We hear a lot about possible victories this year in Europe of anti-Islam candidates. Some are well-known outside their own countries, such as Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen, while others are not so well-known. One of them is François Fillon, who has a good chance to become the next President of France, and has now become outspoken on the menace of Islam. With his astonishing victory last fall in the two primaries of the Center-Right party in France, Fillon first knocked Nicolas Sarkozy out of the running, and then, in the runoff, had a landslide victory over Alain Juppé, garnering 66% of the vote. The pollyannish Juppé was known, among other things, for being soft on Islam, pushing a line about l identité heureuse” (“happy identity”) supposedly making it possible, in a way he never could explain, Muslim immigrants to unthreateningly become part of French society while still refusing to assimilate. France would now be the sum of its separate communities, and everyone would live “happily” side by side, and for ever after. Just like in the fairy tales, and fittingly, because it was sheer make-believe. For Juppé rejected the need for a ”French identity” upheld by the traditional Right. This “happy identity,” a plaintive why-can’t-we-all-get-along welcome to foreigners, is based on a refusal to admit that there is indeed a difference between today’s Muslim immigrants, so hostile to the values of their hosts, and the non-Muslim immigrants who came before, and accepted the values of the laic French state:
Juppé wants France “to be open both to its neighbors, and to the world.” For “what would France be without Marie Curie, who came from Warsaw, or Apollinaire, who was born a Polish subject of the Russian Empire, or Picasso, who was born in Spain, or Ionesco, child of Romania, or Francis Cheng, who grew up in China and arrived in Paris at the end of his adolescence?” asked Juppé, proud of this very special kind of immigration. “We are proud of this tradition of welcome and we want to keep it vibrant.”
Juppé did not appear to recognize that there might just be differences between those who arrive in France nowadays carrying Islam in their mental baggage, and those other migrants who came before – Picasso, Marie Curie, and so on – who had no such dangerous luggage, were not raised to despise the French as Infidels, and who, upon settling in France, had no trouble fitting in, obeying the laws and moeurs of the French. Juppé was suggesting there was no reason to think of the new immigrants as any different when, of course, the differences in views of today’s Muslim immigrants and those of earlier non-Muslim immigrants to France and its values are enormous and impossible to reconcile.
That softness on Muslim immigration is, observers suggested, a main reason why Juppé lost to Fillon, who has a very different take on the matter. What does Fillon say about Muslim immigration? No pollyannish “happy identity” for him; he has described radical Islam as a “’totalitarianism like the Nazis.” Catholics, Protestants and Jews “don’t denounce the values of the Republic,” he thundered — “unlike the faithful of a certain other religion.” He recognizes that Islam is a special case, represents a unique menace to the Republic of France, and to the French identity.
“We’ve got to reduce immigration to its strict minimum,” he said. “Our country is not a sum of communities, it is an identity!” It is this kind of identity – open to all as long as they fully accept the values of the Republic, but not to those who, having ended up on French soil, do not and cannot possibly share the “values of the Republic” — that Fillon wants to protect from Islamic dilution. On Islam, so far, so good.
Fillon has even written a book on how to defeat Islamic “totalitarianism” – “Vaincre le totalitarisme islamique” (“Conquering Islamic Totalitarianism”). The title is heartening – it’s good to recognize and call “Islamic totalitarianism” by its right name. But at the same time, it is mistakenly optimistic, because the word “vaincre” too hopefully implies a sense of an ending, a “conquering,” and then a doing away with, the threat. But Islamic totalitarianism cannot ever be “conquered,” its threat can only be reduced, through constant effort, to manageable size. The threat never ends, because Islam is naturally “totalitarian”; it offers a complete regulation of all aspects of life. “Islamic totalitarianism” will exist as long as Islam itself endures.
