Charlie Hebdo Insults Are Legal but a Politician is on Trial for Objecting to Overwhelming Muslim Immigration

If you are concerned about the cultural implications of Muslim immigration, the French government will prosecute you.

On January 8 of this year our writers began posting about Charlie Hebdo and free speech. The reason for this was Islamic mass murder of a rather vile publication called Charlie Hebdo. Vile or not, they were killed for what they wrote and published and drew as cartoons. So the French public, Europe, and the Western world went on a giant collective rant of words and symbolic gestures to affirm the sacred right of free speech.

It was all a farce. Yes, toilet/sex/locker room humor insulting Mohammad or Jesus is completely acceptable and must never be threatened. But the moment a real politician starts trying to talk and inspire others about real issues facing contemporary France, we find out that free speech doesn’t exist at all.

Basically, France has free speech when the speech is useless and can’t really cause anything to change.

Marine LePen is now experiencing the dangerous end of the government’s gun barrel pointing at her because she spoke heresy. As a French woman she is concerned that French culture as it has existed is now being shoved aside and gradually turned into an Islamic culture by the government’s irresponsible immigration policies.

LePen is a leader of one of France’s political parties. At a rally in Lyon in 2010, she recalled how the German invasion of France resulted in changes in public life in Paris. Reuters quotes her words:

I’m sorry, but for those who really like to talk about World War Two, if we’re talking about occupation, we could talk about that (street prayers), because that is clearly an occupation of the territory.

It is an occupation of sections of the territory, of neighborhoods in which religious law applies, it is an occupation. There are no tanks, there are no soldiers, but it is an occupation anyhow, and it weighs on people.

Is LePen correct? Obviously some people think so. Others might think she is overreacting, exaggerating the problem, or motivated by racism or some other wrong thinking that makes her inappropriately negative.

But, if so, anyone and everyone who disagrees with her has the right to say so, to organize their own political rallies, and to campaign against her party.

Instead, the government has put her on trial.

As far as I can tell, this is a lawsuit, so the penalty will be limited to financial loss. I’m not sure.

But clearly the French government does not honor or care about free speech. It wants to be able to punish people who believe or at least say the “wrong” things.

How long before the First Amendment is swept aside to allow that kind of tyranny in our country? Already, we see moves in that direction.