Tireless defender of freedom of expression, the lawyer Richard Malka publishes in Le droit d’emmerder Dieu de Grasset, his allegations in extenso to the trial of the Charlie Hebdo attacks of 2015, which had been truncated by multiple delays in the hearing held at from September. to December.
RTL guest on Wednesday September 22, explains that without wanting to be provocative, “you still have to push to be heard, because in recent years there has been the idea that you have to respect religions because otherwise, we would be racists.” or Islamophobes, because otherwise they would threaten or harass us, sometimes kill or behead them ”.
“I wanted to say that we have no obligation to respect religion,” explains the lawyer and novelist. “You have to know how to insult religion, it’s our history,” he says, referring to Hugo, Voltaire and the 1905 law. “The religious texts themselves incite believers to lack of respect, dialogue and contradiction with God. know how to question them, otherwise God will want to rule all of life from morning to night ”.
According to him, the Mila affair, which he defended, is revealing “of fear and self-censorship” that are “in tune with the times.” “We have internalized this discourse according to which we must respect religions (…) but if we follow this path, one day we will find ourselves renouncing all our freedoms,” he judges. The problem, in his eyes, “is not that religion takes up too much space, it is that the guilty discourse on the questioning of dogmas, which we had fully accepted and no longer posed any problem, is being raised again today. God is like the king. He needs a buffoon, that is, disrespect. “
As such, Mila and Charlie Hebdo’s lawyer harshly judges the political class, guilty of “many compromises and abandonment of the idea that this country made.” According to him, Eric Zemmour and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, for example, embody “two simplistic and cartoonish visions of what Muslims are”, namely, “all the invaders or all the victims.” “They confiscate the debate and prevent solutions”, which “does not serve society.” On the other hand, he believes that “the Socialist Party must wake up” because “these questions can only be resolved from the left.”