Je suis Vincent?

Amazingfun

Or just Je Suis Hypocrite?

How can the French square the massive support for "free speech" re: the Charlie Hebdo horror...and yet put this man in prison for 2 years ?

Revisionist Historian Vincent Reynouard has been sentenced to 2 years in prison under France's unconstitutional Gayssot Act, which criminalizes criticism of the findings of the 1945-46 Nuremberg Military Tribunal

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2vnikf/je_suis_hypocrite_revisionist_historian_vincent/

frag420

Yeah but Hitler something something

The_Valeyard

They also mulled over the idea of suing Foxnews* recently for what they said about Paris. Free speech for some, silence for others.




* i do use the word 'news' very lightly in relation to Fox.

Arsemageddon

The French being hypocritical?

Sacre bleu!

Who would have thunk it?

shruikan2553

You arent trying to suggest that politicians would say something that is popular while not actually believing it are you?

wretcheddomain

It is hypocritical, but there are historical reasons for this - however frustrating they may be.

Amazingfun

And More:

Je Suis Brigitte: Brigitte Bardot On Trial Again for Insulting Muslims

Former film star Brigitte Bardot, France’s iconic blonde bombshell and “sex kitten” who reigned supreme from 1952 – 1973, has been on trial five times for insulting Muslims and “inciting racial hatred.” The prosecutor in her fifth trial, Anne de Fontette, wants a heftier fine and a tougher sentence: the equivalent of $24,000 and a two month (hopefully) suspended jail term.

http://www.vdare.com/posts/je-suis-brigitte-brigitte-bardot-on-trial-again-for-insulting-muslims

diddley

I've never understood the 'don't question the holocaust' approach by some EU countries. I can see that it might protect victims from unnecessary hurt, but why protect something that there's already loads of evidence for? It just fuels right wing extremist propaganda.

K4t

Embarrassing behaviour by the French; almost as embarrassing as the law itself.

AndonHandon

There must be some awful guilt on the continent among certain sects. Millions of Germans supported the Nazi party policies and many millions of their offspring are still alive and well nowadays, arguably not entirely unsympathetic to their parents' political allegiances. Perhaps they are worried that the expression of views which criticise, deny or offend the victims of the Holocaust it will stir up fresh anti-semetism among them and turn them into twenty first century Hitlers?

France has terrible anti-Semitic problems so it is within that context the law finds it's genesis. I don't agree with it, however.

Amazingfun

diddley wrote: »

why protect something that there's already loads of evidence for? .

This. Why not subject him to constant mockery and a thorough thrashing if the evidence against his work is so irrefutable? I just don't get it.

shruikan2553

diddley wrote: »

I've never understood the 'don't question the holocaust' approach by some EU countries. I can see that it might protect victims from unnecessary hurt, but why protect something that there's already loads of evidence for? It just fuels right wing extremist propaganda.

It is odd, other people when they are spouting **** like holocaust denial just claim that its their opinion and they are being oppressed by people not taking them seriously. Its annoying but not exactly prison worthy.

Turtwig

diddley wrote: »

I've never understood the 'don't question the holocaust' approach by some EU countries. I can see that it might protect victims from unnecessary hurt, but why protect something that there's already loads of evidence for? It just fuels right wing extremist propaganda.

Because in not too distant times past. Denial of the holocaust was a way of distancing oneself from their culpability in the persecution and execution of Jews. The laws were almost a necessity for justice to prevail.

I'd like to think such laws aren't necessary now but it is unfair on European nations to hold them up as bastions of hypocrisy. The time those laws were drafted they were needed.

A better question to consider is the attitude of French people towards such laws. Many would, like the posters in this thread, suggest they are obsolete.

The thing that annoys me about the alleged "hypocrisy" of the Europeans towards Jews is it's mostly used as a propaganda tool by leaders of countries with sweet fk all free speech. Contrast Jordan to France.

That isn't to say pointing out such criticisms aren't merited. They are. I just hate the way some groups choose to play this card. It's used by groups to argue for limitations to free speech.

