All News Europe

French Mayor on Trial for Truth

The French mayor of the town of Béziers has been charged with “hate crimes” after saying that it was a “problem” that a class in a local school was 91 percent Muslim.

The charges were brought by the Jewish “International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism” (Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme, LICRA).

Mayor Robert Menard denied his comments were discriminatory, saying he had “just described the situation in my town.”

The comments were made back in September 2016, when Menard told French news channel LCI that “In a class in the city Center in my town, 91 percent of the children are Muslims. Obviously, this is a problem. There are limits to tolerance.”

At the same time, Menard tweeted his regret at witnessing “the great replacement” of France’s white population by Third World invaders.

According to French media, his comments were “seized upon” by LICRA, and the Jewish group immediately pressed charges for “hate” and “incitement.”

After months of deliberation, Menard’s trial date has now been set for March 8, LICRA announced on their Twitter feed.

The prosecution is also based on two statements from the mayor which he made on Twitter. The first, from September 1, said, “the most striking proof of the great Replacement in progress. Just look at old class photos.”

A second tweet, on September 5, contained the remark which was later repeated in the media: “In a downtown classroom, 91% of children are Muslim. Obviously, this is a problem. There are thresholds of tolerance.”

He followed this up with a tweet on October 3 which showed a class photograph from 1970 in his town, showing all white children, with the statement:

“Compare a class photo of the 70s with a picture of today. #GrandReplacement is undeniable!”

For this sin—of daring to point out that whites are being exterminated in their own country, the Jews in LICRA announced that they had lodged an official complaint with the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office, which deals with the “offense of direct provocation of discrimination, hatred or violence against a group of persons on grounds of belonging to a nation, race, ethnic group or religion.”

15 Comments

  1. Muslims demonstrated what they think of France with the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, Paris, Rouen and Nice, leaving more than 200 French citizens dead. Yet the crime is daring to criticise the monstrous belief system tbat inspired them? What’s the world coming to? Have we lost our minds? What happened to freedom of speech?

     
    Reply
    1. The leftard twerps know no bounds to their idiocy. Tell you this, when Islam takes over those supportive Jews will be among the first against the wall.

       
      Reply
  2. The sheer hypocrisy of Jews knows no bounds – portraying themselves as riding to the rescue of Muslims in Europe is sickening.
    As it says in the Bible: Matthew 7:5
    `Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.`

     
    Reply
  3. It is time to make a counter charge of a Crime Against Peace and public incitement to violate Article 67 of the Treaty of ST Germain Sept 10 1919, “Minorities… shall have a right to establish… at their own expense… schools…” This is consistent with Articles 34 to 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Looting and pillaging the institutions of other peoples is a Criminal Offence and violates Articles 6, 7, 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

     
    Reply
    1. Also they like Article 62 of the European Convention on Human Rights “… except by special agreement, they will not avail themselves of Treaties, Conventions, or Declarations, in force between them.” That allows them to trash Article 1 of the Declaration on the Right of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious, and Linguistic, Minorities. ” States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories…” The result is consistent with Rabbi Abraham l. Feinberg’s final solution to racial conflict, is interracial marriage.
      The EU Courts are criminal institutions and hand out criminal judgements in violation of the UN Charter Treaties, Conventions, Declarations, and Statutes.

       
      Reply
  4. “…offense of direct provocation of discrimination, hatred or violence against a group of persons on grounds of belonging to a nation, race, ethnic group or religion.”

    So-called “hate speech” laws are nothing more than a blatant attempt to silence dissent. It’s the Jews giving Europeans the big middle finger saying, “F**k you. We’re dispossessing you of your countries by flooding them with hordes of Third World invaders, so just shut up about it, and take it or else.”

    How does what this man said “provoke discrimination, hatred or violence?”. It’s impossible to prove what anyone “feels”, only their actions or what they physically do. Besides, who gets to determine what something as abstract as “hate” is? When does simply being mean turn into nastiness? When does nastiness become cruelty, and when does cruelty turn into hate? Who gets to decide such important questions, and why should so-called hate be illegal anyway if it’s not followed up by a criminal action? A thought is not a crime.

    Much of this kind of thinking was supported, especially in the U.S, by the media’s campaign to drastically lower the bar on what people think “hate” is. In the last 10-12 years, it seems that a person can’t even offer an opposing opinion or any kind of objective criticism on anything, even something non-political like an actor or singer’s performance, without the “No H8” campaign being triggered in people’s minds. “No H8!”, you’ll see them write or hear them say. “Why so much hate? Why are you hating on me? Ignore the haters!” All this is said when clearly NONE of the opposing opinions even come close to being vindictive or even hateful, whatever you think that is. So-called hate speech laws have now made it socially unacceptable to disagree with anything. It’s intolerable to simply have your own opinion and to express it. Even when someone is brave enough to share their own opinion on things, it’s sad to see people qualify their statements beforehand by prefacing them with things like, “I’m not hating, it’s just that I think…” or “I’m not a racist, it’s just that I feel…”. It’s sad. These people who are terrified of being “labeled” haters, feel they have to apologize before they can speak freely about anything, otherwise, it’s “hate”.

    This so-called hate speech nonsense is very dangerous, especially in the insidious way its woven itself into the verbal habits of people, causing them to self-censor in such in such a pathetic way. We all must speak our minds, no matter what, because the last virtue of a dying society is universal “tolerance”. Just remember, a society that’s truly free is one in which it’s still safe to be unpopular.

     
    Reply
  5. Most unenlightened people would wonder why the Jews are championing the Moslems since they hate each other as only closely-related people can.

    Never underestimate their cunning.

     
    Reply

Post Comment