A Mayor's Vain Resistance

Journalist Ivan Rioufol writes for Le Figaro where he maintains a blog devoted to current events. Known as a "liberal" (in the economic sense of the word) and as a neo-conservative, a term that American traditional conservatives have come to regard as leftist-in-the-heart with a false veneer of conservatism, he is nonetheless a voice of sanity in an ocean of politically correct platitudes and lies. In this article he discusses the recent case in France of a marriage between two foreigners, one of whom is an illegal.

However he begins with a critique of politicians in general:

For eons now, the indifference of France's leaders towards the problems of massive immigration has been a source of incomprehension to the French people. This explains, in part, the growing distrust of the people towards the elite. Have you observed, lately, how the government is acting as a barrier against the spread of the "swine flu" virus, that professor Bernard Debré has called a "minor virus, not dangerous", thus revealing the disproportionate reactions of politicians and their unwillingness to evaluate the gravity of problems. Professor Debré speaking of the label "H1N1" virus that has the French State mobilized, says: "It is useless to frighten people, unless you want to hammer home, for political reasons, the following message: 'Sleep in peace, good people, We are watching over you.'" To such a degree that President Sarkozy, who suffered a malaise on Sunday while jogging, is exhausted from it.

This refusal to control non-European immigration of families (a subject that doesn't even worry former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin for whom the main problems of the day are "employment, innovation and the fight against deficits") is illustrated by the court injunction, supported by the ministry of immigration, to the mayor of Loudéac, department of Côtes d'Armor, to marry a foreign couple, one of whom is an illegal and being threatened with repatriation. "I am convinced that there is some kind of fraud. I have an obligation to my conscience," explained Mayor Gérard Huet. (...)

Here are the facts: Adil Doubi, Moroccan by nationality, with a Spanish residency card, wants to marry Safadi Kamar el Ahjji of Moroccan-Spanish nationality. But the city authorities noticed errors in Doubi's visa and in a written oath about his presence in France. An order to return to his homeland was issued by the prefect of Côtes d'Armor, on grounds of illegal entry. Doubi had one month to leave French territory. The deadline was July 26, 2009. The city authorities then began to suspect he was attempting a marriage of "convenience", citing a statement made to civil agents in which he requested the marriage in order to benefit from social welfare assistance! The Human Rights League was called in by the claimants who disputed the mayor's refusal to perform the marriage ceremony. The mayor, having sought help from Eric Besson, minister of immigration, was told that he was obligated to marry foreign couples who request it, and that it was not for him to question the legality of the situation. The State prosecutor ordered Gérard Huet to post the bans, adding: "Your position is liable to constitute a charge of abuse of power".

And so on Monday (July 27), in the late afternoon, a deputy mayor of Loudéac will perform the marriage (pressured by a court penalty of 1000 euros per day), despite the illegal situation of one of the spouses, despite the suspicion of a marriage of convenience, and above all despite the absence of a declaration of a four-year-old child. "I am sickened", remarked Gérard Huet, who nonetheless refused to have the ceremony performed at city hall. Rather it will take place in a communal hall. "It is a victory for the law. Justice says that a mayor is not above the law," commented a lawyer for the married couple. And deputy mayor Marc Le Fur in vain tried to point out that such a decision made mayors accomplices in illegal immigration.

This is quite simply scandalous, is it not?

Note: Most of the many readers' comments agree with Rioufol that it is indeed.

It isn't clear what they have to gain by not declaring the child. Nor is it clear if they will be residing in France. They would be foolish to leave considering the generosity of the French authorities.

The two photos below of the happy couple are from Le Télégramme.

No Discernment Allowed

There is a lengthy video posted at François Desouche of lawyer, law professor and member of the CNESER (National council on higher education) Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet. In the video, which is for French-speakers only, she addresses the French National Assembly and responds to several issues including laws on memory and memorials, i.e., laws on hate crimes, laws on discrimination, laws on legislating historical events, etc... The best known of these is the Gayssot law making Holocaust denial a crime, but there are others. The video is very difficult for anyone not well-versed in these matters. A reader of mine, who is technically proficient, may attempt to add some English subtitles, but in the meantime, among the readers' responses there is this one that puts into print some of Le Pourhiet's views on related topics. It is comment #6 posted by "Crocop". A reminder that in French "positive discrimination" is equivalent to "affirmative action":

"First of all, it is no longer certain that the ability to discern is still regarded as a desirable quality in our society. To distinguish gym clothes from school clothes or to show surprise when a pupil comes to school in a jogging outfit now constitutes a "humiliation", just as it is a humiliation to return students' tests by grades in descending order; to qualify a certain piece of contemporary art as "excremental" is a scandal; to distinguish sex and age is legally reprehensible, while distinguishing the legitimate child from the illegitimate is civilly unacceptable; to give a dictation or assign an essay to pupils is a "way of reproducing social inequalities"; to try to be selective in the choice of students accepted at universities is an unforgivable mistake. In general, to select, to prefer, to put into a hierarchy or merely to judge has become a sign of a "phobia", i.e., a mental illness requiring appropriate emergency care. In such conditions, the word "discrimination" is obviously doomed to limited usage and the High Authority (Note: she is referring to HALDE) in charge of the fight against this infamy has a fabulous future as Big Brother. "Physical appearance" having been made grounds for punishable discrimination by French law, one wonders how modeling agencies and Miss France competitions are still tolerated.

It is henceforth forbidden to discriminate except... when it concerns attributing privileges to those lucky enough to belong to the exclusive club of the "dominated". Women, handicapped, African and Maghrebin immigrants, homo-bi-trans sexuals, those from regions with a "strong identity", etc... have the right to benefit from advantages refused to males, whites, those physically able, heterosexuals and those originating from regions of France i.e., regions with a weak identity. That is exactly what positive discrimination means: a free pass granted to members of ethno-cultural or sexual categories that have managed to forge for themselves the status of victim of domination. This domination having been perpetrated by a category of executioners not empowered to complain about being so designated.

