Poller: Antisemitism in Non-Antisemitic France

The rabbi thinks it would be a mistake for young Jewish men to form a militia.

It is amazing. I am presently reading Bat Ye'or's "Eurabia" (my Amazon copy finally arrived), and the feeling of "deja vu" is staggering.

It is no surprise to see that most anti-semitic attacks happen in France and in the UK, precisely the two countries where pro-Muslim propaganda in the mainstream media is more rampant. I check the BBC News site daily, and there is hardly a day when there isn't a story about Muslim youths in Britain. There are surely more Hindus in the UK, there are even probably more Italians (or people with Italian ancestry living in the UK, something many might not know), but I have never read a story about the Italian or Hindu communities. Why is it that Muslims get a (nearly always) sympathetic and a disproportional coverage in the media?

Why is it that when a white men is accused of rape he is correctly labelled "white", but when a Muslim does it, the less specific term "asian" is used?

Pardon my French, but knowledge is a depressing bitch. Blessed are the meek. That was true 2000 years ago and it is still true nowadays. More than every, probably.

More than ever (not every, sorry).

While British Jews haven't suffered from the degree of violence that the French Jewish community has, things aren't very pretty in the UK either:

A reader recently wrote the following to MelaniePhillips.com:

"Your observations about the antisemitic madness now sweeping the country are all too accurate. Two of my relatives report that they recently walked out of social events in reaction to blatant antisemitic diatribes. In the second case, the offender explicitly stated that ‘the Jews rule America.’ In neither instance did anyone else object to the outburst; and in neither instance did the culprit understand that he/she had said anything objectionable.
Last night my mother was at a dinner party with a long-time friend, an academic she's known for 30 years. All of a sudden, this individual began expressing his respect for the ‘historian’ David Irving, questioned whether millions of Jews had really been murdered by the Nazis and added that the Holocaust is only discussed because Jewish groups such as the Board of Deputies see fit to exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

What is interesting is that in none of these incidents was there any pretence of ‘criticism of Israeli government policy’; the targets, quite explicitly, were Jews as such. My mother believes that antisemitism has now become publicly acceptable in this country."

Given that Britain's politics are infected with the likes of George Galloway and Ken Livingstone, its groves of academe with self-hating Jews like the Roses, its cultural world with more self-hating Jews like Harold Pinter, "divesters" in the Church of England, and Arabists throughout the civil service, the Beeb and print media, it's not surprising, is it?

Cruzado, and the BBC is suffering for it, their viewing figures fell by 4.5%, they are less then a third.

Many people are fed up with them, it is known as the Bagdad Broadcasting Corporation or the Al BBC. Their reporting on Israel and America is appalling.

I would think that the people running the BBC are devout Muslims. We have all these positive articles about the religion of peace, but people know that it is rubbish.

My father is in his mid-70's in the South-West, he goes dancing, he has a large circle of friends, not one single person he knows has any respect for Muslims and Islam, they depise Islam and they despair at the direction the UK is going. Many who fought in the second world war think that their fight against the Nazi's was in vain.

All the people I speak to have a lot of respect for the Jewish people, I think that you will find the average Brit is still cheering for Israel, its just that their voices are not heard...

There are surely more Hindus in the UK

No, I don't believe so. But I don't think that affects your conclusions. Hindus, as you imply, don't clash with other groups.

Sikhs are even less numerous. There has been at least one potentially ugly incident with them, but that was, in a sense, also an internal squabble, not a result of their hating any other group/s in British society. That is not to say they they do not have their own prejudices against others. This is very much worth reading for the light it throws on attitudes within the Sikh community - and also, more generally, as a sketch of a traditional community trying to cope with the disruption to traditional attitudes coincident upon life in the West.

I think the problem with Muslims in the UK is both that many are "radicalized" and that they are numerous. The two factors together make for a bad social problem.

"I think that you will find the average Brit is still cheering for Israel, its just that their voices are not heard..."

Your statement makes a lot of sense, and it is shared by Bat Ye'or. What the elites say and what the ordinary citizen says are two diferent things.

For decades the BBC represented professionalism and objectiveness. Now, as far as I am concerned, the only good thing it has are the tv series ("Rome" is a good example). In terms of journalism, any of our three TV networks beat the crap out of them concerning objectivity.

And to think that during the war, people tuned in to to the BBC to hear the truth, risking their lives in the process...

