The Gérin Report on Banning the Burka

In my previous post I spoke of a parliamentary commission on the pros and cons of banning the burka. The report, known as the Gérin Report after the Communist deputy that proposed the ban, is analyzed by Yves Daoudal in nº 68 of his weekly newsletter, available through subscription. His analysis was excerpted by Le Salon Beige, and it is their rendition that I'm borrowing for part of this post. Note that a resolution is the step that precedes the passing of a law, and that 'laïque' is the adjective corresponding to 'laïcité':

The report concludes with a draft of a resolution that summarizes tersely in nine overstated ("caricaturale") points the propositions discussed in the report.

- First point: The National Assembly considers it necessary to reaffirm the republican values of liberty, equality and fraternity that are fundamental to the harmony between our communities ("notre vivre-ensemble") and that oppose all forms of radicalism ("intégrisme"), separatism, and sectarianism.

Yves Daoudal notes, quoting another writer Luc Perrin:

"Would the 'laïque' Republic have to create a type of government agency to define what the orthodoxy of a religion is?" And notice the phrase "all forms". That could mean a ban on just about anything: a religious congregation, for example, or even any association emanating from a community (remember that all associations are on principle communitarian).

- Second point: The National Assembly believes that our founding values have as a direct consequence a refusal of any violation of the principles of gender integration ("mixité") and equality of the sexes.

Daoudal comments:

"Any violation" - does this mean that the monasteries would have to be coed, that women could become priests, that there would be no more separate schools for boys and girls, that in the schools the toilets would have to be sexually mixed...?

Note: Just a reminder that many American universities have "mixed" toilets, and mixed dormitories. The American Armed Forces are mixed, and women, some of them mothers, have died on the battlefield.

- Fourth point: The National Assembly recommends the reinforcement of measures that promote equality between women and men.

For Daoudal this means more "stupid quotas".

- Seventh point: The National Assembly considers that freedom of conscience can only be exercised if the principle of laïcité is respected.

For Daoudal:

This is an affirmation of the most sectarian laïcité: religion must submit to a higher principle, laïcité. While that is certainly the spirit of the law of 1905, it is contrary to the letter of the first article:

Article 1
"The Republic ensures freedom of conscience. It guarantees the free exercise of religion subject to the sole restrictions enacted hereafter in the interest of public order."

Daoudal notes:

The resolution substitutes "principle of laïcité" for "public order". This reversal is overtly totalitarian.

- Eighth point: The National Assembly believes it necessary to promote an open and tolerant society and to fight against all forms of discrimination.

Daoudal asks:

And what opposes an open and tolerant society? That which is designated in the first point: "all forms of radicalism, separatism and sectarianism". In this way they could, for example, ban a pro-life rally, or associations against abortion or gay marriage or affirmative action, or even the Catholic Church itself, its catechism and its social doctrine. Do you think I'm extrapolating? Of course, the promulgation of a law banning the burka will not result in these these interdictions all at once. But if the resolution is passed (and it will be, unanimously, or almost), it will become the basis for all sorts of abuses. Remember this fact: representatives of various Masonic doctrines and all other "laïque" extremists were consulted by the parliamentary panel. The Catholic Church was excluded. It's all very clear. The Church's only reaction was a little complaint from Monsignor Santier (...)

What complaint is Yves Daoudal referring to? He explains:

In his reaction to the report, Monsignor Michel Santier, bishop of Créteil and president of the Council of Bishops of France on inter-religious relations and new religious trends, regretted that "the parliamentary panel did not see fit to hear the opinions of Christian and Jewish religious leaders, though it did hear other schools of thought" and that the chairman of the panel did not even answer his letter... But he does not ask himself why. He just engages right away in the standard rhetoric of French bishops: "The decisions made must not lead to a stigmatization of Muslim beliefs."

Now we get to the quid pro quo. A deal will be struck with the Muslims that compensates them for accepting the ban on the burka (and we can almost be certain that many Muslims will not even obey the French law, should it pass.) One of the Muslims consulted by the parliamentary panel, Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the CFCM (French Council on the Muslim Religion) declared:

"As soon as you proposed a parliamentary commission to examine the issue of wearing the burka and the niqab on national territory, a debate opened on these practices that took on unexpected proportions. Muslims, in general, find that, more and more, they are faced with generalizations that result in the stigmatization of the whole religion."

Thus, a battle must be waged against generalizations and discrimination, especially "Islamophobia". And we must "reflect on the ways to fully respect a fair representation of 'spiritual diversity'".

The report then refers back to another equally notorious report from 2005, called the Machelon Report, that opened the way for government financing of mosques by saying that even though the Republic cannot build religious edifices, it CAN build cultural ones, and insofar as a mosque is also a cultural center, government subsidies are authorized:

The Gérin report states that the Machelon Report had demonstrated that real margins of legislative maneuverability exist because Article 2 of the law of 1905 that forbids government funding of religions "was not constitutional." Moreover, Machelon "approved direct aid in the construction of places of worship...", as well as the teaching of Islam in the schools of Alsace-Moselle placing it on a par with the other religions approved by the Concordat. And most innovative of all, Machelon suggested that new religious holidays could be "substituted" for other holidays (referring of course to Christian holidays).

To recapitulate: Using the Machelon Report as a reference, the Gérin report finds an smooth path to the building of more mosques, the teaching of Islam and Arabic in schools, and the establishment of Islamic holidays for France. Reminder: the Concordat applied only to Alsace-Moselle and allowed State funding of religion, because when the law of 1905 was enacted Alsace-Moselle was not part of France, but was German. Upon re-conquest by France in 1918 the region remained exempt from the 1905 law.

The Machelon Report was commissioned by Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, under Chirac's presidency. It is Machelon that has enabled the French State to fund mosques. Now it is again being used to justify the expansion of the Islamic influence.

Finally, where is the burka in all of this? Daoudal goes on:

The report explains how the State must "protect women from restrictions that could become a heavy burden for them (...) It matters very little whether such abuses are committed by a sectarian group, a new religion, a religion of the Book or a quack doctor. When a certain number of criteria have been met, the first one being a status of subjugation, a repressive action by the State must be implemented."

As for banning the burka, there is a long and surreal discussion that maintains that a ban cannot be passed in the name of laïcité, or in the name of human dignity, regarded as a notion of uncertain content, but that the "least risky way" is to ban it in the name of public order. In short, the burka could be used to hide weapons, and does not allow the person wearing it to be immediately identified. It is contrary to "good mores", that is, to our "social code" (...)

