Sylvie Kauffmann, a well-known left-wing journalist in France, and the former editor of Le Monde, has been writing about the dilemma of the French Left, faced with a growing widespread unease about Islam in France, an unease not confined to those routinely dismissed as “racist” or “Islamophobic” or “far-right,” but within the Left itself. I’ve reprinted one of her pieces below, unchanged, but with some parts in bold, and with my own comments interspersed.
PARIS — On Sunday [April 13], Air France will resume regular flights to Tehran. For its female flight attendants and pilots, there is a catch: On arrival, they will be asked to wear not only the most conservative version of their uniform, a pantsuit with a knee-length jacket, but also a head scarf to cover their hair, in line with Iranian law and with other foreign airlines’ practice. The unions have protested. “This is contrary to what I stand for as a woman,” an Air France flight attendant complained in Le Figaro Madame. The company quickly gave in. Only those comfortable with the requirements will fly the Paris-Tehran route.
What is really interesting is that the issue did not arise earlier when Air France was flying to Tehran, before international sanctions forced it to stop in 2008. Yes, secularism is in France’s DNA; this is the country that passed a law in 2004 to ban all emblems of religion in public schools, including Muslim head scarves, and a second law in 2010 to ban the burqa (full veil) in public areas. But the flight attendants’ reaction shows how much attitudes toward Islam have hardened in the past 14 months, which brought three waves of attacks by Islamic State terrorists in Paris and Brussels.
Indeed, Kauffmann could have made her remark stronger, so that it would read “Three waves of murderous attacks by Islamic State terrorists in Paris and Brussels have hardened views toward Islam in France, most noticeably on the left.”
The French government has declared “war” on the Islamic State, but another war is also underway — an undeclared culture war over the status of women. Its symbol is “le voile” (the veil), a generic term that has come to encompass all forms of Islamic garments used to cover women’s heads. The dividing lines are confusing liberals and feminists, intellectuals and human rights activists, left and right.
But those lines are not confusing all of them. They are not confusing those French liberals who have forthrightly recognized the misogynistic nature of Islam and its regulation of women’s lives, with rules that include, but go far beyond, strict dress codes. The only people who are “confused” are those liberals, feminists, “intellectuals” and human rights activists who can’t allow themselves to acknowledge this aspect of Islam because to do so would be to show Islam in a bad light, which means to lend aid and comfort to the “islamophobic” far-right.
Such confusion has been evident in a broader controversy about Islamic fashion. It is not a new issue, but suddenly the fact that Western ready-to-wear brands like Marks & Spencer or Dolce & Gabbana are designing and promoting “modest fashion” collections for the growing Muslim market has hit a raw nerve in France. Pictures of embroidered abayas and stark burkinis — full-cover swimming garments — flourish in the media and have incited puzzled comments, prompting the women’s rights minister,
A feminist and Socialist, i.e., on the left.
Laurence Rossignol, to declare those brands “irresponsible.” They “promote the confinement of women’s bodies,” she said. True, she said, some women favor this type of fashion. But, she added, it was also true that some black people in America had supported slavery.
Though she later regretted having used the word “Nègres” — a French equivalent of “Negroes” — her condemnation of Western-designed Islamic fashion resonated. Agnès B, a respected designer involved in social causes,
“Involved in social causes” implies someone on the left.
said she would never design such clothes, “which have a political and religious element.”
Sylvie Kauffmann might have added: “And the wearing of such clothes is not a fashion statement, but an act of Muslim defiance against the laic state.”
The mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, admitted that she found modest fashion “a little upsetting.” In an interview with Le Monde, the feminist author and philosopher Élisabeth Badinter called for a boycott of such brands.
Ms. Badinter, 72, has predicted trouble before. A longtime critic of radical Islam, she thinks a part of the French left, “nurtured on the cultural relativism of Claude Lévi-Strauss” and convinced that “all traditions and religions are equal,” has “lowered its guard.” As early as the 1990s, she said, warnings from feminists from Algeria and Iran were ignored, while “in French neighborhoods, many girls started to wear the veil.”
This is a wrenching time for European liberals, when taking a stand on such issues may meet approval from the far-right leader Marine Le Pen and anti-immigration quarters.
A “wrenching time” for all European liberals? No, only for those “European liberals” who still are fearful of expressing negative views of the Muslim head scarves and burqas, lest that appear to align them with, and win approval from, “far-right” leader Marine Le Pen. But now, as Kauffmann has just informed us, three prominent women, Elizabeth Badinter, Agnes B., and Laurence Rossignol, who have always been on the French left (the first a “feminist,” the second a “social activist,” the third a member of the Socialist cabinet), are expressing those negative views, and are not experiencing a “wrenching time.” This signifies a historic break within the Left.
