Charlie Hebdo Massacre

France Dishonors Charlie Hebdo By Policing Hate Speech

To grant the state the authority to police hatred is to open the door to the policing of thought, conscience, and morality.

|

Two months after the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, the French state has just taken a massive merde on the graves of those who were killed.

It has decided to honor their memory, or dishonor it, by instituting what promise to be the most stringent anti-hate speech laws in Europe. It has declared an "unmerciful battle"—the Justice Minister's actual words—on anything on the internet that insults religious groups or ethnic minorities.

In other words, its response to those gun-wielding Koran-thumpers who declared an unmerciful war on cartoonists for blaspheming against Muhammad is to extend that unmerciful war to cover other forms of offensive speech, too. "Je Suis Charlie," crowed every French politician eight weeks ago, but now we know the complete opposite is the case—the leaders of France are actually finishing the job started by the Charlie-killers, the job of crushing with force "hateful" speech.

The Justice Minister, Christiane Taubira, has announced that the government is gearing up for "unmerciful battle" against online hate speech, especially racism and anti-Semitism. She wants to ensure that France's severe hate-speech laws are applied as strenuously to online blather as they already are to offline stuff like newspaper commentary or speeches in public squares. "Crimes recognised in public spaces must also be recognised as such on the internet," she says.

Her big idea is to give the state new powers to unilaterally remove dodgy material from the web without even requiring the approval of a judge. As France 24 reports, she wants the authority to "shut down websites hosting content that is deemed illicit, without prior court approval." This is alarming. It would make the state the judge, jury, and executioner of public debate, the sole policeman of the parameters of acceptable thought. It would remove even that thin, unconvincing veneer of democracy that gets attached to hate-speech clampdowns in Europe—the bothersome task of having to go through a court case to prove that certain words were indeed racist or something-phobic and therefore should be punished—and would instead allow officialdom to strike from the public sphere, and shove down the memory hole, anything it "deemed illicit."

This unmerciful dispatching of hate-policers across the internet hasn't come out of the blue. In the two months since the Muhammad-mockers at Charlie Hebdo were gunned down at their desks, the French authorities have arrested loads of people for the crime of saying nasty things—the same "crime" the Charlie Hebdo folk were executed for.

In the seven days following the massacre, 54 people were arrested for hate speech or apologizing for terrorism. One man was arrested for saying to some cops, "There should be more Kouachis [the brothers who carried out the massacre]. I hope you'll be the next ones." The anti-Semitic comedian Dieudonne M'bala M'bala was arrested for a Facebook post in which he said he was less Charlie and more Coulibaly—the name of the guy who carried out the post-Charlie murder of Jews at a kosher deli. 

It isn't only apologists for terrorists who have felt the mouth-covering long arm of the law. At the end of January, a French court found three people guilty of anti-gay hate speech after they managed to get the hashtag #gaysmustdiebecause… trending on Twitter. A French gay-rights group, pre-empting Christiane Taubira's declaration of an unmerciful battle against online spite, cheered the conviction of the tweeters, saying it hoped this would "send out the message that the internet is not a place… where you can do whatever you want." Or say whatever you want. Express your feelings on the web in France, and you could be arrested.

This darkly ironic post-Charlie rounding-up of people who simply said wrong or bad things reflects how strictly speech is controlled in the alleged land of liberté, égalité, fraternité. The 1881 Law on the Freedom of the Press (more dark irony) forbids the incitement of discrimination or hatred against any racial, religious, or sexual group. Do that, and you could be locked up for a year or fined 45,000 Euros. The 1990 Gayssot Act makes it a crime to deny the Holocaust. The French penal code outlaws the defamation of any group on the basis of its race, religion, nationality, sex, or sexual orientation.

This vast battery of thought-policing laws doesn't only chastise the sort of stuff we can all agree is repulsive—like using the n-word to describe black people—it also polices and punishes moral convictions: people's deeply held, if not very mainstream, beliefs. So poor Brigitte Bardot has been arrested five times for expressing her serious animal-rights view that the Islamic method of slaughtering meat is "barbaric." The novelist Michel Houellebecq was hauled before the courts for describing Islam as "the most stupid religion," an entirely legitimate viewpoint. 

Those cases should remind us that one man's hate speech is another man's profoundly held belief. Some people believe that Islam is barbaric, or that the Holocaust is a hoax, as fervently as you might believe that cannabis should be decriminalized or Hillary Clinton is an asshole. And their punishment for thinking those things, however batty and fact-free they might be, is every bit as outrageous as if the police turned up at your door and dragged you to court for saying "Marijuana should be legal" or "Clinton's a bitch." The punishment of any belief, whether it's a decent liberal belief or a barmy prejudiced one, is equally wicked, equally authoritarian, and equally wrong.

