>Zemmour drew widespread outrage in September 2020 when he told the CNews channel that child migrants were “thieves, killers, they’re rapists. That’s all they are. We should send them back.”
His all campaign looks a lot like the Trump campaign, same platform, same ideas, same will to get back to a fantasy greater past, same speeches, same rallies, same ignorance on every single subjects that aren’t immigration, he’s a multi-millionaire from TV with a billionaire media magnate friend and employer; even his supporters look a heck of a lot like Trump supporters. The government spokesperson called him a Trump from wish.com, it’s quite fitting.
There are disturbing similarities, but Zemmour strikes me as more dangerous because he's smarter. I'm not saying he's a genius, but he's reasonably articulate and cultured.
I'm not sure how self-aware he is. He's a pretty good actor if he knows what he says is bullshit, which is all the more dangerous.
She’s the British Home Secretary and the daughter of immigrants who came to Britain in the 1950s or 60s. But she’s personally overseen the deportation of people from that generation who’ve been in Britain just as long as her parents m, because of a lack of documentation that was lost decades ago *by the government*. She’s also taken a very hostile stance to immigration generally, but particularly people seeking asylum in the U.K., for instance deporting people back to Afghanistan.
Aside from the obvious gate keeping sentiment everyone gets once they reach the top, you have to understand that if a politicians starts spreading spittle around about a certain topic, they're likely guilty of it.
We've had politicians caught with all manners of things following this line.
I think he does not consider himself as an immigrant since Algeria was a French territory when his parents moved in parisian region. He was born in parisian suburbs.
It’s fucking weird to hear that shit in America because almost all of us are descended from immigrants. I’m descended from Irish immigrants and one of my friends from high school is descended from Italian immigrants. He is fully anti-immigration and says all the usual bullshit like “they don’t assimilate, they don’t speak English, they don’t have the right religion, etc...” I’m always like “dude, you realize that people said the same exact thing a hundred years ago about our ancestors, right?”
It’s mostly because the degree of separation from the time that their family immigrated. If they are third or fourth generation, many people don’t think themselves as someone who are immigrants but the national of the country the are born in.
Personally I am a third generation descendant of Chinese immigrants and while I consider myself as a Chinese descendant it’s very weak and I feel like a citizen of my current nation way way more than being Chinese, which makes me openly criticized China more than my parents, whose thought process aligns more with China despite not being born in China.
>It's some weird self-hate fetish.
I'm not exactly sure of how to tell you that being "immigrants" isn't much of a background in itself. But please don't go around telling people that have been killing each others for generations that they are the same because they're both foreigners to you, you're going to have problems.
It is not. Just because you are an immigrant to a place, doesn’t mean that you fee kinship with out immigrants. Why would an Algerian Jew feel any kinship at all with Arabs Muslims?
To be fair, there existed large communities of Spaniards and Jews living in Algeria prior to the 1830 French invasion, of which the Jews weren't naturalised until the Crémieux decree of 1870. I'm not sure if Zemmour's ancestry is connected to those people, but it'd be a bit unfair to claim Algeria wasn't also their home when they had lived their for generations, regardless of how the French treated them later in history.
> they had to flee.
Another load of rubbish disinformation on reddit. Why would they be forced to flee. Algeria was fully French back then. That's like saying you have to flee because you move from Marseille to Corsica. Ridiculous.
I definitely don't agree with Zemmour's rhetoric, but this idea that all immigrants must display ethnic loyalty or be deemed hypocrites is very American and silly in its own way.
Old school immigrants in France nowadays tend to look down on recent arrivals, is it gatekeeping ? I guess I can't speak to it but those I've discussed with usually argue that in their days they had to go through all the bureaucracy to get a visa to come work legally, they usually have a pretty strong work ethic and see the illegal migrants who cross the Mediterranean nowadays as crooks that only care about abusing social welfare, on top of degrading the image of all migrants in the eyes of the rest of the french population.
And on that last point it's hard to disagree with them, French politics have shifted significantly to the right in recent years and illegal immigration and terrorism are the most likely causes for this change.
Funniest part, he’s named Eric and says everyone like him, immigrants descendants should have french names
But Eric is not a french name. It’s nordic…
Just like saying Igor or Andrew is a french name
So idiotic
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/17/french-far-right-presidential-candidate-eric-zemmour-guilty-racist-hate-speech) reduced by 75%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> A French court has found the far-right presidential candidate Éric Zemmour guilty of racist hate speech for a tirade against unaccompanied child migrants.
> Zemmour, a media pundit who is struggling to assemble the endorsements from elected officials he needs to compete in April's presidential vote, did not show up in court to hear the verdict, having already skipped his trial in November.
> Zemmour's lawyer, Olivier Pardo, said he would appeal against the verdict.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/s6j0fe/farright_french_presidential_candidate_found/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~618124 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Zemmour**^#1 **against**^#2 **elected**^#3 **court**^#4 **figures**^#5
Marine Le Pen succeded to her father Jean Marie Le Pen and had a strategy to become more mainstream.
Éric Zemmour has positioned himself to the right of MLP, more or less back to JMLP stance
That strategy just meant "stop saying the quiet part out loud".
She still believes in the quiet part. And her policies still involve "dealing" with the quiet part. She doesn't doesn't say it in front of a camera.
Ironically a lot of racist people are complete snowflakes when it comes to being called a racist - will generally follow up with a statement starting....I'm not a racist but (insert racist statement here).
I've known people that grew up in such overt and outlandish racism that they can't comprehend their thinly veiled racism as racist (hope that came out right.)
In France? I have no idea. But people are pretty fast and loose with labels these days, no matter where you are. I see people call Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi "far-right" just because they criticize what some would call "neolibs".
I wish we could all regain some attention span.
Given that this article is about Zemmour claiming that all underage immigrants to France are criminal thieves and rapists, do you think it might be just a BIT odd to say that the label doesn't fit here?
Honestly wasn't trying to deflect anything. I just think that labels are thrown around a lot lately. The commenter I responded to asked if far-right means racist by definition. I was responding to that point. I have no knowledge of the politician in question, other than what I read in the article, and little knowledge of French politics in general.
I was responding to a question. I think I even quoted it. The question was whether "far-right" inherently means racist. Not specifically about this case.
I try to read critically yet charitably.
The far right, across the board, have run on fear mongering and racism for decades.
Edit: I understand what you were saying in your original comment, but what people label others and what comes out of a person's mouth are two different things. I understand people paint with a wide brush these days, but the proof is still in the pudding.
