France's Marine Le Pen Charged Over Islamic State Tweets

In the latest example of the European Union's disturbing new tendency toward outright suppression of any speech that bureaucrats in Berlin, Brussels, and elsewhere find unacceptable for any number of reasons, former French National Front leader Marine Le Pen has been formally charged with circulating "violent messages that incite terrorism" for a series of tweets she sent after the massacre at Paris concert hall the Bataclan back in 2015.

Le Pen

The move comes after French President Emmanuel Macron announced early this year that, in an effort to "defend liberal democracy", he would push through legislation this year to fight the spread of "fake news" in France. Macron went on to criticize Russian media in particular and accusing RT, a Moscow funded TV channel, of deliberately sowing disinformation and discord (sound familiar?).

While Macron's announcement was cheered by many on the left, conservatives and those with anti-establishment or right-wing views are (so far justifiably) worried that they might become targets (because there's no better way to defend an open society than to crack down on free speech and enforcing not only official censorship, but, by extension, the self-censorship that these policies encourage.)

And now they have even more reason to be concerned as French prosecutors move to punish - and possibly imprison - a political rival despised by the ruling party.

The charges stem from a series of tweets Le Pen sent in the weeks after the Bataclan massacre, where she shared disturbing photos including images from the beheading of American journalist James Foley. Le Pen later took the photos of Foley down after being contacted by his family. 

Other pictures showed a man in an orange jumpsuit being run over by a rank - another showed a man being burned alive in a cage.

"Daesh is this!" Le Pen wrote in a caption. The tweets were a response to a TV journalist drawing a comparison between ISIS and the French far-right.

Le Pen was quick to point out the irony in her being charged...

"I am being charged for having condemned the horrors of Daesh," Le Pen told AFP.

"In other countries this would have earned me a medal."

What's worse: Le Pen's crime is punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of 75,000 euros ($91,000).

Le Pen has denounced the move as a "lowly, purely political decision" which violated her freedom of expression. Furthermore, it's notable that the French justice system is bringing the hammer down on Le Pen less than a year after she lost to Macron in France's second-round presidential runoff.

It's not just France... Over in the UK, a newly created national security unit set up to combat fake news has elicited outrage from conservatives, who note that the agency is seemingly set up to punish and suppress speech that it suspects of being deliberate disinformation - even if said speech is an example of political satire, which the agency says is "often confused" with real news...


Blankone Juggernaut x2 Mon, 03/05/2018 - 09:14 Permalink

And although more recently, using facts to dismantle the holohoax has been made a felony in russia as well. That is a good peak behind the curtain in Russia.

These laws being passed in the EU, Canada, Australia and other places were always meant to prevent open discussion and debate about subjects and to hinder opposition to their agendas. The brainwashed leftist (of which antifa is an extension) in the US are useful idiots.

When truth is their enemy, now all they have to do is claim the utterance of truth caused them or their chosen group to "feel" something. To feel shame, threatened, unwanted, not accepted - to feel exposed. They also coin new phases to twist lies into truth - such as "my truth" or "their truth" which is code for "my feelings" or "my lies" or "my fiction that I demand be made truth/fact". Their enemy becomes reality.

And what do you get. Sweden. Actually ruled by feminists, where those feminists prosecute and persecute those who speak the truth - all while they (the feminists in control) bring in the foreign peoples who are the opposite of those feminist values or even the countries traditional values. As the foreign ones kill and rape Sweden's women the ruling feminists hold to "their truths" and prosecute any who speak of the reality.

Currently in the US you get fired for speaking about facts that do not fit "their truths" or if you openly hold opinions they oppose. Or you are removed/banned from their social media outlets. I could go on.

In reply to by Juggernaut x2

shamus001 Juggernaut x2 Mon, 03/05/2018 - 09:50 Permalink

Russia isn't the enemy... EUROPE IS!  Nazi Germany has stifled all opposition to it's rule!  Jailing political opposition who dares speak against it's rule and decisions.  This is EXACTLY what happened in 1930's, if you gather to speak against the ruling party, you had BETTER KNOW YOUR FRIENDS, and whisper your dissent quietly.... next, Europe's children will turn in their parents.  Meanwhile, Muslims are taking over the nations with the help of "sellout" globalist leaders, clearly TREASONOUS, and BOUGHT AND PAID FOR (by who knows?) to destroy Europe, then declare a martial law when it's in tatters, clean it up, and RE-ESTABLISH A NEW RULE AND GOVERNING SYSTEM.

In reply to by Juggernaut x2

caconhma shamus001 Mon, 03/05/2018 - 10:22 Permalink

Putin's Zionist-controlled Russia is the enemy of the civilized world. The same was sadistic and barbaric Stalin's USSR with his zionist-commissars.

The only good news is that the Putin's mafia state is a cornered animal and will not go peacefully.