To prefer a woman over a man is not reprehensible, it is, on the contrary, a "positive" discrimination that is greatly encouraged. To prefer hiring a Frenchman over a foreigner reveals a "populist xenophobia", but to reserve jobs and professional positions overseas for natives is a judicious realization of the "conditions of local employment." The above-cited "High Authority" ought to be called " High Authority in the fight against certain types of discrimination only."

Note: A reminder that HALDE was created in 2005 during Chirac's administration, when Sarkozy was minister of the interior. You can review articles here and here, among others, or click the HALDE label below.

Finally French readers may want to check out a long response to Le Pourhiet's remarks by Eric Keslassy, an apologist for positive discrimination. It is posted at a website called Communautarisme (communalism) that specializes in lengthy essays and interviews on the topic of ethnic groups. Keslassy's point of view is that a voluntary rupture with the principle of equality is necessary in order to accelerate the integration and social ascendancy of underprivileged populations. An interview with him, posted at the same website, is entitled Positive Discrimination: does the end justify the means? His answer, in a word, is yes - for the general good of the Republic. This is reminiscent of Danton, isn't it? "L'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace et la France est sauvée!"

Note: In 1792 Danton cried: "Audacity, more audacity, forever audacity, and France will be saved!"

The photo of Le Pourhiet above is from a 2008 interview posted at Riposte Laïque, in which she gives her views on changing the preamble of the French Constitution, on positive discrimination and on the feminist movement:

I have only a bad opinion of feminism, that I call "gynecocentrism". I don't understand why we would care more about one human group than another on grounds that we belong to that group. A man who is tortured moves me as much as a woman who is tortured, and it wouldn't occur to me to feel more solidarity with women hostages than with men in the same situation. What do I care about the number of women in the National Assembly. What I hope for is that the majority of deputies have good ideas and a genuine concern for the common good. I couldn't care less about the sex of the deputies or of CEO's, any more than I care about the sex of angels.

France's New Defense

An article in Le Salon Beige discusses what some see as the end of a system of "national defense". The source article, in a publication called Minute, is not on line:

By adopting the law on military programs for the period 2009 - 2014, the Parliament, in its radical revision of the Defense Code, suppressed the law of January 7, 1959 that dealt with the general organization of the defense system. This law, so Gaullist (i.e. typical of Charles de Gaulle), so intrinsically linked politically as well as legally to the original Constitution of the 5th Republic, viewed defense in a manner that was "global", that is, not only military but also economic and cultural. It is being replaced by the concept of a "strategy of national security" modeled on that of the United States, and the least one can say about it is that it is vague, since the strategy is in constant flux (...)

Security was only one of the aspects of defense that also included dimensions bearing on France's world-wide influence, on national cohesion, on the links between the armed forces and the nation. Now we have arrived at a narrow, security-oriented vision of our relevance as a power, chipping away a little bit more at our country's status as a world power. (...) In fact, one of the fundamental points of rupture introduced by this new law is that henceforth France believes that once a threat has been identified, it is not necessarily up to her to respond to it! This is indeed the definitive end to the will to national independence. Why such a change?

At bottom, the reason is to turn into law, in some way, the vassalization of France to "Atlantic" interests. The entire path followed by President Sarkozy is now officially inscribed as a law giving him all powers to accelerate the dismantling of our national defense system.

Regarding the interior of the country, this law will facilitate the fusion of the gendarmerie and the police. According to our sources, the gendarmes, henceforth integrated into the Interior Ministry, would then lose the right to shoot in cases of criminals fleeing the scene! And since he admires the Americans so much, he might even establish a national guard of gendarmes reservists.

Note: I am not taking this text as a criticism of America so much as a criticism of Sarkozy and his value system. Our system has worked for us. The French have to work out their own ways. However, not being versed in things military, I hesitate to say that Sarkozy is absolutely right or wrong, but I tend to think he is wrong to denature what has been a French system adapted to them and independent of the US. This in no way means that the French necessarily have to be in conflict with us - in fact, I remember de Gaulle saying that, despite his desire to set his country free from our dominion, if we needed France she would always be there to help us. He had loyalty to his former allies in time of danger.

What Sarkozy is doing seems to me to be more anti-Gaullist and anti-self reliance than slavishly pro-American.

You may certainly disagree with that.

What I dislike most is the change in status of the gendarmerie, traditionally part of the Ministry of Defense and now a pawn in the hands of the Interior Minister.

Review my post from 2007 on this topic.

Here's the opinion of one Salon Beige reader:

- The army is the structure that assures the defense and the security of the country from outside threats. Currently the country has no external interests other than economic. On the other hand, the security threats from within the country are growing. This explains the creation of a smaller army reduced to a rapid intervention force and an important reinforcement in the maintaining of civil order.

The gendarmerie is therefore set to disappear and to meld into an internal security force.

The former police will also disappear. Its role will no longer be just to apply the existing laws. As the internal threat grows, it will see to it that the people think and act according to the dogmas of the Establishment. Otherwise the police, structured as a defense force, will see to it that they are forced to comply.

A Stasi regime is slowing being installed.

Note: The Stasi were the East German secret police, established with the aid of the Soviet Union after WWII.

Below, a Stasi hidden camera, capable of taking pictures through a 1mm hole in a wall. (Wikipedia)

Would the French government go this far?



At top, the gendarmes out in force on the Champs-Elysées on New Year's Eve. (French Gov.)

The Monk and the Fish

Charles Henry has posted a short message of concern about a friend of his, accompanied by a beautiful award-winning video called The Monk and the Fish. If you haven't seen it, by all means connect to Covenant Zone. The video, a type of cartoon (I don't think that word is entirely appropriate for the video, which appears to be a series of animated watercolors), is 6 minutes long and yet carries an eternal message of separation and union.

Spoken Freely in 1989

There are a number of nostalgic videos posted throughout the François Desouche website that remind readers of how much more freedom of speech there was a mere two decades ago. One of them is this video of bishop Marcel Lefebvre, denouncing without a trace of political correctness or doublespeak, the Muslim presence in France. The video is from a press conference in November 1989, two years before his death. I was able to translate most of it, but as usual a few lines here and there escaped me:

Your wives, your daughters, your children will be kidnapped and taken to certain... reserved areas such as exist in Casablanca, and everywhere else. And you won't be able to go get them. They will be in Medina and the mosques and even the gendarmes don't dare step foot into those places. What will France be then? It's already like that in certain cities in England. (Note: responding to the reporter's question "What can we do?"): Ask the government to stop this Islam. The two religions cannot live together. It's impossible. If every year there are 500,000 more Muslims in France, you'll see what that will be like... with their mosques. When they kill Christians they save their soul and they save the soul of the ones they kill. Why should they deprive themselves of that?

