Friday, November 23, 2012

Civitas vs Caroline Fourest


There are repercussions to Sunday's Civitas march against gay marriage and adoption. Some of these after-effects are understandable, such as a lawsuit by Civitas against the feminist group Femen. Others are of concern, such as Marine Le Pen's detachment from the Catholic cause, even though she expressed some sympathy with Saturday's rally that brought together everyone who is against gay marriage, not just Catholics.

Jacques Bompard, mayor of Orange and deputy in the National Assembly, who participated in the Civitas march has described what happened on Sunday, as the rally was getting started:

"The extremist Femen violently attacked the rally, spraying the demonstrators, including children in carriages and the security personnel, with fire extinguishers," insists the deputy. Worse, the Ukrainian militants from Femen were "naked with anti-Christian and obscene slogans on their chests, shouting in front of young children," he wrote in his communiqué. "Contrary to what government spokeswoman Mme Vallaud-Belkacem affirms, the provocations and the calls to hatred came from the aggressors and not from the demonstrators," he added, condemning the attack "perpetrated by extreme-left-wing militants that belong to an activist fringe group."

The article reminds us that five arrests have been made among the "aggressors", but we don't know who they are. Outsiders? Members of the Femen group? Confederates of the Femen? Or members of Civitas? Earlier reports said they were connected to the Front National. That seems to be totally untrue.

The problem I am having is with the word "aggressors". Bompard speaks of the aggressors as the ones who attacked with fire extinguishers, i.e. the Femen group itself, but so far as I know, they were not arrested and held. They were merely removed in police vans. Caroline Fourest (photo above), the lesbian militant who aided the Femen group, speaks of Civitas as the "aggressor".

Until more specific information is available about the arrests, it might be best to stick to the hypothesis that the Femen attacked first, then some of the Civitas demonstrators went after the women. This would make sense and be completely justified, considering the chain of events. And Civitas would have acted in self-defense and in defense of children, so they cannot be called aggressors.

Both Civitas and Caroline Fourest have filed lawsuits against each other. An article at France TV Info describes the possible penalties both sides risk in court:

What does Civitas accuse the Femen of?

- The Femen came illegally to counter-demonstrate, without an announcement beforehand. They are guilty of sexual exhibitionism especially in front of children, of group violence with weapons used even against children, of making a concerted effort to block the freedom to demonstrate through threats, violence and open disobedience of the law ("voie de fait"), as well as offenses toward Civitas and the demonstrators by reason of their adherence to the Catholic religion.

What penalty might they receive?

- According to attorney Maître Eolas, six months in prison, and a fine of 7,500 euros for an "unannounced demonstration". The Femen would also risk a year in prison and 15,000 euros for exhibitionism, and three years plus 45,000 euros for bringing weapons, in this case, fire extinguishers. Finally they would risk five years in prison and 75,000 euros for "group violence with a weapon that did not result in a work stoppage" (the use of fire extinguishers).

Caroline Fourest announced she would sue Civitas. The Civitas Institute defends itself against accusations of excesses that took place during the march. "Contrary to what some media and politicians claim, no member of Civitas was guilty of any violence toward these Femen," it declared.

What does Civitas risk?

- According to Maître Eolas, the aggressors risk three years in prison and 45,000 euros for group violence. "If the work stoppage is more than eight days, then the penalty is five years and 75,000 euros," said the attorney.

Note: Apparently in France the number of days you cannot work as a result of an attack is a factor in the sentencing.

The idea that what these girls do is considered "work" is comical, although this probably refers to any legitimate employment they may have.

As for Marine Le Pen, after her lack of enthusiasm for the occupation of the Poitiers mosque, she has continued what appears to be a policy of extreme caution, declaring in a television interview that she "probably" felt closer to "those who demonstrated Saturday", than to those who participated in the Civitas march. She and her vice-president Florian Philipot both kept their distance from Sunday's march, even though some members of the Front National participated, including European deputy Bruno Gollnisch and another vice-president of the FN, Marie-Christine Arnatu, who marched "on her own." Philipot declared:

 "There was a great demonstration on Saturday, it was a family affair, and fun (…) and then there was the demonstration yesterday (Sunday) that went off the tracks"

This does not sound right to me at all. Either Marine Le Pen has suddenly changed her whole view of the crisis in France, or she is playing a game, so as not to antagonize certain members of her own party. She has to appear as a "républicaine", not as a Catholic. In truth, she probably has no affinity for Civitas which is a traditional Catholic movement that openly seeks to re-Christianize France. It is closely connected to the SSPX Society of Saint Pius X.

