In the immediate aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo killings the politicians – with the exception of the far-right Front National's president Marine Le Pen – conducted themselves pretty well and spoke of “national unity”. President François Hollande himself said: “It is the entire Republic that has been attacked.” His predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy urged: “I call on the French to reject the temptation to lump ideas together [editor's note, in other words equating Muslims with terrorists].”
The president of the National Assembly, socialist Claude Bartolone, and the political group leaders at the Assembly signed a joint statement calling for a “national union”, as did the president of the French Senate, Gérard Larcher, of the right-wing UMP. The UMP mayor of Bordeaux and possible presidential candidate for 2017 Alain Juppé said on his blog: “The entire nation must unite and work together.”
Only the Front National, with daughter Martine Le Pen following seamlessly in the footsteps of her father Jean-Marie Le Pen, got carried away by the tragedy that had struck Charlie Hebdo and the whole country. Since its creation the far-right party has anticipated such tensions so it could capitalise on them politically. As Wallerand de Saint-Just, the party's likely lead candidate for the Paris region in this year’s regional elections, said sanctimoniously on Thursday: “It's true that there could be an electoral impact.”
In a video broadcast on Wednesday within hours of the attack, Marine Le Pen did start by rejecting any confusion between “Muslim compatriots attached to our nation” and “those who think they can kill in the name of Islam”. But then she revealed her real thinking: “It's obvious that this refusal to lump [them] together must not be an excuse for inertia or denial.”
Excuse and denial? But by whom? Who, in a France that has been so traumatised, has held back their indignation? Right through that dreadful Wednesday numerous people attacked “those who hide a barbarous ideology behind a religious mask,” to use the expression of the president of the centrist UDI party, Jean-Christophe Lagarde.
Who has ever denied that this massacre against a magazine and against freedom was carried out by fanatics? Who has not heard numerous leaders from the 'Muslim community' express their horror? Who missed the declaration by the president of the French Council for the Muslim Faith – the Conseil français du culte musulman (CFCM) - Dalil Boubakeur, who is head of the Great Mosque in Paris, condemning the “delusions of terrorist groups who wrongly seek to justify themselves in the name of Islam”? Who was not aware of the words of Tareq Oubrou, head of the Bordeaux mosque, who said: “Muslims are traumatised. They've had enough! This silent majority have found themselves taken hostage by lunatics. Muslims must come out onto the streets in large numbers to express their disgust!”?
It is the case that, behind the initial public restraint, the atrocity has started to drip venom into and further strengthen the ideological offensive started by 'déclinistes' who hold the fashionable view that “everything is falling apart” in France. This view is now being loudly proclaimed thanks to the unprecedented media coverage of Éric Zemmour's book Le Suicide Français ('France's Suicide') and novelist Michel Houellebecq's latest work Soumission ('Submission'). This offensive is clearly Islamophobic, talking as it does of the 'great replacement' of the 'French' by people from another culture, and about sending Muslims back to their country of origin.
But this offensive also traces its roots back to the tragedy of 9/11 in the United States, and the “Clash of Civilisations” proclaimed by President George W. Bush and the neocons. There was a hint of it in the declaration made by Nicolas Sarkozy after he visited President Hollande at the Elysée on Thursday: “Civilised people must unite against barbarity.” This theme was picked up by French writer and intellectual Pascal Bruckner in an interview with Le Figaro. “We've been at war for years, but we have shown a reprehensible complacency with respect to radical Islam,” he said. “It will be very interesting to see the dividing lines in the days to come. It's a safe bet that collaborators of all kinds will call for a limit on the freedom of expression...”
But who are these “collaborators” and where are expressions really being muzzled? One just had to listen to RTL radio on Wednesday evening to get an idea of the real picture. Presenter Marc Olivier Fogiet had his usual guests, Ivan Rioufol, a commentator at the right-wing Le Figaro, Laurence Parisol, former head of the employers' federation MEDEF, a former executive at TF1 television station, Xavier Couture, and journalist and writer Rokhaya Diallo, who is also a contributor to Mediapart.
To march or not to march?
In the ensuing discussion (above, in French) the “freedom of expression” demanded by Bruckner was expressed without any restraint towards its official enemy, fundamentalism, and its implicit accomplice the “silent Muslim”. In other words, the millions of men and women, most of them of French nationality, who are required to disassociate themselves publicly from the killers to prove they are part of the nation.
“The Left is today calling on people to demonstrate, that's great, and I, too, will demonstrate,” said Rioufol, starting the discussion. “It's also obvious and urgent today that French Muslims, who obviously do not identify themselves with this terrorist attack, should demonstrate, otherwise there is a fear that we will see this lumping together of ideas [editor's note, in other words associating all Muslims with terrorism].”
Laurence Parisol jumps in. “You're insinuating that they would be subscribing to this terrorist madness?” she asks.
“No, I'm not saying that, on the contrary,” replies Rioufol. “I'm calling on them today to make us understand that they do not support it.”
Rokhaya Diallo is indignant. “When I hear it said that Muslims are being called on to disassociate themselves from an act that is inhuman, yes, indeed, I feel targeted. I have the feeling that my whole family and all my Muslim friends have been put in the dock.”
“Because you don't intend to disassociate yourself?” asks Ivan Rioufol.
Rokhaya Diallo holds back tears as she replies: “No, but, you really think that I'm a supporter? Is that what you're daring to say to me, that I'm a supporter? So, I'm the only one around the table who has to say that I have nothing to do with it?”
This violent discussion highlights, in crude form, the 'debate' that the far right, and a significant part of the Right, wants to impose on the country, but a debate that also raises questions for and divides the Left, too. Should France's Muslims take part as Muslims in Sunday's march? In common with Rokhaya Diallo, many think that French people should not be singled out according to their religion, and that Muslims don't need to 'clear' their religion of a crime committed by terrorists.
Others, such as the socialist and former justice minister Robert Badinter, the philosopher Abdennour Bidar or the imam of Bordeaux, Tareq Oubrou, think, on the contrary, that it is important for the country's Muslims to express their anger. But why this invitation to demonstrate, one that runs the risk of being confused with the demands of Islamophobes? The reason is that they are in fact poles apart.
What we have ranged against each other here are two very different ideas of France. The far right and a part of the traditional Right want to abolish diversity. They call on French people of foreign origin to disappear in a national unity that lacks any diversity. They speak of assimilation. Thus they seek to remove people's original identities. Zemmour's 'challenge' to France is that Muslims must prove they belong by blending in with the demonstrations. That they step forward … to prove that they no longer exist.
In contrast, the Left and a section of the moderate Right defend the idea of a pluralist France. They support a France whose diversity enriches the nation's melting pot. The hope of Badinter, Bidar and Oubrou is that the Muslims demonstrate this difference, in the name of who they are, and in the name of France. They want it to be said, publicly, that the crime against Charlie Hebdo is also identity theft, stealing their identity as French Muslims. For sure, it is an identity that, too often and for too long, has been squabbled over by France, but one that has now been banned by the fanatics. It is the identity of millions of people whose only desire is that they be left alone. This identity involves a loyalty to themselves, to who they are, whether they are religious or not, and whose expression, in the march on Sunday, would ring out like an act of legitimate defence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
- The French version of this article can be found here.
English version by Michael Streeter