A Matter of Urbanism

This article from Novopress is a good example of the cynical nonchalance with which Sarkozy's UMP party regards the Islamic presence in France, and minarets in this particular case. The title of the Novopress article is: "For UMP, a church steeple or a minaret, it's kif-kif". But in the long term it is not kif-kif. There is no such thing as 50-50 when you are dealing with Islam. And of course the UMP knows this:

Frédéric Lefebvre, spokesman for UMP, hence representative of the official policies of the presidential party, does not want a referendum in France, such as the example the Swiss set, for or against the building of minarets. "The question (...) is not to voice an opinion for or against minarets in France," he affirms at the UMP website. Then explaining further: "It would be stupid to be hostile to it considering that there are minarets in our country. The problem is rather to ensure the best possible conditions for a fitting practice of one's beliefs."

Nevertheless, Frédéric Lefebvre calls for vigilance against any form of proselytism. "We will not yield to provocation. France has been built on a long history ('sur toute une histoire'). And as far as I know, French Muslims do not reject the presence of church steeples in France," added Lefebvre, who has been Nicolas Sarkozy's close collaborator for fifteen years, as his assistant in Parliament, his chief of staff and his communications adviser.

In light of this brilliant analysis, Frédéric Lefebvre feels that the decision of such and such a city to agree to the erection of a minaret stems from "simple rules of urbanism." And to illustrate this: a French flag floating before a minaret...

Note: The above translation combines two related articles on the same Novopress web page. Also on that web page is this quote from the chairman of the UMP party Xavier Bertrand. He uses words that Nicolas Sarkozy has used many many times:

"I prefer that there be official, recognized places of worship, in order to have an Islam of France, rather than the practice of a religion in secret places."

Note: If France is built on her "history" and if clandestine worship is worse than official worship, then it follows that France should follow her own laws. The law of 1905 bans the building of religious edifices with public funds. Most, if not all, of the mosques in France today were built with taxpayer money. Why not say so openly, and admit openly that to simply do away with the law of 1905 would be much more honest than to attempt to skirt it clandestinely...

To put it more bluntly: Say openly that to destroy France openly, in an officially recognized way, is preferable to destroying her clandestinely... But of course, they DO say it openly when they hammer away that all religions are equal, and threaten that France must become a racially mixed country or else...

Note: I am not certain of the source of the photo, or if it is PhotoShopped. The flag appears to be at half-staff (appropriate in a macabre way).

Returning for just a moment to the Swiss vote, here are some statistics on the "yawning gap between politicians and people". The link arrived in my mailbox during the holidays. Some of you may find it of interest, as well as the huge number of articles at both The LibertyPhile and LibertyPhile Research on related topics, with countless links to source articles, and many statistics.