To grant the state the authority to police hatred—which is nothing more than an emotion, words, a feeling—is to open the door to the policing of thought, conscience, and morality. So in France you can be arrested not only for writing about "niggers," but also for saying "Islam is shit." And in order to prevent the latter, the expression of a moral viewpoint, from being a crime, we must also demand that the former, the expression of blind prejudice, should not be a crime either.

And yet now, not content with policing the press and the utterances of novelists and actresses, the French state wants to spread hate-watchers across the web and shut down anything it considers foul and unacceptable. In the process, it isn't only denigrating the memory of those killed at Charlie Hebdo, who were self-consciously foul, and definitely unacceptable; it is also denting the very values upon which the French Republic was built. Terrifyingly, it is also sending to all the citizens of France the very clear message that "hate speech" is wicked and sinful and must be punished. You know who will fervently embrace that message? The kind of people who shot up Charlie Hebdo; super-sensitive and censorious Islamists who think anyone who takes the mick out of Muhammad or riles their religion is a "phobic" who should be reprimanded. Well done, France—you have just inflamed the very offense-killing sentiment that motored the Charlie Hebdo massacre; you have just given the green light to others who also want to launch an "unmerciful battle" against those who defame or diss their beliefs. Only their merciless war might not be as blood-free as yours.

Advertisement

NEXT: "That's It, House of Cards. You Lost Me."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The 1990 Gayssot Act makes it a crime to deny the Holocaust.

    You know who else used force to prevent the Holocaust from being denied….

    1. Michael Hinh?

      1. Michael Hihn – Village Idiot

        There is an old in Boise
        Whose rantings can be rather noisy
        When he loads his depends
        He drives away friends
        Worse than the stench in New Joisey

  2. Thanks France. This will be a real labor-saver for murderous Muslims. They won’t have to hack to death those who insult Islam, because the government will just lock the infidels away.

    It’s as if Saudi Arabia’s Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice opened up an official French branch.

  3. It’s France.

    1. France now – USA later. It’s coming.

      1. On what time scale? France has nothing like the First Amendment.

        The American left has been beating the “hate speech” drum for 30 years and still haven’t been able to make a dent in it. The 1st is part of our culture and won’t be overcome so easily.

        1. I sure hope you’re right. You can bet the left won’t stop trying to chip away at it – ever. And they are patient.

        2. “France has nothing like the First Amendment.”

          I see no reason why the First Amendment won’t follow the Fourth, Tenth or pretty much the rest of the Constitution down the chute. It’s just a matter of time.

          1. We have Second Amendment solutions, that is why.

            1. We also don’t raise the the white flag of surrender everytime we see a small boat heading towards our shore.

              1. 30-08, brah.

                1. 7.62 x 39 comrade

                2. + -’06?

                  1. + .338 for those really long distance “messages”

            2. “We have Second Amendment solutions, that is why.”

              What will be the tipping point that activates all the rootin’ tootin’ gonna-start-shootin’ folks I keep hearing about?

              1. What will be the tipping point

                A stamp tax?

                Point is, who knows. It probably won’t be any particular issue but a straw that breaks the camel’s back. And that load is getting heavier every day.

                But, rest assured, it’s coming unless someone finds a way to peacefully roll back government. Color me skeptical on that option, but hopeful.

            3. I’d love to see you point to ONE person, anywhere in America, that you think will actually be the one to spark off the rebellion.

              Uh huh. That’s what I though.

          2. The Fourth Amendment is still a lot stronger than any analogous protection in Europe. Please, count your plessings.

            1. Being the tallest midget is not a very convincing argument.

              A much better indicator is whether 4A protections are increasing, decreasing or steady, and at what rate. I think you’d have to admit they are decreasing at an increasing rate, since the founding.

              1. At the founding they didn’t apply to the states.

                1. At the founding they didn’t apply to the states.

                  What does that have to do with the status of 4A protections?

                2. Except all the states at the founding had the fourth in their own constitutions anyway. Fuck you, statist ignorant bitch.

                  1. Default setting “fuck you”?

                    That’s only okay in regards to cutting spending.

                    Who invited the troll?

                3. Seriously, FUCK YOU, cunt.

                  1. Chill, bro. Chill.

                    1. As long as it isn’t followed by four paragraphs of partially bold text and ended with (snickers), I think we can find it at least marginally acceptable.

        3. They have made serious inroads on campus’ (campi ?) with free speech “zones”, at protests like Ferguson, and even the Clive Bundy standoff had a “free speech zone”.

        4. Hate speech is how we get hate crimes. A minor misdemeanor with avoidable jailtime becomes a serious felony once if you hold hateful views.

          1. Exactly. So simply stop with teh hating already!

          2. Only if the hateful views motivated the crime.

            1. What percentage of the crime is directly relatable to the speech? Show a percentage within a reasonable margin of error. Show your work.

