Sarkozy the Right-Winger
Nicolas Sarkozy's really tough take-no-prisoners muscle-flexing speech in Grenoble on July 30 aroused unanimous anger, outrage and venom from the left-wing parties, who were shocked shocked to hear him make a connection between crime and immigration. Lord have mercy!
Actually, I was a little surprised myself to hear this admission. Of course, he's the one responsible for the massive immigration of these past five or six years, and he's the one responsible for the granting of amnesty, naturalizations, legalizations, etc... of the undocumented squatters huddled in churches, shelters, and apartment lobbies. He's the one who found, in the 1905 law, the loopholes that allowed him to authorize the building of dozens of mosques as "cultural" centers. He's the one who warned his people that they had to voluntarily intermarry with immigrants, or else the Republic would see to it that they did.
Now he's saying that he will strip of his French nationality any immigrant who harms or threatens a police officer. He does not give the same warning with regard to immigrants who rob, beat, rape or murder French citizens who are not police officers, but maybe that will come later.
Has the worm turned?
The complaints from the Left are a bit tedious, so I'm turning to the only hope France has at this moment - Marine Le Pen, for her reaction:
Sarkozy: An amnesiac flexes his muscles.
His head spinning from the worsening of the problem of crime that he has not managed to control, the President, not for the first time, made contradictory statements. Promising a new "new law" to strengthen operations, the man who did away with deporting criminals back to their own countries, is now proposing that we revoke, on a larger scale, the citizenship of criminals. Who does he think he is fooling?
The remarks of the President, that are part of a new summertime flurry of activity, have only one merit - that of officially confirming the crime-generating nature of certain groups of immigrants, a truth for which the Front National has been persecuted for three decades.
If the revocation of citizenships of those who abuse our hospitality has been long called for, and assuming it is really carried out (by) the professionals of legislative communication who parade in the government, it would still be necessary to stop giving out French identification cards as they are doing today in all the prefectures, that have been turned into veritable factories of documented Frenchmen.
Marine Le Pen, vice president of the Front National, demands that Mr. Sarkozy follow through completely on all of his declarations, that he re-establish efficient and definitive systematic expulsions of foreign criminals, that he decree an immediate moratorium on immigration, and that he reform in depth our naturalization laws.
Here are a few comments from the Left after all, as reported by JDD:
From the extreme Left to the supporters of Dominique de Villepin (former Prime Minister under Chirac and hardly conservative, so what else is new?), the strong statements made on Friday by Nicolas Sarkozy set off an uproar, in the middle of the summer break. For some, this "nauseating" debate recalled the worst "refrains" of French history, "those of the 1930's that triggered hatred against foreigners", cried painfully the Human Rights League. The League will hold a meeting tomorrow, along with MRAP and SOS-Racism to study a "unitarian" response.
"By linking nationality and crime, he did what no one has ever dared to do within the sphere of the Republic", Jean-Jacques Urvoas, national secretary for security of the Socialist Party, said with alarm. "Up to now, this type of talk was reserved for the extreme Right."
Pierre Moscovici goes even further: "What does that mean, ethnic Frenchman or Frenchman of foreign origin? Will we soon have to wear a distinctive sign? This scandalous measure recalls those implemented during the Occupation."
"Monsieur Le Pen and his daughter no longer have to say anything, the clone is speaking in their stead," Noël Mamère of the Green Party concluded. (...)
Labels: Crime, Immigration, Marine Le Pen, Nicolas Sarkozy, Sarkozy's Values
posted by tiberge @ 1:21 AM
18 comments
links to this post
18 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sarkozy is too slippery, he cant be relied upon, thats the feeling l have about him. lt seems he is always getting peoples hopes up, Blair used to do that too. They both can look good but then all that hope and glory (Obamaerism)comes to nothing - its just noise. l think if l became prime minister l wouldnt be so shy about implementing the kind of change l'd like to see, but most of these leaders are concerned only with the ratings, they cant see that if they were to actually hang tough and lead from the front and damn the consequences theyd generate a groundswell of public support - people respect strength not leaders concerned only with populism. lf our so called leaders wont lead then we must ourselves lead, we must take action - no matter how small or seemingly inconsequential the action appears - we must move beyond just words. When we translate the words into deeds at least we can know that we are doing something about our beliefs and we are making a difference.