Sociologists and experts on religion are divided, as are French Muslim women. In a book last year, “Des voix derrière le voile” (“Voices Behind the Veil”), the journalist Faïza Zerouala drew portraits of 10 young Frenchwomen who voluntarily wear the head scarf. “Some people feel uncomfortable in the company of a veiled woman, but what makes her uncomfortable are naked women on billboards,” she said. And what feminist would argue that such ads are liberating?
Whatever else Victoria’s Secret lingerie may offer, wearing it does not constitute a political statement; wearing the head scarf or burka in France, on the other hand, does.
Confusion also reigns in the continuing debate over the New Year’s Eve attacks on women in Cologne, Germany, and the way they were analyzed by the Algerian author Kamel Daoud. In an essay published in Le Monde in January, he blamed the “sexual misery of the Arab-Muslim world” and its view of women for the attacks. “In Allah’s world,” he wrote, “the woman is denied, refused, killed, veiled, locked up or possessed.” He wrote later, in a similar vein, in The New York Times. But while many praised his argument as brilliant, some European academics, most of them French, attacked it as Islamophobic. The quarrel still rages.
Why does Sylvie Kauffmann use the word “Islamophobic” in earnest, sans quotation marks, and thereby give it legitimacy? She might have written something along the lines of: “How curious it is that the left-wing defenders of Islam have chosen to attack a Muslim Arab man when he dares to defend Muslim women against the misogyny of mainstream Islam. Who, after all, can deny the accuracy of Daoud’s description of that Islamic world where ‘the woman is denied, refused, killed, veiled, locked up or possessed’? Apparently, those who keep trotting out the tiresome charge of ‘Islamophobia’ can.”
So what is a European liberal to do? France’s Socialist prime minister, Manuel Valls, has committed himself to fighting alongside Ms. Badinter in “an essential battle for culture and identity.” He refuses to leave this fight in the hands of the far right. His warrior tone worries many activists, who fear further antagonizing the disenfranchised suburbs.
In other words, it is dangerous to stand up for French values, because it is only causing trouble by “further antagonizing the disenfranchised suburbs.” When were they “antagonized” before? When some French apparently resented the constant challenges to the principles of the laic state, as exemplified by the burka ban and limits on wearing the hijab? Or resented being attacked by domestic terrorists? Or refused to recognize Islam’s “No-Go Areas” and treated all places in France as…places in France? Are those Muslims – we know that is who Kauffmann means, because in French the word “suburbs” (banlieues) stands metonymically for the “Muslims” who live in those suburbs — prevented from voting, or from exercising any of the civil or political rights, or from taking full advantage of any of the generous government benefits, available to non-Muslim French citizens? No, of course they are not. So why describe them as “disenfranchised”? If the Muslims in France insist on not integrating into the larger society, that is, if they choose not to participate as fully as they could in the political system, why should non-Muslims be blamed? And what of the role of Islam in teaching its adherents to distrust or despise democracy and not to take part in its workings? In Western democracies like France, after all, what gives a government legitimacy is the will expressed by the people, however imperfectly, through elections, while in Islam the government’s legitimacy depends on its following the will expressed by Allah in the Qur’an. French Muslims are not disenfranchised; they disenfranchise themselves.
But similar doubts over traditional liberal views are being voiced in neighboring countries. In Germany, Social Democratic and Green voters are notably less open to immigration than they were six months ago, according to a poll published by the French Public Opinion Institute.
Why are even the left-wing Social Democratic and Green voters now “less open to immigration”? It is simply that they have had six more months to observe the behavior of Muslims in Germany toward women, as in Cologne on New Year’s, and to begin to make sense of it. And if they have become, as a result, “less open to immigration,” so what? When did the “immigration of Muslims” become a duty for the West, as Kauffmann may be implying? There is no such duty. Is it a bad thing when many on the left (Greens, Social Democrats) overcome their fears of being labelled “Islamophobic” and dare express “doubts” about enduring even more societal disruption, expense, and physical danger that have been the direct result of mass Muslim migration into Europe? And that does not mean that these leftists are now becoming the “far-right,” but that they are at long last seeing things steadily and whole.
Speaking in Berlin, the sociologist Paul Scheffer, a member of the Dutch Labor Party, argued that the sharp debate occurring in countries that want to stay as open as possible — Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands — proves the need to “reinvent the moral middle ground.”