I must remind myself that 67% of the Front National wanted Barack Obama to be reelected. Marine Le Pen rid the party of most antisemites, but if she were to rid the party of anti-Americans, there would be no party left.

Below, a four-minute video of the mêlée. Once they start spraying their fire extinguishers, it's hard to know what's happening. Except for the Femen, and the police, I don't know who anybody is. Readers' comments indicate that the men shoving the women are fathers acting in defense of their children. Other readers say they should never have reacted like this since it is not worthy of a Catholic.

"Turning the other cheek" can be done only once. If there is on-going danger, and your child is in peril, no father would do otherwise, nor is there anything I know of in the Bible that encourages parents to allow their children to be harmed or offended by harlots. 

Update: January 19, 2013 - The original video was removed by YouTube. I have replaced it with a shorter version.




You can visit the English-language version of the Femen website here. It's pretty grim.

Labels: , , , , , ,

23 Comments:

At November 23, 2012 10:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it rather obvious that the "right" doesn't have to be united on this one issue. If the issue becomes a Catholic one, then its normal that the Catholics are left to take care of it. If they want a more groups,they should organise it with these groups. Le Pen wasn't invited to plan this, and she is entitled to her opinion. No matter how FEMEN behaved, nothing can justify kicking, punching, or denigrating women. Civitas lost face, and they are just digging their grave. Better avoid this funeral. There are better ways to oppose gay marriage, than slapping some Ukrainians.

I think this comes down to the "children" bs. Tiberge, where is the evidence for any fire extinguishers being aimed at strollers or at children?

I see no substantiation to this.

On the other hand, a variety of videos available online show us men, threatening these women. Kicking them. Forcing them to flee.

If you watch FEMEN activity, they end up tying themselves down to something, or sit-ins. You never see them running from blows, and there is no denial from publicly available evidence that men began hitting these women. Canisters with "Holy Sperm" may have incited them - but real men, and I am aiming this at everyone of the male gender raeding this, since I realise that having testicles doesn't make you a man, so pay attention: real men with real balls and testosterone, do not hit women or children with their fists, or feet. You can encircle a woman, grab her by the arms, and push her away like a man. No man in his right mind actually "hits" a woman with fists, or his feet. This is plain and simple, and you either understand it, or you are a liability to the "right".

I understand if someone was tryign to slap one of these girl, but putting up his dukes and calling them to a fight, something we see in a video, is better left to trash from the Parisian suburbs. The vile scum from those places pummel girls for their cell phones or for wearing short-skirts. Those amont the "right" who think that they can do the same because some woman walks naked before him, should just convert to Islam.

Tiberge, In a previous comment to your post, you mentioned genocidal and brekaing their teeth. You endrosed this comment afterwards. This is the wrong position to take. The individual who made the statemetn was precisely the type who was raising his dukes during the protest. I see nothing to condone there. Its a liability to the exemplary clarity and intellectual level of the blog.

You can rest assured, that if French society had seen a single youtube video of a child crying because of FEMEN, FEMEN half of the organisation would right now be sitting behind bars.


If you are genuinly offended by the English language obsenities these women wrote on their bodies, then I suppose you really are not a European in any sense either.

I know you are trying to desperately build a case to excuse the behavior of a few rotten apples. I suggest you condemn their behavior and seperate the objectives of the right, from the malign fall out of a few imature memers, for the entire movement.If they want to go beat up naked girls, they have many many options. They can go cross the Med, or move to Albania or Turkey. These kind of people are by definition not French. They are scum. If you are against homosexuality, you should by definition be against scum that hits women, for whatever reason a few frustrated and insecure men can concot with their half-functioning brains.

 
At November 24, 2012 1:22 AM, Anonymous Jacques Cartier said...

There seems to be a real misunderstanding of who Mrs Le Pen actually is among right-wing sympathizers. For one thing, she is not a Catholic, and has not interest in catholicism. Instead, it would be more accurate to portay her as a pagan, a republican, a nationalist, and a strong advocate of the state.

Many times she repeated how important she believed it was to enforce the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State – which is, in its essence, the most anti-catholic law that was ever passed in French history. Is it any wonder that it was condemned by the Holy See the very next year by the pope Pius X?

