Crime in Marseilles

This article about crime in Marseilles is from La Provence, a local paper:

Twenty-six assaults per day in Marseilles. Is there any need to comment on the figures when the figures speak for themselves? When the Superior Court reopened after the New Year, district attorney Jacques Dallest (photo above) used the occasion to explain the figures in more detail. And this year, they are more painful than before. They paint the portrait of a city that is suffering from crime: a 19% increase in armed robberies over 2009. With, as the attorney said, "assaults" executed "only for lucre" rising at a frightening rate. Three hundred crimes, major and minor, take place each day within the precinct (Marseilles-Aubagne-La Ciotat) of the Superior Court. "Marseilles is a minefield of criminal infractions," attorney Dallest declared in summary.

So it is that eighteen people a day are sent before the judge. Seventeen hundred cases of armed robbery were recorded in 2010 in the department of Bouches-du-Rhône. Half of these took place under threat of a weapon. In one night in January nine robberies of this type were committed. The commando action has become a favorite tactic of criminals. One hundred persons were assaulted last year, and in the ghettos of Marseilles violence is prospering: 84 homicides or attempted homicides in 2010, of which 47 involved neighborhood vendettas. In 14 cases there was a killing. (…) As for crime in Corsica, which is more and more frequently tried in the courts of Marseilles, last year there were 26 cases of payback, 80 investigations and 60 incarcerations.

"Crime means also the recycling of dirty money, and assaults on our economic and social order," Jacques Dallest drove home. The prosecution will continue to track down crooks of all types." This message was directed at those involved in today's most hot-button political-financial scandals.

More figures: sex crimes are up 12%, more than 10,000 burglaries in 2010, and 48 highway deaths compared to 53 in 2009.

The hell of criminal activity will be paved with good judicial intentions. In order to make it more efficient, the president of the tribunal François Pion announced the creation of two weekly sessions devoted to immediate hearings of offenders. The judges of Marseilles will have little time to be bored.

Just a glance at the headlines from Novopress reveals a non-stop litany of violent attacks in the city of Fanny, Marius and César:

On November 11, 2010 a police raid turned up six weapons, including a replica of an M16 and a replica of an AK47. Ammunition, bullet-proof vests and three stolen motorcycles were also found.

Another article informs us that a sixteen-year-old was murdered with an AK47 on November 19, 2010, that there had been up to that time 17 shootings and 14 deaths in eleven months, and that the city has a ridiculously small police force.

On December 29, 2010 a commando of four individuals armed with AK47's held up a grocery store. They stole several thousand euros from the safe and fled in a stolen armored truck, which was later found completely burnt on a near-by boulevard. This was the 6th attack with AK47's in less than two weeks. The methods used indicate that the new face of gangsterism is predominantly Maghrebin.

On December 30, 2010 a second holdup with heavy weapons occurred in a new supermarket. Three thugs armed with automatic revolvers and a pump rifle stole a thousand euros. "From Seine-Saint-Denis to Marseilles, not to mention Grenoble, the new gangsterism resulting from immigration is eroding the safety of the French people. A grave failure of the government."

A 73-year-old woman died in the hospital after being mugged at a bus top. While she was waiting two young persons on motor bikes grabbed her handbag, causing her to fall and be dragged several meters. At first they found a fractured femur, but she quickly lapsed into a coma. The case was classified as willful assault and battery resulting in involuntary homicide.

Below, a video of Friday prayers in the streets of Marseilles, identical in many ways to the videos of street prayers in Paris:



Finally, according to the archbishop of Marseilles Georges Pontier, some Catholic schools implanted in "working class neighborhoods" have a student body of up to 80% Muslims! For the archbishop, training through inter-religious dialogue will permit these questions to be answered: "How to announce the Gospel? How to accept Muslim holidays? What can we accept or not accept?" According to archbishop Georges Pontier, "We must not run from these questions. Even if the subject is delicate and marks a juncture of the religious dimension and identitarian issues."

Note: If 80% of the classes are Muslim there aren't many questions left to run from, except perhaps how to justify leaving the other twenty percent in this cultural cloaca.

Australian Senator Threatened

This is a bit off-topic, but I know I have at least one Australian reader, and I see that Australia has at least one politician with his head screwed on right. Liberal parliamentary secretary Cory Bernardi was critical of Islam and received death threats. The story appears in French at Yves Daoudal and Bivouac-Id.

The version below is from an Australian news source.

(…) While the immigration debate usually differentiates between the religion of Islam and extreme fundamentalist interpretations, Senator Bernardi confronted the issue head-on yesterday.

"Islam itself is the problem - it's not Muslims," he told radio station MTR.

Note: His statement is the one thing about Islam that you are not allowed to say. Bush and others insisted that the religion had been highjacked by fanatics. In fact it was Bush and the others who were highjacked by Islam, and lacked the insight or the courage to admit it. We are paying and will continue to pay a dear price for this government failure.

"Muslims are individuals that practise their faith in their own way, but Islam is a totalitarian, political and religious ideology.

"It tells people everything about how they need to conduct themselves, who they're allowed to marry and how they're allowed to treat other people."

Senator Bernardi said Islam had "not moved on" since it was founded and that extremists wanted fundamentalist Islamic rule implemented in Australia.

The senator also inflamed the row over funeral expenses for asylum-seekers by declaring that it was "wrong" for taxpayers to foot the bill.

The remarks provoked a strong reaction from Ikebal Patel, president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, who said Senator Bernardi had "crossed the line" with his attack on Islam.

"These comments are more than offensive; they are bigoted," Mr Patel said.

"Cory Bernardi needs to have a good read of the Bible if he is a practising Christian.

"This is hardly the language of a religious person."

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen also slammed the senator's remarks.

"The Liberal Party professes to have said this week it would not make political points out of race and religion, but here we have Tony Abbott's parliamentary secretary launching an attack on a religion," Mr Bowen said.

If you visit the above site, you'll also find links to articles about the earthquake that struck Christchurch, New Zealand. This one describes the aftermath and the possibility that half of the CBD (central business district) will be demolished.

Zemmour Rewarded

The readers of Le Salon Beige are on the whole delighted that Eric Zemmour was awarded the Prix Richelieu:

The Prix Richelieu, sponsored by the General Delegation on the French language and by Le Robert publications, has been awarding a prize every year since 1992 to a journalist from the written or audiovisual press who "demonstrated, through the quality of his own literary style, his utmost concern for the defense of the French language."