General G. Patton was correct saying: "America was fighting the wrong enemy."

In reply to by shamus001

nmewn BennyBoy Mon, 03/05/2018 - 06:53 Permalink

So, Macrons government has charged LePen with inciting terrorism simply because she exercised her free speech

Is this some of that "toxic white male privilege" I've been reading so much about? ;-)

In reply to by BennyBoy

wildbad nmewn Mon, 03/05/2018 - 06:57 Permalink

This is good news.  She speaks truth to power.  Power tries to spank her down.  People smell the overreach and she doubles her own credibility and power.


France is at a point from which it may not be able to return to a western style republic.  Outside of the elite the people are experiencing in their daily lives the destruction of their culture and way of life.  The more the authoritarians try to keep the lid on the larger will be the certain explosion.


Vive Le Pen!

In reply to by nmewn

NumberNone nmewn Mon, 03/05/2018 - 08:16 Permalink

This the America that would have been had Hillary won.  

Trump would have been in jail by now for Russian collusion as political payback for his attacks and the free speech shutdowns being resisted today via Youtube, Twitter, et al would have been done with the full endorsement of the Hillary DOJ and Supreme Court nominations.  

In reply to by nmewn

shamus001 NumberNone Mon, 03/05/2018 - 10:00 Permalink

Correct you are! Without the 1st amendment, and the right to say any damn thing you want like "hey spook!, WAP!, Chink!, Cracker!, Towel Head!" The "feelings cops" accuse you of the crime of "hurting feelings" aka "hate speech" (too F*king bad! Suck it up butter cup!"

Then once your no longer free to say "you suck!" any verbal dissent "especially politically" becomes a crime "aka thought crime" to which you are jailed for!

Discussing opposing views is what a free system is all about!  Free to dislike someone/something/policies/politicians... AND ITS NEEDED! Because after too long of one party being in charge (yes even conservative) the party starts getting cooky ideas and GOES TO FAR. (which is when the public says, ok, time to swing the pendulum to the left and balance this ship)


In reply to by NumberNone

GeoffreyT NumberNone Mon, 03/05/2018 - 18:08 Permalink

YouTube, Twitter and so forth are private-sector entities, and so there is no First Amendment obligation to protect individuals' rights to free expression: the BlackRobes have no 1A role in any Twitter/Youtube/Facebook policy, except if it violates a law that is objected to on 1A grounds. That's highly unlikely.

Contrast that with the baker (in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission) which is currently being considered by the BlackRobes); the 1A consideration in that case is that civil rights legislation violates 1A because the baker's refusal is political expression.

I happen to agree, even if I think it's fuckwitted for the baker to be agitated about what consenting adults do with their naughty bits... and doubly so if the basis for the agitation is a gigantic book of Iron Age hate speech. However he comes to believe whatever he believes, he has the right to believe it, and to express his belief by any non-violent means.


I think the reason that the BlackRobes are taking their time with this, is that they will find against the baker - and to do that they have to engage in all sorts of ecclesiastic-style rhetorical legerdemain in order to justify permitting Colorado state law to violate the Bill of Rights.

Their justification will be transparently "goal-seeking' (pretending that the opinion aligns with past BlackRobe musings on shit, when it's obviously not), so they will want it to be released during a hurricane or some other thing that will swamp the news for 2-3 days.

In reply to by NumberNone

GeoffreyT nmewn Mon, 03/05/2018 - 17:08 Permalink

Le Pen doesn't have any 'free speech rights' on French soil. Well, she has them, but the French government does not recognise or protect them because it is not obliged to do so (and even if it was obliged to do so, it wouldn't).

There is no right to free speech in the French constitution: the constitutional stance on freedom of expression comes from 2 places - both of which are from the Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen (Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen) of 1789, which is incorporated into the French constitution.

In both places it is specifically delimited by reference to compliance with restricting legislation. In other words "Freedom of expression ... but".

Articles 10 and 11 both end with variants of "unless we decide you can't": the translations below are reasonable renditions of the French text.


Article 10: “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.” 

Article 11: “The free communication of ideas and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man.  Any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, except what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by Law.”

There is another 'layer' of jurisprudence that "trumps" the French Constitution - the European Declaration on Human Rights - and it deals with what we peons are permitted to discuss in its own Article 10. In typical bureaucratic legalese, the "but" is longer then the actual text outlining the "right" -

Article 10.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. 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.


Autrement dit: you have the "right" to say or think whatever we say you're allowed to say or think.

That's exactly the opposite of the definition of a right, properly understood: it's the definition of a privilege bestowed by government. Governments like their livestock to think about rights that way - because if a 'right' can be granted by government, it can be un-granted.

In reply to by nmewn

Davidduke2000 Squilliam Fancyson Mon, 03/05/2018 - 06:54 Permalink

the french remind me the man who makes his own lunch and each time he open his lunch box, he shouts " damn baloney again"? they chose their own path , they have to live with it.