Monseigneur lefebvre sur le mahometisme
Uploaded by JCMD67 -

Monsignor Lefebvre, former bishop of Tulle, was one of the founders of the traditionalist Catholic SSPX breakaway movement that was recently reintegrated into the Church by Benedict XVI. Read about him here (in French) and here (in English).

Despite attempts to avoid a major rupture with the Church, a decree of excommunication against him was issued July 1, 1988.

A sidelight: Here are two paragraphs from a long English-language web page by a Belgian writer named Koenraad Elst on the infiltration of Islam into the West and some of the consequences faced by anyone who opposes it. I downloaded the paragraphs because of the reference to bishop Lefebvre, but there is much else worth reading at that site.

Mostly, however, the main brake on critical discussion of Islam in the West results not from physical threats but from subtle and not-so-subtle forms of censorship. Westerners who have critical things to say about Islam render themselves unemployable. The French civil servant Jean-Claude Barreau, head of the administration for the integration of immigrants, was sacked in 1991 for publishing a book in which he questioned the "golden legend" of the "great Islamic civilization" which is only believed because "man's capacity for self-deception is enormous." He called the spread of Islam "one of the great catastrophes in history," pointing out that agriculture collapsed where peasants converted to Islam, a city-based religion: "The Muslims are not the sons but the fathers of the desert." Strong language, certainly, and critics discovered a number of errors of detail in the book, but Barreau was right to point out that similar criticism of Christianity would never have caused his dismissal. Barreau called himself a victim of the taboo on critical discussion of Islam.

In France, the late bishop Marcel Lefebvre, leader of the traditionalist Catholics, was sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 French francs (about $900) for his "racist" statement, to a non-Muslim audience, that when the Muslims presence becomes even stronger, "it is your wives, your daughters, your children who will be kidnapped and dragged off to a certain kind of places as they exist in Casablanca [Morocco]." That a prominent bishop can be brought before a court for evoking the historical fact of European slavery at the hands of Muslim slavers is a sign of a new power equation. (In contrast, British Muslim leader Kalim Siddiqui was not prosecuted for blaming European civilization for all the evils of the modern world, nor even for breaking the law by publicly calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie.) And Lefebvre got off lightly, the judge having ruled that he had not "actively incited to discrimination," in which case he would have received a prison sentence plus a fine of 300,000 francs. Fines of this magnitude have recently been imposed twice on actress and animal-rights activist Brigitte Bardot for comparing Muslim settlement in France to the Nazi occupation, and for saying: "Tomorrow, the Muslims who cut the throats of innocent sheep to celebrate Eid, may well cut the throat of human beings, as is already being done in Algeria."

Alternative Reality

The short video below is from François Desouche. Because it was so short I was able to work out a translation, though a few words here and there escaped me, especially a passage towards the end, but the general message is clear. The speaker is criminologist Xavier Raufer:

What is happening now is that by dint of forbidding the utterance of a certain number of words, people can no longer see what lies behind them. The France of today is clearly in the throes of a severe crisis of crime. Look, the media caste and the political caste speak of nothing but minor crimes and misdemeanors. The act of taking a gun and opening fire on anything that moves is not a minor crime, it is not a misdemeanor or an uncivil action, it is a crime. This is terribly important, and not politically correct, but to an ever increasing degree things are not being called by their real name. Any psychologist, even a beginner, will tell you that what a human being cannot designate, he cannot confront. A country where you can no longer name things is a country that is little by little withdrawing from reality. Reality is little by little becoming intolerable to the bureaucracies of people closed in on themselves in offices and ministries. And reality is too harsh, too unpleasant, it has become unbearable; and so they call crimes misdemeanors and they call minor crimes uncivil acts. They end up not being able to see the reality of things. The National Commission on Electronic Data and Freedoms (CNIL) at one time tried to eliminate religious preference from the identification records in France. How convenient for Islamists! (...) To sum up, it comes down to one essential: a flight from reality.

Subway Mayhem

There was an incident in the Paris subway on July 22. François Desouche has the story, based on the source article in Le Parisien. As of now, the facts have not been entirely elucidated:

Armed gunmen, crowds, interruption of service, passengers fleeing in tunnels and the discovery of a man killed on the subway rails: panic reigned yesterday for more than five hours on line 13 of the Paris metro.

A female passenger alerted the subway employees that two African-type men armed with pistols tried to attack her in the subway car. A fight presumably took place also. Immediately, service was interrupted on the entire line, the electricity cut off and the police informed, while panic-stricken passengers filled the platforms. But when the police arrived, the two men had vanished.

The police increased their checks, searched the station, questioned the passengers, and got swallowed up in the tunnel. No success: it was impossible to find out more about the mysterious armed men.

Meanwhile, the news spread like wildfire, setting off other scenes of panic. At 4:30 p.m. when the subway they were on stopped in the tunnel between Varenne and Invalides, the terrified passengers escaped clumsily from the cars to get to the station on foot.

In addition, a man of Asian origin was fatally struck by a subway on this same line 13, but no one knows if this tragic death has any connection to the preceding incidents.

Note: Some François Desouche readers advise caution, since the facts are not all known. Others lash out out the readers of Le Parisien who make light of the incident when they insist that this sort of thing is bound to happen in the Paris subway. Still others are critical of the Le Parisien report itself that greatly minimizes the events because of the African origin of the two men.

One FDS reader found this comment from a very well-indoctrinated Le Parisien reader to be significant:

In a huge city like Paris it is not surprising that this type of chaos takes place from time to time. You have to look squarely at things. And I don't see what purpose it serves to specify that the armed men were African in appearance and that the man found dead was Asian... except to arouse a bit more the nasty and stupid "mixophobes". But turning people against each other is the media's specialty.