In the news last night on France 2, they showed Marine being interviewed on radio, saying that Sarkozy is now saying what the FN has said for many years. I had to laugh, because France 2 was not doing this to give Marine exposure, but to position Sarko with the FN on this issue and make him look extreme.
A bit stupid on their part, because in the end, people did get to hear Marine. I think you are right, she is the best hope right now to rally voters.
Can Sarko by himself strip someone of citizenship, without any court action required? If so, this is a very dangerous situation, and far too much power for any one man to have. Just as he should not have been able to grant citizenship through amnesty by his single-handed action, he should not have the power to revoke it by his sole action. The man is easily a tyrant if he has such power.
Does Marine not get any mainstream media airtime? The BNP in Britain seem to get a lot of negative coverage, they say theyre not fascist nor are they anti Jewish yet they cant seem to shake the negative spin the media flays them with. lt seems to me most so called mainstream political parties are now anti Jewish, where does that leave Marine and the FN?
Isn't this the same Sarkozy, who, in a 2007 presidential debate, mocked and derided Jean-Marie Le Pen for suggesting that citizenship laws should be reformed in favor of jus sanguinis, and now he's talking about stripping French citizenship from people? Who does he think he's kidding?
BURN THE KORAN PROJECT:
9/11 - BURN THE KORAN INTERNATIONAL DAY
http://www.minutodigital.com/noticias/2010/08/01/convocan-al-dia-internacional-de-quema-de-coranes/
@ Dr. D
I do not believe he can strip people of their citizenship without Parliamentary approval. Some kind of legislation would have to be passed to allow this. There are probably existing laws covering crimes such as treason, but this would be something new - revoking the citizenship of someone who threatened a policeman. Few commenters I have read believe he will really do it.
As for the opposite - granting amnesty and/or citizenship, this is done all the time, so I can only assume that there are laws that allow it - it seems to be one of the functions of the Interior Ministry, but, of course, the President is the Chief Magistrate of the country, so he must have the power to grant citizenship. I am not familiar enough with French constitutional law to say much more.
@ anonymous (re: Marine and the FN)
Marine is well-known to the French public. She appears on television debates and discussions with relative frequency. My impression of her is that she is quite capable of making her points convincingly, of finding the weak spots in her opponents, and of presenting a viable (if not ideal) alternative to the two Establishment parties, the UMP and the PS, often called the UMPS, since they are so similar.
She has to overcome the image of her father, and to convince the public that the FN is more than just her father's anti-Semitic, pro-Iranian, pro-Dieudonné, pro-Algerian, etc... remarks. He left her with a thankless task. Her co-vice-president is Bruno Gollnisch, also known to have called for the end of Israel, and to be anti-American (I need more information on his views, so I ask that you take my words cautiously). Gollnisch is married to a Japanese woman who (I have heard, I cannot provide evidence) believes that Pearl Harbor was justified.
In January, there will be a battle for supremacy of the FN. Both Marine and Gollnisch will seek the chairmanship of the party. She is most likely to win. Many people left the FN because they could not put up with either Le Pen. It remains to be seen if these dissidents return, or stay in their separate groups. The French media still demonize the FN as being "extremist" or "extreme right-wing", when nothing could be further from the truth. The good policies of the FN are simply based on nationalism and sovereignty; the bad image was entirely the fault of JMLP, who played around with his voters' expectations and his colleagues' loyalties.