Arabists throughout the civil service, the Beeb and print media

The BBC recruits in the pages of the Guardian, of course.

However, while I certainly sympathize with you - and while I am no fan of the BBC - I would like to say that I think that is an exaggeration. For example, BBC History certainly has plenty of material on the holocaust. I think this is also probably a deliberate response to holocaust denial - to set so much empirical evidence out that readers can see that those who would deny it took place have no leg to stand on.

So things at the BBC are more patchy than you imply. It seems to me that it is more a case of these attitudes creeping in and slowly colonizing areas of the organization than it is of the BBC as an organization deliberately taking a policy throughout.

THE BBC REALLY REACHES LOW DEPTHS HERE

Quote from the piece you reference:

For many people, what motivated the bombers is still a mystery.

How many times does a bomber have to say he is motivated by Islam for it to sink in?

If you read between the lines it is an informative enough piece, although it tells most of us nothing we don't already know. For example, if the writer thinks that "alienation" is some kind of excuse, or a "root cause" as he might say, he betrays his readers.

But reflect that "alienation" might be a useful enough description of the spiritual state of one of the jeunes, though not necessarily any one else's fault, and what do you conclude? That Islam, which is going to appeal to such people, is a big problem.

Or invite the US Marines to land in Sarcelles.

Pardon my pissy attitude, but maybe it's time for the French to send in their own military. Or get out of the way of the local people who would raise a militia to defend themselves. Why should the US Marines suffer more for people who would spit on them after?

France will be the first nation to lose its sovereignty because of Islam. Who is next? Britain? Netherlands? Denmark? Norway? Only time will tell.

I'm sure we'll bail France out one more time. We still "owe" them for trying to get at England by supporting our revolution.

But that's not why we'll do it. This is. Saving French women from cowardly French men is an American tradition.

"There are surely more Hindus in the UK"

Actually Muslims in the UK like to boast that they outnumber all the other minorities here put together - and I'm afraid it seems they do. There are at least double the number of Muslims to Hindus in the UK - official figures estimate there are 1.2m Muslims, but it's more likely to be around 2m. There are about 600,000 Hindus - a peacable community that get good educational qualifications who generally do well and are well liked. You just don't get to hear about them. There are also about 300,000 Sikhs. But all the attention is on Islam and Muslims - with endless media coverage. The Jewish community is down to less than 300,000 and I'd say that David Irving and Ken Livingstone between them have stirred up a nasty strain of anti-semitism in recent weeks and months. The BBC has actually broadcast an apologist for David Irving on a recent radio phone-in without challenging him and the Today programme received lots of complaints after they did an interview with Irving (from jail) where he was allowed to deny the holocaust without contradiction - they even kept giving him publicity in the news headlines. Something I could never imagine the BBC doing even a year ago. And the Board of Jewish Deputies has been inundated with anti-semitic post after dear Ken was 'suspended' for four weeks - on full pay - (over-ruled by a judge pending appeal) after he was found guilty of bringing his office "into disrepute" for likening a diffident and polite Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard and refusing to apologise. Jews were blamed for complaining and Ken was hailed as the defender of 'democracy'. I do hope ordinary people are still routing for Israel - but I fear Jewish elites here (as in the US) are turning against Israel with depressing dhimmitude - the recent Jewish Book Week exposed a lot of 'Rose' like 'intellectuals' and some truly horrible anti-Israel books coming up with pernicious ideas like the 'one state solution' - i.e. Palestine. How long would Jews survive that?

The rabbi gave some important details about this weekend’s antisemitic attacks. There were, in fact, three attacks within 24 hours. One victim had a broken nose, another had a dislocated soldier.

They dislocated his soldier? Man ... that's gotta hurt!

Robert,

There may have been some sort of cut-and-paste editing error or truncation on this post. The paragraph starting with:

"And I am wondering if it might not be a good idea for them to dress up in Tsahal uniforms. Or invite the US Marines to land in Sarcelles.
Chaib Zehaf, 42, was shot dead outside a bar in Oullins, near Lyon..."

does not read well.

del

Since the issue of rising anti-Semitism is so topical, I'm curious about UK poster's opinions on the following: Do "anti Holocaust denial" laws such as the ones which permitted Irving to be jailed, or the pending and in some places enacted "anti hate speech" laws multiplying across Europe have any similarity to each other in your opinion?

Are you bothered by one law and not by the other? Do both laws bother you? Neither?

