Best Blush For Tan Pink Skin

Zionism is punishable by five years in prison

Feeling terribly helpless about the horror of the Israeli war against the people of Gaza, I would nevertheless suggest a track (relatively) trivial on the front of the propaganda use Article 24 of Law July 29, 1881 repressing of condoning war crimes.

And continue on this basis, Glucksman, BHL, Val and other propagandists of the Israeli crimes. The

ticket Alain Gresh published this morning allows me to explain this idea:

1. a number of senior UN and / or strong diplomatic credibility describe Israeli actions in Gaza war crimes, even crimes against humanity;
2. a number of articles of the Geneva Conventions expressly prohibit acts of war, clearly committed by the Israeli army right now, facts which are by definition war crimes;
3. pro-Zionist columnists spread in the press in lengthy comments justifying these facts war in the two examples cited by Alain Gresh, it is almost in the general justification of a war crime ...

Here the passage of Article 24 of the 1881 Act about us:

be punishable in the same sentence [five years in prison and 45,000 euros fine] those who, by one the means set forth in Article 23, have made an apology for the crimes referred to in the first paragraph, war crimes, crimes against humanity or crimes of collaboration with the enemy.

To be more clear on what "apology", here is a passage a decision of the Court of Cassation on 7 December 2004: A written

this may be justified as acts constituting war crimes must be considered apologetic and guilty intent is derived from the voluntary nature of the alleged acts.

As can be seen, "apology" has a very broad sense: "presenting as likely to be justified."

It is not necessary to present a favorable light on the crime itself (like "pulling a school containing only Arab women and children, it's really good"), simply present it as "likely to be justified. " What I think he represents most of the literature of our despicable clown. Note that I exclude

currently using the denial of crimes against humanity, which seems much more legally binding (it is necessary, unless I am mistaken, that the crime against humanity has already been defined as such by a special court). The glorification of war crime seems much more "flexible".

What interest? I see several:

The primary interest is simply to use this argument to justify Israel's war against Gaza is an apologist for war crimes. That these hacks are associated with this despicable simple idea: "And now, I'm going to apologize for war crimes." Remembering that it is usually a specialty fascist.

The second interest is to try to get through this a qualification of war crimes before a French court for acts of Israeli war. Advice from a lawyer would be welcome here, because it is not my specialty. But it seems that in this case, there is no need for a separate trial (a first for establishing war crimes, the other to establish an apology) I believe we can at the same time continuing to justify and prove the existence of war crimes during the demonstration of the apology itself.

I do not, moreover, how a French court could be directly entered for judging, in absolute terms, crimes of war that do not relate directly to French nationals. However, continue personalities expressed in the French media for advocating war crimes, it seems a possible method to obtain this qualification of war crimes for the massacres perpetrated by the Israelis.