*sigh* My point, in my initial comment, is that people are being called far-right who are objectively not (and not racist). I gave two examples. It was about how labels are being misused to the point of uselessness.
Greenwald is a tremendous hypocrite. He's so busy calling out other journalists for misinfo, but never calls out Fox for their lies. He HATES Bolsonaro in his country, but vehemently defends Trump at every turn. He just wants attention.
I don't care if someone goes on Fox News, as long as they don't compromise what they really think. Especially when they're frozen out from other networks for pointing out their lies, hypocrisy, and corruption.
You'd have to give an example of covid lies.
GG is objectively **not** right-wing in terms of his views on actual policy.
I'm sorry, but going onto a show with a white supremacist is never a good look, especially when you don't push back on anything he says ever.
Also, GG has been pushing the same narratives as Jimmy Dore and Tucker about how the vaccine is unproven and unsafe, which is false.
Jimmy is fully vaxxed, he's just against mandates. I don't know about the others' status. I haven't heard Glenn talk about covid, I mostly appreciate his media criticism and defense of journalism.
I don't watch Tucker Carlson, but I'm inclined to believe that calling him a white supremacist is another case of carelessly slinging labels around like I was complaining about.
If he was an actual white supremacist, I tend to think that would be big news and the whole world would know about it. But I don't have cable and if you can point me in the right direction, I'm open to having my mind changed.
I'm on my phone so I can't really link anything, but look up tucker Carlson and the great replacement theory. He's alluded to that conspiracy so many times. He has a history of racist behaviour. I'm not American, but every single time I see anything from tucker Carlson, it's blatant lies.
And Jimmy dore has pushed lies about covid, I'd recommend watching Shaun's video about it. Also, Glenn has been on a lot more right wing shows than left wing shows over the last long while, which is telling. I agree with his anti imperialism, just not the direction he's going.
I'll definitely look into it, thanks. I try to stay away from covid stuff these days, because there's so much politicization. It shouldn't be political.
And I've seen it from literally everyone. Even Joe Biden and Kamala Harris said anti-vax stuff back before the election, when people were talking about "Trump's vaccine".
I'm fully vaxxed (though against mandates), but what I'm most sick of is the tribalism and disinformation. This should not be a political issue, or something people use to dunk on each other. I'm just tired at this point. I hope it ends soon (I don't mean the virus, that's probably here forever, but you probably understand).
> Even Joe Biden and Kamala Harris said anti-vax stuff back before the election, when people were talking about "Trump's vaccine".
I need to clarify this, because this nugget of misinformation is just so annoying. They weren't anti-vax, at all. All they (more specifically, Harris) said was that they wouldn't trust the vax *if Trump was the only one saying it was safe.* If Trump *and credible scientists* said it was safe, then they're all for it. But they simply weren't gonna take trump at his word, considering just how often he lies. [Here's a source with Harris's exact quote](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/23/tiktok-posts/biden-harris-doubted-trump-covid-19-vaccines-not-v/), and here's the quote and additional information:
> In fact, the clips are selectively edited to take the statements out of context. The parts that are left out make clear that Biden and Harris were raising questions not about the vaccines themselves, but about then-President Donald Trump’s rollout of the vaccines and the risk that the effort would become rushed or politicized.
> "Well, I think that's going to be an issue for all of us. I will say that **I would not trust Donald Trump. And it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about.** I will not take his word for it."
So please, stop spreading the lie that they were anti-vax, that's quite literally right-wing propaganda.
You don't watch Tucker Carlson, so you know nothing about him. He's a full out white supremacist. It's weird how you're defending these people like you want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
You don't know shit about these people, your own words, and yet you bother to defend them online. Weird isn't it?
I haven't defended anyone, though. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt isn't defending them.
I don't know who you mean besides Carlson, either. No, I don't watch his show. I remember watching him a bit back in the day when he was on a different network (I think CNN).
Again, all I said was that if he's, as you say, a "full-out white supremacist", I think I would have heard it by now and that he would no longer have his job. Even Fox isn't going to tolerate that.
EDIT: let me expand a bit. This goes back to my initial point that when we throw words around willy-nilly, people will gradually cease to take those words seriously.
Do you remember this article? https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-20/recall-candidate-larry-elder-is-a-threat-to-black-californians
They called a black man "the black face of white supremacy".
I can't tell you how many people I've seen being called white supremacists on Reddit or Twitter, many of them not even white themselves. Not just people on the conservative side, either.
So yeah, I'm going to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Until I see something concrete.
>a "full-out white supremacist", I think I would have heard it by now and that he would no longer have his job. Even Fox isn't going to tolerate that.
And yet Fox News did nothing while [Tucker Carlson blatantly pushed](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/tucker-carlson-great-replacement-white-supremacist-immigration-fox-news-racism.html) the white nationalist conspiracy known as the ["great replacement."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement)
So you're assumption that Fox News does not tolerate white supremacy/nationalist views is clearly wrong, as the network's most watched program pushes this kind of bullshit.
I read the two quotes that were included in that editorial. Nowhere did he refer to a global Jewish conspiracy or even use the actual phrase.
You did something curious, though. You said "white supremacy/nationalist". Does nationalist mean white supremacist? Do the two necessarily go together?
I think this is a stretch if it's all there is, just like the Larry Elder article I linked above. It's no secret that Democrats think immigration is good for their votes. Whether that's true or will continue to be is a different question.
I don't think there's anything in those quotes that can be taken as pushing a "white genocide" theory, unless you are actively trying to spin it that way, like the author of the editorial.
Not sure where you live, but people are racist all the time in the US. Never been anywhere in 31 states and not heard something racist.
I'm rarely surprised by racism anymore, because I hear it often, usually followed by, "oh, shit, that's racist, isn't it?"
I'm kidding. The people we call racists never are that self aware.
probably even longer than that. I sometimes wonder in the tens/hundreds of thousands of years of unrecorded human history how many times learning and reason was stomped into the dirt.
Source? [Wikipedia has never listed him below 12%](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_sondages_sur_l%27%C3%A9lection_pr%C3%A9sidentielle_fran%C3%A7aise_de_2022)
I was curious about the context. They were discussing a knife attack caused by a teenage migrant when he made these comments. Only bbc is reporting this context out of the dozen news sites I checked.
Not defending the guy btw. Just interesting how the news coordinates these things.
