海角大神

Since the deadly terrorist attacks on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the French government has been touting the country鈥檚 right to freedom of expression.

At the same time, it has been aggressively enforcing its laws against incitement of terrorism, arresting more than 50 people for comments that it says condone last week鈥檚 killings or terrorism in general. Among those arrested was controversial French comedian Dieudonn茅 M鈥檅ala M鈥檅ala, who posted on Facebook that he "felt like Charlie Coulibaly," a play on both pro-Hebdo comments and the name of dead gunman Amedy Coulibaly who killed four hostages at a kosher supermarket in Paris.

For France鈥檚 more than 3 million strong Muslim population 鈥� many of whom continue to struggle with integration into France鈥檚 mainstream 鈥� the irony of allowing Charlie Hebdo to publish cartoons that blatantly insult Islam coupled with the government鈥檚 bolstered efforts to crackdown on hateful remarks can feel hypocritical.

But experts say it is actually a byproduct of France鈥檚 unique laws on blasphemy, freedom of expression, and hate speech. While the French government may look like it is willfully wielding a double standard, French law makes different demands on how Charlie Hebdo鈥檚 cartoons and remarks that "incite terrorism" are handled.

Sympathy for Coulibaly?

While France initially saw a swell of solidarity in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, particularly via prevalent "Je Suis Charlie" ("I am Charlie") signs and statements, there has been a growing counter-sentiment online of 鈥淛e ne suis pas Charlie鈥� ("I am not Charlie"). There have been more than 25,000 tweets of #JesuisKouachi and #JesuisCoulibaly. Many of the comments come from disaffected youth who may already feel cast out of the country鈥檚 mainstream.

Among those expressing sympathy for the attackers was Mr. Dieudonn茅, who wrote 鈥淛e me sens Charlie Coulibaly鈥� (鈥淚 feel like Charlie Coulibaly鈥�) to his Facebook page. Mr. Dieudonn茅鈥檚 comments invoking Coulibaly were not only seen as in poor taste but reason to arrest him on 鈥渋ncitement of terrorism鈥� charges.

Since the Paris attacks, there have been mounting arrests across the country for comments either spoken or written on social media that appear to condone terrorism.

The French government has introduced fourteen anti-terrorism laws since 1986, but a November 2014 law took it out of press law and into the criminal code. Punishment can now be fast-tracked, with prison sentences of up to five years and a 45,000 euro ($52,000) fine. [Editor's note: The original story has been updated to clarify the changes to France's anti-terrorism law.] Prime Minister Manuel Valls said last week that incitement of terrorism and racism were not opinions but crimes, while French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said Dieudonn茅鈥檚 remarks showed 鈥渁 lack of respect and a willingness to stir up hatred and division.鈥�

Ridiculing religion or ridiculing the religious?

The idea that "lack of respect" and "stirring up hatred and division" applies to Dieudonn茅 but not Charlie Hebdo may seem contradictory, but it is rooted in French legal tradition.

France鈥檚 freedom of the press law 鈥� which acts as a foundation for its current anti-terrorism law 鈥� dates back to 1881. It clearly states that anyone found to incite discrimination, hate, or violence toward a person or a group of people due to their origin, or belonging to a race or a religion, faces one year in prison or a 45,000 euro ($52,000) fine. But France has no laws on blasphemy 鈥� it abolished the offense in 1791.

In addition, there is a distinction between religion and a person or group of people, according to Pascal Reynaud, a media and communications lawyer in Strasbourg. 鈥淭he amount of freedom you are allowed is very significant as long as you don鈥檛 directly target people in particular but instead the religion as a whole.鈥� Thus, Charlie Hebdo escapes breaking the law by aiming its ridicule at Islam in general, as opposed to the broader Muslim community.

The magazine also benefits from a European Court of Human Rights ruling in which controversial comments are allowed as long as they fit within legitimate public debate. Patrice Rolland, a professor emeritus in public law, says this public versus private clause has already been seen in France 鈥� in 2006, sociologist Edgar Morin was cleared of anti-Semitism charges, after he was arrested for his criticism of Israel鈥檚 policies on the Palestinian territories in 2002.

鈥淲e had to accept very controversial comments on political matters because it involved issues that were part of public debate on an unresolved issue, and not a questioning of a veritable historical event,鈥� says Professor Rolland.

'Incitement of terrorism'

But while Charlie Hebdo鈥檚 portrayals of the prophet are deemed legally acceptable, Dieudonn茅鈥檚 sympathy with a terrorist is more ambiguous. The Parquet de Paris will judge whether the comedian鈥檚 comments fit into public versus private debate, as well as whether they are judged to incite terrorism 鈥� either directly or indirectly.

While the new incitement of terrorism law is rife with ambiguity, France鈥檚 laws on hate speech, especially when it comes to Holocaust denial, are not. In fact, France made denying the Holocaust a punishable crime in 1990.

Dieudonn茅鈥檚 history of anti-Semitic rhetoric 鈥� in 2008, the comedian invited notorious Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson on stage at one of his performances 鈥� are likely to influence the judge鈥檚 ruling on Dieudonn茅鈥檚 case.

However, for the 50-odd people who have been recently charged for hate speech or condoning terrorism, it is difficult to say how the courts will proceed. Some say that the arrests target people who have no direct links to the Paris terrorist attacks or that they are being used as an example to show the government鈥檚 new crackdown on dissent.

Amnesty International鈥檚 John Dalhuisen warned in a press release that 鈥渢he French authorities must be careful not to violate this right [of freedom of expression] themselves.鈥�

Amel Boubekeur, a French sociologist and non-resident fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, says the government鈥檚 new hardline approach doesn鈥檛 get to the root of the problem and is simply ineffective.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not a matter of right or wrong, it鈥檚 a matter of it not being efficient,鈥� says Boubekeur. 鈥淔lagging up a 15-year old who posts a photo of himself holding a gun? Education would be much more effective. Instead, the government is stigmatizing an entire population.鈥