The Prix Richelieu for 2011 has been awarded to Eric Zemmour. The awards ceremony will be April 7 at noon at the Institut de France.

The CBN Looks at France

The following video is from the Christian Broadcasting Network. Thanks to Novopress.

Wikileaks: America Instructs France

Several readers have been urging me for a while to post an article on the infiltration by America of the predominantly Muslim French suburbs. The purpose of this government-sponsored (both Republican and Democratic) infiltration is to "help" France better cope with her growing minority population through measures similar to those we have here in the States, measures that have had a profoundly deleterious effect on daily life in America. These measures include affirmative action policies in the educational systems, in the workplace and in government. They include attempts by all minorities and women to break through the so-called "glass ceiling" that presumably holds them back from achieving. They include attempts to force integration, assimilation, and egalitarianism through housing policies, through every conceivable form of censorship and intellectual terrorism, through court judgments that penalize acts deemed to be discriminatory, through quotas. And so on… We are all too familiar with this situation.

I have reported on this infiltration at least twice and have posted several items on Yazid Sabeg, the Sarkozy-appointed "czar" of diversity who is using the American system as a template for France, in his mission to make France a mixed (métissée) culture, i.e. one with no dominant European element.

However, with the Wikileaks revelations, it is perhaps time to revisit the issue. Here are a few excerpts from Wikileaks in which France is treated as a backward nation, lagging in the race for diversity, compared to the enlightened United States:

In keeping with France's unique history and circumstances, Embassy Paris has created a Minority Engagement Strategy that encompasses, among other groups, the French Muslim population and responds to the goals outlined in reftel A. Our aim is to engage the French population at all levels in order to amplify France's efforts to realize its own egalitarian ideals, thereby advancing U.S. national interests. While France is justifiably proud of its leading role in conceiving democratic ideals and championing human rights and the rule of law, French institutions have not proven themselves flexible enough to adjust to an increasingly heterodox demography. We believe that if France, over the long run, does not successfully increase opportunity and provide genuine political representation for its minority populations, France could become a weaker, more divided country, perhaps more crisis-prone and inward-looking, and consequently a less capable ally.(…)

France has long championed human rights and the rule of law, both at home and abroad, and justifiably perceives itself as a historic leader among democratic nations. This history and self-perception will serve us well as we implement the strategy outlined here, in which we press France toward a fuller application of the democratic values it espouses. This strategy is necessary because French institutions have not proven themselves flexible enough to adjust to the country's increasingly heterodox demography. Very few minorities hold leadership positions in France's public institutions. As President Sarkozy's own Diversity Czar Yazid Sabeg told Ambassador Rivkin in December, the National Assembly "serves as a mirror of the crisis of representation in France" (reftel B). The National Assembly, among its 577 deputies, has a single black member from metropolitan France (excluding its island territories), but does not have any elected representatives of Muslim or Arab extraction, though this minority group alone represents approximately 10 percent of the population. (…)

Thus the reality of French public life defies the nation's egalitarian ideals. In-group, elitist politics still characterize French public institutions, while extreme right, xenophobic policies hold appeal for a small (but occasionally influential) minority. (…)

The overarching goal of our minority outreach strategy is to engage the French population at all levels in order to help France to realize its own egalitarian ideals. Our strategy has three broad target audiences in mind: (1) the majority, especially the elites; (2) minorities, with a focus on their leaders; (3) and the general population. (…)

We will endeavor to convey the costs to France of the under-representation of minorities, highlighting the benefits we have accumulated, over time, by working hard to chip away at the various impediments faced by American minorities. We will, of course, continue to adopt a humble attitude regarding our own situation in the U.S., but nevertheless will stress the innumerable benefits accruing from a proactive approach to broad social inclusion (…)

(…) we will continue and intensify our work with French museums and educators to reform the history curriculum taught in French schools, so that it takes into account the role and perspectives of minorities in French history. (…)

We will be inclusive, working in this way to break down barriers, facilitate communication, and expand networks. By bringing together groups who would not otherwise interact together, the Embassy will continue to use its cachet to create networking opportunities that cut through traditional cultural and social barriers in France. (…)

Tangible changes include a measurable increase in the number of minorities leading and participating in public and private organizations, including elite educational institutions; growth in the number of constructive efforts by minority leaders to organize political support both within and beyond their own minority communities; new, proactive policies to enhance social inclusion adopted by non-minority political leaders; expansion of inter-communal and inter-faith exchanges at the local level; decrease in popular support for xenophobic political parties and platforms. (...)

Thanks to the reader for the link to Curmudgeonjoy, which links in turn to Wikileaks.

For those interested here are some relevant GalliaWatch posts:

America's Mission in France

America's Mission in France - Sequel

On Yazid Sabeg, here is the most important of several articles:

The Engineer of Diversity

Note: Most of the information in the Wikileaks cables had already been "leaked" to the MSM, since I had reported on it as early as July 2008 when George Bush was still in office. This initiative is a project of both Democrats and liberal Republicans. We cannot blame Obama, since Bush was ahead of him. Ambassador Rivkin has been a most compliant servant of diversity and post-Western multiculturalism.

Here's a related article about Sylvester Stallone's visit to a French suburb in August 2010.

And another from WatchingAmerica that reproduces an article from Le Monde. In this article ghetto residents explain that there is a difference between Bush's intervention and Obama's:

Imagine George Bush doing the same! “We would not have come,” said the young people. Nevertheless, according to experts, Barack Obama’s projects strangely resemble those of his predecessor. The "Greater Middle-East", for example, one of the former Republican president’s whims, is not without a link to the Obama administration’s partnership programs. However, there is an important difference, insists a diplomat: “Obama placed the political issue — the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — at the center of his foreign policy. With his Greater Middle-East, Bush tried to get around it."

Eric Zemmour - More Precise Information

From Yves Daoudal comes this more precise account of the fines and damages in the Eric Zemmour trial:

Eric Zemmour was convicted of provoking racial discrimination for having said that "most drug dealers are black or Arab, that's the way it is, it's a fact."

A deferred fine of 2000 euros, 1000 euros in damages to each of the three lobbies that sued him (this would be MRAP, SOS-Racism and LICRA), and 2000 euros in court costs.