There’s nothing to expect from her. If she had any conviction, she could have had prevented homosexual marriage and adoption all by herself. Indeed, instead of saying that Hollande and Sarkozy were two faces of the same coin, she could have acknowledged that though both options are terrible, one – namely Hollande – was in fact a bit worse. Of course, this would have gone against the interests of her political party, which was humiliated in 2007 by the UMP. However, and more importantly, it would have given France an extra five years during which no such nihilist nonsense as gay marriage and adoption could have passed into law. She decided to put her own personal interests before that of France. Now, we know where she stands.

 
At November 24, 2012 12:29 PM, Anonymous dauphin said...

Just to clarify. Civitas is an organization representing break-away "intégristes", hard-line FSSPX Catholics who reject Vatican II, have broken from Rome, and who have taken over some parishes. They do not represent the majority of Catholics in France.

The protest on Saturday organized by humourist Frigide Barjot was more successful because it was lighter and more upbeat, showing a much better understand of public relations, and drawing less violent reaction. I concur with Marine who said she felt more empathy with the march on Saturday.

Marine may not be a practicing Catholic, but she clearly has sympathies to Catholic tradition, wears a Catholic cross, and is trying to keep her movement secular so it can have a broader appeal. I have no doubt that she supports strict application of the law of 1905 as a way to combat Islamization. I consider myself Catholic, and think the law was a disaster for France, but in today's context it is unfortunately the only tool available to combat Islamization, since any other way falls under anti-racism laws. "All or nothing" strategies are often doomed to failure.

 
At November 24, 2012 3:19 PM, Blogger Aged parent said...

Anonymmous' comments are a perfect illustration of why we are in the cultural, moral and spiritual mess we are in. His advice to Christ as He whipped the money-changers from the Temple would go something like this: "Now please don't whip these nasty people because it may make you look bad. You should never, ever strike a money-changer."

Anon needs a lesson in manliness...and justice.

 
At November 24, 2012 7:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The 1905 French Law separated the church from the State, that is true. But what it mainly did was to stop the state from FUNDING churches and temples...
Is anybody opposed to that around here?

 
At November 24, 2012 7:58 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ anonymous 7:19

The 1905 law was supposed to stop funding of religions. There were some exceptions made for Catholic schools that followed government-mandated curricula, and some other cultural organizations, but on the whole, there was to be no funding.

The problem is Islam. And this problem could have been avoided with sane immigration laws. Instead, under the dictates of the EU, the borders were left open to the hordes of Muslim invaders, and the "Eurabia" project - to people Europe with Arab/Muslims and to provide them with complete freedom of worship, implying a good supply of mosques - changed the understanding of the 1905 law.

The French State has been funding, however indirectly, the building of mosques for many years, and there are now 2500 mosques in France. The indirect method is as follows, with some variations: the Muslims find they have no prayer room, or the one they have is too small. They make demands on the municipality for land. The mayor looks for a plot of land and rents it to the Muslims for one euro a month. This symbolic rent is supposed to show that the Muslims themselves are paying their rent, when in fact the French taxpayers are footing the bill. At some point in the distant future the lease converts into a mortgage. At that point the municipality becomes the owner of the land AND the mosque that was built on it. The mosque itself is often funded by foreign States such as Morocco and Algeria. But some French municipalities have been known to contribute money to the building itself. And so the French State ends up as owner of a mosque, in violation of the 1905 law.

The mayors of France were given the green light to do this back when Nicolas Sarkozy was Interior Minister. He appointed a commission called the Stasi Commission whose job it was to find loopholes in the law. They found that funding CULTURAL institutions was legal, and since a mosque is cultural as well as religious, they had their loophole.

The law has worked against France, not for it. It should be re-written to exclude any violent subversive non-European ideology no matter how much it claims to be a religion.

So, in answer to your question, no, no one objects. But the law is now destroying the country and should be revised. Marine Le Pen always talks about how she tries to obey this law. She is talking about the SPIRIT of the law, not the literal law, which does have loopholes, as do most laws. A law depends on human good will to be successful, but in the case of Islam in France, there was only bad will.

 
At November 24, 2012 8:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The main objective of the law was to subjugate the French catholic clergy to the Republic by making all churches property of the State. It was a to be expected consequence of the ideology that led to the bloody and violent revolution and the earlier spoliations of the churches.