They were terrified of the conservative party of Ms Le Pen now they have the islamic state and  heads would roll in the streets of Paris and they would live in fear forever.

In reply to by Squilliam Fancyson

GeoffreyT waspwench Mon, 03/05/2018 - 17:30 Permalink

Macron was not a 'nobody from nowhere' - he is the ultimate insider. He's an énarque (a graduate of the ENA - the most prestigious of the Grandes Écoles) and was a bureaucrat, then a Rothschild banker, then a senior advisor to Valls when Valls was Prime Minister under Hollande's presidency.

He's got a fucking law named after him - La Loi Macron of 2015 - abolishing public sector union monopolies, which was forced through the legislature by decree (under 49:3: they force a vote of confidence in the government; if the vote passes, the government can pass an 'money' legislation without a vote in the parliament).

So everything associated with his name reeks of political life, rent-seeking, and the aberrant psychotype of all political charlatans.

Add to that his weird obsession with mother-figures (his wife was his schoolteacher; he's got a bilateral crush on Ségolène Royale), and the fact that he's even shorter than Sarko the Hook-Nosed Runt-Goblin... doesn't seem like a recipe for national greatness, but it also didn't come out of the blue.

In reply to by waspwench

BobEore Bokkenrijder Mon, 03/05/2018 - 07:13 Permalink

I'm going to tell you something straight - as someone who lives smack dab in the middle of an ISLAMIC TERROR STATE -  by choice. They're being PUSHED to hate US.

And WE are being pushed to hate them. The PUSHER IS the same in both scenarios. Therefore, some discipline... not to mention courage of one's convictions - is REQUIRED here.

The Kabbalists require us to bend to their will = giving credence to their attempts to dissuade us from seeing them as the MAIN ENEMY which they surely are.... and instead suppose the Muzzie hordes to be. It's a psyop. Give in to the temptation to believe in it, and soon nuff you'll be just one of those endlessly paraded Zhombies on this site who pop up to push us further towards hate and war with those who are our natural allies against

TERROR. Talmudic TERROR. All your western governments are in thrall to it.

I see my friends and neighbors being pushed to hate me, every day here. I won't run way, cause time and again, I see it proven again that when they see me for who I am, they simply cannot hate the stranger in their midst. I hope you will exerise the same caution in seeing through the smoke and mirrors.

Kill the disease. Not the symptoms. Homeopathy for health. And survival.

Kill the Pusherman. Not his victims.

Steppenwolf live.

" Well, now if I were president of this land
You know, I'd declare total war on the pusher man
I'd cut if he stands,
And I'd shoot him if he'd run
Yes, I'd kill him with my Bible
And my razor and my gun

God damn, the pusher
God damn, the pusher
I said God damn, God damn the pusher man "

lookee them talmudic trolls SCURRY for their buttons!

In reply to by Bokkenrijder

GeoffreyT Enceladus Mon, 03/05/2018 - 17:48 Permalink

I think you're mis-reading the situation.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is neither Arabic or Jewish in origin: it is Indian (from the Arthashastra, which pre-dates written Talmudic Judaism by a millennium - the oldest complete Torah dates from the 12th century).

One thing about the Red Sea Pedestrians: they do not follow that aphorism. Everyone's the enemy unless they're part of the Tribe - no exceptions. You won't be able to get an 'authorised' English translation of Torat Ha'Melech ("King's Torah"), but there's a decent exegesis here.

"No friends, only interests" would be a more accurate reflection of the paradigm that would be expected from a primitive Bronze Age genital-mutilation racial-supremacy cult.

In reply to by Enceladus

BobEore HopefulCynical Mon, 03/05/2018 - 08:29 Permalink

Good try, but... butt no cigar.

Pleomorphic diseases are by definition MYCOLOGICAL in nature. The spores are spread as fruiting bodies which

PRESENT as different seeming illness phases... but always are symptoms of the original mycological disease.

Islam is a pleomorphic SYMPTOM of the original TALMUDIC KABBALIST DISEASE. You only need concentrate on killing that which generates the spores... not the symptoms.

But I suspect you would know that. Many are the TALMUDIST MEDICAL MENTIDEROS... such as our original "doctor of deception - Maimonides - who throw their hats in the ring here... to try their hands at majic tricks.

In reply to by HopefulCynical

Sudden Debt desertboy Mon, 03/05/2018 - 06:13 Permalink

I had to renew my passpot today... nothing beats the fun of standing in line with 50 migrants standing in front of you declaring they now live here...

occupation? none...

any plans of getting a job? how do you mean?

any family members? yeah... 50 that they know off and they all shack in the same house...

any more questions sir? yeah... where's the office for social benefits and do I get paid for standing in line here?

In reply to by desertboy