FloatingVoter

It just gives the Holocaust denying idiots fuel for their conspiracy theories. In a hard earned free world we point and laugh at Hitler fans. We do not turn them into martyrs for their idiotic non-cause.
They have YouTube channels for these clowns. We'll even have a few along here before long to vent their rage at this. I'll be off discussing the cinematography in 50 Shades or something more useful while they spout their "philosophy".

Amazingfun

Suggestion: turn your volume waaaay down before you press play

Baby Jane

This is exactly it - censure of this and other odious sh*te totally makes martyrs of those who espouse it. Let them have their free speech, others have the free speech to refute them - not that there is much likelihood of changing their minds, but at least it helps show up the holes in their views.

magentis

Im getting really sick of this "je suis"
malarkey.
Its like that water protester guy in the news with his "je suis derek" cap.

Je suis wanker more like.

Mountainsandh

I don't get the reaction here : restrictions on free speech have always been upheld in France. It's part and parcel of such a delicate right as free speech that there should be restrictions, that's not news, that's not unlikely or extravagant.
Back in the 1990s I remember a lecturer from college (Lyon) being on trial for same.
Most French families would have/have had a grand parent who had recollections of victims, relatives of victims, or events they directly witnessed in relation to the holocaust. My own childhood's best friend's grandparents had successfully fled via several countries before the **** hit the fan.
My point is that this is much closer to French people's hearts than over here maybe, and so it is the sacrosanct exception it is.

Also, Hollande met the CRIF just last week

Haven't checked the article, but I would take a wild guess the guy and his ideologies are somehow connected to Dieudonne's rants.

Edit: just checked. The guy recorded a 45 minutes video in which he condemned some French organizations for taking youngsters on tours to commemorate DDay and honour the memory of those who died. Incidentally he was also accused of using images without prior consent, once again (2007 previously convicted).

In video, he went on to deny holocaust again, or not exactly, this time he denied it was a crime against humanity.
And yes, Dieudonne is a follower.

Tony EH

Amazingfun wrote: »

Or just Je Suis Hypocrite?

How can the French square the massive support for "free speech" re: the Charlie Hebdo horror...and yet put this man in prison for 2 years ?



http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2vnikf/je_suis_hypocrite_revisionist_historian_vincent/

Staggering hypocrisy, enabled by an utterly ridiculous law.

conorh91

AndonHandon wrote: »

Millions of Germans supported the Nazi party policies and many millions of their offspring are still alive and well nowadays, arguably not entirely unsympathetic to their parents' political allegiances.

It is not 'arguable' that millions of Germans are in any way sympathetic (i.e. "not entirely unsympathetic") to Nazism.

There is no evidence for that at all. Jesus, get a grip.

Tony EH

AndonHandon wrote: »

Millions of Germans supported the Nazi party policies

At the very height of their power the nazis had about 7.5 to 8 million members from a nation of over 80,000,000. That's members of all types, from hardcore far right devotees that believed that the party could do no wrong to mildly conservative and centrists. The vast majority of party members remained mere signatory members. That is, they were members of the party because they signed up and gave some sort of lip service. But they were about as far away from Himmler as most people today. Most "nazis" were happy to sign up because Hitler gave them work, which was thin on the ground for many Germans during the 30's. The nazis were never too successful in recruiting from urban areas, with large cities, and a lot of their support came from rural parts of Germany, from people who had seen their fortunes change under Hitler. The extent of their support by and large "wow, I have something to do again and some money in my pocket for the kids. This Hitler chap is ok by me."

AndonHandon wrote: »

and many millions of their offspring are still alive and well nowadays, arguably not entirely unsympathetic to their parents' political allegiances.

This is absolute nonsense. While there are people today that may be unwilling to rant and rave to the nth degree to try and prove their "anti-nazi" credentials, there are very, very few who would condone the extreme excesses of the National Socialists, or even long for the day when the camps start opening again. Not even modern far right organisations would be in agreement with that.

That is not to say that there aren't those that believe that their parents/grandparents were saints and unfairly vilified (rightly or wrongly), there are, and I have spoken to a few in my time.