 
At November 24, 2012 9:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You never see them running from blows, and there is no denial from publicly available evidence that men began hitting these women. Canisters with "Holy Sperm" may have incited them - but real men, and I am aiming this at everyone of the male gender raeding this, since I realise that having testicles doesn't make you a man, so pay attention: real men with real balls and testosterone, do not hit women or children with their fists, or feet. You can encircle a woman, grab her by the arms, and push her away like a man. No man in his right mind actually "hits" a woman with fists, or his feet. This is plain and simple, and you either understand it, or you are a liability to the "right"."

And people wonder why Islam are taking over your country.

 
At November 25, 2012 12:03 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ anonymous 8:32 p.m.

There is no doubt that the law was a continuation of the Revolution and the attempt to destroy the French Church. It was a vulnerable moment in French History - the Dreyfus Affair resulted in a weakening of the prestige of the Church, and the Left took advantage of this bad publicity to impose the law. At least, that is one aspect of the genesis of the law. There may be others. In my comment above I assume the Republic will remain, and that there will be a law to separate Church and State. I doubt there is any chance of restoring Catholic power in France to what it was even after 1905. And yet, we don't know how this will evolve. The Church in France is now the last institutional vestige of the original moral order that preceded the Revolution. There are certainly pre-Revolutionary institutions, but only the Church had (and still has) the moral influence to build and defend the type of society we have lived in for so many centuries. There may be other kinds of societies, but they don't look like the one we know.

French policy-makers realized the law could be used to fund Islam and thus to help further, possibly complete, the planned destruction of the Church. The Church, on the whole, did not fight back, proving just how weak it can be in a civilizational crisis, even though it has been strong on the non-negotiable points.

But neither the Revolution, nor the 1905 law, nor today's degraded Islamic culture have yet put the final nail in the coffin of the Church. It goes on. Somewhat out of touch with some very crucial problems.

 
At November 25, 2012 12:25 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ anonymous 9:03,

I have to admit I was taken completely by surprise by this idea that you should never hit women. Of course, you should not go around hitting people. But this event has nothing to do with that. These women are thugs, paid to disrupt and to inflict fear and to provoke a reaction they know will look bad for whoever reacts, such is the drawing power of this kind of sexually-charged stunt. They know, and their organizers know, that the media will be generous to them and that the Catholics will look like inquisitors from another age.

The accusation that I (or one of the commenters ) endorse genocide also leaves me completely stymied. How am I to respond? Going back to the post on the event itself I find that one comment referred to them as genocidaire (genocidal), and that because I allowed the comment it was deduced that I share that person's definition of genocidal. But I believe the comment referred to the Femen group as feminists. References to feminists as genocidal is very common at French websites (and not just Catholic sites), because of the massive number of abortions that have taken place and the implications of that for the white race. The programmed destruction of the white race needs a low birth-rate, and the feminists provide it willingly. They also condone sexual liberties that influence the nature of the family, and of male-female relationships in general, which in turn result both in low births and dysfunctional children.

Being rebellious, as we all are at some point in our lives, does not mean destroying the customs, morals and institutions that are part of our heritage. Therefore, it is fair to use the word "genocidal" with regard to these women and their sponsors. The moral backbone of society has always been the combined strengths of men and women. If women betray their culture, men do too, then the perverts take over, and a moralizing but violent and backward force such as Islam can come into the beach.

So when you look at the total picture of destruction, these girls with their "pretty breasts" deserve a lot worse than what they were given on Sunday.

If I offend to the point that some readers no longer want to read this website, that is a chance I have to take.

 
At November 25, 2012 1:22 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ Jacques Cartier (and dauphin)

I want to repeat that I sympathize with those who feel the 1905 law was a disaster. It was shoved down the throats of the French at a vulnerable moment. It gave more power to the State and ultimately much less power to the Church, even though I have heard some clergy were as glad to get rid of the State as the State was to get rid of them. Still, the Church's mission and vitality gradually dissipated as the State grew stronger.

When I speak of the law and of revising it to eliminate the presence of Islam I'm assuming the Republic and laïcité will go on. If Islam really takes over and sharia becomes law you won't need to revise anything.

In a similar vein, the American law legalizing abortion known as Roe v Wade was not placed into the Constitution in a legitimate way. The Supreme Court decided that there were implicit rights not expressed explicitly in the Constitution and that one of these implicit rights was the right to privacy. On that very shaky arbitrary basis they ruled abortion to come under the right to privacy (which doesn't exist).

