Islamists & Leftists & OIC United Against Free Speech
International Free Speech and Human Rights Conference
[See video footage of the speech below the text]
Brussels 9 July 2012
Islamists & Leftists & OIC United Against Free Speech
Dear friends – resistance fighters from all over the world,
There was a time when France was hailed as the country of liberty and human rights. Words attributed to Voltaire were often quoted to epitomize these values: “I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight so that you may have the right to say it.”
All of this has disappeared, in large part because of two laws that have disrupted the lives of the French and led to the prosecution of hundreds of unfortunate people by French courts. The Pleven Act, passed in 1972, contains two legal aberrations. Previously, according to French law, in order to file a complaint, you had to have been personally the victim of damage or injury. That system worked very well.
The first aberration of this law, which was passed nearly a century after the 1881 Act that guaranteed the freedom of the press and opinion, was the introduction of new concepts such as “incitement to hatred”, or “incitement to discrimination.” The second aberration was that it allowed self-proclaimed antiracist organizations, provided they had been founded at least five years earlier, to file charges against any person they considered as fueling hatred against a group of people, because of their membership or non-membership in an ethnic group, nation, race, or religion. Our rulers had, therefore, allowed the emergence of self-proclaimed political commissars whose job it was to fight racism.
Another law, the Gayssot Act, was added eighteen years later. Under the pretext of fighting against Holocaust denial, its authors decided what should be considered a crime against humanity, and the courts could thereafter convict anyone who would have the audacity not to share the official view of history. If this law had existed in France before 1990, those who had doubted the official version of the murder of Polish officers at Katyn, long attributed to Nazi Germany, would have been charged and sentenced to heavy penalties.
We were treated to comical examples of the implementation of these two laws, which were used primarily to charge and condemn anyone who dared challenge the belief that immigration was not necessarily an opportunity for France, or that Islam was not necessarily the religion of love, tolerance and peace, as the so-called experts of political correctness repeat to us ad nauseam.
After working for more than 4 years at the anti-Islamization periodical Riposte Laïque and disseminating some 8,000 articles, I found myself, on February 3, along with Pascal Hilout, born Mohamed, dragged in front of the 17th Chamber of the Court, because of two articles deemed to promote hatred, discrimination, or violence against Muslims. In the first article, we explained that it would be them or us, Islamists or secular Republicans, in response to the claim of a leftist who was saying that it would be them or us, but was warning against the National Front. In the second article, Pascal (Hilout) explained, while quoting from an article written by Rene
Marchand, the Islamists’ strategy of conquest in Europe, through immigration, the use of (Muslim) first names, Ramadan, mosques, halal, and the re-Islamization of Muslims already living here.
I would like, without repeating the entire content of the pleas for the accusation and for the defense in a trial that lasted ten hours, to share with you our fundamental argument, as well as those of the alleged antiracist organization and their ally, the prosecutor. We have defended the idea that we were attacking a dogma, and not people. We made the distinction between Muslims and Islamists, explaining that for us, Islamists apply their religious laws even if they are in conflict with the laws of the country where they live, while a Muslim would agree to leave out certain aspects of the religious dogma to comply with positive law.
The argument of the alleged antiracist organizations was as follows. While they admit that we were making distinctions between Muslims and Islamists, they accused me of speaking with a forked tongue. Antiracist lawyers did this amazing amalgam, which is reminiscent of the methods of inquisitors and is used by many leftists: Criticizing Islam = Criticizing Muslims = Criticizing human beings = Racism = 1930 = Jews! It was therefore argued in front of the court that, 80 years later, Riposte Laïque represents the Nazi party, and Muslims are the new Jews. As for the prosecutor, she did even better, explaining that Mr. Cassen was an intelligent man – I’m flattered – but he should not fool us, and that, while recognizing that he attacked a dogma, it was obvious he wanted to promote, through his writings, hatred for all Muslims. A superb demonstration of prosecuting personal beliefs. We were not charged for our writing, but for the way the prosecutor – who had been handling the case – guessed what my thoughts were when I wrote the attacked article! For your information, she dared to require a three-month suspended prison sentence against me, and two months against Pascal, and collectively the five so-called antiracist organizations, including a vague entity called “Collective Action against Islamophobia in France” aiming to silence any criticism of Islam, asked for the modest sum of 158,850 Euros. Thanks to their great generosity, the judges only condemned us to pay a 12,200 Euro fine, without any suspended prison sentence, but this penalty was nevertheless unacceptable for us, and we decided to appeal the verdict.
Let us compare now the sentences awarded by the 17th Chamber to what happened to the Muslim-born rapper Youssoupha, who, in the lyrics of a song, explained “that he would give money to whoever would silence Zemmour,” the most famous French journalist refusing political correctness. It was a thinly-disguised death threat. He was initially sentenced to a suspended 800 Euro fine, plus 1,000 Euros in damages. However, he was acquitted in appeal, since the judges felt that these words, far from being a death threat, were part of a work of art! But we are not the first ones to have suffered the wrath of our justice system and our new inquisitors. The actress Brigitte Bardot, who has long fought for animal rights, was horrified by how barbaric halal slaughter is. She was prosecuted five times in court by District Attorney Anne Fontette and was ultimately sentenced to a 15,000 Euro fine!