Note: So far that makes FIVE THOUSAND euros, not counting the deferred fine.

And, the same day, he was convicted of provoking racial discrimination for having said that employers "have the right" to refuse to hire Arabs and blacks.

A deferred fine of 1000 euros, one euro to the two lobbies that sued him (UEJF, and J'accuse), and 750 euros in court costs.

Note: This totals SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO euros not counting the deferred fine. In all, then, 5,752 euros to be paid now.

Note the deferred fines, which in this case is a threat from the thought police, and which underscores the censorship imposed on journalists.

Here is one reader's comment:

It is a broad conception of criminal law, which is nonetheless, in civilized countries, strict in its interpretation, even restrictive. The sentence is an anomaly, it should not be inflicted except in cases of strict necessity.

Let's hope that the Appeals court will be more in conformity with natural law. For it is obvious that Zemmour is innocent of the crimes imputed to him by French "justice". He defended the right to freedom of information and freedom of hiring (he did not say that employers must not hire certain categories. He noted the fact that employers were free to recruit whom they want and that all were equal whatever their race, appearance or nationality).

I'm familiar with the judicial milieu and I do not have a high opinion of it. This, obviously, is not the type of verdict that will restore my confidence in the judges of my country. A rape of freedom of information, a rape of freedom of thought and expression, a rape of the fundamental equality of human beings, a rape of criminal law, of the presumption of innocence - the list of crimes committed by the judges is not exhaustive.

Eric Zemmour - Update

Review the background of the trial here.

All the main news sources have articles on the Eric Zemmour trial. They differ wildly on the amount of damages he will have to pay. Here is just one account, out of many, from France-Soir:

Being a famous reporter does not authorize you to legitimize police checks based on appearance or discrimination in hiring. Such was the message sent by the Paris tribunal on Thursday to Eric Zemmour, condemning him for his controversial remarks on "blacks and Arabs."

The 17th chamber of the correctional court (i.e., the court that tries lesser crimes) gave the journalist a deferred fine of 1000 euros in the suit brought against him by MRAP, SOS Racism and LICRA, and an identical fine in the suit initiated by the UEJF and J'Accuse.

Note: A deferred fine (or sentence) means that no payment is required at this time, but should there be another similar lawsuit later, the 1000 euros would be added on to any new fine.

In addition, Eric Zemmour will have to pay a little more than 1,000 euros in damages and openly acknowledge his penalties in an organ of the press.

Note: France-Soir actually says he will have to pay 10,000 euros in damages. In another article it says 1,000 which I think is more likely and which I used in the translation. Still other sources say he will pay one euro in damages to each association who brought the lawsuits against him. I will continue to look for accurate information.

Some anti-racism associations had accused Zemmour of "racial defamation" and others had attacked him for "provoking racial discrimination."

On Friday (February 18) the court absolved him of defamation, writing that "despite the abrupt and unnuanced nature of his remarks, which many found shocking, "the comment on drug traffickers, "is not defamatory", because Eric Zemmour "neither affirms nor implies the existence of a causal link, declared or possible, between the origin or the skin color and a presumed overrepresentation among the traffickers."

On the other hand, the court deemed that the polemicist had indeed incited to racial discrimination because, "by this categorical and peremptory utterance, he clearly and directly justifies police checks, arbitrary and systematic, of certain categories of the population."

Concerning the remarks on discrimination in hiring practices, the judges decided that the accused could not "legitimate an illegal practice, by presenting it as legal."

Thus, Eric Zemmour "went beyond the limits authorized by the right of freedom of expression" and what is more important is that "he is a speaker and a media professional (…) who claims to have mastery over language and its effects," the judges wrote.

The reporter's lawyer Olivier Pardo was pleased that his client had been cleared of the crime of defamation, since, according to him, "that was the big issue". The crime of provocation to racial discrimination is nonetheless punishable in France by an equally heavy penalty: one year in prison and a fine of 45,000 euros.

The lawyer added that he did not yet know if he would appeal.

Note: There seems to be an implication that Zemmour could be given a jail sentence and a huge fine. This would have to be in the context of still another trial. I have no information yet on any sequel to the present outcome.

The Minister of Transports Thierry Mariani, of the ruling UMP party immediately expressed his "consternation" over this conviction.

Lionnel Luca, the UMP deputy from Alpes-Maritimes, in a communiqué signed by 58 deputies of the "Collective for Freedom of Expression" affirmed that this conviction "illustrates the judicial trend against freedom of expression in our country" (…) "which precedes the veering into totalitarianism" and "henceforth demands a revision of the laws that are allowing it."

Note: This refers to the Gayssot and Lellouche laws. Gayssot made holocaust denial a crime. Lellouche dates from 2003 and increased the penalties for racist, anti-Semitic, and later, homophobic acts.

"There is no place in French society where racist remarks can be expressed with impunity," responded the counsel for SOS Racism, Patrick Klugman, seconded by the lawyer for MRAP, Pierre Mairat, who welcomed this "victory for the Republic."

The French Communist Party, for its part, was delighted with the conviction.

As for LICRA (International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism) it feels it has "fulfilled its mission of being the watchdog who sounds an alarm, and the courts fulfilled theirs of stating the law."

Eric Zemmour Found Guilty of Racial Provocation

Eric Zemmour has been found guilty of provoking racial hatred and has received a 2000 euro fine.

I will try to have more details later today.

Jean Raspail Speaks of "Big Other"

On February 3, 2011, Jean Raspail, author of The Camp of the Saints was interviewed by Frédéric Taddeï on France 3 Television. The interview was recorded on two YouTube videos of about fifteen minutes each. The Camp of the Saints has been re-issued with a new preface : "Big Other", a pun on "Big Brother", and an obvious reference to the massive immigration of the past thirty years.

The videos, posted at François Desouche, are too long to translate, but here are a few highlights from the first half:

The host goes through the list of books written by Raspail and his various accomplishments, before turning to the main point:

- (…) but your most famous book, the most explosive, the most controversial is The Camp of the Saints, written in 1973, and today re-issued with a new preface. The story was terrible, a million poor people seize a hundred cargo ships and drift towards Europe, this paradise, and land on the coast. What should we do? That is the question you asked back then. One answer was that we have to have the courage to shoot the whole lot. At the time that was regarded as racism.

