that gives the history of the homophobia charge against French deputy Christian Vanneste because of his
that the general acceptance of homosexuality is destructive to society. The direct translations from the article are in regular font. Summaries and comments by Tiberge are in bold font. Her personal comments are preceded by the word “Note.” VFR is very grateful to Tiberge for her work in making this interesting article available to us.
Christian Vanneste condemned for “homophobia,”
or how freedom of expression is killed
The article begins with a general overview of Christian Vanneste, when and why he was convicted, his appeal, a link to a PDF file containing the case for the defense, quick background on his previous contacts with homosexual groups, his opposition to subsidies to homosexual groups since the money is not used to fight AIDS but rather to promote homosexuality, and his contributions to STOP AIDS in 2003 that proves he is aware of the epidemic …
In 2003, a socialist deputy from Paris, Patrick Bloche, during the meeting of a parliamentary committee, defended the idea of amendments concerning “homophobia” and sexual orientation being added to the proposed law that would create HALDE (High Authority against Discriminations and Exclusion). Christian Vanneste opposed him in the committee, but was careful, when he criticized the juridically debatable notion of “sexual orientation,” to use polygamy as an example and not homosexuality. However, as soon as he returned to his office, that same day, AFP (Agence France Presse) phoned him to verify that he had indeed made homophobic remarks to the Committee, even though it meets behind closed doors. In the days that followed, his name, and the names of his colleagues who held the same opinion as he, appeared in newspaper articles, notably in Le Monde.
In 2004 the law creating HALDE went into effect. He opposed it insofar as it created still another “gimmick” aimed at short-circuiting the existing judicial order that is already qualified to deal with the fight against discrimination. Christian Vanneste looks unfavorably upon specialized courts and even more so upon exceptional courts. Furthermore, journalists became alarmed at a new liberty-destroying law.
During the first parliamentary debate, the articles introducing the notions of “sexual orientation and homophobia” were not included. They were introduced surreptitiously in the Senate and appeared during the second debate in the National Assembly. Such a procedure is quite simply scandalous: the government had to please a powerful and high-profile pressure group without alarming the conformist (bien pensant) majority.
It was because of this haste and the refusal to set aside time for him to speak in the general deliberations, that Christian Vanneste intervened extemporaneously by improvising a tirade on the contradiction inherent in defending, by means of a law, chosen behaviors instead of endured conditions, when they are contrary to the general interest and to the moral law of universality, since, if they were to become universals, they would lead to the end of humanity. The unusual manner utilized in the voting of this law contributed greatly to the confusion of a debate that ought to have been given time for reflection and exchanges. This is why some people were able to make use of the “Nouchet Affair.”
Sébastien Nouchet is a homosexual who made headlines when he claimed that he was attacked by homophobic aggressors who tried to burn him alive. There was a volcanic eruption of media coverage in his favor, but one journal, L’Express, noted inconsistencies that cast doubts over the honesty of Nouchet. The courts threw his case out but he’s appealing. There is little doubt that this case was the cause of the amendments on sexual orientation and homophobia being introduced during the second debate.
Christian Vanneste’s intervention, improvised from his seat, was founded on common sense, on Voltaire, on Kant and on the Catholic faith, though at that moment he did not say so. The uproar it caused was greater than that generated by the declarations of his colleagues who shared his views: Madame Boutin, Messieurs Le Fur, Goasguen, Garraud, Nesme.
After that any declarations he made were to interviewers from the media asking him to explain the reasons for his vote.
He appeared on major TV shows and his words were quoted verbatim in the newspapers of the department of the Nord: “I didn’t say that homosexuality was dangerous, I said that it was inferior to heterosexuality. If it became a universal, it would be dangerous for humanity … (homosexual groups) are nothing, they do nothing whatsoever for society. For me, their conduct is a sectarian conduct.”
He became the object of harassments and provocations: insulting e-mails, blocked fax machine, anonymous phone calls, electronic subscriptions to pornographic magazines, threats, a parade in Tourcoing, a rally at the Tourcoing City Council, another rally when he presented his New Year’s wishes. All of which resulted in more interviews until he gave a press conference to put an end to this unbridled activity. The text he prepared was written so as to preclude all calumny.
Note: French politicians give speeches during January when they “present their wishes”—it’s like a list of resolutions.
When he presented his New Year’s wishes he was called an “asshole” (connard). The police were witnesses, and he replied in not-very-polite language. The TV channels repeated his words. This reactivated the media hype and created some problems with the leader of the UMP party [Union for a Popular Movement], Nicolas Sarkozy. On the other hand, he received numerous expressions of sympathy and support.
After all of these events he took his case to the CSA (High Council on Audiovisual, similar to the FCC) to complain about the unfair treatment he had received from national television. The CSA did not react. The radio stations were even less helpful since they didn’t even interview him. He sent replies to the newspapers that were never published.
This is the problem. There was media hype on this issue, and a very partial bias from the majority of the written and audiovisual media …
At this point the article describes what happened in Notre-Dame Cathedral on June 5, 2005. It seems that an organized break-in was carried out by members of the homosexual group Act-Up. They attempted to simulate a marriage and one of them was disguised as a priest. There was violence and the “archpriest” of the cathedral was beaten. TV cameras were there to report on this illegal action.
Note: I believe “archpriest” is an honorary title nowadays.