Writer Michel Houellebecq dared to say that among all religions, Islam is the most stupid. The LDH and the Muslim League pressed charges, but he was acquitted. And Charlie Hebdo dared to publish a cover on which Muhammad was expressing the idea that it is hard to be venerated by idiots. In this case again, charges were pressed, but the periodical was acquitted!
Finally, we, who organized the « International Summit on the Islamization of our Countries » in Paris on December 18th, 2010, just learned that two speakers, Renaud Camus, a writer, and Jacques Philarchein, a professor of philosophy, are being prosecuted by the inquisitors of the MRAP (Movement against Racism and for Friendship between People), a so-called anti-racist organization, because of their speeches. There, too, the method is interesting. On that day, 100 accredited journalists were present, and most of them were not favorable to us. All were hoping to hear racist statements. To their great disappointment, nobody shouted “Throw the Arabs into the sea” or “Throw the Jews into the oven”, and they did not witness a single Nazi salute. So, they barely commented about this Summit. The most complete report came from the Qatari channel al-Jazeera! Yet, the next day, the MRAP accused three people of hate speech but without giving any evidence. Nothing happened for over a year. Then, that organization, seeing that the government, to its dismay, didn’t prosecute the speakers. They decided to file a complaint on their own against two of those speakers, and the overzealous prosecutor Anne de Fontette launched a preliminary inquiry, which granted a certain degree of legitimacy to the procedure, even though the French courts are already overburdened.
What can we say about those dozens of unfortunate people who, just because they refused the Islamization of their country, will be dragged without any assistance in front of French courts like gangsters, while at the same time, on our own territory, with total impunity, rappers and Islamists commit many acts of intimidation and call for violence against anyone who is not a Muslim.
The so-called antiracist associations, which, in some cases, have just a few hundred members, are flush with public subsidies. Thus, the LDH (Human Rights League) has an annual budget of 2 million Euros, and SOS Racisme has a budget of 1 million Euros. Some of those dare contest the reality of anti-White racism, and they are totally silent about the anti-Semitism of many young Muslim Arabs. Yet, they discovered the trick to get the jackpot, thanks to the complicity of leftist prosecutors obsessed with the defense of human rights.
In the first of these cases, one of these associations filed a complaint. Almost systematically in such cases, the prosecutor launches a preliminary inquiry. Afterwards, the other associations join in the lawsuit, and all them combine forces in the courtroom to lynch the unfortunate defendants and petition the court to obtain exorbitant awards. At the same time, when Christine Tasin, contributor to the anti-Islamization periodical Riposte Laïque and President of Résistance Républicaine, was threatened with death on a video by a Muslim rapper, the same prosecutors dropped the case.
The philosopher Alain Finkielkraut said that antiracism is the continuation of communism in the 21st century. The privileges granted to these new Stalinists, gravediggers of freedom of thought in France, are exorbitant. Imagine a society where we would grant such rights to other associations. Imagine if the pro animal-right Brigitte Bardot Foundation was able to drag to court anyone who would dare to write that it is still a pleasure to eat meat: Incitement to violence against a group of living beings, in this case, animals! Imagine if homosexual associations could charge with discrimination and press charges against any photographer or magazine focusing more on heterosexual than homosexual couples: discrimination against a group of people because of their sex-orientation! Imagine sectarian feminists dragging to court anyone who would dare to suggest a somehow sexually-biased portrayal of women: Incitement to sexual violence.
I have tried to demonstrate through these many examples that the attempts of Islamists to challenge our freedom to commit blasphemy in France are supported by the so- called antiracist associations, by a part of the Left, and even beyond the Left. Two Rightist members of the French National Assembly have introduced bills banning any criticism of Islam, thus challenging freedom of expression and the right to criticize all dogmas, including religions, therefore preventing any criticism of Islam. There is, in France, a modern equivalent of the sinister Nazi-Soviet alliance of the last century called the Islamist-leftist alliance, which mainly targets the Resistance fighters who refuse the Islamization of their country.
We observe that, on the ground, those who attempt to ban all criticism of Islam are not Islamists, but leftists. We saw them try to ban the “apéro saucisson pinard” (the get-together of patriots around a feast of pork sausage and wine), and later our Congress on Islamization of our countries. They were supported by the socialist mayor (of Paris) Bertrand Delanoë. We saw them physically attack our comrades several times with methods reminiscent of fascists. We even have a French politician, who obtained 11% of the votes at the latest Presidential election, and who, like Hitler, regrets the victory of Charles Martel against Arab invaders in Poitiers in 732. Although he claims to be anticlerical, he supports the offensive of Islam and halal in our country, claiming that all those who oppose it are fascists.
Those of us who oppose Islamization do not want to see Islam challenging all our democratic principles, and mainly our secularism, our freedom of conscience, our freedom to criticize all dogmas, or the principle of equality between men and women … everything that Islam is fighting with increasing determination.
In the France of 2012, in the Europe of 2012, you have to be blind, or you have to be a fool or a collaborationist, if you do not understand that Islamists are attempting to overwhelm our countries and that they are progressing at an appalling speed because of the collaborationists who shamelessly support them.
Even if we offend some of them, we will repeat it clearly yet another time: Either we will win, or they will win; either democracy will endure, or we will return to the dark ages; either we, the democrats, or they, the Islamists, will win. Make no mistake: We will do everything we can so that WE will be the winners.