Court Convicts Galliano in Anti-Semitism Case

[Scurrilous]

Source: NYTimes

<snip>

"John Galliano, the shamed British fashion designer whose career imploded in the aftermath of a videotaped anti-Semitic rant, was fined about $8,500 by a French court in connection with two incidents in a chic Parisian bar; the court then suspended the fine.

Mr. Galliano, 50, who stood before the panel of judges in a one-day trial in June, did not appear in court on Thursday to hear the verdict. The penalty was less than the $14,000 fine sought by the prosecutor, Anne de Fontette.

The charge of public insults for reasons of religion, race or ethnicity carried a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $32,175 fine. The court said that it took into consideration Mr. Galliano’s apology for the outbursts and his decision to seek treatment for drug and alcohol abuse in deciding his sentence. Mr. Galliano, who was fired as the creative director of Dior when the charges surfaced, had told the French court that he remembered nothing about the incidents, and at the time was debilitated by job stress and addiction to Valium and alcohol.

He condemned racism and anti-Semitism and apologized to the victims, saying he had experienced discrimination himself because of his homosexuality."

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/world/europe/09galliano.html

[Nye Bevan]

1. Anti-semitism (a la Mel Gibson and Helen Thomas) is disgusting.

But it should not be a criminal offense.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. Easy to say for an American, honestly

European countries have a rather different experience of the consequences of anti-Semitism and different laws because of that. (Same thing as neo-Nazis parading with swastika flags; legal in the US, not legal in Germany.)

[Lionel Mandrake]

8. The law in Germany reflects the denazification program,

which was imposed on Germany by Americans (among others) after World War Two.

I don't know how the French law came about.

Here in the USA, we have a Constitutional right to freedom of speech. Anyone who denies the Holocaust, displays the swastika, salutes or marches in the Nazi style, praises Hitler, celebrates Hitler's birthday, or says "Heil Hitler" or "Sieg heil" will face ridicule, but will not be prosecuted, in the USA.

The US Constitution was effectively curtailed during WW2-especially for US citizens of Japanese descent. Our Constitution was effectively restored in 1945 or shortly thereafter.

Of course we maintain the legal fiction that the Constitution was still in effect during the war.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. I'm an American citizen but UK resident, so I'm quite aware of all that, thanks.

Just pointing out the inherent absurdity in Americans presuming that US standards should be universal.

[Lionel Mandrake]

10. Your point is well taken.

We do tend to think that our way is the best way, and that everyone else wants to be just like us, if they aren't already.

[No Elephants]

29. We maintain the legal fictions that (a) it was ever fully in effect and (b) that it is in effect now

[Lionel Mandrake]

30. Yes.

The US Constitution has never been fully in effect, nor has it ever been completely ignored, even in wartime. The "War on Terror" instituted by the worst president in US history has eroded our Constitutional rights, but not to the same extent as in World War II.

[alp227]

11. so in Europe, it's impossible for free speech to protect bigots? n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. Certain forms of public speech are criminalised in most European countries...

expressions of or incitement to racial or religious hatred, for instance. Which happens to be because Europe generally has some historically unpleasant history of the consequences of openly racist right-wing extremist parties. Although at the same time bigotry and hatred as political speech are to some extent also protected, it's a matter of how they're expressed (and extremists have gotten a lot better at presenting their message in such a way as to be acceptable within the limits of the law); see Le Pen and the National Front in France, the British National Party, Jörg Haider in Austria, and so on. They're still there and still relatively vocal (and also relatively free to express themselves within certain limits).

[alp227]

13. free speech is important to democracy,

so how much would you consider it to distinguish the US from the European countries that have hate speech laws? Is it because of Euro culture that the 1st amendment wouldn't work in Europe?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. Ignorance.

It is irrelevant whether she is a Semite or not. Anti-Semitism refers to prejudice against Jews, not "Semites." Her "unpopular truth" was anti-Semitic bullshit and isn't even true. Many Israeli Jews are from the Middle East, and some, are gasp, from the region once known as the Palestine Mandate.

[boppers]

16. Correct on the word antisemitism (it's a word that got shifted as it was moved around).

Also correct on the demographics.

