RACIAL DEFAMATION AND DEBATE OF IDEAS
LexInter | July 31, 2016 | 0 Comments

RACIAL DEFAMATION AND DEBATE OF IDEAS

FRENCH REPUBLIC
 

IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
 

persecute the Palestinians. The Jews who fell victim to a ruthless order impose their ruthless order on the Palestinians. The Jews, victims of inhumanity, show a terrible inhumanity. The Jews, scapegoats for all evils, “scapegoats” B … and the Palestinian Authority, made responsible for attacks, which they are prevented from preventing; that the Union of Jewish Students of France, the association lawyers without borders (AASF) considering that this article contained statements constituting for some of defamation of a racial nature of an exceptional gravity, for others of apology for acts of terrorism, had the editor of the newspaper, the authors of the

On the first plea;

Whereas the judgment is criticized for having declared admissible the action of the association Avocats sans frontières, then, according to the means:

1 / that the document dated July 5, 2002 included in the debates was the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors, so that, bearing in mind that it was the minutes of an extraordinary general meeting, the court of appeal distorted the document thus violating article 1134 of the civil code;

2 / that not explaining on the plea from the lack of signature of this minutes board of directors, the court of appeal ignored the requirements of article 455 of the new code of civil procedure;

3 / by refusing to verify that the president had been duly authorized to act by the competent bodies of the association, the court of appeal deprived its decision of legal basis with regard to article 117 of the new code of procedure civil law and articles 1 and 5 of the law of July 1, 1901;

But given that in the state of a deliberation of July 5, 2002 of the board of directors of the association giving full powers to the president to initiate legal proceedings following the disputed article, the court of appeal rightly deduced from this, apart from the material error relating to the name of the deliberative body, that the action, brought in the name of the association by its president expressly authorized by the board of directors, was regular ;

That the plea is unfounded;

But on the second means, taken in its three branches:

Considering articles 29, paragraph 1, 32 paragraph 2 of the law of July 29, 1881 and 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Whereas to say constitutive of a racial defamation within the meaning of the first two texts referred to above the aforementioned passages of the article “Israel-Palestine: the cancer” signed by Mr. Edgar Y …, MZ .. and Mrs. A .. ., published in the daily Le Monde on June 4, 2002, the court of appeal stated that the first passage indeed constitutes racial defamation in that it imputes to all the Jews of Israel the precise act of humiliating the Palestinians and derive satisfaction from it by stigmatizing their behavior in the light of their own common history; that the second also constitutes a defamation in that it imputes to the Jews, in their entirety and beyond even the only Jews of Israel, which obviously induces the pejorative repetition in an incantatory tone of the term ” expression of the personal convictions of the authors within the framework of a political debate whose highly controversial character is justified by the very nature of the conflict and the heightened passions it arouses in the protagonists, which these two passages are beyond the controversy in what they draw up a peremptory statement of the Jewish nation as opposed to the whole of the Palestinians and this beyond the traditional political, moral, religious divisions; that contrary to what the respondents maintain, these passages do not contain the virulent criticism of Israeli policy, do not find justification in the paradox invoked of the comparison of the behaviors suffered by the Jews and the behaviors which are imputed to them; a political debate whose highly controversial nature is justified by the very nature of the conflict and the heightened passions it arouses in the protagonists, that these two passages are beyond controversy in that they draw up a peremptory observation of the nation Jewish as opposed to all the Palestinians and this beyond traditional political, moral, religious divisions; that contrary to what the respondents maintain, these passages do not contain the virulent criticism of Israeli policy, do not find justification in the paradox invoked of the comparison of the behaviors suffered by the Jews and the behaviors which are imputed to them; a political debate whose highly controversial nature is justified by the very nature of the conflict and the heightened passions it arouses in the protagonists, that these two passages are beyond controversy in that they establish a peremptory observation of the nation Jewish as opposed to all the Palestinians and this beyond traditional political, moral, religious divisions; that contrary to what the respondents maintain, these passages do not contain the virulent criticism of Israeli policy, do not find justification in the paradox invoked of the comparison of the behaviors suffered by the Jews and the behaviors which are imputed to them; that these two passages are beyond the controversy in that they draw up a peremptory observation of the Jewish nation as opposed to the whole of the Palestinians and this beyond the traditional political, moral, religious cleavages; that contrary to what the respondents maintain, these passages do not contain the virulent criticism of Israeli policy, do not find justification in the paradox invoked of the comparison of the behaviors suffered by the Jews and the behaviors which are imputed to them; that these two passages are beyond the controversy in that they draw up a peremptory observation of the Jewish nation as opposed to the whole of the Palestinians and this beyond the traditional political, moral, religious cleavages; that contrary to what the respondents maintain, these passages do not contain the virulent criticism of Israeli policy, do not find justification in the paradox invoked of the comparison of the behaviors suffered by the Jews and the behaviors which are imputed to them;

That in so ruling, when the words pursued, isolated in an article criticizing the policy pursued by the government of Israel towards the Palestinians, do not attribute any specific fact liable to damage the honor or to the consideration of the Jewish community as a whole by reason of its membership of a nation or a religion, but are the expression of an opinion which is the sole matter of a debate of ideas, the court of appeal violated the above-mentioned texts;

And whereas it is necessary to apply article 627, paragraph 2 of the new code of civil procedure and to put an end to the dispute by applying the appropriate rule of law;

FOR THESE REASONS :

BREAK AND ANNUL, in all its provisions, the judgment delivered on May 26, 2005, between the parties, by the Court of Appeal of Versailles which said that the above passages of the article “Israel-Palestine: cancer” signed by Mr. Edgar Y …, MZ .. and Mrs. A …, published in the daily Le Monde of June 4, 2002;

DIT there to be referral;

Confirms the judgment rendered on May 12, 2004 by the Nanterre tribunal de grande instance;

Orders the AFI and the AASF to pay the costs relating to the proceedings before the Court of Appeal as well as the costs of the present proceedings;

Considering article 700 of the new code of civil procedure, rejects the requests;

Said that on the diligence of the Attorney General near the Court of Cassation, this judgment will be transmitted to be transcribed on the sidelines or following the broken judgment;

Thus done and judged by the Court of Cassation, first civil chamber, and pronounced by the president in his public hearing on July 12, two thousand and six.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.


CAPTCHA Image
Reload Image