Friday, 21 September 2012

Here are some translated extracts from Marine Le Pen's interview with Le Monde.
What's your reaction to the "Charlie Hebdo" affair?

There is a trial of strength between the different groups of political and religious fundamentalists in France. These trials of strength have been lost, notably by the Sarkozyist right. And each time that they have negotiated, fallen back, twisted, the ground has been prepared for the events which are shaking the world today. No negotiations are possible.

Either we say that freedom of expression with the reservations imposed by the law, or we put in place censorship of the internet, we submit the newspapers for preliminary reading by the government, we re-establish the crime of blasphemy.

Are you for a right to blaspheme?

I'm glad the crime of blasphemy no longer exists. What I find astonishing is the variable geometry of the political class. We are in a country where 95% of the desecrations concern Catholic places of worship or graves and not a single line appears, not one statement from a minister. And as soon as there is a desecration of a mosque or square, immediately, a press statement has to be issued.


If you were in power, what would you do?

I'd throw out all the foreign fundamentalists. We know them very well. The Law of 1905 [Law of secularism separating church and state] has to be applied strictly: no more mosque financing, directly or indirectly. No more foreign financing. Except in a specific case of a reciprocity agreement. I am happy that a foreign state finances a mosque in our country if it does not prohibit the financing of churches or any other religion on its own territory.

How would the mosques be financed?

With the money of the faithful. As applies to all other religions. The law doesn't recognise any religion. No more prayers in the streets, no more dietary requirements in the public schools.

Kosher as well as halal?

The same. I will have it written in the Constitution that "the Republic does not recognise any community". Which would allow us to oppose all the communitarian claims, including those from the private sector.

Are you still for banning the veil in public spaces? In the street?

Yes, the shops, transport, the street...

It's a measure that kills freedom...

That depends on what you consider freedom. You're prohibited from walking naked in the street...Is that freedom-killing?

How would you define that a veil is religious or not? That poses a problem of application of the law...

It's banned. The veil is banned. That's clear! We are capable of making the distinction between a religious veil and one that isn't.

This ban would apply to all ostentatious signs?

What do you call ostentatious signs?

The kippa for example...

It's clear that if we ban the veil, we ban the kippa in public spaces.

Should we conduct a specific action in the banlieues?

When you've sent the fundamentalist foreign imams back to their countries - beuse the vast majority are foreigners - when you've stopped financing Islam left, right and centre, and by definition fundamentalist Islam, the civil populations of the "quartiers" need to be protected from the pressure of the fundamentalists, including the Muslims populations who are victims of it. For that, we need order to return to the law, for the Republic to resume its grip on a certain number of "quartiers".

How does the Republic resume its grip?

First through the school, to which we will give its role. Primary school shouldn't be giving course in foreign languages and culture. The role of the secular school, public and Republican, is to manufacture French people. Not to send children back to their origins. To prevent religion becoming an identity, a substitute nationality, we need to give substantive content to French nationality. This is the national priority. on

You are French, yellow, green, orange, brown, black; you are agnostic, atheist, Muslim, Jewish.. because you are French, you have priority access to social housing and employment. You are going to know why you are French. There are many young people who define themselves first of all by their origins and not by their nationality. So, stop double nationality.

What's your opinion of the consequences of the Arab revolutions?

The "Arab spring" has turned into the Islamist winter. It's very worrying for Europe, because there is a risk it will result in a worsening of immigration. I think of the interests of the people of these countries, many of whom are starting to live in fear.

Libya is perhaps the most dramatic situation and the one where we have the greatest responsibility. We consciously placed at the head of the Libyan state fundamentalists who had been armed to Qatar. We have been irresponsible in blindly following the United States.

There is a country, the United States, which never stops saying that it is in a struggle against fundamentalism and which, every time it has intervened somewhere, has delivered the country where it intervened to Islamist fundamentalists.

As to the affair of the film Innocence of Muslims, it is eminently suspect. This type of Z-level sub-series is put online as if by chance by a Salafist television channel, and as if by chance, it provokes this attack in Benghazi, on 11 September. I don't believe in the chance element in this business.
Source: Le Monde

6 comments:

alas said...

I'm not sure I like what she says about essentially integrating the darkies into French society. You shouldn't integrate them, because naturally integration is a two-way process, and so whilst you change them and make them more French, you also change what it means to be French and what France is (and looks like). Just kick'em out, simple.

Maybe she truly believes this, and is for obvious reasons not saying it. I personally do think it is likely to be this, but hopefully she offers a few pieces of red meat to the base.

Anonymous said...

You might find this interesting:

http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2012/09/21/head-of-muslim-association-in-greece-labels-pm-samaras-biggest-racist/

and also:

http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2012/09/18/supreme-court-orders-arrest-of-mps-despite-immunity-greeces-measures-against-extremists/

Both relate to Greece, one is a comment by an Islamic dog calling the PM the biggest racist in greece and the other relates to to Golden Dawn MPs being threatened with having their political immunity lifted.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

@alas

The epithet "Republican" is used in France in much the same way that "American/unAmerican" is used in America, denoting conformity with the state's supposed foundational principles. It's those principles that are responsible for the European Genocide in the first place. Tragically, many of those involved in resisting it (and not just in France) fail to see that.

Anne said...

Le Pen would probably like to kick the Muslims out. But right now, our elites are so far removed from reality that she cannot say that. Same in every Western country with Muslims (which includes most of the West).

Anonymous said...

Karl Popper on "The Open Society and it’s Enemies"

The paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. ”

DP111

Anonymous said...

alas

I cannot understand this penchant for integration of Muslims into our society. If successful, that would mean that our society is compatible with Islam – which it is not, or that our society would have been taken over by Islam. Its a lose lose situation, and that is why Muslims are confident that Europe will become Islamic if the present political policies continue.

DP111

Search

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews