LFI's proposed law aimed at repealing the offense of glorifying terrorism is an “aberration”, deplores lawyer Richard Malka

“It is not because there are sometimes abusive complaints that we must repeal an offense, the judges are there to judge,” recalls Richard Malka.

“It’s an aberration”denounces Maître Richard Malka, lawyer for Charlie Hebdo, Monday November 25 on franceinfo, regarding the proposed law tabled by the LFI deputy from the North Ugo Bernalicis, aiming to repeal the offense of glorifying terrorism. Richard Malka confides that “his arms [lui] fell from it” when he heard about this proposed law. “This law [le délit d’apologie du terrorisme] is obviously useful”he insists. The lawyer considers that the rebellious bill amounts to authorizing comments such as: “The Bataclan massacres are wonderful !” or “Assassinating a history and geography professor is good”.

Sunday, the boss of LFI deputies Mathilde Panot clarified on BFMTV that her party actually wants “to put back” the crime “in the right place” by removing it from the penal code to put it back “in press law”. But Richard Malka explains that “press rights are found in the penal code, so it makes no sense”. “They are deputies, they are supposed to think a little and propose solutions which are not aberrant, but this one is”he laments.

In their bill, the rebels cite the case of CGT leader of the North Jean-Paul Delescaut, sentenced to one year in prison suspended at first instance for “apology of terrorism” due to comments made in a leaflet supporting the Palestinians . Maître Richard Malka returns to this example by recalling that this trade unionist “appealed”he therefore urges “let this process [judiciaire] go all the way”.

The lawyer does not deny that there could be “abusive or unfounded complaints” or “too much use of this law by certain associations”. But Richard Malka believes that “the judges are there to judge”. “It is not because there are abusive complaints that we must repeal an offense, it’s nonsense”he emphasizes. Richard Malka also fears that if we “removes from the penal code all the offenses for which sometimes civil parties file unfounded complaints, then there is no longer a penal code, we are no longer in a state of law”.

If the rebels accuse the crime of having accentuated “the instrumentalization of the fight against terrorism”Richard Malka rather sees in this bill “their obsession with the Jewish question”. He recalls that after the attacks that occurred in 2015, there are also “had a lot of prosecutions” and “extremely heavy sentences” for apologizing for terrorism. “It's not just for this current event [la guerre enclenchée par les massacres du 7-Octobre]”he retorts, before ensuring that if he “There are more uses of this law, it’s because there is more terrorism and because we talk more about terrorism”.