Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

Revisionism would be an

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
VINCENT REYNOUARD EDITORIALS "Holocaust denial" qualified as "a prejudice to the survival of species" Following the Court of Human Rights decision, that I analyzed in a previous video, you have, Mrs Boyer, published an "opinion column" in the magazine "Valeurs Actuelles". You wrote: "The European Court of Human Rights establishes the fact that, denial becomes an extension of genocides and crimes against humanity! It promotes Holocaust denial and revisionism denies". You add: "We must put a definitive end to this disregard of history and to the victims of these crimes!" And indeed, on October 14, 2015 at the head of a group, you have filed a Law proposition "aimed at punishing the denial of genocides and crimes against humanity of the Twentieth Century." Therefore, you are claiming for a Fabius-Gayssot general law, a law that will place at the same level all the twentieth century memories. Pardon me, Mrs Boyer, but why the twentieth century only? On what grounds do you set a time limit? Since, - proven or qualified - crimes, can be retroactively qualified of crimes against humanity, and are imprescriptible, so why not include in your law, the previous centuries, in order to respect ALL memories? Besides, you said it yourself: "We must put a definitive end to this disregard of HISTORY and victims of these crimes!" History doesn't end in the Twentieth Century Madam! What about slave trade AND Vendées' wars AND native Americans AND Bar Khoba massacre perpetrated by the Romans in 135 AC? So, I invite you Mrs Boyer, in the name of equality regarding the crimes against humanity, to follow through and to expand your law to all centuries. Anyway, for now you are only judging the genocides and crimes against humanity committed in the twentieth century. It's true - alas - that it's already a lot. But, tell me... Why this irrepressible will to penalize what you call: "denial"? You answered this question with a frankness that honors you. In "Valeurs Actuelles", you affirmed that "denial" is not "mere freedom of speech abuse, but (...) a crime against humanity!" Oh my! A crime against humanity! And how do you justify this? To answer this, let's refer to the Explanatory Memorandum of your law proposition: It reads: "The news demonstrates once again the urgency of the adoption of a law criminalizing genocides and crimes against humanity denial. The persecutions against the Christians of the East, particularly tragic and shocking notably in Iraq, recall to our memories the painful memory of the Armenian's genocide, nearly a hundred years after the facts." The word is thus dropped: there is an emergency to face an intolerable humanitarian situation which reminds us of the horrors of the past. Pardon me, Madam, but let me remind you a famous adage: "Analogy is not reason". Without questioning either Turkey's events in 1915, or Iraq's events, or those of Syria today, nothing tells me that this is the same process. But, to see things more clearly, we must take the time to calmly and objectively analyze the situations. First of all, regarding Armenia in 1915, a summary survey can rumble that the situation was perhaps not so simple nor so Manichean than that. This book, published in 1895 and dealing with massacres which occurred the previous year, shows that for years, a tense situation existed, for very different reasons, which belong both to religion, as well as political mentality evolution and some States' foreign policy, such as Russia or England, for example. Reading this report from a Russian general who held consulate functions in Turkey is quite illuminating. The author explains the 1894's Ukrainian's crisis development on the eve of the First World War. We are far from the Manichean picture usually presented. With regard to the hearings organized in 1996 by an American official Committee on the massacres of Armenia, they show that a famous American academic, Justin McCarthy contest that in 1915, the Turks wanted to systematically massacre the Armenians. Whether in Vendée during the French Revolution, in South Africa during the war of the Boers or in Armenia during the First World War, no serious researcher questions the death of too many civilians, among whom women, elderly and children totally innocent. No scholar disputes that, on the ground, systematic massacres took place, at a place and at a given time, committed in the fever of the time. But should we deduce that at the top, a systematic massacre of an entire population had been ordered? Caution should be exercised at the time of drawing conclusions. Massacre of women and child at Lucs-sur-Boulogne on February 28, 1794 by the revolutionary troops does not demonstrate that, at the top, one had decided to exterminate all the Vendéens. Even today, there are mass graves dating back to the civil war. But we can not conclude that a genocide had been planned in Paris. Only a patient and objective analysis, far from passions, allows concluding. However, this patient analysis, you refuse it on the basis of the 'emergency' to deal with a tragic situation. Therefore, you play on the chord of emotion to paralyze reason. On this subject it's not me who will answer you, because I