            2. This has always worried me, actually.

              Can you prove what a person was thinking, even if you know what they were saying?

              I’ve said some really awful shit in my life, when my temper got the better of me. I’ve never done any of the awful shit I’ve said, though. And even when I said it, I knew it wasn’t true. How do you prove otherwise?

              Thoughtcrime is the next step. Cops want the ability to say “I knew he was thinking of making a furtive movement, so I killed him to protect myself!”. It’ll be the final step neccessary to put anybody in prison or kill them anytime they want.

              Hatespeech crimes are just a step down the stairway to hell.

              1. Thoughtcrime is the next step. Cops want the ability to say “I knew he was thinking of making a furtive movement, so I killed him to protect myself!”

                Haven’t you been paying attention? We’ve been past that step for quite a while. I’ve lost count of the number of pieces Reason has done in the past year about unarmed or unthreatening people murdered by the cops.

      2. Yeah, notice that the culture warriors, these days, are progressives whose stance is notably hostile to religion. I suspect that the main reason why the progressives are able to get away with their rules and culture warrior crap is because they’re seen as generally hostile to religion.

        Christian fundamentalists can’t get the time of day in the U.S. anymore. I don’t see why we should be afraid of Muslim ones.

        Meanwhile, Muslim immigrants to the United States can’t sleep at night because they’re worried their children are starting to act like American kids.

        1. Interesting. I see lots of progressive bashing of Christian fundamentalists. Could you demonstrate comparable volumes of progressives bashing Muslim fundamentalists?

          1. Shit most Proggies can’t even string Muslim and fundamentalist together in the same sentence.

            1. Even the “commander n chief” proclaims that attacks by Muslims on the Jewish barkery in France was just random violence.

              The Fort Hood massacre was also just work place violence by a Muslim shouting Allah u Akbar as he gunned down US soldiers.

          2. “I see lots of progressive bashing of Christian fundamentalists. Could you demonstrate comparable volumes of progressives bashing Muslim fundamentalists?”

            Not sure I understand what you’re getting at.

            Are you suggesting that the progressives aren’t equal opportunity religion bashers?

            I don’t have a problem with that observation.

            I wasn’t defending progressives.

            I was pointing out that if mainstream America is buying into the progressive cultural warrior schtick, it’s because their flavor of culture war doesn’t have a religious basis. I’m pointing out that mainstream America isn’t likely to flock to Islamic fundamentalism–because their culture war schtick does have a religious basis. The American people are ignoring Christian fundamentalism–probably for the same reason, because of its religious basis.

            Gay marriage is becoming more and more normal all the time, and religious fundamentalism keeps getting weirder and weirder from the perspective of the American mainstream.

            In that context, why should we be worried about Islamic fundamentalists taking over America?

            Especially when from the American Muslim’s perspective, the danger is the allure of American culture. Why pretty soon, their daughters will be dancing to rap or moving in with their boyfriends–just like American girls!!! And how will they keep their sons on the farm after they’ve seen wild American women and their yoga pants?

            1. My point is only that proggies are happy to trash Christian idiots but for some reason don’t bother Muslim Allah-howlers.

              I think that decapitation phobia has something to do with the asymmetry.

              1. Yeah, they’re being inconsistent, but if Muslims had any chance whatsoever of having real influence in American politics, I suspect that would change.

                They just see Christian fundamentalists as a legitimate threat (and Muslims as no threat for now). I suspect even progressive criticism of Israel is about Christian fundamentalists supporting Israel.

                If Christian fundamentalists came out against gun ownership tomorrow, the progressives might soon morph into adamant defenders of the Second Amendment.

              2. My point is only that proggies are happy to trash Christian idiots but for some reason don’t bother Muslim Allah-howlers.

                That’s because Progressives, for the large part, identify Muslimism with a race. Therefore, bashing Muslims is racist.

                Proof of this was the case back in the 90s where an American university wouldn’t allow a Christian group to hold meetings on campus, but they allowed a Muslim group to hold meetings. When the Christians challenged the edict, the University, without batting an eye said, “your group is religious, their group is cultural”.

                1. That’s because Progressives, for the large part, identify Muslimism with a race. Therefore, bashing Muslims is racist.

                  Ding ding ding

                2. Paul,

                  I’d be interested in seeing a source for that. If it was a public university that seems blatantly unconstitutional.

              3. I don’t know about this, other than my ultra-right wing brother the most virulently anti-Islamic people I know are hard core lefties.

            2. Living in Montana, I really got a kick out your ending question about “women and their yoga pants.” Thanks for working that into the conversation.

          3. I think there’s a fair amount of progressives involved in movements trying to counter specific Muslim fundamentalist motivated policies- areas like education of girls, women’s rights, gay rights etc. I think they tend not to want to lump all Muslims as fundamentalists though.

