Featured France: Macron says Charlie Hebdo had right to publish Prophet Mohammed cartoons

[saiyan0321]

Is macron well aware that the french constitution does not allow somebody a right to blaspheme and both the french laws and constitution create a bar on such? If i was french, i would be worried about the lack of knowledge, the leader of my country just displayed and would seriously wonder whether such a person should be allowed to hold office or removed in the next election.

The Freedom of Expression is indeed considered an essential freedom in france and is enshrined in the constitution due to the addition of the 'Universal Declaration of Human and Civic Rights 1789' and Articles 10 and 11 of the Declaration protect freedoms of opinion and expression, describing the “free communication of ideas and of opinions” as “one of the most precious rights of man.”
Yet Despite its foundational importance, freedom of speech was never intended to be absolute. In contrast to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the 1789 Declaration of Human and Civic Rights provided limits to freedom of expression in its very definition. Article 10 declares;
“No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order.”

This was also echoed in the European Human Rights Convention that Freedom of Speech needs to have bars and france is part of the EU.


The European Convention on Human Rights declared:

"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."


So we witness that in both cases the freedom of speech is home to limitations that are to be made so that such rights do not become a form of weapon to be used against other people. This was even more true since these rights could be used to slander and abuse, disturbing the harmony of a modern state. This has been interpreted by the French courts as well since in 2014 decision in which the Council of State upheld the prohibition of a public performance by controversial comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, because it was justified by the high risk that he would disturb public order by engaging in illegal hate speech.

Now the French courts have applied, what one can say is the notion of "Principle of Proportionality" which in criminal law layman term would be defined as the punishment of a criminal should not be greater or severe than the nature of the crime like for stealing 10 Euro, you dont hang the person. The French courts applied the same principle in freedom of speech that the risk of public disorder will decide whether a speech should be stifled or not. In this case, the risk of public disorder is huge.

The 1789 Declaration of Human and Civic Rights defines freedom in general as the following
“being able to do anything that does not harm others.”
Consistent with that definition, freedom of speech in France is limited by the right to privacy, the presumption of innocence, the right to “human dignity,” and by rules prohibiting defamation and insult.

Now this was basically how they interpreted the constitutional aspect of things but there exists other bars as well. The Freedom of Speech in France is not absolute. There are basic penal laws in France which prohibit as such

Furthermore, the Law of 29 July 1881 on Freedom of the Press, which is still in force, prohibits defamation and insults, both written and verbal. The Law of 29 July 1881 defines “defamation” as
“any allegation or imputation of a fact which harms the honor or consideration of the person or group to which the fact is imputed.” T
he same provision defines “insult” as “any offensive expression, term of contempt, or invective which does not contain the imputation of any fact.”

The following are punishable by law by the 1881 law:

- Public provocation to hatred, violence or racial discrimination.

- Public defamation on the grounds of an actual or assumed membership or non-membership to a specific ethnic group, nation, race or religion.

- Public slander on the grounds of an actual or assumed membership or non-membership to a specific ethnic group, nation, race or religion


Now the above basically means that the magazine itself is not acting on freedom of speech but is breaking it through incitement of hatred and public provocation. These are absolute offences which need to be punished rather than supported and Macron would do well to remember the laws of his own country. There are many cases and this discussion would be a long one on legal ground but nobody can deny the existence of such laws in France. It declares the breakdown of French system when the Prime Minister is ignorant of his own laws and speaks in contravention to it simply because something is a trend and would earn him negative report.

Now i am not the master of French law however the wordings seem pretty basic for me to interpret the actions of hebdo as illegal in French law. Perhaps, if we have french member, they would explain it all the more. I remember their being one.

@jaibi @WAJsal @PanzerKiel @waz @Arsalan @Moonlight @Joe Shearer @Indus Pakistan @RealNapster @Jungibaaz @The Accountant

 

[Joe Shearer]

I have my doubts.

If hebdo has said something that offends certain votaries of a faith, or acted in a way that disturbs those of a certain faith, it definitely will attract the mischief of an adverse interpretation on the grounds of public security and safety.

