Éric Zemmour is a well-known politically incorrect French journalist and commentator. He has been prosecuted and convicted in the past for his “racist” utterances.
Last week a criminal court in Paris handed down another judgment against Mr. Zemmour. In addition to a fine, this decision includes a gag order.
The remarks that got him in hot water this time were made on a TV talk show last September. The following video shows that “Islamophobic” discussion. Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Below are two articles about last week’s judgment against Éric Zemmour, also translated by Ava Lon. The first one is from Le Figaro:
Eric Zemmour sentenced again for Islamophobic remarks
June 22, 2017
The polemicist Eric Zemmour was sentenced Thursday [06/22/2017] to a €5,000 fine for incitement to hatred for anti-Muslim remarks made in the program “C to you” on September 6, 2016.
During the broadcast on France 5, he in particular considered it necessary to give Muslims “the choice between Islam and France”.
He also argued that “all Muslims, whether they say it or not,” regarded jihadists as “good Muslims.”
The Criminal Court of Paris ruled that the remarks he made are “undoubtedly serious”, with Eric Zemmour “stigmatizing on several occasions and in particularly violent and peremptory terms a community taken in its entirety”.
In addition to the fine, he was ordered to pay one euro in damages to CAPJPO EuroPalestine, which initiated the proceedings, and €2,000 for legal costs.
Eric Zemmour was previously convicted in 2011 for incitement to hatred, after saying on television that “most drug dealers are black and Arab; that’s how it is; it’s a fact.”
More recently, the Court of Appeal of Paris confirmed last November its sentence of a €3,000 fine for statements considered Islamophobic in the Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera. He appealed in cassation.
And from Dreuz.info:
Eric Zemmour convicted in criminal court because he still does not understand that one should not tell the truth about Islam
© Nancy Verdier for Dreuz.info
June 24, 2017
Since France is the country of freedoms and human rights, power silenced the great voices until they submitted.
After Natacha Polony, who just lost her time on the air in various audio and television media, the stranglehold is tightening around Eric Zemmour, who has just been slapped with a gag order and ordered to pay €5,000 in fines by the 17th Correctional Chamber Of the Paris Court. The polemicist had bravely declared in the program “C à Vous” broadcast last September on France 5 that “The moderate Muslim does not exist” and that “the soldiers of jihad are considered by all the Muslims, whether they say it or not, to be good Muslims.”
Zemmour added that it was necessary “to give them the choice between Islam and France… For example, giving a first name that isn’t French to your child is… wanting to continue an Islamic identity in France and it’s wanting to transform France into a country that is more and more Muslim.”
For these assertions Éric Zemmour was pursued by the radical and anti-Israeli association CAPJPO-EuroPalestine.
According to Le Parisien, the Criminal Court found that the prosecuted speech was “undeniably serious”, Éric Zemmour “stigmatizing on several occasions and in particularly violent and peremptory terms a community taken as a whole.” In addition to the fine, he was ordered to pay one euro in damages to the association CAPJPO-EuroPalestine, and €2,000 for court costs.
Sadly, it is clear that it was French listeners and citizens who initiated a complaint against the person who bears the standard of Truth, in order to open their eyes to one of the realities of Islam.
After the trials of Pierre Cassen and Georges Bensoussan, and with the conviction of Eric Zemmour, judicial institutions demonstrate once again that telling the truth about Islam leads you directly to the Criminal Court and a sure conviction.
Now, all Muslims know that Islam is a whole and that the dichotomy of Islam vs. Islamism is a Western invention.
The journalist-writer and friend Salem Ben Ammar has warned against the false distinction between Islam and Islamism: all Muslims who are honest and aware of the infernal dynamics set up by the proponents of political correctness and the opponents of Islamophobia know that it’s Islam at work behind the jihadist crimes.
But the 17th Chamber of the Correctional Court — by this iniquitous decision — also gave a signal of encouragement to all associations and organizations which, by various means, spread Islam in France and are practicing a “soft” jihad by denouncing on behalf of Human Rights all criticism of Islam, of its nature and of the deleterious imprint it leaves in the brains of its followers.
The truth is that being a good Muslim is to follow Islam to the letter, and jihad is part of Islam.
This is what Wikipedia says: Islam has four types of jihad: the heart, the tongue, the hand and the sword. Jihad through the heart invites Muslims to “fight in order to improve or improve society”. Jihad can also be interpreted as a spiritual struggle within the framework of Sufism, for example. The latter interpretation served as an argument for various Muslim groups throughout history to promote actions against “infidels” or other Muslim groups considered opponents and rebels. Nevertheless, the specialists of the Koran agree that it is illegitimate to assert that the Quranic jihad is only spiritual.
