Terror Plot Against Iranian Dissidents Foiled In Europe

The foiled terrorist plot takes place amidst a backdrop of growing discontent within Iran. For more than six months, Iranians have been protesting and in some cases, striking.

The Federalist, by Matthew Brodsky, July 3, 2018:

The regime in Tehran must be growing nervous. European officials disrupted a terrorist plot aimed at a large conference in France for exiled Iranians opposed to the ruling regime.

An Iranian diplomat was arrested in Germany, along with two others suspected of plotting the bomb attack at the gathering. Three others of Iranian origin were arrested in France. Apparently, as both internal and external pressure mounts against the regime, they are recklessly lashing out against the West.

The two Belgian nationals, identified only as Amir S. and his wife, Nasimeh N., of Iranian origin, were charged with “attempted terrorist murder and the preparation of a terrorist offence,” according to a statementfrom the Belgium prosecutor. They were found with approximately 500 grams of a homemade explosive and an ignition mechanism inside their Mercedes.

Their contact, Assadollah A., an Iranian diplomat at the Austrian Embassy in Vienna, was also arrested. The failed plot is all the more brazen considering that Iran’s President Rouhani landed in Zurich on Monday and is scheduled to visit Vienna for talks regarding the nuclear agreement on Wednesday.

The choice of target was undoubtedly intended to send a message as well. The National Council of Resistance of Iran, an umbrella bloc of Iranian opposition groups that demands regime change, hosted the event, in which tens of thousands attended in Villepinte, just outside Paris. Aside from the range of European and Arab officials who attended and spoke, President Trump’s lawyer and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani also addressed the gathering, along with former House speaker Newt Gingrich.

They were joined on stage by many former U.S. diplomats and politicians from both sides of the aisle, who included former UN ambassador and Democratic governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson. In response to the foiled attacked, Giuliani expressed his appreciation of the “fine work of law enforcement particularly in Belgium and France.”

An Untrustworthy Iran Denies Involvement

Naturally, Iran’s silver-tongued foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, dismissed his government’s complicity in the planned operation via Twitter: “How convenient: Just as we embark on a presidential visit to Europe, an alleged Iranian operation and its ‘plotters’ arrested. Iran unequivocally condemns all violence & terror anywhere, and is ready to work with all concerned to uncover what is a sinister false flag ploy.”

The problem, however, is that lying is somewhat of a regime specialty. For example, in April Zarif also told reporters, “We don’t intend to get a bomb,” and “Iran never raced towards a bomb, nor will it race towards a bomb. End of story.”

A few days later, Israel revealed a half ton of documents and digital files, blueprints it says it lifted from a secret warehouse in Tehran that detailed Iran’s plans to build nuclear weapons. Zarif’s condemnation of terrorism also rings hollow given that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and forces loyal to it have killed thousands in Syria in the regime’s effort to keep Bashar al-Assad in power.

Nor is it the first time such an audacious Iranian terrorist plot was thwarted in the West. For example, a scheme to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States with a bomb at a popular Washington restaurant was uncovered in 2011.

Iranians Are Fed Up With Their Authoritarian Leaders

The foiled terrorist plot takes place amidst a backdrop of growing discontent within Iran. For more than six months, Iranians have been protesting and in some cases striking, and their numbers are increasing. Unlike the crowds that took to the streets to protest the sham elections in 2009, the current outpouring of anger towards the regime has leapt from small cities in the Iranian hinterland to the capital in Tehran and more than 140 cities and towns. The demonstrations involve a cross-section of Iranian society that has included farmers, truck drivers, students, and bazar merchants, among many others. Unfortunately for the regime, the movement is proving durable.

The people have denounced the regime for spending money and other resources on foreign military adventures rather than using the $100 billion financial injection from the nuclear deal to improve the situation for ordinary Iranians at home. They’ve chanted, “Leave Syria alone, deal with us” along with “Neither Gaza, nor Lebanon, I give my life for Iran.”

In recent weeks, Iranians were even seen chanting “Death to Palestine,” an indication that standard regime-sponsored rallying cries, such as “Death to Israel” or the United States, are fast fading from fashion. In fact, whatever the regime promotes is increasingly being seen as antithetical to what everyday Iranians are striving for.

Iran’s rulers are bound to be further squeezed financially. When President Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran, it triggered a wind-down period to the return of biting economic sanctions set to go into effect on August 6 and November 4, respectively.

Those will target Iran’s energy sector (oil, petroleum, and petrochemicals), and all of the ancillary sanctions associated with it, such as the banking sector, shipping, shipbuilding, and ports. That is in addition to the U.S. Treasury Department terminating licensing for civil aviation, no longer dealing financially with Iranian rial, and not providing precious metals to the Iranian regime. European businesses are already fleeing the Iranian market in advance of the deadlines. If the Iranian rial is currently in a tailspin, it’s bound to nosedive in August.

It remains to be seen how the Trump administration or America’s European allies will respond to the latest Iranian terrorist challenge in France. Long before taking up the post of defense secretary, Jim Mattis told those gathered at the 2013 Aspen Security Forum that he thought the United States made a serious mistake by not responding more assertively to the 2011 foiled Iranian plot in Washington.

“We caught them in the act,” Mattis said, “and yet we let them walk free.” There’s a new sheriff in Washington today, who is bound to be less forgiving than his predecessor. The first indication of Europe’s response will be seen by Wednesday, when Iran’s president sits down with European diplomats.

Matthew RJ Brodsky is a senior fellow at the Security Studies Group in Washington, D.C. He can be followed on Twitter at @RJBrodsky .
Photo Mohammad Ali Jafari / Wikimedia
Also see:

France in shock: Islamist rapper to give shows in theatre where 90 people were murdered by Islamic terrorists

Tribute to victims of the Nov. 13, 2015 terrorist attack in Paris at the Bataclan – Photo: Frederic Legrand – COMEO

Voice of America, By ABDELHAMID KADDOUR, June 11, 2018:

Medine, a 37-year-old openly Islamist rapper, will play in Paris’s theatre, Bataclan, the place where 89 people were killed by Islamist terrorist, the Huffington Post France reports.  

The controversial rapper, who made the album “jihad”, produces songs with lyrics like “Crucify the secularists (…) I put fatwas on the head of herks”.

Besides his Islamist and jihad promoting songs, Medine is following the teaching of the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder’s grandson, Tariq Ramadan.

After the people of France heard that Medine will rap at the place where one of the most horrific Islamist attacks happened, it immediately became a political issue.

While right-wing politicians and the victim’s families wanted him to play in another place, liberals and far-left politicians support the controversial rapper.

“No French person can accept that this guy goes pour his filth at the same place where the carnage took place”, Marine le Pen twittered yesterday.

Far-left politicians such as Daniel Obono,  a deputy of party “La France Insoumise”, fully backs Medine. “It doesn’t shocks me, it’s just an artist who play at the Bataclan”, she said to BFMTV this morning.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time a Muslim-friendly artist played in there since the massacres took place. Just one year after the Bataclan’s attacks, Sting sung “Inshallah”, a title dedicated to refugees.

What’s really behind Macron’s sweet talk about the Iran deal?

Ludovic Marin/AFP | Getty Images

Conservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, April 25, 2018:

French President Emmanuel Macron is waging an all-out campaign to convince President Trump — and the American people — to keep the United States in the Iran nuclear deal.

In a speech before a joint session of Congress on Wednesday morning, Macron called on the United States to stay in the Iran deal. He began his remarks claiming that Iran would never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, delivering what at first appeared to be tough rhetoric.

But shortly thereafter, Macron quickly took a more capitulatory tone and showed his hand when he demanded that the nations of the world respect the sovereignty of the terrorist regime that rules the country. He then pledged that France would not leave the Iran nuclear deal (known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the JCPOA).

He described Iran as a “great civilization,” but notably failed to mention that the ruling regime dismisses Iran’s historic Persian heritage and replaces it with an Islamic supremacist doctrine.

