The Great Fear

Dalil Boubakeur's proposal to suspend the 1905 law separating Church and State has incensed the advocates of "laïcité" who see in his words a predictable maneuver, welcomed by the State and Churches alike, for the purpose of restoring the power of religion to all spheres of French life.

The following excerpts are taken from a long text posted at Riposte Laïque, a website of militants of "laïcité". Essentially, a coalition of left-leaning groups and individuals, they have the virtue of wanting to preserve intact the 1905 law separating Church and State. It isn't clear if they understand the true nature of Islam and its refusal of such a separation. What is clear is their intense hostility towards religion, and their firm belief that Nicolas Sarkozy intends, through modifications to the existing law, to impose his view of the equality of all religions onto the French people, instead of maintaining the strict separation that has been enforced until recently when Islam came into the picture.

(...) Why should Boubakeur have any qualms (about suspending the law)? Sarkozy, through his speeches in Rome and then in Ryadh rolled out the red carpet to the Churches, and someone had to go into the breach. This role fell to the freedom-destroying mufti of the Paris mosque, since Islam is the spear-head of this offensive.

(...) The ministers visit him (Boubakeur) during Ramadan, an obscurantist practice if ever there was one, to break the fast. They invite him to the television studios where, all the while claiming to favor "laïcité", he whimpers about discrimination towards Muslims. Sarkozy takes him along in his baggage when he goes to Algiers. There, Boubakeur listens enthralled to the French president who, in an incredible speech, denounces Islamophobia and anti-Semitism in the same breath.

As thanks for these good and loyal favors, Boubakeur plays the game expected of him by the powers-that-be and the Churches: he demands the end of the law of 1905.

Note: They come close to saying that it is a conspiracy by the government and the religions - i.e. a pre-planned plot to pave the way for the abolition of the law.

Their fear, despite what they say about Islam, is of the return of Christianity, especially Catholicism, to the decision-making process of the government, as the following statements attest:

In Europe through Article 15-1 of the new Treaty of Lisbon, which replaces the former Article 1-52, they want to render unavoidable the consultation of the Catholic Church before any political policy is adopted.

Furthermore, in Europe, 20 countries out of 25 are signatories of concordats with the Catholic Church. Now they want all of France to be aligned with those countries.

Note: I cannot comment on the above. I have not read the Treaty, nor am I familiar with the concordats.

But Catholicism is not their only fear:

(...) The Turkish Islamists who still intend to enter Europe feel that the moment has come. They are trying to end the ban on the Islamic veil, instituted by Mustapha Kemal, at the University.

The Protestants, among whom the Evangelicals are today in the majority, are patiently waiting for the French State to "tinker" with the law of 1905 that forbids the construction of houses of worship, in order to benefit from these derogations.

Movements such as the Church of Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, Raelians, and others are eager for these revisions so that they may be recognized fully as religions, and take advantage of the subsidies, fiscal exemptions and other privileges which are today forbidden by Article 2 of this accursed law.

In short, the stage is set, the scenario is soon to be played out.

Note: I know nothing about Raelians. I doubt that they pose a threat comparable to Islam.

The article goes on to call for a massive protest, first at the local level, then a march towards Paris. Among the organizations cited as participants in this protest are the Grand Orient of France (Freemasons) and the Ligue de l'Enseignement (League of Teachers):

Today is not the time to be timorous with those who prepared the way for Sarkozy and the concept of "open laïcité." Nor must we be divided in our ranks, whatever divergences may exist,

(...) We are convinced that the potential for mobilization by the French people around the concept of "laïcité" is intact. The citizens of this country are much more attached to the separation of the religious from the political than the elite is willing to believe.

Note: Sarkozy has (knowingly?) opened a can of worms with his initiatives on religion. But the essential problem remains Islam. The advocates of "laïcité" seem to forget that there can be no separation of Church and State in Islam and that if Islam is going to be given privileges, it automatically means the end of the law of 1905. Sarkozy, the Great Egalitarian, is banking on the fallacious notion of "equality" of religions and is throwing all religions together in the same arena to find a way of co-existing. His specific plans to modify the 1905 law will be the topic of future posts.

The image is of Liberty Leading the People, a famous painting from 1830 by Eugène Delacroix.

A Moratorium On the 1905 Law

The mufti of the Paris mosque, Dalil Boubakeur, has dropped what amounts to a political and religious bomb. He proposes a moratorium on the French law of 1905 separating Church and State, because not enough mosques are being built in France.

Besides his position as mufti, he is the president of the CFCM (French Council of the Muslim Faith), an association officially established in 2003 thanks to the efforts of Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy, and before him, Jean-Pierre Chevènement and Daniel Vaillant. English Wikipedia has a short article on the CFCM.

The CFCM, whose mission is in part to oversee the building of mosques in France, has been plagued by internal quarrels since its inception. Here is an abridged article from Le Monde:

Paralyzed by personal quarrels and an inability to reach collective decisions, the CFCM, five years after its founding, has little to show, except for the installation of military and prison chaplains. In October, the Foundation for Charitable Works for Islam was created in the expectation that it would allow the transparent financing of mosques. Presided over by Mr. Boubakeur, the Foundation today is at a standstill.

The article points out that the Regional Councils of the Muslim Faith (CRCM) have failed to organize their religion effectively at the local level, and that the CFCM has not yet succeeded in gaining autonomy from the State, whose representatives are still active in its functioning.

It is interesting to note that the Muslims had hoped to gain autonomy from the State that feeds and houses them. But autonomy would mean freedom to live according to sharia law. This is probably why the French State still keeps some control over its own creation.

Faced with this unfavorable situation, the representatives of the CFCM say they are convinced of the "necessity to bring about an important change in the structures of the CFCM and the CRCM." In an unusual move, the candidates (for the office of president of the CFCM) have pledged to present a platform in a few weeks. They could be taking advantage of the recent remarks made by Nicolas Sarkozy on the importance he wants to accord to religions in society.

Questioned by Le Monde, Mr. Boubakeur set forth the idea of a "moratorium of 10 to 20 years" on the 1905 law, which forbids all public funding of places of worship, so that Islam can "catch up" on its needs. "The associations that administer houses of worship need to be given air to breathe," he feels.

This has to be one of the most daring statements made yet by a Muslim leader in France. I cannot believe even Sarkozy would put any stock in such a proposal. Furthermore, there are at least 1500 mosques and prayer rooms in France, 75 in Paris alone.

As indicated above, the office of president of the CFCM is up for renewal. Besides Boubakeur, the candidates are Fouad Alaoui, vice-president of the UOIF (Union of Islamic Organizations of France), Haydar Demiryurek, representative of a part of the Turks of France, and a Moroccan, as yet unnamed. May the best man win.