know you will not listen to me. I will leave the ground to Noel Mamere. In his book on the tyranny of emotion, he denounces this behavior, that emphasizes the feeling on the reasoning, the media stream on argumentation, rhetoric on the evidence and the dictatorship of the moment on a long lasting reflection. He stressed: "Emotion takes power on the basis of our ignorance of the complexity. It simplifies where it should take into account the historical, cultural, social and economic data. It transforms into brief news stories, an historical thinking object. Instead of applying a distance between the event, its actors and opinion, it reduces the focal length and we are glued to the screen like flies, only seeing the froth of the wave." Elsewhere, the author denounces "humanitarian populism. The call to save lives by any means is at the basis of an emotional blackmail: If you do not follow us in our interpretation of reality, it is that you are complicit in the genocide." This last sentence, Ms. Boyer, applies to you when you talk about the "deniers". After invoking the urgency to legislate against them, you add: "In 1990, historian Yves Ternon wrote in his book Holocaust Denial: Memory and Taboo: 'Denial is woven with genocide. At the same time as he prepares his crime, the author of genocide develops the concealment of this crime." From that you deduct :"The denial is the accessory or the continuation of genocide and crimes against humanity", so that "it is normal and appropriate to consider them both." Therefore, for you, Madam, what you call denial is an element of genocide. One slaughter, one conceals and ultimately one denies. This means that, in your mind, a Holocaust denier is beside the killers. Certainly, he is not where one massacres, so he doesn't have physically blood on his hands, but he is in an office, a little further away, in space or in time, to organize the denial. So he is part of the criminals' team, ie the genocide project. So, he is also, himself, a murderer. In saying this, Madam, I do not betray your thinking, as in Valeurs Actuelles you wrote: «Genocide is a crime against humanity, Holocaust denial is an offense against humanity. Let's not forget that to deny the existence of a genocide it's killing a second time.» Here! I questioned... So, I kill as well. I am a murderer. Hence, what you wrote in the explanatory statement of your law proposition, that is: that «beyond the offense directed to the memory of the survivors (Holocaust denial) is an insult to the survival of the species...» An insult to the survival of the species ! I admit I was torn between laughing and consternation reading this. In Valeurs Actuelles, you state that "the Gayssot Act was originally this penal response to irrational evil that is antisemitism.» But, what do you imagine, Madam ? That I get up in the morning hating Jewish people? That I live in perpetual hatred towards these people? That I act to have them killed? That I go to bed dreaming of a genocide? And that I wake up in the morning regretting that it had not taken place? Please forgive me my frankness, but you live in phantasmagoria. Please, Madam, relax. Start to read my work, to read our work. Without a priori. Last week, I gave a long interview to the weekly Rivarol. For the umpteenth time, I repeated that I was not anti-Semitic and that it was not strategic on my part. Because, it is not a strategy. I feel no hatred against the Jewish people taken as a collective entity. Naturally I fight against some people of Jewish faith and against some Jewish associations, but it's by accident, because the historic quarrel, in which I speak, is about an event that concerns them and that make them oppose me. But, if the quarrel concerned people from the Limousin, I will have in front of me people from Limousin. I do not tell you that by accident. My first struggle for the restoration of historical truth covered a drama, which, except for one or two families, concerned non-Jewish french only. It was the massacre of June 10, 1944, in the small village of Oradour-sur-Glane in Limousin. In this case, I was attacked by people from the region of Limousin. I was sentenced on their request by the French justice, without any Jewish association action. And with my lawyer, Eric Delcroix, I fought these people to the end, on legal and historical ground. Will you pretend, Madam, that I struggled to restore the truth about the tragedy of Oradour-sur-Glane by hatred of the inhabitants of Oradour? Or more generally by hatred of the inhabitants of Limousin? You will be the only one. If so, one can expose the lies about the massacre of Oradour, without hatred of the people of the region, why could we not do the same with the so-called Holocaust, without hatred of people of the Jewish faith? You will answer me that, I'm a National Socialist therefore, necessarily anti-Semitic. Excuse me, but again, I invite you to read my work. In my long interview for Rivarol, I called the circumstances which made antisemitism exploded in Germany, in the 20's. It was not an irrational feeling, as you lightly claim. The eruption of antisemitism was the result of various events, complex and sometimes contrary. After my explanation, Jerome Bourbon, a little surprised, said: «If I understand your explanation, it's a historical context