Here’s more of what Macron didn’t tell Congress and the American people:

Staying in the Iran deal would guarantee an economic windfall for France. He knows that continuing U.S. involvement in the deal — which effectively keeps it afloat — secures billions of dollars in trade deals for France. Leaving the deal would almost certainly terminate these agreements.

As the United States continues to warn against securing economic partnerships with the regime in Tehran, France has ignored these warnings. Paris is more than eager to execute multi-billion-dollar accords with the terrorist regime. France-based Airbus has a deal in place to sell 100 jetliners to the regime for $10 billion dollars. Total, a French oil and gas company, has signed a $2 billion deal with Tehran. Moreover, as the United States has tightened sanctions on the regime, France is working on bolstering trade with Iran.

The debate over the future of the Iran deal comes as the ayatollah’s theocracy is on the ropes.

Instead of focusing on building up the economy inside Iran, the regime has decided to dedicate most of its expenditures toward waging expansionist wars in foreign lands. Iran is in total upheaval, and protest movements continue to shake the foundations of the ruling class. The Iranian people are rising up throughout their country in defiance of the totalitarian state that rules over them with an iron fist. The Iranian economy is in tatters and continues on a downward spiral. Its currency, the rial, is depreciating on an exponential level. All of these circumstances pose real threats to the very existence of the regime.

President Trump has until May 12 to decide whether to stay in the Iran deal, negotiate a “fix” to it, or leave it altogether. Staying in the Iran deal, as presently construed, delivers a much-needed lifeline to the mullahs, who will continue to use the platform to negotiate bailout packages from European and Asian powers. Recent European proposals for reforming show that they have little interest in countering the serious threats from Iran.

The European model for stability and security with Iran, presented through the JCPOA, has no proven successes. If anything, it enriches the ruling parties in Europe while simultaneously bending the knee to Islamic totalitarians.

France and many others in Western Europe have surrendered their nations’ sovereignty — and moral authority — to radical Islamic theocrats. They believe that making a temporary peace agreement with the regime in Tehran — which serves as the incubator for Shiite radicalism — can perhaps stave off further terrorist threats. European powers have chosen to largely ignore the massive, uncontrolled Middle East migration crisis. And due to the influx of Middle East migrants and the Islamist doctrine they bring along, Sunni radicalism has become embedded in European society, so much that European intelligence agencies are entirely overwhelmed with domestic and foreign terrorist threats. French and German Jews are now attacked on what seems like a daily basis. Jews and other minority populations are fleeing the country in droves. Europe has surrendered minority protections to the interests of the millions of new migrants.

The French model is a model for surrender. President Trump knows that his primary duty is to protect the interests and safety of the citizens of the United States. He can do this by either reforming the Iran nuclear deal seriously, or simply leaving it altogether. President Macron and the French establishment are not serious about reforming the nuclear deal or keeping their own people safe from continuous terror threats. They have chosen the path of submission. President Trump must not make the same mistake. America does not bend the knee to foreign ideologies, particularly the Shiite radicalism articulated by the theocrats who rule Iran.

100 French Intellectuals Denounce Islamist Separatism

Supporters of French President Macron celebrate his victory (Illustrative photo: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

Clarion Project, by Leslie Shaw, March 21, 2018:

A group of 100 diverse French intellectuals denounced Islamist totalitarianism in the newspaper Le Figaroon March 19, 2018. The following is a translation of their statement made by Clarion contributor Leslie Shaw:

We are citizens of differing and often diametrically opposed views, who have found agreement in expressing our concern in the face of the rise of Islamism. We are united not by our affinities, but by the feeling of danger that threatens freedom in general and not just freedom of thought.

That which unites us today is more fundamental than that which will undoubtedly separate us tomorrow.

Islamist totalitarianism seeks to gain ground by every means possible and to represent itself as a victim of intolerance. This strategy was demonstrated some weeks ago when the SUD Education 93 teachers union proposed a training course that included workshops on state racism from which white people were barred.

