Hollande opposed the [burqa] ban, and following the court ruling insisted that Islam could co-exist with Christianity and Judaism in France.
But privately he mused that in the future, a burka-clad woman could become the new symbol of France, saying: “The veiled woman of today will be the Marianne of tomorrow.”
The comment has prompted widespread alarm, with many publicly wondering whether Hollande is calling for Marianne to be veiled.
Hollande indeed is erratic in his comments, and also swinging from opposing the burqa ban to now commenting that France has a problem with Islam, and wildly “questioning the patriotism of football stars” of Middle Eastern descent, if indeed the accusation is true.
Yet Hollande’s seemingly bizarre fluctuations perhaps exposes the real confusion within, and among, politicians as they bounce from soliciting Muslim votes and being politically correct to confronting the real dilemma of dealing with public safety, accountability, and most of all, the specter of public reprisals for their failures. It has become a gambling match for politicians, trying to place their bet on which group they gauge might earn them more popularity, and it’s neither a simple nor a static calculation: is it the growing diverse Muslim population or is it the diverse masses, growing fed up with incompetent public servants who are willing to sacrifice their safety for votes?
France has been in turmoil over the role of Islam in the country in the last few months, with a number of French mayors implementing bans on burkinis in their region, a ban which was overturned by the French High Court.
The ban was overturned as a result of the media frenzy that copiously covered a helpless, targeted Muslim woman on the beach being bullied and humiliated by four policemen who “forced” her to remove her burkini right there on the beach, but Jihad Watch immediately questioned the authenticity of this woman and whether the whole incident was a staged opportunity for stealth jihadists. As it turns out, she was indeed a fake after all. The whole scene was a set-up by Muslim activists, with help from a TV station.
Notice that when the hoax was revealed, the revelation did not receive nearly the mass media attention that was lavished upon this woman when it was originally “believed” that she was a victim of Western racism.
The truth is that not only France, but the world, has a problem with Islam. It is also the truth that not every Muslim agrees with the human rights abuses under Sharia law in Islamic states; nor does every Muslim want to see Islamic law enshrined in the West; nor does every Muslim think that homosexuals should be murdered; nor does every Muslim want to see unindicted co-conspirators to jihad terrorism function in Western society right under our noses; nor does every Muslim want to see Muslim Brotherhood organizations spew hatred against Jews on campus; nor does every Muslim want to see mosques, Islamic centers and madrassas propagate Islamic doctrine. But Hollande is absolutely correct in his comment that France has a problem with Islam.
Few politicians (and media outlets) are willing to express correctness (contrasted with political correctness) about the threat of the jihad doctrine to Western civilization. Those who do are immediately taken to the woodshed by mainstream Muslim lobbies, and are then made out by the leftist media to be crackpots, racists, Islamophobes, divisive, enemies of diversity, threats to peace, and whatever propagandist narrative is in fashion at the moment. Never mind the jihad doctrines preached in mosques to spread dawah and Sharia, or the teachings about how Muslims must despise and kill gays, kill Jews, rape and assault women, persecute Christians and minorities, and also kill other Muslims who are not Muslim enough.
“France DOES Have a Problem With Islam, President Hollande Confirms”, by Donna Rachel Edmunds, Breitbart News, October 12, 2016:
France’s President Hollande has admitted that his country has a problem with Islam and has warned that France’s national symbol could one day be a woman in a burka. He has also questioned the patriotism of French football stars of Middle Eastern descent.
His comments have been revealed via a new book titled A President Should Not Say That… The book details 61 private conversations Hollande held with Le Monde journalists Gerard Davet and Fabrice Lhomme between 2012, shortly after the President’s election, and this year.
The comments reveal that Hollande has changed his mind on mass migration into France during his tenure, admitting “I think there are too many arrivals,” the Daily Mail has reported.
And on France’s Muslim population, one of the largest in Europe, the President is said to have commented: “It’s true there’s a problem with Islam, it’s true. It’s not in doubt.”
France has been in turmoil over the role of Islam in the country in the last few months, with a number of French mayors implementing bans on burkinis in their region, a ban which was overturned by the French High Court.
During the row which ensued, the Prime Minister Manuel Valls was slammed for pointing out that Marianne, a symbol of the Republic of France, was often depicted with a bare breast.
Hollande opposed the ban, and following the court ruling insisted that Islam could co-exist with Christianity and Judaism in France.