that produced certain consequences and not necessarily an ideology? In other words, any ideology could have evolved in this context to antisemitism, while in today's context, you believe, National Socialist ideology is no more than another vocation to be or become anti-Semitic? That's what you try to explain and something that has surprised more than one?» To which I responded: «Yes, France has not lost a war 15 years ago, and has not been forced to sign a Treaty of Versailles, which leads the country to ruin and the keeps it in misery. So I think, that French people is responsible for his misfortune, because it prefers the easy slope (holidays, smart phones, subculture, fast-food...) than to the effort one. If others take advantage of it, France can only blame itself, or its leaders. You see, Madam, I don't look for scapegoat. Contact me. Let's talk about revisionism around a cup of tea, that I would offer you with pleasure. Because, this revisionism of this alleged Holocaust, you seem to ignore everything about it. Here again, I do not arbitrarily accuse you. Still in Valeurs Actuelles, you talked about «the Holocaust survivors, who had, after living the unbearable, still have to hear that their ordeal, height of vice, had never taken place.» Madam, show me one serious revisionist who would have stated ONCE, that, overall, the Jewish people didn't go through a tragedy during the war? In my interview with Rivarol, Jerome Bourbon asked me: «Do you deny the existence of the Holocaust?» To which I responded: «I do not deny the reality of a human monstrosity during WWII, towards the German people, as towards the Jewish people and as towards many other peoples. But I question some figures and some significant aspects which, for some, reports to the "detail", but are essential. There's been ghettoization, deportation, put to forced labor, starvation, assassinations of the elderly, weaken or contagious people, purges and reprisals in the occupied territories, especially in the East, no serious revisionist disputes it. World War II was, on one side and the other, an outburst of violence which has affected non-combatants. But the crucial question is: About the Jewish people, was there an established systematic policy of extermination? Because, I repeat, massacres between local does not necessarily mean a will to exterminate. I know that today, one talks a lot about mass killings of Jews in the East from the summer of 1941. But we must beware of all precipitated conclusions. Let's open the book of the historian Tal Bruttmann, published in January. A very recent book, therefore, in which the author reports on the accredited historiography. Speaking of these killings started in the summer of 1941 in the East, the author writes: «While the murder of the Jews of the USSR is in full swing, in half a dozen other territories, measures to kill certain categories, deemed "useless", in some Jewish populations, are initiated. This is not yet about the «final solution», systematic and coordinated assassination, but, a set of local decisions by the Nazi powers that be. It's clear, the killings are not part of a systematic extermination project. They are part of the hyper violence of a war without rules. Later, however, Tal Bruttmann states: «The decision of the systematic murder of the Jews, the "final solution" of the Jewish question in its last significance, probably occurs at the end of 1941, while, in many areas, killings are already underway.» Note the term: "probably". It indicates that historians have no final document, otherwise there would be certainty about the fact and its date. After 70 years of research, therefore, no order to exterminate the Jews was found in the archives. Immediately afterwards Tal Bruttmann specifies: «Jews living in allies territories of the Reich, occupied by it in the West, can not be killed there - both for diplomatic reasons, than to protect public opinions - and must be transported to a site dedicated to this task. Auschwitz, whose mission of destruction widens during spring 1942, from "unfit" workers to the Jews of Silesia's ghettos, obtrudes itself, at the beginning of the summer, as the European killing center, which is intended for the destruction of the Jewish populations outside the Reich and German colonial territories ...» Hence, one say, the construction at the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp of four large crematoriums with "gas chambers." Tal Bruttmann states: «In early fall 1942, the project crematory takes a new dimension. These are being reset: now they must be coupled with gas chambers, built in the same buildings, in the image of the first gas chamber of the Stammlager, installed in the crematorium. It takes several months for the construction of these four structures, designated by the SS as crematoria 2-5, to be completed.» According to the accredited history, therefore, although it has no order to systematically exterminate the Jews, the reality of this decision is demonstrated by the construction in Auschwitz, of four crematoria with "gas chambers" to perpetrate a massacre at an industrial scale. The trouble is that, the era plans show simple crematoria with banal morgues, not «gas chambers». If it turns out that these crematories were only ordinary crematorium with morgues, built to