What François Fillon proposes in his 150-page book, however, are not ways to reduce Muslim immigration to “its strict minimum,” but rather, ways to fight the Islamic State abroad and Muslim terrorism at home. He wants a grand coalition of all those powers, including Iran and Hizballah, that are willing to fight the Islamic State, which he regards as Enemy No. 1. He wants a Europe-wide sharing of the costs of fighting Islamic terrorism. He wants a reorganization of the French security services, placing the prison system directly under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior, and creating special courts to speed up verdicts in terrorism cases. He wants the police and gendarmes to be supplied with better equipment. He also wants to prevent any French citizens who have gone off to fight with Muslim terrorists from returning to France. He wants 30-year sentences imposed on anyone found guilty of supplying intelligence to the terrorist enemy, and the right to expel foreigners who are found on French soil and who are judged a “threat” to public safety. And finally, he wants the big Internet companies to be required to report their suspicions about users (and possible ties to terrorism) to the French government, the same way that banks must report doubtful transactions to the government.
Save for his suggestions that French citizens who leave France to join terrorists abroad should be prevented from returning, and that the state should expel foreigners from France who are deemed a “threat” to safety, Fillon focuses entirely on improving the investigation and punishment of terrorists. Fillon does not address the question of halting, and reversing, Muslim immigration in the West. It’s still a dangerous subject to touch. But the beginning of wisdom in this matter is simply to refuse to recognize any specious “duty” to admit refugees from anywhere, for any reason. We in the advanced West can admit, or refuse to admit, whomever we want. Nothing requires us to allow into our countries, our homes, those who may be permanently hostile to us and to our values, and who may constitute a physical danger. This seems to have been forgotten by the angela-merkels and theresa-mays of this world. The Western world does not have to become Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose. And we have a perfect right to deny admittance to those whom we have reason to believe are, as a group, more likely to commit terrorist acts, those whom we know are raised to regard us non-Muslims with hostility and hatred, and whose Qur’an urges acts of terror. We are allowed to take seriously what we know Muslims take seriously, and not to ignore what it says in the Qur’an and Hadith and Sira. It doesn’t matter if not all Muslims think a particular way; there will always be exceptions, but we can’t build policies on exceptions; in protecting ourselves from the dangers that Islamic ideology poses, we are always dealing with likelihoods, calculating probabilities. Is a Muslim immigrant more likely than a Buddhist or a Hindu, a Christian or a Jew, to be a threat to public safety? What kinds of evidence do we already possess – textual, experiential – that supports that proposition? This is not something Fillon addresses.
Nor does he discuss, either, ways to make France less Islam-friendly, even Islam-hostile. This could include extending the current ban on the hijab in schools to universities, as Manuel Valls has proposed, and banning not just the niqab, as Sarkozy did, but also the hijab, from all public places. It could include continuing to refuse to yield to Muslim demands that pork-free meals be offered in prison and school cantines (Muslim prisoners and pupils could simply do without meat on those days when pork is on the menu), or what would be even more useful, banning halal meat, because of objections to the method of slaughter it requires. It could also mean remaining unyielding in the face of Muslim demands for prayer-rooms in schools and workplaces, and interruptions of classes and work for Muslim prayers. Muslim demands for women-only hours at public pools can be refused by municipal authorities upholding the laic state. The French state is under no obligation to accept Muslim segregation of the sexes; it is up to Muslims, just like other immigrants, to conform their behavior to that of those in whose lands they have been allowed to settle. We in the West do not share, and consequently need not support, the Muslim view that women are dangerously seductive, and therefore need to be covered up, nor accept its corollary in Islam that men are likely to behave like uncontrollable wild animals when confronted with females who are insufficiently covered.
A crackdown on Muslim abuse of government assistance programs, especially the problem of support for plural wives and many children, would save a lot of money. The Economist estimates that 200,000 people are in 20,000 polygamous families in France, despite polygamy being prohibited, with the Muslim men exploiting the family allowances as salaries. France must become less like what it now is for many Muslims, the Big Rock Candy Mountain, where they cannot quite believe their luck, and contentedly pocket whatever benefits are on offer as a proleptic jizyah, or as Anjem Choudary has called all this Western largesse (free or subsidized housing, free education, free medical care, generous family allowances), the Jihad Seeker’s Allowance. Those Muslims unhappy with this new and uncompromising state of affairs should be encouraged to leave France. Indeed, while cracking down on all the present benefits, one new benefit that the French government might wish to offer Muslims is passage home to their countries — or that of their parents or grandparents — of origin, or to other Muslim countries, where they will be among people who share the most important thing in their lives, Islam, and will be able to practice it to their heart’s content. But in return, those for whom free passage is provided must agree not to return to France. Such subsidized out-migration would be far cheaper than paying for all those benefits to which so many Muslim migrants lay (often fraudulent) claim.