The hair to split is whether or not her remarks were targeted towards all Jews (which would would be antisemitic), or towards immigrants to Israel (which would be anti-immigrant (and could require an entire sidebar on Israel's immigration policies)). Here's how a followup managed to make it through wikipedia's (often brutal) editing process:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Thomas#2011_Playboy_interview
"When asked what she had meant when she commented that "they" should go back to Germany, Poland and America, Thomas replied that the millions of German, Polish, American and Russian Jews who have come to Israel in recent years should have stayed where they were as they have not been persecuted since World War II." (emphasis added)

I do not know how she defined personally "recent", she's kind of up there in years, but the article on the incident seems to focus on Jackson-Vanik, which is from 1974. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson%E2%80%93Vanik_amendment

Full interview at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/50980781/Interview-Helen-Thomas

[Behind the Aegis]

17. Correction.

Her comments were directed toward immigrant JEWS, not all immigrants to Israel. That is anti-Semitic. If a person singles out a particular group of another group, therein lies the real issue.

your quote, with an additional bold and highlight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Thomas#2011_Playboy_...
"When asked what she had meant when she commented that "they" should go back to Germany, Poland and America, Thomas replied that the millions of German, Polish, American and Russian Jews who have come to Israel in recent years should have stayed where they were as they have not been persecuted since World War II." (emphasis added)

[boppers]

19. Hence, the whole "sidebar" I had referenced (and hoped to avoid).

Israel does not treat all potential immigrants equally. At all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

If a person singles out a particular group of another group, therein lies the real issue.
Okay, then. How about if a whole state does it?

So, good luck going back to your ancestral family farm, though, if you're "not Jewish":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return

This has led to some interesting issues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew

..including economic refugees, political refugees, forged papers, huge arguments over land "ownership", squatters, religion, social policy, etc.

I suppose all this winds up having the effect (and thanks for the highlight, BTW), that she is not "antisemitic" (meaning anti-jewish), or anti-immigrant, but "merely" anti-jewish-immigrant.

Huh, where have I heard that before?

Oh. Yeah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandering_Jew

So, synthesizing that all together, she's not antisemitic, she's anti-travelling-semitic, if other travelers lack the very same rights? I guess that seems clunky, and "antisemitic" is a simpler label.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. Parsing and disingenuous use of information.

Which country treats all potential immigrants equally? I doubt any of them do. LOR is for a specific group, but it is not the sole immigration policy for Israel, now is it?

The comments she made were anti-Semitic, and no level of parsing on your level or the "she's a Semite" bullshit argument changes the fact she made anti-Semitic remarks then and since. Seems you are trying to excuse her anti-Semitism.

ETA: BTW, "anti-Semitism" does not refer to discrimination against "all" Jews, but rather discrimination against Jews (or even a single Jew).

2nd Edit: Style correction

[boppers]

22. A lot of questions.

So, answers:

"Which country treats all potential immigrants equally?"

None, AFAIK.
Israel is the only one that I know of that treats immigrants differently based on their mDNA, though there may be others.

"I doubt any of them do. LOR is for a specific group, but it is not the sole immigration policy for Israel, now is it?"

This is akin to claiming that because blacks could immigrate into South Africa, it wasn't a racist society. "Separate but equal" is never equal.

"The comments she made were anti-Semitic, and no level of parsing on your level or the "she's a Semite" bullshit argument changes the fact she made anti-Semitic remarks then and since."

You are refusing to look at the depth.

"Seems you are trying to excuse her anti-Semitism."

How would you characterize a nation that gave Catholics preferential immigration rights? That granted them land, previously occupied by non-Catholics?

[Behind the Aegis]

24. And more answers....

"Which country treats all potential immigrants equally?"

None, AFAIK.
Israel is the only one that I know of that treats immigrants differently based on their mDNA, though there may be others.

Well, good. At least you can drop the implied "Israel is the only one" BS. Read and learn: Right of Return

"I doubt any of them do. LOR is for a specific group, but it is not the sole immigration policy for Israel, now is it?"

This is akin to claiming that because blacks could immigrate into South Africa, it wasn't a racist society. "Separate but equal" is never equal.

A very lovely logical misfire you have created. While true that Jews can get "special" rights to immigrate (though, not all are given the right of citizenship), it doesn't prevent others from doing it as well. Not all immigration policies are "equal." Kinda throws a wrench your absurd "conclusion" and insult.

"The comments she made were anti-Semitic, and no level of parsing on your level or the "she's a Semite" bullshit argument changes the fact she made anti-Semitic remarks then and since."

You are refusing to look at the depth.