Having lived both in France and the UK I wonder if my subjective observations may be of any interest.

The English are profoundly indifferent to other ways of life. A couple of centuries of colonies have not led to any real interest in foreign cultures other than the chance to eat spicy food when the pubs shut.

This seems to be the limit of multiculturalism as far as the Englishman is concerned. This indifference ( as opposed to tolerance is probably the main reason why violent islamism has grown unchecked in the British Isles )

When you combine this with the British addiction to TV programs such as East Enders, where every character is a stroppy victim with an axe to grind, you have on the one hand unchecked growth of Islam and on the other, the British unable to cope with the slightest problem without resorting to calling some hotline you have the makings of what we see today. Pathetic indifferent alcoholic Brits on one side and assertive islamic footsoldiers on the other.

So while the British remain indifferent to the world around them, the Anti Semitic influence of Eurabia infects the media. I somehow doubt that vicious european anti semitism of the 19th kind has any support in the UK at all.

Now in France this attitude can be a problem. It must not be exaggerated but it does happen. I buy as often as I can products made in Israel. I like the hummous, the guerkins and the Aubergine caviar. I once had a 25 year old guest, who embarrassingly told me that she would prefer not to eat it. She mentioned that she sympathised with the Palestinians, which is a view that I can respect even if I disagree. What surprised me was when I gave her the opportunity to defend her point of view, she said that she instinctively mistrusted the jews.

I have also heard 60 year old ladies (always seems to be ladies) spit venom about Jews in a way that may have even embarrassed Goebels.

However, these are really exceptions that I remember merely for the the fact that I found these views unusual.

Where France differs from Britain, is that the French are not indifferent. Multiculturalism has been embraced by many and every night club for example, will play at least a few arabic tunes for fans of belly dancing.

For the most part it has been harmless fun and a genuinely innocent attempt by french youth to attempt embrace other cultures.

This attempt to embrace other cultures has been thrown back in their face as successive governments allow rapid islamisation of their cities and the media ignore all hate crimes directed at the native french.

All the anti islamic movements and in particular Philippe de Villier's MPF, have made their opinions on Islam very clear. Their support for Israel, the Jews in France and for the United States is without question the same the views expressed on this site.

Whereas the British still have to shake off their indifference, the French have a list of well known intellectuals who support the growing resistance movements. A non exhaustive list will include Alexandre del Val, Claude Reichman, Yvan Rioufol, Louis Chagnon, Caroline Fourrest, Anne Marie Delcambre, Maurice Dantec, Alain Finkielkraut and Jean Raspail.

There are 600,000 jews in France and although a great many aged Sepahardic Jews seem to harbour an irrational desire to relive a mythical multiculture in pre 1948 Algeria, there is huge vocal bunch right behind De Villiers. De Villiers has stated on live TV 'Islam is the compost in which islamism grows'.

There are large groups of people in France who hate Islam and meet regularly. These are not neo nazi white supremacists but normal people who are fed up. If jews make up 1 % of the French population, you can be sure that they comprise around 30 % of these groups.

There is no UK equivalent to Philippe de Villiers. Other politicians to have 'come out' against Islam include Jacques Lang and Edouard Balladur. Left wing papers such as Le Monde have had articles on anti white racism and the islamisation of neighbourhoods. It may not be much, but its certainly better than a year ago. The recently elected Conservative leader is another Blair with his eye firmly on the opinion polls. There is no UK politician who has dared state the obvious about this hellish religion.

In conclusion. Don't write off France, this is not over by a long shot.

"Actually Muslims in the UK like to boast that they outnumber all the other minorities here put together - and I'm afraid it seems they do."

they dont. the Irish outnumber them.
About 6 to 7 million first and 2nd generation.

in terms of religion/beliefs, after Christianity, atheism is the biggest (about 20 to 30 per cent).

Of course you never get to know those factoids via the warped lens of Al-BBC news coverage.

re david irving,
he tried to shut up Deborah Lipstadt by suing her for libel [she had written that he was a "Holocaust denier"]. He is not a victim of the urge to legally silence someone as he is a perpetrator of the same. He went to court to silence her.

