« My arms fell from me “. Here is the reaction of Me Richard Malka, the lawyer for the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, when he heard of the LFI's proposal to repeal the offense of glorifying terrorism.
While reactions of indignation continue to rain down from all sides following the controversy surrounding the repeal of the offense of apologizing for terrorism requested by La France insoumise, it is the view of a legal expert which is taken on the issue, during an interview on the Franceinfo set. Me Richard Malka believes that “ for LFI, we should live in a world where we could concretely say: “the Bataclan massacres are wonderful, murdering history and geography teachers is good and beating young people on the terraces is perfect “…this is the world they offer “, he said.
The rest after this ad
While the initial proposal made by LFI mentioned a “ abrogation », Charlie Hebdo's lawyer considers that Mathilde Panot, invited on Saturday November 24 on the set of BFMTV to explain, would have “ backpedaled ». « She says that “it is simply a matter of moving the offense of advocating terrorism from the penal code to press law”», says Richard Malka. Except that, he explains, “ do you know where the press law is? in what code? well in the penal code…so it doesn’t make sense “, he said.
The rest after this ad
“They are supposed to think”
And to continue, “ …it's nonsense, it's an aberration…if you remove from the penal code all the offenses for which sometimes the civil parties file unfounded complaints, you no longer have a penal code ».
The proposal made by LFI to repeal the offense of glorifying terrorism follows in particular the conviction at first instance of Jean-Paul Delescaut, secretary general of the Departmental Union of the CGT du Nord, sentenced to one year in prison with suspended for advocating terrorism following comments made in a leaflet supporting Palestine. “ The horrors of the illegal occupation have been accumulating since Saturday October 7, they are receiving the responses they provoked “, he argued.
The rest after this ad
The rest after this ad
For Richard Malka, “ it is not because there is sometimes a first instance decision which may raise questions or that there are abusive complaints that it is necessary to repeal an offense…it's nonsense. We are in anything “, he snapped. “ We are no longer in a state of law. They are deputies, they are supposed to think a little, to propose solutions which are not aberrant. This one is ».