Muslims To Visit Vatican

This article appeared in La Croix:

A Muslim delegation will visit the Vatican on March 4 and 5 to pave the way for a meeting between the Pope and the representatives of religious and intellectual Muslims in favor of a dialogue with Christians, according to the Italian news agency Ansa.

In October of 2007, 138 Muslim clerics, dignitaries and intellectuals from around the world published an open letter to the representatives of the various Christian denominations inviting them to participate in discussions.

Dozens of other signatories have been added to the list which now has 221 names. (...)

Last November Pope Benedict XVI invited "a restricted group" of signatories of the open letter to meet with him.

According to Ansa, a delegation will go to the Vatican on March 4 and 5 to prepare for a summit between the Pope and several Muslim representatives, including Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal, president of the Institute for Islamic Thought in Amman and architect of the Muslim initiative.

The initiative of the Muslim representatives, regarded in a positive light by those who have been asked to participate, came about one year after the crisis provoked by Benedict XVI's "Ratisbon speech" in which he seemed to be associating Islam with violence.

Note: This very non-committal article from La Croix leaves so many questions unanswered. Have there already been some meetings between the Muslims and Christians (other than the Pope)? If so, what was the outcome? Are they trying to persuade the Christian leaders that Islam is a religion of peace? If so, has anyone opposed this debatable notion? Do they expect the Pope to apologize again for his remarks? Do they expect some kind of reassurance that he will never utter such thoughts again? Would the Pope have looked cowardly if he had refused to meet them, or does he look cowardly for agreeing to meet them?

The Catholic websites, as far as I can tell, regard this visit in a most optimistic light.

Photo of the Pope releasing a white dove from E-Deo. Let's hope Benedict isn't too peaceful with his guests. Some firmness on his part would be welcome.

Note: The link to La Croix is no longer working, but Le Salon Beige had a brief on the same topic.

Reforming the French Constitution

On February 4, 2008, in Versailles, the French Parliament, united in a Congress of both chambers (Senate and National Assembly) will meet to vote on reforming the French Constitution. Both chambers have already, individually, adopted the changes, but a final vote is needed.

This is, in substance, a vote for (or against) the Treaty of Lisbon, which, if adopted, will mean the virtual end of French sovereignty.

In order to approve the Treaty, it is first necessary to modify the French Constitution, a document conceived for a sovereign people. By reforming the Constitution to conform to the Treaty of Lisbon, the Treaty is, for all intents and purposes, approved.

Conversely, by refusing to reform the current French Constitution, the Treaty of Lisbon is, for all intents and purposes, rejected.

Independent deputy, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, analyses the situation:

To reform the French Constitution a 3/5 majority of Parliament is needed. Conversely, to block the reforms 2/5 of the votes are needed. Only expressed votes are counted. The Parliament is composed of 331 senators and 557 deputies. The total number of potential votes (assuming everyone is there and everyone votes) is therefore 908. It follows then that a 3/5 majority is 545 votes and a minority opposition bloc of 2/5 amounts to 363 votes.

A MAJORITY IS NOT GUARANTEED

There are 321 UMP deputies and 159 UMP senators. (Reminder: UMP is Sarkozy's party.) This means that UMP has 480 possible votes provided all its members are present and vote without exception for the reform of the Constitution. Even so UMP alone does not hold the 3/5 majority needed! Sixty-five votes are still missing! If we factor in all the votes from the combined parties of the Center (MODEM and New Center), something that is not at all certain, we have 539 votes - still not the 3/5 majority. Five votes are still missing!

To have a 3/5 majority, Sarkozy must unite all the UMP parliamentarians, all those from the Center and all of the non-aligned from both houses of Parliament! Then we would have a total of 552 votes. Or just 7 more than needed! Seven votes! No more than that. We are far, very far from the notion that "it's in the bag", claimed by some who are unable to produce a single figure to support their thesis! Besides, and note this well, there is an unknown factor. An important one! There are 15 parliamentarians who are pro-sovereignty rightists! If they don't vote, Sarkozy's score falls to 537 votes and he loses. The truth is, for Sarkozy to fail to get his majority, all that is required is that 8 of them vote against the Constitutional reforms!

THE MINORITY BLOC

Reminder: a minority of 2/5 - 363 votes - is enough to block Sarkozy. The total number of left-wing parliamentarians - socialists, communists, MDC, Green Party, is 355 votes. We are missing 8 votes. Eight votes are also missing if all rightist parliamentarians are present and vote and if all pro-sovereignty members, and all non-aligned members and all centrists of whatever stripe vote with the UMP.

Note: I'm not familiar with the MDC. There is an MRC party that is left-leaning. Possibly he means that.

From all of this, with the figures to support it, we can conclude that it's a close call for Nicolas Sarkozy and that his only margin of security is the socialist parliamentarians who, in an act of betrayal, would give him a helping hand.

Why must the French Constitution be reformed? Because the Treaty of Lisbon contains restrictions on sovereignty, principles and measures that do not conform to the Constitution of the 5th Republic. Furthermore, in the body of the current French Constitution there is Article 88/1 that was adopted before the 2005 referendum (when France rejected the EU Constitution). It affirms that France acts within the limits ("cadre") of the European Constitutional Treaty signed in 2004. But in 2005 the French people rejected that Constitution. At the very least this sentence should be removed from the Constitution. A new sentence must be introduced that refers this time to the Treaty of Lisbon. This addition is an a priori requirement to the ratification of the Treaty and this is why the Parliament has been summoned to meet in Versailles on February 4.

In the event Sarkozy wins, he has already made plans to convoke the two houses of parliament. And note this: to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon by parliamentary vote, a simple majority in each of the two chambers is sufficient, i.e., just the UMP votes. Why would a rejection of constitutional reform make a referendum necessary? Because there are only two ways to ratify a treaty: by parliamentary vote or by referendum. If reforms to the French Constitution are blocked by 2/5 of the votes, a referendum becomes the only way open. (...)

Note: This article, though long, clears up some issues. The road to ratification has multiple stages. First both Senate and National Assembly, severally, approve the wording of a text to reform the French Constitution. Then they vote together on whether or not the reform should be made. If the vote is for the reform, then they will have to vote on the Treaty itself. If the reform is blocked, they are obligated to hold a referendum.

Sarkozy will have to court, more than ever, his socialist allies.

Silent Dhimmitude

Back in October I posted an article on The Catholic Institute of Paris and its intention to set up a curriculum for those training to become imams. It appears that they are going through with their plan as scheduled.

