Recently in France Category

I am not in favor of laws restricting the freedom of speech, but this response from the OIC is consistent with its own attempts to restrict truth-telling about Islam and jihad under the guise of criminalizing "religious hatred." Note also that by labeling the French law an example of "Islamophobia," Ihsanoglu is tacitly admitting that the Armenian genocide was an Islamic jihad action; otherwise, what would Islam have to do with this law at all?

"OIC: Adoption of genocide law sign of Islamophobia in France," by A. Taghiyeva for Trend, January 24:

The adoption of the law criminalizing the denial of the so-called "Armenian Genocide" is a sign of Islamophobia in France, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu told Trend on Tuesday.

"This law contradicts three fundamental principles of democracy -- equality, freedom and brotherhood. It is a sign of growing Islamophobia," Ihsanoglu said.

He called the law unacceptable, non-complying with historical facts and demonstrating double standards.

After a nearly eight-hour debate, the French Senate adopted the bill. Some 127 senators voted in favor, while 86 senators voted against on Jan.23.

The lower house of the French parliament adopted a bill criminalising the denial of the so-called "genocide" on Dec.22. Some 45 out of 577 French MPs voted with 38 voting for and seven against the adoption of the bill.

The bill demands a year's imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euro for denying the so-called "genocide." In response to the decision, Turkey announced that it has frozen all diplomatic relations with France.

MPs from the French president's Union for Popular Movement (UMP) party, which has the parliamentary majority, proposed the bill aimed at criminalising the denial of the so-called "genocide" to the legislative committee of the National Assembly in early December.

Armenia and the Armenian lobby claim that the predecessor of the Turkey - Ottoman Empire had committed the 1915 genocide against the Armenians living in Anadolu, and achieved recognition of the "Armenian Genocide" by the parliaments of several countries.

Now when will the United States follow suit? Probably not as long as Barack Obama is President; after all, these attacks are happening with increasing frequency, and yet after every one, U.S. officials affirm our commitment to keep training these jihadis-in-waiting.

"France deplores 'assassination' of troops as it threatens to pull out of Afghanistan," by Ben Farmer and Henry Samuel in the Telegraph, January 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

France has suspended all operations with the Afghan army and threatened to withdraw its forces early from the country after an Afghan soldier shot dead four French troops.

Alain Juppé, France's foreign minister, said the unarmed soldiers had been victims of an "assassination," and President Nicolas Sarkozy ordered an immediate review of security for troops training Afghan soldiers.

The killings during a training exercise at the Gwan military base in Kapisa province followed a similar attack last month when an Afghan soldier shot and killed two members of the French Foreign Legion.

Friday's attack wounded a further 15 and brought the total French death toll in the Afghan campaign to 82. The Afghan attacker was captured alive.

Scores of Nato troops have been shot dead in recent years by their Afghan partners raising fears of widespread Taliban infiltration and underlining the tense relations on the ground between the allies.

Gérard Longuet, defence minister, and the army's chief of staff are due in Afghanistan to investigate recruitment policy in the Afghan army, Mr Sarkozy said.

"If we are not satisfied with the level of security, we will draw the consequences," he said. "I will go so far as to order an early withdrawal of our troops. We are there as friends of the Afghan people. We cannot accept that an Afghan soldier fires on French troops."...

Islamic jihadists are clamoring for a new genocide of the Jews, and the world's guardians of human rights are wringing their hands over "Islamophobia."

"Déjà Jew," by Aaron D. Rubinger in the Jerusalem Post, January 18 (thanks to Rosanne):

...80 years ago, our people were being verbally abused and brutally assaulted in public places. And now it seems to be happening all over again. Viviane Teitelbaum, a minister in the Brussels Regional Parliament, related an incident that occurred this past November involving a 13-year old Jewish girl in Brussels. The girl was brutally assaulted at her school, resulting in her hospitalization for multiple injuries including a concussion. The attackers were not members of the Third Reich’s SS, but a group of female Muslim students at the same school. The ringleader pronounced her to be a “filthy Jew!” Apparently, in the weeks prior to the attack, the girl’s father had approached the authorities and the school with complaints that there had been threats made by fellow classmates against his daughter. Upon hearing that his concerns were simply brushed aside, I immediately thought of Yogi Berra’s famous gaff: “This is like déjà vu all over again!”

2 generations ago, some Jews sought to protect themselves by masquerading as Aryans. In an interview conducted in November, a Parisian mother related how the fear of being physically attacked by Muslim extremist thugs means that it is “not rare at all today” for French Jewish students to attempt to pass themselves off as Muslim - with some even going as far as to fast on Ramadan. One case in point was a Jewish girl of North African descent who for years was successful in this deception, until finally she was “exposed” when Muslim girls caught her eating matzah in the bathroom during Pesah. After her classmates beat her viciously, they invited their male Muslim friends to their school to participate in a gang rape....

As I have said many times in the context of many similar incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no reliable way to distinguish a peaceful Muslim from a jihadist. This is yet more fruit of the unwillingness to make even a cursory attempt to take that fact into account.

And every few weeks (the last time was November 10), I find the paragraph above in the archives and post it again.

"Rogue Afghan soldier kills 2 French soldiers," by Ernesto Londoño for the Washington Post, December 29 (thanks to D.):

KABUL — A man wearing an Afghan army uniform fatally shot two French service members in eastern Afghanistan on Thursday, military officials said, the latest in a string of similar attacks that the Taliban claims to have masterminded.

Hours later, a roadside bomb killed 10 Afghan police officers in southern Helmand province, an attack that authorities said was among the deadliest against Afghan security forces this year.

“It was the work of the enemies, the Taliban, who have suffered a defeat in face-to-face fighting and only resort to planting mines like these," said Dawood Ahmadi, a spokesman for Helmand’s governor.

Doesn't Dawood Ahmadi know that the Taliban aren't the enemy? Joe Biden said so!

The two attacks marred what has been a relatively quiet winter in Afghanistan, a season during which violence tends to ebb because the snow and cold temperatures limit mobility.

Still, sporadic attacks continue, including the suicide bombing outside a funeral in northern Afghanistan on Sunday that killed 20 people, including a member of parliament.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the shooting of the French soldiers in a statement, which said a rogue soldier named Ibrahim joined the “puppet army” for a “specific purpose.” The statement said Ibrahim shot the French troops on a base in Kapisa province.

“He was shot and martyred by the invaders in exchange of fire,” the Taliban statement said....

Not only are Islamic supremacists absolutely unwilling ever to acknowledge that Muslims have ever done anything wrong; they will also persecute and harass anyone who dares point out that they have.

An update on this story. "Genocide law MP receives death threats," from The Local, December 26 (thanks to Fjordman):

The French parliamentarian who proposed a controversial genocide denial bill has received death threats and had her website attacked.

Valérie Boyer, a member of the governing UMP party, was successful in getting parliamentary approval for a bill that outlawed the denial of a massacre of Armenians by Ottoman troops in 1915.

The bill’s passage unleashed a wave of indignation in Turkey.

Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said the vote represented “politics based on racism, discrimination and xenophobia.”

Daily newspaper Le Parisien reported that Boyer’s website was attacked on Sunday.

Visitors were redirected to a site showing the Turkish flag and a message attacking the French government and the Armenian community in France.

“You, the Armenian diaspora, are so cowardly that you don’t have the guts to open up the archives and face the truth,” said the message.

In an attack on French politicians the message said “you, the French, are so pitiful and pathetic that you ignore the truth to get votes.”

On Monday morning, the site, valerie-boyer.fr, was still unavailable with a "site indisponible" message being shown.

Boyer said she has received numerous “insults and threats of murder and rape” over recent days on her Facebook page and her Twitter account.

“That such a level of violence is being expressed shows the necessity to punish genocide denial,” she told the newspaper.

“What I’m experiencing is without doubt nothing compared to the experience of the Armenian community."...

Quite so.

The Armenian genocide was a fact, and the Turkish refusal to admit its existence is of a piece with the consistent Islamic supremacist tendency never, ever to admit wrongdoing, and to project their faults upon others. As a believer in the freedom of speech, I believe that the antidote to lies is truth, not censorship, and so I oppose France's new law, but there is no doubt that its foundation is correct and its intention is good. And Erdogan's reaction is the quintessential Islamic supremacist response to the truth about Islamic jihad: evasion, finger-pointing, projection, and claiming of victim status.

"Turkey Accuses France of Genocide After Armenian Bill," from Reuters, December 23 (thanks to all who sent this in):

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan accused France of genocide in Algeria in the 1940s and 50s, in his latest response to a French parliament vote to make it a crime to deny that the mass killings of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey was genocide.

Erdogan also said President Nicolas Sarkozy's father might have direct knowledge about French "massacres" in Algeria.

"In Algeria from 1945, an estimated 15 percent of the population was massacred by the French. This is a genocide," Erdogan said on live television.

15 percent of the population? Ridiculous and unsupportable historically -- unlike the Armenian genocide.

"If the French President Mr Sarkozy doesn't know about this genocide he should go and ask his father, Paul Sarkozy.

"His father served in the French Legion in Algeria in the 1940s. I am sure he would have lots to tell his son about the French massacres in Algeria," the Turkish premier said.

Parliamentarians in France's lower house of parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of a draft law outlawing genocide denial Thursday, which the Senate will debate next year.

If passed, the bill would make it illegal to deny the 1915 mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks amounted to genocide. The issue has caused outrage in Turkey, which argues killings took place on all sides during a fierce partisan conflict.

Erdogan condemned the bill shortly after the vote, recalled Ankara's ambassador to France for consultations and cancelled all joint economic, political and military meetings. Friday, he vowed to take more steps....

"The vote in the French parliament has shown how dangerous racism, discrimination and Islamophobia have become in France and Europe."

Although nearly a century has passed since the killings in the middle of World War One, successive Turkish governments and the vast majority of Turks feel the charge of Armenian genocide is an insult to their nation.

There are echoes in this story of obstacles faced by women seeking access to health care in places like Afghanistan. But France is not Afghanistan, and Nassim Mimoune was sentenced to six months in jail. As the judge told him, the laws of the republic are not secondary to his demands.

In his mind, the well-being of his wife was also clearly secondary to keeping her covered. "French Muslim jailed for punching nurse who tried to remove wife's burqa during childbirth," by Ian Sparks for the Daily Mail, December 22:

A Muslim man who punched a nurse for trying to remove his wife's burqa during childbirth has been jailed in France.