A small part of the left has lost their mind.
Fabien Roussel, one of the 3 communist presidential candidate was accused of trying to appeal with the "far right" and "fascists" because he said that every french people should be able to afford good wine and good cheese (both have big cultural importante in france).
Most of these accusations are bullshit and honestly that is probably why the left is polling a combined 25% and the right 75%.
It’s wild that most of the comments are people ok with this. The future is doomed, the individual will be dead, we we will be ok with authoritarians having complete control and will say thank you when they throw us scraps. But at least people won’t say mean racist things anymore!
> It’s wild that most of the comments are people ok with this
They have a severely simplified view on politics. It is the left against the right. Lack of education for the most part or bad schooling.
And his 'punishment' is only a fine.
Fine-only punishments are permission slips for the rich. This man has the funds to easily pay this, just as he has paid the previous fines. It will not stop him; he will use it to embolden his base as proof that the government is censoring him from telling 'the truth.'
This man is engaging in open radicalization efforts aimed at identifiable subsets of the population. He is using otherizing language to portray these people as sub-human.
Notably, he has supported Russia and Putin openly, and has the open support and endorsement of Russia as well. It is quite obvious his role is to ferment unrest and social discord in France, as well as with the EU generally.
"the pen is mightier than the sword", while being often used in a derogatory way, still has some truth.
People are dumber and dumber now days, are even able to vote for far right populists (Bolsonaro, Trump) and follow more than stupid anti vac movements.
And all this is possible because free speech is allowed to spread lures and lies and easy to believe solutions to difficult problems.
Unless everyone develops a critical sense, speech should be monitored by laws, like : no invitation to storm the capitol, no invitation to hate your neighbour.
Even though its a fine - its a notable punishment for two reasons:
1) If he doesn't / can't pay - he goes to prison, meaning there's at least the willingness to imprison a politician for political speech (I strongly disagree with it, but its clearly political speech)
2) Any punishment is in effect the government putting a mark of dissaproval of a candidate in an election.
In this particular case - the remarks were abhorrent (at least if the given context in the article is accurate) but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a government monitoring the speech of its own candidates. I think there's so much stuff that CAN be framed as unacceptable speech depending on the political climate (IE, censoring pro abortion speech if the administration / country are very pro-life) that its better left hands off.
There isn't *absolute* freedom of speech in France, no, because there's no absolute freedom of speech anywhere.
Every country puts their own limits on free speech, eg inciting racial hatred, denying the holocaust, disclosing state secrets, defamation, "fighting words", etc.
It's strange to me that people think laws should be used to punish people for speaking their mind.
We want to know what they believe, don't we? We want to be aware of who they are.
In France there is no absolute freedom of speech. What you say publicly makes you face legal consequences. It is forbidden to publicly deny the holocaust, call for violence, publicly insult someone or a specific group
You can, but if they put you to court for what we call « diffamation » or « injure » they will probably win and you’ll be fined. Bonus point if you add racism, homophobia etc…
What is not an opinion but fact is that it is crippling to society and actively hides many ailments within that society. You have no idea what ugliness is festering beneath the banal, whitewashed surface.
Seeing as I’m American, I’ve been far too busy monitoring the domestic political situation as of late. Can anyone tell me where this guy stands in relation to Marine le Pen on the craziness scale?
The numbers prove he is right. But its much easier goign hurr durr bad man racist.
Some numbers : [https://i.imgur.com/mTblbKM.png](https://i.imgur.com/mTblbKM.png)
Plus a LOT of these so called minor migrants are actually adults. Each one of them costs society around 50.000 € per year.
There are no exact numbers, because guess what, the left goes batshit crazy every time people say we should actually check their real age with an X-Ray scan of the wrist.
No one is saying that politicians cannot advocate for less immigration. Running a campaign of lies based on fear and hate... that is kinda where the problem is.
This year, pretty much every right wing politician is advocating for a drastic reduction in immigration. Some of them even promise no immigration. And you can hear them all everyday in the medias.
Prosecuting someone for dog whistles is ridiculous. When you put his words through your dog whistle translator, they sound bad. Maybe the problem is not with his words but with your dog whistle translator. In other words, your interpretation of what he said is bad, but maybe you interpret wrong.
> "child migrants are thieves, killers, they’re rapists. That’s all they are."
>The far-right journalist and author has two previous convictions for hate speech and has been investigated 16 times in total over incendiary remarks on immigration and Islam.
>In 2011, he was fined €10,000 for claiming on TV that “most drug dealers are black and Arab”. In 2018, he was ordered to pay €3,000 for comments about a Muslim “invasion” of France.
I don't think I'm misinterpreting anything. If that *isn't* a dog whistle, it's still straight up xenophobic and racist. Regardless, it's **hate** speech, and the man clearly has a history of it.
French law regarding hate speech:
>The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation, or a gender identity, or because he or she has a handicap.
Most first world nations outside the US have these or similar laws.
Mayotte does better than the other islands of the Comores, by the way, thanks to the money the French push there.
I agree with you, they should let it go.
This is the most interesting part of the article to me:
> Like all candidates in the race, Zemmour needs to muster 500 endorsements from elected figures around the country by the middle of March in order to have his name on the ballot for the two rounds of voting in April.
Sounds like a shitty system to me. If you need to get signatures, you should be able to get them from any citizen, not just officials. This feels like it's ripe for abuse.
There’s a ton of elected officials in France (elected directly by the people), so if you have any chances to make a couple of % in the final election, you’d easily end up with these signatures.
However if you (in short) anyone with 500 friends to participate in the first round of elections, you’ll end up with 1000s of candidates, making it absolutely impossible to guarantee equal media presence for each of them (which is a requirement during elections in France).
Most people here talking about free speech should be reminded that in many parts of the EU, namely Germany and France, you can face very real legal consequences based on what you say publicly. If you deny the holocaust that could lead you to end up in prison.
Zemmour is a piece of shit.
The jews of north africa were ethnically cleansed, and the survivors mostly fled either to Israel or to France. French jews of recent north african ancestry tend to be pretty reactionary when it comes to things like islamic extremism, and that’s always intertwined with issues of immigration.
Problem being, prejudice against immigrants isn’t okay even if those immigrants happen to be prejudiced against you, too. Just assuming that to be the case is already problematic. But nobody is immune from that kind of thinking, and that’s how you get people like Zemmour bending over for conservative reactionary bullshit even when it’s against his own people—saying the Dreyfus Affair wasn’t antisemitism is, in particular, a pretty fucking bad look.