Now, the big issue, the problem of the BBC: During the Holocaust, the BBC only reported on it two or three times during the war, thus misleading people in the Nazi-occupied countries who depended on the BBC for reliable news. This was because of a British govt policy not to report the Holocaust which the BBC was instructed follow. You can also check on the case of Shmul Zigelboym [or Zygielbojm or Siegelbaum], the delegate of the Jewish Socialist Bund of Poland to the Polish govt-in-exile in London. He committed suicide in London during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising in 1943, mainly in protest against Allied failure to supply the Jews fighting in the Ghetto, but also in protest --and despair-- against the minuscule attention that the BBC had given to the Jews' plight throughout the war. --Barbara Rodgers may have written something on BBC policy during the war.

As for the Roses, they have one foot over the line into insanity, as do some other British academics. These people most likely believe the news fables on the BBC.

Yojimbo says that the BBC has "plenty of material on the Holocaust." But what material do they have about the BBC's own role at that time? Is the historical Holocaust something that they just manipulate in order to make people believe that Israel is doing a Holocaust against the Arabs?

As a Brit living in France I have to agree with Sebastien, in my opinion the French have a better handle on this then the Brits.

Furthermore by insisting on French culture the French Muslims are more intergrated then in Britain, though this is starting to change.

The issue in France is that there are no jobs, not even for well-educated French people and certainly not for badly educated semi-Muslims who dropped out of school at 15.

Sarkozy has been trying to take back control of these cities and the riots were a reaction to this, this is continuing. I expect the riots to kick off again when it get warmer, but the French government will deal with it, there is a political will to do so I think.

I mentioned earlier my parents generation, they are aghast and angry, but no one listens to them anyway. They have gone down the multi-culturism avenue and lost all respect for their own culture. Most people work, drink eat and try to relax. They have not the timne or inclination to stand up for themselves. The British are sheep who accept anything that they are told to do by those in power, they grumble and moan and go down the pub.

The French will stand up for themselves when they get angry.

As far as I am concerned Britain before France.

My God! These french men are so silent and passive.When thousands of cars,schools,and churches were being burnt,I wonder how any human being with a pinch of self respect or patriotism will just sit there as if nothing had happened.
As' Beagel' mentioned in his post above, "Saving French women from the cowardly French men is an American tradition"
For the murder of a French Jew, thousands of Jews took out a protest march in France. That created a fear in the minds of these hooligans. More over, the whole world came to know about the attrocities commited by these Islamists in France.Conrary to this,when 90,000 cars were burnt,and somany churches were destroyed,not a single French soul stirred.Is that due to fear, or laziness,or "let any thing happen,as long as I and my family are safe,its ok" attitude?
To deal with Islam, we should adopt a policy of "two eyes for an eye" . Then only,Europe,and the West can survive. Take a lesson from Sudanese Christians. They were silently suffering the attrocities of the north Sudan's Muslims.The recent Cartoon controvery was a chance for these Muslims to to and kill the Christians in South Sudan. When the killings and rapes became a day to day affair,these Christians revoulted,and the youths organised themselves,and started hacking to death who ever comes to rape thleir womaen,or try to destroy their churches.So many Muslims were murdered in retaliation. Immediatly,these Muslims of the North Sudan reteriated ,and ran away. Now these Muslims are frightened to come down to South to kill.
Retaliation is the best way to deal wlith Islamism. No peace deal,No asking pardons,and No Peace- Marches will solve this menace of Islamism.

I've just read that Irving has now been banned from giving interviews from prison - allowing him to do interviews was an exception anyhow and apparently he's been getting up Austrian noses with his comments so now they've silenced him.
JSLA - As for 'freedom of speech' - I have to agree with Deborah Lipstadt that Irving should not have been jailed and I wouldn't support jailing holocaust deniers (much better to ignore and ridicule them) - having said that I can't say I'm sad that Irving is locked up. Yes 'religious hatred' laws do bother me - we should stand up for freedom of speech - even by revolting men like David Irving. The problem with his interview for the BBC was that Sancha Berg (who did the interview) simply didn't challenge him.

I'd like to practise a little Krav Maga on these muzzies.

Jinnee:

Why do you prefer ignoring or make fun of Holocaust deniers to prosecuting them?

Irving made a shit load of money peddling his claims, and continued to try to peddle them despite having been proven in court to have played so fast and loose with facts as to have himself branded a liar by the UK courts and assessed a large penalty for bringing suit against Lipstadt. His jail sentence has served to keep him from peddling his lies to a large audience of Muslim Holocaust deniers at the festival that Ahmedinejad is hosting in Iran; the Muslim world takes great succor in finding white allies in their common pathological hatred of Jews.