- You have simplified just a bit. In truth The Camp of the Saints is a parable, written in 1972, published in 1973 about a million people from the Third World. They're weak, they're unarmed, women and children, they're poor, and they come in search of paradise. But, there's a million of them, they land on the Riviera, and behind them there are other flotillas with more millions ready to land according to whether or not France's response is positive or negative. The problem of The Camp of the Saints is very simple - there is unity of time, place, and action. Everything happens in twenty-four hours. What happens is they have a shipwreck, a million of them, unarmed, weak, they inspire sympathy, pity. But a million… and if the response is positive, there are a million more waiting. What do we do? That's the question posed by The Camp of the Saints.

- And is the question the same forty years later?

- The Camp of the Saints is a novel. It's purpose is not to send a message. I'm a novelist. I imagined this situation which is a bit like ours today except the arrival of millions of immigrants seeking paradise did not happen in twenty-four hours, but over a longer period of time.

And The Camp of the Saints ends badly… badly or well, according to your opinion. There are four hundred pages. Imagine all the questions it raises in our minds - on a social level, on the national level, but also on the inner level of each person. What do you do? If you allow in such a mass, what happens to the country? If you don't allow them in where is your Christian charity? Where is your pity, and many other things like that…

- What do you say about your hero, who is a writer, who resembles you, who is Christian and proud of the history of his country; he has his rifle, he knows he will have to defend himself, yet he's a Christian. Isn't there a paradox?

- He's not a writer, he's an old man, retired, who lives below the site of the shipwreck. He has a telescope and he says, "There! We're done for!" He doesn't shoot but he is profoundly shaken, he knows it's the end. It's a sincere book, but a dangerous one. I wrote it forty years ago. I couldn't do it today. I wouldn't be able to control my anger as I did then. I take back nothing that I wrote in the book.

- You even say in the preface that it would be unpublishable today. Are there laws that would prevent it?

- In 1973, freedom of expression on this particular theme - immigration, invasion of… people from another land is a very dangerous theme. Look at the trial of Eric Zemmour… The Camp of the Saints was written before the laws: Gayssot, Lelouche, Perben. But when you write on this dangerous theme, and there are millions who have come up from the South, from the Third World, naturally they are not ethnically like us. And there's a clash of civilizations. Excuse me, but there is a sort of ethnic opposition. But in 1973 immigration was a minor problem, later things worsened. And a succession of laws were passed to prevent the expression of thoughts that are not part of the universal conscience, not politically correct.

You said I was an explorer. I spent thirty years traveling among small peoples in danger of extinction. I know well civilizations that are about to disappear. When a minor civilization is in danger it must defend itself. If civilizations have disappeared it is because they were engulfed by the tidal wave of the more advanced newcomers. With us, the situation is the reverse. We have an old civilization in Europe, in France, and we find ourselves before gigantic masses of people. Europe does not have a billion people, yet we face hundreds of thousands, millions, billions. Logically, we should be forced to defend ourselves, but how?

- But one could say that a civilization at its apogee, strong, sure of itself, should not be afraid of the Other, should be able to integrate the Other.

- Political correctness has defined those arriving as the Other - you know, welcome the Other, smile at the Other, the look of the Other. It becomes a kind of awesome power like Big Brother. I entitled my new preface "Big Other". We are faced with - not a conspiracy - but on the whole, with false or true feelings, false or true pity, false or true Christian charity that says we must, a priori, welcome in the Other, the Big Other.

- That was true in 1973. That's why your book was so controversial then. But many things have happened since then.

- You find that many things have happened?

- In 1989, Prime Minister Michel Rocard, of the Left, spoke. Let's remember what he said. That was certainly a turning point.

At 14:25 in the video they show a clip from 1989 of Michel Rocard saying words that became famous:

"France cannot shelter all the wretched of the earth. France must remain what she is - a land of asylum. We signed the Geneva Convention to give asylum to those whose freedom of expression is repressed in their homeland. Nothing more than that. In 1988 we turned away at our borders 66,000 persons. Add to that the tens of thousands of expulsions."

- Jean Raspail, for you, is a strong society one that says "yes" (as they do in your book) "come in you'll be at home here." Is that a strong civilization, or is it like today, when more and more are saying "no, we cannot take in the Other, the Other arouses fear, we are the ones who have to become like the Other."

- The Other does not arouse fear. That is not the right word. The question is do we want to stay ourselves or do we want to accept… it could work out very well, but it means accepting a civilization that is completely mixed. What Rocard said, it's all very well but all the politicians have said the same thing - Giscard, Mitterand, Chirac. They have all said it and absolutely nothing has changed. These are words, probably for electoral purposes, and nothing has changed. Today, the influx of immigrants has completely exploded and in addition, the statistics are falsified. Now, you want to know how we should react? A civilization of "métis" (mixed blood) could function very well, but it would no longer represent the eighteen centuries that made France. It could work, but who would make up the population? In 2050 - I won't see it, but you will - in the urban zones of France, I stress "urban", the active population of young persons, between 5 and 50, will be more than 50% non-European. We could accept it, but you have to realize what is at stake. There are some who might find it normal, even generous, to live in a mixed civilization.

- They may feel it's better.

- I don't agree. I don't agree. I've been French for eighteen centuries, and I would like to stay that way completely. I can accept a certain number of invitations, if you like, but I don't want a total mixture. I don't want it.

Note: The interview leaves something to be desired. Raspail asks "how" do we get rid of them, but he never proposes that all immigration be stopped although it is vaguely implied when he criticizes the politicians of the past forty years for their empty words and insincere promises. He also seems to think that Christian charity would be violated if the millions were turned away. Catholic writer Bernard Antony responds forcefully to Raspail on this point. It is not in the name of genuine Christian charity that the immigrants are let in, but rather a deformation of Christian charity that leads so many Christians to a position much closer to bleeding heart liberalism and open borders globalism than to the traditional Catholic position. Nor should Christian charity in its true sense ever be abandoned because of the misunderstanding of its mission:

In truth, charity does not consist of opening our doors and our arms to invaders. No, it does not consist in returning the flags of Lepanto, as Paul VI did, to the Turks, who have no knowledge of repentance. It does not consist of kissing the Koran as Pope John-Paul II did, in an unfortunate gesture.

No, it does not consist in offering lands of our old Christian country, as the French bishops have done, to build mosques or worse, to accept the transformation of churches into mosques. That is the opposite of charity, a turning away from charity; it is inversion, subversion, corruption.