            1. I don’t see ANY need to defend the progressives.

              Progressives are more of a legitimate threat to our Constitutional liberties than Muslim fundamentalists, that’s for sure.

            2. Yeah, I remember all the feminists and women’s rights activists howling about the Rotherham rapes.

              1. Zardoz is correct. Contra Bo, progressives may trumpet things like women’s rights and gay rights, but the moment that becomes criticism of Islam, or appears to support the US or the West, they tend to get much quieter. I heard more progressive outrage about the Taliban before 9/11. Once it all mattered more, the important thing for them became opposition to the US, not rights for women and gays in Afghanistan.

                1. Yeah, all those progressives like the ones who championed girls being educated in Afghanistan and worked to get that poor girl activist who was shot over there the Nobel really ignore Islamic oppression of women.

                  1. Jezebel is often held out here as a source of progressive feminism. It seems they provide a fair amount of coverage and outrage over Islamic oppression of women as evidenced by the links below

                    http://jezebel.com/tag/saudi-arabia

                    http://jezebel.com/tag/saudi-arabia

                  2. Well, they don’t mention Islam, so yeah, they do ignore it, instead, they award theselves prizes and pat themselves on the back for a job not done.

              2. Iirc the woman who fought to bring the Rotherham scandal to light was a feminist activist who ran a women’s center there.

            3. Can you name 5?

          4. I see lots of progressive bashing of Christian fundamentalists.

            In their own little circle jerks there is still a lot. Not in the mainstream.

            It also helps that Xian fundamentalists are not what they were in the 1980s… they went from demanding sodomy laws to demanding that states not have to recognize gay marriages, for example.

  4. Is this the French government giving in to militant terrorists, or militant terrorists giving the French government a pretext to do what it wanted to all along?

    1. Hard to tell. They prog harder than most American progs could ever dream of, but they’re also cheese eating surrender monkeys.

      1. I love cheese!

        I NEVER surrender.

    2. “militant terrorists giving the French government a pretext to do what it wanted to all along”

      Just like 9/11 here. Fascism wrapped in the flag.

    3. Its the French government having no principles and so its trying to satisfy its various constituents even if it ends up contradicting itself.

      So its against “hate speech’ as defined by its voting blocks and since its voting blocks don’t agree then the laws will be enforced in the most arbitrary way.

      1. Its the French government having no principles and so its trying to satisfy its various constituents even if it ends up contradicting itself.

        Sounds familiar.

      2. You know who else enforced laws in an arbitrary way?

  5. The worst part of it isn’t the hypocrisy per se; it’s that they’ll eventually create sympathy for the terrorists.

    I think the idea that Jews control the Western media is pretty basic to antisemitism everywhere. How is arresting people for the stupid shit they say on the interwebs about Jews going to help with that?

    It’s like the Bush Administration on torture. Who thought anyone could sympathize with the terrorists? Then the Bush Administration starts torturing them–and Bush might as well have been recruiting for Al Qaeda. Suddenly, the the terrorists that had no moral authority outside their own membership looked like the victim to a lot of would-be recruits who were sitting on the fence.

    How many young women in France had no interest in wearing a veil–before the French government told them they couldn’t? Now those Islamist arguments about how French society makes it impossible for Muslim women to be pious have a currency they wouldn’t have otherwise.

    Winning the Cold War had important cultural aspects to it, too. Wouldn’t you rather have blue jeans, consumerism, and rock & roll like Hong Kong and West Berlin? Or would you rather have a bunch of party bureaucrats telling you what you can and can’t say?

    Hypocrisy isn’t the issue. No one should be surprised by the hypocrisy of politicians. The problem is that the French are squandering their cultural advantage, and they’re making the Islamists look better than they would otherwise.

    1. It’s like when white girls in the Southern U.S. started shaking their tail-feathers to black music.

      The solution was not to ban rock & roll.

      The French are making the Islamists look like rock & roll.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaKVs5mJ4Bg

      1. Rock the Casper.

    2. Ken, it’s huge conundrum with no easy answers. France may well have destroyed their culture with Muslim immigration. They are now flailing for “civilized” band-aids to fix the problem. It may be too late.

      I oppose hate speech laws, but I’m not a good libertarian because I also oppose massive Third World immigration. France is perhaps the prime current example of those dangers. It’s The Camp of the Saints, happening right before our eyes.

      If they want to avoid becoming a Muslim country ruled by sharia law, they don’t have many options. They might be able to slow the process by ending all Muslim immigration and the welfare state that supports so many of them. But barring mass deportations of citizens or a civil war, I’m not sure they can stop it. The demographics do not look good for them. No wonder the National Front is gaining ground.

      1. I wouldn’t say they ruined it with immigration.

        You might say they ruined it with colonialism.

        It’s about Algeria, isn’t it?