incinerate the dead, and to cope with the mortality peaks during epidemics that ravaged the camp, then the whole thesis of systematic slaughter collapses. This will not prevent that the Jews still lived a drama, that many were massacred in the east, and that many died in the camps, especially at the end of the war. But the charge of genocide would fall. You might answer me that this revisionist thesis is untenable. Beware Mrs. of this kind of certainty not well underpinned. I remind you that in the preamble of your law, you invoke the historian Yves Ternon according to whom: «The negation is woven with genocide. While he prepares his crime, the perpetrator of the genocide is developing the concealment of this crime.» Well, as regards to the alleged Holocaust, go see Madame, the violently anti-revisionist website PHDN and especially the heading concerned with antisemitism of Hitler. You will read that on January 30, 1939, in a speech at the Reichstag, the Fuhrer said: «Today, I will still be a prophet, if the international Jewish financiers in Europe and outside Europe, would once more achieved to precipitate the peoples into a world war, then the result would not be a Bolshevisation of the world, - therefore, the victory of Jewry - on the contrary, it would be the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.» You will also read that, on January 1, 1942 on the occasion of its new year greetings, the Fuhrer said: «But the Jew will not destroy the peoples of Europe, it is he who will be the victim of his own machinations.» Four weeks later, Hitler reiterated in these words: "Let it be clear: the war can only end in two ways: either by the extermination of the Aryan peoples, or by the disappearance of the Jews of Europe. On September 1st 1939, I already said to the German Reichstag, and I refrain from any hasty prophecy, that this war will not run as the Jews imagine, namely that the European nations will be annihilated, but rather the result of this war will be the annihilation of the Jews.» On September 30, 1942, again, the Fuhrer said: «I said two things at the session of the Reichstag of September 1, 1939 [...] Secondly, if the Jews hatched an international world war to destroy, say, the Aryan peoples, then this will not be the Aryan peoples who will be exterminated, but the Jews. [...] Not long ago, in Germany, the Jews laughed at my prophecy. I do not know if they still laugh, or the desire to laugh has already passed them. But now, I can also only ensure: everywhere, the urge to laugh will leave them. And with this prophecy, it is I, who will have the last word.» If these sentences mean what one wants us to believe, so how, Mrs Boyer, can you unreservedly invoke the authority of the historian Yves Ternon to affirm that the perpetrator of a genocide tries to hide it? You will maybe answer me that the Germans were covering it up, because on the crematoria plans they never mentioned the "gas chambers" but only morgues. You will add that in their internal correspondence, leaders never spoke of extermination, but evictions or relocation to the east. Let's admit this argument. One should then believe that in the secrecy of offices, where they established the plans and where reports wrote, although care was taken to conceal everything, using coded language and all that, while Hitler himself, in broadcast of public discourse, was constantly emphasizing that the Jews were exterminated. You will agree Mrs, that this is totally illogical. Either you say that Hitler actually announced to the world the killing of the Jews, and in this case there is nothing left of the thesis of genocide carefully concealed, either you admit with the historian Richard Breitman , that "here is a gulf between word and deed and in this case, Hitler's speeches are not evidence of anything. Therefore, we must seek the physical evidence of the crime, that is here, the systematic extermination of the Jews. Such evidence, do we find them in Auschwitz, presented as the European center for the extermination? On December 27, 2009 the defender of the official thesis, Jan van Pelt, confessed: no. In a Toronto Star article, he says that in his opinion, the «preservation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp had little meaning, it is better to let nature takes its course.» Concerning what we are supposed to know of the camp, that is, there was gas chambers etc., he granted: «99% of what we know, we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove it...». Then he claimed that «in the future we will draw our knowledge - of the Holocaust in general - in books and testimonies of the eyewitnesses.» «... to require of ourselves that we have more material evidence - is actually us somehow giving in to the Holocaust deniers by providing some sort of special evidence.» You will answer me Madam, that if your bill is passed without modification, then I could argue all these arguments in court. It is true that Article 1 of your bill says: «Systematic contestation, denial of principle, trivialization, rude minimization, and attempt to justify the crimes against humanity and the genocides of the 20th century, are punishable by 5 years imprisonment and 45,000 euro fine, provided that: That they get through by means of arguments or allegations involving the falsification