(…) Our neighbor is everybody who is far away that we can try to reach through thought and prayer, even if we cannot hold him in our arms.

In other words, being a good Christian cannot ever mean allowing the destruction of one's own Christian culture, out of pity for the Other.

La Bohème by Aznavour

This is one of Aznavour's great songs about youth, love and Paris. The photos are gorgeous and the sound of his voice takes me back many years... Thanks to the reader who sent it.

Sarkozy Admits Failure

Here are the highlights of Nicolas Sarkozy's speech last night (Thursday February 11, 2011). The moderator asked him to comment on whether or not multiculturalism in France had failed, and cited both Angela Merkel and David Cameron as having admitted failure in their respective countries:

- Do you not find, Mr. President, that multiculturalism is a failure and that it is the cause of many problems in our society?

- My answer is clearly yes. It is a failure. The problem was that in all our democracies, we were too concerned about the identity of those who arrived and not enough about the identity of the country welcoming them. Let me explain. Of course we have to respect differences - that's normal. But we do not want, at any rate it is not France's intention, to have communities that co-exist next to each other. When you live in France you have to agree to meld into one community - the national community. And if you don't agree to that you cannot be welcomed in France. Countries like England or the United States who sought to develop multiculturalism community by community, strengthened the extremists, and each one, forgetting that he belonged to a national community, developed defenses against the others. We do not want that, we do not want that.

And these things are perfectly clear. This raises the question - let's not obfuscate the issue - of Islam and of our Muslim compatriots. And to refuse to say this, on the pretext that extremists on all sides may seize on it would be an error. You can't resolve a problem by refusing to talk about it. There is clearly a problem.

My position is that our Muslim compatriots must be able to live practicing their religion, like any other citizen - Jew, Protestant, Catholic, but it must be an Islam OF France, and not an Islam IN France. This is why I had the law against the burka passed. We do not want women wearing a total covering in France. We do not want people to pray ostentatiously in the streets of France. But we say that in France it is perfectly normal that mosques exist so that our Muslim compatriots can practice their faith. France is a secular ("laïque") country with separation of religions from the State, prayers do not offend anybody, but we do not want on French territory aggressive religious proselytizing…

- Whatever it may be?

- Naturally, whatever it may be. And I believe it is a terribly hypocritical thing not to recognize certain realities that are in front of you. I say it, though I have always been opposed to zero immigration (which has no meaning), though I find that some speeches by extremist leaders are shameful, I say I am the Head of State of all my compatriots whatever their faith, or if they have no religion, BUT if you live in France, you bring your identity to the national community, you respect the national community. The French national community does not want to change its life style, or its equality between men and women, we don't want to change that, the freedom of little girls to go to school, we don't want imams to preach violence, we don't want that. We don't want to change the calendar, we believe that religion - which is perfectly respectable - is part of the private domain, not part of the public domain.

H/T: François Desouche

The evening before he answered questions on television, Nicolas Sarkozy was the honored guest at a dinner organized by CRIF - the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France. According to Le Parisien:

Every year the Tout-Paris both of the Left and the Right (note: this means the Establishment Right, not the Front National), is invited to the CRIF dinner. The French president wanted to reassure his audience that "the demonstrators in Tunisia and Egypt had not cried 'down with the West, down with America or down with Israel'. They did not advocate a return to a mythical Islamic golden age. They did not attack any minority," he stressed to his listeners who fear the rise of Islamists to power in Egypt and the return of war against Israel.

Before dignitaries of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions, gathered in the Bois de Boulogne, Nicolas Sarkozy and Richard Prasquier, president of CRIF, welcomed the mobilization for democracy both in Cairo and Tunis. "This beginning of a springtime for the people is encouraging because it is positive and authentic," but "I will refrain from making hasty judgments. Who can say what will happen next? We already had so much trouble understanding what went before! Who can rule out brutal or totalitarian trends? Nobody."

(…) Nicolas Sarkozy wanted to send a strong signal when he stressed "the Jewish roots of France" to the same degree as the "Christian roots". "The presence of Judaism is attested in France even before France was France, even before she was Christianized," he emphasized.

Note: Nicolas Sarkozy is unofficially campaigning for reelection in 2012. His statements on television about multiculturalism and his flattering comments to CRIF must be viewed in this context. CRIF is anti-Marine Le Pen, hence Sarkozy views the organization as a potential ally, which it probably is. CRIF and its current president follow a policy of appeasement towards the Muslims of France, and have in the past advocated "métissage", the mixing of races. This is contrary to the more traditionalist view of many Jews, in particular, the current leadership of Israel.

As for multiculturalism, Sarkozy implies that ethnic communities have to be fully integrated, which in turn implies eventual mixed marriages. He rightly refuses the idea of separate communities living as nations within the nation, but he never acknowledges that the situation never should have happened in the first place or that he was instrumental in the inculcation of "diversity". Above all he does not consider what France would be like if the separate ethnic groups should become totally assimilated. When he says that those who cannot accept French life are not welcome in France, he does not say how he would get rid of them, nor does he recognize that Islam cannot, by its nature, be a "private" religion.

Despite these reservations, Sarkozy at least expressed some doubts about the situation in Egypt, and for the first time that I know of acknowledged the importance of the identity of France.

Marine Le Pen said of his television interview:

"He reiterated a certain number of lies, notably on his desire to fight against multiculturalism and separate communities, when he has been in fact the promoter of these trends for years."

A reminder, though, that Marine Le Pen herself has spoken of the "nation" and the "State" as being the common identity of all who live in France. She too has said that there must be no communities within the nation, only the nation itself.

The Lights Are Going Out...

Everyone by now has seen and heard Geert Wilders' opening speech at his trial that began on February 8 in The Netherlands. Nonetheless, I felt it worthwhile to post the video, which is subtitled in both English and French. Thanks to Bivouac-Id.

Le Figaro in English

Le Figaro now publishes in English. Those interested can click here for the main page, where you'll find articles on Egypt among many other topics. Of course, this is the MSM, so don't expect much in the way of deep insights, path-breaking ideas or dots properly connected. But it will provide general information some of which is proper to France and not likely to be found in the American press.

