Pulling down the makeshift camp at Calais had to be done, for the good of the French being threatened in Calais. The fault here is with those breaking the law with their makeshift camp, not with the French authorities who dare to enforce it.
So what can be done? Extreme circumstances have prompted extreme responses, with one French intellectual, Professor Christian Moliner, even suggesting a parallel Muslim state should effectively exist in France, so that any Muslims who wished to do so could follow sharia law, in order to prevent civil disturbances.’He said that if this did not come about, there could be a civil war in France.
Moliner, an author on Islam, stated: ‘We can never convert the 30 per cent of Muslims who demand the introduction of sharia law to the merits of our democracy and secularism.
“We are now allowing segregation to take place that does not say its name.’’
This suggestion by Professor Moliner is madness. It shows how unhinged the Muslim invasion of Europe has made people. Were the French to meet the demands of those Muslims in France — by his own calculation, at least two million of them — who want to live under the Sharia, then a parallel state within France, run according to the Sharia, would be created. That means millions of people would be outside the French legal system. Family law would presumably allow for polygyny, would include the right of a husband to beat a “disobedient’’ wife; would permit a husband to divorce his wife by uttering the triple-talaq; would give a daughter only half the inheritance rights of a son. The criminal law would include barbaric punishments, including amputations for robbery and stoning for adultery, that in the advanced West we rightly cannot countenance. Instead of religious freedom, apostates from Islam could be subject to execution. As for freedom of speech, those wishing to live under this legal regime would be able to punish “blasphemy,” which should shut down any public criticism of Islam or of Muhammad.
There is a better way. That is for the French state to reassert itself, to change the rules before the Muslim population gets even bigger. The government can put an end to Muslim immigration; it has a right to decide whom it will allow to enter and settle, and whom it wants to keep out. It need not be defensive about recognizing the unprecedented menace of Muslim immigrants. It has a responsibility to draw conclusions from, rather than ignore, its experience of large-scale Muslim immigration. Despite the great openness the French initially displayed toward Muslims, and the continuing generosity of the French state, such immigration hasn’t worked out. A determined and sustained effort should be made to deport all illegal Muslim migrants. Those who are dual nationals, if found to have supported terrorist groups, should be stripped of their citizenship. The French need to recognize that an undeclared war is being waged by Muslims in France against France. Once this is understood, a legal framework sufficient to the task can be created. Of course, this assumes that the French authorities will come to their senses in time. Ideological surrender born of despair, which is what Christian Moliner counsels with his Sharia proposal, should not be an option.
Even Left-wingers belatedly acknowledge the scale of the problem. Veteran politician Jean-Louis Borloo, a former minister, was this year tasked by President Macron to research and write a report on the burgeoning problem of the Parisian suburbs.
As well as recommending that €5 billion be spent, he stressed the need for ‘national reconciliation’, especially in districts facing up to the withdrawal of French identity and community, which in turn fuels xenophobia.
How can the French have “national reconciliation” with Muslims, whose Qur’an teaches them to regard themselves as the “best of peoples” and non-Muslims as “the most vile of creatures”? With Muslims, who are taught to wage violent Jihad against Infidels in over 100 Qur’anic verses, and to “strike terror” in their hearts? With Muslims, who are told to never take Christians and Jews as friends? When, as Borloo says, Muslims withdrew from a French identity and the French community, what should the French have done? They didn’t will it; the Muslims did. Why should the “best of peoples” have to reconcile with the “most vile of creatures”? And if the French feel a justified anger after all the sums that have been and are still being spent on ungrateful and hostile Muslim migrants, happy to pocket still more of French taxpayers’ money (and another 5 billion euros, as suggested by Jean-Louis Borloo, will be pocketed, but not change Muslim hearts and minds), it is wrong to call this “xenophobia.”
mortimer says
SEINE-SAINT-DENIS … no-go zone, zone hors droit, zone d’exclusion des KAFIRS, zone de non-droit, zone charia haram, zone de djihad, SHARIA-LAW ENFORCED by vigilantes.
mortimer says
Sharia law is a mindless juggernaut which has been left on automatic pilot. Sharia law is like the stomach acid of the boa constrictor which silently digests its prey. As Sharia spreads from the enclaves to the main parts of French society, freedom is gradually lost and the French prey is absorbed into Islam.
This is what the French are unwilling to acknowledge.
Enforcing laws already on the books and tightening them to the disadvantage of Islamic BARBARIC PRACTICES will convince Muslims that their DISCRIMINATORY CULT may not be practiced within France and many will abandon Islam or leave. The French government should start finding ways to help people abandon Islam. They must do this clandestinely.
Richard says
I heard a news repot years ago that the French government was very afraid of their muslims because they they had information the muslims had stocked large numbers of weapons in France, including missals. Yes, Mortimer, you are absolutely right about enforcing the laws – but the French are afraid to do it. That, of course, makes their laws a joke and encourages the muslims to push harder. As it stands now, they have every reason to do so and would be foolish if they stopped. What France needs is another Charles the Hammer. It is the only solution to the problem.
11B40 says
Greetings:
I grew up in the Bronx of the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s whence came the euphemism “white flight”. It found significant resonance in the media and the academy as an explanation (or part thereof) for the Dresden-lite treatment that that bit of geography was being subjected to at those times.
Whatever its demographic accuracy, it was in actually a clever semantic convolution that put an onus on the people who valued their quality of life more than being introduced to multiculturally diverse experiences like being mugged or having their property burgled.
A couple of decades on, I came across another bit of semantic trickery, to wit, “ethnic cleansing”. Not being of much of a philosophical bent, it took a while before I realized that the two phrases provided a “compare and contrast” opportunity.
Now certainly, there is a relevant similarity between the “white” and the “ethnic”. While the latter might well encompass more than the former, I don’t think that there is any serious argument that “white” is an “ethnic”.
So that brings us to the “flight” versus “cleansing” assessment. Now the former would seem to me (due to the Progressive education I have been subjected to over the last several decades) to be blaming the “victims”. The neighborhood I grew up in had residents, my own extended family among them, who had lived therein for decades. I failed to discern even a hint of nomadism among them for years and years. It was only when the muggings and burglaries arrived and the ruling and policing parts of the government failed to do their jobs that relocation became not an “if” but a “when”.
Thus, I am convinced that what I had been sold as “white flight” was much more like an “ethnic cleansing”. Personal and property protection were certainly part of the decision-making process, all be it, not at levels that would interest CAIR or Samantha Power. Or, alternatively, could it have been their inability to get over the “white” hump.
gravenimage says
A Report From Hell: Seine-Saint-Denis (Part Four)
………………
The suggestion that civilized France allowing brutal Shari’ah law in her land is not only appalling, it would not stop until Muslims had completely conquered the French people and forced their utter submission to Islam.
David M says
I’m tipping the French surrender monkeys take the low road & roll over to the Muslims they willingly brought in. This is the same country that folded like a cheap suit in WW2.
James Pierce says
If these people want sharia law so badly, what is stopping them from going somewhere that already has it?
gravenimage says
They want to impose it on the French.