Nassim Mimoune, 24, had already been expelled from the delivery room for branding the midwife a 'rapist' as she carried out an intimate examination of his wife.

Then through a window he spotted the nurse taking off his wife's burqa as she prepared to give birth.

He smashed open the locked door and hit the woman in the face, demanding she replace the full Islamic face veil.

As his wife delivered a baby boy, Mimoune was ejected from the building by security men from the hospital in Marseille and arrested for assault.

A judge in the southern French port jailed Mimoune for six months on Wednesday, telling him: 'Your religious values are not superior to the laws of the republic.'

Muhammad, the supreme example of human conduct (cf. Qur'an 33:21), ordered the killing of dogs:

"Once Gabriel promised the Prophet (that he would visit him, but Gabriel did not come) and later on he said, 'We, angels, do not enter a house which contains a picture or a dog.'" -- Sahih Bukhari 4.54.50

"Abdullah (b. Umar) (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert." -- Sahih Muslim 10.3811

He also clearly considered them unclean, as indicated by the washing instructions here: "Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ordered killing of the dogs, and then said: What about them, i. e. about other dogs? and then granted concession (to keep) the dog for hunting and the dog for (the security) of the herd, and said: When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time." -- Sahih Muslim 551

In accord with such teachings, observant Muslims generally consider dogs unclean, dislike them and don't want to be around them. So this actress warned in her ad that she had a dog, so Muslims wouldn't want the job. And now here again, noticing the truth about Islam, when that truth is unpleasant or jarring to Western sensibilities, is "racism."

"Actress 'banned Muslim handymen' over chihuahua worries," from The Local, December 1 (thanks to David):

One of France's most well-known singers and actresses, Marie Laforêt, will today appear in a Paris courtroom to defend herself against charges that a job advertisement she placed discriminated against Muslims.

72-year-old Laforêt, who first found fame as an actress in the 1960s, placed an ad on an internet site looking for someone to carry out some work on her terrace in 2009, reported daily newspaper Le Parisien on Thursday.

She specified in the ad that "people with allergies or orthodox Muslims" should not apply "due to a small chihuahua."

Laforêt claimed that she made the stipulation because she believed the Muslim faith saw dogs as unclean.

The case was taken up by anti-discrimination organization Mrap, which lodged a complaint against the internet site which ran the ad.

"To think that Marie Laforêt is racist is just stupid," said her lawyer, David Koubbi, according to the newspaper. He said the words in the advertisement were only a "warning."

Koubbi added that the star "has always shown her interest and admiration for the Muslim faith."

"She knew that the presence of a religion could conflict with the religious convictions of orthodox Muslims. It was a sign of respect."

Experts in the Muslim faith were quoted as rejecting the defence.

"Dogs are not considered unclean and it's false to suggest otherwise," said one quoted by the newspaper.

This unnamed expert in the Muslim faith has thereby revealed that Iraq's Ayatollah Sistani is not the expert on Islam that he appears to be, but is actually a greasy Islamophobe. For Sistani includes dogs in his list of unclean things:

The following ten things are essentially najis [unclean]:

1. Urine
2. Faeces
3. Semen
4. Dead body
5. Blood
6. Dog
7. Pig
8. Kafir [unbeliever -- i.e., non-Muslims]
9. Alcoholic liquors
10. The sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat [unclean things].

UPDATE: The AFP piece below appears to be a mistranslation. Bougrab actually said "There is no such thing as a moderate Islamism": il n'existe pas d'«islamisme modéré». So back down the rabbit hole we go. (Thanks to Tom.)

Jeannette Bougrab is quite right. There are people who identify themselves as Muslims who are not interested in waging jihad against non-Muslims, but there is no form of Islam recognized as authentically Muslim by mainstream Islamic authorities that does not teach that the Islamic community has a responsibility to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers.

"A French minister of Arab origin says ‘there is no such thing as moderate Islam,’" from AFP, December 3:

A French minister said there was no such thing as moderate Islam, calling recent election successes by Islamic parties in Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia “worrying” in an interview published Saturday.

Jeannette Bougrab, a junior minister with responsibility for youth, told Le Parisien newspaper that legislation based on Islamic sharia law “inevitably” imposed restrictions on rights and freedoms.

Bougrab is of Algerian origin, whose father fought on the French colonial side during Algeria’s war of independence, and said she was speaking as “a French woman of Arab origin.”

“It’s very worrying,” she was quoted as saying. “I don’t know of any moderate Islam.”

“There are no half measures with sharia,” she added. “I am a lawyer and you can make all the theological, literal or fundamental interpretations of it that you like but law based on sharia is inevitably a restriction on freedom, especially freedom of conscience.”

She was reacting to electoral successes scored by the Ennahda party in Tunisia, the Justice and Development Party in Morocco and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe has called for dialogue with such parties as long as they respect certain criteria, including the rule of law and women's rights.

Alain Juppe is about to get his intellectual pocket picked.

Bougrab conceded that ousted Tunisian and Egyptian rulers Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak had used the Islamist “threat” to win backing from Western countries, but she added, “We shouldn’t go to the other extreme.”

And she hit out at the 30 percent of Tunisians living in France who had voted for Ennahda in last month's polls. “I am shocked that those who have rights and freedoms here gave their votes to a religious party,” she said.

No shock in that at all. They believe in Islam, and so they believe in Sharia.

That is the goal: enforcing reverence through fear. "Cairo Islamists protest French paper's prophet cartoon," from Agence France-Presse, November 11:

Hundreds of hardline Islamists protested outside France's embassy in Cairo on Friday against a French satirical newspaper that published pictures of the Muslim prophet, the state MENA news agency reported.

The news agency quoted Khaled Said, the spokesman of the Salafi group that organised the protest, as warning of "an escalation in peaceful measures against French interests," including a boycott of French goods.

The Islamist said his group had submitted a protest to the embassy and organised the demonstration after the French government described the affair as a freedom of speech issue.

MENA did not report any violence in the protest, which was organised after the main weekly Muslim prayers.

The weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo renamed itself Charia (sharia -- Islamic law) Hebdo for a special Arab Spring edition and featured a front-page cartoon of the prophet Mohammed saying: "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter!"

Whose prophet?

Its offices in Paris were destroyed in a suspected firebomb attack on November 2.

Calling on the "Arab Spring" countries:

Jihadist groups urged Muslims in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia "to protest and demand that their current leaders threaten to sever ties with France" if the publishing licence for Charlie Hebdo is not revoked, and that similar acts against Islam be "criminalised," the SITE Intelligence group reported.

Our readers won't bomb us for posting an offensive image.

Offensive, ain't it? But freedom of speech is hollow without the possibility of offending. "Offense" is in the eye of the beholder: one day, it's a cartoon of Muhammad. The next day, it might be denying Muhammad's standing as a prophet as a matter of Christian, Hindu, Jewish, or atheist belief.

Attempting to eradicate "offensive" material because it could hurt people's feelings results in an increasingly sensitized and fearful society, where being "offended" is suddenly a much bigger deal. It ultimately serves to shield those who are calling for the censorship from criticism -- after all, they've been the victims of something "offensive." That is the idea, under the pretext of achieving a "nicer" society (if only "for me, but not for thee"), though the ironic side effect is that ever more severe consequences accompany the possibility of causing offense. That's not very nice. (See also: Richard Landes' essay on "politeness" versus civility, posted here in August.)

Those who sought to silence Charlie Hebdo have committed a major "own goal." The magazine's staff has nothing to lose but its principles, and backing down would hand the thugs a victory, and invite more firebombings to intimidate members of the media into self-censorship.

"Charlie Hebdo front cover depicts Muslim man kissing cartoonist," by Kim Willsher for the Guardian, November 8:

Its offices have been firebombed, its website hacked, its Facebook page suspended for 24 hours and its staff targeted with death threats, so you might have thought the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo would have tried – just for a while – to avoid upsetting anyone.

Mais non! After provoking all the above with last week's special edition "guest edited" by the prophet Muhammad, entitled Charia Hebdo, which took pot-shots at radical Islam, the publication is set to raise a few more hackles with this week's edition, published on Wednesday.

On the front page of the latest edition is a drawing of a male Charlie Hebdo cartoonist passionately kissing a bearded Muslim man, under the headline: L'Amour plus fort que la haine (love is stronger than hate).

In the background of the cartoon, signed Luz, are the ashes of the magazine's offices, completely destroyed in the Molotov cocktail attack last week.

Unlike the previous edition, which featured a front page carton of the prophet and a speech bubble reading "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter", there is no suggestion that the character on the magazine cover is Muhammad.

After the firebombing, French Muslim groups who had been highly critical of Charlie Hebdo, condemned the destruction of its offices. Dalil Boubakeur head of the Paris Mosque, told journalists: "I am extremely attached to the freedom of the press, even if the press is not always tender with Muslims, Islam or the Paris Mosque".

The editor of Charlie Hebdo, Stéphane Charbonnier, said at the time: "We thought the lines had moved and maybe there would be more respect for our satirical work, our right to mock. Freedom to have a good laugh is as important as freedom of speech."

Since then, the magazine's staff have been given a temporary home in the offices of France's leading leftwing daily newspaper Libération, which has also been subject to threats from the Turkish hackers who are said to have pirated Charlie Hebdo's site.

Luz, the cartoonist, refused to condemn extremists for the attack.

"Let's be cautious. There's every reason to believe it's the work of fundamentalists, but it could just as well be the work of two drunks," he wrote afterwards.

Agence France-Presse photo.

"The technical gaffe is likely to cause great embarrassment to all three leaders as they look to work together to intensify international pressure on Iran over its nuclear ambitions."

At least with microphone gaffes from the last guy, we got the "major league" incident on the campaign trail, and better yet, the idea that Hizballah needed to "stop doing this [you-know-what]."

But this is going to be awkward, and indeed plays into the hands of Iran at an inopportune time. As Biden once put it, also in range of a microphone, it's a big... deal. "Sarkozy tells Obama Netanyahu is a 'liar'," by Yann Le Guernigou for Reuters, November 8:

PARIS (Reuters) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy branded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "a liar" in a private conversation with U.S. President Barack Obama that was accidentally broadcast to journalists during last week's G20 summit in Cannes.

"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.

Zut alors!

"You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied, according to the French interpreter.

The technical gaffe is likely to cause great embarrassment to all three leaders as they look to work together to intensify international pressure on Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

The conversation was not initially reported by the small group of journalists who overheard it because it was considered private and off-the-record. But the comments have since emerged on French websites and can be confirmed by Reuters.