Bernard Antony has posted this communiqué at his website:

The now confirmed training program for imams at the Catholic Institute of Paris, for the purpose of "integration into the republic" (sic), would seem a ludicrous gag did it not reveal the tragic decomposition of Catholicism that is advancing in many sectors of the Church of France.

This event gravely affects the readability of the Catholic message and can only be perceived globally as the affirmation of a religious relativism - not one that helps to transmit the message of the Gospel, but one that serves a higher republican ideal.

Above all, it helps to trivialize the quiet implantation in France of Islam, which, when it becomes numerically the strongest, will show its true colors.

Meanwhile, we will certainly soon behold at the Paris Mosque, in the name of reciprocal exchange, priests and religious Catholics receiving an education in the teachings of the Koran and the Hadiths.

Islam will need no jihad to subjugate France. The requirement of halal meat that is already imposed in many school cafeterias is a harbinger of the progressive establishment of a silent dhimmitude, hidden under a republican cloak.

What the Catholic people need first and foremost, is for the successors of Christ and the Apostles to explain clearly how the conception of God, Man, Woman and Society, as taught by Islam, is not that of Christianity.

And what the people of France must learn is that if it is difficult to free oneself from communism, it is infinitely more difficult to free oneself from Islam.

School Vouchers For France?

The fallout from Jacques Attali's report continues to rain down on the French websites. The entire report in PDF format arrived in my mailbox yesterday. Needless to say I have not found time to read the staggering array of decisions and the 316 proposals that constitute this effort to free up the French economy.

One topic - education - has been the focus of much concern at the Catholic websites, since it is primarily Catholic parents who send their children to private schools. Generally speaking, there are two types of private schools - those that are "under government contract", and those that are "hors contrat" (outside the contract). The latter are totally independent of government influence, and all expenses and instruction must be funded by the parents.

In Decision 6 of the Attali report the following is stated:

The requirement ("carte scolaire") that children attend schools in their own neighborhood separates pupils living in difficult neighborhoods from those of the city centers. The requirement can be overcome by those with the means to obtain an exemption, or to pay for their child's schooling in a private establishment. Therefore, as a first step, parents and children must be allowed total freedom of choice of school, once they have examined the public evaluations of the schools. In case there is an excessive demand for one school, transparent priorities, both geographical and social, will be established.

Note: I can almost guarantee you that this means that when a French child and a minority child are competing for the same school, the minority child will win.

School vouchers will be attributed to each child to be used in all schools: this measure will allow a veritable freedom of choice, so that each one can take advantage of the public schools and approved private schools in his or her neighborhood.

Note: Here is where the questions are raised. What exactly is an "approved" private school? Read on.

In practical terms, the State will grant parents a certain sum of money per pupil. Each parent will be entitled to use it in a public or private school of his choice. The approval of private schools will be very strict regarding the nature of the subject matter taught and the respect for the values of the French Republic. Parents will thus benefit from a complete freedom of school choice and they can take advantage of this funding, whatever their choice. Sweden already uses this system effectively.

Note: The actual "choice" is suddenly reduced to public government schools or private government schools. Currently, as I indicated, there are private schools partially funded by the government that still have a measure of autonomy, but these will disappear, under Attali's plan, and be replaced by private schools with no autonomy. The advantage for the parents is purely financial - they will not have to pay for their child's education. But if they refuse the offer of the vouchers, what then?

Yves Daoudal has posted three articles on this new development in the aftermath of the Attali report.

The first article goes over the highlights of Decision 6, explained above.

In his second article he exclaims:

I was stunned that nobody realized from my article of Wednesday that Decision 6 of the Attali report condemned Catholic schools insofar as they teach Catholic values, and forbade schools "hors contrat" (totally independent of government control), and home-schooling. (...)

Now Jeanne Smits confirms my interpretation in today's issue of Présent (a Catholic paper publication). She also remarks that this "veritable bomb" went unnoticed. Most importantly, she was in attendance the day the report was made public. The confirmation of my interpretation is therefore confirmed by the author of the report himself.

He then quotes Catholic writer Jeanne Smits:

"A veritable bomb went unnoticed, the Attali report proposes the establishment of 'school vouchers' - that is, a check or coupon for education. (...) Naively I asked the troublesome question: 'Where does the experiment begin, and will parents who choose to send their children to independent schools be able to use the vouchers?'

Attali's face constricted, his voice became toneless: 'It will begin in the underprivileged suburbs. (...) As for schools not under government contract, certainly not. Only approved private schools are involved, those that strictly respect the official courses of study, and above all (pause...) laïcité!'

It's the height of deceit: through the expedient of the school voucher, the complete lock on education will become reality, and what little freedom there is will be reserved first for the minority-ruled suburbs."

In his third post Yves Daoudal makes the following clarifications:

(...) The parents receive these school vouchers for their child. It gives them the right (and the means) to send their child to a school of their choice, provided it's a public school or a private school that scrupulously respects the same courses of study as the public school (what the report calls "republican values", strict "laïcité", promotion of the culture of death, etc...)

(...) It is possible (but not certain) that at first those parents who throw the vouchers into the trash and continue to pay for an independent school will be tolerated.

But actions have meaning, words have meaning.

I'm throwing into the trash the vouchers that give me the means to ensure my child's education...

Note: He is saying that the action of throwing away the voucher may not be looked upon with kindness by the authorities. He may also be saying that it will be a tough decision for parents, especially if they are poor. How much easier to just use the money given to you.

(...) All of this concerns the current independent schools which are a tiny minority: it is therefore possible that they will be tolerated, in the hope that they will eventually just disappear or become so marginal that banning them would not be worth the trouble that might ensue when parents are forced to use the vouchers. However, once again, the underlying implication of Decision 6 is that parents will be forced to use the vouchers.

He raises the question: Is the voucher an option or an obligation?

(...)To wait for decision 6 to become a bill in Parliament (many do not believe it will) before reacting, is an irresponsible attitude. It will obviously be too late: you will not have been caught unawares. It was written in black and white in the Attali report, and the president said that he would enforce it. Since you raised no objection at the time, you will only have the right to be silent.

Note: The initial reactions to Decision 6 were positive because it sounded as if parents were given money to freely choose a school. Daoudal has looked a bit closer at the wording.

The great fear of Catholic parents is that home-schooling, already very difficult to implement, will be made virtually illegal.

It still isn't clear what would happen to parents who refused to use the vouchers, if indeed many refuse.

