※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※
『亜空間通信』1034号(2005/06/24)
【ホロコースト否定どころかイスラエル批判でル・モンドも訴えられるフランスの言論の自由の危機】
※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※
転送、転載、引用、訳出、大歓迎！
ホロコーストの大嘘は、日本の戦前の「生き神様」天皇と同様の心理的権力支配、「偽」イスラエルの「死に神様」であるが、911事件、イラク戦争の現状から、最近の欧米における「反ユダヤ主義」の高まりには、ユダヤ人の主流の「ネオコン」などが、アメリカの政財界を支配している実情の認識が、濃厚に反映している。
以下の英文記事の見出しは、「言論の自由の境界線上で苦闘するヨーロッパ」である。
欧米人は、「ユダヤ人の名誉の擁護」が大事なのか、言論の自由が大事なのか、どちらを優先すべきか、迷い、悩んでいるのである。
以下、木村愛二注：(?)は化け文字。「ユーロ」の略字なのだろうか。分かる人は、以下のURLを直接訪問して、教えて欲しい。
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/21/news/paris.php
Europe struggles with boundaries of free speechBy Craig S. Smith The New York Times
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2005
PARIS According to William Goldnadel, the(?)4 he won in a court case here is a windfall for Jews in France. Others only see it as adding to a deficit of free speech.
Three French intellectuals and the publisher of the newspaper Le Monde were ordered by a French court in May to pay (?)1 each to Attorneys Without Borders, which Goldnadel heads, for defaming Jews in an op-ed article three years ago.
The article, the court found, equated Jews with the state of Israel, whose policies the authors sharply criticized.
The four men were also told to pay (?)1 each to an Israeli-French association, and Le Monde was ordered to publish a notice of the court's decision in its pages.
Both the case and the modest penalty have contributed to a growing debate in Europe as a surge of emotional discourse - regarding Muslims after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and Israel after the second Palestinian intifada - bumps up against post-Nazi laws designed to guard against the fascist hate-mongering of the 1930s.
France's far-right political leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, has been taken to court on several occasions both for disparaging Muslims and for minimizing the Nazis' wartime atrocities. In 2002, the French author Michel Houellebecq was acquitted of inciting racial hatred in a 2001 novel that called Islam "the stupidest religion."
Most recently, an Italian judge ordered the journalist Oriana Fallaci to stand trial on charges that she defamed Islam in her 2004 book, "The Force of Reason." She wrote in the book that Islam "sows hatred in the place of love and slavery in the place of freedom."
Some say that Europe is struggling to adjust the boundaries of reasonable debate at the worst possible time.
"The more insecure Europe is about its identity, the more dangerous it is to cross those boundaries," said Dominique Mo(?)i, an international relations specialist. "Especially now, those boundaries are even more delicate because there is a danger of Europe falling prey to nationalistic and jingoistic reactions."
The opinion article in Le Monde was nothing remarkable from the point of view of an American reader accustomed to raucous, sometimes racist public debate in a country where even cross-burning is legal.
But public criticism of racial or religious groups is forbidden in France, which is vigilant in policing public speech in pursuit of its vision of a homogenous, secular nation free of sectarian divisions.
Most European countries have laws restricting hate speech that, even if they predate the rise of Nazism in the early 20th century, have been reinforced by the shared history of the Holocaust.
Even Britain, which protects freedom of speech in a spirit closer to that of the United States, is considering a law against "incitement of religious hatred," to go along with an existing law against incitement of racial hatred.
Europe has seen a rash of such free-speech cases since the 2001 attacks, with many triggered by criticism of Islam amid concerns about Europe's growing conservative Muslim population. Enforcement varies according to the national mood and penalties for infractions are usually low, leaving the field open to anyone willing to face the resulting opprobrium.
Theo Van Gogh, for example, the Dutch filmmaker murdered in Amsterdam last year by an Islamist activist, was well known for his outrageous public comments targeting both Muslims and Jews.
One of his favorite epithets for conservative Muslims evoked bestiality with a goat, while in 1991 he wrote that "it smells like caramel today, they must be burning the diabetic Jews." He was fined the equivalent of a few hundred dollars.
The European Court of Human Rights, the ultimate judicial authority for the Council of Europe's 46 member states, has consistently upheld the decisions of national courts condemning anti-Semitism and racial defamation. While the European Convention on Human Rights provides a strong protection to freedom of political speech, the court, which enforces the treaty, accepts certain limits on free speech as "necessary in a democratic society."
The Monde case arose amid a wave of scorn for Israeli policies that swept Europe after the September 2000 outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada. The mood soon fueled a surge in anti-Semitism in France, which has the largest Muslim population in Europe.