If you live in France, you may be experiencing a degree of veil fatigue. Yes, the agonizing of liberal democracies over which values to safeguard first has been around far too long. Yet if if moderates, both Muslim and non-Muslim, cannot solve these issues, the battle over culture and identity will be left to far-right populist movements or Islamist fanatics.
Kauffmann here states things incorrectly. It is not only “Islamist fanatics,” but mainstream Muslims who take issue with the French government and society on the veil and many other matters. And on the other side, it is not only “far-right populists,” but such well-known leftists as Agnes B., Laurence Rossignol, Elisabeth Badinter – as Kauffmann has just told us in her report — who in France have been most ferociously opposed to the Muslim treatment of women, including the imposition of a dress code that violates French law. And still other French intellectuals who have never had anything to do with “far-right populism” – such as the writer Alain Finkielkraut and the journalist Ivan Rioufol – have consistently been the most articulate and relentless critics of Islam and Muslims in France.
It is disturbing that French values, French culture, French identity, should now be blandly discussed as up for debate (“the agony over which values to safeguard first,” “the battle over culture and identity”). In a well-ordered society, sure of itself, as France famously was until recent decades, none of this would come up as a subject for debate, but the Muslim invasion of Europe has caused France to lose its mental footing. The French who want to keep France France (Badinter, Rossignol, Agnes B., Finkielkraut, Rioufol, Valls, Sarkozy among others), do not feel obligated to compromise French values and French identity because of Muslim demands.
Most maddening of all is Kauffmann’s last sentence:
“If so [that is, if debates over culture and identity “are left to far-right populist movements or Islamist fanatics” rather than the “moderates”], the terrorists will have won.”
Think about what that means: Kauffmann is claiming “the terrorists will have won” if the “far-right populists”control the French side of the “debate” with the Muslims, and refuse to compromise on matters of “culture and identity.” But the whole article has shown that it is not “far-right populists,” but left-wing feminists – Agnes B., Elizabeth Badinter — who have been most determined not to yield an inch to Muslim demands. Kauffmann’s “the terrorists will have won” is meant to warn non-Muslims: if your values are attacked, don’t fight back, because that fight is “just what the terrorists want.” Bin Laden “wanted to start a war between civilizations.” (That war – of Islam against the West — was already 1300 years old, and hardly needed bin Laden to rekindle it). Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and a dozen other groups are all just trying, according to Kauffmann, to goad the Infidels into retaliating. They want that larger conflagration. According to the weird logic of the sentence, if you don’t fight back, but instead yield to “moderate” (!) Muslim demands, then there won’t be that conflict so ardently wished for by “the terrorists,” and “the terrorists will have lost.” Give them some of what they demand, and they lose. Don’t give in at all to Muslim demands, and the terrorists win. Of course. It all makes perfect sense.

linnte says
Excellent article summary Mr. Fitzgerald. I hope this woman hears about your breakdown of her words here, and reads them! I have a sneeking suspicion it will rock her socks. France is on the verge of learning that islamophobia is a crock of doo doo! ?
Concerned Indian says
Islamophobia is a wrong,fashionable and unnecessarily used juvenile term.It is not a misplaced fear but a legitimate one.In India we share our DNA with them but at times they are very strange and loyal to their book and tradition.In Europe and other places they become only legal citizens of those nations to get their own life to a better level and to that end do join the ( native ) nationals whenever there is a need. This happens during any national or natural calamity.This could also be for sympathy and development of trust.Many charitable organizations have been a cute face of illegal activities.
William says
Inductive Argument:
Premise: A woman displeases her husband and he beats her.
Premise: The woman pleases her husband and he doesn’t beat her.
Fallacious Conclusion: Therefore, the woman must please her husband to avoid being beaten.
Missing Premise: Displeasing one’s husband is not necessarily wrong or bad.
Missing Premise: Displeasing one’s husband does not warrant a beating.
Missing Premise: Beating one’s wife is always wrong.
Possible Competing Conclusions Among Many Others:
Therefore, the woman must leave her husband to avoid being beaten.
Therefore, the woman must learn to defend herself to avoid being beaten.
Therefore, the woman must request outside aid to avoid being beaten.
Therefore, the man must be told that beating his wife harms her and is wrong.
Therefore, the man must determine why he is displeased to avoid beating his wife.
Therefore, the man must learn to accept being displeased by his wife to avoid beating her.
Therefore, the husband must leave or be removed to avoid the wife being beaten.