These are only a few suggestions that may prompt others to think of ways to make France distinctly less welcoming to Muslim migrants. Of course, it all begins with education, by having a truthful treatment of Islam in the schools. In history classes, French students should be taught about Islam, not the sanitized version, but the real thing, with copious quotations from the canonical texts that cannot be refuted. Let students become acquainted with the jihad verses of the Qur’an, and with piquant details from Muhammad’s life, relying always on Muslim sources in the Hadith and Sira. Will this offend Muslims? Of course it will, but a French state sure of itself and its values will not back down. Too much is at stake for continued pusillanimity in the classroom.

Bright Star says
Great article and 100% agree with the sentiments.
Fillon doesn’t go far enough.
I would limit child allowances to the first two children and only to those with childcare qualifications.
I would close mosques and madrassas, ban the Koran and religious clothing and declassify Islam as a religion.
If they don’t like it they can go somewhere else.
Time is running out.
Thomas Dooley says
No free healthcare and no child benefits may work!
Byzantium1683 says
Muslims have no need of child allowances.
It should be given to native french people who dare in this PC culture to have children.
France once gave money away to big families, in the era where France was outproduced by Germany and even england. I don’t know how successful it was, but Id like to see it in Canada and Europe.
Spike1033 says
Indeed the catastrophic losses in the 1st World War reduced the French population. The French government gave money for each child. It was said that if a family had 6 children the father didn’t need to work. The French population didn’t reach normal levels until 1962. Whereas the British and German population levels recovered quite quickly, allowing the start of WW2, the French population did not. This resulted in the French army being unable to put up a defence against the Nazi invasion. It should be noted that the plans of the French generals were outdated. It has been said that if WW1 hadn’t decimated the French male population the population would now number around 175 million. It must be noted that the natural laws of demographics did not work in France between 1918 and the early 60s.
Phil Copson says
Sorry, that is too glib and facile an explanation.
Ability to resist invasion has little to do with man-power. If it was down to numbers, how on earth could Germany and Austria manage to simultaneously invade all of Europe, a chunk of North Africa, plus Russia ?
Or Alexander, or the Roman Empire have conquered so much ?
The Germans had forces that were better-equipped, better trained, and with the will to attack, succeed and move forwards. But the difference in numbers wasn’t huge – the number of soldiers under arms in Germany must have been less than that of the rest of Europe combined ? and the French had vast numbers of tanks and aircraft. But if you don’t know what to do with them, where to send them, or have the will to resist, what use are they ? The French generals were so self-important and clueless, that they selected a chateau as their military HQ, but it didn’t even have a telephone! and they were using a school atlas because they hadn’t actually equipped themselves with maps of their own country.
On hearing that the Germans had invaded, one general simply burst into tears, and an air-force general refused to use his bombers against the advancing Germans on the grounds that the Germans would retaliate. No disrespect to the French who did fight, and those who left France to continue the fight from Britain – (thoroughly recommend “The Big Circus” by-the-way – an account of a French fighter-pilot’s war) – but not enough were willing, or were led well enough.
Post WW1, France was a very divided country, like most European countries. Why would you fight if (A) you don’t believe that you will win, and (B) winning will not benefit you anyway, because your own countrymen are against you ? If you were a Communist Frenchman, why would you fight to preserve a system that would lock you up ?
Put it this way – personally, given a rifle – I will fight to save my friends and family, but will I fight to save a majority Muslim Britain from invasion by Russia ? No, because there’d be no point. I’d sooner have the Communists than the Caliphate.
Many Frenchmen’s dislike of the British was greater than their desire to defeat the Germans (we were rivals for colonies, Empire don’t forget…) and some French commanders in North Africa turned their bases over to the Germans in preference to us.
Again, the Royal Navy’s first decisive action after the fall of France, was – bizarre though it may seem on the face of it – was to attack and sink the French fleet at Oran. The Royal Navy was stretched across the globe, it had to defend the Atlantic against the German navy, the Med against the Italian navy, and leave ships in the Far East as well. We could not afford to have the French fleet turned against us as well. When the French refused the entirely reasonable options of (A) handing their Navy to Britain to continue the war, (B) sailing it to a neutral port, or (C) scuttling it, we had no choice but to sink it.