Those are the major features of the new 656-page report. According to Le Figaro:

(...) the risk is great that the resolution will be censored, in the name of individual freedoms, by the Constitutional Council or by European law. It is for this reason that some parliamentarians, of both Left and Right, have taken a stand against the idea of such a law.

What are the reactions of readers at Le Salon Beige? Most find the report both typical of this government and frightening for its implications:

- The National Assembly is truly the recording studio for Hell. Let us pray that Satan's fumes dissipate, otherwise France will be completely suffocated very soon.

- Point nº 7 is genuinely revolutionary because it states in black and white a reversal of perspective. The law on laïcité grants freedom of conscience, but it was created, according to its authors, in order to guarantee this freedom for everybody (and don't forget that this very same law allows for chaplains in the army and for the State maintenance of churches built before 1905). Henceforth, it's turned upside down: it is laïcité that prevails over freedom of conscience, implying that a republican decree will be able to change an article of faith! It's unheard-of.

- Naturally the bishops have nothing to say! It seems they attach more importance to this republic than to respect for their mission, which is to tend the Lord's flock, and to protect them from what is not CATHOLIC!

- That reminds me that once in a restaurant in Marseilles, prayers and grace were printed on the menus. My atheist cousin was shocked - we were in a country of laïcité. I replied that it was the State that was "laïque"but a proprietor was free to display (or not to display) his religion in his own restaurant.

I think that says it all - it the State that is "laïque", the State maintains its neutrality in matters of religion, but the individual, in a private business, in a non-governmental enterprise, is free to express his faith. Under the new hypothetical law, the religious individual would be "laïque" first, and all religious expression would be subordinated to laïcité. So they are moving from freedom of religion to freedom from religion. How can this apply to Islam? It cannot. But that's a loose end that no one is attending to right now...

This Wikipedia page provides a discussion of the concept of laïcité in France and similar concepts in other countries. The contrast with the United States is of special interest, since it emphasizes the traditional cooperation between Church and State in America as opposed to the strict separation we find in France.

Also, those interested can read more excerpts (in English) of the 1905 law at Concordat Watch. You'll notice that Article 2 reads:

"(...) on the 1st of January which follows the publication of this Law, all expenses concerning the practice of religion shall be abolished from the budgets of the State, Departments and municipal councils."

And yet the list of municipalities that have funded mosques, at least partially, through long-term leases at a token rent of a few euro per month, is long and still growing.

The Burka - Update

It snowed again on Tuesday, but no one really cares anymore. We're numb from the ongoing stress of shoveling, transportation delays, school closings, cancellations of everything, alternately severely cold air outside and dry hot air inside, trash piling up on the sidewalks, and minimal groceries. But of course, this is just a temporary inconvenience, not an earthquake, or a tidal wave or any major calamity. Just exhaustion, and the realization that a slight alteration in daily habits produces bodily stress and psychological fatigue. We are quite spoiled.

In my inertia, I put off going back to the situation in France which worsens every day. If the old notion that "something has to give" has any meaning, it does not apply to France. Not yet anyway. France is like me - inert, stuck in a rut, and headed for some kind of implosion unless the adrenal glands are reactivated.

Yves Daoudal has been publishing some excellent articles in his weekly newsletter, available through subscription. Some of them are quite long, but what I like about them is that they cover a whole story from start to the most recent developments, rather than the bits and pieces one gets on a daily basis. The story of banning the burka is one such story. I have spoken of this issue before and I maintain my original opinion that banning the burka means nothing. It is merely an outward symbol of Islamic conquest. Unless Islam itself is banned from French territory, a ban on the burka will serve only to make Nicolas Sarkozy appear to be "tough" on Islam. The world will say he is being true to the principle of laïcité, that he is placing the well-being of the Republic above all else, that he is determined to show the Muslims who is boss, that he cares about the dignity of women, and other similar inaccuracies (i.e., inanities).

In fact, he is deviously working to recast his country, through a new law, not only as a land where Islam will be totally protected from "discrimination", but as a country where the freedom of conscience provided for by the law of 1905 is totally and in totalitarian manner subjugated to laïcité. Where religion itself is subjugated to a "higher" principle, that of laïcité. Today, freedom of worship is guaranteed by the law of 1905 on the condition that public order is respected. Under the new law, hypothetically, freedom of worship will be guaranteed only if laïcité is respected. Changing the wording slightly changes the degree of power invested in the concept of laïcité. It becomes almost the official State religion, superior to any religion. If atheists have no problem with this, how will traditional Catholics feel?

The answer, so far, is that Catholics are not being consulted, nor are they voicing any objection to not being consulted. They are slowly being factored out of any consideration on the values that govern French society. What they think or feel is of no consequence to Sarkozy.

All of this and much more is contained in a new report issued by the parliamentary commission studying a possible law that would ban the burka. (The commission, for your edification, heard testimony from well-known Islamic militant Tariq Ramadan, and from numerous members of the masonic Grand Orient, but not from any representative of the Catholic Church!) If you have read in the English-language press that the burka is banned in France (I have seen such articles), be advised that it is not yet law - it is still in the discussion stages. Sarkozy, using a well-tested tactic, will not allow the question to advance further until after the regional elections this spring.

On a slightly different note, one of the most troubling aspects of the report is the revelation that any ban of the burka will be in fact a quid pro quo that will compensate the Muslims for the inconvenience of having to accept the ban. Their reward? More mosques, more Arabic taught in the schools, hence, more power...

The report mentioned above is available online at the official website.

Meanwhile, this Daily Mail article from January 26, the day the report was issued, gives the surface facts.

I will try to have a resumé of Daoudal's article (with a little help from Le Salon Beige that has done its own resumé) within a day or two.

Note: There are two spellings of burka, the other being "burqa". I had to make a decision about this. In my previous articles I used the "q", but it seems that the "k" version is more commonly used by the English-language press, so I yield to the law of the majority.

The Great Parisian Kiss-In

You probably heard about this repulsive event that took place today - Valentine's Day - in Paris, since some English-language sites reported on it. Originally scheduled to be held in front of Notre-Dame Cathedral, the uproar from Catholics was such that they had to move it to Place Saint-Michel in the heart of the Latin Quarter.