        My understanding is that a million or so of those unassimilated Muslims on the outskirts of Paris are the descendants of Algerians who supported France in the Algerian War.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harki

        1. That link says the Harki and their descendants total about 800,000. However, France has a Muslim population of 4.7 million. The rest aren’t all ethnic French converts.

          1. I had an amazing post with all sorts of links and everything. Freaking browser crashed again. I don’t know if it’s Reason’s ads or ad block itself, but whichever…

            Suffice it to say, that was 800,000 directly from the fighters who fought in the Algerian War, but there were many more Algerian Muslims who came that weren’t fighting in the war.

            I saw a stat that France has some 1.5 million of Moroccan origin, alone, and the Algerians still outnumber the Moroccans by a long shot. There’s a big Tunisian presence, and then there are a bunch who originated from francophone sub-saharan Africa. These were all places that were once colonies of France.

            Just like the reason there are so many Puerto Ricans and Filipinos in the United States isn’t entirely unrelated to our own adventures with colonialism.

          2. Anyway, if France has problems with assimilation, it’s been a problem going back to when those Muslims’ parents and grandparents came to France before 1962. I think capitalism is much better at integrating people into society, and socialism does a terrible job of it–but that’s probably not the lesson to take from this.

            It’s that France’s assimilation problems stem from their colonial adventures in North Africa–almost all of those Muslims came from the former French colonies of Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria–and decades ago through the process of decolonization. And unless we do something stupid like try tp turn Iraq into a colony (like France did with Algeria), then we probably won’t be facing the same problems with assimilation as France.

            Their problems certainly aren’t a function of supposed insidiousness of Islam itself. If they didn’t want to end up with millions of unassimilated post-colonials in their society, then maybe they shouldn’t have engaged in colonialism.

            1. Anyway, if France has problems with assimilation, it’s been a problem going back to when those Muslims’ parents and grandparents came to France before 1962.

              Unfortunately, no. It’s not the parents and grandparents cheering Al Qaeda and ISIS, it’s the younger ones. The older ones assimilated pretty well. Your argument is reminiscent of the common excuse for black crime in the US: “It’s because of poverty and racism!!” Well, then why was there less of it back when there was more poverty and racism?

              Yes, colonialism was a factor, but pointing that out explains little and solves nothing. The Vietnamese and others from their former colonies in south-east Asia are assimilating fine. The root of their problem is Islam, not colonialism.

              1. “Unfortunately, no. It’s not the parents and grandparents cheering Al Qaeda and ISIS, it’s the younger ones.”

                Their grandparents were unassimilated, their parents were unassimilated, and they are still unassimilated.

                Did you read this from the link about the Harki?

                “The government did not plan for the Harkis after independence, and for some years, it did not recognize any right for them to stay in France as residents and citizens. The Harkis were kept in “temporary” internment camps surrounded by barbed wire, such as the Joffre Camp in Rivesaltes (outside of Perpignan) and in “chantiers de forestage”?communities of 30 Harki families on the outskirts of forests which the men maintained…

                …Hundreds of active Harki associations in France are working to obtain further recognition and aid in integrating into the society; they are still a largely unassimilated refugee minority. For its part, the Algerian government does not recognize the Harkis as French citizens. It does not permit them to enter the country to visit their birth places or family members left behind in Algeria.”

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harki

                The older ones did not assimilate.

                Ever.

                They were still being held in something like internment camps until they rioted in 1970s.

                I’m not sure their citizenship has been cleared up yet!

                1. OK, maybe “assimilated” is not the word I want. But that generation is not engaging in terrorism. The terrorism is coming from their kids and grandkids, who don’t even have the excuse of having been held in internment camps.

                  And you didn’t address my counter-example about the immigrants from France’s Asian colonies. There’s no terrorism from non-Muslim immigrants from former colonies, so colonialism is obviously not the determining factor.

                  1. “Yes, colonialism was a factor, but pointing that out explains little and solves nothing. The Vietnamese and others from their former colonies in south-east Asia are assimilating fine. The root of their problem is Islam, not colonialism.”

                    I’d like to point out that you were saying the problem was immigration:

                    “France may well have destroyed their culture with Muslim immigration. They are now flailing for “civilized” band-aids to fix the problem. It may be too late.”

                    This isn’t a band-aid problem; it’s been ongoing since 1962.

                    And it wasn’t an immigration problem; it was about foreign veterans who fought for France escaping what became a massacre for hundreds of thousands who stayed behind in Algeria after the war.

                    And it was about people from colonies naturally gravitating to wherever the best opportunities were. When Puerto Ricans come to the U.S. mainland, they aren’t exactly immigrating. They were already on American territory.

                    Assimilation is a big problem for France, and it has been since 1962.

                    And the suggestion that Islam itself is the problem–ignoring obviously bigger factors like socialism, the economic stagnation and youth unemployment socialism brings, colonialism, etc. is missing some big elephants in the room.

