A French parliamentary group has called for a ban on the wearing of any visible religious symbols in schools. The question had been whether Muslim girls can wear Islamic head scarves, but if that’s a problem why isn’t it a problem for a Catholic girl to wear a little silver cross? President Chirac takes the matter seriously, so he’s gone further and appointed a “blue-ribbon panel of French intellectuals” to study the broad issue of French secularism and whether new laws are needed to defend it. The moral of the story seems to be that “diversity” means that everything has to be the same, and “secularism” is the established religion of France, defended by laws that suppress public dissent.
” … he’s gone further and
” … he’s gone further and appointed a ‘blue-ribbon panel of French intellectuals’ … ”
There’s the problem right there. A bunch like that in this day and age will never render a sound appraisal of the nature of a social problem or recommend a solution of it that is sensible. Chirac should’ve appointed a panel of petty bourgeois and peasants instead (like the kind of ordinary Vermont smalltownsfolk and farmers who took the afternoon off one day a few years ago to gather in Montpelier and demonstrate in front of the state capitol building against the Civil Unions bill permitting homosexual marriages—I happened by chance to drive by there that day on my lunch break and saw them; they were exactly my Vermont friends and neighbors or the equivalents thereof from other towns than mine, salt-of-the-earth folk, and got called “haters” and “hate groups” by at least one news organization I heard on my car radio minutes later—a news organization staffed by people much like Chirac’s “blue-ribbon panel of French intellectuals”).
Well I think this commentary
Well I think this commentary is not factoring in the particular French context with respect to Islamic fundamentalism. The war in Algeria, islamic terror in the 80s and 90s, the largest Jewish community in Western Europe, a strongly communautarist muslim community… all these have resulted in a political backdrop where conspicuous signs of adherence to the “integrist” vision of Islam stir up trouble, and understandably so.
The fact the French understand better than the Anglo-Saxons the dangers of islamic fundamentalism – they have been fighting this war since the fifties – has enabled them to spot the risks of a military solution to the Iraki problem, which the US and UK governments grossly underestimated.
There is no easy and fast answer to this issue. However it seems clear to me that France would only play into the hand of fundamentalists, should they adopt coercitive measures. Luckily, I believe their government understands this (I am thinking of Minister Sarkozy for example).
Actually, Pierre-Yves, the
Actually, Pierre-Yves, the British have a long and varied history of dealing with Islamic Fundamentalists, going back twice as far as the length of french experience you cite.
Might I reccomend The River Wars? If that is too much trouble then just google up “mahdi + ‘china gordon'”.
Notice that the issue of
Notice that the issue of excessive incompatible Moslem immigration into France, the underlying cause of the whole problem and the key to solving it in the only way that makes sense, isn’t even mentioned in the article.
Notice the two French sisters with the Jewish name Levy demonstrating the Moslem head scarves as if (though the photo caption doesn’t make this clear) they are on the Moslem side of the controversy. If in fact they are on that side, I guess their Jewish French parents who permit them to run around in an ultra-leftist organisation like the one named see absolutely no relationship whatsoever between excessive Moslem immigration into France on the one hand, and the unbelievable wave of anti-Semitic violence, desecrations, atrocities, and terror in that country that the whole world is talking about, on the other.
As for Pierre-Yves’ comments: he writes,
“Well I think this commentary is not factoring in the particular French context with respect to Islamic fundamentalism. The war in Algeria, islamic terror in the 80s and 90s, the largest Jewish community in Western Europe, a strongly identity-conscious Muslim community … all these have resulted in a political backdrop where conspicuous signs of adherence to the ‘integrist’ vision of Islam stir up trouble, and understandably so.”
What is “the integrist vision of Islam”? Is it the reasonable expectation that Moslem immigration into France not significantly replace Frenchness with Moslemness? (Here, one is tempted to quip, “I wonder what Charles Martel, Godefroi de Bouillon, and Geoffroi de Villehardouin would think of that idea?,” but let’s not be too mean to Pierre-Yves.) What’s wrong with that expectation? There’s only one France, Pierre-Yves. We’d all hate to lose it, you know.
He writes,
“The fact that the French understand the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism better than the Anglo-Saxons do—the French have been fighting this war since the fifties—allows them to appreciate the risks of a military solution to the Iraki problem, which the US and UK governments grossly underestimated.”
But in the context of the discussion on the proposed banning of the wearing of visible crosses around the necks of French school children, this comment of P-Y’s seems like a non sequitur. Furthermore, if there IS any relationship of this point to the discussion at hand, it lies in the fact that one of the key measures needed to deal with BOTH problems—“the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism” AND the imminent loss of the right of French school children to wear the cross around their necks—is, where France is concerned, to bring excessive Moslem immigration into France to an end. Why is that not mentioned?
P-Y writes,
“There is no easy and fast answer to this issue.”
Once again, this is misleading. It may not be politically “easy,” and it may not be “fast” once begun, but the “answer”—the ONLY solution that will keep France France—lies in ending excessive Moslem immigration into that country AND in taking steps to reverse the Islam-favoring demographic seismic shift now underway which if permitted to go to completion will end France as we have known it these thousand or so years.
“It seems clear that France would only play into the fundamentalists’ hands should she adopt coercive measures. Luckily, I believe their government understands this (I am thinking of Minister Sarkozy for example).”
It’s playing into the fundamentalists’ hands to put reasonable limits on immigration? France can’t even do that, you mean? That would be too “coercive”? No, Pierre-Yves. Their government understands nothing and will destroy France. The ones who understand everything and will save her are Jean-Marie Le Pen, Brigitte Bardot, and their friends.
Vive la France! Vive la France francaise, la France catholique, et oui, la France europeenne et de race blanche (s’il faut le dire je le dirai!); vive la France qui a toujours existe et existera toujours, et non pas une France arabe et musulmane, qui ne serait pas la France du tout mais une sorte de monstruosite!
Meanwhile, in Canada:
A
Meanwhile, in Canada:
A 30-member council of Islamic community leaders in Ontario met last month to establish The Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (Canada). The meeting was described by Law
Times as “the latest step in a long struggle to have Islamic law recognized in Canada”. Lawyer Syed Mumtaz Ali—the first Canadian lawyer to swear his oath of allegiance on the Koran—said that formerly, Canada’s Muslims were excused from applying Sharia in legal disputes because no adequate enforcement mechanism existed. But recent amendments to the Arbitrations Act making arbitrators’ decisions final and binding, also have the effect of enabling Muslim disputants to have Islamic arbitral decisions enforced by secular Canadian courts: “the court has no discretion in the matter”.
The story can be found at http://www.lawtimesnews.com/Main5.html