Deductive Argument:
Premise: His holy book says a man can beat his wife if she displease him.
Premise: Beating one’s wife is wrong.
Sound Conclusion: Therefore, the man’s holy book is wrong.
William says
The same argument can be made when one says that to antagonize Mohammedans is to drive them to extremism and trouble.
Moa says
The Quran is wrong because it is a work of fiction compiled over centuries to advance Arab Imperialism.
“An Historical Critique of Islam’s Beginnings”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9lIuUjPs0
Islam is the Scientology of the Dark Ages, created by evil men to enslave other men and (especially) women.
This work of FICTION does not match the archeology – the Quran is verifiably FALSE and created by superstitious violent barbarians and not by any sky ghost.
Stop using deductive reasoning, it is inferior to empiricism (for the same reason classical philosophy is inferior to Science, and deductive reasoning held progress back for centuries until Science overthrew the preference of deduction based on axioms for objectivity based on observation).
And the archeological observations show Islam cannot be true – its claims do not match the archeology of the region. The same is true of the founding myths of Judaism, but the difference is the Israeli archeologists have the moral integrity to discover and publish this.
Dennis says
Yes, I agree with most of what you are saying. How much of Islam comes from Mohammed? How much is original? How much was invented only to control the lives of primitive and uneducated tribal people? The Koran itself seems to be a mixture of pre-Islamic, Arab ideas and mythos concerning the Judaism and Christian influences known in the Penninsula at that time. I have even heard that there is a more ancient Koran, perhaps of the monotheistic Hanavis which existed pre-Mohammed. Probably there are many insertions into the universally recognized Koran. Any sources to read!
Evan says
Excellent article and analysis. Finally a ray of light in Europe. It seems the key here is that fashion, and other cultural icons, can be political. Veils, beards. even prayer. When will society recognize that Islamic society practices immense, constant “Jewishphobia” and “Christianphobia”? When Muslims pray five times a day and in their prayers include phrases that denegrate Christians and Jews, should that not be called by its true name of “Judaismphobia” and “Christianismphobia” (I leave it to the language experts to ascertain how phobia should be connected to the names of these two religions)? Certainly it is bigotry. Oh yes, let us not forget “Atheismphobia” and “Non-Believer Phobia.” When is the media discussion going to commence on Islam’s numerous phobias about everyone who is not Islamic, rather than the other way around? Even the PBS Newshour recently departed from its quietude and reported on female genital mutilation. What if the French opened up centers to take in battered (physically and mentally) Muslim women who want to leave their repressive culture if only they had a helping and protective hand? What if European societies created an underground railroad to save Muslim women from their misoginistic masters. Could this be something both the left and the right could collaborate on? Wasn’t it Aayaan Hirsi Ali who suggested non-Islamic religions could play a major role in reforming Islam? After all, if the status quo is allowed to persist, the the Islamic goal to take over democracies by population growth and the vote would seem a probable unwanted outcome. Time to put our heads together?
Moa says
“Finally a ray of light in Europe.”
There have always been rays of light in Europe – the Classic Liberals of the Right have been fighting this battle for a long time. The only difference is that the slow-learning ideologues of the Collectivist Left have finally been bludgeoned by reality – but their muddled thinking still leaves them closed-minded to the fact the Right have always been right about Islam – and economics – and national defense – and the Rule of Law – and the importance of the family – and nationalism as important for social cohesion – and the natural causes of global warming – and a zillion other things.
The problem is Leftists do not use the Scientific Method and examine ALL the data. They practice Classical Philosophy based on Leftist dogma as their axioms. When the Science of empiricism of the Right is vastly superior.
Jack Diamond says
“This is a wrenching time for European liberals, when taking a stand on such issues may meet approval from the far-right leader Marine Le Pen and anti-immigration quarters.”
The same wrenching applies to American liberals, and feminists, who also see anything that puts Islam in a bad light as serving the “right-wing agenda” and so they remain oblivious, or circumspect. That being critical of something as retrograde, intolerant, fascist, misogynist, violent and hateful as Islam is considered right wing (and therefore retrograde, intolerant, fascist…) and could be successfully marginalized, is a real triumph of propaganda but one wearing very thin. The old joke about the liberal who has been mugged, by reality, (or maybe raped by reality), a reality confirmed by an Algerian like Kamel Daoud speaking ugly truths about Islam’s treatment of women, wrenching for the guests at Naomi Wolfe’s garden party who consider the Islamic veil very “liberating”…
Jacques Ellul as far back as 1983, wrote “the moment one broaches a problem related to Islam, one touches upon a subject where strong feelings are easily aroused. In France it is no longer acceptable to criticize Islam or the Arab countries.” That rigid “moral” censorship is deeply engrained and it has taken a lot of in-your-face Muslim behaviors to change it, even as meekly as feebly as is the case with Sylvie Kauffman.