Let us take the instance of depiction in pictures of a holy figure, against the norms and traditions of a section of his followers.

Does that, in absolute terms, create a cause for disturbance of public order? What if the depiction is blasphemous to one set and a matter of indifference, depending on the context (no vulgarity, no imputation of socially abominable behaviour)? How important is it to take account of the hurt feelings of a section, ignoring the indifference of another, equally involved and committed section? What size of such a section will be a critical size? Taking this speculation to its extreme length, will finally, the objection of one person to this act trigger legal action, or pre-emptive administrative action?

 

[saiyan0321]

Does that, in absolute terms, create a cause for disturbance of public order?

It does since the image depiction is against the norms of that religious section and the important thing is that there have been examples of Public Disorder whenever such was done before. Secondly how those images are created are also important because satirical usage is a form of offense to the feelings of a religious group. It comes under their law where they stated that doing such actions as illegal. Take into example the case i mentioned. He was, like hebdo would justify himself, as controversial comedian that is breaking the barriers of society but the court still took action against him because such would lead to public disorder.

What if the depiction is blasphemous to one set and a matter of indifference, depending on the context (no vulgarity, no imputation of socially abominable behaviour)?

Images of holy figure is blasphemous to nearly the entire set especially satirical which hebdo will definitely indulge in since the entire magazine basis itself on satire offensive for example they repeatedly published images that would definitely come under public slander and public defamation of their own 1881 law. The important thing to note is that legal action has become very hard because previously they were unknown so nobody bothered but after the attack, anybody that would take legal action against them would be considered as an enemy of Free Speech however this is not Free speech, as i held above.

How important is it to take account of the hurt feelings of a section, ignoring the indifference of another, equally involved and committed section? What size of such a section will be a critical size?

It is very important because what the court needs to take into account is not just the reaction but the hurt sentiments of the silent majority. The french courts have always tried to balance free speech and limitations on free speech and i get where you are coming from but in this set scenario, hebdo's actions not just threaten public disorder but look to hurt the sentiments of a sizable group of people.

aking this speculation to its extreme length, will finally, the objection of one person to this act trigger legal action, or pre-emptive administrative action?

That is a rare case and will be employed according to the merits of the case however i will point out that the defamation of religious, ethnic, national groups and if the law is to be followed to the letter, without legal interpretation, then yes it should however as i said the french courts have always tried to balance free speech and limitations. In this case, it is not a single group but a large group and if there will be hurt sentiments and public disorder then it should not be allowed.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It does since the image depiction is against the norms of that religious section and the important thing is that there have been examples of Public Disorder whenever such was done before. Secondly how those images are created are also important because satirical usage is a form of offense to the feelings of a religious group. It comes under their law where they stated that doing such actions as illegal. Take into example the case i mentioned. He was, like hebdo would justify himself, as controversial comedian that is breaking the barriers of society but the court still took action against him because such would lead to public disorder.


Images of holy figure is blasphemous to nearly the entire set especially satirical which hebdo will definitely indulge in since the entire magazine basis itself on satire offensive for example they repeatedly published images that would definitely come under public slander and public defamation of their own 1881 law. The important thing to note is that legal action has become very hard because previously they were unknown so nobody bothered but after the attack, anybody that would take legal action against them would be considered as an enemy of Free Speech however this is not Free speech, as i held above.


It is very important because what the court needs to take into account is not just the reaction but the hurt sentiments of the silent majority. The french courts have always tried to balance free speech and limitations on free speech and i get where you are coming from but in this set scenario, hebdo's actions not just threaten public disorder but look to hurt the sentiments of a sizable group of people.


That is a rare case and will be employed according to the merits of the case however i will point out that the defamation of religious, ethnic, national groups and if the law is to be followed to the letter, without legal interpretation, then yes it should however as i said the french courts have always tried to balance free speech and limitations. In this case, it is not a single group but a large group and if there will be hurt sentiments and public disorder then it should not be allowed.