And what of the young and impressionable minds that are confused and corrupted by this crap?
Undoing the damage is not as simple as you think.

Passing and upholding well-drafted anti-hate legislation isn't easy, but it can be done. Canada was able to pass such laws to deal with the likes of Ernst Zundel and rid its classrooms of the James Kiegstras and Paul Frommes, yet the cartoon jihaddists were stopped in their tracks when they wanted a couple of Canadian publications charged for reproducing the Jyllens-Posten cartoons.

I have respect for Professor Lipstadt and her experience doing battle with Irving, but she's an academic. There may be fine legal distinctions that come into play when you compare the cases of Irving or even Ken Livingstone to the Jyllens-Postens cartoons, but they are there. Where malicious intent is present and it can be demonstrated that harm has been done or is likely to be done, it is appropriate to treat such acts as Holocaust denial as criminal.

I don’t mean to pick on this poor Rabbi, but he sounds like he has been intimidated to the point of dhimmitude: 'The Sarcelles rabbi has reached out to the wider community, with good results. He wants neighbors to visit the synagogue, get to know the real Jews. “We are not all rich, we are not Tsahal.”'

Tsahal or “Zahal” is the Hebrew name of the Israel Defense Forces. Translation: “We will not fight back and we are too poor to extort. Please leave us alone.” What next, zakat?”

I have to agree with MarcH here.

This rabbi is a fool, and a sheep. Why doesn't he
just go and lick the boots of the mohammadan filth
now.

"The rabbi thinks it would be a mistake for young
Jewish men to form a militia. "

Wrong, "rabbi", that is exactly what the young men
should be doing! At least the young men who want
to do this are still men, not sheep.

How long before this vile sickness preads here?
Perhaps reciprocity is in order, whenever
mohammdans attack an Infidel, we infidels should
take revenge on the nearest mohammadans. Hmmm...

Waterdragon 52

These are compelling and persuasive arguments, and certainly give pause for thought. OK - 'poking fun' at Irving is not sufficient - his repellent propaganda has to be demolished. Still my gut feeling is that locking him up is not really a solution. The key point is "well-drafted hate legislation" - and at the moment in Europe all the people who are keen on legislation are that army of 'civil rights' (who should be called civil abuse) lawyers who want to do things like indict IDF officers who at the moment have been advised not to visit Britain for fear of being arrested. They're also those nice Guardian reading types who'd dearly love to close down this site and probably get Robert Spencer arrested for 'Islamophobia'. Ideas get out however much you try censorship or imprisoning the sources. Ultimately only the hard slog of getting your message across and demolishing the opposition is what counts. And having said all that - I am very happy that David Irving is in jail.

Jinnee:

Individuals attempting to have Israeli government and military officials charged with war crimes in other countries under some nebulous EU laws and local legislation designed to constrain the fomenting of hatred of identifiable groups are two very matters. Were any charges to be laid against any publishers of the J-P cartoons, the prosecution would have to prove malicious intent. The fact that the leaders of the cartoon jihad themselves had to add in three fakes to whip up emotions rather deflates the whole argument that J-P's intent was to incite. As for the growing number of publications that are publishing the cartoons by whatever means -- some are careful to position as reporting the news, and, again, the original 12 cartoons were only reflections of the current climate of clerical facism. The heavily orchestrated protests and violence only proves the point of the cartoons: that Islam's adherents are heavily disposed toward violence in the name of their faith. They get incredibly worked up about some drawings, but where are the protests against sectarian violence between Muslim sects?

As for shutting down JW and similar sites -- again, there's the intent thing. Robert & Co stick to informing the public of what is actually written in Islams various holy books and commentaries and relating them to current events. He's not casting aspersions Muslims if he merely reports what some mullah or other individual has said or done in the name of Islam. It's the perps who keep proving his theories over and over again. He also repeatedly asks bloggers to refrain from engaging in hate speech and will delete any such posts as he comes across them or has them refered to him.

Cruzado, I can't agree more! Recently the British TV showed a short documentary about the increase of anti-Semitic attacks in Britain. It was illustrated by the description of one such incident where a Jewish guy was assaulted by a group of ...Asians. If I were a Hindu or a Sikh I would sue BBC for slender.

I think that would be great for America if all of
the French Jews moved to America, as long as they
remember why it was they had to leave, and don't
vote for the same kind of idiotic policies here.

Unlike Mohammadans, Jews usually contribute to the
countries they live in.