                    Incidentally, we’re still having problems with African-Americans assimilating into society after all these decades–especially the unemployed urban youth–and it isn’t because of Islam.

              2. Yeah. Over-emphasis of “colonialism” sets off my leftoid detector. It’s not an essential concept, it’s the kind of thing you get lost in the weeds on.

                Whatever % of Muslims living in France arrived there due to colonialism, the fact that they *are* there, and it isn’t working out, and it won’t likely end pretty, and what should be done about it, and what about the suicidal implications of mass third world immigration to the West–that’s the issue at stake, not getting lost in the weeds talking about “colonialism”.

                1. Actually, the question was whether the United States is in danger of becoming an Islamic state with sharia law because of immigration–and the suggestion was that this will happen because of plain old immigration, like what happened in France.

                  If France has a unique history of colonialism that brought millions of unassimilated Muslims people to France–who wouldn’t be there by way of regular immigration otherwise–then, yeah, that fact is pertinent in a conversation about whether the United Sates is going to have the same problems as France.

                  There is also the question of how the French have gone about assimilating these people. Socialism makes people resent each other–and especially immigrants. The more people are forced to pay for each other, the more particular they get about who they let in. (See Arizona post ObamaCare) Meanwhile, a huge chunk of these people were locked up in internment camps when they first arrived–and denied citizenship in both Algeria and France. Meanwhile, youth unemployment is and has been at outrageous levels in France for decades–because of their socialism. It’s no wonder if many among the Muslim youth in France are unassimilated.

                  And I can see a lot of reasons why we wouldn’t end up in the same situation as France, and I can see a lot of reasons why we shouldn’t emulate their economic system–Muslims or no Muslims, too.

                  1. I am not claiming the US is going to go sharia anytime soon. My point is that mass immigration can easily change the character of countries. The Muslim population in Europe is already changing it, for the worse. And things are likely to get even worse.

                    The US is not in as bad a shape. Instead of becoming more like North Africa and the Middle East, we are going to become more like Latin America: poorer and more inclined to vote leftist.

                2. “Yeah. Over-emphasis of “colonialism” sets off my leftoid detector.”

                  I’m not going to pretend something is true just to assuage your aesthetic sensibilities.

                  And I sincerely hope you don’t believe things are true just because they don’t sound “leftoid”.

  6. How many divisions does it take to defend France from invasion?

    No one knows. It’s never been tried.

    1. Well, not since the 1790s anyway.

      1. If it wasn’t for the women they wouldn’t have had a revolution.

        1. Especially that topless one carrying the flag who leads them into battle.

          1. Especially that topless one carrying the flag who leads them into battle.

            That was the only way they could get them to follow.

          2. She did have to shave her pits, though.

  7. Express your feelings on the web in France, and you could be arrested.

    Well, I certainly hope H&R is banned “in France”, whatever *that* means.

    1. Banned in France is a great marketing slogan

      1. 2 Live Crew’s resurrection tour?

    2. Is the French Gov. going to try and extradite foreigners who post anti Islamic screeds on French publication’s web sites ?

  8. “The Justice Minister, Christiane Taubira, has announced that the government is gearing up for “unmerciful battle” against online hate speech, especially racism and anti-Semitism. She wants to ensure that France’s severe hate-speech laws are applied as strenuously to online blather as they already are to offline stuff like newspaper commentary or speeches in public squares.”

    How does that work, exactly? China-like control of what can be accessed? I am not sure how the frog-bitch is gonna shut me up. Fuck her and fuck France.

    1. I really don’t think you want to fuck her. She is hideous. And I’m using the term “she” pretty loosly here.

      1. HATE SPEECH!

      2. She is hideous. And I’m using the term “she” pretty loosly here.

        +1 Jake from State Farm

    2. How does that work, exactly? China-like control of what can be accessed? I am not sure how the frog-bitch is gonna shut me up. Fuck her and fuck France.

      She can’t shut YOU up, but she could, for instance, regulate internet carriers as a utility (just spitballing here) and then fine them for carrying your content.

      Never underestimate the government’s ability to regulate or ban something through sheer force of will.

  9. Speaking of the tender sensibilities of rag heads, I was recently talking to the manager of a pizza restaurant. He said they are a huge pain in the ass. They complain about people eating pepperoni and ask for tables where that heinous act can’t be seen. Then they complain about being able to smell the stuff.

    He said if they complain even a little about pork he makes sure every slice of their cheese pizzas contain little pieces of ham.

    I guess they don’t understand that here you never complain about food in a restaurant.

    I had to laugh.

    1. The Pizza man is doing what I proposed the baker who didn’t want to bake a gay cake do.

      Don’t openly refuse just bake a shitty cake and get a bad rep among gays.

