I am not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
Debs.
France just sent a writer, Hervé Lalin, known as Hervé Ryssen, to jail for nine months. For his writings.
In the same week, the French president (Macron) made a flamboyant speech in the defense of total freedom of speech in his country with also, simultaneously, all major newspapers launching a common call in defense of freedom of speech, of writing and of drawing. But not for Ryssen. He is behind bars as I write. Of him, I know very little. He seems to be a self-declared antisemite, a racist and has a few theories of his own ranging from incestuous practices of the Jewish people to satanic expression in Holywood's movies. I don't know, really, but now, more than I want to, I feel that I have to.
I have to, because it is my deepest conviction that nobody should go to jail for their opinion, which I believe is some fairly popular opinion. And, therefore, everybody who thinks like that should say it and condemn this persecution worthy of the most dystopic dictatorship, that explains that there is no taboo or sacred topic at the same time that it jails people for doing that, with everybody nodding in approbation. Everybody, however small is their voice, should raise it when ignominy and disgrace insult at the same time our intelligence and our most basic values, those that stand between our rights and our oppression.
I have of course no weight in this matter, I am not a public figure, what I think only interests friends and family, or maybe some more curious or interested acquaintances. Nobody cares, basically. But still, I feel it is my duty, as long as I will look at what happens in the World, that in the presence of such gross aggression towards basic decency and freedom, I have at least to voice my reprobation and consternation. Not saying anything is normalizing the situation. Not saying anything is, for all purposes, accepting it. Assange, for instance, is another blatant injustice. But at least he receives a fair, not sufficient, but still some amount of public support and justified indignation. And that's a relief, a small one, because that makes him a hero. He's not condemned in vain, he is writing history.
Ryssen, similarly, whatever his topic and/or opinion, should receive the support of everybody who believes in freedom of speech, so that either he goes out or we cheer him up from outside. We should not let him carry the weight of martyrdom and of fighting oppression, all by himself or with those too much like him, thereby making him, inevitably, a legend. Such defence must be without "but", without "except for", which annihilate freedom like salt annihilates fresh water.
It is not either anecdotical or completely gratuitous to raise such an objection, since, of course, everybody doing that will be immediately suspected, or openly accused, of endorsing completely the condemned author. Even though, as I said is my case, they actually don't know what this, admittedly, obscure author, penned down. I cannot imagine, however, any particular case or topic where I would not similarly oppose jailing an Author to express whichever opinion they fancy. I might find it disgusting, repelling, sickening... but that I can cure by expressing my own digust at the whole thing or ignore it altogether. That applies to literally whatever can be written, with no room for "except for". Even libel, defamation, racist slurs (as is the case here, possibly) targeting a race, gender, religion, etc. Everything can be said, everything can be written. One can write hate speech. That says more about who writes it than about those he's writing about. One can call for the extermination of the human race or of any of its particular component. Condemn those who will do, or attempt to do it. But leave those who want to say, or even really think, that it should be done, do so, if they want.
It does not mean we have to respect, or even read, consider, act on something which, in most cases and all likeliness, is certainly rubbish and worthless banter. But by no account, by no mean, do we ever forbid it. By forbidding it, you transform it from whatever it was, to subversive literature. By definition.
And everything subversive is interesting, is substantial, is worth looking at. What was before, quite certainly, the empty ravings from some deluded, distressed or abject mind, now becomes consuming fire, powerful enough to transform words into flames, that endangers some authority of some sort, that sets fire to society. Surely that's still the work of a crazy person but that became, foremost, the work of some forbidden person, of some dangerous, corrupting, rebellious or even revolutionary person. Again, by definition. Because obviously we don't put in jail everybody who's writing shit or nonsense or hateful things or all of this at the same time.
And besides this plea for human freedom, is this even worth the honour? Who has been jailed for what they wrote? Many writers went to jails, of course, but for actual crimes or offenses, mainly debts, or, like Verlaine, for shooting at people (Rimbaud), or Appolinaire, for stealing; clearly in some case, most notably, Oscar Wilde, this was completely unjust and a tragedy that I personally suffer in my soul, but it was not related to his work. Garcia Lorca was even shot after being jailed, but that was again more for his homosexuality than for his political stance and certainly not for his poems. Not even Pasternak went to jail.
Clearly, we can still find authors jailed for their writings. But what Authors these are! There is the Marquis de Sade, of course, Defoe, Dostoyevsky, Ezra Pound, I believe Voltaire. Such a list of first-rate, immortal writers. Such a small one at the same time. We don't find so many people who went to jail because of what they wrote. Even civil disobedience is beyond that category because there is still an actual, formulated, manifest disobedience and one can argue in their favour, definitely, but that is already at a different level. Here we're speaking of ideas, of the mind, of words. To go to jail for your writings! That doesn't look easy.
Does Lalin really belong there? Between Defoe and Voltaire? And in most cases, the jailing regimes were not democracies. Ezra Pound I believe stands apart for being jailed by a supposed democratic state. So now it's two of them? Pound and Lalin?
Why send him to jail? Who is this man? What did he write? What did he say that is so extreme that he needs be physically removed from society (in a society where not even rapists or, in some occasions, killers, get to actually go to jail).
So now I have to read Lalin. Or Ryssen. He wrote twelve books. The titles seem to suggest a monomaniac theme, possible white supremacism, racial inequalities, etc. Quite a common theme, after all. What makes him different?
Interestingly, it also seems to be quite difficult to get his books, although they are not forbidden and available on mainstream platforms, they are out of price. Not knowing what to pick, I had settled for the first and last books. However, they are well over a hundred euros in most places, or to be ordered from weird, dubious platforms I wouldn't place an order to (if only for fear of a scam). Is that the result of him already becoming suddenly a highly popular, extremely trendy Author who went out of print in a matter of days? Or has he always been quite obscure and underground anyway? In both cases, again, doesn't this show he has already won the encounter?
My feeling is that he doesn't deserve the honour extended to him, and that damnatio memoriae rather than martyrdom by the pen should have been his real sentence if one was actually needed. Or is he so efficient, so convincing, so strong as to actually represent a danger by the sheer force of his verb? If that's the case, this I want to read.
I feel, however, it won't be the case and that some idiotic, politically oriented revengeful miserable corrupted corner of whatever officine is actually in charge in France exerced a right of abusing their prerogatives, just for the thrill of it, and thus wasting my time (as a reader). Not even the author's time (nine months in jail) will be wasted, since, again, I guess this might be instead of some punition, a consecration, a recognition, the highest stage on the podium of those persecuted. Lalin is also a gilet jaune, by the way, we saw him in what is actually a beautiful shot, confront a policeman, that made, ironically (what a destiny he seems to have!) the front cover of a big magazine. Would he have lost an eye here, would he have been jailed for carrying the French flag on the Champs Élysées, he wouldn't have raised so high as the altitude where he has now been propelled to. He would have been just another victim. He became, instead, an instant literary classic who signs his work not with his name but with his freedom.