I hope you're right Sebastien, that France is not
so far gone, and that the French can find the
spirit needed to reclaim France.

I also hope that things aren't so bad in the UK.
At some point the average Briton is going to wake
up, and he is going to be one pissed off bulldog.
In the meanwhile, how about cutting loose on
the death cult with that famous sense of humor.

Anyone here see that movie "Ridicule"? Come on,
even if you Euro's hate guns, what happened to the
vicious sense of humor? The Mohammadans are acutely vulnerable to this attack. Despite the
howls from the savages, the Jews are not. Israelis
have their own anti semitic cartoon contest, and
they'll probably beat the Iranian teams!

rafia,

While I do believe we would come to the aid of France should it become necessary, and I'm deadly serious about beautiful French women, I believe as others do that France is actually in a better place than the UK.

At least Europe is no longer frozen. We have a pulse. Sweden seems to be the hopeless case, relapsing into speech laws and greater denial.

waterdraggon52

In our country, the U.S., the ruling in Jerry Falwell's case against Larry Flynn still stands, fortunatelly, and iI don't remember the Supremes making a distinction for "malicious intent" (duh, obviously Flynn had a malicious intent, he wasn't doing it to get the attention of ladies) or for "harm" having been done (duh again, any kind of offence exercised during asserting your First Amendment is likely to cause at least some harm--loss of face, loss of friends and contributors, loss of sleep--or it wouldn't have been done in the first place.)

Holocaust denial is an opinion, a theory, even a fallacious one. That it doesn't match the facts is of no consequence to law and the First Amendment. Had he brought this suit ih the U.S., and proven wrong on the basis of evidence, he would have only had to pay for attorney's fees and trial expenses. Nothing else. (Well, maybe a follow-up civil suit by Professor Lipsitz, well-deserved.)

The day a David Irving would be sent to prison for a "crime of opinion" in the U.S., I swear I'm gonna go into exile in Siberia.

Free speech and the freedom of conscience have to remain metaphysical absolutes in Western culture. Anything less means its downfall.

Also the fact the idiot has been getting rich peddling his theory is of no consequence to law. People are free to buy his opinion or reject it

Continuing...

If we were to sue and convict people on the basis of the truth/untruth of their ideas put out in the public forum, there wouldn't be enough jail space left. Just think of all the books out there about all kinds of United Nations conspiracies to take over the world and take away our freedoms. These ideas have consequences, they make people do ugly things, they cause harm, sometimes immense--see Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma terrorist.

There are many people in the U.S. thinking like you, and trying to chip away at the First Amendment. They have to be resisted at all costs unless an emergency situation arises, such as an all-out war, when the suspension of freedoms is justified.

We're not there yet. I hope.

Many aged Sephardic Jews do pine for the 'old Algeria' or other countries in North Africa but in a careful construct: the French(or in some cases Spanish) colonial period. As Hugh pointed out, the lives of Muslims and certainly Jews improved dramatically under the colonial rule--despite Muslim's protesting to the contrary. After 300 years of exile from Spain, finally the colonial rulers improved their lives dramatically, many studied in French or Spanish universities(even under Franco ect). So these middle-aged exiles at the time of the 50's and 60's when the colonial period ended, ran for their lives to France--and pine for the 'old way' when the colonial empires held sway. This is as contrasted as pinning for their lives as model dhimmis. Under the Frontline PBS website--there is an archived presentation of one old French Algerian Jew who pines away for his musical past titled: Play it Again Maurice.

"The issue in France is that there are no jobs" - ah, but at least they have the right attitude by shortening the working week. I've never understood why humankind's increasing use of technology should lead to anything but more, pleasantly spent, leisuretime.

'Asians' - in NZ that would mean people from the far east, generally very educated, good citizens. Why aren't non-muslim groups protesting each time that term is used so broadly?

Lili, If the world was fully globalized with the same rates of pay then the French 35 hour working week would work. However in a world of vastly different wages it was suicidal. Well qualified French people are not able to find jobs outside of Paris, while the un-skilled are finding very few options.

22.67% of the people under 25 are unemployed, the government created a new flexible contract of 2 years for young workers, many companies do not employ people when times are good because they can not lay people off like you can in the UK and USA when times are hard, unless you take a year negotiating with the unions. As a result companies are under-staffed and can not gear up for big orders. The unions are in a period of striking over this, sod the 22.67% unemployed, the unions just want it all to collapse, wankers...

