Conference taveng::bagels

    There is no queston but that le Pen represents the always-present
    fascist shadow of France.  The temperament of the country at any
    time can be gauged by the clarity that this shadow casts.  With
    almost 15% of the vote in the first cycle of the elections, the
    shadow appears quite distinct.  Interestingly enough, it was the
    communists who made it so ---- voting for le Pen in support of his
    stand relative to immigrant workers who are taking jobs from the
    French working class.  In good times, people vote their ideals;
    in bad times, they vote their prejudices.

    Le Pen is not just anti-semite. He is a 100% xenophobe. The Jewish
    community is not on the front line, the "Immigr�s" (immigrants)
    are.
    
    To Le Pen, the enemy #1 are the "Maghr�bins". These are people who came
    from the former French colonies in Northern Africa (Tunisia, Marocco,
    Algeria, et.al.) to work in France.
    
    I wouldn't trust him for a second, but I heard him speak of the
    Jewish community as 'integral part of the French nation'. This was
    shortly after his statement that the Gas Chambers during WWII were
    only a 'historical detail'.

    Chris

.2>    To Le Pen, the enemy #1 are the "Maghr�bins". These are people who came
.2>    from the former French colonies in Northern Africa (Tunisia, Marocco,
.2>    Algeria, et.al.) to work in France.
.2>    
.2>    I wouldn't trust him for a second ...

I wouldn't, either.  For people like Le Pen, there's always some group of
"foreigners" responsible for the country's problems.  If his ideas were
to be implemented and most or all of the Arab immigrants expelled, someone
else would be next in line, and the Jews are a logical choice.

One can only hope that his methods of "purifying" the country would not
be an "historical detail".

    RE .0:
    
    Actually, your note doesn't come after the fact: Mitterand called
    for new legislative elections to be held on the 5th (1st round),
    and 12th (2nd round) of June. Without going into electoral details:
    The current govt. under Prime Minister Rocard is not backed by a
    majority in the National Assembly, hence Mitterand dissolved it
    and decided for new elections.
    
    We will see how Le Pen will do, my estimation is positioning him
    at around 18-20% of the votes, unless there is time enough for the
    'effet Mitterand' to become efficient.
    
    Below, I will give you a 'snapshot' list of details with regards
    to Le Pens political views:
    
    - He proposes the creation of 'SIDATORIUMS' (SIDA = AIDS, in French),
    closed camps (hear, hear) for persons contaminated with aids. He
    seriously believes that AIDS can be transmitted by toilet seats,
    shaking hands, saliva. Of course, he states, AIDS has been imported
    into France by the Blacks and the Arabs.
    
    - He wishes to re-install death penalty (BTW, when will the US get
    rid of this; personal comment, rathole alert!!!).
    
    - The Arabs are having more children than the French, hence one
    day this country will be an Islamic Republic, and 'WE MUST FIGHT
    THIS NOW!!'.

    - Get the 'Immigr�s' bloody quick out of here (which worries me,
    I'm one myself, but I seem to have the 'right' skin and hair colour,
    this is no joke, this is what I was told when I addressed my concern
    to some local 'Front National' jerk).
    
    - Redefine the (actually really VERY liberal) code for obtaining
    the French citizenship.

    - Nationalise foreign property in France, except for selected countries
    (all European, US, and some others will not be affected)
    
    and so on...

    What an incredible mistake of Mother Nature this guy is!
    
    Chris

    He chose to be candidate in Marseille to run for his deputy seat.
    
    FYI.
    
    Chris

    Re: .4
    
    Trouble is that these "freaks of nature" tend to appear every 30
    years or so.
    
    David

Hanving a lot of "Ashkenazy" (occidental) jewish french friend, I was
    absolutely shocked to find out that, a lot of the original european
    jews did vote for Le Pen. Their argument is, Gee aren't people naiv(?)
    that Le Pen is a "FRIEND!!!" of the jews. Although I live in Geneva,
    I felt ashamed, considering what my parents went through during
    the holocoust.
    Suzy
    

    Suzy, could you tell us the source of your information? If your
    statement turns out to be correct, then it would be no surprise to me.

    As mentioned before, LePen repeatedly stated that he wants to protect
    "all French citizens" from the foreign immigration wave, including "nos
    concitoyens juifs" (our Jewish co-citizens). I mean, deep down in their
    subconscience, some French Jews, right BECAUSE of what they and their
    relatives have suffered, might actually complacently watch how another
    ethnic group is the main target of racism and xenophobia. Who am
    I to blame them? 
    