I would like to add a couple of points. Skimming over the report I happened to read Decision 5 that precedes the one discussed above. In it the Attali commission describes the ways in which a school should be evaluated:

Each school should be the subject of an evaluation by a specialized and independent administrative authority, and should take into account the opinions of the student body ("les usagers"), their grades ("leurs résultats"), and their progress. These evaluations must be made public.

The evaluation of teachers cannot be based solely on the grades of their best students or on the tests of the national school inspectors. It must also be based on an evaluation of their teaching by their students, on their ability to make every student progress and on the subsequent academic achievement (of their students).

In another section of the report, Decision 10 proposes weekly community service for students in middle school - helping old people who live alone, the handicapped, and others in difficulty, tutoring younger pupils, or even participating in the maintenance of the forests and in the restoration of old houses.

The justification for this is the need for altruism and the benefit of learning to work together in a group.

Probably the Scouts do this better than anyone.

My impression of these proposals on education is that Jacques Attali knows the United States well. Here we have had school vouchers, charter schools, community service, evaluation of teachers by students, etc... Not on a national scale, but locally. To the best of my knowledge any benefits have been minimal or non-existent, because the essential needs to remove disruptive students, to screen students before allowing them to take a course of study, and to propagate the traditional culture of the United States and Western Europe have all largely been ignored.

Iznogoud Izheer

See preceding post. Cartoon taken from René Goscinny's website.

Everything And Its Opposite

Here's a good article on Sarkozy's contradictory behavior patterns:

What is Nicolas Sarkozy's foreign policy? It was thought that he was only pro-American and aligned with Israel. Our president, however, is often seen courting their enemies. Worse, he issues contradictory messages:

On December 8 and 9, 2007, a summit was held in Lisbon between the European Union and the countries of Africa. Sarkozy was heard accusing Brussels of subjecting Africans to the "brutality of exchanges," of "asphyxiating the poorest," and of running the risk of arousing "a feeling of injustice that would cause the world to explode."

And yet on December 13, with no sign of inner conflict, he was again in Lisbon to sign the Treaty that would give a disguised Constitution to Europe. Sarkozy had forgotten his grievances against the institution whose prerogatives he had chosen to enforce at the expense of the people.

It was the same disavowal of commitments before the Roman Curia, on December 20, at the Lateran Palace. "The roots of France are essentially Christian," he dared to say when, through having signed the Treaty of Lisbon, he had already ratified a text that denies these same Christian roots to the European ensemble of nations.

We can only find one explanation to these contradictions: Sarkozy is tortured by the desire to please whomever he happens to be in front of at any given moment. A defender of African interests before the leaders of the black continent, he is transformed into a choir boy beneath the pontifical arches. As mayor of Neuilly, this same person used to keep a kippa in his pocket to cover his head during Jewish celebrations to which he had been invited.

"There's a very cultivated man," his admirers might say, "who always finds the right thing to say!" But there is a problem: if opportunism, practiced in a drawing room, carries no risk, it becomes a dangerous game in foreign politics.

On December 22, 2007, he was in Afghanistan for five hours. Armed with a stopwatch and facing the France 2 cameras, he declared: "We must not lose to the Taliban and the terrorists," and urged our soldiers to fight on vigorously.

It may be recalled that on last April 26, the same Sarkozy, then candidate for the presidency, affirmed that "the long term presence of French troops," in Afghanistan, did not seem to him to be "decisive." These words facilitated the liberation of two French hostages from the hands of the Taliban, Céline Cordelier and Eric Damfreville. The Taliban had taken this statement to be a promise of disengagement. The fact that the French president is today sending out contrary signals, will result in the next French hostage of the Taliban being returned to us in pieces.

What we are concerned with is not questioning the human qualities of these people, but defining what the interests of France are.

How to explain these things to a president who is still a candidate. For that is the heart of the problem: "The man who wanted to be Caliph in place of the Caliph," does not always believe in his own success.

He is permanently on the campaign trail, always looking for the brilliant feat that will enable him to shine in the eyes of the world. One day he tries to make friends with Vladimir Putin. Another he meets Hugo Chavez, presumably to get information on Ingrid Betancourt.

Note: Franco-Colombian Ingrid Betancourt has been held hostage by the FARC terrorists in Colombia for almost 6 years.

But there is the downside. Putin was anything but pleased and the Venezuelan left without giving him anything. As for Moammar Qadhafi, a murderer of Frenchmen, his reception provoked the anger of the Israeli and American friends of this poor Sarkozy.

Strutting and bluffing on the world stage, trying to please all, he will, in the end, displease everyone. We fear that this foreign policy may create difficult days ahead for France.

Note: I was not able to locate the quote above about the "caliph". Possibly Sarkozy said it or someone said it about him. There is a short story by Rudyard Kipling called The Man Who Would Be King. The man in question meets a sorry end, as you might guess.

Update: January 28 - Read the comments for a very enlightening explanation about the "caliph" from Charles Henry. Delightful.

The French have an expression usually applied to politicians: "He says everything and its opposite."

Two From CZ

Here are two new articles from Charles Henry at Covenant Zone, on crime in the suburbs of Toulouse, and the deliberate jamming of cell phones in the mosques, a story with many implications in the fight against terrorism:

Bagatelle Battleground

Jamming Cell Phones

Boualem Sansal - Nazism and Islamism

A post at Lawrence Auster's website, VFR, on the close connection between Islam and Nazism, containing excerpts of Lawrence's conversations with Andrew Bostom, an authority on Islam, and numerous other links worth pursuing, prompted me to take a closer look at a long interview I downloaded a few days ago.

An Algerian author named Boualem Sansal has written a new book entitled Le Village de l'Allemand (The German Man's Village) in which he tells the story of two Algerian-born brothers, Rachel and Malrich, living near Paris, who learn that their father, a hero in the Algerian War for Independence, was also an SS officer under the Nazi regime. He has just been murdered by the GIA (armed Islamic Group), an act that leads them to learn the truth about Nazism, about the close resemblance between Nazism and Islamism. Both brothers are traumatized by what they uncover, the eldest to such a point that he commits suicide.

The entire interview (in French) with Sansal was conducted by Grégoire Leménager for Nouvel Observateur.

Even though Sansal, a Muslim, believes in a distinction between Islam and Islamism, he has gone much further than most Muslims who write critically of their religion. His comments on Moammar Qadhafi's visit to Paris and the diplomatic blunders of Sarkozy are especially interesting.

The extreme length of the interview forced me to make cuts. Furthermore, I am posting only a portion on the home page. Those interested in reading more can click the link provided at the end. This will lead you to the January 2006 section of Galliawatch, a section I use as "storage space" for articles too long for the home page.