of evidence or documents, ignorance or shelved or rejection of evidence, events or opinions meeting the agreement of quite skilled or informed persons for the sake of accurate information, to prohibit to ignore them or to call into question the classification by jurists of international institutions or to the distortion of evidence or testimony collected, or the absence of any response or loyal attempted of refutation of existing evidence and opinions of experts and historians. Article 2 meanwhile states: «The facts, object of the prosecution or of the complaint [...] however, could benefit from freeing them under Article 122-4 of the Criminal Code if it is established that they proceed from discoveries or historical research which as is, depends on freedom of expression and freedom of opinion.» However, I do not have the naivety to applaud this text Mrs. Boyer, for two reasons: The first one is: Since 1991, I dragged my gaiters against my instruction in the offices and courtrooms, excluding custody cells, cellular vans and prison cells. Caen, St Nazaire, Paris, Limoges, Saverne, Colmar, Amiens, Bruxelles, from east to west, from north to center, in France and in Belgium, I frequented this justice. I learned to know it, as we learn to know a woman. After all these years, my conclusion is: When society is facing an ideological taboo, the judicial authorities scrupulously respect it. Why ? Not only because, in essence, the judiciary is the guardian of the social order, but also because the judges are first and foremost men and women, ie honest citizens permeable to popular beliefs and afraid of breaking a social taboo. This is why they can perfectly agree with you about form of matters, when it comes to applying technical texts or raise points of law, but on the bottom, when it comes to make a judgment that violates a social taboo they step back. In nearly 25 years, I have always seen them step back and I have seen their total conformity. The consequence is : When you motivate your bill stating: «To ensure compliance with these freedoms, we propose to explicitly allow the game of freeing them of Article 122-4 of the Criminal Code so that the deniers could attempt to assert their good faith, demonstrating that they only exerts their freedom of expression. The investigating judge, eventually seized, could assess its merits, especially by ordering an expertise, in order to inform the jurisdiction judgment.» I ask you the question Mrs. Boyer: To whom the judge will ask an expertise? To whom? To Professor Robert Faurisson? To the chemical engineer Germar Rudolf? To the British historian David Irving? No. As a conformist citizen, the judge will ask for it, obviously, to an accredited historian. That is, a historian who does not question the official version of the Holocaust. Here again, I do not launch any arbitrary accusation, I only analyze what you wrote Madam. In your opinion piece, published by Valeures Actuelles, we read: «In 25 years, no serious historian has been prevented by the Gayssot Act to conduct its work on the Holocaust.» Proof, that for you, but also for politics and justice, a "serious historian," is an historian who does not fall within the scope of the Gayssot Act, therefore, who does not question the official story. Therefore, judges call our opponents to judge our work. Consequently, I do not harbor any illusions. Whatever I say, in the bottom, I will be accused, WE will be accused to not have satisfied the conditions of the first article of your bill. This will not be difficult, as in a text of a few pages, published in a weekly newspaper, or in a 20-minute video posted on Youtube, it is impossible to fully meet all these conditions. Let me explain: Your Article 1 sets out 4 conditions for that the defendant's guilt is recognized - but beware, the coordinating conjunction used : «or» shows that, if one of these 4 conditions is considered to be fulfilled, then the guilt is established. To be sentenced, the only thing would be just to be convicted of "lack of any response or loyal attempt of refutation of existing evidence and opinions of experts and historians.» This may seem logical, but it's a serious problem, indeed, according to the official thesis, stemming from the Polish-Soviet propaganda, in the two largest Auschwitz gas chambers, assassins would have introduced the deadly gas by four holes in the roof. In 1994, however, Professor Faurisson highlighted that these 4 holes never existed, which was the origin of his first shock argument: «No holes, no Holocaust.» I personally went to the site of Birkenau to search any material proof of the existence of these holes. Secretly, I went under the collapsed slab of the alleged gas chamber of crematorium II, the one where nearly 400,000 people would have been gassed. I slipped wherever possible, chasing the slightest trace of a hole - even recap - for the introduction of the deadly gas, or any Prussian blue trace, evidence that hydrocyanic acid was used to suffocate people. Yes, I slipped everywhere, including on my all fours when space was missing. This is why I came out with fairly wet pants. Despite my research, I have not seen any physical evidence of the existence of what I was looking for. Not the slightest. Nothing. Therefore, I don't even need to mention the testimonials