Believing that they were bound to lose, many Frenchmen at all levels simply decided that resistance would make things worse. The French air-force had up to one thousand American Curtiss fighters, but British Hurricane pilots from squadrons stationed in France, reported that the French pilots often wouldn’t take off, or simply stayed in town drinking and chasing girls.
Fortunately, we have all learned a lot since then, and I am sure that if a foreign army were ever to be marching through the streets of European cities, waving their banners, chanting their alien songs, occupying our public squares, dictating our laws, raping the women and children, beating up our police, setting fire to thousands of cars, smashing the place up to show who’s in charge, and imposing an entirely new way of life and religion on us, our leaders would immediately act to protect their citizens – wouldn’t they ?
Don McKellar says
Thanks for the informative piece! Nobody is the ideal candidate but France would be at least reversing from the self-inflicted poisoning if Fillon got in. Him or Le Pen are desperately needed.
I hope you will do further write ups of anti-Islam candidates in Europe who are rising out of the blood-soaked jihadi playground police states and saying ENOUGH.
mccode says
Bravo, Mr. Fitzgerald.
The true nature of Islam be continuously publicized, not the sanitized version that pervades the MSM.
Western governments must grow a spine, and discard their myopia inducing coke-bottle spectacles if there is any chance for this contagion to be contained.
cs says
“What does Fillon say about Muslim immigration? No pollyannish “happy identity” for him; he has described radical Islam as a “’totalitarianism like the Nazis.” Catholics, Protestants and Jews “don’t denounce the values of the Republic,” he thundered — “unlike the faithful of a certain other religion.” He recognizes that Islam is a special case, represents a unique menace to the Republic of France, and to the French identity.”
i don’t know if it was here, but first article I read about him, he was conflating the 3 Abraamic religions in the same bag, saying that all of them could be radicalised. I think this article was here, and it was one about Marine Le Pen, not sure really.
Well let;s hope he is able to differentiate among them. Because the difference is bizarre.
Mark A says
Excellent article.
I’ve been looking for some analysis on Fillion since it appears he and Le Pen will be the leading candidates in the 2017 French elections.
Classroomwatch says
Apart from anything else, it is good to see Hugh Fitzgerald’s stress on what children are taught about Islam in their schools. By the time they get to university there is very little hope.
Not long ago Mr Fitzgerald posted two artcles here, translating the important work of Barbara LeFebvre on the subject. If you missed them they can be found here:
https://classroomwatch.wordpress.com/category/france/
Angemon says
And forfeit French citizenship if they have it, as in the case of second generation, dual-citizenship “migrants”. And if France grants citizens of its former colonies some sort of preferential status, that needs to be done away with.
Byzantium1683 says
Indeed. The concept that former colonials, who have every reason to hate the french, are french, is stupid.
There are many older Muslims who are no threat, so its sad for them, but they have a disturbing ability to spawn Islamists as children.
I read the first part of a detective novel. The bad guy? An second generation Islamist who claims racism when he is arrested.
Not bothering with that. Its exactly what we face today, stupid anti-process activists.
Byzantium1683 says
You know, people as respected as Charlie Hebdo mock Marine Le pen as a neo-nazi.
I have respect for Geert Wilders, but I dunno about Le pen. Of course, probably better than the liberals in charge. Its about time France stopped being a bunch of communist sympathizers.
Of course, thats even assuming the rumours are true. They say Robert Spencer is a Nazi, yet despite all his rightegous rage I don’t think he has ever said a racist thing.
Tom W Harris says
Some folks have confused him with Richard Spencer, who is a Nazi.
Spike1033 says
The main problem with Marine Le Pen is the family she comes from. Her father is an out and out anti-Semitic Nazi. He used to be the leader of the National Front. There was recently a court case between Le Pen senior and Le Pen junior. She was trying to oust him from the party and move towards the centre ground of politics. Unfortunately he isn’t going quietly. Marine also has a niece in the party who is also a depute. The niece is also a firebrand.
DFD says
To sum it up: A lot of ‘feel goodies’. Substance? After the last massacre in Paris Hollande said: “Now we are at war!” Since then, err, nothing.
Wonder if the French sheeply will fall for it.
davej says
We must get over the bias that says all religions are basically good and all immigrants will graciously assimilate. Islam is a SPECIAL CASE and the EXCEPTION to the rule.
There is no natural law that says there cannot be such an exception, particularly when you consider that Islam is primarily an aggressive political ideology that is purposely dressed up as a religion to exploit the naivete of those who it wishes to invade.
Were it not for it’s fabricated holiness Islam would be dealt with in the same way that Nazis were and the same way that space invaders who wanted to murder us and rape our women and children would be. There is nothing “holy” about their goals and nothing “sacred” about their militant tactics.
ItsJo says
DaveJ, your post is an excellent one, and true, “Islam is NO Religion and those who belong to it should admit it is a “CULT, that is Misogynist, and treats is women like DOGS(and that quote about women being like dogs that are like raw meat, and smell foul, and SHOULD be covered up-came from one of their OWN Imams)
It appears that these people STILL LIVE IN THE 7th CENTURY, and STILL WANT TO TAKE OVER THE WHOLE WORLD, AS THEY HAVE SAID THEMSELVES. They are again, “A CULT, AS NO RELIGION TEACHES IT’S PEOPLE THAT IT’S OKAY TO LIE(TAQIYYA) TO ‘INFIDELS-NON MUSLIMS) AND KILL PEOPLE WHO DO NOT THINK AS THEY DO.”
Enough of this ‘7th CENTURY BARBARISM AND LIVING OFF THOSE NATIONS THAT TAKE THEM IN, EVEN THOUGH THEY HATE THEIR HOST COUNTRIES.’
Louis Carole says
Hugh is great. Another idea: clean out the no-go zones. And, if there need be built many new prisons, so be it.
dragaozao says
Seeing is believing. I don´t trust politicians so, I´ll wait to see. But it looks like winds of History are changing. The questions is: after so many years of lunacy, will there be time to real change?
Lee says
Somewhere on youtube you will find a video in which Fillon says that France will have to build mosques for the Muslim population even if it violated French law. That alone takes him out of all consideration as far as I am concerned.
Phil Copson says
The French establishment don’t want Le Pen to win, so they find a candidate with anti-Islamic credentials, split the pro-Le Pen vote, then neither get in. Job done.
It’s only the same as any politician or any salesman does – if the market wants something different, you claim to have it, to keep your market share.
You don’t really think that Merkel has changed her mind about mass migration, do you ? Or her Vice Chancellor – the Arch-Anarchist Gabriel – has revised his view that opponents of mass migration should be jailed ? or that Turkey will ever take tens of thousands back again ?
The average voter appears to have the attention-span of a retarded fruit-fly, and if you say to anyone: “What was the big political story of three weeks ago ?” they won’t have a clue. All politicians ever have to do is come up with something to keep the media on-side for the next few days, because in 10 days time nobody will remember what the discussion was about anyway.
As Mayor Quimby put it in “The Simpsons” – “Throw them a fish and watch them beat their flippers together.”
How many US Presidential debates were there, and what was the subject in each ? See what I mean ? The most important water-shed election in US history, and I bet nobody reading this can remember.
Sic transit gloria mundi…. ( fix the wife’s van next weekend…..)
ItsJo says
I must say, that “Many of us, DO RECALL the debates here in America, and THAT IS WHY TRUMP RESONATED WITH ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ AS HE SPOKE ABOUT WHAT MANY OF US FELT, AS ‘CAREER POLITICOS IGNORED US ALL, THE DAY AFTER ELECTIONS’………HE KNOWS WE MUST CLEAN UP AMERICAN POLITICS, AS THEY HAVE RUN AMERICA INTO THE GROUND, WITH OBAMA AT THE HELM.