White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to comment on the conversation when asked by reporters traveling with Obama to an event in Philadelphia.

Obama's apparent failure to defend Netanyahu is likely to be leapt on by his Republican foes, who are looking to unseat him in next year's presidential election and have portrayed him as hostile to Israel, Washington's closest ally in the region.

Pushing Netanyahu risks alienating Israel's strong base of support among the U.S. public and in Congress.

Netanyahu's office declined to comment, but one of his deputies, Vice Premier Silvan Shalom, played down the episode.

"Everyone talks about everyone. Sometimes even good friends say things about each other, certainly in such competitive professions," Shalom, a former foreign minister and rival of Netanyahu in the rightist Likud party, told Israel's Army Radio.

"So you have to consider the main things. Is Obama a friend of Israel? Is Sarkozy a friend of Israel? Is their policy a consistent policy of support for Israel? The answer to all of these questions is affirmative and, as far as I'm concerned, that is what's important."

In Human Events this morning I discuss the firebombing of the Charlie Hebdo offices and its dhimmi aftermath:

[...] Yet already there are calls for free people to surrender. Calls for self-censorship and greater “sensitivity” toward Muslims have already begun. Bruce Crumley wrote in Time magazine in the wake of the bombing that “it’s obvious free societies cannot simply give in to hysterical demands made by members of any beyond-the-pale group,” and that “intimidation and violence must be condemned and combated for whatever reason they’re committed,” but that “it’s just as evident members of those same free societies have to exercise a minimum of intelligence, calculation, civility and decency in practicing their rights and liberties—and that isn’t happening when a newspaper decides to mock an entire faith on the logic that it can claim to make a politically noble statement by gratuitously pissing people off.”

Certainly a decent person doesn’t go around gratuitously angering people. But when it comes to censorship or even legislation, who is to decide what angers people gratuitously? The people in power, of course. Time is essentially calling for restrictions on the freedom of speech and the creation of a special, privileged class that is beyond criticism. That is the death of free society and the road to tyranny, for the class that is beyond criticism will have a free hand to do whatever it wants, and what will anyone be able to say?

Unfortunately absent from the public square are the voices telling the Muslim community in Paris, and Muslims all over the West, to grow up, and to stop reacting with firebombs and threats and murder to everything that offends them. The fact that it is virtually certain that such voices will be less numerous than those calling for “sensitivity” in the face of violent intimidation and thuggery is as good an indication as any that Western society is desperately ill, and that when it comes to Islam, leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have lost all sense of perspective. Before they regain it, we are certain to be in for some very rough days ahead—days that will make the firebombing of Charlie Hebdo look like a gesture of mild disapproval.

Crumley, of course, like so many other enlightened liberals, camouflages his slouch toward totalitarianism in the guise of “sensitivity” and resistance to “Islamophobia.” The gaping hole in his argument, however, is that he is making it after Muslims reacted violently to satire. Judaism and Christianity are lampooned on a regular basis, but Bruce Crumley never lifted a finger to call for “sensitivity” toward the religious feelings of others when Piss Christ was being displayed as a serious work of art. So Time’s argument boils down to saying that we should capitulate in the face of violent intimidation. This is not really about being sensitive at all. It is about doing what the thugs want so they won’t hurt us again.

I’d rather die first.

There is more.

Defiance in the face of Islamic supremacist intimidation and thuggery. Bravo. "French paper reprints Mohammad cartoon after fire-bomb," by Brian Love for Reuters, November 3:

(Reuters) - A French satirical weekly whose office was fire bombed after it printed a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad has reproduced the image with other caricatures in a special supplement distributed with one of the country's leading newspapers.

The weekly Charlie Hebdo defended "the freedom to poke fun" in the four-page supplement, which was wrapped around copies of the left-wing daily Liberation on Thursday, a day after an arson attack gutted Charlie Hebdo's Paris headquarters.

No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, which took place hours before an edition of Charlie Hebdo hit news stands featuring a cover-page cartoon of Mohammad and a speech bubble with the words: "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter."

The weekly, known for its irreverent treatment of the political establishment and religious figures, bore the headline "Charia Hebdo," in a reference to Muslim sharia law, and said that week's issue had been guest-edited by Mohammad.

The incident pits Europe's tradition of free speech and secularism against Islam's injunction barring any depictions seen as mocking the prophet. The publication of cartoons of Mohammad in a Danish newspaper in 2005 sparked unrest in the Muslim world in which at least 50 people were killed.

While French Muslim groups criticized Charlie Hebdo's work, they also condemned the fire-bomb attack. The head of the Paris Mosque, Dalil Boubakeur, told a news conference on Thursday: "I am extremely attached to freedom of the press, even if the press is not always tender with Muslims, Islam or the Paris Mosque."

"French Muslims have nothing to do with political Islam," he said.

Abderrahmane Dahmane, a Muslim former presidential adviser on religious diversity, said he was not shocked by the Charlie Hebdo front-page and joked himself about the matter.

"We have a sense of humor in the world of Islam ... what we sometimes say about Islam and the prophet, among ourselves and in the presence of Imams, is worse than what Charlie Hebdo wrote," he quipped.

Pull my other leg, Dahmane. If that were true, then why was Charlie Hebdo firebombed, and why is the OIC pursuing an all-out campaign to force the West to criminalize criticism of Islam?

Following the fire bombing, Charlie Hebdo staff moved temporarily into the offices of Liberation. The two publications jointly produced Thursday's supplement, which reproduced the Charlie Hebdo cartoon in an article on the back page.

One headline in the supplement said: "After their office blaze, this team defends the 'freedom to poke fun'."

"We thought the lines had moved and that maybe there would be more respect for our satirical work, our right to mock. Freedom to have a good laugh is as important as freedom of speech," Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier said in the supplement.

The supplement included several new drawings by Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. In one, a prophet-like figure tries to restrain his billowing robes in a pose reminiscent of Marilyn Monroe as a draft blows up from Charlie Hebdo newspapers below him. Another shows an airborne fire-bomb with a face in the flames and the caption, "So, is this how you see the prophet?"...

Charbonnier told Reuters his newspaper planned to print another 175,000 copies of this week's edition in the coming days after the first print run of 75,000 copies sold out fast.

Luz, the cartoonist who drew the cover cartoon at the center of the controversy, said it was still unclear who had carried out the attack.

"Let's be cautious. There's every reason to believe it's the work of fundamentalists but it could just as well be the work of two drunks," he said in the Thursday supplement.

Hey Luz, keep up the wishful thinking at that high a level, and pretty soon you'll be working for the Obama Administration.

In my article at Front Page today I wrote this: "The worst aspect of this firebombing is that there are certain to be voices in the West over the next few days – some of them no doubt quite prominent and respected – who will call on Westerners to be more 'sensitive' toward Muslims, and to end this unacceptable hurting of Muslim feelings by drawing cartoons of him and making him the honorary editor-in-chief of a comedy magazine."

And here we are. The reason why this is the worst aspect of the firebombing is that these pleas to be more "sensitive" to Muslims amount essentially to calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech and the creation of a special, privileged class that is beyond criticism. That is the death of free society and the road to tyranny, for the class that is beyond criticism will have a free hand to do whatever it wants, and what will anyone be able to say?

But Bruce Crumley of Time Magazine, like so many other enlightened liberals, camouflages his slouch toward totalitarianism in the guise of "sensitivity" and resistance to "Islamophobia." The huge, gaping hole in his argument, however, is that he is making it after Muslims reacted violently to satire. Judaism and Christianity are lampooned on a regular basis, but Bruce Crumley never lifted a finger to call for "sensitivity" toward the religious feelings of others when Piss Christ was being displayed as a serious work of art. So Crumley's argument boils down to saying that we should capitulate in the face of violent intimidation. This is not really about being sensitive. It is about doing what the thugs want so they won't hurt us again.

I'd rather die first.

"Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr," by Bruce Crumley for Time Magazine, November 2 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren't going to tell “us” what can and can't be done in free societies? Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?

The difficulty in answering that question is also what's making it hard to have much sympathy for the French satirical newspaper firebombed this morning, after it published another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam. The Wednesday morning arson attack destroyed the Paris editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo after the paper published an issue certain to enrage hard-core Islamists (and offend average Muslims) with articles and “funny” cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed—depictions forbidden in Islam to boot. Predictably, the strike unleashed a torrent of unqualified condemnation from French politicians, many of whom called the burning of the notoriously impertinent paper as “an attack on democracy by its enemies.”

We, by contrast, have another reaction to the firebombing: Sorry for your loss, Charlie, and there's no justification of such an illegitimate response to your current edition. But do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of “because we can” was so worthwhile? If so, good luck with those charcoal drawings your pages will now be featuring....

Why? Because like France's 2010 law banning the burqa in public (and earlier legislation prohibiting the hijab in public schools), the nation's government-sponsored debates on Islam's place in French society all reflected very real Islamophobic attitudes spreading throughout society. Indeed, such perceived anti-Muslim action has made France a point of focus for Islamist radicals at home and abroad looking to harp on new signs of aggression against Islam. It has also left France's estimated five million Muslims feeling stigmatized and singled out for discriminatory treatment—a resentment that can't be have been diminished by seeing Charlie Hebdo's mockery of Islam “just for fun” defended as a hallowed example of civil liberty by French pols. It's yet to be seen whether Islamist extremists were behind today's arson, but both the paper's current edition, and the rush of politicians to embrace it as the icon of French democracy, raises the possibility of even moderate Muslims thinking “good on you” if and when militants are eventually fingered for the strike. It's all so unnecessary.

No, it isn't. There are millions of Christians in France even now. And their religion is routinely insulted and mocked on comedy shows, in movies, etc. Do they riot? Do they firebomb? They do not. And why not? Because they understand what civil liberty means. How ethnocentric of Crumley to expect that Muslims will never be able to grasp this point, and call for us to lower our expectations for them.

It's obvious free societies cannot simply give in to hysterical demands made by members of any beyond-the-pale group. And it's just as clear that intimidation and violence must be condemned and combated for whatever reason they're committed—especially if their goal is to undermine freedoms and liberties of open societies. But it's just evident members of those same free societies have to exercise a minimum of intelligence, calculation, civility and decency in practicing their rights and liberties—and that isn't happening when a newspaper decides to mock an entire faith on the logic that it can claim to make a politically noble statement by gratuitously pissing people off.

In other words, don't say anything that will gratuitously anger people. Who decides what angers people gratuitously? The people in power, of course. As I was saying about tyranny...

Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it's pointlessly all about you.

A principle virtually no one contests? Obviously Crumley is unaware of the OIC's years-long campaign against freedom of speech. But even aside from that, it manifests an extraordinary myopia on his part for him to have been able to write this in the wake of the firebombing of a magazine because of what it published.

So, yeah, the violence inflicted upon Charlie Hebdo was outrageous, unacceptable, condemnable, and illegal. But apart from the “illegal” bit, Charlie Hebdo's current edition is all of the above, too.

That may well be so. But if we make it illegal as well as outrageous, unacceptable, and condemnable, we will sooner or later (and probably sooner) discover that the knife we fashioned to cut out the cancer of "Islamophobia" cuts out a great deal of healthy tissue as well, and ultimately kills the patient.

In FrontPage this morning, I discuss the latest Islamic assault on the freedom of speech: the firebombing of the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris:

Islamic supremacists have firebombed and caused extensive damage to the offices Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine in Paris, after it ran an issue featuring Islam’s prophet Muhammad as the guest editor.

Some Muslims didn’t get the joke. Recently the magazine’s website was hacked; the hackers left this message: “You keep abusing Islam’s almighty Prophet with disgusting and disgraceful cartoons using excuses of freedom of speech. Be Allah’s curse upon you!” The firebombing followed shortly thereafter.

The destruction of the Charlie Hebdo offices is the ugly obverse of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s ongoing campaign to compel Western states to criminalize criticism of Islam, including discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism. The objective of this campaign, of course, is to render Western countries mute and hence defenseless against the advancing jihad.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s secretary general, has explained that Islam is under attack and must be defended. That Islam would not be “under attack” were not so many Muslims committing acts of violence and hatred in its name does not faze him for one second. The OIC is dedicated to getting the United Nations to approve a “legal instrument” that would criminalize “Islamophobia,” which “cannot be dealt with,” Ihsanoglu declared, except through “a robust political engagement” – that is, restrictions on the freedom of speech. Abdoulaye Wade, the President of Senegal and chairman of the OIC, made this point explicit several years ago: “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits.”

Ihsanoglu has expressed his pleasure with the success of this campaign: “In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film ‘Fitna’, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.”

The pressure to accommodate Muslim demands to place Islam off-limits to critical discussion has met with widespread success. While this self-censorship is presented as an act of “tolerance,” in reality it is a deliberate erosion of core Western concepts of free expression, which is an indispensable foundation of the American Revolution and of republican government in general. And we are surrendering it, gradually and voluntarily, to those who seek to impose on us a value system that elevates the sanctity of Islam over freedom.

Last August, the International Islamic News Agency reported that Secretary of State Clinton had agreed to “coordinate” with Ihsanoglu on ways in which “defamation of religions” could be prevented – an operation that cannot possibly be performed without placing freedom of speech restrictions into law, and giving some government agency the power to determine what is “hate speech” and what isn’t.

There is more.

Now comes the challenge. Will France stand up for the freedom of speech? Will France and the West capitulate to the calls that are sure to come in the wake of this bombing to stop "provoking" Muslims, and to effectively rule Islam off-limits for criticism? More on this story: "French satirical newspaper firebombed after prophet Mohammed announcement," by Henry Samuel in the Telegraph, November 2 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The offices of French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo have been destroyed by a petrol bomb, a day after it named the Prophet Mohammed as its “editor-in-chief” for this week’s issue.

The fiercely anti-clerical magazine said the move, which included renaming the publication “Sharia Hebdo”, was intended to "celebrate" the victory of Islamist party Ennhada in Tunisia's election.

Charlie Hedbo's editor-in-chief, known as Charb, told France Info radio: "We no longer have a newspaper. All our equipment has been destroyed or has melted."

No injuries have been reported

A single Molotov cocktail was thrown at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris’s 20th arrondissement at around 1am. The ensuing fire was rapidly put out, but a large amount of material in the office was destroyed, police said.

“We cannot, today, put together a paper,” said Charb. “But we will do everything possible to do one next week. Whatever happens, we’ll do it. There is no question of giving in,” he said, adding that the magazine is filing a legal complaint against persons unkown.

According to Europe 1 radio, police are searching for two suspects seen near the scene.

Charlie Hebdo's website has also been hacked with a message in English and Turkish cursing the magazine.

The message said: "You keep abusing Islam's almighty Prophet with disgusting and disgraceful cartoons using excuses of freedom of speech.

"Be God's curse upon you!"

Editor Charb said the attackers could not even have read the offending magazine.

"The arsonists haven't read this paper, nobody knows what's in the paper except those who buy it this morning. People are reacting violently to a paper without knowing anything of its contents, that's what's most abhorrent and stupid," he told BFM TV.

The publication, historically famous for pillorying Catholic clericalism, was criticised by Muslims in 2007 after reprinting the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammad that caused outrage around the Islamic world.

Charb said the magazine had received “quite a few letters of protest, threats, insults” on Twitter and Facebook before the attack, but not as many as in 2007.

Ennahda won the most seats in Tunisia's October elections and is now trying to form a coalition caretaker government.It has promised to work with more liberal parties, and respect gender equality.

"To fittingly celebrate the victory of the Islamist Ennahda party in Tunisia... Charlie Hebdo has asked Mohammed to be the special editor-in-chief of its next issue", the magazine said in a statement.

"The prophet of Islam didn't have to be asked twice and we thank him for it," the statement said.

The cover of this week’s issue, out on Wednesday, shows Mohammed saying: "100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter".

It also includes an editorial by the Prophet entitled Halal Aperitif and a women's supplement called Madam Sharia.

Behind the humour, the editorial’s message is serious: “No religion is compatible with democracy from the moment a political party representing it wants to take power in the name of God”.

“What would be the point of a religious party taking power if it didn’t apply its ideas,” it goes on. “Hello, we are the Bolchevik party and if you vote for us we promise never to speak of Communism…Come on.”...

Jean-Luc Melenchon, presidential candidate for the leftist Front de Gauche party called the attack "repulsive", and called on the French "to the have the intellectual discipline not to confuse a handful of imbeciles, numbskulls who will severely punished, I hope, with the vast majority of our Muslim compatriots who practice their faith perfectly calmly".

Of course. But when is that "vast majority" going to rein in the other guys?

"Blasphemy doesn't exist as a crime, this is the French Republic; that's the law (on freedom of the press)," he said.

Mohammed Moussaoui, president of the French Council for the Muslim Faith (CFCM), said he "firmly condemned" the arson attack if it proved criminal.

The CFCM lost a court case against Charlie Hebdo in 2006 for re-printing Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed but denounced "the apology of violent Muslims".

He said this issue was "not on the same level" of provocation, but added: "The very fact of caricaturing the Prophet is considered an offense to Muslims".

Yeah, we all get offended by this or that. The question is, What do you do then?

How long is the West going to put up with this? There are two choices: stand up for the freedom of speech and prosecute the Islamic thugs who are trying to destroy it, either by violent or non-violent means; or surrender, and place Islam and Muslims beyond criticism, in which case their jihad and the spread of Sharia in the West will advance unimpeded.

"Satirical Magazine Is Firebombed in Paris," by David Jolly for the New York Times, November 2 (thanks to all who sent this in):

PARIS — The office of a French satirical magazine here was badly damaged by a firebomb early on Wednesday, the publisher said, after it published a spoof issue “guest edited” by the Prophet Muhammad to salute the victory of an Islamist party in Tunisian elections. The publication also said hackers disrupted its Web site.

The magazine, Charlie Hebdo, had announced a special issue for publication Wednesday, renamed “Charia Hebdo,” a play on the word in French for Shariah law.

The magazine’s publisher, who goes by the name of Charb, told Europe 1 radio that the police had called just before 5 a.m. to report a fire of criminal origin. News reports said that a Molotov cocktail was thrown through a window. The special edition was on its way to the newsstands, Charb said, and will appear as scheduled.

But, he added, “We are homeless and we have no way to put out the magazine. We hope this won’t be the last issue.”

“We can’t put out the magazine under these conditions,” he said. “The stocks are burned, smoke is everywhere, the paste-up board is unusable, everything is melted, there’s no more electricity.”

That's what they wanted.

The magazine’s Web site was hacked earlier, but appeared to have been restored by early Wednesday.

Caustically ironic and vulgar, Charlie Hebdo prides itself on being offensive to virtually everyone. It has drawn the ire of Muslim activists before, including in 2006, after it republished cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that first appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

Note to the New York Times: Muhammad is not universally recognized as a prophet.

Outside the magazine’s office, there were still traces of smoke, with huge piles of half-burned copies of the magazine heaped on the sidewalk. Inside, the office was darkened from smoke and melted computers spoke to the seriousness of the damage.

Will the Islamophobia never end? Eurabia Update: "Muslims Stone Catholic Festival-Goers in France," by Cheradenine Zakalwe at Islam Versus Europe, October 29 (thanks to Jack):

Muslims have attacked Christians attending a Catholic celebration in southern France.

The Joyeuse Union Don Bosco [Joyous Union Don Bosco] takes places in Nîmes, at the Sanctuary of Our Lady the Virgin of Santa Cruz, built by French people repatriated from the Algerian city of Oran following Algerian independence. These people were driven out of the place they grew up by Muslim aggression. Now they face it in France too!

After a day of welcoming and reunions, around 7 pm, the participants were leaving in their cars and vehicles when "young Arab immigrants" from the city started to throw stones at the vehicles descending from the sanctuary.

The local police, whose station is in this area, were immediately notified and the event organisers had to arrange a diversion to another route to protect the occupants of the vehicles from the savage attacks which continued.

As for the press, other than a brief honest article in "la Provence", there was no mention of the "intifada" (war of stones) attacks against the Christian religious community at Nîmes.

...it would seem that the media silence on these facts, which are occurring more and more frequently, serves to exonerate, even protect, the Muslims in their racist and anti-religious acts.

Sounds like the U.S., where as far as the mainstream media is concerned, actual hatred and supremacism is portrayed as righteous victimhood, and freedom fighting is depicted as "hatred" and "bigotry."

I do not support the burning of books. Still, there is absolutely no doubt that if Ernesto Rojas Abbate had burned a Bible, he never would have been arrested or prosecuted. It is a good thing that he was acquitted, but he never should have been arrested or tried in the first place. The specter of Muslim outrage is now beginning to override the rule of law. "No reprisals for Frenchman who burned Koran," from AFP, October 25:

An appeals court on Tuesday confirmed the acquittal of a Frenchman accused of inciting racial hatred after posting an internet video of himself burning a Koran and then urinating on it.