Egypt

I'm sure you have been following the situation in Egypt in your local papers or favorite websites. I have not followed it closely, except to glean from a few articles the basic fact that the media and their liberal constituents have been rhapsodizing about "democracy" in Egypt and the misdeeds of now deposed "dictator" Mubarak, oblivious to the real nature of the street demonstrations. Bernard Lugan is a French historian specializing in Africa. This article appears on the home page of his website:

After Tunisia, now it is Egypt on fire. Forgetting the "I neither blame nor praise, I report", that golden rule of their profession, journalists have once again made themselves the spokespersons of the street demonstrators. Literally swooning before the actions of the mob, they could not find enough superlatives to describe the Egyptian "people" whom they saw as unanimously opposed to the "dictator" Mubarak.

Everything in their limited little universe of certitudes and approximations was turned upside down when partisans of Mubarak also descended into the streets; en masse. What? There were two peoples? Such an observation has what it takes to disturb pre-programmed minds. For a while they had an easy explanation: the counter-demonstrators were police and paid thugs. Then, horrors! They learned they were actually inhabitants from the "poorest neighborhoods."

And so, the wretched ones dared to come and rain on the great democratic parade of which they had become the spokespersons. And worse still, these ruffians dared, crime of crimes! to go after the journalists, unaware that in France, this untouchable caste constitutes a State within a State before whom the most powerful crawl and prostrate themselves. They will take away from their visit to Cairo the knowledge that references on the banks of the Nile are not the same as on the banks of the Seine, and that voyages are more instructive than journalism schools.

These ignoramuses did not see that Egyptian political life is organized around three great forces. The first, the one that is demanding the departure of President Mubarak, and for whom they have such fond feelings, is, as in Tunisia, composed of people who have plenty to eat. They are in a way "privileged" persons able to afford the luxury of demanding democracy.

The second is the Muslim Brotherhood. Hunted down for decades and today sheltered by useful idiots, this organization is attempting to reintroduce itself on the political chess board in order to impose its law.

The third force that no "special envoy" has ever heard of is the one that lives in deprived neighborhoods, far from the Hilton Hotel - that austere headquarters of "warrior" journalists - or in the wretched villages of the Nile valley, far from the eyes of tourists. These are the needy fellahs, Nasser's little people of strong patriotism, who hate both the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie with its eyes on Washington and the bearded ones who would like to take Egypt back to the 10th century. These are the men who flew to the aid of Raïs Mubarak in whom they see, rightly or wrongly, that is not the question, a successor, however remote, to Colonel Nasser.

One last remark: while the French political class called on President Mubarak to to leave power, Russian President Medvedev had a long telephone conversation with him, assuring him that he was rising up against foreign interferences. On one side Pavlov's dogs lifted their paws in response to the current news, and on the other, a Head of State well-versed in the subtleties of the "mysterious Orient"…

More on the Egyptian turmoil can be found at VFR. One post includes a link to an article in the LA Times and one reader's realistic comment about the Muslim Brotherhood. Another describes the Israeli reaction to the situation.

French Catholic writer Bernard Antony adds his thoughts to the above assessment by Bernard Lugan:

The real revolution in Arab-Muslim countries can only be that of religious freedom, that of being or not being a Muslim, that of freedom to judge, criticize and debate, that of proposing laws based on the only natural morality of protecting innocent life, of human dignity and of equality between men and women, of respect for property acquired legitimately.

For now they are lying to us about the so-called revolutions of democracy and tolerance. The fact that dictatorial and corrupt regimes collapse is fine, but it would be better if at last they proclaimed the application, in perfect reciprocity, of the Koranic verse "no constraints in religion" that has been invoked for thirteen centuries in one direction only.

Would not the real revolution of freedom be first that of an "aggiornamento" (updating) of an Islam that breaks with sharia, jihad and dhimmitude?

Alas, it appears that we can hardly count on the Muslim Brotherhood for that.

For additional information on the Muslim Brotherhood turn to Gates of Vienna.

According to Le Figaro (Friday afternoon):

Vice-President Suleiman announced that Hosni Mubarak has resigned the presidency and turned power over to the army. The army salutes the memory of the martyrs and assures that it will not be a substitute for the "legitimacy desired by the people." A high-ranking politician confirms that Hosni Mubarak and his family have left Cairo for Sharm el-Sheik. Switzerland announces it has frozen the assets that belong to Hosni Mubarak.

Some readers' comments at François Desouche reveal a near-obsessive concern with America's and Israel's role in the uprising and with the potential Americanization of Egypt, though other readers justly point out that Israel has everything to lose by this coup, that Israel favored Suleiman and that America is led by a Muslim sympathizer. In other words, the notion that America (in the traditional sense) or Israel would benefit from the revolution is foolish. Of course, Obama is satisfied, but he does not represent traditional American interests. Like Clinton and Bush he is happy to see a lesser evil overthrown in favor of what may be a greater evil.

Here's another article at VFR for those interested.

Much information is being posted now about the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that is no stranger to the anti-Islamization websites. In France the UOIF (Union of Islamic Organizations of France) is closely connected to the Brotherhood, and many Muslim leaders, instrumental in acquiring funding for mosques in France, are part of the UOIF. .

Aznavour Defies Sarkozy

Here's an article from Les 4 Vérités that raises again the question of Turkey's possible admission into the European Union. This topic comes back regularly, as analysts realistic about the hidden agenda of Nicolas Sarkozy, ponder his next move. They have always felt that, despite his protests to the contrary, he would like to secretly facilitate Turkey's entry. Pierre Baudouin discusses here the Armenian connection to the story:

Among the diplomatic cables revealed by Wikileaks, there is one that did not interest the media, but that should interest the candidates in the next presidential election.

It concerns a telegram sent by the American Ambassador to Paris, Craig Stapleton, about Franco-Turkish relations, dated June 12 2007 (the French legislative elections were not yet over!). Stapleton reveals that Nicolas Sarkozy, in order to improve relations with Turkey, proposed to reduce from 35 to 31 the number of chapters (i.e. topics) to negotiate for Turkey's admission to the European Union and to bury in the Senate the law on denial of the Armenian genocide.

A reminder that in 2001, on the initiative of the senator-mayor of Marseilles, Jean-Claude Gaudin, the Senate, then the entire Parliament, had passed a law "recognizing" the Armenian genocide (even though such a recognition is still punishable by ten years in prison according to the Turkish penal code…) Since then, the National Assembly voted on a bill in 2006 criminalizing the denial of the Armenian genocide and the Armenian community is waiting for the Senate to do the same.

