Marine Le Pen the untouchable?

2016/03/22 Leave a comment

One of the better English summaries of her visit:

The proverbial 10-foot pole has become a popular approach for Quebec politicians in dealing with the leader of France’s far-right party, who arrived in Montreal on Friday.

Marine Le Pen may be among France’s most popular politicians — polls suggest she has enough support to make the run-off stage in the country’s next presidential election — but she has yet to secure a meeting with a mainstream political figure in Canada.

That hasn’t stopped her from wading into federal and provincial politics, sending politicians scurrying for cover.

Canada’s immigration policy an ‘error’

At a news conference in Quebec City on Sunday, Le Pen criticized Canada’s immigration policy, calling it an “error” to admit 25,000 Syrian refugees.

“A multicultural society is a conflicted society,” she said during the news conference.

Le Pen described the current situation in France as warning for Canadians.

“We put out a welcome sign, but what conditions await them? The slums of Calais? This is a policy that makes no sense and is dangerous,” she said referring to a large informal refugee camp near the tunnel underneath the English Channel.

Le Pen has had trouble finding a receptive audience since she arrived in Quebec. A small group of protesters disrupted her Sunday news conference, shouting and unfurling banners with anti-fascist messages.

“Away children, go back to bed,” she told the protesters, saying their behaviour was “unacceptable in a democracy.”

PKP ‘shocked’ at meeting

Le Pen did manage to meet with people claiming to be from the Parti Québécois on Saturday. She told Radio-Canada that she has supporters within the party.

“The PQ is diverse and vast,” Le Pen said. “It’s not monolithic.”

PQ’s leader Pierre Karl Péladeau quickly took to Facebook to dissociate himself from Le Pen, saying he was “shocked” that anyone from his party would meet with her.

The Front National’s values “are diametrically opposed to the values of the Parti Québécois,” Peladeau said.

Source: Marine Le Pen the untouchable? – Montreal – CBC News

My friend Arun shared this article about the coverage in France:

FIASCO – Imaginez le scénario. Vous traversez l’Atlantique, tout content de partir en voyage au Québec, espérant renforcer votre stature internationale et en pensant rencontrer des personnalités politiques locales de premier plan, la présidentielle de 2017 en tête. Vous communiquez même sur ce dernier point. Mais, à peine débarqué de votre avion, vous commencez à déchanter car personne ne veut vous voir. C’est ce qui se passe avec le voyage outre-Atlantique de Marine Le Pen.

D’après divers articles de la presse canadienne, la présidente du Front national, de passage au Canada pour six jours, le temps de passer par Québec et Montreal, n’est pas la bienvenue pour la classe politique locale. Pourtant, le FN avait fait savoir que la candidate à l’élection présidentielle de 2017 allait rencontrer des “politiciens fédéraux” sans plus de précision.

Sauf que Le Devoir a contacté la plupart des hommes et femmes politiques de premier plan et aucun ne veut rencontrer Marine Le Pen. “Tous les partis contactés vendredi, tant au niveau provincial que fédéral, ont indiqué qu’ils n’avaient pas prévu de rencontre avec la politicienne de 47 ans”, écrit de son côté La Presse le 19 mars.

“Au Québec, le porte-parole du premier ministre Philippe Couillard, Harold Fortin, a déclaré que personne au gouvernement n’a l’intention de rencontrer Marine Le Pen”, écrit encore le Devoir sur son site et qui détaille les réponses similaires de nombre d’autres partis. Et Antonine Yaccarini, la porte-parole de l’aile parlementaire du Parti québécois, de résumer le sentiment prédominant chez les politiques québécois :

Nous n’avons pas une minute à consacrer à cette personne-là.

Comme le note également le Devoir, un député a même conseillé sur Radio-Canada à Marine Le Pen de plier bagage et de rentrer en France. Sollicités, les parti “La Coalition avenir Québec” et “Québec solidaire” ont refusé de rencontrer la patronne du FN. Idem du côté du maire de Montréal. Un fiasco.

En déplacement au Québec, Marine Le Pen peine à rencontrer des élus canadiens

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Olivier Roy on Laicite as Ideology, the Myth of ‘National Identity’ and Racism in the French Republic

2015/05/23 1 Comment

A really good interview with Olivier Roy,  Head of the Mediterranean Program at the European University Institute, on French laïcité and how it has become transformed from a judicial principle to an ideology.

Well worth reading given the parallels in Quebec and how French debates migrate across the Atlantic.

Thanks to Arun with a View for bringing this interview (and many others) to my attention:

In the beginning, the law of 1905 was simply a judicial principle, it was not understood as a set of norms and values. Why? Because at the time, the believers and non-believers shared the same values—on family, on homosexuality, morality, modesty, etc.—there was a common set of ethics, culture. As Jules Ferry said, a laic teacher was not meant to say anything which might shock a religious head of family.

