Vincent Reynouard Condemned to Two Years Prison for "Denial"

[Kingfisher]

Don't hold your breath, EtienneSC. We all know that this won't be decided on any basis of law or jurisprudence, even though we have some unlikely allies including, Simone Veil, Elizabeth Levy, and (I think) Robert Badinter. Will they speak out during the review, though. I doubt it.

[hermod]

Don't hold your breath, EtienneSC. We all know that this won't be decided on any basis of law or jurisprudence, even though we have some unlikely allies including, Simone Veil, Elizabeth Levy, and (I think) Robert Badinter. Will they speak out during the review, though. I doubt it.

I doubt Robert Badinter is on our side. I've just heard him in the French documentary "Les Faussaires de l'Histoire" vividly attack Robert Faurisson and rejoice that Roger Garaudy was dismissed by the European Court of Human Rights about the constitutionality of the Gayssot Law. Badinter was visibly very happy to read that the ECHR decreed 'Holocaust denial' is in fact hate speech and a modern form of antisemitism.

And I suspect that S. Veil, E. Levy and the other mainstream people claiming that 'Holocaust deniers' shouldn't be imprisoned, to sham in order to maintain the illusion of free speech in today's democracies. I'm waiting for actions on their part in the defense of imprisoned and persecuted revisionists before believing in their sincerity. Words about free speech and revisionists are too easy and cost nothing.

[Kingfisher]

I don't doubt that Badinter is passionately anti Revisionist. So is Debra Lipstad but she does not approve of imprisoning them. Check Badinter out here:
http://club-acacia.over-blog.com/articl ... 39554.html

C’est un aspect très intéressant de l’époque récente. Ma position est très claire, très claire : le Parlement n’a pas à dire l’histoire. Le parlement fait l’histoire, il n’a pas à la dire, ni à la fixer. Les lois mémorielles, que j’appelle des lois compassionnelles, qui sont faites pour panser des blessures, apaiser des douleurs - et je comprends ça parfaitement - mais elles n’ont pas leur place dans l’arsenal législatif. La loi est une norme. La loi a pour fonction de règlementer une société de prévoir son avenir. Elle n’a pas à prendre parti dans une querelle historique ou tout simplement à affirmer un fait historique même indiscutable. J’ajoute, il faut bien le prendre en compte : la Constitution ne le permet pas. Je le dis clairement, elle ne le permet pas.
La loi en France n'est pas comme en Angleterre, le Parlement ne peut pas tout dire. Le Parlement a une compétence d’attribution, et rien ne permet au regard de la constitution au législateur de s’ériger en tribunal de l’histoire. Rien.
Par conséquent je comprends très bien les passions et le désir des élus de panser les blessures et de faire des lois compassionnelles : ça n’est pas la finalité du Parlement et constitutionnellement c’est hors de la compétence du Parlement.

More on issues of constitutionality than of principle though it would seem.

[Hannover]

Kingfisher:

I don't doubt that Badinter is passionately anti Revisionist. So is Debra Lipstad but she does not approve of imprisoning them.

On the surface they may claim they are against imprisoning Revisionists, but I have yet to see them take a real stand when Revisionists are about to be imprisoned, or actively demand the release of imprisoned Revisionists and the repeal of the Thought Crimes laws.
It's all show, no go.

The Badinters & Lipstadts of this world are faking it.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[Kingfisher]

Well, Lipstadt spoke out against the imprisonment of David Irving and Badinter is saying here that the Gayssot Law is unconstitutional. (Sorry I was lazy about translating it, but it's a bit long.)

[Hannover]

Well, Lipstadt spoke out against the imprisonment of David Irving and Badinter is saying here that the Gayssot Law is unconstitutional. (Sorry I was lazy about translating it, but it's a bit long.)

Where and to whom did Lipstadt & Badinter speak out?
Are they actively & consistently demanding freedom of speech concerning the 'holocaust' storyline?

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[hermod]

I don't doubt that Badinter is passionately anti Revisionist. So is Debra Lipstad but she does not approve of imprisoning them. Check Badinter out here:
http://club-acacia.over-blog.com/articl ... 39554.html

C’est un aspect très intéressant de l’époque récente. Ma position est très claire, très claire : le Parlement n’a pas à dire l’histoire. Le parlement fait l’histoire, il n’a pas à la dire, ni à la fixer. Les lois mémorielles, que j’appelle des lois compassionnelles, qui sont faites pour panser des blessures, apaiser des douleurs - et je comprends ça parfaitement - mais elles n’ont pas leur place dans l’arsenal législatif. La loi est une norme. La loi a pour fonction de règlementer une société de prévoir son avenir. Elle n’a pas à prendre parti dans une querelle historique ou tout simplement à affirmer un fait historique même indiscutable. J’ajoute, il faut bien le prendre en compte : la Constitution ne le permet pas. Je le dis clairement, elle ne le permet pas.
La loi en France n'est pas comme en Angleterre, le Parlement ne peut pas tout dire. Le Parlement a une compétence d’attribution, et rien ne permet au regard de la constitution au législateur de s’ériger en tribunal de l’histoire. Rien.
Par conséquent je comprends très bien les passions et le désir des élus de panser les blessures et de faire des lois compassionnelles : ça n’est pas la finalité du Parlement et constitutionnellement c’est hors de la compétence du Parlement.

More on issues of constitutionality than of principle though it would seem.

As I said in my previous comment, words cost nothing...

Does Badinter sound like a guy against the criminalization of Holocaust revisionism between 47:20 and 48:20 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8PG7ssGa_M)? See how satisfied he is when talking about the European Court of Human Rights and its vilification of Holocaust revisionism? A disgusting sight. And does he sound like a man wanting to allow free speech for 'Holocaust deniers' between 21:25 and 23:30? The guy is patently a double-tongued liar...