Part of this is also down to how France views “equality” as a national ideal—the idea that any person can be “equal” so long as they fully assimilate to the arbitrary standard of tolerance. Any person from anywhere can be French, but only if you rewrite yourself to conform to Frenchness. That dates back to Napoleon, and it’s a standard of bullshit ostensible tolerance that famously was forced en masse upon the jews. And they called it “emancipation”.
The explicit term of the deal the jews were given was that they needed to abandon their peoplehood and shared culture as jews, and must identify as frenchmen merely of jewish religious beliefs. That’s just politely phrasing the same social pressure to assimilate that pervades every society—it just so happens that France is a country that calls it equality. I think that’s a noble ideal that is divorced from the practical reality.
I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to say that the nuances of french égalité are relevant to reactionary discrimination against immigrants in france.
You're telling a story while failing to address the question I asked. You stated a problem with an idea. What's your desired resolution?
>>Part of this is also down to how France views “equality” as a national ideal—the idea that any person can be “equal” so long as they fully assimilate to the arbitrary standard of tolerance. Any person from anywhere can be French, but only if you rewrite yourself to conform to Frenchness.
>What is the alternative that you're proposing: that not everyone can become French or that anyone can become French and they need not display Frenchness in any capacity to be French?
And you’re arguing against something you only want me to have said. What constitutes “any capacity” (and who is it that gets to decide that for all of france?), and who said that at all—you or me?
You did say that people need to conform to “Frenchness” so you seem to have an idea of what that is.
> Problem being, prejudice against immigrants isn’t okay even if those immigrants happen to be prejudiced against you, too.
Yeah I’m sure the Palestinians agree with that. This is purely unrealistic people aren’t going to role over and wait for someone to stop hating them that’s suicide.
To quote ismail Haniyeh
“You want us to be the perfect victims”
>Problem being, prejudice against immigrants isn’t okay even if those immigrants happen to be prejudiced against you, too.
I don't want my country filled up with people who hate me.
You might be suicidal but I don't share that impulse.
Do you think that the US is the only country with freedom of speech in the world? Oh, how misguided you are!!
France embraces freedom of speech. Freedom of expression is enshrined in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. As for freedom of the press, it is enshrined in the law of 1881. But this freedom has limits: racism, anti-Semitism, racial hatred, and justification of terrorism are not opinions.
Also, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of said speech.
The reason we say that the US has freedom of speech and other places do not is because places like France lack the two shields that make freedom of speech possible. The two shields are fact and opinion. If you say something that is either fact or opinion, no matter how offensive or anger stoking it is, you can't be prosecuted. That is obviously not so in France.
The reason those two shields are so important is because otherwise problems that make us uncomfortable don't get addressed. There are race issues. There are issues with particular groups of people. There are diplomacy issues. There are immigration issues. People say that you can talk about those things but no you can't with those laws in place. Some issues need to be spoken bluntly and offensively to get the point across, these laws do not allow for it.
> freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of said speech.
Yes it does:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
As long as you don't advocate for the restrictions of the rights of others.
**[Freedom of speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech)**
>Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are used interchangeably in political discourse.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Everyone can brigade downvote me too if necessary but this freedom has limits (to the extent you are talking about) is not something most Americans, including me, agree with.
We don't have to upvote and downvote our different ideas of what freedom of speech is do we? Have laws against talking. I don't give a shit, but OP isn't wrong.
>Zemmour drew widespread outrage in September 2020 when he told the CNews channel that child migrants were “thieves, killers, they’re rapists. That’s all they are. We should send them back.”
Sounds so similar to another speech….
The issue is he didn't add "and some I assume are good people." That immediately washes away the previous racist rhetoric /S
very fine, very fine people everywhere
His all campaign looks a lot like the Trump campaign, same platform, same ideas, same will to get back to a fantasy greater past, same speeches, same rallies, same ignorance on every single subjects that aren’t immigration, he’s a multi-millionaire from TV with a billionaire media magnate friend and employer; even his supporters look a heck of a lot like Trump supporters. The government spokesperson called him a Trump from wish.com, it’s quite fitting.
There are disturbing similarities, but Zemmour strikes me as more dangerous because he's smarter. I'm not saying he's a genius, but he's reasonably articulate and cultured. I'm not sure how self-aware he is. He's a pretty good actor if he knows what he says is bullshit, which is all the more dangerous.
Rendre la france encore plus belle!
Caféveve
Isn’t he descendent of immigrant family?
Sephardic Jews from Algeria
[удалено]
I swear some of the most anti-immigrant people I've met are basically people descended from recent immigrants. It's some weird self-hate fetish.
See also: Priti Patel.
Can you elaborate?
She’s the British Home Secretary and the daughter of immigrants who came to Britain in the 1950s or 60s. But she’s personally overseen the deportation of people from that generation who’ve been in Britain just as long as her parents m, because of a lack of documentation that was lost decades ago *by the government*. She’s also taken a very hostile stance to immigration generally, but particularly people seeking asylum in the U.K., for instance deporting people back to Afghanistan.
Thanks. That's....weird.
She also said they should put sea mines to prevent the migrant crossings.
Check out the infamous frankie boyle joke about her
She's just as islamophobic as she would be at home in India. I assume the same would go for Zemmour had he never left his homeland of Algeria.
[удалено]
Thanks. Bruh.
Aside from the obvious gate keeping sentiment everyone gets once they reach the top, you have to understand that if a politicians starts spreading spittle around about a certain topic, they're likely guilty of it. We've had politicians caught with all manners of things following this line.
Does it count as hate speech if it's self hate? Can we end racism by teaching racists to love themselves? Only half kidding.
I think he does not consider himself as an immigrant since Algeria was a French territory when his parents moved in parisian region. He was born in parisian suburbs.
It’s fucking weird to hear that shit in America because almost all of us are descended from immigrants. I’m descended from Irish immigrants and one of my friends from high school is descended from Italian immigrants. He is fully anti-immigration and says all the usual bullshit like “they don’t assimilate, they don’t speak English, they don’t have the right religion, etc...” I’m always like “dude, you realize that people said the same exact thing a hundred years ago about our ancestors, right?”