Ernesto Rojas Abbate was arrested in October 2010 after posting footage of himself wearing a devil mask and tearing pages from the Islamic holy book before setting it on fire and later urinating on it to extinguish the flames.

Prosecutors, who had been seeking a three-month suspended sentence and €1,000 ($1,400) fine, appealed after a court acquitted him in May on charges of inciting racial hatred.

In the footage Rojas Abbate, a 31-year-old resident of a suburb of the eastern city of Strasbourg, used pages of the Koran as a prop in a simulation of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York.

He made paper airplanes from pages of the Koran, threw them at glasses meant to represent the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, then burned the pages and the book before urinating on them.

The appeals court ruled that, while the video was "wilfully outrageous and deliberately provocative", there was no evidence Rojas Abbate had intended "to arouse feelings of hostility... aimed at provoking discrimination, hate, or violence towards Muslims."

His lawyer, Renaud Bettcher, hailed the ruling, saying: "In a secular and republican society, it is incomprehensible that my client was prosecuted. Blasphemy does not exist in France."

Police arrested Rojas Abbate after local Muslim leaders in Strasbourg reacted with outrage at the video.

Causing Muslim outrage is increasingly a cause for arrest all over the Western world.

And that churches are being closed due to "lake of attention." I don't know if these numbers are accurate or not, but the assertion itself is significant. With the increased presence of Muslims in France, or even with the widespread perception that their numbers are increasing, will come calls for the implementation of more and more aspects of Sharia. "Number of mosque is greater than churches in France," from the Ahlul Bayt News Agency, October 17 (thanks to all who sent this in):

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - In charge of Muslim council Syed Muhammad Mosavi said that 2000 mosques are constructed in last one decade and 150 mosques are under construction in this country and 4000 mosques are needed to be constructed in next decade.

Daily Lakawaix reported that only 10 churches were constructed in last 10 years and 40 churches are closed due to lake [sic] of attention and many churches are being purchased by the Muslims and they are constructing mosques over there.

An American office wrote in their web site that Islam is spreading very fast in France door of mosques are always open for the Muslims. Now number of mosque is greater than churches in France. And 25 million people are totally religious and 19 million Catholics are acting on their religion.

More on this story. This Middle East Online report has additional information, but has a markedly different emphasis from the prior report. Here, Muslims have supposedly thrown up their hands in disillusionment with French democracy, which has "failed" them, turning instead to Islam, even as the report acknowledges "many residents are drawn to an Islamic identity rather than simply rejecting or failing to find a secular one."

France has so rudely decided to continue being French (unmitigated Gauls, if you will), and expected people who come to live there to do likewise.

"State is not ‘halal’: resentful immigrants turn to Islam in France," by Thibauld Malterre for Middle East Online, October 7 (thanks to Twostellas):

Researchers say Islamic values are replacing those of republic which failed to deliver on its promise of 'equality'.

Local communities in France's immigrant suburbs increasingly organise themselves on Islamic lines rather than following the values of the secular republic, according to a major new sociological study.

Respected political scientist Gilles Kepel, a specialist in the Muslim world, led a team of researchers in a year-long project in Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil, two Paris suburbs that exploded in riots in 2005.

The resulting study -- "Suburbs of the Republic" -- found that religious institutions and practices are increasingly displacing those of the state and the French Republic, which has a strong secular tradition.

Families from the districts, which are mainly populated by immigrants from north and west Africa and their descendants, regularly attend mosque, fast during Ramadan and boycott school meals that are not "halal".

Millions of schoolkids with food allergies, who are vegetarian, or who are avoiding meat on a Lenten Friday have packed their own lunch and managed to integrate among their peers just fine. A walkout of sorts at lunchtime may well be hoped to muscle the schools into providing halal meat and purging pork products from the menu.

With between five and six million Muslim residents and citizens, France has the largest Islamic population in the European Union, and central government often struggles to address the challenges to integration that this poses.

Kepel performed a similar study 25 years earlier, and told the daily Le Monde that the influence of Islam in the daily lives and cultural references of the suburbs has "diversified and intensified" since then.

French schools, which are rigorously non-religious, have traditionally been seen as having the role of training young citizens of the republic, but local officials say Islamic pupils are heading home for a halal lunch.

"A certain number of children don't come to the canteen any more or, if they come, they only take a starter and dessert," Xavier Lemoine, the centre-right mayor of Monfermeil, told Europe 1 radio.

Surveys suggest most in France do not object to mixed marriages, but in the suburbs the researchers were surprised find "a very large proportion of Muslim respondents said they were opposed to marriages with non-Muslims."

Did the research account for the distinction of whether respondents oppose Muslim men marrying non-Muslim women, or Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men? Sharia allows for the former, but not the latter.

The researchers also delved into the reasons behind the 2005 riots, which they said had called into question modern France's founding myth "the implicit shared belief that the nation was always able to integrate people."

While the resentment in the poor suburbs has social roots, essentially the residents' virtual exclusion from a tight jobs market, the rioters expressed frustration in a vocabulary "borrowed from Islam's semantic register."

Islamic values are replacing those of a republic which failed to deliver on its promise of "equality", and the residents of the suburbs increasingly do not see themselves as French, the researchers said.

"One of the reasons for the strong role of Islam is that the Republic has withdrawn," warned Claude Dilain, the Socialist mayor of Clichy.

"Those who fell abandoned seek another identity, and Islam satisfies that well."

But the report does not support the idea that the state has simply pulled back, to be replaced by Islam. The Clichy-Monfermeil agglomeration has been at the centre of one of France's biggest urban renewal programmes.

Many physical barriers to integration have been removed, with efforts made to plug the area into public transport networks and improve public safety -- but unemployment and low school achievement remain high.

A third of the population of the town does not hold French nationality, and many residents are drawn to an Islamic identity rather than simply rejecting or failing to find a secular one.

Kepel's study was commissioned by the Institut Montaigne, which will make recommendations in January.

The author warns: "France's future depends on its ability to re-integrate the suburbs into the national project."

These are the fruits of the contradictory notion that letting an immigrant population have everything it wants of the society it left (e.g., niqabs, Sharia courts) will actually aid integration. Rather, it only allows the construction of replicas of their former societies, importing all of the dysfunction that actually encouraged them to emigrate in the first place and letting it fester anew in closed micro-states.

"Warning over France's Islamic suburbs which are becoming 'separate communities in a divided nation'," from the Daily Mail, October 6:

France's run-down city suburbs are becoming ‘separate Islamic societies’ cut off from the state, a report has warned.

Arab communities are increasingly rejecting French values and identity to immerse themselves in Muslim culture and lifestyle, it was found.

Muslim pupils often boycott school dinners if the food is not halal and most Arabs oppose marriages to white French citizens, the study by respected political scientist Gilles Kepel revealed.

As a result, France – whose five million Muslims make up Europe’s largest Islamic population – was turning into a ‘divided nation’, the study called Suburbs of the Republic found.

Dr Kepel wrote: ‘In some areas, a third of the population of the town does not hold French nationality, and many residents are drawn to an Islamic identity rather than simply rejecting or failing to find a secular one.

‘French schools, which are rigorously non-religious, have traditionally been seen as having the role of training young citizens of the republic.

But local officials say Islamic pupils are heading home for a halal lunch.

‘Most people in France do not object to mixed marriages, but in the suburbs we were surprised to find a very large proportion of Muslim respondents said they were opposed to marriages with non-Muslims.’

The study was commissioned by the Institut Montaigne think-tank. It will make recommendations to the government in January.

Yes, and what are the implications of that? We should do what is right, come what may. Sarkozy is suggesting that we should give in to violent intimidation, and that terrorism and Islamic supremacist thuggery should be rewarded.

"Sarkozy Says USA Veto On Palestine Will Spark Violence," from AGI, September 21 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

(AGI) New York - Speaking at the U.N. General Assembly in New York, French President Nicolas Sarkozy rejected Barack Obama's position stating that a USA veto to the Palestinian PNA's request for U.N. nationhood will spark "a new wave of violence in the Middle East."

What a surprise. In this case the Muslims appear sure that the French will ultimately bend to their will. And why not? They have so many times before. "Muslims defy outdoor prayer ban in France," from Newscore, September 16:

PARIS -- Hundreds of Muslims defied a French ban on outdoor prayer -- which came into force Friday --and took to the streets and sidewalks of Paris to pray.

The French government announced Thursday it was banning praying outside, with officials pledging to enforce the ban from Friday.

But 200 Muslims ignored the ban and prayed on the streets in the neighborhood of La Goutte d'Or, Le Parisien newspaper reported.

French interior minister Claude Gueant said he had nothing against Islam but wanted it out of the public eye because France was a secular state.

He added, "Street prayers must stop because they hurt the feelings of many of our compatriots who are shocked by the occupation of the public space for a religious practice."

Although officials would persuade people to pray in mosques, Muslims who continued to pray in the street would be arrested, Gueant warned.

The ban angered French Muslim leaders who said Muslims only prayed outdoors because of a lack of space in mosques in France....

Indeed. It is a train wreck waiting to happen. Those agitating for statehood want the U.N. to leapfrog "Palestine" over the normal criteria both to be a state, and to act like one. They hope that what the U.N. starts, it will feel obliged to finish, as the new state would be dependent on continuing outside aid and mediation lest it consume itself in infighting over factionalism, corruption, and the implementation of Sharia. And it would remain openly hostile to Israel, which it will not recognize as a Jewish state, but only as a land mass it has plans for -- including another train wreck known as the "right of return."

Some in the West, such as Spain's foreign minister, do not seem to see much of a problem with granting an aspirational, not-ready-for-prime-time state, as long as it gives Palestinians "hope." But "hope" does not make a governable state. And due diligence would suggest asking the Palestinian Authority and Hamas what exactly is they would be "hoping" for.

"Palestinian statehood bid 'dangerous': France," from Agence France-Presse, September 2:

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said Friday that a bid by Palestinians to win UN recognition as a state would risk triggering a dangerous diplomatic confrontation.

Palestinians, frustrated by the failure of the frozen US-sponsored peace process with Israel, plan to campaign for recognition at the UN General Assembly later this month.

Frustrated? They have squandered 31 opportunities for statehood. At the 2000 Camp David summit, "Clinton exploded at the Palestinians over their refusal to make a counteroffer. ‘A summit’s purpose,’ Clinton said, ‘is to have discussions that are based on sincere intentions and you, the Palestinians, did not come to this summit with sincere intentions.’"