The reference, of course, is to the availability of portraits of the highest religious figures in Iran. If it is not offensive there, and if only the other segment feel offended - leaving aside your very important point about the satire involved - how far should we go?

Will, for instance, a classification by France, for instance, of an Ahmedi from south Asia as Muslim, contradicting their rejection as belonging to the body of Muslims by the state of Pakistan, cause offence to orthodox Muslims resident in France?

 

[saiyan0321]

The reference, of course, is to the availability of portraits of the highest religious figures in Iran. If it is not offensive there, and if only the other segment feel offended - leaving aside your very important point about the satire involved - how far should we go?

Iran has portrait of Hazrat Ali (R.A) and not the prophet and Shia's dont consider him to be a holy figure in equivalence to the prophet i.e. a prophet himself. Infact they denounce the sect that dared to declare him as a prophet. There is a huge difference between the Prophet and the best of Companions. For example, Hazrat Umer (R.A) and Hazrat Abu Bakar (R.A) were depicted in the famous film 'The Message' and in the famous Series "Umer R.A". I have seen that very portrait being sold in Pakistan as well.

Will, for instance, a classification by France, for instance, of an Ahmedi from south Asia as Muslim, contradicting their rejection as belonging to the body of Muslims by the state of Pakistan, cause offence to orthodox Muslims resident in France?

French courts, as i stated would most likely look at the case on its merits and try to balance freedom and speech and limitation. I dont understand this example. Is the particular person abusing for limitation of freedom of speech to come into act or are we talking as his mere existence then it is not in the ambit of limitation nor of free speech but of freedom of religion.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Is macron well aware that the french constitution does not allow somebody a right to blaspheme and both the french laws and constitution create a bar on such? If i was french, i would be worried about the lack of knowledge, the leader of my country just displayed and would seriously wonder whether such a person should be allowed to hold office or removed in the next election.

The Freedom of Expression is indeed considered an essential freedom in france and is enshrined in the constitution due to the addition of the 'Universal Declaration of Human and Civic Rights 1789' and Articles 10 and 11 of the Declaration protect freedoms of opinion and expression, describing the “free communication of ideas and of opinions” as “one of the most precious rights of man.”
Yet Despite its foundational importance, freedom of speech was never intended to be absolute. In contrast to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the 1789 Declaration of Human and Civic Rights provided limits to freedom of expression in its very definition. Article 10 declares;
“No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order.”

This was also echoed in the European Human Rights Convention that Freedom of Speech needs to have bars and france is part of the EU.


The European Convention on Human Rights declared:

"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."


So we witness that in both cases the freedom of speech is home to limitations that are to be made so that such rights do not become a form of weapon to be used against other people. This was even more true since these rights could be used to slander and abuse, disturbing the harmony of a modern state. This has been interpreted by the French courts as well since in 2014 decision in which the Council of State upheld the prohibition of a public performance by controversial comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, because it was justified by the high risk that he would disturb public order by engaging in illegal hate speech.

Now the French courts have applied, what one can say is the notion of "Principle of Proportionality" which in criminal law layman term would be defined as the punishment of a criminal should not be greater or severe than the nature of the crime like for stealing 10 Euro, you dont hang the person. The French courts applied the same principle in freedom of speech that the risk of public disorder will decide whether a speech should be stifled or not. In this case, the risk of public disorder is huge.

The 1789 Declaration of Human and Civic Rights defines freedom in general as the following
“being able to do anything that does not harm others.”
Consistent with that definition, freedom of speech in France is limited by the right to privacy, the presumption of innocence, the right to “human dignity,” and by rules prohibiting defamation and insult.

Now this was basically how they interpreted the constitutional aspect of things but there exists other bars as well. The Freedom of Speech in France is not absolute. There are basic penal laws in France which prohibit as such

Furthermore, the Law of 29 July 1881 on Freedom of the Press, which is still in force, prohibits defamation and insults, both written and verbal. The Law of 29 July 1881 defines “defamation” as
“any allegation or imputation of a fact which harms the honor or consideration of the person or group to which the fact is imputed.” T
he same provision defines “insult” as “any offensive expression, term of contempt, or invective which does not contain the imputation of any fact.”