that evoke alleged gassings made through these four holes, since their absence automatically refutes these fanciful stories. However, I run then the risk of being sentenced to 5 years in prison, not only for ignoring these testimonies, but also for failing to respond to the experts who, in turn, develop grotesque quibbles to try to prove the existence of these holes. But there is more serious, these two lines mean that, even if one rejects the main testimonies, experts and historians, we will always take the risk of being condemned on the grounds that we failed to quote this one or this one, as seen by our opponents as someone important. And even if we include everyone, one will always throw to our faces that this is not an attempt to fair rebuttal, on the grounds that we used quibbles, hyper critical, etc. For it's always what we are being accused of. As soon as one rejects a testimony for whatever reason, historians accuse us of using hyper critical. I add that if we take care of rejecting one by one all testimonies, by revealing their errors and contradictions, one can always oppose us the historian Annette Wieviorka who explains: «The testimonies are so numerous, so consistent, from so different backgrounds, that the polyphonic story they write can only be broadly in line with the truth, even if in such testimony an opening through which arrives Zyklon B in the gas chamber is misplaced, if another one bolt is missing from a crematorium, even if the figures given by the witnesses, are, with metronome regularity, erroneous . When at an event, the figures given by the organizers and those given by the police differ, no one dares to conclude that there was no protest.» Therefore, with only these two lines, it is almost an automatic conviction. Let me tell you without hate Mrs. Boyer, your bill is not a project consistent with justice. This is a customized text to not give any chance to the wrong thinking, a text that will ruin him and imprison him for 5 years. Maybe you will answer that I ascribe you bad thoughts and in truth your law allows the accused to provide all possible explanations, in order to show that he has done work as a historian, Let's admit it. Then I would stress the following: Allowing a revisionist to explain and respond to the accusations of lack of methods, fraud, lies, etc it's ultimately organizing a debate. Well. But then Madam, why organize it in a mere courtroom with only three magistrates as arbitrators? The website of the Ministry of Justice points it out: «justice is done on behalf of the French people» Certainly, we can not ask the French people to judge each case of thieve, each neighborhood feud or each tax fraud case. That's why judges are in charge of it. «On behalf of the French people.» But when it comes to national or international history, whose moral and political implications are still present and very large, so why not let the people judge? Why not organize a debate, four days in a row, three hours a night, on a large public network television, between the ones you qualify as serious historians, and the ones you condemn under the vocable of «deniers» ? I am always amazed at people like you, who claim to be Republicans, and Democrats deny the people the right to form an opinion for himself, after listening to both parties confront loyally their arguments. Would the people be too stupid for that? If it's the case, then why leave in its hands the country's destiny through elections? And if this is not the case, then why deny him this public debate? Why try to confine it - this debate - to a mere courtroom? In order to possibly condemn the citizen recognized guilty of denial? But Madam, do you really think that locking up a citizen for the historical theses that he exposes will solve the problem? No, of course. The most effective sentence is to be ridiculed in the eyes of the people and lose all credibility. Therefore, Madam far from passing a super Bayon Act, you should rather call for a public debate. Why don't you do it? For you see in the deniers, people animated by hatred, or even murderers. Therefore, it's repression at all cost that you demand, even if this requires breaking the rules. Very serious charge I agree, but again, I accuse on the basis of what you wrote Madam. In October 2014 in the Explanatory Memorandum to your bill, you stated: «As it stands the Gayssot Act is not immune to a priority issue of constitutionality, which would declare it unconstitutional and we must take the precaution to spare it the ordeal.» This ordeal will come because of me. Speaking of the priority issue of constitutionality, that I filed this summer before the Court of Cassation, and that has been transmitted to the Constitutional Council, you wrote: «It should be known that the Gayssot Act has never been a Priority Question of Constitutionality, (QPC). It is therefore, the first time in 25 years that the Constitutional Council is called upon to rule on the conformity of this law. From 2011, I expressed my concern about this matter.» I deduce Madam, that you doubt about the constitutionality of the Gayssot Act. But then, why didn't you submit a QPC yourself, and that from 2011 in order to obtain the opinion of the authorized Board of the Constitutional Council? For, after all, under this law, people are convicted, sometimes