 
At November 25, 2012 2:41 AM, Blogger Mark Richardson said...

First anon has things the wrong way round.

The men who expelled the femen women from the rally were doing what they had to do. You can argue about whether or not they did it too forcibly (the video isn't clear) but none of the women seemed harmed and they were not pursued once they stopped their attack.

The femen women, on the other hand, are nihilistic subverters of decency. If anyone is to be labelled scum it would be these women.

Anon, a lot more harm to womanhood was done by the femen women themselves than by the men who threatened them and made them flee the rally. I don't understand why your sense of protectiveness of women wasn't at all touched by how these women behaved. The femen women provocatively trashed womanhood and you don't seem to care.

Finally, there's this comment:

If you are genuinly offended by the English language obsenities these women wrote on their bodies, then I suppose you really are not a European in any sense either.

Really? Is a defining point of being a European to have no standards? To tolerate anything at all? To believe in so little that there is no provocation that might offend you?

 
At November 25, 2012 5:40 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

Again I must apologize for a comical typo. In my comment above of 12:25 a.m., the final word in the third paragraph should be "breach", not "beach".

Although, who knows, they may land on the beaches first.

 
At November 25, 2012 6:41 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ Mark Richardson,

Thank you for your input. I too wondered about the admonition that I was not a European. Culturally, of course, I am. We all are even if we partake of American culture as well. But the fact that I'm an American often leads to accusations or reproaches of "puritanism" or something similar. I often feel that Europeans have to go out of their way to prove they are not sexually up tight the way we are perceived to be, and so they accept unacceptable conduct just to prove how unenlightened we are.

The slogans painted on those girls' chests are offensive by any standard, even if I don't take them personally. The Catholics marching at the rally had good reason to be offended, and specific charges have been brought against the Femen for illegal demonstrating, exhibitionism, carrying weapons, potential harm from the weapons, etc... These charges are in accordance with French law, therefore, it seems there are Europeans who regard these actions as reprehensible. In addition a Catholic organization called AGRIF is charging them with slogans offensive to the Christianity. This too is in accordance with laws against religious and racial hatred. It will be interesting to see the result. If you spray paint a mosque and are caught, you are likely to receive a sentence and a fine. If you vandalize a Christian church, it is possible, though not likely, you will be sentenced and fined. If your presence at a rally is illegal AND you insult the Catholic religion AND your breasts are exposed, there should be a heavy penalty... but we'll see.

 
At November 25, 2012 1:51 PM, Anonymous dauphin said...

@ tiberge

Though of course we agree on many points, I'm surprised that you were surprised to hear that a man should never strike a woman, other than in perhaps self-defence, which has long been taught in western society. Women are generally weaker physically (I would say stronger in other ways), but a real man does not take advantage of that physical disparity.

I think physically ejecting people from one's own space, like a church, is ok; firmly but without anger. It certainly made my blood boil to see the Femen wearing nun's head dress, and I would have been tempted to rip them off their heads had I been there, but this would have played right into their hands, as well as the media narrative. Women like this purposely bait men, to get them to strike them, so they can play the victim. That's also another good reason not to play along.

As to manliness, there is no one more manly than a carpenter from Nazareth, the incarnation of God on Earth, Jesus Christ. Yes he overturned the money changers' tables and chased them out, but I don't ever remember him beating anyone up or laying his hand on a woman other than to help or forgive. Far from being a "wimp", he invited us to become like him, saying "I am meek and mild". This is a challenge, especially with the current pagan society's lessons of "manhood". A real man must be strong, but exercise restraint of his own human passions, and show humility and compassion.

Jesus also taught to turn the other cheek. As Father Barron noted in his "Catholicism" tv series, this is not giving in, but rather a non-violent form of resistance that can suprise the aggressor, drawing him into a different view of what he is doing, into an another level of thinking. Of course defence of one's life is something else, but in most cases this can really disarm people and is actually very smart. Wisdom is stronger than brute force.

 
At November 25, 2012 2:08 PM, Anonymous Simon in London said...

The Ukrainian mercenaries should be in jail, but it's their paymasters who are the real villains.

 
At November 26, 2012 5:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with dauphine. Any man, any man that thinks he has the right to strike a woman, under any circumstances, has no notion of manliness.

Anger, anger is not manliness. Attacking kids or women, no matter how idiotic their behavior, is not manliness.