Generally:

Also the socialists threw money at the cities, but did not police them for fear of civil commotion. leaving them under the control of Muslim criminal gangs. When the right (if you can call them that) got into power they started to police the cities. This is the reason for the riots, a fight for control. Any person who analyses Islam will know that the criminal element who are loosely Islam (until an imam starts to direct them, using their aggression) are the foot soldiers causing instability etc., their criminal activity is aimed at the infidel, after all being told that as Muslims they are the best of people and that infidels are the worst, it is OK to prey on the infidel no matter that they are only what you could call nominal Muslims, but they still identify themselves as Muslims and of course they will become more pious when the wind blows in that direction.

I think that the government was shocked by the scale of the riots, but I think thet the political will is hardening, the people support the government in dealing with this.

As for the French not standing up, most of the fire bombing of cars happens in the Muslims own areas, though of course the infidel car was normally the first to get fire-bombed of those still left in those areas. St Denis an area north-west of Paris is almost totally Muslim, all the indigenous population have left. It will start again when the weather gets warmer..., judge the French at the end of 2006 my fellow Jihadwatchers.

Anti-French attitudes:

The French had a view on Iraq, and while I disagreed with it I can see their point. The USA has at times done things like the French to suit their own national self interest, such as the Suez canal crisis, when they did not support France, Israel and the UK. I also remember that the dismemberment of the British Empire was a US goal.

I am pro-US, but I can also see the bloody-minded self interest of the USA, I have seen it in business too. Stop bleating about the French and being bitter over their actions and what they did about Iraq, the French are giving total intelligence support following 9/11, we are all infidels in this together.

The French knew that Saddam was keeping the fundamentalists out, the French had also realized that Islam and democracy does not go together, OK there was those business links with Saddam and of course those WMD's (but don't tell me that this does not happen in the US), but they obviously believed that the attempt to give democracy to Muslims would only result in fundamentalist governments.

Stop gloating, if Europe falls to Islam then the position of the US is much worse. Save those French women!!!

ovidius_naso, we are there, we are at war with funamentalist Islam, the sooner people realise that the better, then we can do what is necessary.

Daffersd, will you be attending a Revolution Blue Rally on Saturday?

http://www.claudereichman.com/larevolutionbleue.htm

Waterdraggon52 makes some very good points - and is right - I was not comparing like with like in my previous post - arresting David Irving under holocaust denial laws in Austria is not the same as attempts by 'civil rights activists' to arrest IDF officers under EU legislation. But in terms of public perceptions egged on by our facile media, legal niceties are swept aside and false comparisons proliferate. There is already an absurd outcry about 'unequal' treatment of Muslims - cartoons -v- holocaust denial in the crudest most demagogic terms. Is it more important to fight for the right of freedom of expression - to publish the cartoons, to enable and support the work of Robert Spencer, exposing the real threat of Islam - none of which can happen without the basic right to freedom of expression. Or do we risk opening a flood of repressive 'islamophobia' legislation that we know jihadis are angling for, by focusing on prison sentences for holocaust deniers, which will surely be perceived as a precedent to legislate against freedom of speech. If Daffersd is right and we are already at war (I think we are) - then defence of freedom of expression is one of our most essential weapons.

Sebastian,

I live in the provinces, not in Paris, but I will got to my village mairie Saturday 11th March 2006 at 16:00 hours to show my solidarity with the people of France who want to save the great and perhaps no longer free European civilisation.

I have to think of a way of getting in contact with you.

Regards

Daffersd

Daffersd, you can write to me at sebastienwolf at mail dot ru.

Look forward to getting in touch

I was going to reply to the question on these laws but realised that I did not have enough information on it to answer correctly, but I will try.

The anti Holocaust denial laws as far as I understand were aimed at stopping the Nazi's from white-washing history behind the scenes following their defeat in 1945. France has a law that prevents the sale of Nazi items etc, but I am not aware of a anti Holocaust denial law (perhaps Sebastian can help.)

In my opinion there is no link between these laws to the so called Hate Speach laws, however they are restrictions on freedom of expression. Most US people (UK people too) are not used to codified laws that regulate most things in Europe, as compared to precedent based laws in the US and UK. Having these laws on the books make it easier for such countries to pass other restrictive laws.

There is a Europe wide body that is trying to make Islamophobia a crime in line with racism, it is a Europe wide body that is not EU related, but might as well be. I forgot the name of this group, but it was a conference in Warsaw in March 2005 I think.