    On the other hand, I have been watching on TV quite a nice fight btw.
    some leather dressed young LePen followers and a group of young Jewish
    students, on May 1st (right after the first electoral round). The score
    was Jewish students 1, LePen fans 0, when the police arrived. Sorry for
    my sarcasm, but I couldn't help it. So, it seems that at least the
    young people could save their clear view. 
    
    Chris

    Chris,
    i don't blame you for sarcasm, I feel the same... my sources are
    coming from some, should I say older/elderly ashkenazi jews, which
    settled down after the holocoust in France. I hate to say it, because
    being a jew myself - having been brought up in Vienna by hungarian
    parents - that you'll find unfortunately and especially in France
    the Jews coming from eastern european countries disliking the jews
    from the Arab countries, and therefore voted for Le Pen. For Example
    I was in Paris at my mother's counsins house in 1986, during the
    legislative election week-end, and guess what: On satuday night
    there was a community get together and the "guest speaker" was
    one of the personal advisors of Le Pen.... Let me explain you a
    little bit the "WHY", although VERY STRONGLY REJECT THIS IDEA,
    however it has a lot to do with the holocoust. The jews which suffered
    during the holocoust, survived and remained "strong feeling" jews,
    created wereever they settled down "jewish ghettos", for example
    in Vienna: 1,2,3. Bezirk, Paris: around Rue Rossier,etc....
    and would not mis with non-jews, would scream shame and scandal
    for mixed marriages, but at the same time you had in France and
    in Geneva and in South of France also a lot of jews imigrating from
    the arab countries, and integrating better(?), quicker(?) etc...
    which created this hate. 
    
    I hope I made myself clear... and by the way, I also know fro the
    same sources, that after Le Pen considered the gaschambers as something
    not significant, a lot of jews did not go and vote, because they
    did not know what to do......one hand agree with "get rid of the
    "Non-french"...(whatever that means) and on the other hand not 
    "respecting" the past..
    I saw the fight too in TV, and that gives me hope, because that
    means that our youngsters have more BRAINS!!!!
    
    BTW what's your opinion regarding yesterday's results??
    Look forward to hear/read it
    Suzy
    
    co

    I listened to a report on yesterday's legislative elections while
    driving to work today.  It seems that the gains the conservatives
    had made had taken away advances by both the extreme right and the
    Communists.  Of course in France's electoral system a runoff will
    be held next Sunday which will finalise the results.                                  
                                                        
    Could all of this mean that French politics will be purely "middle-of
    the-road" for the next 4-6 years?
    
    David 

    re .10, .9:
    
    The following is my PERSONAL, non-french but francophile view of
    things:
    
    If France wants to be ready for Europe 1992 (virtually no borders and a
    'real' common market), it has to join the efforts of both the 'left'
    and 'right' (speak: socialist and conservative) halfes of its
    population. Because of its very long history as a republic, France has
    developed two rather irreconcilable political blocks. A large part of
    the reasons put forward for supporting either one look rather
    irrational to me (like, in simplified terms: I'm a teacher, hence I
    vote socialist. I'm a railway employee, hence I vote communist). 
    
    People like the current socialist Prime Minister, Rocard, and the
    leader of the centralists, Raymond Barre, would actually be a large
    benefit for Frances economy and evolution, if they could 'walk a
    part of the way together', as Austria's former chancelor Bruno Kreisky
    put it once (and he was successful for over 13 years with this concept,
    and the tradition continues, despite the Waldheim issue which puts
    heavy pressure on the left-right cooperation).
    
    Unfortunately, they both seem to be tightened up by solidarity concerns
    towards their respective parties and their rules.
    
    The french electoral system is certainly not predestined to give the
    politicians correct advice on where they stand with their views (vote
    for the lesser evil vs. vote for the better idea), not does it give
    clear arguments for the voting community to criticise the elected
    persons, which leads me back to the subject. 
    
    There is an uproar today in France's political and journalistic world,
    because in Marseille LePens Front National and the URC (centrist/right
    combination RPR-UDF) have agreed to withdraw their respective
    'worse-placed' candidates in favour for the other runner-up. On the
    other hand, they did this only in 'circonscriptions' where the
    socialists and the communists had previously planned to do the same. 
    