Tiberge, there are no circumstances other than self-defence against a fat ugly drunk black woman with a baseball bat, when you need to hit a woman.

and the bit about offending some readers so they no longer read this blog is a bit of flaggelating martyrism which you don't need. You should have confidence in your work. If criticism makes you a martyr, then you are selling yourself cheap.

You might be angry, but you are not a man. A man has to control his anger in many instances. If he cannot sense his inherent physical superiority over a woman, and therefore hold back his "hurt" then he just isnt' a man. His fate will eventually play out like that of old spinsters.

you're anger is just comical, and very charming from a feminine point of view, but Civitas did everyone a disfavor. There are obviously no men in the hierarchy of this organisation, who have the balls to put a few idiots in their place. So they are counter-suing FEMEN in precisely the whiny bitchy manner that Fouret is suing them.

As for Europeans and decency. Please save me your double-standards. The only question for Europe is how to teach the muslims to live with a carricature. It's not for them to teach Europeans how to become intollerant of a few naked girls with "in Gay we Trust". get real and get with it. You can have standards and norms, but the minute you use them to justify kicking and punching women, that's the minute you are a bloating hypocrite, and you can take your norms ...somewhere. If you dont understand that- then go do some prayer and introspection. Irrespective of yoru faith, you might eventually figure out that your norms are also binding for yourself. So for those with big mouths - show us your norms in action. Not in abandoning them the minute a naked chick "provokes" you into amnesia with the help of some "Holy Sperm".

If Jesus was alive, he'd tell you the same thing.

get real and get with it.



 
At November 26, 2012 1:42 PM, Anonymous dauphin said...

@ anonymous

Using civility to make your point, instead of browbeating Tiberge with "hypocrite", etc. might be a better way to make your point, not contradict it.

 
At November 26, 2012 2:02 PM, Anonymous David said...

I rather doubt that the Anonymous who has been spewing hateful, slanderous remarks against Tiberge is an exemplar of Christ's love.

I don't see any evidence that any of the women in the video were actually punched. Pushed, maybe, but that's too bad. If they can't even handle a little pushing then maybe they aren't the tough feministas they make themselves out to be.

Civitas hardly did anything wrong. Oh, no, they got a little upset. God forbid some human beings might get a little upset in the face of such obnoxious, belligerent, in-your-face provocation.

Whenever I see a situation like this I'm not disgusted by those who get upset, but with those who do the upsetting. That's just being sane.

 
At November 27, 2012 1:40 AM, Anonymous eah said...

Any man, any man that thinks he has the right to strike a woman, under any circumstances, has no notion of manliness.

Sorry, but as a man I must inform you that you are full of shit.

And I think a big majority of men would agree with what I will now say.

Yes, I agree in general that a man should not hit a woman. But I also find your "under any circumstances" to be absurd. A man can hit a woman if she hits him first in a vulnerable area, i.e. with intent to inflict pain or injury.

By "vulnerable area" I am thinking mostly of the face and head, but there are others, one in particular, if you know what I mean.

Here I do not count a slap, i.e. with open hand; a woman should be able to slap a man without fear of being hit in return.

If a woman struck me in the face, or about the head, with her fist, or worse with an object (I would also hit back if she used an object against my body), then she would definitely get punched back. Maybe more than once. But in any case with enough force and resolve to convince her that she should not do that again.

I did not see video of what happened. If men hit these women without being struck first, then what they did was wrong. I see nothing wrong with men using force -- grabbing, pushing -- to remove women. And if women resist and are injured, I feel little or no sympathy.

Lastly, I just returned from a few days in Paris, and was once again astonished at the HUGE numbers of Blacks one sees there. So regarding all of this, I would also say: As if France has nothing else to worry about...

The Africanization of France: One in three newborns of non-European origin

And please stop posting as Anonymous.

 
At November 28, 2012 7:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

what rights do a group of Ukrainian feminists have in telling French people what laws they should or should not support regarding homosexual 'marriage'?

If the foreigners don't like it they should go back home.

 
At November 29, 2012 8:49 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ David,

I am very sorry to post your comment so late but it did not come to my mail box. I found it at the section of the blog where all comments are printed. I don't know what happened and again I apologize.

 
At December 07, 2012 11:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

great news. 5 Civitas thugs arrested.

So you see, the police can do their job.

Vive la France.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home