In the totalitarian France that Macron is bringing in, Zemmour won’t be the last to be sentenced for telling the truth about Islam. The great media voices are dying out; mediocre Macronian elected representatives of the National Assembly replace former elected representatives and senators of the Assembly, and the confrontation of ideas will be replaced by an intellectual poverty; and — as Guy Millière put it so well in his last article — it will be “euthanasia on a gentle slope”.
After the recent attack on the Champs-Élysées, where an ordinary “Muslim”, who was S-filed [had a terrorist file] and completely free in his movements, proved to be a pure jihadist, the demonstration was made that in France the “security system” has gaping flaws, and that, moreover, the jihadist may hide under the guise of a rich and “honorable” merchant. S*** hitting the fan for Emmanuel Macron and his muddy argument used during his presidential campaign, which had claimed that the Muslims’ acting out was to be attributed to their social frustrations due to poverty and lack of means to achieve their aspirations.
Macron, who claims protecting French citizens more by including in the law measures of control and retaliation against terrorists, while simultaneously giving a new European and economic dynamics to France all while accelerating the immigration of Iraqi and Syrian refugees, is in the process of cynically setting up tools which will inevitably turn against democracy. In particular, if the anti-terrorist laws are enshrined in the Constitution, it is not clear who will be in power in a few decades or what use will be made of these laws, which could turn against French citizens trying to resist jihad and the Islamization of our national territory.
In France for many years now the whistle blowers against the dictatorship of Islam are being banished from society. Fearful of being labeled Islamophobic, citizen movements collapse here and there in Europe. We’ll see if Macron keeps his promises of “proportional”, but for now, in France, Marine Le Pen, with her 10.5 million voters, cannot penetrate the glass ceiling and has only 8 FN representatives in the National Assembly, while 17 Muslims will sit there. While Geert Wilders, in the Netherlands, is pursuing his lonely crusade against Islamization, in a country on the alert, which renounces the integration of Muslims, in Germany, the protest movements against Angela Merkel’s policy of the invasion of Germany are gagged, just like in Sweden and Denmark, just like in England, where they are brutally repressed by the police and imprisoned as happened to the heroic Tommy Robinson. And to close the whole, in Switzerland, Oscar Freysinger was virtually excluded from political life.
I have no doubt that Macron, who played so much on his image as both a seducer and a “Jupiterian sovereign”, gave pledges to those Muslims whom he had brought into the Assembly and the Muslim organizations he endorsed.
I am convinced that he won’t be able to stem the rise of jihadism, that he will yield to the Islamization of France and the rising demands of the Ummah, which at the individual and community level inexorably pursues its goals of conquest at the global level: it may be that Macron’s five years term will mark the establishment — one day soon — of the Islamic Republic of France, in a country entirely anesthetized… unless there’s a popular awakening…
But one thing is certain: the Islamization of a nation is a trap from which it is difficult, if not impossible, to escape. Many Muslims know this and tell us about it… These voices are not killed for the moment, but are only heard by some resistant citizens. Political and legal bodies display the logic of submission to Islam.
What the 17th Correctional Chamber has just done is once again a heresy. But in the land of Voltaire and Diderot, Reason and Common Sense have no force of law any longer. A soft Jihad is more insidious, more subtle, and in some ways more dangerous and difficult to fight than violent jihad, because, by skillfully using our legislation, it’s gradually winning via the cowardice and ignorance of the judges.
