All across Western Europe writers are being arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced simply for their opinions on certain topics — immigration, Islam, national identity, etc. They are, in effect, being found guilty of blasphemy against the core secular scriptures of Multiculturalism.
Below is a an Italian article about the sentencing of the French intellectual Renaud Camus (no relation to Albert, as far as I know) for criticizing immigration. There may be articles in French on the same topic, but none has been pointed out to me.
France: Renaud Camus convicted for criticizing immigration
Renaud Camus has been sentenced to two months in prison, suspended on condition he compensate two anti-racist associations with 1,800 euros. The reason? He criticized immigration.
New troubles for the French writer Renaud Camus. After being convicted for incitement to racial hatred in 2014, the founder of the Parti de l’In-nocence, the author of Le Grand Remplacement (The Great Replacement), that is, the colonization of France (and more generally, Europe) on the part of Islamic migrants, as reported by La Verità, he has now been sentenced to two months in prison, suspended on condition that he compensate each of the two designated anti-racist civilian parties, SOS Racisme and the LICRA [International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism].
The judges charged him with the crime of public incitement to hate or violence on the basis of origin, ethnicity, nationality, race or religion through words, writings, images, or means of electronic public communication.
The magistrates of the tribunal of Auch have charged the French intellectual for a speech delivered on November 19, 2017 in Colombey-les-deux Eglises before the National Council of European Resistance, which Camus himself shared on his social network. “Immigration has become an invasion,” declared Camus in the speech cited by the magistrates. “The irreversible colonization is demographic colonization, by the replacement of the population.” And also: “The ethnic substitution, the great replacement, is the most important event in the history of our nation since it has existed; as with other people, if the story continues, it will not be that of France.” “There are no French jihadists,” he stressed, and, “if there are jihadists, they are not French.” What we need, he then explained, “is for all who oppose Islamization and African conquests to rally. What is necessary is a national consensus of resistance, of European resistance, because all European nations are invited to carry on at our side the struggle for the salvation of our common civilization, Celtic, Slavic, Germanic, Greek-Latin, Judeo-Christian.”
A specter haunting Europe and the world, he finally remarked in one of the passages targeted by the judges, “is the substitution, the tendency to substitute everything with its emulator, normalized, standardized, interchangeable: The original with its copy, the authentic with its imitation, the true with the false, the mothers with surrogate mothers, the culture with free time and entertainment.” Open the heavens. One might, naturally, not be in agreement with the thesis of Camus and his “exclusive” nationalism, but at what point has it become illegal to maintain that immigration represents “an invasion”? What is strange about affirming that uncontrolled and wild immigration of immigrants to a European country risks changing it radically and changing it from a demographic point of view, from its culture, from its customs and morals? Do we have to pretend that it doesn’t, and that identity does not exist? Or, in any case, does saying it constitute a crime of opinion?
Where it concerns intellectuals and thinkers not aligned with the single thought, it seems that the famous maxim, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is worth decisively less. To note that notwithstanding his theories, Camus keeps his distance from the concept of Kipling’s “white man’s burden” and from the consideration that the white man is superior. Therefore, where is the racism? “No, not a word of this in any of my books.” And in the same way, there is nothing approaching white supremacism. “I have nothing in common with them. They, on the other hand have something in common with me because, like me, they protest against the great substitution. But I disapprove of them, especially when they become terrorists. In 2002, I founded the Parti de l’In-nocence (“Party of No-harm”), with the dash inside, intended as a negation of all that which could give birth to every type of aggression, from putting your feet on the seats of a commuter train to killing. I am absolutely non-violent.”
Hat tip: Reader from Chicago, via Twitter.