BUT...and it's and important but, there are NO laws that can be enacted that will change peoples minds regarding such familial issues.

"Holocaust denial laws" are an absolute farce and worse they make a mockery of any notion of "democracy".

Amazingfun

"Holocaust denial laws" are an absolute farce and worse they make a mockery of any notion of "democracy".

Agreed.

Further, the notion that placing such people in prison is good for anyone is ridiculous especially when millions of Europeans just claimed to support the right of outfits such as Charie Hebdo to freely "offend" who they like.

Dravokivich

magentis wrote: »

Im getting really sick of this "je suis"
malarkey.
Its like that water protester guy in the news with his "je suis derek" cap.

Je suis wanker more like.

Eh,

That'd be "Vous etes le wanker"

AndonHandon

conorh91 wrote: »

It is not 'arguable' that millions of Germans are in any way sympathetic (i.e. "not entirely unsympathetic") to Nazism.

There is no evidence for that at all. Jesus, get a grip.

Nazism wasn't all bad. The Nazis turned a broken Germany into a powerhouse and boosted the national morale massively. The anti-semetism was well known, of course, but the mass executions were not (labour camps was the believed destination).

Tony EH wrote: »

At the very height of their power the nazis had about 7.5 to 8 million members from a nation of over 80,000,000. That's members of all types, from hardcore far right devotees that believed that the party could do no wrong to mildly conservative and centrists. The vast majority of party members remained mere signatory members. That is, they were members of the party because they signed up and gave some sort of lip service. But they were about as far away from Himmler as most people today. Most "nazis" were happy to sign up because Hitler gave them work, which was thin on the ground for many Germans during the 30's. The nazis were never too successful in recruiting from urban areas, with large cities, and a lot of their support came from rural parts of Germany, from people who had seen their fortunes change under Hitler. The extent of their support by and large "wow, I have something to do again and some money in my pocket for the kids. This Hitler chap is ok by me."



This is absolute nonsense. While there are people today that may be unwilling to rant and rave to the nth degree to try and prove their "anti-nazi" credentials, there are very, very few who would condone the extreme excesses of the National Socialists, or even long for the day when the camps start opening again. Not even modern far right organisations would be in agreement with that.

That is not to say that there aren't those that believe that their parents/grandparents were saints and unfairly vilified (rightly or wrongly), there are, and I have spoken to a few in my time.

BUT...and it's and important but, there are NO laws that can be enacted that will change peoples minds regarding such familial issues.

"Holocaust denial laws" are an absolute farce and worse they make a mockery of any notion of "democracy".

That is a huge number of card-carrying members. The vast majority of people would not be card-carrying members of a political party but would still vote for that party; how else would the Nazis have come to power? There was no Trojan horse ploy by the Nazis to get to power, people knew what they were voting for. As above, the Nazis made Germany a great place to live in again for Germans and restored national pride. Jews were persecuted from 1933 when the Nazis came to power but were not shipped out until 1940/41 for extermination. That is a long period of persecution which Germans would have fully been aware of before extermination began. Impossible without the compliance (direct or indirect) of the population.

Tony EH

AndonHandon wrote: »

That is a huge number of card-carrying members.

The nazis had under 10% registered support at the height of their power. That's not "huge" at all, especially in a country were all other parties were banned and being a party member was actually forced on a lot of people. Many, many professionals were "encouraged" to join the party for the betterment, or existence of their career.

AndonHandon wrote: »

The vast majority of people would not be card-carrying members of a political party but would still vote for that party; how else would the Nazis have come to power?

The nazis had only about 200,000 members in the early 1930's, but managed to garner 30% of the vote in the 1932 elections. The reason being the millions that became unemployed between 1929 and 1932. The Great Depression did more for nazi support than any other element. Despite that, their voting support had actually gone down by a couple of million votes. They were, in fact, losing support before an aging Hindenburg made Hitler Chancellor of Germany. Most of the nazi's support base came from disenfranchised people, who had no work and were let down by the previous Weimar Republic and previous post war governments and the middle classes that had their money wiped out. The wealthy, too, were favorable to Hitler's anti Communist stance. They all viewed Hitler as the only alternative left from a bad lot.

