Monday, January 20, 2020

France: Another Blow to Free Speech in Europe

Hat tip  Gates of Vienna

Free speech in Europe has suffered another blow as a French writer, Renaud Camus, has been sentenced by a French court for his speech opposing unrestricted immigration. The below article from the Italian news outlet, Il Giornale, is translated from Italian by Fousesquawk.

France, Renauld Camus convicted for having criticized immigration

Renaud Camus, has been  sentenced to two months in prison (suspended) on condition he compensate two anti-racist associations with 1,800 euros. Reason? He criticized immigration

New troubles for the French writer Renaud Camus. After being convicted for incitement to racial hatred in 2014, the founder of Parti de l'in-nocense, author of "Grande Sostituzione" (The Great Replacement), that is the colonization of France (and more in general, Europe) on the part of Islamic migrants, as reports La Verita, he is now sentenced to two months of prison (suspended) on condition that he compensate  each of the two designated anti-racist civilian parties, SOS Racisme and la Licra.

The judges charged him with the crime of public incitement to hate or violence for reasons of origin, ethnicity, nationality, race or religion through words, writings, images, or means of electronic public communication.

 The magistrates of the tribunal of Auch have charged the French intellectual  for a speech delivered 19 November 2017 in Colombey-les-deux Eglises, before the National Council of European Resistance, which Camus himself shared on his social (network). "Immigration has become an invasion," declared Camus in the speech charged by the magistrates- "The irreversible colonization is the demographic colonization, by the replacement of the population". And also: "The ethnic substitution, the great replacement, is the most important event in the history of our nation since it has existed, as with other people, if the story continues, it will not be that of France." There are no French jihadists," he stressed, and, "if there are jihadists, they are not French". What we need, he then explained, "is for all who oppose Islamization and African conquests to rally. What is necessary is a national consensus of resistance, of European resistance, because all European nations are invited to carry on at our side the struggle for salvation of our common civilization, Celtic, Slavic, Germanic, Greek-Latin, Judeo-Christian."

A specter haunts Europe and the world, he finally remarked in one of the passages targeted by the judges, "(is) the substitution, the tendency to substitute everything with its emulator, normalized, standardized, interchangeable: The original with its copy, the authentic with its imitation, the true with the false, the mothers with surrogate mothers, the culture with free time and entertainment". Open the heavens. One might, naturally, not be in agreement with the thesis of Camus and his "exclusive" nationalism, but at what point  has it become illegal to maintain that immigration represents "an invasion"? What is strange about affirming that uncontrolled and wild immigration of immigrants to a European country risks changing it radically and changing it from a demographic point of view, from its culture, from its customs and morals? Do we have to pretend that it doesn't and that identity does not exist? Or, in any case, does saying it constitute a crime of opinion?

 When it concerns intellectuals and thinkers not aligned with the single thought, it seems that the famous maxim, "I am (not) in agreement with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," is worth decisively less. To note that notwithstanding his theories, Camus keeps his distance  from the concept of the "white man's burden"of Kipling and from the consideration that the white man is superior. Therefore, where is the racism? "No, not  a word of this in any of my books". And in the same way, there is nothing approaching white supremacists. "I have nothing (in common) with them. They, on the other hand have something  (in common) with me because, like me, they protest against the great substitution.  But I disapprove of them, especially when they become terrorists. In 2002, I founded  the Party of In-nocence, with the dash inside, intended as a negation of all that which could give birth to every type of aggression, from putting your feet on the seats of a commuter train to killing. I am absolutely non-violent."


No comments: