for being less live-and-let-live-y 'than thou'. But, as non government entities ourselves, we're not required to 'respect' 'speech' at all–the gov't is…and we really don't…apart from not whacking each other over it perhaps minimally for fear of the consequences of that escalation…reasonable criminal charges or even just bad PR for 'the cause.' …so I don't even have to look at it long enough to notice the hypocritical manifestations you did; it was a flatly bogus use of the term (c.f. e.g. Lipstadt's published view of 'free speech')…
Yep; becoming a world-wide religious conflict, and will continue until someone in great moral authority speaks out against all the injustice's of "Christians" against Muslims, and vice versa. I nominate Pope Francis for the job. Curmudge Vermont; can we share those Meds?
I don't think France is celebrating free speech, although the people at Charlie Hebdo seem to think it is. What people marched for, I think, was to call on their government to make sure that a wave of terrorism doesn't sweep accross France. That means reining in people who encourage or provoke terrorism. If Charlie Hebdo continues to insult Muslims, there will eventually be calls for it to back off. Thus, the arrests are perfectly logical in that context. The offence involved is not hate speech. It's a well-established French criminal offence called justification of crime and goes way beyond terrorism. Anyone who justifies the commission of any crime can be prosecuted.
Now it's not marching for free speech? Hmmmm? O.k. mr. Kenny, you get to change the goalposts one more time. And it's not because you have any credibility left on this site.
Yes, I agree. But the fact is that marchers are confused as to the source of the thing they march against. Factions have been armed in the Mideast to fight the Soviets or their surrogates (al Qaeda in Afghanistan and also in Bosnia), ISIS in Syria. If you don't create the enemy you don't have to worry. The Mideast has been chugging along for a long time.
The post-colonial immigration is a case of paying the piper – you destroy their homes, they ally with you, you promise to let them in so they don't suffer revenge attacks for supporting you. Thus, we have a large Vietnamese population in the US. But thank goodness, they are not a revenge culture.
The French had a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity for "…reining in people who encourage or provoke terrorism…" at the head of the march on Sunday. I guess they felt it was not worthwhile since the ring-leader was a no-show.
I agree they are not celebrating free speech. They are marching against Evildoers; doesn't matter who they are, as long as the poor working classes are focused on Outside Agitators instead of the banksters who are imposing even more austerity.
Fifty years ago we all hated the Evil Commies. I remember those years. Now we all hate the Evil Terrorists, whoever they are. And we all love and obey Our Dear Leaders who promise to keep us safe from Evil (except their own).
f*ck france and the west. The phony "freedom of speech" is a western criminal tool to kill, rape, persecute and rob Muslims and Islamic country. Until all of YOU are not disappeared from the region you will be viewed as an enemy and the main terrorists. F*ck off NOW
Well antiwar.com, didn't you know that free speech is limited to speech that is supportive of the government in power? And before any people of any other country, including the US and especially the US, they need to understand that their country is guilty of the same crimes.
I mean really, would anybody support WW2 Nazi's free speech which dejpicted Jewish people as horrible monsters? All you would be supporters of free speech should give that a bit of thought before you go on harping about limits to free speech.
Comparing CH to Emile Zola is all I need to do to know who is a hero and who deserves my contempt.
For all those who think they are Charlie, and think that free speech should be unlimited, know that the Pope has come out and unequivocally stated that: FREE SPEECH HAS LIMITS. There's no mistaking that was directed at the Charlie Hebdo provocations of Muslims.
So do you care? No, you don't but it's at least worth saying.
It's also worth contemplating whether or not the vicious slaughter of the cartoonists would have happened without the provocation. Let's not be a part of trying it out again to see!
Muslims are constantly are told not to be offended .And when they try the use the existing laws like any one else they are ridiculed and belittled.
I've never heard of anyone telling Muslims not to be offended.
I've heard plenty of people telling Muslims that it doesn't MATTER if they're offended, but that's not the same thing.
Let's see the timeline of events, though:
Palestine puts for a bid for statehood in the UN
Fran expresses it will support such a bid
Israel warms France if it supports Palestine it may place itself in danger
UN bid fails, but France makes its position clear
Days later, France is the victim of multiple "Islamic Terrorist" attacks.
During a march insolidarity, Netanyahu defies French desires and attends front and center
Now why would French Muslims- in country that bends over backwards for Muslims, sometimes at it own detriment- suddenly place themselves at odds with that oh so accomodating nation?
So Charlie Hebdo runs anti-Muslim cartoons- when has it NOT done so? Why the attack, and why now?
I think this is definitely has some aspects of a false-flag attack, and it's entirely plausibile it was set up by a party or parties as yet unknown (I'm looking at you, Netanyahu) in order to drive a wedge between the French government and Frances' Muslm population as punishment for France's support of Palestine.
Charlie Hebdo Shootings – Censored Video
This is footage of the Charlie Hebdo shootings which has been restricted or taken down from a number of websites. As you will see it contains no blood, gore or graphic violence. It does however punch a major hole in the official story.