|00:00||Good evening, Eric Zemmour. “Five Years For Nothing” is a title|
|00:04||that deceives us, because the subject of your book is Islam.|
|00:08||An Islam that you assimilate and amalgamate with Islamism or Jihadism.|
|00:12||For you the genes of terrorism are in Islam,|
|00:16||and Islam is diabolical. —Not diabolical, however,|
|00:20||Islam was conceived, from the start, from its origins, from the seventh century,|
|00:24||in war. It’s certain. History tells us that. And…|
|00:28||And it’s not the only religion. —Which was created by war? Absolutely, it’s the only religion.|
|00:32||It’s not the same thing —Yes, anyway, the text is dangerous|
|00:36||if you don’t interpret it, if you don’t take it at a distance; which is the case for most|
|00:40||Muslims in France, right? —Dear Madame, it’s forbidden|
|00:44||to take the Qur’an at a distance. It has been forbidden to interpret the Qur’an|
|00:48||since the 9th century. It’s a huge dispute, which, by the way,|
|00:52||agitated Muslims in the 9th century: between the Mu’tazilites, who wanted to do exactly|
|00:56||like Christians, meaning inject reason into the faith, and the others…|
|01:00||and it’s the others who won. It’s the entire problem with Islam today. —Well, but you admit…|
|01:03||—I admit nothing! —You admit that there are Muslims in France who live peacefully,|
|01:08||who don’t interpret the Qur’anic texts literally, which are totally|
|01:12||integrated. —But… that’s what you’re saying. —It’s not true? —No.|
|01:16||You don’t know Muslims, who… you know Muslims. —Oh yes, I do know many Muslims… —yes,|
|01:19||and who practise their religion in peace; they don’t exist? —No, but…|
|01:24||This is a fallacious argument. I’m going to explain something to you.|
|01:28||Everybody lives in peace. Islam itself means peace.|
|01:32||But Islam also means submission.|
|01:36||So in fact one may only live in peace after submitting to Islam.|
|01:40||There simply are people|
|01:44||who are good Muslims and people who are bad Muslims. In Islam there are|
|01:48||no “moderate” Muslims. It doesn’t exist. There are simply people who|
|01:53||apply it literally and those who don’t apply it literally, but they KNOW|
|01:57||that they aren’t good Muslims… —So the bad Muslims are the good Muslims for us?|
|02:01||It’s the entire problem that France has: that what you’re calling… And those are most numerous…|
|02:05||No they aren’t the most numerous. What you call “good Muslims” Islam calls|
|02:09||“bad Muslims”. This is exactly our problem! and on the contrary, what you call… — It’s who Islam,|
|02:14||I’m sorry, it’s who Islam? —Islam is a text. —You cannot say YOU, who are good and bad Muslims|
|02:17||You cannot say that, Eric Zemmour — On the contrary, I can say that.|
|02:21||How can you say that? I’m going to explain it to you. It’s very simple. Because there’s a text.|
|02:25||It doesn’t make any sense. — On the contrary only THIS makes sense. And it’s not|
|02:29||what we are doing. It doesn’t make sense to say: “Islam doesn’t cause any problems,”|
|02:33||but when one explains what Islam is, you say: “No, it’s not that!”|
|02:37||It’s exactly what Anne-Sophie just did. It’s exactly that.|
|02:41||Jihad is a part of Islam. —There are different… —No, there are no different…|
|02:47||—Yes there are: there is the peaceful one and. —There is the lesser jihad and the greater jihad|
|02:50||There is jihad, the psychological, the spiritual one and the great jihad;|
|02:54||except that the military jihad, the warrior jihad, was never removed.|
|02:58||And it’s a fundamental element of Islam.|
|03:02||Therefore the soldiers of jihad are|
|03:06||considered by all the Muslims, whether they say it or not, to be|
|03:10||“good Muslims”. Oh, those are warriors, those are soldiers of Islam!|
|03:14||I know it displeases you… but that’s the way it is. — It’s not that it displeases us, we don’t|
|03:18||live in the same world… — Jihadis aren’t considered “good Muslims” by all Muslims… —Yes, they are!|
|03:22||That’s absolutely false! —Yes they are! —Even the Salafis? —You cannot speak in their place.|
|03:26||It’s totally false! It’s incredible! You only have an opinion… —But Salafis don’t reject jihad…|
|03:29||—Yes, they do… —You cannot speak in the name of all Muslims. —There is a game,|
|03:34||simply: there are those, who dare to keep going until the end|
|03:38||of the application of Islam, and there are those, who don’t dare, but who KNOW|
|03:42||that jihad is a part of Islam. Whether you like it or not!|
|03:46||If Islam. —And not only jihad! There are all the…|
|03:50||What is Islam? Voltaire had a very nice formula that I’ll quote: “[Islam] is Judaism warmed over.”|
|03:54||Meaning it’s an orthopraxy, meaning that it a practice of…|
|03:58||that it is preoccupied with people’s lives. Exactly like Judaism. With one fundamental difference|
|04:02||or even two: it was precisely — to go back to your original question —|
|04:06||Judaism that exited this orthopraxis by discussion,|
|04:10||dispute, the famous Talmud, so the freedom of interpretation, which is forbidden|
|04:14||in Islam; and second: Judaism doesn’t proselytize. When you have a religion that|
|04:18||forbids interpretation of the text — because that’s the way it is!|
|04:22||So half the Qur’an is a bellicose Qur’an! When in the Qur’an it says that you|
|04:27||have to kill the… —There’s also much violence in the Bible, calls to murder are also in the Bible…|
|04:30||Of course, I haven’t heard of an application… —First, there is… first there is…|
|04:34||Well, all right. It’s very good that you’re asking me this question. First, don’t mix|
|04:39||the Bible, the Old Testament and the New Testament —Old Testament!|
|04:43||In the Old Testament there is ONE call to murder. It’s God who urges the extermination of Amalek.|
|04:47||The Amalekites were a people who opposed the Hebrews,|
|04:51||and effectively, you are absolutely right, and they exterminated them. Except that|
|04:55||you see the difference: it’s since — first Amalekites don’t exist any longer,|
|04:59||you haven’t missed that! Pierre isn’t part of Amalek!|
|05:03||— and neither are you, it’s like that! And second,|
|05:07||the Talmud, since the Middle Ages, estimated that since|
|05:11||Amalek have disappeared, this divine order was|
|05:15||no longer valid. In the Qur’an it’s complicated, because the Amalek in question|
|05:19||is Jews and Christians. It’s the associators and the traitors.|
|05:23||It’s those who have to be decapitated! And those are the ones whom Muhammad decapitates!|
|05:27||And Muhammad is the perfect man for the Qur’an and for Islam. The perfect man, who must|
|05:30||be imitated. So jihadis imitate Muhammad. —So everyone must be killed:|
|05:33||All Christians must be killed, and all Jews… —You aren’t listening to what I’m saying…|
|05:36||—Well that’s what it would be in that interpretation… —Why, yes. It’s written in the Qur’an.|
|05:39||—If Islam is our sworn enemy, what must we do? Do we forbid Islam?|
|05:43||Well it’s complicated, I admit. Because Islam|
|05:47||isn’t ONLY a religion. It is a religion, meaning that|
|05:51||it has the constituent elements of a religion, according to the Christian practice,|
|05:55||because Remy Brag says correctly that all the French, all of us,|
|05:59||for us religion means Catholicism, meaning that|
|06:03||… prayer, fasting, pilgrimages; except that Islam is not only that! — Well what do we do?|
|06:07||What do we do? —What do we do? First… —Do we forbid exercise of their|
|06:11||faith? Do we create a system of apartheid? You say that we have to discriminate.|
|06:16||First, you notice that you are at “What do we have to do?” — Yes.|
|06:20||For me, before the “What do we have to do?”, I need to be sure that the diagnostic is accepted.|
|06:24||But what I see here is that my diagnostic isn’t shared. —It isn’t shared.|
|06:28||So right away, it’s more complicated. We need a diagnostic today. —You have, right after you|
|06:32||establish a diagnostic, you have perhaps an idea, because we live today in|
|06:36||a France with lots of Muslims, millions of them, what do we do? —Absolutely, I didn’t miss that.|
|06:40||It’s precisely part of the subject.|
|06:44||I tried, you read my —I hope— you read my text …— Yes.|
|06:48||That is a foreword before my chronicles …— The chronicles of RTL [TV channel]|
|06:52||…about 50 pages, a sort of a book within a book. We even hesitated, you know,|
|06:56||the problems with the editors, so the editor have even considered publishing the text|
|07:00||as such, alone. —Yes, because it is a little… separate — no! Yes — separate, exactly.|
|07:04||No, it gives perspective on all the chronicles. —But it’s not the same. —Agreed, it’s not the same.|
|07:08||A rather apocalyptic vision. —Totally agree. —We go even further!— But|
|07:12||you noticed, I don’t know in which world you lived last summer, but|
|07:16||Nice wasn’t apocalyptic for you? —You aren’t answering my question. We would like you to…|
|07:20||We would like your solutions. —Yes, but they… — Well, those are people who lived|
|07:24||in France, who were French. You don’t find it apocalyptic, eh? —Terrorism is apocalyptic.|
|07:28||It’s not terrorism, it’s jihadism! — Say terrorism. —You are generalizing.|
|07:32||They are Islamists. —It’s Islam. —The way you put the equals sign|
|07:36||between jihadism and Islam and so on… —For me it IS equal, the same. It’s a civilizational war|