"France hopes that they use the occasion for reopening the path to dialogue rather than risking a futile and dangerous diplomatic confrontation," Juppe told an annual gathering of French ambassadors.

Indeed, it will be an occasion for blackmail. The denial of a state will become the next pretext for violence.

It would be great if he's right, of course. On the other hand, as this report notes, AQIM's area of influence is growing -- they may even have had a hand in a recent kidnapping in Nigeria, for example. For that matter, France and the rest of Europe have precious little idea who may be entering their countries under the cover of claiming refugee status, particularly from the political upheaval in North Africa. Indeed, for all of the hostile terrain in which AQIM has become entrenched, their exact operational capacity can likely only be estimated, at best.

AQIM has the benefit of regional roots in the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, and as a franchise of the best known brand name in global jihadist terrorism, they are not without connections. And past al-Qaeda attacks have shown how few jihadists -- particularly suicide attackers -- it takes to cause scores of casualties.

"AP Exclusive: al-Qaida branch won't attack Europe," by Jamey Keaten for the Associated Press, August 5:

PARIS (AP) — France's top judge in the fight against Islamic terrorism said Friday that al-Qaida's North African wing has shown no ability to strike in Europe or elsewhere beyond its zone of operations.

Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, born of a former insurgent group in Algeria, remains motivated largely out of a desire to attack former colonial power France. It currently holds four French hostages, and French officials have called the group the biggest terror threat to France and its interests.

In an interview, anti-terrorism judge Marc Trevidic suggested AQIM is being forced to work hard to control parts of its traditional territory in the Sahel region along the southern Sahara.

"It's been shown that AQIM is only able to strike in its own zone, by wanting to kill tourists — and we have seen nothing emerge as a significant foreign operation in Europe that was really organized by AQIM," he said.

Still, AQIM has been active in offering statements of support through the Internet to would-be terrorists in Europe, Trevidic said, citing his recent case files.

"It's incitation without a structure behind it," he said. The group is "holed up, and already has troubles controlling its zone ... Only when a terror group is very strong in its own territory will it begin exporting."

Many European officials are more concerned. In June, Spanish Interior Minister Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba called AQIM a growing menace that could spread beyond its base unless Western nations step up efforts to counter it. It has rendered huge parts of Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Algeria off-limits to foreigners.

AQIM is active online and media-savvy, and has also sparked arrests in Spain and France. French counterterrorism and intelligence officials say its main source of income comes from ransom payments from hostage-takings — in the millions of dollars.

The 46-year-old Trevidic, member of a special unit of the French judiciary devoted to fighting terrorism, spoke at length about the changes in the global fight against Islamic radicals following the death of Osama bin Laden, 10 years after the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.

Over the last decade, the Iraq war "shuffled the cards" in the global fight against terrorism, he said, by luring dozens of youths from France — home to western Europe's largest Muslim population — to fight U.S. forces.

The global crackdown against terrorism in Europe and elsewhere has largely driven Islamic militants underground: recruiting of young fighters in mosques and open-air training camps are largely a thing of the past, he said.

The newer phenomenon is "self-radicalization" online, with Internet-savvy Islamist youths watching videos and reading inflammatory texts that are a virtual-world call to arms.

"Today, there is not a single case where group members weren't recruited on the Internet," Trevidic said in the interview at the Paris AP office, with two bodyguards in tow.

He said American officials, too, are "starting to discover this danger from within."

"They've always reasoned in the United States that 'you just have to monitor the movements, the airplane passengers, and make them strip their clothes off and everything will be fine.' Well, no," Trevidic said.

With NATO forces conducting air raids, bombing strikes and surveillance missions over Afghanistan and Pakistan, that region is no longer the training ground it once was for al-Qaida and its Taliban allies, he said.

Instead, the potential al-Qaida operational bases to watch today are the Somalia-Yemen area around the Gulf of Aden, where Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula has operated, and AQIM's zone.

"There's always the possibility of a bombing ... but something really organized, like on the scale of a Sept. 11, is a bit exaggerated," Trevidic said. "The entire stakes are making sure that no group becomes powerful enough, because afterward, they in fact can do what they want."...

The Iranian nuclear playbook in action: Alternately pay lip service to cooperation and stonewall outright, get a scolding in a U.N. resolution and some incrementally more restrictive sanctions, and keep working on the bomb the entire time.

Iran is relying on inertia at the U.N. to stop protests by the French or anyone else from gaining momentum, until essentially symbolic actions from the IAEA and Security Council have allowed enough time to pass for the Islamic Republic's first nuclear test.

"Iran to 'speed up' uranium enrichment at nuclear plants," from BBC News, July 19:

Iran says it is installing newer and faster centrifuges at its nuclear plants, with the goal of speeding up the uranium enrichment process.

The foreign ministry says the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, has "full supervision" of the operation.

The French government has condemned the move as a "new provocation".

France and other Western powers fear that Iran's nuclear programme is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its programme is for civilian use.

Enriched uranium can be used for civilian nuclear purposes, but also to build atomic bombs. Tehran insists that it is refining uranium for electricity generation and medical applications.

"By installing the new centrifuges progress is being made with more speed and better quality," said Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast.

He said the move showed Iran's success in pursuing its "peaceful nuclear activity", but did not say where the new generation of centrifuges would be installed, or provide details on the speed or capability of the machines.

'Suspicions confirmed'

France was quick to condemn the announcement.

"Iran is engaging in a new provocation by announcing the imminent installation of next-generation centrifuges," the French foreign ministry said in a statement.

"[It] clearly confirms the suspicions of the IAEA and of the international community about the finality of a programme with no credible civilian application," the statement said....

Oui.

French authorities wouldn't let the burqa-clad Muslima into court unless she removed her face covering. But that's why she was under arrest in the first place: for refusing to remove her face covering. The French desire to preserve and defend their own culture is laudable, but they are going to have to go back to the drawing board on this one. "French burka ban descends into farce," By Peter Allen in the Telegraph, June 17 (thanks to Block Ness):

France's burka ban descended into farce when the first women to be summoned before a European court for illegally wearing the garments were refused entry, because they would not remove their face coverings.

Hind and Najet, who keep their features hidden at all times and refuse to identify themselves beyond their first names, were due to appear before a judge outside Paris.

Both are accused of violating France's so-called "burka ban", which came into force earlier this year and prevents anyone covering up their faces in public.

But when Hind, a 31-year-old mother, tried to enter the court building in Meaux on Thursday, police held her back, telling her to take her head-covering off.

Najet, meanwhile, simply stayed at home, with the 34-year-old saying she knew she would be stopped from entering.

"For the hearing to go ahead, you must remove the veil. Justice must be administered in a calm atmosphere," police commissioner Philippe Tireloque told Hind.

Hind, who had brought her own handcuffs to wear as part of an organised protest at the court, replied: "I'll keep my veil on at all times. It's non-negotiable.

"The law forbids me from expressing myself, and indeed from defending myself. It forces me to dress a certain way, when all I want to do is live according to my religion."

Police are under strict orders not to remove face coverings themselves, meaning Hind was simply told to leave.

Their court appearance was accordingly abandoned, as state prosecutors began trying to work out how they can deal with the challenge to the new law. They are expected to come to a decision in September....

"...as France tightened security in the wake of the death of Osama bin Laden." But wasn't the death of Osama bin Laden supposed to end the "hijacking" of Islam and calm everything down? "Seven suspected Islamists arrested in Paris," from AFP, May 10 (thanks to Twostellas):

PARIS - FRENCH police captured seven suspected Islamist militants in raids in Paris and its suburbs, officials said on Tuesday, as France tightened security in the wake of the death of Osama bin Laden.

Six suspects were detained on Monday but the main target of the operation, an Indian national who recently arrived from Algeria, was taken on Tuesday, according to officials close to the inquiry....

There is no mention of ideology or motivation at all in this report, not even carefully bubble-wrapped in euphemistic language, as we often find it. Just another mysteriously random couple of guys who really like breaking stuff. Nothing to see here. "Pakistan arrests two Frenchmen suspected of terrorism," from Agence France-Presse, April 14:

AFP - Two French nationals suspected of belonging to an international terror group have been arrested by Pakistan's security services, French and Pakistani sources said Thursday.

The two, who were detained several weeks ago, are suspected of being part of the group responsible for the bloody attacks in Bali in 2002 that killed 202 people, the worst terror attack in Indonesia, according to Pakistani security officials, who requested anonymity.

The terror group is allegedly headed by Indonesian Umar Patek, who was himself arrested recently in Pakistan.

France has asked the Pakistani authorities for permission to visit the two detainees, a representative at the French embassy in Islamabad told AFP.

Hoping that al-Qaeda has dispatched operatives. But...but...aren't Muslims in Western countries supposed to abide by the law of the land, and only greasy Islamophobes think otherwise?

"Jihadists ‘declare war’ on France over veil ban," from AFP, April 14 (thanks to Block Ness):

NICOSIA: Members of Arabic language jihadist forums have called for war on France over its ban on niqabs, a US-based web service said on Wednesday. The draconian new law, the first to be enforced in Europe, went into effect on Monday. Wearing the niqab or burka, a head-to-toe body covering, is now banned in the street, public gardens, shops and government buildings. In messages on a number of threads, “contributors posted calls to punish France for what was perceived as an anti-Islamic law,” including calls for al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to “carry out operations to ‘deter’ France.” One exchange on Monday called for “members to declare war against France,” while another expressed hope that “al Qaeda has dispatched operatives to France to attack the country.”

Who do you think will blink first? The French authorities, or the Islamic supremacists? I wouldn't bet on the French, but maybe they will surprise us all. "Woman ticketed in France for wearing face veil," from CBS News, April 12:

(AP) PARIS (AP) — A woman has been ticketed in a suburban Paris shopping center for wearing a face veil, in the first reported sanction under a new ban on the garments, police said Tuesday.

Another woman in another Paris suburb was stopped for wearing a veil, but was let go with a warning.

The inconsistent response illustrates the challenge for towns with a large Muslim community in enforcing a law that some view as Islamophobic.

Though such veils are very rare in France, many of the country's at least 5 million Muslims see the ban as a stigma. Islam is France's second-largest religion after Catholicism.

The ban also has been criticized by Iran's government and activists in Jordan.

President Nicolas Sarkozy says such veils imprison women and wanted a ban to uphold French values of equality and secularism.