AndonHandon wrote: »

There was no Trojan horse ploy by the Nazis to get to power, people knew what they were voting for.

Yes. People voted for a man that said that he would get the population back to work again and make Germany a strong nation once more. That was the platform upon which Hitler and the nazis got to power.

AndonHandon wrote: »

As above, the Nazis made Germany a great place to live in again for Germans and restored national pride. Jews were persecuted from 1933 when the Nazis came to power but were not shipped out until 1940/41 for extermination.

Jews were openly persecuted from around 1935 onwards, after the Nuremberg race laws came into effect. Even so, many Jews continued to live relatively ok for the number of years between 1935 and the outbreak of the war, even if their rights had been getting eroded steadily. The biggest blow to Jewish rights was in 1938, when it became official policy for Jews to be completely segregated from German life. However, it would not be until 1941/42, after the Wehrmacht had floundered in Russia and Hitler realised that he was in for a long war, that the decision was made to do away the Jews within Reich territory.

AndonHandon wrote: »

That is a long period of persecution which Germans would have fully been aware of before extermination began. That is a long period of persecution which Germans would have fully been aware of before extermination began. Impossible without the compliance (direct or indirect) of the population.

You are also mistaken about the extent of what the Germans would have known about nazi persecution of the Jews, or what they would have been able to do to prevent it.

After 1933, Hitler put into effect the "enabling act" (Ermächtigungsgesetz), which essentially gave him dictatorial powers. He could enact legislation without the input of the Reichstag. This had huge implications for German life. It enabled Hitler to eliminate his political opponents and thus create a situation whereby the National Socialists were the only game in town as it were. Hitler banned any opposition parties and in a series of strokes subtracted all alternatives from German politics. There was literally nothing the Germans could do politically to get rid of the nazis.

By 1935, when the Nuremberg laws were signed, the nazis had already been in power for over two years. By1938, the complete segregation of Germany's Jews was achieved and they had been in power for five years, without any official political opposition.

In addition to that, Germany's Jews was a relatively small number, about 500,000 mainly centred in the larger cities. The vast majority of Germans had therefore never even seen a Jew. Into the bargain, over half of them emigrated between 1933 and 1939, decreasing their number drastically to a point where there were only about 200,000 Jews in the entire country by the time the war broke out and the nations attention was absorbed by that.

So, what the nazis did to the Jews of Germany happened on a slow boil, with the majority of its citizens blissfully unaware and even those that were aware that Mr and Mrs Goldstein down the road were being discriminated against, there was bugger all they could do about it in a country that had become a dictatorial state.

kidneyfan

I'd love it if there was a Paddy Hebdo as scurrilous and vile as Charlie Hebdo. Unthinkable in this country so we can't accuse anyone else of lacking free speech.

reprise

For those opposed to the law (and I have very mixed feelings myself) what do you think would be the appropriate course of action in a scenario where, for example, Muslim schools decided that holocaust denial was to be incorporated into the school curriculum?

osarusan

Baby Jane wrote: »

Let them have their free speech, others have the free speech to refute them - not that there is much likelihood of changing their minds, but at least it helps show up the holes in their views.

The problem with this approach is that not everybody is open to rational debate and weighing up evidence, and not all positions are rooted in them either.
I mean, if there is a person who could be convinced to change their position on the holocaust ( changing from denying it to accepting it) based on the reason and evidence presented in such a debate, then how likely is it that they would have become a denier in the first place?

It's the same with groups like young earth creationist types - the ones who agree with them already do so in the face of logic and evidence - seeing them crushed in a debate is by no means guaranteed to change their position.

keithclancy

They are just angry and confused.

Things always get f*cked up when Religion and Politics get mixed, hence why in Pubs its forbidden.

K4t

reprise wrote: »

For those opposed to the law (and I have very mixed feelings myself) what do you think would be the appropriate course of action in a scenario where, for example, Muslim schools decided that holocaust denial was to be incorporated into the school curriculum?