But privately he mused that in the future, a burka-clad woman could become the new symbol of France, saying: “The veiled woman of today will be the Marianne of tomorrow.”
The comment has prompted widespread alarm, with many publicly wondering whether Hollande is calling for Marianne to be veiled.
The Republican mayor of the 17th arrondissement of Paris, Brigitte Kuster, called on Hollande to clarify his remarks, saying “They are open to being misread! What is this indecent provocation? François Hollande would do well to explain his thoughts on the matter. His comments undermine the Republic he is supposed to be a guarantor of.”
But Le Monde has clarified that Hollande has explained his remarks, reporting that the full quote is that a veiled woman will become the Marianne of tomorrow “Because, somehow, if we can provide the conditions for social development, the veiled woman will shed her veil and become French while retaining her religion, capable of wearing her values.
“Finally, what is the bet we made? It’s that women prefer freedom to bondage. [Now she may feel] the veil is for her own protection, but tomorrow she will not need to be reassured about her place in society.”
Meanwhile much ire has been directed at his comments on French ethnic minority football stars, who he called “guys from the estates, without references, without values, who leave France too early”.
He insisted the footballers, many of whom have moved abroad when their careers were in the ascendency, are symptomatic of a “fragmentation, an ethnicisation” which is taking place in France, adding that the “facts were terrible.”….

Sam says
“French President Hollande says France has a problem with Islam”
No, no way! Really?
Charli Main says
Islam has a problem with France. There are far too many Christians in this region of Dar al Islam. A situation which the Muslims will systemically rectify in the coming years.
Don McKellar says
Yes, the church burnings are set to happen any time now.
mortimer says
France has a problem with not having a leader who is REALISTIC ABOUT JIHAD TERROR.
Jeremy says
This whole story offends me and I am not French. Hollande is the French face of ignorance.
Lucia Bartoli says
Yaaaay! All Hollande had is a white flag! Find another guy to lead your country!
Hector Archytas says
Just a proof that the system can’t deal with that.
A president for 5 years is not going to solve a war starting 1400 years ago.
Need a new system.
Blood European ruling their country over the internet
http://www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Don McKellar says
Reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s newly leaked emails and what they revealed about what she really believes about ISIS and who’s enabling it and what she really fears about all these “migrants”.
VampireJack says
Ever get the idea we are being brainwashed by the Elites to HATE the muslims, so when the muslim holocaust happens we all choose to just ignore it?
1.5 billion gone in a global genocide which helps along the depopulation agenda.
Now, if you can get rid of around about a billion Christians too in the fight?
Better still.
Agenda 21.
Allan says
Maybe now is a good time for your to upgrade or replace your aluminum foil hat. In fact, why not learn how to make a Faraday cage? You can’t be too cautious when protecting yourself from the brainwashing techniques of The Elites.
billybob says
VampireJack – you are projecting your own overactive imagination on the situation. The elites of this world are the people in power, by definition, and they seem to love Muslims. We are not elites here. Rather, we represent common citizens. Nobody hates Muslims here, these same who may be quite peaceful, ignorant of their faith, indifferent to their faith, or Muslim in name only. Pretty much everybody here, on the other hand, hates the religion and ideology of Islam. Thanks to receiving accurate information from people like Robert Spencer we know from the actual texts that this is a warrior’s cult at best. And I don’t think many people dropping in here have an interest in getting rid of Christians. Perhaps you could find some other site where you may indulge your interest in that.
VampireJack says
I know all about Islam – and have been posting here for MANY years now.
Probably longer than yourself and Allan.
Allan – you may think I’m some crazy conspiracy theorist – fair enough, that is your right. But actually stop and think about what’s going on in the world.
With the whole “BLM” race war that is being instigated in the US, Russia being demonised on a daily basis, and story after story about the likes of ISIS and muslim rape gangs – it’s all leading to a global meltdown.
WW3 is just around the corner.
You don’t “get it” – fine. Don’t assume that because I can see it means that I wear a tinfoil hat to protect me from CIA mind control from telephone masts. Don’t insult me – remember that we are on the same side.
Allan says
Let me introduce you to, or remind you of, the fallacy of affirming the consequent:
If P then Q, i.e. P—>Q.
Q.
Therefore P.