Jack Diamond says
The hijab and burqa are entirely a political statement, they announce “Islam is here” and “Shari’a is here” ..and taking over. This is overt. Muslims in suits and ties and western dress are covert.
linnte says
American and European Liberals not only don’t want to KNOW about Islam, they feel even LISTENING to logic about the Qur’an, Hadith and Shari’a betrays their conscience! That is the essence of their beliefs ;”I don’t want to hear it because I am right”.
Kepha says
Since there’s been a lot of discussion on the treason of Western Christian leaders on this site recently, and Jack Diamond mentions Jacques Ellul, my guess is that as a French Protestant, Ellul “got it” that Christians must often stand against the tide of the wider society. Further, Ellul resisted the romanticism of many other liberal Protestants. Hence, he was able to stand against the romaniticization of the Arab and Muslim causes that became so celebrated on the Left with the Algerian Revolution and the emergence of the Falastin Arabs as important Soviet Cold War clients. While I continue to prefer Calvin and Turretin over Kierkegaard and Barth (unlike Ellul), I respect Ellul’s willingness to buck the trends of his time. I believe it proved prophetic concerning the confrontation with Islamic radicalism.
Jack Diamond says
Ellul was clear-sighted and prophetic concerning Islam because he knew both its history and theology. He was a friend and champion of Bat Ye’or and wrote the prefaces to her early books. He also stood against the intellectual tide in France in championing Israel. He is an example of what an intellectual should be. Incidentally, he wrote a book in the early 1970s called “The Betrayal of the West” (by its intellectuals and artists and opinion-shapers) which was also prophetic.
Kepha says
I know about Ellul’s pro-Israel stance. I did not know of his connection with Bat Ye’or or his books “The Betrayal of the West”–which I suspect I will now want to read. Thanks, Jack.
kilfincelt says
Since 9/11 more than 5 Islamic terrorist attacks have occurred per day worldwide; thus, we are already at war with many groups of Muslims. In addition, giving into their demands is a sign of weakness. They only understand strength; therefore, we need to start with a coordinated effort to fight back. Unfortunately, because of the idiocy of many on the left that will be difficult.
Richard Paulsen says
Streetfighting in Paris. Arabs declare their own district.
https://www.facebook.com/OurEyeOnIslam/videos/vb.1427801500819102/1716300885302494/?type=2&theater
mortimer says
Sylvie Kauffmann’s self-restraint is appeasement by another name.
Sylvie Kauffmann does not admit that Muslims are ALL supremacists.
Find a Muslim who denounces supremacism and you will find someone who has left Islam. Jihad is central to Islam and jihad is per se a supremacist warfare based on religious bigotry against disbelievers.
Qu’est-ce que c’est que désire chaque suprématiste ?
Jay Boo says
(Qu’est-ce que c’est) – ing …. it now?
Delightful
Simply Delightful
Muslims need to respect what (WE) want.
— Not the other way round
mortimer says
The more the veil is worn, the more women will be beaten, oppressed and honor killed.
If veiling is not stopped immediately, all women who do not wear the veil will eventually be savagely treated without fail.
7%Solution says
“But the flight attendants’ reaction shows how much attitudes toward Islam have hardened in the past 14 months, which brought three waves of attacks by Islamic State terrorists in Paris and Brussels.”
The odd (perhaps subliminal, but still purposeful) construction of this sentence makes it sound as if the flight attendants’ attitudes have caused the three waves of attacks, and not the other way around. Heck, going by the convoluted reasoning and false assumptions littered throughout Kauffmann’s article, maybe she really does believe that.
jewdog says
What people like Sylvie Kauffmann want is to defend their country without using force, even without being rude. It’s just history repeating itself, as when Neville Chamberlain tried the gentlemanly approach with another group of totalitarians. Eventually, we’ll have to resort to Churchill’s firmer methodology, but by then it will be far more difficult.
Georg says
Outstanding article.
Muslims should ask themselves why East Asians migrating to the West haven’t been similarly “disenfranchised”.