The François Desouche website, not known for being apologetic, felt compelled to issue this carefully worded justification, after receiving what must have been offensive, if not threatening, e-mails from gays:

As a result of numerous but dubious e-mails from homosexual readers, we must clarify our position. We did not convey this appeal (to protect Notre-Dame Cathedral from this affront) out of homophobia. It is not for us to judge a person's private practices so long as they involve persons who consent. We clearly distinguish between homosexuals and extremist gays who not only represent themselves alone, but who contribute to the deplorable image of homosexuals, just as extremists and vandals of graveyards with nationalist sentiments contribute to the deplorable image of nationalists.

The appeal François Desouche referred to had originally appeared at Le Salon Beige. On February 9, LSB had posted an appeal to rally in defense of the cathedral, and the Church in the larger sense. Especially after the organizer of the event, Arthur Vauthier, declared:

"This a way of calling on the Church to examine religion and the question of love and marriage between gays and lesbians."

The Church does not approve of homosexual relations (that it judges as "disordered" and contrary to God's plan for Man), but it respects and welcomes all persons whatever their behavior. Which makes this "kiss-in" against homophobia in front of the cathedral of Paris particularly unwelcome.

Strangely enough, the extremists of the homosexual cause do not assemble in front of the Grand Mosque of Paris. We know that in Muslim countries (where sharia law applies) homosexuals are executed!

Note: That is indeed strange.

In reality, the initiators of this gathering know they risk nothing when they mock Catholics. Moreover (...) Arthur Vauthier "does not fear hostile reactions."

LSB readers expressed overwhelming support for a rally to protect Notre-Dame Cathedral from the kiss-in. It appears they won at least a small battle if not the war.

While LSB went out of its way to show that not all gays were in favor of the Notre-Dame kiss-in, I remain unmoved by this. They may have voiced their objection because they didn't want bad publicity, but that does not address the essential problems of unleashed homosexual propaganda in the schools (some even condone teaching about the evils of homophobia in kindergarten!) and the equally unleashed contempt for the Church.

On a related note, LSB conveys some statistics from an Accounts Court report (pdf) on the HIV virus in France and its cost:

(...) two groups represent between them around 70% of the HIV cases discovered in 2008: migrants of both sexes (35%) mostly from sub-Saharan Africa, infected through heterosexual encounters, and male homosexuals (37%) primarily of French nationality. (...)

To illustrate how far down the the moral spectrum the French Fifth Republic has gone, an "educator" named Gaël Pasquier has written in Le Monde the following editorial on the teaching of homosexuality to the very young:

(...) The fight against homophobia is not limited to the condemnation of insults or homophobic remarks. Reacting to insults is an obligation of all educators, but it is not enough. We have to stop presenting heterosexuality as being the only normal, natural and legitimate sexuality. (...) It is not necessary to request from parents an authorization to teach these topics in class. It is nonetheless possible to inform them that they will be taught during the school year. Parents cannot exempt their children from obligatory topics: the fight against racist, anti-Semitic, sexist and homophobic discrimination is part of the mission of the republican school, on a par with learning how to read and add.

It should be noted that Gaël Pasquier is critical of Minister of Education Luc Chatel for his recent ban from the elementary schools (but not middle and high schools) of a short animated film entitled Le Baiser de la Lune (the kiss of the moon). The proponents of the movie hoped to "sensitize" pupils against homophobia. It depicts the different experiences of love, including that of two boy fishes! Not surprisingly, Luc Chatel has been condemned by leftists, including the French Communist Party. (This movie is not to be confused with another movie in English with the same title but not animated.)

The website Les 4 Vérités drew up a petition against the showing of the film to children ages 9 and 10. By February 3 more than 18,000 persons had signed the petition. Again a battle seems to have been won, but not the war.

As Valentine's Day draws to a close, I felt like ending this depressing post with two songs about love between a man and a woman. First, one of Gershwin's greatest melodies sung by an impeccable stylist. The song was featured in the 1954 movie Young At Heart, though it was composed much earlier. Sinatra also released this song as a single on Capitol records, sometime in the 1950's. That particular rendition is the best I've heard. Then the French song the whole world knows, made immortal by the one and only Edith Piaf, but sung here by Mireille Mathieu. "Mimi" over-emotes, but that's fine with me. Enjoy them and forget what happened today in the Latin Quarter.

Sartre and Beauvoir - More Revelations

There is an excellent blog for conservative women (and men) from the pen of Laura Wood, who often comments at Lawrence Auster's VFR. Laura is a traditional woman with insights that are anything but commonplace. A gifted writer and analyst of the catastrophic effects of sexual "liberation" on Western women and the culture in which they live, she writes with an enviable simplicity that most of us only dream about.

If you are interested in Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre, and the true nature of their relationship, by all means read her discussion of the book Tête-à-Tête by Hazel Rowley, as well as the discussion that follows. Very readable and enlightening.

In April 2008, I reported on another book about the couple by Carole Seymour-Jones.

These revelations have not stemmed the tide of feminization or Left-wing sexual attitudes, but they are there for those interested in the underpinnings of what was on the surface a "great love", and underneath, a repulsive arrangement. Let's hope that some young people do learn a lesson from them.

I also strongly recommend her article on the terrible consequences for boys caught up in this feminization process that destroys everything in its path except the bloated and undeserved self-esteem of young girls. Indeed, the education of boys is a taboo topic nowadays, while the education of girls is the Priority of priorities, as if girls weren't educated before the heyday of Gloria Steinem. (On this issue, I would like to say that having diplomas and being educated are two entirely different things.) Laura presents excellent alternatives for parents concerned about their boys. The article is continued in a second post.

Her blog is highly recommended reading.

Fatigue Wins Out

It looks like Le Conservateur has decided to stop publishing after all. I had mentioned the possibility in my post on the MRAP Report. I'm very sorry to hear it. I always enjoyed his insights and his disciplined and uniquely personal style of expression. His love and knowledge of Art were also a welcome change from the usual political talk. Sites like his are an important complement to the news sites. Somebody has to interpret the news, otherwise there is no real informing, merely words that say this or that happened on such and such a date. Without the personal opinions, first-hand experiences and subjective reactions to events the web would be a dull routine, like television. Le Conservateur is the umpteenth (I've lost count) good French website to close since I started blogging. Almost always the reason has been lassitude and a sense of disappointment over the impossibility of bringing about change for the better in France. And yet he had managed to reach a wide audience. His last post begins as follows:

Several years of good and loyal service, and then fatigue. Fatigue at watching the country sink into stupidity and the Right become totally insane... Now, good cheer to all in the coming chaos.

