how can he be prosecuted for that? even if he did name the jew.. which he damn well should have, playing around with these terms only grants them a further illusion of power.
how can he be prosecuted for that?
Who knows. They might not succeed, but they are trying. It really goes to show the power (((they))) have.
There is no constitutional freedom of speech in Europe.
Its disappearing in the usa.
This falls under "incitement/call for racial hatred" essentially, you can't say "all arabs should be deported out of europe" in france (and in most european countries btw) or "muslims are terrorists", same deal. I mean, you can say it, but if you say it publicly, on air or on the intarwebs or IRL, anybody, including the state, has a right to sue you on that basis and they'll likely win.
Yeah I know it sucks hard, and at the same time it goes both ways, meaning that, this is why you can't have celebs on tv telling everybody "whites are evil and should be erased from history" in france for instance, you can hardly embrace a race baiter career over there, unless of course you insist on turning your life into a judicial nightmare. It's going to be a very costly hobby, at best. First offense is usually a fine, and if you keep insisting on making such statements despite the fact that you lost a couple of times in court already, you get sent to prison, and if you still insist after that... It's going to pile on
That's why you can't have a direct copy-pasta from the US to France/europe when it comes to the so called critical race theory and the rest of the race based leftist subversion tactics, because it's illegal "by nature" over there. They've tried, they've failed badly already. You can't have class rooms for POCs only, same deal
Personally, I prefer the "full version" of freedom of speech, US style. Now it also comes with downsides, it gives a boulevard to leftist subversion and race baiter types like al sharpton and mad maxine, among other things
this why you can't have celebs on tv telling everybody "whites are evil and should be erased from history"
What about more subtle ways to call whites evil? Like "whites are still profiting from past and structural racism"?
Hmmm, I would say you can get away with it yeah
It depends of the context. For instance, if a white says that, chances are the hate speech case won't stand, since he's white himself and kind of admitting guilt/collective guilt here... That's his perception over his own history... With a decent lawyer tI think it's safe to say that there are rooms to get away with it.
If a jew said that... Same deal, not only they are a protected class but many mistakenly think that "jew" and "white" are non exclusive "categories".
If a black said that, he'd get a pass too I think, especially if the jew judge is a leftist, many are. Same deal for ethnic minorities in general.
...
The only way to equate this statement to "hate speech" I think, is in case of recidivism
Like, the guy saying it clearly isn't white and is a known recidivist, it's not a first timer when it comes to hate speech against whites, then with a good lawyer the opposite side can eventually nail him, there are rooms
But that's in theory
In practice, pretty much all ethnic minorities have defense groups suing for hate speech left and right. Jews being the better organized/most effective of them all. Muslims and then blacks aren't so far behind though.
Whites don't have any significant group suing for hate speech on their behalf, as usual... That's the main difference.
That being said I'm not a lawyer, so, take it for what it's worth
but saying arabs should be deported is different from saying jews own the newspapers which are producing propaganda against the army. that is mere identification, not saying something should be done to x group. they have set the standard themselves by constantly saying whites as a racial group control this and that, and even go further by saying they need to be removed.
but saying arabs should be deported is different from saying jews own the newspapers which are producing propaganda against the army.
No it's not, in both cases it's considered "hate speech"
Now maybe for you, in your mind, it's different, but for the french justice system it's not.
Both cases you're essentially targeting/"slandering" an entire ethnic group. That's "hate speech"
Saying "someone controls all of the major media and you know who that someone is", isn't a call to racial hatred because no race was mentioned. He didn't even advocate for splitting up the ownership of the media.
I get what you mean, but then he'll be asked by the judge what he meant by "this community"
He accused the press of not being free but of being controlled by an anti-national elite.The journalist then asked him in a very insistent way: "who is this elite?" And the general finally replied: "this community, you know it well".
Must be the community of... Freemasons, right? What about the community of leftist journalists? (you can't pick gays that would be homophobia)
...
I'm not saying he won't be able to get away with it by playing dumb/pretending this isn't about jews for instance. He can also just remain silent. If so, then factually they have nothing on him.
But will he do just that?
Will he put his honor in his pocket and play dumb to avoid being sentenced, or will he stand by what he said and name the jews and get a fine? (because that's a first timer, in case of recidivism, it's prison)
Hm.
I would say, both cases it's going to give a perceived victory to the other side. They force him to back track or they force him to admit.
I would be him, I would remain silent, I wouldn't cooperate with that "justice system", I would deny it, by remaining silent. Because I think that would fly, everybody knows what he meant, but factually he didn't name anyone or anything, so... It could be the community of the space lizards you know...
...
(post is archived)