It is significant because it uses a word new to the lexicon of official thought: MIXOPHOBE. A mixophobe would be a person suffering from mixophobia, or dread of mixing races. In short dread of métissage.

Goals of the CEE

A brief from Le Monde informs us that a coalition of Christian churches seeks the easing of hardships on immigrants arriving in Europe:

At the conclusion of its discussions on July 21 in Lyons, the 13th reunion of the Conference of European Churches (CEE), that includes 126 churches of Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican and "old Catholic" traditions, established its goals for the next six years. It intends to emphasize the "easing of hardships on immigrants seeking refuge in Europe, as well as ecological issues and the implementation of a new economic order." Engaged in ecumenicalism for 50 years, the CEE, through the voice of the patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I, also advocated a rapprochement with the Catholic Church. The integration of Evangelical churches, that have experienced rapid growth in recent years, was also encouraged.

Note: It would have been nice if the CEE had also advocated an easing of hardships on the European peoples who have to put up with the immigrants. But possibly that is not charitable of me.

I should add that I know nothing about the CEE, but one François Desouche reader writes:

The CEE is a masonic organization that does not represent the churches in their historic and dogmatic reality. This pseudo-conference has no canonic value, not even for churches as deprived of tradition as the Protestant churches. It was created by traitorous priests of all stripes to destroy Christianity and to meld it into the idolatrous universalist philosophical movement. Do not humiliate Christianity or accuse it because some Judas, who is really worthy of criticism, sold it out. Pick your targets accurately.

The CEE is duly chastised, but are the Protestant churches completely "tradition deprived"? If the CEE is a minority group, the American Episcopal church was not. It self-destructed when it espoused liberalism, feminisim and gay rights. Any traditions it may have had are now a laughing-stock. It takes centuries to build a tradition, a few days to demolish it. (Which is not to say that the traditions cannot ever be restored.)

An Under-Reported Crime

A video posted at François Desouche presents publisher Jean Robin, who published The Mosque of Notre-Dame earlier this year. A few years ago he had written and published a book called "Judéomanie" (Judeomania, or the obsession with Jews), that many had found courageous, but others, especially Jewish groups found anti-Semitic. Jean Robin is himself Jewish (or part Jewish). The book attempted to show that excessive fawning over Jews and/or excessive Jew-hatred are equally wrong and harmful to everyone, whatever their ethnicity. The book received almost no media coverage.

In this video he deplores what he calls the over-kill by the media of the case of Ilan Halimi and the minimizing of other equally horrible crimes, a phenomenon I alluded to in my post on the trial of Youssouf Fofana.

I do not wish to imply that Halimi's case is just another crime, because it is not, but Robin speaks of the murder of one William Modolo that took place in May 2006. I had never heard of the case, and found this article from La Provence, dated April 28, 2009, the eve of the opening of Fofana's trial, that goes back over the 3-year-old Modolo case. The article had to be condensed:



In May 2006, on the banks of the River Arc in Aix-en-Provence, six people tortured William Modolo (left), a 20-year-old who was only seeking the friendship of these misfits. Three days of torture, unspeakable suffering, until the final killing, with rocks, in the cold light of a mobile phone. Four men ages 25 to 53 and two young women in their twenties will be judged in the coming months. The examining magistrate Jean-Baptiste Colombani sent the case to the criminal court of Bouches-du-Rhône citing acts of torture and barbarity, gang rape and murder.

A psychiatrist's help was needed in order to relate to Roselyne and Joseph Modolo, the young man's parents, the details of the tortures he had to endure.

The only thing that is known from the rambling and contradictory statements made by the group is that William was seeking their friendship, possibly a bit more with the girls. Because of his weight (over 300 lbs) and his kindly nature William became an object of constant humiliations.

On May 18, 2006, the "chief" of the gang decided to pull out 15 of his teeth. An insurmountable suffering, according to the experts. The others seconded him: one of the girls showed off the "trophy" - a bowl containing the teeth.

His mother Roselyne, tortured by nightmares despite her outward equanimity, wished for "some rational explanation" for what they had done, but there wasn't any. "For them, it was a macabre game. They were the Indians and they took part in the agony of the cowboy." Those who knew William depict him as a nice boy, friendly, with a permanent need for affection. He reassured his mother who did not want to make hasty judgments on his new "friends": "Don't worry, mother, they don't do stupid things."

The extreme violence lasted for entire days. Scenes of the rape executed with various objects are extremely cruel. "He was beaten with wood, with iron, with picks and even with the awning of a trailer," explains Monique Touitou, the family lawyer, adding that in her 33 years as an attorney she had never seen anything like it.

Not once, did any of the criminals become aware of what they were doing. there was no sudden burst of lucidness or humanity that might have saved William. On the contrary, they all participated in the final judgment. All six voted for death and debated on the ways to do it. Death was chosen because, according to their leader, "black and blue marks disappear, teeth do not grow back." These discussions took place in front of William who begged with his final breath: "I don't want to die."

Taken to Saint-Cannat, the young man was stoned to death.

Note: the silence surrounding this murder is deafening. However, it did make the news, since several websites have the information. Much was written also at the message boards, where the readers unburden their great resentment against the media for devoting so much time to Ilan Halimi and next-to-nothing about William. They believe that Jews are a privileged group who receive an inordinate amount of attention and they feel that William was insignificant because he was not Jewish or black or Arab - just a white French kid, possibly Catholic.

We know nothing about the killers except for some strange contradictions: they seem to have had a decent standard of living and held good jobs. At the same time they were products of broken homes, drug addictions, horrible childhoods and psychiatric hospitals. One of the women was a social worker, another was the son of a lawyer. Some message board participants said they thought they were "Goths" or Satanists. France has experienced a seemingly endless spate of graveyard vandalism with overturned crosses and ripped open graves. These are essentially anti-Catholic acts committed by Satanists that go under-reported by the media, and only vigilant Catholic groups write about them. The French constantly complain bitterly that while any vandalism against a mosque or synagogue makes headlines, no one cares about the churches and cemeteries.