"Death to Jews!" was shouted in the Paris streets. Emotions reached a peak during the Israeli Defense Force's reoccupation of Palestinian areas from March to May 2002. Political cartoons across Europe equated Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with Hitler.
Le Monde published the opinion piece in which the authors - one of whom is Jewish - condemned Sharon for "oppressing and asphyxiating the Palestinian population."
"One finds it hard to imagine that a nation of fugitives," an offending passage read, "descended from the people which has been persecuted the longest in the history of humanity, having been subjected to the worst humiliations and the deepest contempt, would be capable of transforming itself in two generations into a 'dominating and self-assured people' and, with the exception of an admirable minority, a contemptuous people taking satisfaction in humiliating others."
The phrase "dominating and self-assured people" was used by Charles de Gaulle to describe the Israelis in the aftermath of the 1967 war.
Goldnadel filed a complaint on behalf of his organization and the France-Israel Association, charging the authors with racial defamation. During the trial, the judge found that any reasonable reader would understand the attack to be against the government of Sharon and its supporters, rather than against all Jews. An appeals court, however, decided that three sentences in the 2,665-word article constituted racial defamation under a 1990 anti-racism law.
Catherine Cohen, the attorney for Le Monde, said the defendants have applied for the case to be heard by France's highest court of appeals, the Court of Cassation, which could uphold the verdict or annul it.
An open letter in support of the defendants, signed by 100 French intellectuals and published in Le Monde last year, argued that criticizing the Israeli government "and even the majority of Israelis who support it," is far from a condemnation of all Jews.
It warned that the case "shows the serious threat, which often takes the form of intimidation, that is looming over freedom of expression in France."
But Goldnadel sees the case as part of a larger shift in what is acceptable in public discourse that began with the start of the second intifada. "Since the intifada, the media has suddenly discovered freedom of expression," he said. "When speaking of Israel or Zionism they say anything they want to now."
PARIS According to William Goldnadel, the (?) he won in a court case here is a windfall for Jews in France. Others only see it as adding to a deficit of free speech.
Three French intellectuals and the publisher of the newspaper Le Monde were ordered by a French court in May to pay (?) each to Attorneys Without Borders, which Goldnadel heads, for defaming Jews in an op-ed article three years ago.
The article, the court found, equated Jews with the state of Israel, whose policies the authors sharply criticized.
The four men were also told to pay (?) each to an Israeli-French association, and Le Monde was ordered to publish a notice of the court's decision in its pages.
Both the case and the modest penalty have contributed to a growing debate in Europe as a surge of emotional discourse - regarding Muslims after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and Israel after the second Palestinian intifada - bumps up against post-Nazi laws designed to guard against the fascist hate-mongering of the 1930s.
France's far-right political leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, has been taken to court on several occasions both for disparaging Muslims and for minimizing the Nazis' wartime atrocities. In 2002, the French author Michel Houellebecq was acquitted of inciting racial hatred in a 2001 novel that called Islam "the stupidest religion."
Most recently, an Italian judge ordered the journalist Oriana Fallaci to stand trial on charges that she defamed Islam in her 2004 book, "The Force of Reason." She wrote in the book that Islam "sows hatred in the place of love and slavery in the place of freedom."
Some say that Europe is struggling to adjust the boundaries of reasonable debate at the worst possible time.
"The more insecure Europe is about its identity, the more dangerous it is to cross those boundaries," said Dominique Mo?si, an international relations specialist. "Especially now, those boundaries are even more delicate because there is a danger of Europe falling prey to nationalistic and jingoistic reactions."
The opinion article in Le Monde was nothing remarkable from the point of view of an American reader accustomed to raucous, sometimes racist public debate in a country where even cross-burning is legal.
But public criticism of racial or religious groups is forbidden in France, which is vigilant in policing public speech in pursuit of its vision of a homogenous, secular nation free of sectarian divisions.
Most European countries have laws restricting hate speech that, even if they predate the rise of Nazism in the early 20th century, have been reinforced by the shared history of the Holocaust.
Even Britain, which protects freedom of speech in a spirit closer to that of the United States, is considering a law against "incitement of religious hatred," to go along with an existing law against incitement of racial hatred.
Europe has seen a rash of such free-speech cases since the 2001 attacks, with many triggered by criticism of Islam amid concerns about Europe's growing conservative Muslim population. Enforcement varies according to the national mood and penalties for infractions are usually low, leaving the field open to anyone willing to face the resulting opprobrium.
[後略]
以上。