    Conclusion: If I had to choose, as a voter, between the most xenophobe
    party representative in Europe and the most stalinistic party
    representative in Europe, who do you guess I would be voting for? In
    this real situation, I could only vote for the lesser evil, whichever
    this might be, in my eyes, just to prohibit the other evil to come to
    power. So, what happens, is that the outside world blames me, as a
    voter, for having chosen Front National, but at the same time doesn't
    praise me for NOT HAVING VOTED communistic (or vice-versa). This
    constellation opens all doors to cheap polemism and
    'whatever-pleases-me' interpretations of the electoral results. 
    
    Overall: the French electoral system STINKS
    
    Well, what I wanted to say, was: has its very strong disadvantages and
    distorts the actual reflection of seats in the parliament vs.
    percentage of actually obtained votes; in this case, the communists
    will get � 20 seats with 10%, LePen � 4 seats with 9%, the socialists
    the absolute majority of seats with � 35-40%, and it might happen that
    the URC will obtain less seats with actually more votes.
    
     
    
    Chris
    
    p.s.: Is this confusing?
    
    
    

    The Front National has won only ONE seat in the new Assembly. And this
    one is NOT for Lepen. The guy was given a decent lesson in Marseille
    that even in a more xenophobe than average environment his extremist
    views scare people off. 
    
    His speaches on TV were showing a hurt, whining, finger pointing (to
    the press, the other media) person, complaining on how unjust the whole
    world is. I had fun, believe you me.
    
    Chris

    Re: .12
    
    That's great news Chris.  But it looks like Mitterrand is going
    to have to make some deals in order to have a working majority in
    the national ass'y.  Sounds more and more like the Knesset (:-).
    
    David
    

	Already embroiled in contoversy for his 1987 remark in which
	he characterized Hitler's gas chambers as a "minor detail" of
	the war, Jean-Marie Le Pen has further enraged France's  political
	community by making a pun on the word "crematorium" in referring to
	a political opponent, Civil Service Minister Michel Durafour
	as "Monsieur Durafour-crematiore," (`four creamtoire' is the 
	common French term for death camp crematorium).  In presidential
	elections held last April, Le Pen polled 4,367,926 votes, or
	nearly 15% of the French electorate.

/don feinberg

    re: .14
    
    Is Le Pen the real face of the french electorate or an aberration?
    
    David

    The French General Assembly has adopted a law proposal stating that
    every person expressing racistic, antisemitic, or "revisionist" views
    has to appear in court which will determine, if guilty, for how long
    this person will loose all civic rights (this includes the right for
    passive eligibility).
    
    In clear, what this means, is that LePen will have to shut up,
    otherwise he'll loose all his public functions. The proposal got
    adopted by the votes of the socialist and communist factions. Before it
    comes into effect, there will be some ping=pong between the senate and
    the assembly, but it should be effective by September.
    
    Reportingly yours,
    
    Chris
    
    PS: "Revisionists", here, are so called "historians" and other persons
    supporting the thesis that Concentration Camps, Gas Chambers, etc...,
    never existed.

    No freedom of speech or thought in France, eh?
    
    			-John Bishop

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean one can say what one wants. Enforcing
    anti-racistic and anti-anti-semitic legislation is not restricting
    anybody's liberty. On the contrary, it is ensuring freedom.
    
    For my own curiosity: doesn't a strong set of anti-racistic laws exist
    in the US, as well?
    
    Clarifyingly yours,
    
    Chris

.17>    No freedom of speech or thought in France, eh?


I don't believe that the new French law limits freedom of thought.  And
there still is freedom of speech; however, a restriction is placed upon
it.

Similarly, in the United States there is no law against thinking that people
should roam the streets in mobs, looting shops and assaulting passers-by.
Saying out loud that they should do this, however, is considered incitement
to riot and generally is illegal.

    The U.S. Supreme court has ruled that a political advertisement may
    say anything.  No holds bared.
    
    WS

.20>    The U.S. Supreme court has ruled that a political advertisement may
.20>    say anything.

I'd be very interested in seeing the wording of that decision.  How did
they define "political"?  I suspect that incitement to riot would not become
legal simply by adding "Vote for Smith" at the end.

    UNBELIEVABLE!
    
    "Gaz the Jews, enslave the Blacks, vote for KKK".
    
    Such a poster would be allowed? If so, then the US government has a
    couple of issues with the declaration of Human Rights.
    