What’s different today is the moral cleavage which emerged in the 1960s, that is not related to Islam but to religion in general. From the 1960s, there is a secular ethic which diverges significantly from the religious ethic – sexual freedom, gay marriage, IVF, etc.—this is why the laicite, which was a principle of neutrality turned into an ideology affirming values – under the principle of tolerance, the idea that one must accept blasphemy, homosexuality, feminism, etc., which has never been central to the Catholic Church.

There is a disconnect between the dominant culture and religion, which means that communities of faith feel themselves minorities in the contemporary western world and that’s why they ask to be protected from the majority—there are two tendencies among people of faith.

The first is “reconquer,” demanding that the state take into account Christian values, such as forbidding abortion, or if deemed impossible, requesting an exemption, such as a believer not being made to perform a gay marriage, undertake abortion, etc.—today there is a clear disassociation between secularized culture and religions, and when I say laicite has become an ideology, rather than accept this diversity, laicite is demanding that the believer share in these secular values—this is the tension.

For example, take the Charlie Hebdo affair. The slogan “Je suis Charlie” can have two meanings: one of solidarity, opposing the attacks and terrorism, but the second meaning refers to an approval of Charlie—and many believers cannot say that they approve Charlie. They condemn the killings but cannot necessarily approve of Charlie’s images—it is what the Pope said, he was very clear, when he said he was against blasphemy, not that it was a question of law, but he opposed blasphemy, especially gratuitously.

There was a very strong reaction in France among secularists who thought it scandalous that the Pope speak in this fashion. Today there is a laic intolerance. From the principle of the separation of state and religion, we have moved to the idea that everyone must share the ideals of the Republic but which are in fact very recent values and which are a consequence of profound social changes since the 1960s. Laicite no longer accepts diversity.

… It is a model which is essentially French, because even in countries which have adopted it officially, such as Mexico or Turkey. In Turkey although everyone speaks of laicite, the constitution is not secular because religion is organized by the department for religious affairs. Kemalist Turkey preserved the Department of Religious Affairs to control religion, specifically Islam—it is not laicite. Similarly in Mexico, there is a “French style” laicite, but it is clear that religion, especially Catholicism, plays a much bigger part in society than it can in France, so in all countries there is a national dimension, a historical dimension, there is a national question over the issue of religion and the state. If you take a country like Denmark where less than ten percent of people practice a religion, Danes will tell you they are Lutherans because it is the religion of the state—but they do not practice, they do not care at all. So it is an extremely secular country although officially there is no separation between state and society so each country in my view invents its compromise to manage the relations between the church, state, and society.

I do not think in particular that laicite in its current version, as an ideology, can be positive for any country, I think it has gone too far–but we can conceive of a secular constitution, in the sense of distinguishing religion and politics, which works well in a religious society. Take the example of the United States. There you have a total separation, but no president can be elected if he does not believe in God. Look at Bosnia, created specifically to be a Muslim state for the Muslims of Yugoslavia, is totally secular—which does not mean that there is a Muslim community which functions very well in laicite, which is blossoming in a secular framework. The issue is not the laicite as a constitutional principle of separation, I think this can function very well, the problem is when laicite constructs itself as an anti-religious ideology.

Olivier Roy on Laicite as Ideology, the Myth of ‘National Identity’ and Racism in the French Republic.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Charlie Hebdo just meeting demand for Islamophobia | NCCM

2015/01/21 Leave a comment

Not convinced that Abbas Kassam NCCM has done its homework and actually looked at Charlie Hebdo seriously, beyond a simplistic “no depiction” of the Prophet perspective:

Yet, the magazine and its supporters are just meeting the market demand for Islamophobia. It is now popular in our discourse to pitch western values against radical Islamists (no matter how empty these terms are). Charlie Hebdo met this demand in the worst possible way.

It is questionable whether the cartoons were even satirical. Satire is a classical tool of those without power to shed light on the weaknesses of the powerful. Satire is not about perpetuating negative stereotypes about a disenfranchised minority. Ultimately, Charlie Hebdo was promoting the very stereotypes it was supposedly trying to satirize. This might work as a business model, but it is detrimental for society.

…. It is essential that we also collectively reject the demand for Islamophobic material because it harms our valued social cohesion. As Canadians, we are living in a society that promotes tolerance and cohesion, not discrimination. However, Islamophobia stigmatizes Muslim communities, disenfranchises and isolates them from the mainstream. This creates conditions ripe for extremist radicalization, which has proven to be a danger to all of us, including Muslims themselves. And violence then creates demand for a response. This reaction can sometimes lead to the erosion of civil liberties and decreased freedoms for everyone.

Much of Canadian media should be lauded for their principled stand in declining to print the magazine’s incendiary cartoons. We can take a cue from their decision. As democratic societies we need to demand mutual respect and understanding, and reject the purveyors of intolerance. This may not sound as interesting or exciting as the clash of civilizations framework, but it is a long-term investment in our shared future.

After all, satire on the activities of fundamentalists and their political views is not necessarily Islamophobic, just as criticism of fundamentalist advocates of greater Israel is not necessarily antisemitic.