Is he implying a civil war, a total breakdown of order, a gradual disintegration of the current system into newly "liberated" States (such as Brittany)? A continuation of the current police State with a few more tentacles? Or a half-hearted attempt, with violence as an almost inevitable factor, by the people to bring about a change only to find themselves more stymied, more policed, more squashed, more threatened than ever? If the "chaos" results in the brutal end of the Fifth Republic and a new beginning with a new, improved Constitution of the Sixth Republic, that might be a good thing, except that most realistic analysts I've read cannot envisage a Sixth Republic being different from the others. The problem is the Republic itself. It has to redefine itself from top to bottom. It has to be a French Republic, for a French people proud to be French, not a Cosmopolitan Suicidal Chaos of Coercion, Corruption, and False Gods.

His "poster" above reads:

WARNING

Your political commissaire is watching. Use these expressions once a day to show your autonomy of opinion and save your meal tickets!

He then lists the daily required expressions for those wishing to survive:

One more proof of global warming. Diversity. Legitimacy of taxes. French social model. Laïcité. Obligation to welcome foreigners. March towards progress. Advantages of Europe. Freedom of sexual choice. Need for immigration. Abortion is an opportunity. We are a multicultural country. Freedom to become a parent. Mixing races socially. Diplomas for all. Right to housing. Prison overpopulation. Ultra-liberalism destroys the planet. Quality of public service. Collective transportation. All scientists agree...

I would agree with one of his readers that the list is far from complete. But it will do as a sketch of the lethal pressures under which the French people must labor every day, whether they are aware of it or not... these pressures lead to discouragement, demoralization, de-spiritualization, dumbness, cowardice, clinging to easy scapegoats, self-hatred, arrogance, physical illness, psychic conflicts, intellectual comas, and death from denial of the right to self-preservation...

I still believe that the most serious illnesses can be reversed. At the very least, death can be stalled...

P.S. The reader who said the list was not complete suggested these additions:

Social model that is the envy of the world. Education that is the envy of the world. Successful integration that is the envy of the world. Public services that are the envy of the world.

America has often spoken of itself as being the "envy of the world." It's better not to talk this way, even if there is some truth in it. People are apt to take it too seriously and to slavishly imitate the worst aspects of the envied country, only to find it doesn't work that way. Every country has to do what it does best, without imitating other cultures, but not without being inspired by what is best in those other cultures. Over-boasting also serves as an open invitation to disaster, as people who do not belong in the envied country flood in, and expect the streets to be paved with gold. They too have to learn the hard way. The worst situation is when the envied country actually says, "Come on in. We'll take care of you." That is the current insanity in most Western lands today. France and America are possibly neck-and-neck for the title of Most Suicidal Nation. (Excuse my sermon, it's Sunday.)

Does Vancouver Need Snow?

As we attempt to get back to a normal life (I've been cloistered since Tuesday - it was foolish to even try to get out), as cars and even entire houses that were totally submerged begin to peek out from the cottony mass atop them, as people pick up the pieces of destroyed roofs, balconies, trees, and other fallen objects, too weak to withstand the weight of the second major storm in a five-day period (and the third one of the season), our thoughts turn naturally to Vancouver, site of the Winter Olympics that will begin tonight. Is there snow there? If not, we could arrange to host the Games here, but we cannot guarantee room service or parking. Bring your dogs and sleds!

Here are some recent photos posted at Covenant Zone. I know they must have some snow there, but it looks more like early April in Virginia, than Canada. You can click the label at the CZ post for more background information of a political nature.

Below, the Games' logo named Ilanaaq the Inukshuk. It took me a minute or two to realize this is a highly stylized human figure. Check out this Wikipedia page for some general background information, or any one of dozens of sites reporting on the event.


Below, a gorgeous photo of a statue of the Inukshuk, from West End, with an explanation:


"Ancient symbols of Inuit culture traditionally used as landmarks and navigation aids, this grey granite statue representing a human form with outstretched arms is a well-known symbol in Canada of northern hospitality and friendship.

Constructed originally by Alvin Kanak of Rankin Inlet, this monument was commissioned by the Government of the Northwest Territories for its pavilion at Expo 86, and given to the City of Vancouver.

Permanent location of the Inukshuk on this site was sponsored as a gift to the city in 1987 by Coast Hotels through the Vancouver Legacies Programs.

Vancouver Board of parks and Recreation"

Below, the three mascots of the 2010 Games.


At top, splendid photos of our own winter Olympics from Flickr.

The Council of State Monitors the Internet

In previous posts, two major "Big Brother" agencies, MRAP and MOSAIC, were discussed. MRAP recently issued its report on Internet sites, MOSAIC was recently created as a trick (my opinion only) to fool the credulous into believing Islam can be "laïque". (How can the Islam of France be "laïque", when France herself isn't laïque, having already violated the sacrosanct 1905 law at least 2000 times to build mosques?)

Now, at François Desouche comes word of still another, more serious, more concerted, effort to ban from the Internet those websites deemed by public moralists to be "racist". Again I will try to simplify a complicated story:

Following a January 2009 meeting of the Inter-ministerial Committee on Racism and Anti-Semitism, Prime Minister François Fillon decided to assign to Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, Counselor of State, and President of the Forum on Internet Rights, a mission on the means with which a combat against the spread of racist and anti-Semitic content on the Internet can be waged.

Note: A Counselor of State is a member of the Council of State (Conseil d'Etat), that advises the government (i.e., the ministers) in the preparation of laws and decrees. It also acts as the supreme administrative judge in litigation involving the administration, (i.e., the entire governmental apparatus). Therefore, it combines something of our Supreme Court in its capacity as the final appeals court, something of our presidential advisers, something of our Federal court system, and something of our "special prosecutors" who investigate wrong-doing of the government. The Conseil d'Etat also manages the administrative courts, i.e., those courts that try cases involving government officials. In a word, it is the supreme judge of the government itself. The Conseil d'Etat consists of 300 members, 200 of whom sit at the Palais-Royal in Paris, and 390 agents.

French readers interested in the basic structure of the Conseil d'Etat can consult the official website, which has an English version as well. Click the language you want in the upper left corner. The whole topic is fascinating and worthy of close study.

The origins go back to the monarchy. Below, a painting of Louis XIV surrounded by his counselors of State.


Excuse the digression, but it is helpful to know who Madame Falque-Pierrotin is and what her powers are. It seems they are considerable. But is the government bound to follow her advice? Will this issue of racism on the Internet actually be judged by the whole Conseil d'Etat at some point in the future? Here is one short passage from the English version of the site:

(...) Although the opinions of the Council of State are not binding in theory, they are to a large extent followed by the Government in practice.

Now back to the original post:

The report entitled "fight against racism on the Internet" was turned over to the Prime Minister on January 21, 2010.

Note: A great example of punctuality: January 21 is the date of the execution of Louis XVI. According to Wikipedia, it is also Mme Falque-Pierrotin's birthday!

The report attests to the expression of racist commentary on the Internet and suggests a plan of action at the national and international levels, mobilizing public authorities, Internet operators and associations.

Note: Associations are special-interest groups, in this case most likely ideologically left-wing. Would traditional Catholic or monarchical or identitarian associations be mobilized in the "fight against racism"?

Four contrasting observations emerge from the report: 1) the existence of racist content on the Internet and a real difficulty in qualifying them; 2) the risk of seeing the everyday expression of racism become commonplace online; 3) a French arsenal of repression that is complete but inadequately mobilized on the Internet; 4) vigilance by the participants and heterogeneity of their actions (meaning that there will be various methods employed to deal with "racist" commentary).

Based on these observations, the report advises the implementation of a collective plan of action.

Here, I switch to another website, Forum Internet, that summarizes the 64-page report available in pdf format at François Desouche, linked above. The full report is also linked at Forum Internet. Here are excerpts from that summary.

(...) the report recommends an increased action from the Central Office that deals with the fight against crime in the Information Technology and Communications sectors (OCLCTIC), an organism that gathers data on illicit content online. It also recommends an improved system of information among public authorities; and a systematization of the sharing of information between the various parties.

The report recommends that the current methods of repression be unified, that the duration of a ban relevant to racist crimes be maintained at one year, and that the associations be given the right to respond to the racist content online.

The report brings out the need to develop a penal policy adapted to the specifics of the Internet. To do this, it proposes sensitizing anti-discrimination agencies ("pôles") to the specific problems connected to the Internet, improving the mobilization of prosecutors ("parquets") with regard to the repression of acts of everyday racism ("racism ordinaire"), and making better known the convictions connected to racism on the Internet.

In view of the primordial importance of both Internet operators and the associations, several proposals are offered: improve the action of the associations, the visibility of the detection procedures, the exchange of information between the OCLCTIC and the technical intermediaries on the issue of detection, and a pedagogical kit for Internet moderators...

Note: The above is quite opaque. It seems to boil down to an improved method of detecting those web moderators who don't comply with the new dictates. This includes more power to the associations, some of which, like HALDE (which is not really an association, but a government agency), are already close to having police powers. A pedagogical kit would mean something like a booklet of instructions, such as the ones employers in the U.S. get on affirmative action, etc...

Another proposal involves an increased awareness on the part of the general public, the school-age population and families, regarding the illicitness of racist expression, by means of information campaigns and specific sensitizing efforts.

Now we get to the good part - the role of foreign countries, including the United States.

It is surprising to note that the international dimensions of the Internet and the different laws and cultures on the question of racism are used by some to escape their responsibilities.

Note: the French report is, in a way, comparing those French bloggers who are hosted in foreign countries, to those wealthy persons who move out of France to foreign countries where the taxes are lower. I wonder if this can be legally justified? Money is not involved here, only ideas. If it is upheld by the courts, it would definitively criminalize both speech and ideas, EVEN when expressed in a foreign country!

In terms of police cooperation and the elaboration of a European policy on detection, it is desirable that the differences in attitudes ("sensibilités") within the European Union, on the gravity of certain racist acts, be reduced (...)

In particular, the report regrets the small number of signatories of the 2001 agreement on cyber-criminality and recommends a diplomatic action directed at certain member States of the European Union and the United States of America as well.

Having noted the need to develop an international plan of voluntary measures by enterprises, the proponents of the report urge the French and American public authorities to work out a good-conduct code common to the technical intermediaries (I assume this refers to Internet providers and web administrators, but I'm not sure), and to allow for the participation of national and international NGO's involved in the fight against racism on the Internet.

It is recommended that within eighteen months the public authorities order a new report on the phenomenon of Internet racism to verify the progress made through the implementation of the proposals of the current report.

Note: There will no doubt be more on this latest government effort. See future posts. Barack Obama has said he wants to maintain Internet neutrality. As of now, that is all I know regarding his views.

Final note: The report overtly cites François Desouche (hosted in the U.S.). The readers there are in an uproar over this. But the U.S. has to comply with the French demands. Since Obama is in office, it's hard to say how things will go. The Republicans were often accused of censoring the Internet, but it was more an issue of national security, not racism. Democrats are anti-racists, but they claim also to favor Internet neutrality. Will they be "neutral" in this case, or will they be "neutralizers"?

MOSAIC - The Latest Big Brother

The following is a rather involved story that I will try to simplify. I have to admit at the outset that it caused me more trouble than it's worth, and that some articles from the French websites have undergone serious revision as more information became available. But the events are an indication of the degree of naïveté and/or complicity of both Catholics and Jews with regard to Islam and its claims of obedience to the French law on "laïcité" (separation of Church and State). I am maintaining the French word "laïcité" and its corresponding adjective "laïque":

In June 2009, Le Salon Beige posted an article drawn from Yves Daoudal's weekly newsletter that is only available to subscribers:

CREATING MOSAIC

On June 10, the official Conference of Imams of France was launched, and on June 12 the creation of the "national 'laïque' federation of citizens of the Muslim persuasion", known as 'MOSAIC" was announced. There was no reaction from the CFCM (French Council on the Muslim Faith, created by Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy), considered to be the only official representative of the Islam of France. The Conference took place in Drancy (Seine-Saint-Denis), and was presided over by Christine Boutin in the presence of the mayor of Drancy, Jean-Christophe Lagarde.

Note: Christine Boutin is a liberal Catholic, who at one time appeared to be a traditionalist because of her stand on certain bioethical issues. She was made minister of housing and urban affairs when Sarkozy became president. She proved herself to be a friend of immigrants and very accommodating to Islam, but at the same time too Catholic for the Sarkozy administration. She was removed, and she formed her own party called the "Christian Democrats". To the best of my knowledge this amounts to a one-woman party, at most a very small group. My impression of her is that she is very weak - a bleeding heart Catholic who serves the establishment well despite her dismissal, for her minor party is one of several "satellite" parties tethered to Sarlozy's UMP.