Nor do we know much about the victim. There was speculation that Modolo is a Jewish name. Others said no, it's Italian. Why did they name him "William" instead of "Guillaume"? It may seem trivial to waste time speculating, but France has to know what she is dealing with. The fear of making improper associations (what they call "amalgamations") prevents people from speaking openly about crime. But they should not be afraid of calling a spade a spade. If most criminals are black or Muslim you have to say so. If white Satanic cults are flourishing and attempting to undermine Christian culture, the Church or Church representatives should say so in a loud voice and force the media to report it. Ilan Halimi got publicity because the Jewish community put pressure on the government to do something. The Catholic leaders should do likewise.

That said, we do NOT know who these people are. The trial will be coming up in several weeks, and I'll try to follow it if it's reported.

This sounds to me like a "copycat" crime, since it happened in the weeks following Ilan's murder. They used stones and iron bars - things often used by ghetto gangs. Extracting his teeth is reminiscent of Hitler who extracted the teeth of Jews for the gold. The gang also could have been a mixture of races and ethnicities as often happens nowadays. Or they could have been semi-nomadic, such as the Rom, since a trailer was involved.

It should be noted that violence breeds violence. The western countries have allowed immigrants to get away with murder, literally. This means inevitably that some whites are going to become violent as well, since they perceive that it goes unpunished and that the perpetrators are molly-coddled. In America a "white trash" movement in dress, music and behavior sprang from the black ghetto culture as a kind of counterpart.

Notice the rise in female violence, as girls become "ghettoized" culturally speaking. Often they are well-to-do girls who have been given the green light to be evil.

Any reliable information you may have on this case is welcome. Pass it on.

Below, the mother Roselyne Modolo (left) with her lawyer.

Fofana - The Trial and the Verdict

The trial of Youssouf Fofana, the black Muslim murderer of Ilan Halimi, along with the verdict and the sentencing, has been one of the major topics at the websites. When I first began GalliaWatch in February 2006, the biggest story of the day was the incredible cruelty with which Ilan Halimi, a young Jewish boy, had been tortured and killed. The story made headlines around the world, and the Jewish communities demanded justice. They saw it, justifiably, as an act of anti-Semitism. But it is more than that: it is a grim reminder of what the presence of Islam in France can mean at its most sadistic. Unfortunately, many high-profile leftist Jewish "intellectuals" refuse to admit this, since to do so would be to admit that immigration is bad for France, and being committed immigrationists, they cannot do the right thing and call for an end to immigration. Yet this is a case that cries out for justice, not only for Ilan but for France.

Since there are so many things to consider, I've decided to stick primarily to two or three articles. The first from Bivouac-id goes back to April 29, 2009, when the trial began. This article is actually a somewhat shorter version of a Wikipedia web page that tells the entire story as it was known up to the time of the trial. However, the Bivouac article does give more information about Fofana's behavior and his threats:

Based in Bagneux, outside of Paris, a small gang, ages 16-32, baptized by its chief Youssouf Fofana as "the gang of barbarians", subsisted from small jobs and even more from trafficking and theft of all kinds. The motive of the crime was presumably money... And yet numerous details that came to light indicated that the religion of the accused and anti-Semitic stereotypes played an important role in the choice of victim and the calvary he endured, even though Youssouf Fofana has denied it.

At first the prosecution rejected the anti-Semitic motive of the crime, but in the end, the exacerbating circumstance of acts committed "because of the victim's ethnicity, race or religion" was retained as part of the accusation against Fofana and one other defendant for the kidnapping and killing of Ilan.

This is why there will be talk of religion, possibly in a low voice, since it is about Islam. Yes, Youssouf Fofana is Muslim, as are the majority of the defendants. Today, April 29, and for the next ten weeks, the trial of the "gang of barbarians" opens in juvenile criminal court.

Note: The article, having provided a type of preface, then moves on to more concrete facts:

In custody, Fofana inundated the examining magistrates with letters filled with anti-Semitic insults. According to television channel TF 1, Youssouf Fofana arrived in court and proclaimed "Allah will conquer" and then gave as his birthday the date of Ilan Halimi's death. He risks life in prison. One of his lawyers, Isabelle Coutant-Peyre, said to journalists: "It is a human being that will be judged. Mr. Fofana is being mistreated by a campaign of political and religious marketing. He must be allowed to speak."

Note: The twisted personality of Coutant-Peyre, who is married to the terrorist Carlos, will be the subject of another post, time permitting.

Because of the 1945 ruling on juvenile crime, the trial will take place behind closed doors. Two female defendants, out of the 27, were minors at the time of the crime (9 females have been indicted), so the ruling is being applied to all the defendants, 19 of whom are being held in custody...

The list of defendants expanded to include various accomplices, friends, and relatives who knew that Ilan was being held hostage, fed with a straw, tied up, gagged, and beaten, but who kept silent. They will be prosecuted for non-assistance to a person in danger and failure to report a crime. In all, 40 persons will be judged during the trial.

The accusers want the arguments to be made public. Ilan's mother, Ruth Halimi, believes that "silence has already killed her son once", and hopes that a public trial will serve as a lesson. (...)

Samir Aït Abdelmalek, known as "Smiler", the father of two, a multi-recidivist for drug crimes and car theft, presumably provided the apartment in Bagneux where the kidnapped Ilan was kept before being moved to the boiler room. Samir, considered to be Fofana's right-hand man, having known him for 10 years, also provided the acid and slashed the victim with a paper cutter. He was to receive 1500 euro for his contribution: "I took out the blade from the paper cutter and after he had taken some food and water, I looked for a spot to slash him so he would bleed without harming him too much. I didn't want to touch the tape that prevented him from shouting. Without warning Ilan, so as not to stress him out, I slashed him over 5 or 6 centimeters on his left cheek. Despite the bandage it bled quickly into his beard that had not been shaved". (...)

The policeman who interrogated Fofana picked up the thread of the story:

"At that moment, Ilan managed to lift up the bandage from his eyes. So he was able to look him in the eye. Just then Fofana stabbed him in the throat near the carotid, and then again on the other side of his throat. He then tried to cut the lower part of his neck. Then he stabbed him in his side. He must have returned with a can of gasoline because he told me that he had used a can to splash Ilan with the combustible fluid and set him on fire. At that point he said to me: 'there was a big flame and I left.'"