      Problem solved and no Gov needed.

      1. If you contract to sell a halal pizza and then put ham in it, it’s fraud. Don’t matter how offensive the customer is.

        And providing subpar service to gays or Muslims, *because* they’re gays or Muslims, will be treated as illegal discrimination just as much as openly denying service.

        1. The simple solution there is to never agree or contract to provide a Halal pizza. It hasn’t gotten to the point yet where Muslims can demand that you provide particular menu items or products that you don’t normally provide. And pig fat is an essential part of your cooking process. That’s just the way it is.

    2. “Speaking of the tender sensibilities of rag heads,”

      Keep it classy there Suthenboy! And, as a Southerner myself, maybe you could change your handle seeing as how the stereotype of the bigoted Southerner is already bad enough as it is.

      1. Or perhaps you could move.

        I was not using the term ‘rag head’ in earnest you idiot.

        ‘Idiot’, now I did use that term in earnest.

        1. What would be an ‘earnest’ use of such a word? You used it the way I’d expect a bigot to use the word (“speaking of [epithet], let me tell you a story about how stupid they are!”).

          1. Funny, I see this John Rocker shit all the time. John Rocker, a nice polite southern boy raised right, goes to New York and, nice polite southern boy that he is, knows that it’s a courtesy to follow the local customs and therefore, as any native New Yorker would, starts loudly yapping about fags on the subway. Does the local press here say how proud they are of our boy John Rocker and how well he tried to fit right into New York? No, of course not – they start complaining about how bad John Rocker made southerners look. John Rocker is a fucking hero and if the local press had had even a microgram of testosterone in their collective body they would have told those whiny New Yorkers to pull up their big girl panties and quit being such crybabies. Because that’s what a goddamn New Yorker would have said.
            .
            Well, fuck off, asshole. How dare you criticize somebody else’s culture? There’s a culture of people who worship the Koran that we’re supposed to be sensitive toward but around here we’ve got a culture of people who burn the Koran – and we’ve got just as many guns as they do so watch whose culture you’re insulting.

            1. Weak.

          2. My ‘rag head’ wasn’t directed at muslims, you idiot, it was directed at people who say I can’t say it.

            Read the article, idiot.

            1. Why be afraid of a leftoid calling you a “bigot”? That’s their game, the game of all altruists: fabricate a set of arbitrary dogmas and rules, then cash-in on your guilt when you violate them. Is a leftoid any less “bigoted” towards white males, Christians, and the greatness of Western civilization?

              No. So why cede the moral high ground to these idiotic lemmings? Do you not see that it is only your own sanction that allows you to succumb to so small an enemy?

    3. What a shitty manager!

      My experience with free market capitalism is that entrepreneurs do a much better job of serving the desires of their customers than the government does, but I know there are exceptions, where a manager is just too dumb for words. Still, I don’t think we need the government to step in and take care of idiot managers like this. Eventually, the market will correct itself, and this guy will be washing dishes or something else that doesn’t require any interaction with customers.

      I’d certainly like to think that idiot managers who trick their customers into violating their religious convictions for sport get fired. Why would a competent manager do that to paying customers?

      If that manager treats all of his customers’ requests like they’re a pain in the ass, he probably won’t be a manager for very long. Either that, or he lives in a really small town. Regardless, your friend is an asshole. The progressives use assholes like him to justify keeping the government breathing down our necks.

      If he stayed up all night trying to think up new and better ways to help the progressives, he probably couldn’t have come up with anything better than just being himself.

      1. “managers who trick their customers into violating their religious convictions for sport get fired.”

        I don’t think that is what he is up to.

        What the customer is up to is deliberately making as much of a nuisance of themselves as possible to punish the restaurant for having pork on the menu.

        What do you do with a customer that makes you spend all of your time and resources on them to all the other customers detriment?

        I think they are getting off light. I would kick them out.

    4. They complain about people eating pepperoni and ask for tables where that heinous act can’t be seen.

      …outside.

      Wait…PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION!

      So…sign over door. “All our pizzas are baked in 100% pig fat.”

      1. He should give them full-face burqas to block the view.

      2. Actually, advertising that you don’t want customers is probably bad for business.

        And your local mosque is typically a big pizza customer. They usually feed the whole mosque after prayers, and they’re big on everybody getting the same thing. So pizza is the easiest thing of all–I’ve seen mosques order fifty+ pizzas one night every week.

        As an entrepreneur, you certainly don’t want a mosque full of customers avoiding your restaurant just because your idiot manager doesn’t like taking care of customers.

        One of the main functions of a restaurant manager is to make picky customers happy. And this idiot manager’s attitude probably extends to a lot of his other customers, too. I’d like to open up a pizza restaurant in this town.

        1. Seriously? I would assume the mosque would be concerned about pork residue getting into their pizzas. It’s not exactly a rigorous cleanroom environment behind the counter.