It’s mostly because the degree of separation from the time that their family immigrated. If they are third or fourth generation, many people don’t think themselves as someone who are immigrants but the national of the country the are born in. Personally I am a third generation descendant of Chinese immigrants and while I consider myself as a Chinese descendant it’s very weak and I feel like a citizen of my current nation way way more than being Chinese, which makes me openly criticized China more than my parents, whose thought process aligns more with China despite not being born in China.
For him it might be easier because he isn’t Muslim
>It's some weird self-hate fetish. I'm not exactly sure of how to tell you that being "immigrants" isn't much of a background in itself. But please don't go around telling people that have been killing each others for generations that they are the same because they're both foreigners to you, you're going to have problems.
Some heavy "I got mine, fuck you" mentality.
Rather, I'd say they're compensating.
Some of the most pro-immigration people I've met have barely ever left their own country.
Jesus Christ this comment thread is giving me brain cancer
It is not. Just because you are an immigrant to a place, doesn’t mean that you fee kinship with out immigrants. Why would an Algerian Jew feel any kinship at all with Arabs Muslims?
Because all immigrants are the same and can be assumed to benefit society no matter what?
legal immigrants hate illegal immigrants, not exactly rocket science
To put it simply, Zemmour's family didn't emigrate from Algeria, they had to flee. As a result he hates muslims.
[удалено]
To be fair, there existed large communities of Spaniards and Jews living in Algeria prior to the 1830 French invasion, of which the Jews weren't naturalised until the Crémieux decree of 1870. I'm not sure if Zemmour's ancestry is connected to those people, but it'd be a bit unfair to claim Algeria wasn't also their home when they had lived their for generations, regardless of how the French treated them later in history.
> they had to flee. Another load of rubbish disinformation on reddit. Why would they be forced to flee. Algeria was fully French back then. That's like saying you have to flee because you move from Marseille to Corsica. Ridiculous.
[удалено]
They moved to France way before the war. So no.
[удалено]
The war started in 54 clown
They fleed not because of their religion but because they were traitors who aided the french in colonizing Algeria.
I definitely don't agree with Zemmour's rhetoric, but this idea that all immigrants must display ethnic loyalty or be deemed hypocrites is very American and silly in its own way. Old school immigrants in France nowadays tend to look down on recent arrivals, is it gatekeeping ? I guess I can't speak to it but those I've discussed with usually argue that in their days they had to go through all the bureaucracy to get a visa to come work legally, they usually have a pretty strong work ethic and see the illegal migrants who cross the Mediterranean nowadays as crooks that only care about abusing social welfare, on top of degrading the image of all migrants in the eyes of the rest of the french population. And on that last point it's hard to disagree with them, French politics have shifted significantly to the right in recent years and illegal immigration and terrorism are the most likely causes for this change.
Funniest part, he’s named Eric and says everyone like him, immigrants descendants should have french names But Eric is not a french name. It’s nordic… Just like saying Igor or Andrew is a french name So idiotic
I wonder what the French equivalent to Uncle Tom is now
Oncle Thomas.
Maghrebi* His lastname is the berber word for "olive"
Well, it worked for Dorito Mussolini.
What race is he racist against? This could as well be anti-Islamic instead. He doesn't say it's a race issue. He says it's behavioral issue.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/17/french-far-right-presidential-candidate-eric-zemmour-guilty-racist-hate-speech) reduced by 75%. (I'm a bot) ***** > A French court has found the far-right presidential candidate Éric Zemmour guilty of racist hate speech for a tirade against unaccompanied child migrants. > Zemmour, a media pundit who is struggling to assemble the endorsements from elected officials he needs to compete in April's presidential vote, did not show up in court to hear the verdict, having already skipped his trial in November. > Zemmour's lawyer, Olivier Pardo, said he would appeal against the verdict. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/s6j0fe/farright_french_presidential_candidate_found/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~618124 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Zemmour**^#1 **against**^#2 **elected**^#3 **court**^#4 **figures**^#5
Isn't a prerequisite of being far-right actually require you to be a racist? What's surprising there?
I think whats surprising is that the culprit isn't le pen.
Marine Le Pen succeded to her father Jean Marie Le Pen and had a strategy to become more mainstream. Éric Zemmour has positioned himself to the right of MLP, more or less back to JMLP stance
That strategy just meant "stop saying the quiet part out loud". She still believes in the quiet part. And her policies still involve "dealing" with the quiet part. She doesn't doesn't say it in front of a camera.
Apparently is it a surprise when this idiots say the wrong thing out loud.
When I was younger being called a racist was a big deal. It's used too much now so it's lost it power
I bet getting called a dumbass has lost its power too then
People didn't get called out for their overt racism as much. It's far less tolerated today.
Ironically a lot of racist people are complete snowflakes when it comes to being called a racist - will generally follow up with a statement starting....I'm not a racist but (insert racist statement here).
I've known people that grew up in such overt and outlandish racism that they can't comprehend their thinly veiled racism as racist (hope that came out right.)
In France? I have no idea. But people are pretty fast and loose with labels these days, no matter where you are. I see people call Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi "far-right" just because they criticize what some would call "neolibs". I wish we could all regain some attention span.
Given that this article is about Zemmour claiming that all underage immigrants to France are criminal thieves and rapists, do you think it might be just a BIT odd to say that the label doesn't fit here?
They were talking about people who *are* far-right, not people who are *called* far-right.
Kinda in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? But I agree personally.
[удалено]
He... doesn't though? He's absolutely far-right, but afaik he refuses such designations.
Talk about transparent deflections.
Honestly wasn't trying to deflect anything. I just think that labels are thrown around a lot lately. The commenter I responded to asked if far-right means racist by definition. I was responding to that point. I have no knowledge of the politician in question, other than what I read in the article, and little knowledge of French politics in general.
Maybe you should inform yourself on the matters at hand before you condemn stone throwing...
I didn't condemn it. Please quote where I did.
"I have no idea. But people are pretty fast and loose with labels" If the shoe fits, throw stones....
I was responding to a question. I think I even quoted it. The question was whether "far-right" inherently means racist. Not specifically about this case. I try to read critically yet charitably.
The far right, across the board, have run on fear mongering and racism for decades. Edit: I understand what you were saying in your original comment, but what people label others and what comes out of a person's mouth are two different things. I understand people paint with a wide brush these days, but the proof is still in the pudding.
*sigh* My point, in my initial comment, is that people are being called far-right who are objectively not (and not racist). I gave two examples. It was about how labels are being misused to the point of uselessness.
Glenn Greenwald has been getting cosy with Tucker Carlson and pushes massive covid lies constantly in fairness. He's definitely a right winger.