Unlike its British counterpart, the FN has not made any statement about its policy on Israel. Many French nationalists would be up-in-arms if any pro-Israel stand were taken by Marine Le Pen, so I think she may avoid the issue.
The confusing thing here is that while the FN as a group wants to shed its anti-Semitic image, there are still many nationalists who cannot abide Israel or America, and who want France to steer away from what they call the "Washington-TelAviv axis". Instead, they would like to see France allied with Russia.
l think that sometimes policy concessions must be made in order to confront larger enemies..such as lslam. lts one thing to go on about the sanctity of French nationalism but another to start identifying the real enemies of French nationalism. l dont know if the NF has correctly identified these enemies, or even if they are interested to identify them.
The senior Pens policies and pirouettes over the years sound like some kind of disaster for his party. lts well and truly overdue for these conservative parties to make clear distinctions between themselves and say national socialism for instance. They need to look to the lead of US conservatives. ln that sense the US leads the world, most people outside the US are oblivious to people like Anne Coulter
tiberge: " Bruno Gollnisch, also known to have called for the end of Israel "
It is unlikely he called for the end of Israel. I think I would have heard of it.
" her father's anti-Semitic (…) remarks "
Those remarks don't amount to much. In 1987, he was asked about gaz chambers by journalists. Manifestly, he didn't want to talk about gaz chambers. I suppose he wanted to talk about politics. He gave this reply :
" Je n'ai pas étudié spécialement la question mais je crois que c'est un point de détail de l'histoire de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale ".
My translation: " I haven't studied the question particularly, but I think it is a point of detail in WWII".
I think it means he didn't want to dwell on the subject. The journalists decided they could use that sentence for a huge propaganda operation. During three months on French television they kept repeating the sentence over and over, as a symbol of Le Pen's infamy. It was a huge attack on French TV viewers. It became practically impossible for anyone to use the word 'detail' in any context at all, because it would remind everyone of Le Pen's terrible sentence.
In 2005, Le Pen said the German occupation had not been particularly inhumane in France. This is what people have always said, especially when a comparison is made with Poland. For that, he received a 10 000 € fine and a 3 month suspended jail sentence.
All the while, Le Pen has consistently been described by Jewish activists as a monster. I think his reaction has been to ignore the attacks. I'm not aware that he ever said anything about the Jewish overrepresentation in the media. Basically, he never mentions the Jewish question.
This comment has been removed by the author.
There is no doubt that Le Pen's remarks were blown out of proportion by the media and that the FN was constantly demonized because of the remarks. His anti-Jewish remarks were only part of the picture. He knowingly continued to taunt his public and to cause people who might have voted for him to think twice. Even though he (like Gollnisch) rejects the label of '''extreme right" he began behaving as if he really were an extremist. He said in an interview that he felt Islam was compatible with French culture, he attended performances where Dieudonné had Robert Faurisson on stage as a guest, he became godfather to Dieudonné's daughter, he supported Iran's desire to be a nuclear power. He has a perfect right to do what he wants and to believe what he wants, but people are going to hesitate before voting for such a reckless and ultimately indifferent man, who could have been a leader, who had a powerful and convincing oratorical skill, and who threw it away. He and Gollnisch are very close and very similar. Both are great speakers, both have strong powers of persuasion and both are certainly part-time patriots. But they cannot leave well enough alone. They have to indulge in Jew-baiting by making some kind of crack that they know perfectly well will arouse the Jewish community. Then they have the satisfaction of playing the martyr, of complaining about lack of freedom of speech, and of fanning the fires of anti-Semitism. Neither man, so far as I know, has criticized the Jews of France for their left-wing activism. Instead they pick on the Shoah, the gas chambers, the pleasures of the German Occuapation, etc...
Part II, continued from above
I have never said that Le Pen is a monster - that would be too simple. He is a man with a dual personality, patriot and anti-patriot. He is a huge disappointment to those who had counted on his rectitude. The Jews who call him a monster are probably left-wingers who think nothing of currying favor with the imams. As I said, there are a lot of sick people around today.