Kepha says
Simple. If you’re a “racist, Redneck American fundamentalist” and a Korean family moves in down the street and you find that, in addition to coming to the US for roughly the same reasons your great-grandparents did and they’re either Presybterian or Baptist into the bargain, you’ll find it hard to dislike them, even if their kimchi stinks up the neighborhood.
Guest says
I already know what Liberals do. They lie, deny, and hide any problem and leave their citizens to die.
Arthur says
Her confusion is not uncommon for narcissistic thinkers. With supreme self-confidence, it is possible to make declarative overarching statements, such as “Islam is a religion of peace.” The narcissist knows they are (always) correct. If the narcissist makes the action (mistake) of digging deeper into the evidence, it is discovered that facts stand opposite of their declared “truth.” For example, finding Koranic verses instructing violence against infidels. Thus, a logical incongruity between two “facts” they have personally endorsed, the highest level of truth a narcissist knows, creates great confusion. A normal person can admit being wrong and adjust their point of view, but the narcissist cannot comprehend that possibility and furthermore assumes it must be a conundrum for everyone else as well. It would seem to me that most of the leaders of society, from the political to business, suffer some level of narcissism and thus are susceptible to this crisis in thinking. It would seem to explain a lot of the nonsense that leaders say and do.
Arthur says
By the way, the photo Robert selected to post seems particularly appropriate. Rather than display a bookcase of the books she has read, Sylvie hangs a painting of a bookcase on the wall. It is as if the superficial appearance of knowledge is an adequate substitute for knowledge itself.
William says
It’s an example of being one degree removed from reality. Instead of having windows in your house, you could paint windows on the inside walls with outdoor scenery inset and then make believe your house is sitting in the midst of a beautiful landscape. That’s if you desire living in a fantasy land.
Big Al says
Could we employ a more honest word – how about “antimohammedan”? To my mind that expresses the true critical mindset rather than a pseudo irrational fear.
Angemon says
No, Miss Kauffmann, there’s nothing to wrench about. Your stand is dependent on your own values, not Le Pen’s – unless, that is, you have no values to speak of and are merely reacting to Le Pen’s stances. If Le Pen’s approval gets in the way of defending your values, remember that even a broken clock is right twice a day.
R Cole says
The western relationship with Islam is in essence an abusive one – if you stand up for yourself – you are accused of provoking the abuser.
It is a dhimmification in progress!!
::
Glad to hear at least some feminist are holding out. Most you can’t pull their heads out of the sand when it comes to Islam and the treatment of women
::
The Left’s model is largely based on socialism – where the government is meant to take care of it all. But here it has not worked. Unless of course they promise Islamization – and this religion and state mixture is against the French ideal.
::
The problem with the Left was that they were in the wrong.
And the last sentence in the article goes to – if they pretended long enough this whole Islamic thing would just go away.
We are talking a lot about Islam – but maybe we should go back to the Bible story about building your house on sand.
But the fact is that any solution the left come up with – that doesn’t include an overhaul of the immigration system – is not a real one.
The automatic right of an immigrant to bring a partner through an arranged marriage from North Africa needs to be looked at. Why add to the problems of the banlieues? The perpetual immigration needs to end. What does France owe North Africa?
What’s emerging from these places is an Islamic state – that will look to rival the French state. With sufficient numbers it won’t be headscarves but religious laws the French will be fussing about.
When fixing something becomes ‘racist’ – it is doubtful that the Left will be the ones to do it.
The Left are trapped by their own terminology – that they have used so effectively to personally attack people – who now they in part agree with.
They Left are concluding [as others long have] – that their open door policies mean the French are getting run over!
::
In Germany, Sweden in the UK and the US – there seems to be a new policy to settle boat loads of migrants out of the way – in small towns – sometimes there are more migrants than original inhabitants. But France really has to think about this. In some of these small towns there are wineries or dried meat production – products which might offend Muslims. Better that those who are openly opposed to the French way of life are concentrated in no-go / sharia areas.
The fact is in a free society Muslims are free to do what they want – and so what they are choosing to do is most telling.
Concerned Indian says
Perfect.Couldn’t agree more.
I hope this website along with others exposing the traitors doesn’t get blocked.
WorkingClassPost says
The French have for a long time felt themselves guardians of all things romantic, isn’t Paris billed as the capital of honeymooners etc. And in that they have indeed held women in particularly high esteem.
This may have been an overworking of the whole sensuality thing, but was also a welcome contrast to their more puritanical neighbours, and offered women a ‘special’ status that seemed never to be questioned.
It’s interesting to note how they view the ‘special status’ that their current occupiers afford French womenfolk, especially on this, the anniversary of D Day.