The interview opens with a discussion of the genesis of the book and proceeds to Sansal's researches:

As I pursued my research on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, I had more and more the feeling of a similarity between Nazism and the prevailing order in Algeria and in many Muslim and Arab countries. You find the same ingredients and we know how potent they are. In Germany they managed to turn a cultivated people into a narrow sect in the service of Extermination; in Algeria they waged a civil war that reached the summits of horror, and we still don't know everything. The ingredients are the same here and there: one party, militarization of the country, brainwashing, falsification of history, exaltation of race, a manichean vision of the world, a tendency to victimization, the constant affirmation of the existence of a plot against the nation (Israel, America and France are by turns accused by the Algerian leadership whenever its back is up against the wall, and sometimes neighbor Morocco), xenophobia, racism and anti-Semitism raised to the level of dogmas, cult of the hero and the martyr, glorification of the supreme Guide, omnipresence of the police and its agents, inflammatory speeches, organizations of disciplined masses, large gatherings, religious browbeating, incessant propaganda, generalized stifling of free speech fatal to the freedom of thought, gigantic projects that exalt the feeling of power (ex: the third largest mosque in the world that Bouteflika is going to build in Algiers, even though the country already has more minarets than schools, verbal aggression against other countries for no reason, old myths recast for modern tastes...

Strengthened by all of this, the dictatorships of Arab and Muslim countries are doing very well and even growing more fortified. More than a thousand speeches could ever do, five short days of Qadhafi in Paris were enough to enlighten the French people on the nature of our chieftains. Ah, what arrogance, that Qadhafi! Now you understand what we experience every day that Allah gives us to live under their boots.

Those interested in reading more please click here. Also, leave any comments here, not there.

The Suburbs Revisited

An article from Le Figaro dated January 21 tells of Nicolas Sarkozy's first visit to the suburbs since last April 13, before his election:

Nicolas Sarkozy mixed in with the crowds for about 30 minutes in front of the Sartrouville station of the RER (regional rail), in the department of Yvelines, and conversed at length with the youths. He had not been in the suburbs since last April 13 before the election.

Protected by a cordon of CRS (riot police) and escorted by Minister of the Interior Michèle Alliot-Marie, the president praised the future plan for the suburbs drawn up by his secretary of State Fadela Amara, scheduled to be made public on February 8. The conversations took place in a relaxed atmosphere, and those present shoved one another for the chance to be photographed with the president.

"Is it definite for the month of February?" shouted a young man clinging to a chain link fence to see better. "There will be jobs? We want work!"

"The idea is that we are going to give you a chance to work or to receive training," explained the president. "One last chance?" retorted a young man. "Not a last chance, but a first one! Because I believe that you have not had many opportunities," responded Nicolas Sarkozy.

Another article from Yahoo goes into much greater detail about his meeting with the youth of Sartrouville:

"I made mistakes when I was young. I didn't take the right path," admitted an 18-year old, who quit school at 10 and claims he wants to become a plumber.

The French president responded that the new plan contains specific measures for young persons who dropped out of school so that they may receive training, because "without training, you have no chance."

For 30 minutes, surrounded on all sides by a small rather friendly crowd, Nicolas Sarkozy repeated the same words and tried to send out the same message:

"The idea is that you will have an opportunity to work or to receive training because life is not about being idle (...) We will target those neighborhoods where there are problems (...) No one will be left out, but there is a condition: you must get used to getting up in the morning and going to work..."

"Did you understand? You have to give back," stressed Nicolas Sarkozy who promised to return to Sartrouville in "two or three weeks" to explain the plan.

"Not two years from now, but in two weeks (...) And I'll come here to Sartrouville to present the plan. I will announce it, I will come and we will meet with the youth," he said.

"A good initiative!" shouted several youths.

The Yahoo article pointed out that Sarkozy did not venture into the worst parts of Sartrouville, but stayed on the fringes, speaking at the rail station at around 8:00 P.M.

Then he went to the police headquarters of Sartrouville where, in a sheltered courtyard he met with the police force of the city. He expressed his satisfaction at the drop in the crime rate announced last week by Minister of the Interior Alliot-Marie ( down 3.7% in 2007).

"We must expand our efforts and obtain the results that the French people expect of us", said Nicolas Sarkozy, who planned to visit the police of Bordeaux on Tuesday and then the gendarmes in Pau.

If he complimented the police on their work he also reminded them of the ethical rules of their profession.

"No familiarity, no arms hanging out of the car window when you're on patrol, no familiar form of address," he said. "You are the police of the Republic (...) We don't fight crime with the methods of the criminals, we don't fight thugs by becoming thugs ourselves. Democracy has rules."

Apparently Sarkozy has never heard the old adage: "Fight fire with fire."

Geert Wilders Risks All

The following is a three-minute preview of a video by Dutch politician Geert Wilders. The release of the complete version has been anticipated at many websites devoted to anti-Islamic activities.



Here are excerpts from an article by Thomas Landen, posted at the Brussels Journal, questioning the value of Geert Wilders latest video. The whole article is worth reading but until the full-length video is made available judgment should be reserved. The gist of Landen's article is that the degree of deliberate provocation in Wilders' video is likely to do more harm than good to the anti-Jihadists:

Hollanditis is a Dutch state of mind. Everything that is extreme exists in Holland; what is not extreme does not get noticed.

Theo van Gogh was a typical Dutchman. In voicing his opinions, he could not be crass enough. He called Christians “pimps,” said that “Jewish diabetics made the crematoriums smell of caramel” and that Muslims worship “a pig called Allah.” Van Gogh fell into the abyss. The Christians shrugged and the Jews sued, but the Muslims slit his throat.

To get noticed in Holland, one has to be more extravagant than anyone else. Hence Theo van Gogh’s rants. Hence Pim Fortuyn’s “evidence” that he could not be a racist because he preferred gay sex with Moroccan boys rather than with the indigenous sons of the polders.

Fortuyn and van Gogh were trapped within the fever of the Dutch political, religious, cultural and ideological debate. In a country which proclaims that there are no social and moral limits and that nothing can be enforced, anyone who wants to be heard is forced to go beyond the limits of what is sensible and wise. That is the tragedy of public debate in the Netherlands. And that is also the tragedy of Geert Wilders.

Fadela Amara Has A Dream

Like Jacques Attali, Fadela Amara, the secretary of State for Housing and Urban Affairs, has been enjoying continuous media coverage and public attention for several weeks. She was one of two Muslim women appointed to ministerial posts after Sarkozy's election last May (the other being Minister of Justice Rachida Dati).