You are playing games; nothing more.

How would you characterize a nation that gave Catholics preferential immigration rights? That granted them land, previously occupied by non-Catholics?

How would it be any different than granting them rights because of who bore them? Land always had an owner at one time. Your question demonstrates a profound ignorance of land ownership in Israel, but this is not surprising given your misrepresentation of Israel's immigration policy and may explain your continued "defense" of anti-Semitic remarks made by Helen Thomas.

[boppers]

26. "Land always had an owner at one time."

...and we're done.

No point in arguing with with a fundamentalist, constrained by their limited thinking, and unable to think in other ways.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. Funny, you have described yourself.

"Splitting hairs" to 'defend' anti-Semitic drivel. How ironic, you defending anti-Semitism in a thread about anti-Semitism.

[emilyg]

2. Good.

[alp227]

4. Designer John Galliano convicted of hurling anti-Semitic insults

Source: Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Paris—
Fashion designer John Galliano was convicted on Thursday of hurling anti-Semitic insults in a Paris bar in two separate outbursts that cost him his job at the haute couture house of Christian Dior.

The British-born designer was given a suspended fine of $8,400. While he was not required to pay the fine, the conviction leaves him with a criminal record.

Galliano escaped a possible prison sentence after the panel of judges were told he had apologized to the victims of his insults, had "recognized he had a problem" with alcohol and prescription medication and had undergone treatment for his addictions.

The court declared it believed the designer was "generally, neither racist nor anti-Semitic and did not deserve a prison term."

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-france-galliano-20110909,0,158782.story

---

Jonathan Turley commented: "...various Western governments have been curtailing free speech by prosecuting blasphemy and speech against various groups. Once again, I find the failure of the French to denounce these prosecutions to be distressing given that country’s long and proud history in recognizing basic civil liberties."

[msongs]

5. soon coming to a USA near you? nt

[Xithras]

7. No. American courts have consistently struck down hate speech laws.

While hate speech can be used as evidence when seeking hate crimes enhancements for other charges, the speech itself is not a crime in the U.S. unless it devolves to the level of "fighting words" (shouting the N word into a black mans face to provoke a fight, as an example). Even then, the speech can't be prosecuted as a hate crime, but can be used to bring other charges relating to incitement.

[MADem]

6. I'm guessing they don't play SOUTH PARK in France.....

I prefer robust convictions in the court of public opinion to court convictions by authority against speech that the government doesn't like. While I find the conduct of this stupid nitwit reprehensible, I don't like the idea of the government convicting him for expressing a boneheaded, stupid, racist, nasty idea.

So much for "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" and all that....

[boppers]

18. A conviction without penalty.

They basically said: "Hey, you were being an insufferable asshole. Our society does not like that, to the point where we hand out fines and jail time for it. We're not going to fine or jail you now, but stop being an insufferable asshole, unless you want to start paying society for making us tolerate you".

In the US, we do the same with noise ordinances, "fighting words", vagrancy laws, public intoxication, rude driving, and a whole slew of other laws that limit freedom of speech in various ways..... but it all usually comes down to the same human principle: In a civil society, don't piss off the society.

[MADem]

21. This guy wasn't making noise, getting into an argument, engaging in vagrancy, drunk,

driving rudely or engaging in any other petty crimes, though. There was no "excuse law" to regulate the guy's conduct. He was simply being a racist asshole.

I do have a problem with people being dragged into court and convicted and fined--never mind if they "suspend" the fine, that means it can be reimposed, too--for being a racist asshole, even if I don't particularly care for the racist asshole's POV.

What happens when "society" in the form of the government decides what is politically correct to say and think? You've just tossed "freedom" out the window. Sometimes, you have to hear the jerks to know what being a jerk is all about.

[boppers]

23. He was picking fights at a bar. While drunk.

That being said:

'What happens when "society" in the form of the government decides what is politically correct to say and think? You've just tossed "freedom" out the window. Sometimes, you have to hear the jerks to know what being a jerk is all about."

This is an issue all free societies struggle with.

I assume there is a limit that I should not cross when making jokes about raping your children, or raping your parents. That's just basic humanity, and some folks lack that.

[trud]

25. gay bashing is okay, though

So the "victims" gay bashing get off with no penalty, but his anti-Semitic remarks in response get a criminal penalty. What's wrong with this picture?

[Behind the Aegis]

28. What is wrong with the picture?