If they're privately funded schools then it's their choice. Your post is a good example of why the state should not fund faith schools however, whether they be Muslim or Catholic. It's why secular schools are so important and should constantly be strived towards.

Cuban Pete

Baby Jane wrote: »

This is exactly it - censure of this and other odious sh*te totally makes martyrs of those who espouse it. Let them have their free speech, others have the free speech to refute them - not that there is much likelihood of changing their minds, but at least it helps show up the holes in their views.

Not really. They'll simply switch to whinging about "PC gone mad" because, for people like that, freedom of speech means no one is allowed criticise or contradict them.

No matter what you do they'll make martyrs out of themselves.

reprise

K4t wrote: »

If they're privately funded schools then it's their choice.

Why stop at holocaust denial? Why not fully fledged Jihad? or racial superiority?

K4t wrote: »

Your post is a good example of why the state should not fund faith schools however, whether they be Muslim or Catholic. It's why secular schools are so important and should constantly be strived towards.

The issue I raised means that you can teach holocaust denial as a historical "fact", to any faith, regardless of funding. I don't think this is a good example at all.

K4t

reprise wrote: »

Why stop at holocaust denial? Why not fully fledged Jihad? or racial superiority?

Well, because they're all stupid according to reason and logic. But if private schools want to teach that stuff then that should be their right. However, we have state funded schools that teach a Christian God exists and that his son performed miracles on earth a few thousand years ago. The state should not support religious indoctrination.

The issue I raised means that you can teach holocaust denial as a historical "fact", to any faith, regardless of funding. I don't think this is a good example at all.

You were the one who mentioned "Muslim schools". Of course it's not a good example, but it's a private school so it's their example to set. You don't mind your religious beliefs being enforced on children in state funded schools; at least the holocaust denial teaching would be restricted to private schools.

reprise

K4t wrote: »

Well, because they're all stupid according to reason and logic. But if private schools want to teach that stuff then that should be their right. However, we have state funded schools that teach a Christian God exists and that his son performed miracles on earth a few thousand years ago. The state should not support religious indoctrination.
You were the one who mentioned "Muslim schools". Of course it's not a good example, but it's a private school so it's their example to set. You don't mind your religious beliefs being enforced on children in state funded schools; at least the holocaust denial teaching would be restricted to private schools.

I think you are at danger of letting your hobbyhorse completely blind you to the subject matter and frankly, your ease with any kind of revisionist or radical manure being heaped on kids, regardless of legality, so long as its paid for, is absurd.

end of the road

Amazingfun wrote: »

Or just Je Suis Hypocrite?

How can the French square the massive support for "free speech" re: the Charlie Hebdo horror...and yet put this man in prison for 2 years ?



http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2vnikf/je_suis_hypocrite_revisionist_historian_vincent/

disgusting. clear france is against freedom of speach, and only supports it when it agrees with the government

reprise

end of the road wrote: »

disgusting. clear france is against freedom of speach, and only supports it when it agrees with the government

Do you think Holocaust denial is a good thing?

end of the road

reprise wrote: »

Do you think Holocaust denial is a good thing?

no, i think anyone who does it is a loony considering the evidence exists to disprove them, however i don't believe it should be a jailible offence

K4t

reprise wrote: »

your ease with any kind of revisionist or radical manure being heaped on kids, regardless of legality, so long as its paid for, is absurd.

The state already pays for radical manure being heaped on kids in the form of religious indoctrination in Catholic schools. It's hypocritical and misguided to criticise private schools for teaching something which defies logic and reason, while at the same time accepting it as ok for the state to do the same, simply because you happen to agree with the radical manure the state is heaping on kids.

reprise wrote: »

Do you think Holocaust denial is a good thing?

Nope, but arresting people for denying the Holocaust is much worse.

conorh91

kidneyfan wrote: »

I'd love it if there was a Paddy Hebdo as scurrilous and vile as Charlie Hebdo. Unthinkable in this country

I have a very straight-laced colleague who was involved with a Trinity College magazine which poked fun at Muslims (and others) long before Charlie Hebdo was heard of on these shores.