Several points seem to me problematical in this affair. First, the bill voted on in 2006 must have become obsolete since we had a new administration in 2007. Should the entire legislative process start over again, or would the Senate vote be enough, as both Turks and Armenians seem to believe?

Next, I am not sure that it's good policy to link the admission of Turkey to the recognition of the Armenian genocide. Perhaps there will come a time when Turkey will be ready to recognize this genocide. It doesn't necessarily follow that it is mature enough for entry into the EU - which remains, whether the bleeding hearts like it or not, a "Christian club" and even the "club" of nations that fought against the expansionism of the Ottoman Empire!

Finally, at bottom, I have extreme reservations about "memory laws". I continue to feel that the Parliament must not dictate "orthodoxy" in historical (or other) matters. These memory laws are even counter-productive, since one cannot help but think that the law is coming to the rescue of historical arguments that are too fragile.

Note: I agree completely. I have said in other posts on this topic of hate speech, memory laws, recognition by Turkey of the genocide, and legislation that forces people to adopt an historical point of view, that more harm is done than good. I even believe that no good is done at all, and I believe the legislators know it. The Gayssot law that criminalized "negationism" was what spurred Jean-Marie Le Pen and others to make their provocative remarks, with the result that the protected minority was more hated than ever.

And I remember not too long ago that the Armenian president said it didn't matter whether Turkey acknowledged the genocide or not, the truth was still the truth.

But all of that is not really new in the columns of Les 4 Vérités. There is something that seems to me, not more important, but more interesting in the current political context.

Connected no doubt to the revelations of the Wikileaks cable - which clearly indicates that Nicolas Sarkozy was preparing, as early as June 2007, to violate his commitment to oppose the entry of Turkey into Europe - Charles Aznavour recently declared in an article in Le Dauphiné Libéré (January 23, 2011) that he was thinking of using his fame to force Sarkozy to keep his promises, recalling that the Armenian community of 500,000 persons was worth is "weight" in votes, and that all Frenchmen of Armenian origin would follow him.

Even if, in actual fact, only 70% of the members of the Armenians "followed" Aznavour in his fight, and if only half of those voted for the Right (i.e., Sarkozy's Right), that would mean Sarkozy would be deprived of 175,000 votes in the first round. One may say that is nothing considering there are 40 million registered voters. But we mustn't forget that Lionel Jospin missed out on the second round in 2002 by fewer than 200,000 votes.

I don't know if Aznavour will follow through. But it is certain that his strategy is effective… and that it must be causing Elysée to tremble!

Here are Aznavour's words from Le Dauphiné Libéré:

"At this time I am very preoccupied by the Armenian question. President Sarkozy went back a bit on his promises at the time of the election. He is wrong, because the Armenian community represents an important number of persons compared to the Turkish community. The Armenian people are responsible, courageous. They gave their blood for their country. It's the first time I've ever said it, but if the president does not change, I will use the Armenian vote when the time comes.

We represent at least 400,000 or 500,000 persons in France and any Frenchman of Armenian origin will follow me, I know it. If this continues, I will be totally committed. I do not engage in politics, but I have considerable political power. I know that I'm risking my life when I say that. But at my age, after all, risking one's life means risking how many years?

Note: I very much doubt that Elysée is trembling. Sarkozy usually manages to win over those who have been his friends and who have strayed from the fold. But it would be nice if the Armenian vote really meant something in the election. It's not likely, but one never knows... Armenians tend to be conservative. If Marine Le Pen stresses the dangers of Turkey in the EU, some Armenians may be tempted to vote for her. Recently, for the first time, I read an article in which the possibility of Marine Le Pen winning not only the first round, but the presidency itself was suggested.

Crime in Brittany in 2010

The province of Brittany experienced more than its share of torched cars, thefts, burglaries, and physical assaults during the year 2010. Novopress Breizh has published data from the departments of Loire-Atlantique, le Morbihan, le Finistère, and les Côtes d'Amor:

In Loire-Atlantique physical violence not connected to robbery increased 5.77%. This increase is due primarily to acts of assault and battery that rose 5.19% in 2010. The police forces intervening in so-called "sensitive" neighborhoods have been more and more victims of deliberate acts of violence.

Still on the subject of urban violence, in Loire-Atlantique the number of cars burnt rose by 19.16% in 2010 (939 cars in 2010, compared to 788 in 2009).

Eight hundred seventy cars were burnt (584 were initially set on fire and 286 others burned from the spreading of the flames) in the public security sector of Nantes compared to 713 in 2009. Eighty cars were similarly burnt in 2010 in Saint-Nazaire.

Le Morbihan, considered to be "peaceful", recorded 2,662 physical assaults in 2010. However, thefts, burglaries and "other attacks on personal property" were in the front rank of major and minor crimes committed in le Morbihan, with a total of 17,608 acts recorded in 2010.

If le Finistère recorded a new decrease in crimes - major and minor crimes combined, the department has experienced an almost 6% increase in assault and battery, a figure much higher than the national level (2.5%). The number of "young people" indicted grew by more than 7% last year ,and has grown by 29% since 2006. According to the prefect of le Finistère:

"This is due to precocious drug addiction and the degradation of the image of authority." The prosecutor of Brest, who has no qualms about using euphemisms and symbolic language emphasized the "hardships of confronting authority" in the "neighborhoods". But "the police presence has been restored in the neighborhoods, notably in Brest Pontanézen," he said with satisfaction.

In les Cotes d'Armor, the most remarkable fact is the number of burglaries that literally exploded last year: 31.71% increase in the main residential districts and 16.75% in the secondary districts.

The prize for increased crime in Brittany goes to l'Ille-et-Vilaine. Last year the number of physical assaults increased 5.85%. Robbery motivated assaults increased by 11.41%, while "urban-type phenomena" (ethnic riots) increased 6.12%. Organized crime and specialized crime exploded by 21.66%, as well as break-ins in both principal and secondary residential districts: 26.96%. (…)

According to the Institute for Justice, that has just published a study by mathematician and economist Jacques Bichot, professor emeritus at the University of Lille-III, the cost of crime in France surpasses 115 billion euros per year.

However, Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux feels that things are getting better. Le Figaro has an interview with the minister dated January 20, 2011:

- Observers fear an increase in crime. What is going on?