Charlie Hebdo just meeting demand for Islamophobia | TorontoStar.

For a more serious look at Charlie Hebdo, see Arun with a View for a range of commentary:

Understanding Charlie Hebdo

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Charlie Hebdo harsher with Christianity than Islam

2015/01/12 Leave a comment

Martin Patriquin on Charlie Hebdo:

My point here isn’t only that Charlie Hebdo is an equal opportunity offender of religions, a fact repeatedly borne out in the magazine’s archives. It’s also this: over the years, Charlie Hebdo has been far harsher with Christianity than it has with Islam. Catholic organizations have sued the magazine 13 times, and only once by Muslim groups. That the magazine was both firebombed (in 2011) and its staff attacked and killed (2015) by apparent adherents of Islam only speaks to Charlie Hebdo’s central point: it’s not the religion that’s the problem—though there’s that too—but its  most extreme adherents. “French Muslims are sick of Islamism,” read the first cover sell in one issue.

French society might well be anti-Islam. Muslims, who make up 12 per cent of the country’s population, account for about 60 per cent of its prison population. Many of Paris’s infamous banlieues are petri dishes of relative poverty and exclusion. French politicians, eager to curry to the public’s favour, have been far too quick in appealing to its baser fears; Nicolas Sarkozy’s outright burqua ban is but one example of this.

But Charlie Hebdo is hardly a reflection of this hate. In fact, when it wasn’t pillorying him for being an image-obsessed, pro-American patsy, Charlie Hebdo was at its best when it pointed out in brilliant and profane Technicolor how Sarkozy was guilty of scapegoating Muslims and the Roma for the sake of an election. Here is one example.

There’s a sad irony for you: far from being anti-Islam, Charlie Hebdo was perhaps the loudest defender of those who practice it.

Charlie Hebdo harsher with Christianity than Islam.

And in the same vein, on Arun with a View, commentary on the content of Charlie Hebdo by someone who has read it on and off over the years:

… The fact is, CH is on the left, targets all religions—but not their believers—in equal measure, and aims its main fire at politicians, and particularly the right (and, above all, the Front National). CH comes out once a week, i.e. 52 times a year. A handful of its issues—less than a dozen—over the past decade have had cover cartoons mocking radical Islamism (not Islam or Muslims). A drop in the bucket in terms of what CH has published. And most of these cartoons have been pretty good actually. Witty and on target.

A few in the inside pages—which could only be seen if one purchased the issue, as CH puts almost nothing on its website—were in poor taste (and the cover cartoon from last October on the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram—which was situated in the context of the then French debate on family allowances—was definitely in very poor taste), but, taken as a whole, could in no way be taken as denigrating to Muslims qua Muslims. And then there’s the actual content of CH’s columns and articles, which absolutely no CH detractor mentions (as they have most certainly never read any). I will defy anyone to find any of these—published at any point over the years—that could in any way be considered racist or Islamophobic.

On Charlie Hebdo, bigotry, and racism

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Death to the Jews? | Arun with a View

2014/08/16 1 Comment

The back story on the small hamlet called Latin American-Mort-aux-Juifs by my friend Arun:

The reason why La-Mort-aux-Juifs went unnoticed all these years was precisely because practically no one had heard of it. The story is presently all over the French media, which is precisely where Frenchmen and women are learning that such a locality exists.

A couple of things. First, La-Mort-aux-Juifs has been called a “village” or even “town” in English-language reports, which is inaccurate. It is a “lieu-dit”—which may be translated as “locality” literally: said place or locality—, in the commune of Courtemaux population 239—itself a place practically no one outside the eastern Loiret has heard of. Communes are the smallest administrative units in France of which there are some 36,681 in the 101 departments of metropolitan and overseas France, the majority with populations of under 500. Most communes have lieux-dits—which are sometimes indicated, sometimes not—, referring to a bit of the commune that had a specific identity in centuries past.

As for La-Mort-aux-Juifs, it consists of two houses and a farm above photo, is on a country road probably taken by no one except the few people who live around there, and is not indicated on any sign. In other words, even if one drove through the place, one would not know of the lieu-dit’s name.

Secondly, it is not even clear what the name of this lieu-dit is supposed to signify. As a piece in Marianne pointed out—and that I had been wondering about—La-Mort-aux-Juifs does not, in fact, translate as “death to the Jews.” Without the definite article “la” and the dashes—which are generally the rule in place names in France—, it would indeed mean this. But the definite article and dashes change the meaning, which is indeterminate but may simply indicate a place where Jews were killed—maybe even massacred—eight or nine centuries ago. For all one knows, the lieu-dit may have even been named this to commemorate such an event, to remember a tragedy…

via Death to the Jews? | Arun with a View.

Filed under Antisemitism Tagged with , ,

Union des Organisations Islamiques de France – Arun with a View

2012/04/09 Leave a comment

Interesting observations about the annual Islamic organizations ‘rencontre’ in France.

UOIF in Le Bourget « Arun with a View.

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,