|07:40||waged by Islam on our territory… —Yes, yes! —NO! It is waged by a bunch of jihadis —No, no…|
|07:44||Who perpetrate the attacks —Well, no. No. Not for me. Forgive me for disagreeing with you.|
|07:47||—Let’s return to the solutions! —May I disagree with you? Jihad has been an integral part of Islam|
|07:52||since the origins of Islam —Not for the huge majority of Muslims… —No, no.|
|07:56||You don’t know Islam. You don’t know what Islam is. —I know Muslims in France.|
|08:00||Yes, but I know a couple of Muslims, but this is not the topic.|
|08:04||It’s not the topic. Communism as well, you know a couple of communists, and they didn’t send|
|08:09||everyone to the concentration camps; but it was communism. Voilà. It’s the same thing. —Eric, can|
|08:13||you answer my question? —Yes. —So what must we do with the Muslims? —Well, it’s, you noticed,|
|08:17||if you read my book, that the problem is on a global scale.|
|08:21||For the last thirty years we have been living with an invasion, a colonization|
|08:25||which is causing a conflagration. Which means that the jihad we’ve been|
|08:29||talking about for the last five minutes… —Yes, as part of Islam… —It’s only, if I may say so,|
|08:33||…part of Islam above all —Islam and of jihad — because they are assimilated.|
|08:37||Yes, of course, but there was first… — Go back to the…|
|08:41||Because all that is related. — We understood that: in your mind… —In countless French neighborhoods|
|08:45||where countless young girls are veiled,|
|08:49||it’s also Islam. It’s also jihad.|
|08:53||It’s also a fight to Islamize a territory|
|08:57||which isn’t, which is a non-Islamized, an infidel territory.|
|09:01||It’s the same thing: it’s the occupation of the territory. — What do you do with the Muslims?|
|09:05||With the Muslims in France? Do you separate them from others? – No.|
|09:09||Do you kick them out? Do you forbid them the practice of their faith? —I think that we have to|
|09:13||make them choose between Islam and France.|
|09:17||That’s that. So if they are French they don’t practice Islam?|
|09:21||If they aren’t French they have to… —But it’s complicated, because Islam doesn’t let you,|
|09:26||I admit it … —Deny their religion… —They don’t have to deny their religion, they must detach|
|09:29||themselves from what the religion is. —What does that mean? —You know it|
|09:33||means… —Isn’t it already the case for those who are bad Muslims in your mind? — Not at all. No.|
|09:37||But, I’ll give you an example: give a first name that isn’t|
|09:41||French to your child is not detaching yourself from Islam.|
|09:45||It’s wanting to continue an Islamic identity in France and it’s wanting|
|09:49||to transform France into a country that is more and more Muslim —Observe Ramadan?|
|09:54||Observe Ramadan… that…|
|09:58||you know that Bourguiba [Algerian politician] wanted to forbid it? —Eat halal? —Eat halal.|
|10:02||They can eat halal at home. —Ah! No, we’re trying to find out what’s OK and what isn’t. —No, they|
|10:05||can eat halal at home! They simply shouldn’t force the cafeterias to serve halal.|
|10:10||Is the identitarian obsession the equivalent of jihadism?|
|10:14||Don’t we find the same drive towards the extremes and towards the extermination of the other,|
|10:18||either Muslims or the white Catholics?|
|10:22||Well, you haven’t missed that I don’t have a driver’s license for trucks?|
|10:26||No, but… —I wasn’t the one who killed 180 people in Nice! — No, but, you know.|
|10:30||When you start discriminating, you go towards ghettos… —yes, sure… —Then move to extermination.|
|10:33||– NO, because… —Yes. But it’s has nothing to do with that.|
|10:38||Excuse me for repeating myself, but it’s not I who has a truck driver’s license,|
|10:42||and I didn’t kill 180 people in Nice. —Oh, neither have I, it wasn’t…|
|10:46||some were Muslims —But it was while yelling Allahu Akhbar! You might have missed that!|
|10:50||—I didn’t miss that! —It’s incredible nobody screamed “Buddha is great!” —No, but if tomorrow|
|10:53||a Catholic does it and yells “the Catholic God is great!”|
|10:58||I wouldn’t feel responsible for such a murder, would you? —Well,|
|11:02||I would, culturally yes. —So we would have to forbid Catholicism, in that case?|
|11:06||But you did notice, that this hasn’t happened? —No, it could happen. —It did happen. —Breivik.|
|11:10||Oh really? —Breivik didn’t cry “Jesus is great!”, excuse me.|
|11:14||He was, he had… —It’s BS this comparison, excuse me.|
|11:18||So the identitarian question. —In the name of what religion did he that? —One big BS!|
|11:22||He didn’t kill in the name of religion! —Are you sure about his writings? —Oh, yes, it’s certain!