 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“I think freedom of speech means reporting the facts without making judgments,
conveying reality without adding your pinch of salt.”
-Jacques Vergès, 80
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paris-based lawyer Jacques Vergès (left) has represented
former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic, Nazi war criminal
Klaus Barbie and Venezuelan terrorist “Carlos the Jackal.” Now
he's defending former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. “Freedom
of speech is central to my profession. But defending someone is
not the same as identifying with him. If Klaus Barbie had asked me
to defend the superiority of the Aryan race, I couldn't have. I didn't
defend Nazism or anti-Semitism; I defended a man. A journalist
one day took me to task for my defense of Slobodan Milosevic.
She said, 'How dare you?' I told her that she was the one taking a
fascist position by questioning the right of everyone to defend himor
herself. Democracy implies that every accused person should be
defended. In trials, I have always felt I enjoyed freedom of speech.
It's just that the press has not always reported my arguments honestly.
Sometimes I haven't hesitated to sue the publication concerned.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“We knew that a kicking
up a fuss in the media could increase the hostages' value to their kidnappers, and increase their chances of survival.”
-Pierre Moulin-Roussel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In January, Florence Aubenas, Iraq correspondent for French
newspaper Libération, was kidnapped in Baghdad along with her
Iraqi translator Hussein Hanoun al– Saadi. Statistically – given the
amount of beheadings and shootings carried out by Iraq's prolific
kidnappers – this meant they were probably both dead.
Nonetheless, a support committee formed in France 10 days later,
and for five months, along with press freedom group Reporters
Without Borders and Libération, made Florence and Hussein
headline news, nearly every day. Their pictures hung on town halls;
they were constantly mentioned in the media; and the support
committee's volunteers organised 1,000 simultaneous brass-band
concerts throughout France. “We wanted to appeal to every kind
of French person,” says committee member Pierre Moulin–Roussel.
“We said, 'She went out there for you and she will come back
thanks to you. People adopted Florence, as if she was a distant
relative who desperately needed their help.” On June 11, after 157
days in captivity, Florence and Hussein were released.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“I look people in the eye, without ever
lowering mine. It's what I always did, even when I had to go around with handcuffs, like a dog.”
-Roselyne Godard, 46
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roselyne Godard (left) was accused of belonging to a
pedophilia ring in the northern French town of Outreau. “I remember
the moment when my freedom of speech was taken away from me.
It was April 11, 2001, when I was arrested. I denied everything, but
it was no use; I had become a monster, a pedophile. My words had
no weight. They finally said I was innocent, but in the eyes of many
people, I'm not. I was given an image that isn't mine, and I have to
bear it: I'm the 'baker of Outreau,' even though I've never been a
baker in my life. My family is astonished I still give interviews, but
I have to thank the press, because without them the scandal of
Outreau would never have come out. For 20 months and 21 days,
I had to keep silent. Today, I have a great feeling of freedom.
I go where the wind takes me.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“All this has taught us to speak. I haven't been to school
this year, but my vocabulary has improved. They tell us,
'You have to construct your sentences properly, so no one
can hold them against you.'”
-Bikramjit Singh, 18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2004, France passed a law banning “ostensible” signs
of religion in state institutions. It was supposed to promote
secularism and dampen down symbols of Islamist fundamentalism
being worn in schools–notably headscarves. The intentions may
seem positive but the results were debatable. But headscarves
weren't the only casualty. Since the law was passed, five Sikhs
have been excluded from French high schools for refusing to
remove their turbans. “Keeping the turban isn't a choice for us,”
says Bikramjit Singh (right), an 18-year-old student excluded from
the Lycée Louise Michel in Bobigny, northeast of Paris. “It's a
cultural thing. Whatever happens, we won't take it off. I don't see
how my wearing a turban damages your freedom.” For two months,
Bikramjit had to sit in the school dining room, getting only
occasional assignments from his teachers, before he was excluded
altogether. Fellow pupil Jasvir Singh, 15, didn't get that far: He was
stopped at the entrance on his first day at Louise Michel and taken
to the principal's office. “They said all the teachers were firmly
against our entering the school and they couldn't make exceptions.
I didn't even see the classroom.” All excluded pupils now have to
continue their studies by correspondence course. Sikhs worldwide
mobilized against the bans, and when Jasvir's brother Karmvir
visited the USA to talk about his case, the Governor of
Pennsylvania's entire staff wore orange turbans in solidarity. But in
France all efforts at negotiation–the Sikhs offered to wear lighter,
less “ostensible” headgear–have so far come to nothing. “I think
France is a free country,” says Bikramjit. “But things have got
worse. People in France who aren't French are given less and less
right to speak. I think this law is an excuse for them not to see what
they don't want to see–difference.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Advertising is something you
haven't asked for and can't escape.
It's an act of aggression.”
-Jean-Christophe, 28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Les Casseurs de Pub (Ad-Breakers) are sick of advertising.
”Ninety-five percent of public space is devoted to commercial
advertising,“ says one Ad-Breaker and militant. ”Public space has
been confiscated.“ He defaces posters in the Paris underground
and leaves a sticker saying, ”Free public space.“ Other Ad-Breakers
replace commercial ads with artwork (instructions for
dismantling are available online). “It's not vandalism,” says the
Ad-Breaker. “It's a legitimate response to the one-way message
we're subjected to in our public spaces. It's not right that public
expression is in the hands of the companies that own the ad
displays. I'm not against capitalism. I'm talking about huge
multinationals that only exist to make a profit and consequently
devastate the planet.” That includes COLORS. “Where does
Benetton get the right to create this philanthropic image totally
at odds with its reality as a clothes multinational? That level of
cynicism is unbearable. That's what I'd say, if I thought you'd
publish it.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