A 27-year-old was stopped by police in the mall parking lot in the town of Mureaux, regional police said. She was handed a ticket that requires her to pay a � ($216) fine or register for citizenship classes within a month.

Police said the exchange was brief and calm. The incident occurred Monday, the day France's ban on veils such as the niqab and burqa came into effect.

Another woman was stopped Tuesday for wearing a veil in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. The 35-year-old was brought to the police station and reminded of the law, police said.

While these were the first publicly reported incidents, it was unclear how many women have been stopped so far nationwide. The French government has estimated only about 2,000 women in France wear such veils, and a few vocal wearers have said they will defy the ban....

In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Tuesday the ban is a "wrong method and it will not bear a good result."

"Any kind of bar on observance of the veil means a lack of freedom and rights of Muslim women," he said in his weekly news briefing....

And you know how keen the Iranian mullahs are on freedom and rights.

"They fear Muslims extremists will use the law to provoke fights with officers, while rich visitors from countries like Saudi Arabia will also cause trouble."

Note also the supremacist overtones of the protest site, in front of the Cathedral of Notre Dame. It's not exactly a charm offensive the Muslim community has embarked upon here. Perhaps they feel they have the strength in numbers not to care anymore, but displays like this may yet be politically counterproductive. "French burka ban: police arrest two veiled women," by Peter Allen for the Telegraph, April 11:

The women were arrested along with several other people protesting in front of Notre Dame cathedral in Paris against the new law.

Jourrnalists at the scene said the arrests came after police moved in to break up the protest which had not been authorised.

On Saturday police arrested 59 people, including 19 veiled women, who turned up for a banned protest in Paris against the draconian new law, the first of its kind to be enforced in Europe.

Draconian? You'd think we were talking about floggings, stonings, and amputations here. Is daylight on the human face now classified as torture? What is at issue here is the expectation that people in France behave according to French values and customs in public.

If that's draconian, leave France.

Earlier, French police said they will be enforcing the country’s new burka ban "extremely cautiously" because of fears of provoking violence.

They fear Muslims extremists will use the law to provoke fights with officers, while rich visitors from countries like Saudi Arabia will also cause trouble .

All garments which cover the face were officially banned from first thing this morning, with offenders facing fines of 150 euros (£133).

But police admitted that they feared being accused of discrimination against Muslims, whether approaching women in tinderbox housing projects or on the Champs Elysee.

"The law will be very difficult to apply on certain estates," said Patrice Ribeiro, of the Synergie police union.

Referring to two Paris suburbs where riots regularly break out because of alleged discrimination against Muslims, Mr Ribeiro said: "I can’t see police going to book dozens of veiled women doing their shopping in Venissieux or in Trappes.

"It will be the same when a police officer is about to arrest a veiled Saudi who is about to go into Louis Vuitton on the Champs Elysees. In all cases, the forces of order will have to be measured and cautious in their behaviour."

The moment someone is untouchable, the rule of law is shot. Saudis in France must obey French law. To treat anyone otherwise only feeds and validates Islamic supremacism.

Synergie has already instructed its members to view the ban as a "low priority", and Mr Ribeiro said there would "inevitably be incidents".

Mohamed Douhane, another Paris police officer and Synergie member, said he and his colleagues also "expected provocation by a minority."

Mr Douhane added: "Fundamentalist movements are eager to raise the stakes. The police know they will be held responsible for any public order disturbances."

Police have already been warned not to arrest women "in or around" mosques, and "citizen’s de-veilings" are also banned.

The strict instructions, from Interior Minister Claude Guent, are contained in a nine page circular issued to officers.

With tensions running high within the country’s six million strong Muslim community, officers have been told to look out for members of the public taking the law into their own hands.

Instead they will have to call the police, who will in turn have four hours to consider whether an offender should be fined.

This will apply to all garments which cover the eyes, although scarfs, hats, and sunglasses are excluded.

As well as a mosque, Muslims will also be able to put on a veil in the privacy of their own homes, a hotel room, or even a car, as long as they are not driving.

Police have already complained that they will have to waste time on "burka-chasing", with Denis Jacob, of the Alliance police union, adding: "We have more important matters to be dealing with."

The ban means France is officially the second country in Europe, after Belgium, to introduce a full ban on a garment which immigration minister Eric Besson has called a "walking coffin".

While French women face the fines and ‘civic duty’ guidance if they break the law, men who force their wives or daughters to wear burkas will face up to a year in prison, and fines of up to 25,000 pounds.

Posters have already gone up in town halls across France reading: "The Republic lives with its face uncovered."

Belgium introduced a full ban last year, although it has not been enforced with any vigour. A ban also looks likely in Holland, Spain and Switzerland.

There are no plans to introduce a similar ban in Britain, although politicians from the UK Independence Party and some Tory backbenchers have suggested one.

Both Choudary of "Islam4UK" and Fouad Belkacem of "Sharia4Belgium" were thwarted from joining the protests. Regarding the names, did these guys call each other, or are we witnessing the unforeseen development of Euro-jihadi kitsch? "British Muslims arrested in burka ban protest in France," by Peter Allen for the Daily Mail, April 10:

A British Muslim radical has been permanently banned from France as the country steps up security before the introduction of a nationwide burka ban tomorrow.

Anjem Choudary, head of the outlawed Islam4UK which advocates Sharia law, was turned back as he tried to join an illegal protest in Paris on Saturday.

Officials served Mr Choudary with a legal notice informing him that the French Interior Ministry was banning him permanently.

Abu Izzadeen and Omar Bakri, both also controversial figures based in Britain, both tried to get to the event but were stopped by police.

It eventually saw 61 people arrested, including 19 women wearing veils and an illegal immigrant who was carrying an offensive weapon.

France is on a high state of alert after Al Qaeda issued warnings that it would attack the country following the introduction of the ban, which imposes fines of £130 and 'civic duty' guidance to women caught wearing Islamic veils.

In October Jacques Myard, a senior member of President Nicolas Sarkozy's ruling UMP party who helped introduce the burka ban in France, said Britain was 'losing the battle against Islamic extremism' and thus 'opened the door to terrorism'.

Mr Myard said he was shocked at the way radicals like Mr Choudary and Mr Bakri were allowed to make comments attacking British soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

Mr Choudary, 43, is a former solicitor who ran the outlawed Islam4UK group and who has appeared in court in Britain for organising marches.

He has frequently praised the terrorists who organised the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. and the 7/7 bombings in London.

He formed the group Al-Muhajiroun with Mr Bakri, 52, who became known as the 'Tottenham Ayatollah' because of his praise of extremism.

Mr Izzadeen, 34, is British spokesman for Al Ghurabaa, a Muslim group banned under the Terrorism Act 2006 for its glorification of violence.

Another man, Fouad Belkacem of the Sharia4Belgium group, was also arrested in Paris yesterday.

France is the second country in Europe, after Belgium, to introduce a full ban on a garment which immigration minister Eric Besson called a 'walking coffin'.

The rigorous new law, which was passed last October, makes it an offence to wear face coverings in 'public places'.

Exceptions include crash helmets and ski masks, with the government making it clear that garments favoured by Muslim women are the principal target of the legislation.

Al Qaeda has already issued warnings against France for introducing the law....

The implications of a vow only to obey French laws that do not contradict Islam are huge. Ultimately, many French laws, including those establishing equality of rights for women and mandating no penalty for people who leave Islam, contradict Islamic law. A showdown between the two will be hard for the French to avoid.

"For life, liberty and the burqa: Muslim women defy France's ban on full-face veils," by Dheepthi Namasivayam in the Herald Sun, April 11:

THEY are the women prepared to defy France for the burqa.

From today French police have the power to stop Muslim women wearing full-face veils and to threaten them with fines or prison if they refuse to expose their faces.

All over France posters have been put up reminding veil-clad women that “the Republic lives with its face uncovered”.

Last year, President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed through a controversial law banning Muslim women from wearing burqas or niqabs in public. He said the law was to increase security but claimed it would liberate Muslim women from the oppression of their veil.

Any woman who refuse to lift her veil can be taken to a police station, fined 150 euros ($205) and ordered to attend re-education classes.

Anyone found guilty of forcing a woman to wear face veils in public or in private faces a fine of 30,000 euros and a year in jail.

However, some women have vowed to defy the law.

“I will not obey it,” said Wahiba Mebrek, 25, from the suburb of Villepinte, north of Paris. “I will only respect laws of the French Republic which are not in contradiction with me, my religion and my faith,” she added.

She is angry the Government and media peddled this image of them as being oppressed. For her, it was a conscious decision, made by her and husband when they became devout Muslims eight years ago.

Violent reaction

Hind*, a 31-year-old single mother from the suburb of Aulnay-sous-Bois outside Paris, switched from the “miniskirt to the veil” after converting to Islam six years ago.

She said that her wearing of the veil had provoked hostile, even violent reactions in the street. She was recently attacked in front of her daughter by a couple.

“People’s reactions weren’t as violent until this issue was mediatised. Now that the law has passed, they feel that their violent behaviour towards us is justified,” she said.

“People have the impression that we are totally cut off from the world, but we have normal relationships like everyone else, we are accessible."

Hind will not take off her niqab, if asked by police. “Never ever will I apply this law,” she said. “It is not up to the government to meddle in my private life and my beliefs.”...

Will France survive? Or will it continue to commit slow demographic suicide by allowing in millions of Muslim immigrants who believe it to be their responsibility before god to work to transform France into a Sharia state? "French interior minister calls for less immigration," by Joseph Bamat for France24, April 7 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

French Interior Minister Claude Guéant says the government intends to reduce the number of immigrants allowed to enter the country legally, in statements evoking a divisive and little-understood aspect of contemporary French society.

“I have asked that we reduce the number of people admitted under work immigration visas,” Guéant told the conservative Figaro Magazine in an interview to be published on Friday.

“We also continue to reduce the number of foreigners coming to France for family reunification,” he said.

Some 20,000 people are allowed to enter France on work visas and another 15,000 for family reasons each year, according to the Ministry of the Interior, which is responsible for immigration.

Guéant also said he would not exclude changes to France’s policy on asylum seekers, suggesting a cap on asylum visas was also on the table.

The opposition Socialist Party and the organization SOS Racism have already condemned Guéant’s statement as a “provocation”....

What a surprise.

Cultural showdown: who will accommodate whom? Muslims always demand accommodations and never accommodate (in line with Muhammad's dictum that Islam must dominate and not be dominated), so this will be interesting. "French burqa ban goes into force on Monday," from AFP, April 9 (thanks to Paul):

French police will from Monday become the first officers in Europe empowered to intercept Muslim women wearing full-face veils and to threaten them with fines if they refuse to expose their faces.