Let P be the Agenda 21 conspiracy; this is the antecedent of the conditional statement given above. Q, the consequent, is the events (BLM, rape gangs, etc.) you have in mind. Affirming the antecedent would entail your preferred conclusion provided that the conditional (P—>Q) and P are both true. Affirming the consequent, however, begins with Q and moves to the conclusion—illicitly—that P, the antecedent, is true. Hence the name, affirming the consequent.
Now, I won’t give a proof that the above form is fallacious; you can look that up yourself. Just understand that the fallacy of affirming the consequent is tantamount to assuming that P if and only if Q, which is written PQ.
Perhaps, however, there are other ways to bring about the various events (incl. Soros’ meddling, demonization of Russia) thought to be consistent with the alleged Agenda 21 plot for genocide. For example, humans tend to be irrational, reckless fools who habitually misunderstand their situations, their best interests, and their options.
Allan says
The biconditional assertion that
P is true if and only if Q is true
is written also as PQ.
Allan says
This commenting system doesn’t like the double pointed arrow which I tried to write between P and Q. Probably I need some escape character(s) so that the web server won’t interpret my arrow as HTML.
Westman says
Allan,
How about a conclusion that requires an unstated condition? Hollande says, “..tomorrow she(Muslima) will not need to be reassured about her place in society.” because, “..women prefer freedom to bondage.”
He forgets, or ignores, that Muslim men find king-of-the-castle security and satisfaction by keeping their women in a Quran-designated inferior status. Without the men’s approval and subject to a Quran that allows husbands to beat wives into submission, the only road to freedom is through apostacy – and we know what that brings is not a definition of freedom.
If France doesn’t wake up, Marianne will be replaced with a crescent.
Salome says
France has a problem with Islam–it doesn’t belong there. The world has a problem with Islam–ditto.
berserker says
Isn’t he handing out passports like candy to Muslims in order to thwart the Right? I guess the idea is to bring in so many Muslims that France will effectively become an Islamic Republic. Then France will not have a problem with Islam.
Allan says
It’s difficult to see how Hollande has not written his own death warrant with that remark about Marianne. Many Muslims will decide that he’s calling for the conversion of France’s muslimāt to humanism with all the effects implied by that for their young females. Many Muslims understand that humanism means aggressive secularism, relativism, socialist activism, hostility to family life, declining birth rates, and so forth. The males will react very badly. So, from Holland’s perspective, the remark implies political suicide at best. Expect the oily president him to beat a retreat.
billybob says
A picture of Marianne may be worth a thousand words at this point….
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Eug%C3%A8ne_Delacroix_-_La_libert%C3%A9_guidant_le_peuple.jpg/450px-Eug%C3%A8ne_Delacroix_-_La_libert%C3%A9_guidant_le_peuple.jpg
nux says
But privately he mused that in the future, a burka-clad woman could become the new symbol of France, saying: “The veiled woman of today will be the Marianne of tomorrow.”
Hollande did not say that. He said that french republic can emancipate the muslim women. So she eventually would remove her veil and become a “marianne symbol”.
That may sound naive but never hollande said that a burka clad woman could become the symbol of France…
utis says
Hollande is running for re-election — if he’s not lynched first. He’s presided during Charlie Hebdo/Super Cachere, Bataclan and Nice plus a lot of “minor” homicides in Allah’s name. The old vote-whore is just trying to get attention and hopefully some votes. If the French buy his book or vote for him, they deserve what the future brings them. I feel sorry only for the poor kids and the defenseless females.
abad says
Good, maybe France will wise up and start deporting Muslims on their soil.
Sheykh Yer Weeni says
“It is also the truth that not every Muslim agrees with the human rights abuses under Sharia law in Islamic states…” Yes, Mr. Spencer, we do know that not all Muslims are foaming-at-the-mouth jihadis. I have known one family, who had escaped Afghanistan and the Taliban, who were baby sitters for myself and my second wife. Nuria and her children were certainly not trying to dominate the world. Therefore I know not all Muslims are Salafis.
As the Infidel Imam, however, I say that for the sake of practicality. for us Kafrs, there are only two kinds of Muslims. There are those who want Islam to dominate the world (see Qur’an 9.29; 9.33; Sahih Muslim 41.6904), and those who do not obey Muhammad.
Sheykh Yer Weeni says
excuse the punctuation mistake: “practicality,”
Wellington says
Your distinction between the two groups of Muslims you mentioned brings only a “so what” from this kuffaar.