I can not see any link between these laws at the EU level, though it would not surprise me if it was the case with governments being pushed on the basis of the above.

As far as I am concerned, as Islam is political, removing my freedom of speach to criticise Islam is a direct attack on my political freedom, which will be treated that way by me and others. The EU Elite should be very aware of this fact...

Well what I tried to point out is in Winds of Change in the post Barbarians.

Also read the first post Schrodinger's Catalyst: A Muslim's Journey. I have read this guys story somewhere else, but powerful nevertheless.

http://www.windsofchange.net/

Ovidius Naso:

What don't you get about the Irving case. He is not just some lone loser insisting that the world is flat, but a willful, knowing poisoner of young minds. No champion of "free speech" himself, he foolishly took Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin books to court for libel only to have himself proven as a falsifier of historic facts. Then, he accepts a speaking engagement extended by a neo-Nazi group in a country that passed laws against Holocaust denial specifically because it was heavily implicated in the Holocaust, knowing full well that the Austrian government was interested in charging him for a similar appearance a decade ago. Why did he go? For the money, honey. According to his own twin brother, David Irving lived a very stylish life off of his hate-peddling books and speaking tours. And then, there was his pathetic attempt to deceive the Austrian court into believing that he had changed his views, which the court didn't buy. And, to top it off, the psycho recants his recant in a jailhouse interview, thus prompting the government to bar any further interviews with this warped, malevolent creature.

Stop mistaking the right to voice a minority opinion with the willful intent to incite a hatred that cost millions of people their lives for no reason beyond holding to a belief that the Messiah has yet to come.

Waterdragon52, as far as I can see Mr Irving has made himself look like a damn fool almost everytime he opens his mouth. Many people on the left do disagree with the anti-Holocaust denial law, as do I, even though I find denying the Holocaust immensely insulting.

This type of law also emboldens our Islamic enemies to create something similar for them. Austria and Germany should remove these laws in my opinion.

If you look at what he said he is not telling so and so to go and kill someone, but is stating an opinion, as offensive as I find it, I do not feel he should be in jail for it.

Daffersd:

The problem with Irving is that while most of the world recognizes him as a liar, he seeks out and, as with is sought by a like-minded audience and, as with the proportion of "immoderate Muslims" amongst the general Muslim population, there are more than violent anti-Semites to do plenty of harm.

While Irving may not directly instruct his audience to go out and harass or kill Jews, there is an element among them who are well disposed toward acts of malice and he provides them with the justification they eagerly seek. That he appears before them in nice suits and pretends to be a scholar is also an intentional deception, meant to lend credibility.

As for Germany and Austria repealing their laws, Deborah Lipstadt allowed that although she firmly believes that the best way to address Holocaust denial is through education, these two countries are special cases, with good reason to have such laws.

Law isn't about one-size-fits-all. It's about fairness and recognizing (distinguishing) special cases.

Waterdragon52, those Muslim anti-semites will be anti-semites regardless of David Irving. As far as I can see he has been so seriously discredited that only the very stupid listen to him.

But I see your point, the Muslims are very effectively peeling back the sympathy that normal people have for the Jewish people, first thing was to create the victimhood of the Palestinians, which they have done, now they are out to destroy the history of the Holocaust. Anything that helps them in this goal should be resisted.

I think that those countries no longer need those laws, I understood why they were there however.

Daffersd:

I think German and Austrian legislators and judges are in a better position to judge if those laws are still required than you or I. My own suspicions, however, are that there's always a sufficient supply of young misanthropes that the likes of David Irving, Ernst Zundel, David Duke, etc., will prey upon and cultivate, ensuring this sick line of thinking will persist. Undoing the damage, once it's done, is very difficult. That is the whole point of being able to bring the force of law against the most egregious practitioners of Holocaust denial, and Irving is certainly one of them.

As for Muslims, or any other group, misusing "anti-hate" laws to protect themselves from FAIR criticism, the notorious cases in Australia of the two Christian pastors convicted of hate speech for reciting chapters of the Qu'ran notwithstanding, such laws could be their ultimate undoing as we all know how rife Muslim holy books are with contempt for the other and how given their clerics are to shreiking this stuff to their congregants. And they are being outed for what they are, either by the few congregants who decide their clerics have gone over the line (as happened in Vancouver about a year ago) or by organizations like Freedom House, the truth is slowly leaking out, but leaking out it is.