They printed things about Muslims that the swear-filter on boards.ie won't even let me repeat. I think they had their funding removed by College authorities, but certainly were not prohibited by any legal arm of the State.

ambro25

K4t wrote: »

The state already pays for radical manure being heaped on kids in the form of religious indoctrination in Catholic schools. It's hypocritical and misguided to criticise private schools for teaching something which defies logic and reason, while at the same time accepting it as ok for the state to do the same, simply because you happen to agree with the radical manure the state is heaping on kids.

That may well be the case in Ireland...but it isn't in France (state or private schooling, catholic or otherwise).

reprise

K4t wrote: »

The state already pays for radical manure being heaped on kids in the form of religious indoctrination in Catholic schools. It's hypocritical and misguided to criticise private schools for teaching something which defies logic and reason, while at the same time accepting it as ok for the state to do the same, simply because you happen to agree with the radical manure the state is heaping on kids.

Nope, but arresting people for denying the Holocaust is much worse.

Dude, I am not indulging your hobbyhorse any further. You are OK with teaching holocaust denial to kids. That is on topic and that is very very sad.

reprise

end of the road wrote: »

no, i think anyone who does it is a loony considering the evidence exists to disprove them, however i don't believe it should be a jailible offence

Do you have any idea why it is a jailable offence or can you even think why it might merit such a fate?

K4t

reprise wrote: »

Dude, I am not indulging your hobbyhorse any further. You are OK with teaching holocaust denial to kids. That is on topic and that is very very sad.

Dude, I never said I was OK with it. I simply said I would not support state suppression of the teaching of said beliefs in a private school. The key is to improve state schools and teach kids according to reason and logic, while simultaneously ridiculing those who would teach Holocaust denial to kids in private schools.

reprise

K4t wrote: »

Dude, I never said I was OK with it. I simply said I would not support state suppression of the teaching of said beliefs in a private school. The key is to improve state schools and teach kids according to reason and logic, while simultaneously ridiculing those who would teach Holocaust denial to kids in private schools.

Guide to world peace:

1. Implement K4T schools plans.
2. Laugh at those teaching holocaust denial, terrorism, racial superiority etc.
3...........
4. Success.

Amazingfun

reprise wrote: »

Dude, I am not indulging your hobbyhorse any further. You are OK with teaching holocaust denial to kids. That is on topic and that is very very sad.

That is not even close to what he said and your hysterics don't change the fact that putting people in prison for saying things that offend is ridiculous and ought to end immediately.

Vincent Reynouard is a threat to who, exactly? What does imprisoning him for 2 years accomplish?

K4t

reprise wrote: »

Guide to world peace:

1. Implement K4T schools plans.
2. Laugh at those teaching holocaust denial, terrorism, racial superiority etc.
3...........
4. Success.

Truly bizarre.

reprise

K4t wrote: »

Truly bizarre.

Indeed it is.

Baby Jane

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I don't get the reaction here : restrictions on free speech have always been upheld in France. It's part and parcel of such a delicate right as free speech that there should be restrictions, that's not news, that's not unlikely or extravagant.
Back in the 1990s I remember a lecturer from college (Lyon) being on trial for same.
Most French families would have/have had a grand parent who had recollections of victims, relatives of victims, or events they directly witnessed in relation to the holocaust. My own childhood's best friend's grandparents had successfully fled via several countries before the **** hit the fan.
My point is that this is much closer to French people's hearts than over here maybe, and so it is the sacrosanct exception it is.

Also, Hollande met the CRIF just last week

Haven't checked the article, but I would take a wild guess the guy and his ideologies are somehow connected to Dieudonne's rants.

Edit: just checked. The guy recorded a 45 minutes video in which he condemned some French organizations for taking youngsters on tours to commemorate DDay and honour the memory of those who died. Incidentally he was also accused of using images without prior consent, once again (2007 previously convicted).

In video, he went on to deny holocaust again, or not exactly, this time he denied it was a crime against humanity.
And yes, Dieudonne is a follower.