One historically could have found KKK members who didn’t personally want to lynch a black parson, or many Nazi Party members in the 1930s who, while disliking Jews, didn’t want to put Jews in gas ovens, or plenty of Communist Party members during the Cold War who, contra Marx, didn’t want to violently do away with the upper and middle classes, i.e., the kind of genocide every totalitarian ideology or organization promotes by way of the always predictable Us v. Them paradigm. But so what?
An ideology should ALWAYS be judged by what it says and NEVER by the fact that many adherents of a particular ideology don’t want to fully implement its tenets. I mean why judge Christianity on the basis that some Christians are hypocrites? Go from there. Always.
In other words, I don’t give a damn that some Muslims, however nice they are in their daily life, are not ready to implement all Islamic tenets. So effing what? Islam is evil. And while not all Muslims are evil, all Muslims are confused human beings, just as is the case with adherents to all malevolent belief systems (and it works the other way, as I already indicated with my Christian example, i.e., don’t judge a good belief system by the fact that some adherents of that belief system are woeful). And why ever put any trust in a confused human being even though they are not personally malevolent?
Charli Main says
Succinctly put. A flawless counter point.
Just because Muslims are not murdering, raping and enslaving non Muslims does not mean that they are not infected with the Islamo- Rabies virus.
Peter says
No, Islam has a problem with France, the West, and the rest of non-Muslim humanity. It is a predatory faith that seeks the destruction of “other systems of belief” (Qur’an 9:33). It amounts to a declaration of war on non-Muslims worldwide.
Praeceptor Maximus says
Watch this. They hypocrisy of that traitor Hollande.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raR1iiaSZJM&w=560&h=315%5D
Praeceptor Maximus says
Sorry, I tried to link this video here, but it didn’t work. So here is the address:
https://youtu.be/raR1iiaSZJM
Mark A says
Hollande and his party have played a large role in creating this “problem for France.”
I wonder whether Hollande will acknowledge his party’s long standing culpability for creating this situation in the first place.
Michael Copeland says
“There is a problem within Islam” – Tony Blair.
“There is a serious problem embedded within the ideology” – Tommy Robinson .
http://www.libertygb.org.uk/news/extremism-%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%80%9C-there-problem-within-islam
“It’s true there’s a problem with Islam, it’s true. It’s not in doubt” – Francois Hollande.
Michael Copeland says
Hollande thinks that France’s freedoms will lead muslim women to cast off their veils.
This ignorance of Islam borders on the criminally negligent.
Hollande is inadequate.
France is a failed state.
Michael Copeland says
“The tragic error of the French in trying to cope with the revival of Islam derives from a conceptual error; the illusion that ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ is something distinct and separable from Islam itself.
….. an erroneous conclusion, since their basic premise was false.”
Conor Cruise O’Brien 1995
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/45600
Baucent says
The irony about the debate about burkas and veils is that if you search out photographs taken in muslim countries (excluding Saudi Arabia) in the 1960’s and early 1970’s there is seldom a veil or burka in sight. Muslim women from Morocco to Indonesia wore Western dress during that time. All that changed after the Iranian revolution and the resurgence of Islam. Many of these countries had no tradition of veiling women, which was seen as a Arab cultural tradition foisted on them.
RAB says
I’m getting tired of this hypocrisy that says we hate Islam but we love all those nice “moderate” Muslims who aren’t cutting our heads off at the moment. I have asked this before and nobody answers. What is the difference between a jihadi or Islamic apologist and any other Muslim. Every man, woman, or child who claims to be Muslim is directly or indirectly responsible for all of the violence, intolerance, and hatred inherent in Islam. If a so-called “Muslim” does not know the true nature of Islam as clearly laid out in the Koran, the Hadith, and the life of Muhammad, why should non-Muslims excuse them for their ignorance of their own ideology? Somebody please tell me again why I should love all Muslims who are not at the moment fulfilling the will of Allah to destroy me and my way of life but who may at any future moment become devout and try to kill me or change my way of life? Robert Spencer, Jamie Glazov, Pamela Geller, anyone else out there? I’d really like an answer.
Angemon says
Spoken with the certainty and accuracy of someone who has no clue of what he’s talking about and, as such, is certain that he is absolutely right.
Baucent says
Yes, it’s a variation of “terrorism is the result of unemployment” argument.