In the same manner a group called “The Pink Flamingos” had invited France 3 TV to Vanneste’s New Year’s speech at Roncq on January 26, 2005. He didn’t know he was being filmed and when it was shown (on France 2 TV) his words were out of context.
About a hundred deputies signed a declaration demanding that public money not be used to support groups whose goals run counter to the public order and the general interest.
The archpriest’s complaint was rejected (presumably by the criminal courts) leaving him only the recourse of a civil suit.
On December 13, 2005 Christian Vanneste appeared before the criminal court of Lille for “injury to homosexual persons.” These suits filed by Act-Up (Paris branch), SOS Homophobia and SNEG (National Syndicate of Gay Enterprises) were the first of their kind. The deputy was to receive a six month prison sentence and a fine of 22,5000 euros.
The groups who filed the suits spoke of the various types of persecutions suffered by gays. The article wonders if they were attempting to change moral codes that were as old as Herod. A lawyer for SNEG said: “Once a law is voted you should, in the name of the example you set for all citizens, respect it, even if you fought against it … Such is the honor of a deputy: he bows before the majority.”
At this point the article discusses the distinction between legitimacy and legality. The first allows the deputy to legitimately oppose a law by introducing a proposal for a new law. The second revolves around the issue of the legality or illegality of what he said. These distinctions had been discussed during the debates since some deputies foresaw the possible confusion over the two terms.
A negative moral judgment on homosexual behavior was formulated thousands of years ago in all civilizations and reenforced in 1960 by a law qualifying homosexuality as a “social plague.” Can an evolution that would transform a moral judgment into a crime of opinion be compatible with parliamentary democracy, with fundamental freedoms? The judgment of the lower court did not respect the spirit of the law.
In addition, are not the groups accusing the deputy accustomed to using force, against the illegality that they claim to perceive, even though the perpetrators are careful to protect themselves through anonymity? Jean-Luc Roméro, regional councillor from Ile-de-France declared that Christian Vanneste “deserves to be convicted” for his unspeakable remarks” and called him a “wart.”
The article suggests that the Minister of Justice at the time, Dominique Perben, wanted the UMP deputy to be convicted despite his own declarations of March 2004 that went down on the official record (Journal Officiel) reassuring the National Assembly that freedom of speech in the course of debates on life styles, sexual orientation or any other topic would in no way be violated. The same day, Pascal Clement who would later become Minister of Justice, said that freedom to debate issues like gay adoption is indispensable.
Is it normal to prevent a deputy, a professor of philosophy, a Catholic, from expressing a point of view linked to these three dimensions of his life and to condemn him, while at the same time allowing the groups who chase after him to enter into a debate on the presence in pornographic magazines of videos praising unprotected sex and other videos showing father-son incest? Don’t you think such tolerance would be an insult (blessure) to a Catholic, a father and a man in general?
In the end Christian Vanneste was fined 3000 euros plus 2000 euros in damages to each of the three organizations who filed the lawsuit. The next day Christian Vanneste spoke of the “democracy that had to be saved” and announced he would appeal in court …
Note: this conviction was by an appeals court in Douai on January 25, 2007.
Having written to the Pope, he received a reply on February 25, 2006 assuring him of His prayers and His apostolic blessing.
On May 11, 2006 he was invited for a radio interview on Europe 1 with Jean-Marc Morandini where he repeated his criticisms of homosexual behavior as being “objectively disordered” and reaffirmed his “hostility to the homosexual movement which is a movement of intellectual terrorists.” Recalling his conviction, he denounced a “veritable assault on democracy, an attack on behalf of a lobby ( … ) that we call the “Khmer Pink.”
Once again these remarks triggered an uproar: Gay Lib, a homosexual group associated with UMP, declared “Christian Vanneste weakens and injures our political family. We will discuss his future with Nicolas Sarkozy, so that conclusions may be drawn. ( … ) He has become a ball and chain. Roselyne Bachelot, adjunct general secretary of UMP, spoke publicly of a procedure to exclude him that in no way conformed to the statutes of the party. So we are back to the days of Stalin’s purges, anathema for the crime of having an opinion.
On June 7, 2006, he joined the CNI (National Center of Independents), a party associated with UMP that boasts three deputies and one senator.
Finally on July 6, 2006 he filed a proposal for a law aiming to modify certain features of the law that created HALDE and suppressing the words “of their sexual orientation.” This bill has been cosigned by 21 deputies. It uses the exact words that were used in the verdict, in order to show that a deputy clearly has the right to oppose a law and to attempt to modify it.
Note: I can only assume that the verdict that convicted him used words that indicated his right to oppose a law, but I’m not sure. I have not read the actual verdict.
In Figaro Magazine of Saturday September 2, 2006, Nicolas Sarkozy, leader of UMP, finally took a stand against gay marriage and adoption.
Note: the latest information is that Christian Vanneste has been excluded from the UMP party’s ballot in the upcoming legislative elections scheduled for June 2007. He was formally excluded a few days after the appeals court of Douai condemned him to the fine of 3000 euros plus 2000 euros in damages to the three gay groups who sued (see above). He has every intention of running in the legislative elections on the CNI ballot.
He is once again appealing to a Court of Cassation.
He now has 22 signatures of deputies who favor his bill to reform HALDE.