While some other countries and territories have drawn up bans on the burqa and the niqab, France -- home to Europe's largest Muslim population -- will be the first to risk stirring social tensions by putting one into practice.

The law comes into effect at an already fraught moment in relations between the state and France's Muslim minority, with President Nicolas Sarkozy accused of stigmatising Islam to win back votes from a resurgent far right.

French officials estimate that only around 2,000 women, from a total Muslim population estimated at between four and six million, wear a niqab or a burqa, full-face veils that are traditional in parts of Arabia and South Asia.

But many Muslims and rights watchdogs accuse Sarkozy of targeting one of France's most vulnerable and isolated groups to signal to anti-immigration voters that he shares their fear that Islam is a threat to French culture.

Other critics worry the law may be hard to enforce, since it had to be drawn up without reference to religion to ban any kind of face covering in public and since police officers will not be allowed to remove women's head coverings.

Many supporters of the law have defended it as a measure not designed to harm Islam, but to support a woman's right to walk unveiled, although the text makes it clear that a woman can not choose herself to cover her face in public....

A woman who repeatedly insists on appearing veiled in public can be fined 150 euros ($A205) and ordered to attend re-education classes.

There are much more severe penalties for anyone found guilty of forcing someone else to hide his or her face "through threats, violence, constraint, abuse of authority or power for reason of their gender"....

Were that enforced, Muslim men would double the size of the French treasury with their fines.

Barbecuing cars by the dozens every night -- no problem. Creating no-go zones all over the country where even governing authorities fear to go -- no problem. Taking over the streets for prayer in an obvious gesture of supremacism and in defiance of local ordinances -- no problem. Noticing that all of that may present some difficulty for France? Now that is a problem.

"French interior minister facing legal action over Muslim comments," by Henry Samuel for the Telegraph, April 5 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Claude Gueant, France's interior minister is facing legal action after declaring that the "growing" number of Muslims in France posed "a problem".

"It's true that the increase in the number of faithful in (Islam), a certain number of behaviours, poses a problem," he said on Monday.

Singling out the "problem" of Muslims praying in the street, he said that France's secular law dates from 1905 when there were "very few Muslims", while their number today is between five and six million. The anti-racism group SOS Racisme said it would be launching legal action against Mr Gueant for inciting racial hatred....

What race is Islam again?

In New York City, the historic, landmarked high Anglican church of the Incarnation was closed as a parish in the 1970s. Unable to tear the thing down—New Yorkers may not all love God, but they do love old buildings—the Episcopal diocese sold the site to a drug-rehabilitation group, who sold it to a real estate developer, who turned it into The Limelight, one of the nastiest, skankiest sites for public hookups and drug use in the city. (People were regularly busted for having full on intercourse in the rest rooms.) No doubt the more twisted or Christ-haunted of the patrons felt a decadent frisson when they looked up at the stained glass windows of Christ or Mary (helpfully backlit even at night) that gazed down on their twisting and shouting. The one time I reluctantly went to the place (to see a European art rock band, not to hook up or score) I could almost feel the ghosts of upright, hard-working 19th-century Americans who'd saved their pennies to build the place, who'd knelt and prayed, blessed their infants, wept over their dead, in this vast Gothic place that now served as a kaleidoscopic aperture into the death throes of the West. I told a friend who was with me that I felt guilty setting foot in the place, and he said back sunnily: “Would you rather they tore it down? Made it a mosque?” And I didn't know what to say.

I'm happy to report that the Limelight is now dead and buried, and the noble old building is being used for the honorable purpose of selling high-end knickknacks and organic food; so it once again meets the religious needs of New Yorkers. But that question my friend asked me, and the grim experience of one night inside the Limelight, came back to me this week when I read the following report by Samir Khalil Samir of Asia News.

A Muslim group has asked to use the empty churches in France for Muslims to pray in, solving (at the expense of Christians) the traffic problems caused by Muslims who pray in the streets. Fr. Khalial Samir Samir, an expert scholar of Islam, reflects on the embarrassing proposal, calling for Islam in Europe to become more "European" and less "Arab".

In a press release published Friday, March 11, 2011, the "Banlieuses Respect " Collective asked authorities in charge of organization of the Church of France, to place at Muslims’ disposal "empty churches for Friday prayers". Hassan M. Ben Barek, a spokesman for the Collective, said the measure would "prevent Muslims from having to pray on the streets" and being "politicians’ hostages”.

In fact, for several years now, every Friday, alongside dozens of mosques in France, Muslims have blocked the surrounding streets for an hour or two, spreading mats on the roads to pray. In many cases, local authorities close their eyes to this offense, and in some cases the police are there to ensure the safety of those who block the streets. This situation is on the rise in France (for example, Lyon, Marseille, Montpellier. Montreuil, Nice, Paris, Puteaux, Strasbourg, Torcy ...). A situation that is found all over the world (Athens, Brussels, Birmingham, Cordova, Moscow, New York ...) and also in Italy (Albenga, Canicattì, Como, Gallarate, Milan, Modena, Moncalieri, Naples, Rome ...). In the Muslim world this phenomenon is present, especially in Egypt. On 10 December, in Lyon, Marine Le Pen (National Front) denounced the Muslims "street prayers", which led to negative reactions towards the Muslim community in France.

Why is there even a prospect of Muslims being granted the use of empty churches? However much decadent multicultural guilt has infused the Church in France, there is no major constituency among that country's bishops to grant this typically arrogant Muslim demand. But it isn't up to the bishops. The history of the Church in France is deeply entwined with the State; medieval bishops relied upon the kings of France to suppress violent heresies like Albigensianism, and support the Church financially. In return, French kings demanded (and got) increasing control over the Church, until by the time of King Louis XIV, the king nominated all the country's bishops—for the pope to rubber stamp. The incestuous relations between Church and State got uglier with the French Revolution, when unarmed priests and helpless nuns became the scapegoats for the rage of the Paris mob. In return, the Church supported attempts to restore the monarchy, and aligned itself with nationalist and reactionary groups—culminating finally in the ugly Dreyfus affair, which pitted liberals and secularists against the army and the Church, centering on the fate of a patriotic Jewish officer falsely accused of spying. Because many churchmen (against the wishes of Pope Leo XIII, who defended Dreyfus) supported Dreyfus' persecution, public opinion swung violently against the Church when he was proven innocent—and the Third Republic used this sentiment to take its revenge against the Church: In 1905, all religious orders were expelled from France, and all Church property seized and put in the custodianship of the State. That's right, the French government owns every Catholic church in France, in the same way Russia's Tsar owned every stick of furniture in the hut of every serf. As a result, if a church isn't being put to use—thanks to the sharp decline in Christian religious practice in France—outsiders can petition the State to let them use it. Sometimes they just seize it, as far-right Traditionalists who follow Abp. Marcel Lefebvre seized a historic parish in Paris, and occupied it until the State decided to grant them full use of the place against the fierce objections of Paris' archbishop.

Why is all this historical background important? Because of the precedent this seizure set. Today, French Muslims are asking “nicely” if they can use underutilized churches for their Friday prayers. Tomorrow they will be gathering outside the churches demanding entry, crying “Islamophobia!” at those who keep them out. And in five years, I predict, they will simply start seizing churches—confident that the flaccid, cowardly authorities will refuse to turn them out.

Rev. Samir offers many objections to this plan for Islamicizing the churches of France:

The March 11 proposal of the Collective, calling on the Church of France, to "provide Muslims empty churches for Friday prayers", is astounding. These "empty churches" are consecrated places and it would never occur to a Christian to use them for anything other than the liturgical ceremonies, or sacred music - an exception that is always possible. It would be unthinkable to use them to celebrate a non-Christian cult.

On the other hand, a church that served as a mosque would have to be re-equipped for the needs of Muslim prayer. Many typically Christian elements would have to be removed and typically Muslim ones added. And above all these "empty churches" are not destined to remain empty, but on the contrary to be occupied as soon as possible by a Christian community or a monastic community, which is happening more and more throughout Europe. Now it seems unlikely that such a place, more or less once converted into a mosque, could be "repossessed" and turned back to church. It would be a great loss for the Muslim community and could lead to much bitterness and religious conflicts. The Christians would then be accused of being Islamophobic, revanchists, disrespectful of Muslim sensitivities, unbrotherly towards them, and so on.

If all this happens, it will fit the pattern of Islamic aggression worldwide and over the centuries: Target and seize the religious sites belonging to another faith, then stake a permanent claim of ownership over it—perhaps with the pretence that it always has been a sacred Muslim site. If the previous owners try to reclaim it, they will be guilty of an anti-Muslim atrocity, and the proper object of terrorist attacks—like Jewish settlers in Samaria, or worshippers at the Western Wall. We can see this ugly pattern going back to the very foundation of of Islam. Thanks to a story of Muhammad's trip to heaven launched from that site, Palestinians claim ownership of the Temple Mount, a site where Jews were worshipping millennia before Muhammad emerged from the desert with his extraordinary claims. Then again, Islam pretends that Abraham and Moses were really Muslims, and that the Jews who claim the site as their own are merely descendants of imposters and forgers who falsified their own holy books to hide all the prophecies of Muhammad.

The same type of Islamic colonialism is underway now in France. There are plenty of gymnasia, wedding halls, and other public spaces where Muslims could happily gather for Friday prayers. The Muslims don't want them; they want the churches. Is anyone asking himself why that is? It is because the Muslims overestimate how important Christianity is to Westerners, and view the capture of churches as a great symbolic victory—just as many viewed the (purely secular, finally futile) invasion of Iraq as a Christian “crusade.” Precisely because the Muslims see it this way, every Westerner should unite to reject such claims—to repel the attempts of Muslims to seize any church or synagogue or Hindu temple and use it as their own. Each victory they win they will regard as irreversible, and each one will spur them on to make more outrageous demands—until at last we do indeed live as dhimmis under their whip.

So back to my first question: Would I rather the ancient churches of France, for all their architectural glory, be turned into mosques, or bulldozed? My own preferences are irrelevant. The men who built these marvels are those whose wishes we should respect—and before they turned them over to the service of Muhammad's desert heresy, men like Abbot Suger would cheerfully have torn them down brick by brick. Almost all the "glories" of Islamic civilization, as Bat Ye'or has exhaustively documented, were built from the reassembled ruins of the cultures Muslims had subjugated and destroyed. Why should we add another stolen jewel to their crown?