As the State prosecutor Jean-Claude Marin indicated, the kidnappers were also inspired by "some well-known scenes", an allusion to the kidnappings of westerners by al-Qaida in Iraq.

The anti-Semitic motive, rejected at first, is now officially acknowledged. But more than anti-Semitism, it is the ideology of jihad that motivated the killers, as several pieces of evidence have recently indicated.

Documents seized from the homes of several gang members, show that they belonged to a "salafist" organization, according to police.The police also found documents from the CBSP - the Committee for Assistance and Support to the Palestinians. Hidden under this seemingly benign name is an organization that collects money on French soil for the terrorist group Hamas. The CBSP, listed by the Americans as an association that funds terrorism, has still not been banned in France, despite repeated demands from the United States and Israel.

The links between the members of the gang of barbarians and the CBSP demonstrate once again how porous the boundaries between ideological jihad and armed jihad really are.

Ilan Halimi, a young Jew, 23 years-old, was targeted because he was Jewish. This sentence contains all the motives for the horrors subsequently perpetrated against Ilan. Some will deny it, preferring the theory that the motive for the kidnapping was money. Photos showing Ilan at gunpoint were e-mailed to his family with a demand for 450,000 euro...

llan Halimi was found near death on February 13, 2006 and died several hours later, as a result of horrible torture. He was buried in Jerusalem in February 2007.

Attracted into a fatal honey trap on January 20, 2006, outside Paris by "Emma", or rather Sorour, her Iranian first name, Ilan made a date with the 17-year-old girl who had approached him three days earlier in a telephone shop on Boulevard Voltaire in Paris. Emma was in fact the "lure" paid by Youssouf Fofana, who conceived the plan to kidnap Ilan. The girl led Ilan into the basement of an apartment building in Sceaux (Hauts-de-Seine) where he was struck by the accomplices, neutralized with ether, and stuffed into the trunk of a stolen car, then taken to an empty apartment in the neighborhood of Bagneux (Hauts-de-Seine). The apartment guard gave them the keys, for a sum of 1500 euros...

On the morning of February 13, at 5:00 a.m., Ilan Halimi was placed in the trunk of a car. Three hours later Ilan was spotted along a railroad track in Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois (Essonne). Naked, handcuffed and bound, his body covered with burns, in a state of shock and unable to speak. The doctors found four wounds to the neck, one of them in the jugular vein, and one in the side, made by a "sharp, pointed, instrument". He died en route to the hospital. Between these two dates... indescribable, inhuman horrors.

The autopsy, performed on February 14 revealed burns over 80% of his body, multiple "hematomas and contusions", a cheek wound made with a paper cutter and two knife wounds under his throat. But the doctor concluded: "None of the wounds was fatal." It was the totality of violence and tortures that he endured for three weeks that caused his death.

Note: The Bivouac article then posts a scanned image of a newspaper article from the days following the arrest of Youssouf Fofana in the Ivory Coast where he had fled. I posted the contents of the article in March 2006, using as my source a Novopress article by Fabrice Robert. At the time I was still learning about the KA Tribe, a gang of thugs, and its black supremacist chief Kemi Seba. Subsequently, I was to write long articles on both the "tribe" and its leader. Also, it was just coming to light that the KA Tribe and Youssouf Fofana were interconnected in some way. The "tribe" was theoretically banned by Interior Minister Sarkozy, but Kemi Seba has emerged recently as some sort of budding politician or activist in the violent suburbs of Paris. I will post more details on this, time permitting. Here is the message sent via e-mail from the KA Tribe to the French Jewish community:

"During the last several days following the death of the mobile phone salesman, Ilan Halimi, we have noticed that a veritable witch-hunt is emerging against Youssef Fofana, accused by your society of being responsible for the death of one of yours. We will not beat around the bush: whether or not our brother is guilty, we are warning you that if by chance you should harm one hair on our brother's head, instead of granting him a fair trial, we will personnally take good care of the ringlets on the heads of your rabbis, and believe us, your phony security forces like the JDL and the Betar will be of no help to you when faced with the will of our justice. See to it that our brother is judged fairly, or you will pay."

The message was signed "Kemi Séba, Fara of the KA Tribe.

What was the verdict? Of course Fofana was found guilty, as were most of the members of the "gang of barbarians". Fofana was given life, the others lighter sentences. Le Salon Beige had this post on July 15. It consists of an excerpt from a communiqué issued by Convergences Nationales, a nationalist club formed by members of the MNR, Bruno Mégret's party that split from the Front National in 1998:

For Convergences Nationales, the conviction of Fofana to "life in prison", 22 years of which will be without possibility of parole, seems rather light, considering the torture inflicted over a long period on his victim. The killer, who continued to boast and sneer at the court when the verdict was read, will be once again free in 20 years and this eventuality is intolerable.

In reality he deserved the death penalty, just as murderers of children deserve it. For Convergences Nationales, the restoration of the death penalty in certain cases, is indispensable and ought to be the keystone of our justice system. For in these ignoble cases, it is the only possible penalty that offers redemption, beyond its dissuasive aspects.

Another article from Le Salon Beige, pursuing the same theme, points out that the prosecutor Philippe Bilger demanded gradated sentences in terms of the individual responsibility of each of the 27 co-defendants, ranging from life, 22 years of which would be without parole, to acquittal. In between these two extremes were sentences with parole or suspended sentences. The article points out this important fact: in French law it is not possible to go beyond 22 years in prison. It also notes that the new Minister of Justice Michèle Alliot-Marie decided to appeal 14 of the 25 convictions on grounds they were inadequate because they did not match the prosecution's demands.

The real scandal of this trial is not that some got off with 18 years where the prosecutor had demanded 20; it is that the maximum sentence that can be inflicted on this madman is 22 years. In France "life" means in fact 22 "incompressible" years maximum. Beyond that, "life" can be "compressed" in a temporal and semantic distortion. Which means that Fofana, incarcerated since 2006, could be set free in the spring of 2028! And at the age of 48, he would still have the full strength of the wild animal he boasted of being the day he killed Ilan Halimi: "It is better to live one day like a lion than a hundred days like a sheep," he said on the last day of the trial.