Amara's superior, Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs Christine Boutin, has on the other hand been receiving unwelcome negative publicity in recent weeks when she was accused by DAL (Right to Housing) of not providing sufficient housing for the underclass, primarily immigrants. Her response was that she could not do everything at once, but that her promises would be kept in due time.

It was then learned that one of Boutin's key assistants in the ministry, Jean-Paul Bolufer, was living in an elegant apartment in a good neighborhood, but paying 4 to 5 times less than the market value. More specifically, he lived in 190 square meters at 6.30 euros the square meter. When the news leaked out he turned in his resignation.

The scandal was just the fuel the right-to-housing organizations needed to put pressure on the ministry for more housing and more social programs. At the center of these demands is Fadela Amara, the founder of the organization Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Whores nor Slaves), created to help the Muslim women of the ghettoes. Today, the rather disorderly, often Arabic-speaking, pugnacious Amara is receiving the lion's share of publicity in her ministry, though for the nationalists, it is a lot of noise and chatter about nothing worthwhile.

What has Fadela Amara promised her brothers and sisters in the ghettoes? We won't know for sure until February 8 when her over-hyped and grandiose project entitled Hope for the Suburbs ("Espoir Banlieues") is unveiled by... Nicolas Sarkozy (!) who must have decided it was safer for him to present the plan than his unreliable secretary of State (who, BTW, lives in VERY affordable housing).

Here is a preview of what we can expect, taken from the blog of nationalist Jacques Vassieux:

According to Madame Amara, the government is going to pour a billion additional euros into the suburbs "to de-ghettoize 50 pre-selected neighborhoods where problems are on the rise, such as Les Bosquets and Seine-Saint-Denis. Employment, education, de-ghettoization will be the three major axes. The objective is to destroy prejudices and to show that the suburbs are also France."

Says Jacques Vassieux:

She will also have to convince the "diverse" populations of these neighborhoods where Francophilia has not been well established... In short the Frenchman is once again going to dig into his pockets to finance endlessly the "lawless zones" which, in the name of affirmative action (implied though not overtly stated), will be accorded privileges denied to most young Frenchmen.

Madame Amara continues:

"We will set up recruiting offices in the neighborhoods with both private and public partners. For the young people without skills, we will offer a comfortable course of study with a support system ("coaching"), training, financing of a driver's license, if necessary. In some establishments we are going to create centers of excellence ("pôles d'excellence) with instruction in voice, Chinese, or Latin and Greek (...) I want an elite to emerge from the neighborhoods (...) Boundaries and mental ghettoes must be demolished, even if they are only virtual," affirms Madame Amara. (...)

Note: Her full comment about an "elite" is as follows:

"I will fight so that from these neighborhoods there emerges tomorrow an elite who will take charge of the destiny of our country."

We will follow the trajectory of France's latest boondoggle with keen interest, even though we all know the outcome will not be a new elite of Greek-speaking opera singers. But perhaps they will learn new and more efficient ways to torch automobiles, thus creating unparalleled growth for the French auto industry.

Famous Last Words

Both The Brussels Journal (in English) and E-Deo (in French) are reminding their readers of the famous last words spoken by... Guess who?

Economically Challenged

Your friendly neighborhood blogger is economically challenged.

Anyone who reads the comment section to my recent post entitled Libertarian Socialism, will realize that readers came to my rescue in my struggle to understand the meanings of certain terms. I have to admit without trying to make excuses for myself, that I do not have time to thoroughly research every word, especially in legal and economic texts. If I took the time, the post would be delayed. Or might not get done at all, if I felt the research proved too time-consuming. You will also note that many of my posts are done in the wee hours of the morning - not favorable to doing research.

Therefore, I really do thank the readers who clarify these terms. Please continue to send me feedback. One thing that goes wrong is that what I take to be a word of the French language, actually turns out to be a word belonging to specialized jargon. Thus the term "economy of knowledge" or "knowledge economy" is really the latest version of "information society", a term I am familiar with, but the emphasis is on "producing knowledge or ideas" not merely processing knowledge. Wikipedia acknowledges that the term is vague.

And the word "pole" which is a point of magnetic attraction, in economics becomes a "center" or a "region" concentrating on a particular type of expertise - not too far from the way I interpreted it. But underlying the definition is the idea that the "pole" creates prosperity, not merely that it attracts. It seems that the meaning of this word too is not yet stable, so a definitive interpretation is still in the future.

The word "bourse" in French means "scholarship" or "grant", and the notion of an Internet grant did seem odd. But "bourse" of course means the stock market as well, and so the Internet "grant" is actually an "Internet market place" where potential tenants "meet" their potential landlords, and vice versa.

A dashing economist named Louis Rukeyser (1933-2006) who used to appear on PBS, always said that he would continue predicting the stock market until he got it right. That applies to translating articles on economics as well.

Profits and Passions

Gérard Pince whose recent article on HALDE was translated and posted at Galliawatch, has also written an analysis of one aspect of the Attali Commission's report on jump-starting the French economy (note: I have omitted his footnotes):

I did not want to talk about the report of the Attali Commission before learning its exact terms, but since its conclusions have already appeared in the press, many friends have asked me to comment on his main proposal: the relaunching of immigration.

The word "relaunch" constitutes a provocation since the number of immigrants arriving from countries outside of the European Union has already gone from 153,000 in 1999 to 251,000 in 2005. The illegals estimated at about 100,000 can be added to these official figures. One can therefore assume that about 350,000 entered French territory in 2005, which in six years is the equivalent of the population of Paris. As far as the contribution of this migratory influx is concerned, let us just quote from our Economic Report on Immigration: "Six out of ten persons from foreign countries of working age are idle. The deficit in public funds attributable to this population reaches 48 billion euros, or 80% of the total deficit recorded in 2004. Regarding their effect on the GNP, they represent 93 billion in added value and they consume 126 billion." Finally, since the Commission considers that "immigration, a factor in the development of the population, is, as such, a source of growth," let's remember that if development went hand in hand with population growth, Yemen and Niger would be great economical powers and Switzerland a poor country.

In truth it is useless to criticize such inept notions. Rather we should search for those who "profit from the crime". In this regard, it is fitting to emphasize that the Attali Commission contains 22 leaders from big business. Now, in business the choices are based more on calculations than on ideology. For example, the increase in population from immigration increases consumption and favors major outlets of mass distribution. The fact that this consumption is paid for through allocations financed by the taxpayers, and that its excessiveness results in a massive deficit in our trade balance (40 billion euros in 2007) is never taken into account in the calculations of these businesses. Likewise, to advocate immigration, which is 80% Islamic in the case of France, can serve as an argument in favor of selling nuclear reactors to dictatorships of the Maghreb and the Gulf.