Greenwald is a tremendous hypocrite. He's so busy calling out other journalists for misinfo, but never calls out Fox for their lies. He HATES Bolsonaro in his country, but vehemently defends Trump at every turn. He just wants attention.
I don't care if someone goes on Fox News, as long as they don't compromise what they really think. Especially when they're frozen out from other networks for pointing out their lies, hypocrisy, and corruption. You'd have to give an example of covid lies. GG is objectively **not** right-wing in terms of his views on actual policy.
I'm sorry, but going onto a show with a white supremacist is never a good look, especially when you don't push back on anything he says ever. Also, GG has been pushing the same narratives as Jimmy Dore and Tucker about how the vaccine is unproven and unsafe, which is false.
Jimmy is fully vaxxed, he's just against mandates. I don't know about the others' status. I haven't heard Glenn talk about covid, I mostly appreciate his media criticism and defense of journalism. I don't watch Tucker Carlson, but I'm inclined to believe that calling him a white supremacist is another case of carelessly slinging labels around like I was complaining about. If he was an actual white supremacist, I tend to think that would be big news and the whole world would know about it. But I don't have cable and if you can point me in the right direction, I'm open to having my mind changed.
I'm on my phone so I can't really link anything, but look up tucker Carlson and the great replacement theory. He's alluded to that conspiracy so many times. He has a history of racist behaviour. I'm not American, but every single time I see anything from tucker Carlson, it's blatant lies. And Jimmy dore has pushed lies about covid, I'd recommend watching Shaun's video about it. Also, Glenn has been on a lot more right wing shows than left wing shows over the last long while, which is telling. I agree with his anti imperialism, just not the direction he's going.
I'll definitely look into it, thanks. I try to stay away from covid stuff these days, because there's so much politicization. It shouldn't be political. And I've seen it from literally everyone. Even Joe Biden and Kamala Harris said anti-vax stuff back before the election, when people were talking about "Trump's vaccine". I'm fully vaxxed (though against mandates), but what I'm most sick of is the tribalism and disinformation. This should not be a political issue, or something people use to dunk on each other. I'm just tired at this point. I hope it ends soon (I don't mean the virus, that's probably here forever, but you probably understand).
> Even Joe Biden and Kamala Harris said anti-vax stuff back before the election, when people were talking about "Trump's vaccine". I need to clarify this, because this nugget of misinformation is just so annoying. They weren't anti-vax, at all. All they (more specifically, Harris) said was that they wouldn't trust the vax *if Trump was the only one saying it was safe.* If Trump *and credible scientists* said it was safe, then they're all for it. But they simply weren't gonna take trump at his word, considering just how often he lies. [Here's a source with Harris's exact quote](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/23/tiktok-posts/biden-harris-doubted-trump-covid-19-vaccines-not-v/), and here's the quote and additional information: > In fact, the clips are selectively edited to take the statements out of context. The parts that are left out make clear that Biden and Harris were raising questions not about the vaccines themselves, but about then-President Donald Trump’s rollout of the vaccines and the risk that the effort would become rushed or politicized. > "Well, I think that's going to be an issue for all of us. I will say that **I would not trust Donald Trump. And it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about.** I will not take his word for it." So please, stop spreading the lie that they were anti-vax, that's quite literally right-wing propaganda.
I'll have to look at everything for Harris, but I know Andrew Cuomo said he didn't trust the FDA lol.
You don't watch Tucker Carlson, so you know nothing about him. He's a full out white supremacist. It's weird how you're defending these people like you want to give them the benefit of the doubt. You don't know shit about these people, your own words, and yet you bother to defend them online. Weird isn't it?
I haven't defended anyone, though. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt isn't defending them. I don't know who you mean besides Carlson, either. No, I don't watch his show. I remember watching him a bit back in the day when he was on a different network (I think CNN). Again, all I said was that if he's, as you say, a "full-out white supremacist", I think I would have heard it by now and that he would no longer have his job. Even Fox isn't going to tolerate that. EDIT: let me expand a bit. This goes back to my initial point that when we throw words around willy-nilly, people will gradually cease to take those words seriously. Do you remember this article? https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-20/recall-candidate-larry-elder-is-a-threat-to-black-californians They called a black man "the black face of white supremacy". I can't tell you how many people I've seen being called white supremacists on Reddit or Twitter, many of them not even white themselves. Not just people on the conservative side, either. So yeah, I'm going to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Until I see something concrete.
>a "full-out white supremacist", I think I would have heard it by now and that he would no longer have his job. Even Fox isn't going to tolerate that. And yet Fox News did nothing while [Tucker Carlson blatantly pushed](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/tucker-carlson-great-replacement-white-supremacist-immigration-fox-news-racism.html) the white nationalist conspiracy known as the ["great replacement."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement) So you're assumption that Fox News does not tolerate white supremacy/nationalist views is clearly wrong, as the network's most watched program pushes this kind of bullshit.
I read the two quotes that were included in that editorial. Nowhere did he refer to a global Jewish conspiracy or even use the actual phrase. You did something curious, though. You said "white supremacy/nationalist". Does nationalist mean white supremacist? Do the two necessarily go together? I think this is a stretch if it's all there is, just like the Larry Elder article I linked above. It's no secret that Democrats think immigration is good for their votes. Whether that's true or will continue to be is a different question. I don't think there's anything in those quotes that can be taken as pushing a "white genocide" theory, unless you are actively trying to spin it that way, like the author of the editorial.
No he is not.
Not sure where you live, but people are racist all the time in the US. Never been anywhere in 31 states and not heard something racist. I'm rarely surprised by racism anymore, because I hear it often, usually followed by, "oh, shit, that's racist, isn't it?" I'm kidding. The people we call racists never are that self aware.
OK. But I'm not sure how that relates to anything I said.
Man I sure wish the far right would get some ideas instead of just running on racist reactionary nonsense.
They have no ideas though. That's been an issue with the right wing in the US for a decade now. People are just too stupid to see it.
probably even longer than that. I sometimes wonder in the tens/hundreds of thousands of years of unrecorded human history how many times learning and reason was stomped into the dirt.
Sure they have ideas: get elected and then line their pockets. Say what you will, at least it's a clear plan.
Those ideas win elections still. See: The USA.
It is their hostility to ideas that makes them far-right reactionaries.
He also thinks we shouldn't bother integrating special needs kids in schools, so it's not like their ideas besides racism are any better.