The following are punishable by law by the 1881 law:

- Public provocation to hatred, violence or racial discrimination.

- Public defamation on the grounds of an actual or assumed membership or non-membership to a specific ethnic group, nation, race or religion.

- Public slander on the grounds of an actual or assumed membership or non-membership to a specific ethnic group, nation, race or religion


Now the above basically means that the magazine itself is not acting on freedom of speech but is breaking it through incitement of hatred and public provocation. These are absolute offences which need to be punished rather than supported and Macron would do well to remember the laws of his own country. There are many cases and this discussion would be a long one on legal ground but nobody can deny the existence of such laws in France. It declares the breakdown of French system when the Prime Minister is ignorant of his own laws and speaks in contravention to it simply because something is a trend and would earn him negative report.

Now i am not the master of French law however the wordings seem pretty basic for me to interpret the actions of hebdo as illegal in French law. Perhaps, if we have french member, they would explain it all the more. I remember their being one.

@jaibi @WAJsal @PanzerKiel @waz @Arsalan @Moonlight @Joe Shearer @Indus Pakistan @RealNapster @Jungibaaz @The Accountant

You know politics and law are interwined. what you see here in Europe is rise of certain political sentiment and Macron is expressing that. The laws you see on the books are from a earlier, more ideal times that existed post WW2. Today there is rise of far right and general sentiment against the migrants from Third World. That sentiment has sadly become conflated with 'Muslims'. Musims has become a trope for migration when the fact is the largest threat to Europe is from Sub-Saharan Africa.

Over time you will see laws being changed to reflect the change on mood on the ground. Macron as a politician has felt the mood on the street and is merely feeding on that.

 

[saiyan0321]

You know politics and law are interwined. what you see here in Europe is rise of certain political sentiment and Macron is expressing that. The laws you see on the books are from a earlier, more ideal times that existed post WW2. Today there is rise of far right and general sentiment against the migrants from Third World. That sentiment has sadly become conflated with 'Muslims'. Musims has become a trope for migration when the fact is the largest threat to Europe is from Sub-Saharan Africa.

Over time you will see laws being changed to reflect the change on mood on the ground. Macron as a politician has felt the mood on the street and is merely feeding on that.

I believe this is where the Jurist and the legal fraternity comes into play. It is they who need to remind the french on how limitations on rights was something that the revolutionaries themselves envisaged and the courts of France have repeatedly held but i get your point. Macron is a politician and he will always follow the mood on the ground that will bring him popularity and political security and no doubt Europe is being engulfed in a change that promises to trample on the ideal beliefs that Europe stood on.

Sadly no arguments there

 

[Microsoft]

I have my doubts.

If hebdo has said something that offends certain votaries of a faith, or acted in a way that disturbs those of a certain faith, it definitely will attract the mischief of an adverse interpretation on the grounds of public security and safety.

Let us take the instance of depiction in pictures of a holy figure, against the norms and traditions of a section of his followers.

Does that, in absolute terms, create a cause for disturbance of public order? What if the depiction is blasphemous to one set and a matter of indifference, depending on the context (no vulgarity, no imputation of socially abominable behaviour)? How important is it to take account of the hurt feelings of a section, ignoring the indifference of another, equally involved and committed section? What size of such a section will be a critical size? Taking this speculation to its extreme length, will finally, the objection of one person to this act trigger legal action, or pre-emptive administrative action?

The double standard is the problem. They can offend whoever they chose as long as everyone can be offended equally.

 

[AZ1]

All muslims should protest and do by any means to stop such things from happening.
These people will keep doing this year after year to test and to see our reaction if muslims are okay with it or not.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

All muslims

They don't even exist as a political form. PDF is testament to this. Only far right and uber-jihadis use this narrative.