WE HAVE ONE LAST CHANCE TO SAVE THIS REPUBLIC, AS HILLARY WOULD HAVE BEEN ‘OBAMA’S 3rd TERM, AND WE HAVE BEEN INVADED BY MUSLIMS BEING DUMPED BY OBAMA, WITH HIS ILLEGAL ALIEN/REFUGEE INVASION OF AMERICA.’ THE ‘MARXIST/MUSLIM LOVING OBAMA, HILLARY, SOROS(their Puppet Master, who has tried for Over 40 yrs. to Take down America) have been OUSTED, and though Crooked Democrats, and Rino’s(like McCain, Paul, Graham, etc) liked “the good ole boys club that added to their Coffers” are smearing OUR choice for POTUS, Donald J. Trump, but HE will beat them at their Own Games.
Eerie says
Aux armes citoyens! Aux armes!
eduardo odraude says
Thank you for this wonderful window on the French situation. I look forward to part 2.
Demsci says
Excellent article, as always, from Hugh.
As I see it, a big problem is that our own democratic rules and values are used to our detriment, and still by a majority of our current politicians and big swathes of our electorate and even Fillon won’t budge from them if he can avoid it.
Here there is freedom of religion and it is an almost sacred rule that we may NOT EVER do this CRIMINAL act; Discriminate on the basis of (self-confessed) religion!!!
It is never even mentioned as such, except in comments here and elsewhere we see proposals which are implicitly discrimatory against Muslims, like limiting Muslim-immigration.
And yet, without such discrimination everything else is largely useless! The current attempt to ONLY discriminate between so-called RADICAL and MODERATE Muslims (presumed the majority) is totally not-working!!!
We have to discriminate, however lightly or severe, at the border, with immigrants, on Islam as a whole, with EVERY Muslim.
And be able to say to Muslims; on the basis of your self-confessed religion, Islam, you, would-be immigrant, are REFUSED. And that Christian and that Buddhist, he and she are ACCEPTED, again on the basis of the religion they adhere to. Only then come other considerations.
Inside our countries; we must be able to say; on the grounds of your self-confessed religion, we are going to ask explicitly for your loyalties and the activities of your “temple”(mosque), and check them, in a way we do that with Christians, Buddhists, Atheists etc and the activities of their “temples”.
As reasons we can give, among others:
– every adult is to be held accountable for their choice of religion. You choose to be a Muslim and to immigrate or stay in a democratic country.
– the democratic, secular character of our nations, and the totalitarian nature of (all) Islam, which a sizable minority of our citizens now knows very well and distrusts heartily,
– and on top of that the known totalitarian interpretation of Islam by hundreds of millions of Muslims. Who clearly are more loyal to our enemies than to us.
– Given these arguments and due to our very democratic structure (which could give detrimental and irreversible power to your intolerant ideology) we cannot allow Muslims to grow into too large a percentage of our nation or even our cities, neighborhoods.
The discrimination itself can vary, from mild to severe, but it must be called discrimination of Muslims inside Democratic Nations on account of their self-chosen religion explicitly. Even though hearing this will almost make the political corrects explode! And in chorus shout “Racism”!
Demsci says
Typo; in a way we DON’T DO THAT WITH THE OTHER RELIGIONS OR IDEOLOGIES.
Angel says
Rather bizarre, isn’t it, that in the French public schools and universities there is no holding back on the sins of Renaissance Popes, the excesses of the Inquisition, the Catholic Church’s initial failures in grappling with modernity, or the history of abuses of clerical authority (a mix of harsh facts, zealous exaggeration at times, plus a dose of myth thrown in for good measure) while Islam is romanticised and it’s dark history white-washed? Moreover, while contemporary Catholicism and Protestantism pose no threat to the Republic, it is Islam that gets favorable treatment despite its aggressive challenge of Laïcité as a constitutional tradition. Are French liberals brain dead or are they suicidal?
F in F says
Two absolutely fascinating articles and I actually live in France, half an hour from Nice. there are places in Nice you no longer dare go. I recently spent a few weeks in Grasse and there are parts of town, squares, where there are so many Arab men standing around with fierce looks and not a woman in sight, that the Lebanese woman I was with was extremely uncomfortable and refused to have lunch in the town.
I think HughFitzgerald’s distinction between Arabs and non-Arab Muslims is an extremely interesting approach and I look forward to hearing more from him on this or on any other subject he wishes to address himself.
I myself am dubious about Fillon’s sincerity or seriousness. it seems to me he is Wooly when it comes to the Russians, the Syrian christians and the reality of Syrian geopolitics.