But people's point is that there can't be a call for freedom of speech from one angle, but forbidding of it from another.
I totally agree people shouldn't be able to say whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want, but I do think they should be able to air it *somewhere* - so that it can be challenged. Actually, scratch that - something like Holocaust denial, I don't like it getting a platform, to be honest, but the point is that it's better in my opinion for it to be out in the open (within limits - obviously not talks being held about it in a synagogue! And I definitely don't think it should be taught to children) instead of festering away underground, and its proponents feeling like martyrs and recruiting messed-up easy targets as their followers.

Mountainsandh

Baby Jane wrote: »

But people's point is that there can't be a call for freedom of speech from one angle, but forbidding of it from another.
I totally agree people shouldn't be able to say whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want, but I do think they should be able to air it *somewhere* - so that it can be challenged.

But that's completely contradictory, on one hand you agree there should be restrictions, but when restrictions are applied, you think that shouldn't be ?

French people with their different history, roots, and mixed population, have decided that this particular point was one exception to freedom of speech.

The question of whether that restriction is still relevant at this point in time is a legitimate one. Now that there are very few remaining victims, or close relatives and friends of victims, I guess the younger generations might be expected to accept that some idiots will always come up with such conspiracy theories. We are all more open, what with the internet, and we are all so exposed to all sorts of speech on the internet that I think it would be valid to argue that descendants need not be protected as their grand-parents were.
But as the law stands, it is still an offence to deny the holocaust publicly in France, or to deny that something is a crime against humanity when it has been established that it is.
Which is what he did : deny that the holocaust was a crime against humanity.

Actually, scratch that - something like Holocaust denial, I don't like it getting a platform, to be honest, but the point is that it's better in my opinion for it to be out in the open (within limits - obviously not talks being held about it in a synagogue! And I definitely don't think it should be taught to children) instead of festering away underground, and its proponents feeling like martyrs and recruiting messed-up easy targets as their followers.

I kind of agree with that, but again, that has not come to pass, and the law is still the one that applied since "lucky" Jewish ladies and gentlemen living in France who escaped the holocaust were alive.

My grandfather was in his 20s when the Germans invaded France, he was a soldier. My grandmother's house was requisitionned by the Germans, and she had to cook and do their laundry. My grandmother passed away a few years ago, my grandfather just last year. (I'm French, we're catholics)(or at least they were, I'm not anymore :rolleyes:)
This exception to freedom of speech was deemed important to show respect for people who were alive, and had memories of these events. That's not hypocritical. That was showing respect for the old gentleman in his 90s who lived on the 3rd floor, and could still remember the events. Or the old lady in the nursing home, who might still tear up at the thought of her big sister whose hiding host family home was raided while hers wasn't.

Maybe in a few years when all chance of a survivor has faded, the French authorities might envisage changing this particular aspect of the free speech law, I don't know, maybe it will be OK to do it then.

But right now, it's not hypocritical, it's upholding an exception that was really meaningful to several generations of people living in France.

I'm OK with that being upheld for another while.

Mountainsandh

K4t your remarks about schools are completely and utterly irrelevant to the French situation, where even a display of a religious nature is forbidden ie. a cross on a wall.

There hasn't been religious education in French schools since before my parents' time, and I'm 41.

The restriction on holocaust denial is as I mentioned above, a mark of respect for people who may still be alive.

Baby Jane

If there's to be a blanket exception though, then free speech does not actually apply in France, so that's why people view an impassioned defence of it in one scenario but very much not in another, to be hypocritical (when it comes to the "Charlie" atrocity, I'd be far more of the "Don't go on a killing spree" outlook rather than the "Protect free speech" one).

I do agree with restrictions in relation to anything that would hurt a group of people (i.e. how it's said, where it's said, who it's said to) - so yeh, that means I don't agree with unlimited free speech, but that applies everywhere. "Free speech" is actually a bit of a misnomer, seeing as what people can publish/broadcast is not without its limits, therefore it isn't really "free".
And that's the right way in my opinion - if there really was free speech, anyone could broadcast/publish anything, and nobody can, even in any democracy (private enterprise has a say too).

My view regarding Holocaust denial is that it does not warrant imprisonment, but the proponents of it need to expect a backlash ("free speech" from the other direction).