http://kafir-nation.blogspot.com/
read if here if you dont want to sign up at NR

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at October 19, 2006 10:07 PM

Not suprising when you consider the Catch the fire ministry problem with villifying Islam by speaking the truth .
Black is White ,Up is Down.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at October 19, 2006 10:16 PM

The way the father pig of modern day terrorism (Arafat) operated it didn't matter whether or not this kid's death was faked. Sooner or later the bloody beast would have unleashed that intifada on any excuse. Still, those who participated in that disgusting affair should be strung up by the thumbs for what they have caused. They all should rot in hell with Arafat and Mo.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 19, 2006 10:19 PM

I think the 2 euros fine says a lot and reminds me of the case on London many years ago when a jewish holocaust survivor spotted a Nazi War criminal working in London as a doctor and divulged the truth.
The doctor sued him for defamationan, won the case an was awarded ONE penny in damages to his reputation.
With inflation that one Penny is equivalent to a euaro today?
Of course the result is shameful indeed and Enderlin and his co forgers should be saked forthwith.
Sympathies to Richard Landes who has worked so hard to expose the horrifiv fraud.

Posted by: chevalier de st george at October 19, 2006 10:30 PM

Here is a good video account (with commentary) of the whole story:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pOwZ8wgV7I4

Posted by: johnb at October 19, 2006 11:00 PM

If it's true, it cannot be defamation. Simple.

Posted by: Lili at October 20, 2006 1:43 AM

It is a most amazing judgement, however on the radio this morning in France it seems that the French are catching the blog bug and perhaps this stupid decision will only accelerate this trend.

When you look behind the rights and wrongs of the case you can see one thing very clearly, that the French state is protecting it right to be liberal with the truth to suit its own national self-interest. It could not be said in any starker terms with this judgement.

I think that this should be raised to the European Court of Huamn rights in that we have been lied to by a Public Broadcaster and that is an erosion of our rights as human beings.

Posted by: Daffersd at October 20, 2006 2:24 AM

If it's true, it cannot be defamation. Simple

unfortunately the "defamation" occured in a period when France 2 were presumed innocent.
It was not France 2 that was on trial it was karsenty.
until F2 is put on trial to prove its complicity or negligence and found guilty, all accusations cen be deemed to be libelous.
i do not think the verdict actually vindicates F2 in the al durah fabrications. it is a similar verdict to the one passed in the dreyfus trial.
The military was vindicated and yet Dreyfus was judged innocent.
It's the technique used by french authorities in delicate political situations.
This trial was obviously influenced from above, perhaps even as high as chirac himself.

Posted by: chevalier de st george at October 20, 2006 6:15 AM

If it's true, it cannot be defamation. Simple.

Posted by: Lili at October 20, 2006 01:43 AM

Not really, Lili, depending on the legal jurisdiction (UK, Canada), defamatory remarks may be true, but if made for the purpose of injuring someone, it's a torteous act. I'm not familiar with France's defamation laws. It's laws are based on Napoleonic Code " with its process being "inquest" style rather than the adversarial l style process of English-language jurisdictions (UK, Canada, the US excluding Louisianna).

My guess is that France's defamation laws, like Britain's, look at the intent to injure reputation, and whether France2 indeed attempted to mislead the public. What France2 did was to refuse to deal with the hoax perpetrated on it by the Palestinian fauxtographer working with its TV journo, Charles Enderlin.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 20, 2006 8:33 AM

The French laws are more complex on this issue than Americans would be inclined to think. Karsenty was sued by France2 and Enderlin for not only helping to expose the al-Durah hoax to the public, but for calling on France2 to dismiss Enderlin and the France2 news director, Arlette Chabot on account of their fraud. That was personal defamation. By the way, Emile Zola was prosecuted under the same law more than 100 years ago. And France2 is not ashamed to use that law against Karsenty, the Jew who talked out of turn.

The issue of what exactly happened at the Netsarim intersection on that fall day in the year 2000 was NOT the focus of the trial. Rather, the focus was on whether Karsenty had a right to insult Enderlin and Chabot and France2 as a state institution. Of course, all this is connected but the court did not really or thoroughly consider the truth of the al-Durah story. Nevertheless, since perpetrators of the hoax have seemingly been vindicated, the hoax too gets support. The France2 version of the al-Durah hoax has taken on the nature of an official or semi-official lie that everyone must openly agree with. Posters above are right to see government intervention in this matter, perhaps up to Chirac, whom the French used to call: Supermenteur [superliar].
I don't put any faith in the Euro Court of human rights. I don't have any faith in any Euro [= EU] instituion, particularly when Jews are concerned. The al-Durah hoax may become an official lie not only in France but in the whole EU. There has been bigotry in Europe against Jews for 2000 years, and now, with the so-called "palestinian people" issue, the Eurobigots have found a new justification for their hatred and prejudice. Karsenty should appeal to the euro court of HR. But he should not expect too much to come of it. He should certainly NOT expect justice, anymore than Israel could expect justice at the Hague-based Int'l Court of "justice."
By the way, if anybody can give a more precise account of the French laws in play here, it would be appreciated. My account is based on my understanding of Richard Landes' account.

Posted by: Eliyahu at October 22, 2006 8:37 AM