In a more general way, these large companies want to rely on an abundant proletariat, not well unionized, and poorly paid, in order to increase their profits. With globalization, they can move their capital to countries with cheap labor, but many enterprises do not want to relocate, or cannot. So they establish an internal relocation consisting of the importing of cheap labor to replace the nationals, and they leave the attendant costs (education, housing, security) to the taxpayers. Concretely, this phenomenon results in the concentration of the gains from growth in the hands of a global elite, relegating the national working class into the pit of welfare and ultimately pauperizing, relatively speaking, the middles classes (including the United States). I should add that this recourse to immigration does not correspond to the orthodox liberal theory based on comparative advantage. It is therefore a heresy that may become fatal to liberalism in the minds of our populations.

Note: He adds a footnote saying that the above comment merits a longer article.

To these economic interests can be added passions. To claim that the immigrants will pay for our pensions gives credibility to the idea that our generation is the last one and that we will soon all be replaced. Such remarks express the pathological hatred that our unfortunate people inspire in certain milieux. In other eras, the National Assembly would have overturned the government and our grandparents would have marched in legions to the office of the Commission. Alas! This authentic French people no longer exists except on the monuments to the dead. Therefore, let us not be more royalist than the King and let us deliver to Africans the politically correct speech forced upon us: Your continent contains 750 million people who live in uncertainty. Come en masse to France. You will have the right to housing in Paris, your medical needs will be covered, you will receive free education and a multitude of allocations as soon as you are legalized.

Life is beautiful, isn't it? Beat the tom-toms in all the villages. Come one, come all. Come as quickly as you can! The Attali Commission awaits you.

Discussing Attali

French readers might enjoy this thread at the forum France-Espoir, a website that strongly supported Philippe de Villiers during the election. Here they discuss the Attali commision's report in detail.

The contributors to this forum were shattered by Villiers' defection to Nicolas Sarkozy, but the forum is still active, and PDV still has some friends there. Registration will be required if you want to post a comment. Let me know if you cannot access the page - maybe I can download it.

Libertarian Socialism

There are several major stories keeping French websites busy. Three women: Marine Le Pen, Fadela Amara and Carla Bruni are in the news every day. Nicolas Sarkozy made his first trip to the "troubled" suburbs since before his election, and the huge report issued by Jacques Attali's commission on how to improve the French economy was made public today.

All of these stories are difficult to summarize into a readable post, unwieldy as they are and constantly evolving. I'm going to try my hand at the Attali report, since it's usually good for a laugh or two, starting with this report from January 19, published in Le Figaro:

Totally unregulated prices, the option to pursue a career ("une activité") regardless of age, reduction of public expenses...

Three hundred fourteen proposals, 20 "fundamental decisions", 8 "ambitions". The report from the "commission on the liberation of French growth" that will be handed over to Nicolas Sarkozy on Wednesday is dizzying in its excesses. Disrupting as it does the conservative inclinations of many and the pensions that have for years hindered movement, it promises to elicit an unprecedented flood of hostile reactions. (...)

Increasing the GNP by one point, translates in the near future into "500 more euros of purchasing power per household, 150,000 extra jobs created, 90,000 more low-cost housing units, 20,000 handicapped children educated and 4000 euros less of public debt for each citizen," (Attali) explains.

When he created the commission last August, Nicolas Sarkozy asked Attali to work without taboos and not to be afraid of running into resistance. The report will surely surpass his expectations. The 41 personalities chosen by François Mitterand's former special adviser, with their different backgrounds, have produced an "apolitical" but clearly liberal (in the European sense) piece of work: "the French people must realize that the future of employment is no longer in public service, that the future of business is no longer in subsidies," they say. And yet they do not neglect the social aspects: "It is primarily for the victims of unemployment, poor and excluded from the work market" that it is necessary "to change France."

Note: If I understand, the main beneficiaries of these so-called radical innovations will be the ghetto dwellers? Or does he mean the poor ethnic Frenchmen who cannot get jobs? Or both?

(...) Thus the commission wants "to prepare the young for the economy of knowledge and for the taking of risks." Which means that in elementary school, the study of English, math and computer science must be accelerated and in the universities "ten world-class tracks of teaching and research" must be created.

Note: It is difficult to be certain of some of these terms. "Economy of knowledge" seems to refer to a labor market where certain skills (English, math, etc...) are a necessity. Second, he speaks of "poles" of teaching and research. A "pole" implies magnetism and attraction, possibly a reference to the need to attract the best people. I just settled for "track", but "orbit" or "field" might be alternatives.

France must also participate in the economy of knowledge through the promotion of high-speed Internet for all by the year 2016. To solve the thorny problem of housing the commission suggests an Internet grant ("bourse") of low-cost housing, the facilitation of requisitions of land by the prefects, the extension of building permits or of surfaces on which one may build, the elimination of rights of mutation and even the shortening of the legal waiting period before the expulsion of tenants.

Note: An "Internet grant of low-cost housing" is new to me. I have no idea what it is, except that someone may apply for housing online. If anyone can elaborate please do.

In French "mutation" refers to the transferral of property rights from one person to another, e.g., when someone dies. Most of the above measures deal with getting rid of property-owners who do not fulfill certain obligations as quickly as possible, so that their land can be seized and developed.

In labor-related issues, the legal limits on the duration of one's working life should be eliminated and each person should be free to choose his own age of retirement. (...)

This is indeed good news, since it was Jacques Attali who once advocated euthanizing everyone over 65 as a cost-saving measure for the socialist State. Maybe he's changed his mind now that he's reached the age of "euthanasiability".

If the government has already taken some steps along the lines discussed above, it may be caught off-guard by other more iconoclastic proposals. Thus Jacques Attali perseveres in his condemnation of the principle of precaution that he would like to remove from the Constitution.

Note: A reminder that this clause allows the slowing-down or elimination of a project or product that would put the public at risk, e.g., a new drug.

He suggests maintaining the "rhythm of construction of nuclear plants".

As for immigration, "it can be a potent factor for growth," as these figures show: 50,000 new migrants would result in an increase of 1 point in growth each year. Thus, recommendation nº 222, seeking to "simplify the granting of work permits" for foreigners, has already made waves among the UMP members. The system of departments ought to disappear within ten years and give way to the regions. The objective is to reduce public expense by 1% per year. (...)

A more recent Yahoo article, dated January 23, reveals that Nicolas Sarkozy is in agreement with the essential proposals of the commission, but not the reform of the principle of precaution or the elimination of departments:

"I adhere to the essential points of your conclusions. (...) If some people were scared off by the content of your proposals, I find them reasonable in essence." (...)

