Defending Human Rights: Editorial By Goldnadel

The League of Human Rights (LDH), which until recently lived on a reputation dating from Alfred Dreyfus, drowned it in the large basins of Sainte-Soline.

With the collaboration of several left-wing media, she tried in vain to make believe that the bad gendarmes had deliberately prevented the emergency services from going to treat the nice demonstrators.

The reality, more thankless, is that the police could not authorize the caregivers to intervene at the risk of their lives as long as the Molotov cocktails fell like in Gravelotte during this prohibited gathering.

In this sequence, the Minister of the Interior Gérald Darmanin had committed an unforgivable and irreverent crime of lèse-majesté with regard to the touchy left by declaring that he did not exclude a revision of the generous State subsidies paid to the venerable organization.

In reality, the latter, with complete impunity, had for ages sunk into leftist extremism. I refer my reader in particular to the excellent article by Guillaume Perrault in these columns. It shows how the League chose not to protest against the Moscow trials, and even excused or even justified them. An association claiming to defend the rights of men and which would have committed such a crime should have been dissolved in the acidity of public reprobation. But she benefits from what I have called a “red privilege” in the media and sometimes judicially protective.

In the last period, the LDH will have followed the morally declining slope of Islamo-leftism by practicing a selective secularism aimed at seeing nurseries banned in the town halls of the Republic while defending the wearing of the veil on the public highway. It is in this ideological framework, that in good logic, the League will have mingled its steps with those of the members of insubordinate France in the demonstration organized by the late CCIF to protest against the alleged Islamophobia. It was in this demonstration that we saw twinkling yellow stars supposed to show that the Muslims of today knew the terrible misfortune of the Jews of yesterday.

Anyone who thinks he sees even clumsy philo-Semitism in this would perhaps quickly go to work, to see the support that the LDH brings to Salah Hamouri. Regardless of how one looks at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is difficult to think that supporting a militant of the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) condemned in 2008 by the Israeli courts for having planned the assassination of a rabbi, enters into the social object of an association proposing to contribute to the rights of men.

A fortiori when we learn that the protege of the League frequented Samir Kuntar who was condemned for having smashed the skull of a four-year-old girl with a stone.

We are indeed quite far from Alfred Dreyfus.

In a way, Amnesty International, for identical ideological reasons, has followed the same path.

Originally, Amnesty had the admirable and much-admired apolitical goal of rescuing those imprisoned around the world for political reasons.

Alas, over the years the international association has also sunk body and soul into a fairly uninhibited Islamo-leftism.

This is how she initially thought she was refusing to support Alexandre Navalny, the courageous prisoner of Putin, under the hallucinating pretext of some of his vigorous declarations against Islamism. Faced with outraged protests, the organization had to revise its position without much spontaneity.

Still within this same ideological framework, Amnesty unreservedly supports massive and illegal migration to the detriment of the sovereignty of Western peoples.

Likewise, it was Amnesty that popularized the crude but devastating myth of Israel as an “apartheid state”.

But it was in the tragedy of the attack on the synagogue on rue Copernic (1980) that the organization should have definitively damaged its reputation.

I published a column in Le Figaro on April 7 in which I explained that I had arrived at the scene strewn with bloody victims a handful of minutes after the explosion. Forty-three years later, I represented civil parties before the Assize Court. That is to say how much the drama will have marked me.

In the aforementioned platform, I recalled that the far-left organizations with a storefront had succeeded in bringing down 200,000 demonstrators in this one to shout their hatred of the fascist far right and necessarily responsible for the infamy.

Contrary to the fantasies or hopes of the supposedly anti-fascist left, the author of the anti-Semitic massacre was not from the extreme right. His name is Hassan Diab and he was a member of the far-left terrorist group PFLP. He has just been sentenced in absentia on Friday to life imprisonment by the Court of Assizes of Paris.

Amnesty International has given Hassan Diab its full support over the past few years.

This article is originally published on

Previous post NÎMES The Gard left To The Aid Of The Human Rights League
Next post Swedish Parliament Head’s Offensive Remarks Denounced: LIM