As for Mayor Lagarde, he boasted about having lied to the people of Drancy when he built a type of "multiplex" that turned out to be a mosque. Le Salon Beige recalls that he declared at the time:

"Yes, I deliberately hid from you the fact that it would be a mosque. I wanted to show how normal such a project is. (...) I didn't announce it to the population because it would have surely created tension. (...)"

Note: Need I point out that if such a project were "normal" there would not have been any "tension" in the first place.

(...) At the Conference, Christine Boutin declared that she had come "as a Catholic" (...) because, she says, "I believe deeply that religions are factors in mediation and pacification..."

Present at the Conference also were the president of the Drancy City Council, Claude Bartolone, the adjunct mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, diplomats from Arab countries and the United States, the president of CRIF (Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions), and the grand rabbi of Paris. (...)

The idea for MOSAIC came from the celebrated imam of Drancy, Hassen Chalghoumi, the darling of the mayor and of the Jewish community who have made him into a symbol of "living together". He has already brought together forty imams from the Parisian region, and is now proposing "inter-religious dialogue, the promotion of an open Islam, and the monitoring of imams." "What we want is to participate fully in the Republic," he says.

But at the Ministry of the Interior, they recall that Hassen Chalghoumi is "part of the fundamentalist persuasion, trained in Syria", and "not representative."

Not representative of what? Of "moderate" Islam? Of "fundamentalist" Islam? The statement from Salon Beige article is not clear. Since there is only ONE Islam, then we have to assume that his attempts to reach out to non-Muslims may be a sham, or "taqqiya" as the Muslims call it.

The crux of the issue is the sincerity of Chalghoumi. Is he or isn't he a real imam? Is he really reaching out to the Jewish and Catholics communities as he has insisted, or is he practicing "taqqiya"? In either case, and considering the severe crisis in France, how can either Christine Boutin or the Jewish community be proud of their relations with this man? Even if he were sincere (something that is highly debatable), he would then be the exception that proves the rule. And if he is not sincere, then he is the rule.

At any rate at the end of January all the websites were talking about him. It seems that while he was preaching in his mosque in Drancy, a "commando" of 80 masked persons burst into the mosque, and threatened Chalghoumi who had just expressed his support for the newly-proposed French law that would ban the burqa (total body covering) in public places. He did this, he says, in the name of "laïcité". Remember it was at his behest that the laïcité-oriented MOSAIC was formed.

The law banning the burqa would also be enacted in the name of "laïcité". So everybody is claiming to be working on behalf of "laïcité", when we know perfectly well that the law of 1905 is no longer worth the paper it's written on.

Le Figaro, among many other sites, reported the mosque incident.

(...) An adviser from the Conference of Imams described what happened. "They forced open the door and grabbed the mike after some shoving. Then they shouted anathemas and threats at the imam, calling him 'non-believer' and 'apostate' and declaring they would 'liquidate his case, this imam of the Jews' (...) You don't need a diploma to realize that the terms are the equivalent of a fatwa (...)" The adviser pointed the finger at the Muslim Brotherhood, in particular a group called "Cheikh Yassine" from the name of the founder of Hamas who was killed in 2004 during an Israeli raid. (...) As for Hassen Chalghoumi he announced on Radio Orient his decision to file a suit. "They want me dead, someone could rub me out (...)" He explained that the perpetrators wanted "extremism and hatred due to my views on the burqa and my rapprochement with the Christian and Jewish communities."

Hassen Chalghoumi had declared his support for a law banning the burqa provided it was accompanied by "an education program", as was done for the simple veil in schools in 2004. He compared the burqa to a "prison for women, a tool of sexist domination and Islamist indoctrination."

In the photo below Chalghoumi is flanked on the right by Mouloud Aounit (red scarf), president of MRAP, the notorious anti-racist association that recently published its black list of undesirable websites.


While the "commando" story is still available at many websites, Islamisation (administered by Joachim Véliocas) has suppressed its version of the raid on the mosque. It is however still available as a Google cache. The only reason I can think of is that the story proved to be either a concoction by Muslims for the purpose of duping the credulous or simply a false report based on inadequate information. This is not to say that there was no uproar in the mosque that day, rather that the uproar might have been planned as part of a strategy to show that the open-minded Chalghoumi was being targeted by "radical" Islamists, thus winning him more friends and supporters in the non-Muslim community. Such stagings are not uncommon among Muslims whose goal is to win sympathy.

Another website, Bivouac-Id has updated at least twice its original version of the story. The latest account says that Chalghoumi was not preaching that day, that 30, not 80, intruders broke into the mosque, shouting anathema on Chalghoumi. The mayor defends Chalghoumi in everything the latter has said in his own defense, and maintains that he is really a friend of the non-Muslim communities as he claims, and that this really was an attempt to intimidate. (Can we trust the mayor who has admitted to being a liar?)

Whatever happened that day, there is more urgent information on MOSAIC. The most recent revelations indicate that its goals, while purporting to be "laïque" in nature are a bit more ominous. Though Chalghoumi was the creator of MOSAIC, its president is one Marouane Bouloudhnine. The following is a condensed version of an article in L'Express describing the true agenda of MOSAIC:

"The image of Muslims is ridiculed," thunders Marouane Bouloudhnine, president of MOSAIC. "There is a real sense of malaise: Muslims today are no longer comfortable being French because they constantly have their Islamic identity thrown back at them.

AN OBSERVATORY OF ISLAMOPHOBIC ACTS

The MOSAIC federation therefore has announced the launching this month of an "observatory of Islamophobic acts", an initiative that will gather precise facts and statistics from the Internet and transmit them regularly back to the Ministry of the Interior.

Note: In addition to MRAP, and HALDE, and groups such as SOS Racism, we now have MOSAIC gathering data on those who comment, blog, and publish online.

Created in June with the blessings of the general secretary of Elysée Palace, Claude Guéant, MOSAIC hopes to become a reference organization for the Muslim community.

It presents itself as the "laïque counterweight" to the often-criticized CFCM (French Council on the Muslim Faith), which had no comment regarding the new entity, but which may have to put up with its influence.

Note: The article attempts to pit the two organizations against each other as rival factions. This is possible, but more likely, the two groups have common interests and goals.