Both Salon Beige articles are followed by discussions on the death penalty.

An English-language article at Front Page Magazine, written by someone who has some difficulty with English, presents in a rather incoherent way more details about the case, with a strong emphasis on the importance of anti-Semitism in this case. While this is unquestionably a case of Jew-hatred on the part of a hate-consumed egomaniacal black Muslim supremacist, to regard it only as a case of anti-Semitism, to increase the gravity of the crime BECAUSE of the anti-Semitic element, is actually to DIMINISH the gravity of the crime, since it is then reduced to the politically correct, hence fallacious, level of a so-called "hate crime". But, in fact, that is what is happening in France today. Racism is the worst crime; all others are secondary.

I see no evidence, however, that the sentence was increased because of the ethnic/racial element, especially since Fofana was given the maximum penalty for the murder. But in the media, it will come to be regarded as an anti-Semitic act, not as an act of murder by an individual who should never have been allowed in France. Nor will it ever be analyzed as a symbol of what France is enduring and will continue to endure so long as black and Muslim invaders are allowed to swarm in, bringing with them violent cultures inimical to everything France has ever stood for.

Ilan's ethnicity served as a magnet, that is true. But what about a French girl with blond hair and no head scarf who tries to walk down the street, or a Catholic girl trapped in a subway car by a Turk armed with a knife, or a man on a bus who tries to prevent his wallet from being stolen, etc... They are all magnets for these barbarians. The impotent French Republic, concerned only with not being racist, could not care less about these innocent people.

Below, Ilan Halimi.



Addendum: Here is a list of articles I posted from February and March 2006, on the murder and related topics. The interesting thing to me as I reviewed these 3-year-old articles is the emphasis placed back then on the threat posed by Islam, as opposed to the anti-racism propaganda that clogs so much of today's media output. Back then, the murder of Ilan was seen not just as an anti-Semitic act but as an omen of the consequences of the Islamization of France. We also see how solidly behind Philippe de Villiers were the Jews of France, and how promising he appeared as a potential candidate. Things have not gotten better in the intervening years. Sarkozy's relentless campaign to Islamize his country, to pursue his immigration policy, to hunt down anyone who commits an act, however innocuous, of "discrimination", to build mosques, etc... has taken a dreadful toll. The people of France are further from, not closer to, a solution to their crisis than they were a mere 36 months ago. Not to mention the steady rise in crime, the discouragement and resignation felt by so many and the relative invisibility of people like Philippe de Villiers, or the fact that CRIF, the umbrella organization of Jewish groups, is now openly advocating métissage while its leader Richard Prasquier cultivates friendship with Muslim religious leaders. Back then CRIF supported Philippe de Villiers in his attempt to demonstrate in the rally. CRIF, being both left-wing and Jewish oscillates between accusations of anti-Semitism on the one hand, and "I am a friend of Muslims" attitude on the other. But never does CRIF advocate closing the borders to immigration.

1. Comments from a web forum on the murder.

2. A press release from Philippe de Villiers..

3. Three demonstrations.

4. Villiers removed forcibly from demonstration.

5. The arrest of Fofana.

6. A warning to the Jews - provides a link to a Jerusalem Post article published at FPM.

Blackout

The Interior Ministry has issued orders to the prefects not to communicate to the media the crime statistics for the nights of July 13-15. Le Monde has a long article that I have had to condense:

(...) Only the figures for the night of July 13-14 were published: "Some 500 vehicles" were burned, the worst ever recorded for the eve of the national holiday. Despite repeated requests to the Interior Ministry, and the DGPN (similar to the FBI), no figures were forthcoming for the night of July 14-15.

These orders have been strictly applied. The different prefectures contacted by Le Monde refused to respond, citing "ministerial instructions." Regional news media reported the same problem. The daily La Provence issued an unofficial report that was much less favorable than 2008: 41 cars and a day-care center in Marseilles burned.

"You are requested not to communicate information about the incidents of July 14." the order comes from the Interior Ministry that is determined to provide the figures itself, according to La Provence. "The figures are not available for the moment," was their response to our request.

Other local papers describe the same problems. In Reims, the daily L'Union denounces the attitude of the authorities: "Yesterday morning, every journalist who came, even for the smallest piece of news, to the firemen, or gendarmes or police, heard the same answer: 'No fires'. In fact, the truth is quite different. Some of those we questioned admitted under their breath: 'We cannot say anything about the fires. We have received orders."

In Lyons, the daily Le Progrès reports the same blackout: "Orders not to speak on the radio were given to firemen, gendarmes and police."

In previous years the radio network Europe 1 had systematically called the prefectures to verify the official counts. On January 1, 2008, the DGPN reported 372 burnt cars for New Year's Eve vs 746 reported by Europe 1. Finally the ministry of the interior admitted that there had been 878 fires. "Instructions" given to the prefectures henceforth forbid this type of verification.

The cartoon at the top shows a woman watching the "official" weather report, as it pours outside.

Some bits of news have leaked through. An article at François Desouche (based on Le Parisien) describes the use of firecrackers against the police, in the suburb of Tremblay-en-France, department of Seine-Saint-Denis. This was the second time in a few weeks that such an incident had occurred in exactly the same place:

It happened during the night. Police on patrol were drawn to a group of about 30 turbulent residents. Masked by their clothing they threw firecrackers and rocks at the police.

Also, in the city of Evry, four or five large packs of firecrackers were stolen by a group of hooded individuals who broke into the fair grounds thanks to the inadequate number of guards. Agnès Moutet-Lamy, the spokesman for the Socialist mayor made light of the event: "That can always happen. There's nothing to worry about."

Jean-Charles Béraud, an expert in pyrotechnics, stated that firecrackers "can become a monstrously dangerous weapon. A mortar can be propelled 120 meters and create an explosion 80 meters in diameter. It can kill someone. Even one large firecracker can rip apart a hand (...) "

Using La Provence as the source, another article at François Desouche relates the violence in Marseilles on the night of July 14:

The "festivities" began around 9:00 p.m. A fire, probably ignited by firecrackers, was ravaging 5 hectares close to residences. Two helicopters pouring water on the fire and a fierce battle waged by the marine firemen were needed to bring the fire under control.