As for Gollnisch, I may be wrong - maybe he did not call for an end to Israel. I could be confusing him with Paul-Marie Coûteaux. But Gollnisch should have reflected more carefully before granting an interview with David Duke, of all people! It's not that what he says is wrong or bad, it's the presence of David Duke that discredits him. The interview is available online for those interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwvF4ApLXXM
Note:
The above two comments from me were posted (as one comment) on August 9. I even received an e-mail verification, but today, the comment had disappeared. I have reposted them, divided in two, since the original comment may have been too long - but why the e-mail verification?
As I have indicated elsewhere, Google seems to be having some comment problems.
Tiberge: " They have to indulge in Jew-baiting "
I think what usually happens is that they are asked by journalists to speak about Jews and gas chambers. Gollnisch was fined and lost his job for simply saying that historians should be allowed to do their jobs. He never said that he didn't believe in gas chambers or anything.
" He has a perfect right to do what he wants and to believe what he wants
Not according to the new laws, the judges, the journalists, and the "anti-racist" organizations.
" but people are going to hesitate before voting for such a reckless ... "
French voters don't know and don't care what are Le Pen's opinions about Jews. He never lost votes because of that, except maybe a few Jewish votes. He lost votes because he was consistently depicted as a Nazi.
"They have to indulge in Jew-baiting by making some kind of crack that they know perfectly well will arouse the Jewish community."
European nationalists don't need to mention Jews to be attacked by Jewish activists.
"Neither man, so far as I know, has criticized the Jews of France for their left-wing activism."
Your theory is that there is nothing wrong with Jews, except that they tend to be liberal. It doesn't hold water. You should read a few articles by Kevin MacDonald. Don't tell me that everything he writes is rubbish :
The Occidental Observer
Alternative Right
For example, MacDonald wrote an article where he took issue with Norman Podhoretz's book: Why Are Jews Liberal.
Even if you think the problem is liberalism, there is no good reason, for example, to accept the huge Jewish overrepresentation in the media. How do they achieve that ? By ethnic networking. This is plain wrong.
Gollnisch is no example for people to follow in terms of métissage with his Japanese wife. He is not well-placed to speak about this issue. I think he is clearly a holocaust negationnist or at least minimizes it as Le Pen repeatedly did. As to the German occupation, of course it was not too bad for collaborators or for those cowards who hid behind their shutters and did nothing, risked nothing, and then enjoyed the fruits of the Liberation bought by the blood of others. JMLP as the son of a fallen soldier should know better, but the implication is of course that France would have been better off under Nazi occupation. I think his father would have given him a good correction!
I feel more confident with Marine that she does not share this psychotic Jew obsession which has turned off so many voters in the past, and that she can stick to real issues, if she has indeed learned her lesson from the last election.
But unfortunately, this has long been a part of the political landscape in France, ranging from the ignorant to the pseudo-intellectual Nazi-sympathizer who are as bad as the Jewish intellectuals they criticize. There were more Jews in Europe before the holocaust, and yet there were all sorts of laws to protect national identity that are now gone. The cause is that there can be no discussion about race today because of Hitler. It is he and the Nazis that destroyed Europe, and Nazi sympathizers who have damaged the patriotic movement in France. Who can blame the Jews, if one can speak about an entire group, for taking refuge in multi-culturalism? Despite his faults, at least Villiers knew how to speak to them and they felt safer supporting him than Le Pen. We are in a life and death battle for our country and civilization, and those who try to divert attention from actual causes because of some crazy personal animus and obsession, are doing harm to the patriotic movement and to the nation.
«Your theory is that there is nothing wrong with Jews, except that they tend to be liberal. It doesn't hold water. You should read a few articles by Kevin MacDonald. Don't tell me that everything he writes is rubbish :»
you theory is that islam is no threat. it doesn't hold water!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home