France`s “Anti-Hate” Hysteria: Facts Need Not Apply

July 15, 2004

[Recently
by Paul Gottfried:


Benny Morris` Second Thoughts About Israel: Three
Quibbles And A Question
]

Under the misleading headline
“Anti-Semitic Attack in Paris”

the New York Post
(July 14) published a

Reuters report
that

“French
politicians, police, and religious leaders appealed
Monday for severe punishments and new ideas to combat
race hatred that led to an anti-Semitic attack on a
young mother and her baby on a train.”

Indeed French Prime Minister
Jean-Pierre Raffarin appeared beside himself as he tried
to cope with the “barbarous act” of racism—the
robbing of the young woman and the drawing of a swastika
on her stomach.

Neither the female victim nor her
child was physically hurt (and may not even have been
Jewish—but more on this later) Still, what happened to
them, we were led to believe, required immediate

anti-hate legislation.

The last such initiative in France,
something we were not told, was in July 1990, when the


Loi Gayssot
, intended to deal with

“neofascist”
bigotry, was passed with
overwhelming Communist-Socialist support.

This law, introduced by the
Communist deputy Jean-Claude Gayssot, treats any
published denial of the received account of the
Holocaust, or any public statement that a judge might
interpret as being offensive
to a religious, ethnic,
or racial group, as a criminal offense.

Since its passage

the Loi Gayssot
has been applied, predictably and
almost exclusively, to Frenchmen (and

women
) who are white Christians.

But to French politicians, it would
seem that the French live in a hate-law impoverished
country.

It is only after reading more
carefully that one
learns that the alleged bigots in question were—”six
youths of Arab and African origin.”

Paradoxically, French Jews
contribute disproportionately to LICRA (Ligue
Internationale contre le Racisme et l`Antisémitisme
)
and to other pro-immigration organizations that have
done all they can to fill France with

Islamicist anti-Semites.

In other words, the problem of
“French anti-Semitism”
is one that French Jews, and
American Jewish liberals, exacerbate by supporting

expanded immigration
from

Muslim countries
as well as from everywhere else in
the Third World.

At least equally to blame is the
(supposedly center-right) French government. Raffarin`s
minister of interior, Nicolas Sarkozy has called for
combating the evil of French “racism”—make that
“French” “racism”—by getting French commerce and
education to practice “positive discrimination”
i.e. Affirmative Action for the growing Muslim minority.

In a speech on the Rhone River on
February 13, Sarkozy declared that “the children of
Latifa and Mohammed [
in the multicultural France now
emerging] should receive more [public] assistance
than that of Nicolas and Cecilia.”

["le fils de Mohamed et Latifa doit
être plus aidé que celui de Nicolas et Cécilia".]

By "Nicolas and Cecilia," he means
himself and his wife,

Cecilia Sarkozy.
Of course, the children of Cabinet
Ministers are unlikely to be the

"Invisible Victims"
of racial preferences. (Here`s
an

open letter
from a young Frenchman who is.)

Sarkozy has nothing to fear. His
priorities are already in place. Beside the push for
minority quotas and the manipulation of the facts about
who is to blame for bigotry and violence, there is the
added annoyance that much of the French budget is spent
on social programs, and much of that goes to

North Africans and Muslims.

Moreover, as noted by

French novelist
and man of letters

Jean Raspail
in Le
Figaro,
France is facing what may be an
“irreversible situation”
of population displacement
and replacement. If present trends continue, and Raspail
has no doubt that they will, by 2050

"French
stock" will count for only half—the older half—of the
population of the country, the remainder being composed
of Africans, North Africans or blacks and Asians of all
origins from the inexhaustible reserve of the Third
World, with a dominant strain of Islam, Jihadists and
fundamentalists included…
["«Français
de souche» se compter seulement la moitié – la plus âgée
– de la population du pays, le reste étant composé
d`Africains, Maghrébins ou Noirs et d`Asiatiques de
toutes provenances issus du réservoir inépuisable du
tiers monde, avec forte dominante de l`islam,
djihadistes et fondamentalistes compris…
]
 

"La
patrie trahie par la République"
 
by Jean Raspail, Le Figaro, 17 juin 2004

Raspail believes that nothing short
of a Reconquista, “different from the

Spanish one
but inspired by the same concerns”

will allow the “European Christian enclaves” to
reclaim their countries.

The now-aging author of


Camp of the Saints
risks
prosecution under the existing French hate laws, as he
points out, not only for speaking about immigration
frankly but also for expressing these anti-globalist
“words
of apostasy”
[mot renégat].

He blames the present French
Republic and its human rights doctrines for betraying
France as his “physical fatherland.”

Raspail spells out what he sees as
the “particular France” that is now under attack
from both an anti-national republic and multicultural
migrations. It is or was based “on families, natality,
an endogamy of survival, its own national schools, and
networks of solidarity.”

In contrast, Raspail cites the
visionary speech of longtime minister Laurent Fabius,
addressing a Socialist congress at Dijon in May 2003.

Incredibly, Fabius expressed the
hope that "When the

Marianne
of our City Halls has the

pretty face
of a young Frenchwoman sprung from

[Third World] immigrants, on that day France will
have taken a step to make the values of the Republic
fully alive." [
Quand la Marianne de nos mairies
prendra le beau visage d`une jeune Française issue de
l`immigration, ce jour-là la France aura franchi un pas
en faisant vivre pleinement les valeurs de la République.
]

Of course, Fabius`s words could
have been published in the


New York Post
or


Wall Street Journal
,
substituting Uncle Sam for Marianne  and “nation of
immigrants”
or

“credal nation”
for “the values of the
Republic.”

Here`s the kicker, which I`ve left
for last: on the very day the  Post
published its report on “French
anti-Semitism,”
another story immediately followed,
although not (as far as I can see) in the
Post,  [French
woman admits she made up anti-Semitic attack
,
Yahoo.com News, July 14] explaining that the reported
incident was entirely fictitious.
[VDARE.COM NOTE:
See


here
,

here
,

here
, and

here
, for

fake hate crimes
in the United State
]

This contretemps has embarrassed
both the Prime Minister and President Chirac—but when an
interviewer asked Chirac if he regretted the huge public
furor caused by this false accusation, he

replied
"Je ne regrette pas."

Neither the French government nor

American immigration enthusiasts
will do what
is necessary to control the problem of “hate”
that they claim to be so concerned about: stop
importing it—by getting immigration under control..


Paul Gottfried
is
Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He
is the author of


After Liberalism
,
which has


more details
on the
suppression of free speech in France.