    I'm no US citizen, but were I one, then this ruling is one thing I
    would strongly fight against.
    
    Increduly yours,
    
    Chris

    re .18, Anti-racism laws in U.S.?
    
    No, the courts have repeatedly held that freedom of speech--especially
    "political" speech (as opposed to "commercial" speech such as in
    advertising) is essentially absolute.  The only restriction is when
    a "clear and present danger" is created, which is what .19 is refering
    to.
    
    Thus, the American Nazi Party, etc. are legal, and they are not committing
    crimes when they say racist things, including their desire to expel the
    races they don't like from the US.  If, however, a member of that
    party were trying to encourage a crowd to kill or hurt, that might
    be a crime--but it might not be.  "If I am elected, I will pass laws
    which direct that all X's should be killed" is not a crime.  "Let's
    go kill an X right now" possibly is.
    
    The Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech even overrides the
    obscenity laws--there was a case of a politician whose TV campaign 
    advertisements contained sexually explicit images which would otherwise
    have been illegal under local law.  The courts held that he was
    protected, because he was engaged in "political" speech.
    
    To me, at least, the French laws seem to be seriously restricting
    freedom of speech to no good purpose, and essentially anti-democratic
    as well.  The reasoning here is that if you restrict political speech
    at all, more restrictions are easier to put in, and the danger is that
    criticism of the current government will be outlawed.  That's the end
    of freedom.
    
    This means also that the courts have held again and again that it is
    legal to advocate restricting freedom of speech--that is, the
    protections of Bill of Rights apply even to the enemies of those
    rights.
    
    			-John Bishop

    Re .22
    
    Yes, my understanding of US laws is that such a poster would
    be legal.  I've seen literature from some extremist groups
    and that's about what some of them say.
    
    There is a journal which re-prints newsletters from various
    extremist groups (of all political flavors).  University
    libraries sometimes have subscriptions to that journal.  It's
    been too many years for me to remember its name, however.
    
    As for whether such posters are infringements of human rights,
    well, that's what we disagree about.  I certainly support your
    right to protest and complain!
    
    				-John Bishop

    I think the general rule is if you limit the rights of a group,
    no matter how abhorrent their philosophy might be, then you set
    a precedent that eventually could lead to the infringement of
    everybody's rights.
    
    As John said, no matter how sick an idea might be, in the US as
    long as no one translates that sick idea into action which can hurt
    people, then a person or persons is/are entitled to think whatever
    sick thoughts they want to under the Constitution. The Constitution
    doesn't pass judgement on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of ideas
    - it only says government can't use it's power to inhibit the
    expression of those ideas unless they endanger others.
    
    Mark who_was_a_political_science_major_many_moons_ago

    The story continues:
    
    The cemetery of the oldest Jewish community in France, in Carpentras,
    near Avignon (125 families in a town of 26.000) has been devastated.
    
    34 graves have been destroyed, the stones sprayed over with
    anti-semitic slogans, one corpse of an 85 year old (dead 15 days ago),
    has been exhumed and paled with a beach umbrella.
    
    This is what "free" speech leads to.
    
    Sadly yours,
    
    Chris
    
    PS: LePen speaks of "manipulation". Some days ago, in a TV show, he
    complained about the newspapers being owned or controlled by Jews.
    Where have I heard that before?
    

    Re .26:
    
    You're 100% correct, Chris....LaPen (and by extension others of
    his ilk) is a sick puppy.
    
    But I don't think we should confuse vandalism/descecration with
    free speech - as I stated earlier, LaPen's right to vandalize
    cemetaries ends at the front gate of the cemetary IMHO.
    
    Mark

    re:.26
    At any given time a majority of Americans is in favor of restricting
    the right of free speech; George Bush got elected by appealing to that
    crowd!  But the principle usually survives in court, because the
    political consensus, beyond the yobbos, is that there's no good way to
    draw the line if it isn't directly inciteful to violence.  And LePen's
    latest, I'm afraid, would be quite legal, and rightly so, here.
    
    We have a saying:  You have freedom to say or write anything in
    America, and the freedom to be ignored by everyone else.  Most
    Americans distrust any "alternative" media, and trust the 11 o'clock TV
    news.  Repressive governments don't realize how little they would be
    hurt by real freedom of speech, since the masses tend to ignore what
    they don't want to hear anyway.
           fred