very heavily. For my part, I spent nine months behind bars, not including custody, searches and seizures, and so on. At present, because of this law, I am in exile and I have again lost my family. And you did nothing Madam, while you suspect the unconstitutionality of this law? You watch people being condemned, being ruined and being jailed in shady circumstances! Please forgive me my frankness Madam, but the sense of justice and legality seems unknown to you. This is not new in your side. I recall that on Sept. 3, 1939, our leaders, good Republicans, violated the French constitution, in order to declare war on Germany, without the consent of the rooms. An even more criminal operation, since the country was totally not prepared for this war. During the occupation, this fact was well known and denounced as shown here in this drawing. Some imagined a great trial where all the victims of this war, declared illegally and wildly, will come out of their tombs to bring civil actions. At the time of liberation, however, a modest veil was thrown over this shameful rape of our constitution. Pierre Laval tried to recall it well during his trial, but it soon appears that this trial was a simulacrum. The accused was already judged and convicted. The jury didn't even hide it. Laval was executed 70 years ago. On October 16, 1945. He is among the victims of justice parodies organized by the victors. Well, Mrs. Boyer, I take the liberty to inform you, the law that you have concocted will inaugurate the resurgence of these mock trials, of these justice parodies, because it will automatically condemn all those who dare to give a discordant message on the alleged 20th century genocides. Indeed, the so-called debate your bill should allow is only an illusion, I have already explained why, and I will not say it again. When an ideological taboo weigh about a society, a courtroom is a place, not of debate, but of automatic condemnation when it comes to the bottom. In Valeures Actuelles, you emphasize that your text aims to universality, because it protects all genocides recognized by French law, I praise your frankness Madam, because you do not hide your will to impose State historical truths. But then, how can you claim to respect human rights? For when historical truths of State are imposed, citizens are separated into two categories, those who adhere to it, and those who don't. The first ones can express themselves freely, as they are in line, they will never be asked if they have bothered to faithfully respond to their opponents. These last ones, in return, will always have to justify themselves under penalty of going to prison and for 5 years, they will be accused, their home will be searched, their business will be grasped, they will be put in preventive detention, they will be criticized for not having quoted this or this historian, to not have responded to such and such particular person, to not have taken into account such and such particular document. Here again, my accusation is not free, Article 2 of your bill states: «The facts object of the prosecution or complaint shall be deemed committed in bad faith, inspired by hostility or hatred towards a group of victims of these crimes and deemed to infringe on the dignity of these people or that of their ascendants or descendants. However, they may qualify for acquittal under Article 122-4 of the Criminal Code, if it is established that it proceeds from discoveries or historical research, which as such, fall within the freedom of expression and freedom of opinion established ... » With your law, there will be therefore, on one side, citizens of first zone, who will be able to speak freely, and on the other side, second-class citizens who will always have to defend themselves to be in bad faith, and preach hatred and yada yada yada ... It is already huge. And I recall that these second-class citizens will almost never escape condemnation, they will rot in prison for 5 years. Here is Madam, the society that you claim by invoking human rights. Is this really what you want? I don't dare believe it. No Madam, history does not admit the truths of State! History should not be subject to the dictates of memory. Instead, it must remain a question mark. This is the condition for it to stay alive. If you immobilize it, partially or totally, it will become as a State religion. Instead, therefore, to concoct a new law that will dishonor France, could you not rather organize a historical debate free and loyal, between historians that you qualify as serious and the citizens that you condemn as deniers? You will give here a real lesson of freedom of expression worldwide. Good evening. You like our videos? Please help us continue. Give for the cause: translation and subtitling didi18

Video Details

Duration: 40 minutes and 28 seconds
Year: 2015
Country: Andorra
Language: English
License: Dotsub - Standard License
Producer: Vincent Reynouard
Views: 85
Posted by: didi18 on Oct 25, 2015

Close to Nicolas Sarkozy and Vice Chairwoman of the France-Armenia friendship group, Valerie Boyer has submitted a draft for a widespread Gayssot law that would prohibit the "negation" of all genocides and crimes against humanity of the 20th century (recognized by the French State).

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.