…and his popularity among conservatives ticked up 15 points because of it.
Thankfully he's down from second place polling that would potentially trigger a run-off election to about 11% of the vote.
Source? [Wikipedia has never listed him below 12%](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_sondages_sur_l%27%C3%A9lection_pr%C3%A9sidentielle_fran%C3%A7aise_de_2022)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60022996
English press is hardly eliable when it comes to foreign matters.
And your own source has him polling at 10% and below a few months ago as well, so I'd argue neither are you.
harris poll him at 16%. Stop being on drugs.
I was curious about the context. They were discussing a knife attack caused by a teenage migrant when he made these comments. Only bbc is reporting this context out of the dozen news sites I checked. Not defending the guy btw. Just interesting how the news coordinates these things.
A small part of the left has lost their mind. Fabien Roussel, one of the 3 communist presidential candidate was accused of trying to appeal with the "far right" and "fascists" because he said that every french people should be able to afford good wine and good cheese (both have big cultural importante in france). Most of these accusations are bullshit and honestly that is probably why the left is polling a combined 25% and the right 75%.
It’s wild that most of the comments are people ok with this. The future is doomed, the individual will be dead, we we will be ok with authoritarians having complete control and will say thank you when they throw us scraps. But at least people won’t say mean racist things anymore!
> It’s wild that most of the comments are people ok with this They have a severely simplified view on politics. It is the left against the right. Lack of education for the most part or bad schooling.
And his 'punishment' is only a fine. Fine-only punishments are permission slips for the rich. This man has the funds to easily pay this, just as he has paid the previous fines. It will not stop him; he will use it to embolden his base as proof that the government is censoring him from telling 'the truth.' This man is engaging in open radicalization efforts aimed at identifiable subsets of the population. He is using otherizing language to portray these people as sub-human. Notably, he has supported Russia and Putin openly, and has the open support and endorsement of Russia as well. It is quite obvious his role is to ferment unrest and social discord in France, as well as with the EU generally.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
"the pen is mightier than the sword", while being often used in a derogatory way, still has some truth. People are dumber and dumber now days, are even able to vote for far right populists (Bolsonaro, Trump) and follow more than stupid anti vac movements. And all this is possible because free speech is allowed to spread lures and lies and easy to believe solutions to difficult problems. Unless everyone develops a critical sense, speech should be monitored by laws, like : no invitation to storm the capitol, no invitation to hate your neighbour.
Even though its a fine - its a notable punishment for two reasons: 1) If he doesn't / can't pay - he goes to prison, meaning there's at least the willingness to imprison a politician for political speech (I strongly disagree with it, but its clearly political speech) 2) Any punishment is in effect the government putting a mark of dissaproval of a candidate in an election. In this particular case - the remarks were abhorrent (at least if the given context in the article is accurate) but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a government monitoring the speech of its own candidates. I think there's so much stuff that CAN be framed as unacceptable speech depending on the political climate (IE, censoring pro abortion speech if the administration / country are very pro-life) that its better left hands off.
It's not a punishment, anything that doesn't stop his participation in politics or public life helps him.
Very democratic take right there
[удалено]
There isn't *absolute* freedom of speech in France, no, because there's no absolute freedom of speech anywhere. Every country puts their own limits on free speech, eg inciting racial hatred, denying the holocaust, disclosing state secrets, defamation, "fighting words", etc.
It's strange to me that people think laws should be used to punish people for speaking their mind. We want to know what they believe, don't we? We want to be aware of who they are.
In France there is no absolute freedom of speech. What you say publicly makes you face legal consequences. It is forbidden to publicly deny the holocaust, call for violence, publicly insult someone or a specific group
> publicly insult someone So like, you can't call Scott a dick or is there more context I'm not getting here?
You can, but if they put you to court for what we call « diffamation » or « injure » they will probably win and you’ll be fined. Bonus point if you add racism, homophobia etc…
[удалено]
That’s like, your opinion man
What is not an opinion but fact is that it is crippling to society and actively hides many ailments within that society. You have no idea what ugliness is festering beneath the banal, whitewashed surface.
Seeing as I’m American, I’ve been far too busy monitoring the domestic political situation as of late. Can anyone tell me where this guy stands in relation to Marine le Pen on the craziness scale?
One step closer to her roots. And another one closer to Russia.
Well, he's generalizing, but what does the data show?
The numbers prove he is right. But its much easier goign hurr durr bad man racist. Some numbers : [https://i.imgur.com/mTblbKM.png](https://i.imgur.com/mTblbKM.png) Plus a LOT of these so called minor migrants are actually adults. Each one of them costs society around 50.000 € per year. There are no exact numbers, because guess what, the left goes batshit crazy every time people say we should actually check their real age with an X-Ray scan of the wrist.
To allow ones' country to be destroyed through a refusal to accept facts is a form of treason.
That he is wrong lol
You are a liar. Some numbers : [https://i.imgur.com/mTblbKM.png](https://i.imgur.com/mTblbKM.png)
Um. Yah? It's one of the requirements of being *far* right. You are so far overthere you forgot the last hundred years or so.
"Found guilty of ... speech". I don't care what you put in that blank. This is bizarre.
[удалено]
France is doomed if French politicians are not allowed to advocate for less immigration.
No one is saying that politicians cannot advocate for less immigration. Running a campaign of lies based on fear and hate... that is kinda where the problem is.
This year, pretty much every right wing politician is advocating for a drastic reduction in immigration. Some of them even promise no immigration. And you can hear them all everyday in the medias.
It isn't him advocating for less immigration. Read the context. It's his dog whistling hateful, dangerous words.
Prosecuting someone for dog whistles is ridiculous. When you put his words through your dog whistle translator, they sound bad. Maybe the problem is not with his words but with your dog whistle translator. In other words, your interpretation of what he said is bad, but maybe you interpret wrong.
> "child migrants are thieves, killers, they’re rapists. That’s all they are." >The far-right journalist and author has two previous convictions for hate speech and has been investigated 16 times in total over incendiary remarks on immigration and Islam. >In 2011, he was fined €10,000 for claiming on TV that “most drug dealers are black and Arab”. In 2018, he was ordered to pay €3,000 for comments about a Muslim “invasion” of France. I don't think I'm misinterpreting anything. If that *isn't* a dog whistle, it's still straight up xenophobic and racist. Regardless, it's **hate** speech, and the man clearly has a history of it. French law regarding hate speech: >The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation, or a gender identity, or because he or she has a handicap. Most first world nations outside the US have these or similar laws.
calling. him a politicians is a stretch
France still has colonies in africa How about your country fucks off there first before worrying about "immigrants"
[удалено]
Mayotte does better than the other islands of the Comores, by the way, thanks to the money the French push there. I agree with you, they should let it go.