"We want to change the perception of the Muslims of France," stresses Marouane Bouloudhnine. (...) They intend to launch an extensive publicity campaign to change mindsets. "The idea," he explains "is to tell people that the Muslim could be your postman,your pharmacist, or the corner butcher."

That's just the problem. The Muslim most likely IS your corner butcher already.

There's much more on banning the burqa and on Internet black lists. See future articles.

"The Snows of Yesteryear" by François Villon

If you didn't know, the title of the previous post is from a poem, known to all students of French literature, by François Villon (1431 - 1463, approx.), a rebellious young man whose wild reckless life has inspired many a budding poet, and no doubt led some of them to reject their dull bourgeois upbringing for a life of adventure and lawlessness. Rebel, thief, quarrelsome hothead, Villon was condemned to several prison sentences for serious crimes, but he probably matches Harry Houdini in his ability to slip out of bondage, only to return as quickly as his bad temper could get him into another fix. He was not heard of after 1463 when the courts banished him (had he become an intolerable nuisance?), so the exact length of his life is not known. See Wikipedia for more.

Here is the French text of Villon's great poem from which the line about the "snows of yesteryear" is drawn:

Ballade des dames du temps jadis

Dites-moi où, n'en quel pays,
Est Flora la belle Romaine,
Archipiades, ni Thais,
Qui fut sa cousine germaine,
Écho parlant quand bruit on mène
Dessus rivière ou sus étang,
Qui beauté eut trop plus qu'humaine.
Mais où sont les neiges d'antan ?

Où est la très sage Hélois,
Pour qui châtré fut et puis moine
Pierre Esbaillart à Saint Denis ?
Pour son amour eut cette essoyne.
Semblablement où est la reine
Qui commanda que Buridan
Fut jeté en un sac en Seine ?
Mais où sont les neiges d'antan ?

La reine Blanche comme lys
Qui chantait à voix de sirène,
Berthe au grand pied, Bietris, Alis,
Haremburgis qui tint le Maine,
Et Jeanne la bonne Lorraine
Qu'Anglais brulèrent à Rouen ;
Où sont-ils, où, Vierge souv'raine ?
Mais où sont les neiges d'antan ?

Prince, n'enquerrez de semaine
Où elles sont, ni de cet an,
Qu'à ce refrain ne vous ramène :
Mais où sont les neiges d'antan ?

And here is a readable English version

Ballad of the Ladies of Bygone Times

Tell me where, or in what land
is Flora, the lovely Roman,
or Archipiades, or Thaïs,
who was her first cousin;
or Echo, replying whenever called
across river or pool,
and whose beauty was more than human?
But where are the snows of yesteryear?

Where is that brilliant lady Heloise,
for whose sake Peter Abelard was castrated
and became a monk at Saint-Denis?
He suffered that misfortune because of his love for her.
And where is that queen who
ordered that Buridan
be thrown into the Seine in a sack?
But where are the snows of yesteryear?

Queen Blanche, white as a lily,
who sang with a siren’s voice;
Big-footed Bertha, Beatrice, Alice,
Arembourg who ruled over Maine;
and Joan, the good maiden of Lorraine
who was burned by the English at Rouen —
where are they, where, O sovereign Virgin?
But where are the snows of yesteryear?

Prince, do not ask in a week
where they are, or in a year.
The only answer you will get is this refrain:
But where are the snows of yesteryear?

The above English version is from Bureau of Public Secrets, with excellent notes on the various proper names in the poem. It's an unusual website with translations of "radical" works.

For a somewhat outdated, but very famous, translation into 19th century English, with rhyme, by Dante Gabriel Rossetti, click here.

Now listen to the poem set to music by Georges Brassens (1921 - 1981), one of France's great troubadours of the 20th century. Brassens is beloved in France and among Francophiles everywhere, but it is best to know French to appreciate him.



At top, a painting by American Impressionist Albert Krehbiel (1873 - 1945), an artist I recently discovered. I think I've used up most of the winter scenes by Claude Monet!

"Where Are the Snows of Yesteryear?"

THEY'RE HERE!


I was awake at 3:00 a.m. (Saturday) and looked outside to a snow scene, and I thought "Hey, it's snowing". Isn't that a profound thought? Since Thursday the radio news had been hammering away at the reality of a snowstorm headed our way. However, when I looked out again several hours later (around 10:00 a.m.) I was flabbergasted to see a scene similar to the ones above. It's been a long time since we've seen anything like this. We have at least 28 inches. Gorgeous yes, but treacherous. I pity anyone who has to go out, especially sick people trying to get to hospitals. Many hospitals are understaffed anyway, since everyone was snowed in. Streets were (and are) impassable. Shoveling this morning was useless, because by late afternoon it had piled up again.

Much worse than the snow is the freezing temperature. Being outside is not pleasant, as it usually is in snow. There are powerful winds and huge snow drifts. All in all, a good time to make a good cup of hot coffee and surf the net.

In D.C. hundreds of thousands were without electricity. Most airports were closed.

I've heard of two deaths - a father and son who stopped to help passengers injured in a car accident and were struck by a tractor-trailer that jack-knifed. Utterly tragic.

Another storm is expected on Tuesday. Could this be Year One of the Post-Global-Warming Era?

From Le Figaro: at top, a scene in Baltimore. Dogs love this stuff. Above, a park bench somewhere near Washington.

Below, from the NYT slide show, Broad Street in Philadelphia. It's lonely out there.

Haiti - An Update

On Wednesday I received the following "Flash" from Novopress regarding unnecessary amputations performed by American doctors in Haïti:

Many members of the French humanitarian personnel sent to Haiti are starting to testify to the hasty practices of the American medical teams. In this case it concerns the thousands of amputations, for the most part improvised or performed without a medical follow-up, that were said to have been carried out in a systematic way.

The worst accusation is in that last line: "in a systematic way." This implies a deliberate policy of amputation without medical justification. This particular accusation was in Le Monde.

Concerned by this news, I did a very quick Google search, but there is so much information about Haiti, it is impossible to know where to begin or whom to believe.

Articles in the NYT attest to the massive influx of wounded, including amputees, that are being brought into American hospitals. The Florida facilities became saturated and the victims are now being brought to other cities on the East Coast, including Atlanta, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston.

It is very difficult to find the truth in view of the poor Franco-American relations, the absolute confusion that reigned on the island, the magnitude of the disaster, the impossibility of avoiding amputations, hence the difficulty in knowing which ones were justified and which were not, and no small amount of prejudice against the US, as well as some understandable criticisms, especially of the Baptists who "stole" or attempted to steal children, presumably for adoption.