"In 6 months we will meet to take stock (...) I will do everything I can so that you are not disappointed by the government's and my own reforms," promised the president to his ministers, gathered almost in their totality. (...)

"In a world that changes rapidly, France has fallen behind even though she has exceptional talents."

Regarding the two proposals he rejected:

"The principle of precaution is not a principle of inaction, even less a principle of interdiction," replied the president. "On the contrary, it is a principle of action and expertise meant to reduce uncertainty."

"The French people are attached to the historic legitimacy of the departments."

The president stressed his agreement with the commission's findings on education, on allowing small and medium-sized enterprises access to the public market (I assume this means the stock exchanges), on easy access to high-speed Internet, on eco-cities, on work for seniors, on the reform of certain regulated professions (taxis, notaries, pharmacies...)

Note: Eco-cities are planned communities designed to bring together mixed ethnicities and races, and to be, ecologically speaking, state-of-the-art.

On the other hand he never mentioned immigration, even though according to the report, 250,000 new immigrants per year could give France a 0.5% additional increase in growth. Not a word either on the VAT for social programs recommended by the commission.

It's difficult to sort all of this out, but in general, it sounds like a mixture of vast socialistic programs coupled with the libertarian ideology of no restrictions. I can't begin to imagine where it would lead if implemented.

In another article today (no link) Attali said that his proposals must be implemented immediately or else discarded. His idea seems to be that his ideas will work only if they are all set into motion without delay.

Those in favor of discarding them, raise your hand.

The Next-To-Last "Poilu" Dies

The next-to-last "poilu" has died at the age of 110. A "poilu", if you don't know, is the nickname given to French soldiers in WWI. On January of last year I posted an article on the death of René Riffaud, a veteran of la "Grande Guerre" who died at 108.

Le Figaro tells the story of Louis de Cazenave:

The next-to-last "poilu" passed away in the early morning hours of Sunday (January 20) at his home in Brioude (Haute-Loire). Louis de Cazenave, 110 years old, "died as he wished, at home, in his sleep, without suffering," said his son, also named Louis.

The secretary of State for Veterans, Alain Marleix, saluted the memory of the soldier: "He was one of those bravest of men who, while in the trenches and foxholes of the 'Grande Guerre', held France in their 'bare hands' until the November 11 armistice."

Born on October 16, 1897 in Saint-Georges-d'Aurac, in Haute-Loire, Louis de Cazenave was the eldest of the surviving "poilus". Mobilized in 1916, at the age of 18, he served in different regiments of the colonial infantry, including the 5th battalion of Senegalese sharpshooters, and joined up with artillery units in January 1918. He fought notably in the battle of the Somme, the offensive of Chemin des Dames and the liberation of national territory before being demobilized in 1919. He worked for the railroads, married and became the father of three sons before taking partial retirement at age 41.

On Sunday, President Nicolas Sarkozy addressed the "nation's condolences to his family." In 1995, the veteran had received the Legion of Honor. He will be buried on Tuesday. "His death is an occasion for each of us to have a special thought for the 1.4 million French fighters who sacrificed their life during this conflict," added the French president.

The only surviving "poilu" now is Italian-born Lazare Ponticelli, also 110, who has already indicated that he would refuse the national funeral promised in 2005 by Jacques Chirac because "it would be an affront to the people who died before me."

Here is an excerpt from a letter written by "poilu" Emile Sautour on July 19, 1915, from the trenches:

I am nothing more than a skeleton whose face disappears under a coating of dust mixed into a beard that is already quite long. I stand upright as they say in popular speech because it is fashionable.

Wikipedia gives this explanation of the term "poilu":

Poilu is a warmly informal term for a French World War I infantryman, meaning, literally, hairy one. The term came into popular usage in France during the era of Napoleon Bonaparte and his massive citizen armies, though the term grognard (grumbler) was also common. It was still widely used as a term of endearment for the French infantry of World War I.

The word carries the twin sense of the infantryman's typically rustic, agricultural background. Beards and bushy moustaches were often worn.

The stereotype of the Poilu was of bravery, doggedness, and endurance, but not always of unquestioning obedience. At the disastrous Chemin des Dames offensive of 1917 under General Robert Nivelle, they were said to have gone into no man's land making baa'ing noises, parodying the idea that they were being sent as lambs to the slaughter. Outstanding for its mixture of horror and heroism, this spectacle proved a sobering one. As the news of it spread, the French high command soon found itself coping with a widespread mutiny. A minor revolution was only averted with the promise of an end to the costly offensive.

The image of the dogged, bearded French soldier was widely used in propaganda and war memorials.

European Court Condemns France

The stranglehold of the European bureaucracy over the individual nations becomes apparent in this item posted at several websites. This version is from Yves Daoudal:

The European Court of Human Rights has condemned France for having refused to allow a lesbian teacher to adopt a child. By a vote of 10 to 7, it ruled that article 14 (banning discrimination) had been violated, combined with article 8 (respect for one's private and family life), both articles from the European Convention on Human Rights.

"France cannot refuse consent to an unmarried person because of her homosexuality and the same is true for all the other member States of the Council of Europe," trumpeted the lawyer.

Note: The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was created in 1950. The Court of Human Rights (pictured) is in Strasbourg. The Council of Europe goes back to 1949, and is not, properly speaking a part of the EU, though the goals are the same. Read about the Convention here and the Council of Europe here.

We might add that the European Charter of Human Rights, which will become law after the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, and which has the approval of the bishops, also stresses this point with regard to the countries of the European Union.

See Wikipedia for the Charter, and if you understand it more power to you!

Yves Daoudal's point is well-taken because even if this court decision is not necessarily binding, any later decision, after ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon will be.

In its decision, the European Court,"considers the plaintiff to have been the object of a different treatment," and underscores that this difference relating to her sexual orientation "constitutes a discrimination in the eyes of the Convention." "The refusal of consent directed against a woman because of her homosexuality constitutes an affront to private and family life; the affront is discriminatory because it is based on sexual orientation and it is neither justified , nor objective, nor necessary in a democratic State."

The plaintiff is a teacher of pre-kindergarten and lives with a psychologist...

The French courts had refused the adoption on grounds of lack of "identifying points of reference" due to the absence of a paternal
figure.

Note: "Identifying points of reference" ("repères identificatoires") is a bit awkward, but it simply means "persons with whom the child can identify."

The entanglement of European courts, bureaus, charters, treaties, conventions, etc... is breathtaking, but it is clear that no decent person with a valid complaint would stand a chance in that labyrinthine quagmire of the EU.