          1. Yes. He said they had some refuse to eat pizzas because it was cut with the same knife and on the same board as the pepperoni pizza. This complaint came after the pizzas were ordered and cooked and delivered t the table. They tried to refuse payment also.

            Cops ended up getting involved.

            1. Sounds like the ultra-Orthodox Jews who have two kitchens and insist on restaurants being glatt kosher.

              Fuck Kiryas Joel.

        2. As an entrepreneur, you certainly don’t want a mosque full of customers avoiding your restaurant just because your idiot manager doesn’t like taking care of customers.

          That decision should be left to the owner/manager. If he chooses to accommodate them, it may or may not be in his best interest to do so. None of MY business, or anyone’s but the owner’s.

          (PS, from a libertarian POV, putting ham in the pizza is certainly unacceptable (fraud). From a rational perspective, however, it’s funny as shit, particularly if they are demanding accommodation.)

          1. I think you nailed it.

            1. Where is this restaurant?

          2. Yes: technically wrong, but funny.

    5. He said if they complain even a little about pork he makes sure every slice of their cheese pizzas contain little pieces of ham.

      Outright intentional fraud is so libertarian.

      1. Jesus Christ – we’re talking about the manager of a pizza restaurant, so I’m guessing we’re talking about Pizza Hut. If calling that shit ‘pizza’ ain’t fraud then what’s a little ham in a kosher pie?

        1. The Chinese take-out joints in my Brooklyn neighborhood have halal-ized due to the local population – but I bet if the pizza joints followed suit there would be blood.

        2. I laughed. Ha!

    6. “He said if they complain even a little about pork he makes sure every slice of their cheese pizzas contain little pieces of ham.

      I guess they don’t understand that here you never complain about food in a restaurant.”

      It’s unusual for a manager to engage in that kind of passive aggressive food sabotage. Usually it’s the embittered employees who do it.

      1. I am always nice to the restaurant staff anywhere I go. I never complain about the food unless it is especially egregious and I always tip well. I tip very well if the service is above average.

        Everywhere that knows me loves to see me coming. It pays off too.

        1. My policy is I always tip well unless I don’t plan on coming back. I’ve worked in food service and I know that no bad waiter ever gets introspective after a bad tip, they always blame the customer.

          1. Yes.

            Also, I don’t go to a restaurant for food. I go for service. I cook better at home.

            If someone is going to stand on their feet all day and run and fetch stuff for me so that I don’t have to do dishes I am going to make it worth their while.

  10. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.wixjob.com

    1. Let me guess. You got in your time machine and correctly answered some questions on a 1950s quiz show.

      1. They sell pork-free pizza to mosques!

  11. The funny thing is that they see this not as a contradiction but as part & parcel. They think they can stop violence by stopping people from letting each other know they’re mad at them, and/or that if you can stop people from saying they’re mad at other people, either they’ll no longer actually be mad at other people or they won’t persuade yet other people to be mad at those people.

  12. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    go to tech tab for work detail

    ?~?~?~?~?~~~~~~~ http://www.jobsfish.com

  13. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    go to tech tab for work detail

    ?~?~?~?~?~~~~~~~ http://www.jobsfish.com

  14. Well, it least it’s not that paragon of moderation and secularism known as Turkey:

    http://www.breitbart.com/natio…..lie-hebdo/

  15. Sadly this neither informed nor interesting. Just an outsider’s outraged opinion piece. Cui bono?

    1. You’d be a lot more convincing if you pointed out a single factual error in the article.

  16. Why is it “alarming”? It’s France, it’s not like they had free speech before.

    1. They have had ‘Committees’ before, though, and those particular committees didn’t use sharp words to restrain your tongue, they used a sharp blade. Were I Islamic, I might think twice about beheading Frenchmen as a way of instilling a reign of terror – the French have already been there, done that.

  17. France: “Je Suis Nazi Germany.”

    1. BTW, I’m going to borrow this, if you don’t mind, but I’m going to drop the “Germany”

      It rolls off the tongue betters as “Je Suis Nazi”

      1. So the terrorists Nazis did win after all.

  18. France, marching gleefully down the path of self destruction, once again.

    Humans, quite possibly the dumbest animal on the planet.

  19. To all the French actively supporting this Orwellian thought police, you are sheep!

  20. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.go-review.com

  21. Yup, back to Robespierre all for the sake of a handful of indispensable banlieue-lurking shits.

  22. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.big-reports.com

  23. But the term “dishonored” this, that or the other thing is such Liberal-Progressive term. Wouldn’t it be better to re-write the article in order to substitute hypocritical for dishonored.

  24. Say what you want about all of this, but at least I’m glad to see the “Nous sommes Charlie” graffiti persists, and looks to be freshly painted. There is some hope….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.