I cannot do anything near an exhaustive research. Here are some links. Please do your own Googling. I used keywords such as "Amputations in Haiti", "French doctors accuse Americans", and things of that nature.

ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLES:

This article from Expatica discusses mass amputations, from the point of view of French doctors, without accusing anyone of wrongdoing. Here is just one excerpt:

Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders, MSF) "have carried out caesareans and amputations. MSF's experienced medical staff say they have never seen so many people with such serious injuries," the group said in a statement issued in Paris.

Here is a vivid and very disturbing article from New Jersey News, on the incredible number of amputees. Check out the very graphic slide show. Some excerpts:

"We had people who had been amputated just so they could be pulled from the rubble," Fletcher said by phone Thursday night, as another helicopter with patients readied to land. "That means it was done in the field, with no anesthesia, and they showed up here with an infected stump."

Fletcher, a general surgeon at St. Barnabas Medical Center, was among the dozens of local physicians and health care workers who volunteered in Haiti after the country's medical system collapsed in the earthquake.

"I have no way to describe the patient load," said Margaret Olibrice Saint-Fleur, a Livingston resident who returned from a three-day mission in Port-au-Prince last week. "I have never seen so many amputees in my career." (...)

Fletcher, along with three other doctors and two nurses from St. Barnabas, flew into northern Haiti four days after the earthquake struck, using funds from the Knights of Malta, a Catholic charity. They headed to the Hopital Sacre Coeur, a private facility that was unaffected and relatively well-stocked to receive patients airlifted by the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy. Their operations grew more frenzied as the week wore on. (...)

"We were doing 20 to 25 operations a day then," the Morris Plains resident said. "There was God-awful stuff. Some of these people were so injured they need anesthesia just to change their dressing." (...)

Here's an article from a Chinese site that speaks of 3000 amputations, some unnecessary, without any direct accusations.

This article from Tampa Bay News attempts to describe the agony of amputees who see their lives ruined, but does not answer the question of the necessity of such procedures. There are dozens of photos at this Florida site.

Here are two (of many) articles from the NYT on the plight of amputees and the transfer to American hospitals of as many victims as the hospitals can manage. The hospitals, according to one article, will be reimbursed by the government.

New York Times, February 3.

New York Times, January 25.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE ARTICLES

Now what about the French accusations? Le Post has a summary with links to MSM articles. Figures on the number of amputations vary:

In all, over a thousand persons lost one or more limbs, according to Handicap International. Some speak of a "slaughter". Arms, hands, fingers, legs... these amputations are increasing at a questionable rate.

Were they done too quickly?

All of the doctors agree that it is first a question of priorities.

In a NouvelObs interview with Robert Beccari of MSF (Doctors Without Borders), the following came to light:

- What operations are being performed?

- We are treating crushed limbs, open fractures with infections and gangrene... It's a race against time to save lives and avoid infection. We perform lots of amputations. In France, my job is to replant amputated limbs. The first day in Haiti was terrible. I tried to save all the limbs of the people I treated, but I quickly realized that it was a lost cause. To have to amputate the limbs of children of the same age as my own was very difficult. You have to be schizophrenic to be able to stand what I lived through there. The anaesthesia by ketamine was minimal. Fortunately, no patient was lost because of that.

- What kind of relations did you have with the other NGO's?

- When I was in Iraq, I noticed that there was a war between members of different NGO's. In Haiti, the situation was such that there was no room for that type of conflict. Everyone worked together.

An article in Romandie (a Swiss website) discusses the huge number of amputations:

(...) "Thousands of persons were amputated in this catastrophe. In some hospitals, we saw 30 to 100 amputations per day," indicated Paul Garwood of the WHO, during a press conference in Geneva. (...)

All told, these mutilations "surpass anything we have seen elsewhere," said Wendy Batson, director of the American branch of Handicap International. (...)

"We are in the process of establishing a data base of amputated persons in order to deliver the medical necessities, to help the wounds to heal. We are applying DynaCast prostheses that can last from four to six months", added Mrs. Batson. "But considering the magnitude of the devastation of medical infrastructure, the more technically advanced procedures that would have allowed us to save limbs cannot be performed. In these cases, amputation is preferred to prevent death from infection."

"WHO and other health organizations are now concentrating on the best way to bring post-operative care and rehabilitation of the patients...", stressed Paul Garwood.

The most incriminating article I could find (other than a pro-Palestinian site that accuses us of the same kinds of unethical practices in Haiti as in Iraq, citing horrible photos posted at Facebook of American doctors jubilantly cutting off limbs) comes from Le Monde. Unfortunately the article was conveniently archived and I do not have access to it. Le Post provides a few excerpts from the article, focusing on interviews with doctors:

- Were amputations done too quickly?

- "Yes, a team of Texas doctors, who have already gone back, were the cause of the ravages and performed war medicine," said one doctor from the Paris Fire Department. "Amputation is a way of saving lives only as a last resort, when a limb is crushed or when blood poisoning is a threat. But the Americans did it almost systematically, without taking the time to envisage other solutions, proud of this slaughter that gave them a chance to produce the most impressive numbers of patients..."

- Were amputations an easy solution?

Another doctor, according to Le Monde, had a talk with an American surgeon:

- "He said to me, 'What's the use? This country is too poor. There will be no real follow-up for your patients. It's so much easier to amputate them. It's clean, and definitive.'"

(Regarding the photos at Facebook - I do not use Facebook yet. I don't know enough about it, although it seems to be a new Internet necessity. If you find something there that proves or disproves what has been said, let me know, but I am not signed up at Facebook. Is it possible to download photos from there?)

Finally, at VFR there is a letter that was forwarded from a man just back from Haiti. This eye-witness account incriminates the French, but primarily the French UN personnel, and French-speaking persons on the scene.

This is all I can do for now. As I indicated, everyone can do his own research, and ponder the issues raised. The main priority is that help be provided to the maximum number of victims. What the fate of the island will be, we don't know. You might be interested in reading the comments from a Haitian reader who lives in Haiti, but was not in Port-au-Prince at the time. Though he incriminates the colonizers, he is most concerned about the need for Haitians to govern themselves.

The photo at the top shows Mexican rescuers pulling a woman alive from the rubble. Below, one of thousands of amputees.