A day-care center was partially burned. A row of cypress trees bordering a nursery school went up in smoke. One individual was arrested as he threw rockets on the marine firemen who had come to put out a trash can fire. Fires were set in the four corners of one neighborhood, while trash cans and cars burned in others, notably with the help of Molotov cocktails.

While the firemen went on one call after the other, the police fell into what appears to be an ambush. Bullets were fired at them and diverse projectiles were thrown in their direction. One policeman was slightly injured by a rock. The anti-crime brigade arrested one individual in possession of a 22-caliber rifle.

Below, a fire to the east of Marseilles.

Welcome Mat For Illegals

A story that recently made headlines concerns the arrival in France of a group of ninety-two immigrants from Malta. This is the briefest summary I have found of the event, from the blog of Yves Daoudal:

They are illegals from the Horn of Africa, who arrived in Malta.

France welcomed them, in a resettling operation, something that is a first.

Minister of Immigration Eric Besson met them at the airport, and gave a speech in English, since they do not speak French.

And they are all Muslims.

Besides one-year visas, renewable, they will benefit from free housing and from the RSA - Active Solidarity Revenue.

Note: The RSA is a subsidy granted to those with limited income. There is no time limit: the beneficiary receives the same amount so long as his income does not change.

Two comments from Daoudal's readers:

- We have become doormats, with the word "Welcome" written on top.

- I can't believe it. It's terrifying and surreal. What is the plan behind all of this.

Here is a two-minute video posted at François Desouche of the arrival and welcoming ceremonies in France. The man who wishes them well (in English) is Eric Besson. As I write, I do not have time to translate the video, but it speaks for itself: the refugees express their happiness and relief that their long journey has ended. They have their future ahead of them. They want to find work, but first they have to learn French. They come from Somalia and Eritrea. The narrator closes by saying that France hopes other European countries will do their share.



Two other videos posted at François Desouche show boatloads of Africans from West Africa, the Ivory Coast in particular arriving from Malta. Having landed first in Libya, which is teeming with immigrants (according to one video), they were then redirected by Libya to Europe via Malta. And so they eventually found their way into France. This would seem to indicate that Libya takes the role of "middleman", sheltering these people until they can get into Europe. Does Libya keep any of these Africans, or are they all redirected to Europe?

Malta is one of several stopping-off places for refugees from Africa, who often arrive by the boatloads from war-torn lands. African countries do not have political or economic systems that are adequate to deal with the needs of the people who then seek a better life elsewhere. They become, ironically, "white man's burden", a situation that was supposed to end when colonization ended. Africa will only grow up if and when it learns to cope with its own problems through mutual assistance and healthier governments, organized around the goal of improving the lot of the country. For now, so many African leaders are nothing more than tribal chiefs, subject to systemic corruption. Europe will have to learn to say no to these refugees, no matter how cruel it may seem, or Europe will simply become another Africa - impoverished, violent and corrupt, with no hope for a return to normalcy.

Bastille Day, 2009 - Honoring India

First, the report on the number of burnt vehicles. According to La Croix (via Le Salon Beige):

"Some 500 vehicles" were burned in France during the night of July 13-14 according to a communiqué from Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux. The communiqué provides no comparison with last year's figures.

"I deplore this unhealthy tradition that occurs every July 14, with 500 vehicles in all burned tonight," Hortefeux confined himself to saying. The number of burnt vehicles for July 14, 2009 is higher than that of 2008, said police sources, who nevertheless refused to reveal the exact number.

Note: Hortefeux certainly gives new meaning to the word "tradition".

La Croix notes that last year the only figure made public was 297 cars burned BEFORE 6:00 a.m. Later it became known, if not officially, that many more had been burned after 6:00.

Now, for the festivities. Since the July 14 holiday is meant to honor a country, presumably France, by what appears to be a presidential decree, any country except France is the honored guest. Last year, the European Union itself was honored, as France took over the presidency for six months. This year, India was the guest of honor. Below we see the Indian army opening the parade on the Champs-Elysées. Le Figaro announced that in this way France will celebrate the "strategic partnership" that unites the two countries and, in the process, defend its place as the third provider of weapons to the Delhi defense program.




The Republican Guard on horseback:



The French Foreign Legion:



A patriotic parachute lands on Place de la Concorde:



The Sarkozys, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Foreign Minister Bernard Koucher:



More photos here.

Sarkozy sent a congratulatory message to his armed forces, praising their skill and courage, and assuring them of his continued funding (377 billion euro over the next year) of the defense budget, despite the economic crisis "because we cannot eat away at the security of France." He also declared his continued desire to help the Americans in Afghanistan: "I told President Obama that I would help him because this country must have its freedoms restored." Le Figaro indicates that this statement is in contradiction to one made by Sarkozy to Obama during the NATO summit, when he seemed to back off from sending more aid to Afghanistan.

Many were given the Legion of Honor, as is customary on July 14, among them actress Michèle Morgan, conductor Georges Prêtre, and left-wing activist from the '60's Benjamin Stora. The incredibly long list of those granted this title can be found in two posts at Le Figaro. This link to the second part will lead you back to the first. Like giving high grades to all students and reducing the value of the grade to less than zero, these medals, distributed like bonbons, have lost all significance. And it is too bad for those who really deserve recognition.

As for the traditional garden party held at Elysée Palace, in a belt-tightening measure there were "only" 5000 guests, one third fewer than in 2007, and 250 journalists, three times fewer than in 2008. There were however 140 invited associations, and "victims of life" (sic) as well.

Note: Unfortunately, Le Figaro does not specify who these "victims of life" are. Let your imagination be your guide. (Possibly it refers to those who received the Légion d'honneur, since that includes just about everybody in France.)

Back to reality for a moment, Novopress has a short article on the near-impossibility of holding public celebrations:

(...) The festivities were, in fact, ruined in several cities by car burnings and fights. The most notable involved about 50 people in Cambronne-lès-Ribécourt, in the department of Oise.

These types of incidents, more and more frequent, are leading numerous organizers to wonder if they will ever again hold this type of celebration. There were also various reports of vandalism and trash can fires.