- On the contrary, globally, crime has decreased more than 2% in 2010. For the eighth consecutive year, crime is down in France. The policies implemented under Nicolas Sarkozy's authority have brought lasting results. Under the Socialist government from 1997 to 2002, crime had increased more than 17%! With Nicolas Sarkozy, it decreased 16%. That doesn't mean, however, that everything is solved. I'm careful about triumphalism. But, from the evidence, the actions undertaken have borne fruit. I'm thinking in particular about vulnerable people. Thanks to our "seniors tranquility plan" that I implemented, any elderly person can speak to a representative at the police station or gendarmerie. Police surveillance or regular home visits can be arranged. This plan has led to a decrease by more than 6% in violent acts against the elderly. We must continue and amplify.

- And yet physical assaults have increased…

- Assaults on people, which are the bane of any developed society are still a challenge. In 2010, the increase was limited to 2.5%. It's still too much but compared to the annual rate of more than 10% per year under the Socialists, the infernal spiral has been broken! Moreover, the phenomenon of violence is now geographically circumscribed. Throughout 90% of the territory, violence is even down. However, difficulties remain in Ile-de-France especially because of the thefts of cell phones which are two-thirds of the violent assaults in public transportation.

As he has done before he blames the cell phone, as if it is responsible for the crime. Following his logic, the automobiles are responsible for being torched, and handbags are guilty of being stolen.

Hortefeux goes on to describe a new type of police force that has been trained especially for large heavily populated areas around big cities - Paris, Lyons, Marseilles, and Bordeaux.

- What about murder?

- We are witnessing an historic fact: for centuries there has never been so few homicides! Last year France recorded 675, compared to 1119 in 2002, or a decline of 40%. And when a murder or an assassination is committed, the perpetrators are arrested and turned over to the justice system in nine out of ten cases.

Note: His figures are surprising. I spent two and a half years in France in the early 1960's. According to what he says there were more than 1,388 murders in that period (675+675+38), since he claims that 675 is the lowest yearly figure "in centuries". I don't remember hearing about hundreds of murders. But I certainly didn't read the papers every day. I had the impression that murder was very rare in France, while in New York City, back then, murder was becoming a fact of everyday life.

He goes on to talk about his war on drugs and the widespread police presence in Seine-Saint-Denis. He proclaims:

"The Republic is on home ground everywhere and criminals are on home ground nowhere!"

He claims that burglaries have been stopped, that crime is down and security is up.

- But can you increase your efforts while the number of security personnel diminishes?

- Today there are more police and gendarmes on the ground than when the Left was in power. This (financial) constraint does not prevent us at all from getting results. In concrete terms, between 2002 and 2010, we went from 67 crimes per 1000 inhabitants to 53 per 1000. (…)

There are over 600 reader responses to the article. The first few, with a couple of exceptions, do not believe the minister and do not take his figures seriously:

- Our politicians are all liars. How many complaints are never filed because the gendarmes tell you it won't do any good. Yes, a crude reality to face…. I am a school bus driver and I had stones thrown at me twice last year, and my gasoline tank was emptied out four times. We only filed two complaints despite all those acts. I was not welcomed with open arms at the gendarmerie. I had the feeling I was wasting their time.

- For example, one thug is arrested for having vandalized 18 cars just to let off steam. So, 18 reports and 18 crimes. But in the statistics, ONE notice of 18 acts and EIGHTEEN verifications of acts. Another thug steals 37 handbags and uses the 37 checkbooks he found in them. He is arrested. Here is becomes grandiose: ONE report of 37 handbags stolen and THIRTY-SEVEN verified thefts, plus verifications for each check used.

Note: What that person seems to be saying is that thirty-seven thefts of handbags, and usage of thirty-seven stolen checkbooks will only be reported as one crime.

Liquidating a Population

Marine Le Pen addressed the permanent Commission of the Regional Council of Nord-Pas-de-Calais on January 31, 2011. In her speech she denounced anti-white and anti-French racism; she deplored the suffering of small businesses in the city of Roubaix forced to close their doors because of constant harassment; and she chastened the mayor of Roubaix for his indifference to the reality around him.

She began by questioning a request for funds from anti-racism associations such as MRAP and the Human Rights League. In condensed form here is what she said:

It has escaped no one, least of all certain observers who speak on radio and television, that anti-white racism and anti-French racism are developing on our national territory. The associations NEVER intervene in matters of this new racism, they NEVER go to the aid of the victims. There is one fight against racism that receives funds and another that is totally forgotten. The victims too are totally forgotten.

Things are happening in our city (Roubaix) that should attract the attention of these associations. According to shop owners who are victims, it seems we are witnessing a certain type of liquidation of those businesses whose owners are connected, closely or marginally, to non-adherence to a nationality, to a religion, to a culture.

Thus it was announced in the press, before the summer, that the last non-halal butcher shop, whose owners had been victims of a veritable persecution, was closing its doors. The objective of a small mafia was to take over, little by little, all the businesses in the city. This weekend it was a bakery that closed its doors definitively after numerous assaults which, the victims say, were an attempt to eradicate the small businesses in the city. Here we have extremely serious acts. What are these associations doing?

Marine Le Pen then challenges the mayor to take action, accusing him of being in the habit of closing his eyes to what is going on around him:

Should we not withhold financing for these associations considering that they pursue aims that are purely political and have little to do with their official purpose which is to fight racism, ALL racism? Or should they be enjoined to address ALL the racism that is developing on our territory?

According to an article at François Desouche, the couple who owned the bakery shop had no choice but to leave:

The shop was set on fire two days after a customer threatened to "set fire" to the business. The umpteenth episode of intimidation that strengthened the Delvals' decision to throw in the sponge after twenty years in the Epeule neighborhood:

"A person cannot work in such conditions. We've been here for twenty years. Before, there was no problem, but for the past two years it has been a catastrophe. In eight months, it is the third time that we had to replace the window after arson attacks and vandalism. We bother them, they chase us out, we're leaving Roubaix. There is a local mafia that wants to take over everything. Using urban violence as a pretext, some are trying to chase away small businesses in order to take over."

Note: Despite the fears and frustrations of the Delvals, they are still careful of their language. They cite a "local mafia", not Islam in general. They point out how great things were for eighteen years. And they say that urban violence is just a "pretext" to take over the businesses, not the country as a whole.