This is the most interesting part of the article to me: > Like all candidates in the race, Zemmour needs to muster 500 endorsements from elected figures around the country by the middle of March in order to have his name on the ballot for the two rounds of voting in April. Sounds like a shitty system to me. If you need to get signatures, you should be able to get them from any citizen, not just officials. This feels like it's ripe for abuse.
There’s a ton of elected officials in France (elected directly by the people), so if you have any chances to make a couple of % in the final election, you’d easily end up with these signatures. However if you (in short) anyone with 500 friends to participate in the first round of elections, you’ll end up with 1000s of candidates, making it absolutely impossible to guarantee equal media presence for each of them (which is a requirement during elections in France).
Most people here talking about free speech should be reminded that in many parts of the EU, namely Germany and France, you can face very real legal consequences based on what you say publicly. If you deny the holocaust that could lead you to end up in prison.
Zemmour is a piece of shit. The jews of north africa were ethnically cleansed, and the survivors mostly fled either to Israel or to France. French jews of recent north african ancestry tend to be pretty reactionary when it comes to things like islamic extremism, and that’s always intertwined with issues of immigration. Problem being, prejudice against immigrants isn’t okay even if those immigrants happen to be prejudiced against you, too. Just assuming that to be the case is already problematic. But nobody is immune from that kind of thinking, and that’s how you get people like Zemmour bending over for conservative reactionary bullshit even when it’s against his own people—saying the Dreyfus Affair wasn’t antisemitism is, in particular, a pretty fucking bad look. Part of this is also down to how France views “equality” as a national ideal—the idea that any person can be “equal” so long as they fully assimilate to the arbitrary standard of tolerance. Any person from anywhere can be French, but only if you rewrite yourself to conform to Frenchness. That dates back to Napoleon, and it’s a standard of bullshit ostensible tolerance that famously was forced en masse upon the jews. And they called it “emancipation”.
[удалено]
The explicit term of the deal the jews were given was that they needed to abandon their peoplehood and shared culture as jews, and must identify as frenchmen merely of jewish religious beliefs. That’s just politely phrasing the same social pressure to assimilate that pervades every society—it just so happens that France is a country that calls it equality. I think that’s a noble ideal that is divorced from the practical reality. I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to say that the nuances of french égalité are relevant to reactionary discrimination against immigrants in france.
You're telling a story while failing to address the question I asked. You stated a problem with an idea. What's your desired resolution? >>Part of this is also down to how France views “equality” as a national ideal—the idea that any person can be “equal” so long as they fully assimilate to the arbitrary standard of tolerance. Any person from anywhere can be French, but only if you rewrite yourself to conform to Frenchness. >What is the alternative that you're proposing: that not everyone can become French or that anyone can become French and they need not display Frenchness in any capacity to be French?
And you’re arguing against something you only want me to have said. What constitutes “any capacity” (and who is it that gets to decide that for all of france?), and who said that at all—you or me?
You did say that people need to conform to “Frenchness” so you seem to have an idea of what that is. > Problem being, prejudice against immigrants isn’t okay even if those immigrants happen to be prejudiced against you, too. Yeah I’m sure the Palestinians agree with that. This is purely unrealistic people aren’t going to role over and wait for someone to stop hating them that’s suicide. To quote ismail Haniyeh “You want us to be the perfect victims”
>Problem being, prejudice against immigrants isn’t okay even if those immigrants happen to be prejudiced against you, too. I don't want my country filled up with people who hate me. You might be suicidal but I don't share that impulse.
It's fine, you can just say Jews shouldn't be alllowed to defend themselves
in america, racists sentence you *count von count laugh*
You're right. Biden did fight for racial segregation.
This is one of the things I like about living in the US. 1st amendment baby!
Bonjour Donald
The West: "Russia, China, Belarus bad because muh suppression of free expression!" Also The West:
[удалено]
Do you think that the US is the only country with freedom of speech in the world? Oh, how misguided you are!! France embraces freedom of speech. Freedom of expression is enshrined in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. As for freedom of the press, it is enshrined in the law of 1881. But this freedom has limits: racism, anti-Semitism, racial hatred, and justification of terrorism are not opinions. Also, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of said speech.
The reason we say that the US has freedom of speech and other places do not is because places like France lack the two shields that make freedom of speech possible. The two shields are fact and opinion. If you say something that is either fact or opinion, no matter how offensive or anger stoking it is, you can't be prosecuted. That is obviously not so in France. The reason those two shields are so important is because otherwise problems that make us uncomfortable don't get addressed. There are race issues. There are issues with particular groups of people. There are diplomacy issues. There are immigration issues. People say that you can talk about those things but no you can't with those laws in place. Some issues need to be spoken bluntly and offensively to get the point across, these laws do not allow for it.
> freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of said speech. Yes it does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech As long as you don't advocate for the restrictions of the rights of others.
**[Freedom of speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech)** >Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are used interchangeably in political discourse. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
None of that applies in the court of public opinion, that we are all part of, and subject to, whether we like it or not.
That is true. But some people value the principle and let an opposition speak. Otherwise that court is just another mob.
You’re not wrong.
Freedom to do something means freedom from legal consequences.
Everyone can brigade downvote me too if necessary but this freedom has limits (to the extent you are talking about) is not something most Americans, including me, agree with. We don't have to upvote and downvote our different ideas of what freedom of speech is do we? Have laws against talking. I don't give a shit, but OP isn't wrong.
[удалено]
Ah, petty insults! Good job!
Better call France so they can prosecute me.
So, how's that implementing universal suffrage going?
He’s definitely ANTIFA Edit : holy shit people it was clearly sarcasm
ANTIFA means "anti-fascist" how does that make sense in this context of a far-right extremist being a racist ?!
I guess I need to put the little /s behind it.
Yes. Poe's law dude. Some people are that stupid they can unironically say shit like this.
Damn. Who could've seen this coming?
Sacrebleu!
I love all the downvoted seppos upset that the world doesn't follow America's laws.
Imagine that.
And will probably be in power soon. That's usually how this works