Several of the facilitators were members or sympathizers of the CCIF (French Collective Against Islamophobia) or the Natives of the Republic party. Such examples have proliferated recently. We have thus learned that the best way to combat racism is to separate races. If this idea shocks us, it is because we are Republicans.

We also hear it said that because religions in France are trampled on by an institutionalized secularism, everything that is in a minority — in other words Islam — must be accorded a special place so that it can cease to be humiliated.

This same argument continues by asserting that in covering themselves with a hijab, women are protecting themselves from men and that keeping themselves apart is a means to emancipation.

What these proclamations have in common is the idea that the only way to defend the “dominated” (the term is that of SUD Education 93) is to set them apart and grant them privileges.

Not so long ago, apartheid reigned in South Africa. Based on the segregation of blacks, it sought to exonerate itself by creating bantustans (territories set aside for black South Africans) where blacks were granted false autonomy. Fortunately this system no longer exists.

Today, a new kind of apartheid is emerging in France, a segregation in reverse thanks to which the “dominated” seek to retain their dignity by sheltering themselves from the “dominators.”

But does this mean that a woman who casts off her hijab and goes out into the street becomes a potential victim? Does it mean that a “race” that mixes with others becomes humiliated? Does it mean that a religion that accepts being one among other religions loses face?

Does Islamism also seek to segregate French Muslims, whether believers or otherwise, who accept democracy and are willing to live with others? Who will decide for women who refuse to be locked away? As for others, who seemingly do not deserve to be protected, will they be held under lock and key in the camp of the “dominators”?

All of this runs counter to what has been done in France to guarantee civil peace. For centuries, the unity of the nation has been grounded in a detachment with respect to particularities that can be a source of conflict. What is known as Republican universalism does not consist in denying the existence of gender, race or religion but in defining civic space independently of them so that nobody feels excluded. How can one not see that secularism protects minority religions?

Jeopardizing secularism exposes us to a return to the wars of religion.

What purpose can this new sectarianism serve? Must it only allow the self-styled “dominated” to safeguard their purity by living amongst themselves? Is not its overall objective to assert secession from national unity, laws and mores? Is it not the expression of a real hatred towards our country and democracy?

For people to live according to the laws of their community or caste, in contempt of the laws of others, for people to be judged only by their own, is contrary to the spirit of the Republic. The French Republic was founded on the refusal to accept that private rights can be applied to specific categories of the population and on the abolition of privilege.

On the contrary, the Republic guarantees that the same law applies to each one of us. This is simply called justice.

This new separatism is advancing under concealment. It seeks to appear benign but is in reality a weapon of political and cultural conquest in the service of Islamism.

Islamism wants to set itself apart because it rejects others, including those Muslims who do not subscribe to its tenets. Islamism abhors democratic sovereignty, to which it refuses any kind of legitimacy. Islamism feels humiliated when it is not in a position of dominance.

Accepting this is out of the question. We want to live in a world where both sexes can look at each other with neither feeling insulted by the presence of the other. We want to live in a world where women are not deemed to be naturally inferior. We want to live in a world where people can live side by side without fearing each other. We want to live in a world where no religion lays down the law.

 

Waleed al-Husseini, writer

Arnaud d’Aunay, painter

Pierre Avril, academic

Vida Azimi, jurist

Isabelle Barbéris, academic

Kenza Belliard, teacher

Georges Bensoussan, historian

Corinne Berron, author

Alain Besançon, historian

Fatiha Boudjahlat, essayist

Michel Bouleau, jurist

Rémi Brague, philosopher

Philippe Braunstein, historian

Stéphane Breton, film maker, ethnologist

Claire Brière-Blanchet, reporter, essayist

Marie-Laure Brossier, city councillor

Pascal Bruckner, writer

Eylem Can, script writer

Sylvie Catellin, semiologist

Gérard Chaliand, writer

Patrice Champion, former ministerial advisor

Brice Couturier, journalist

Éric Delbecque, essayist

Chantal Delsol, philosopher

Vincent Descombes, philosopher

David Duquesne, nurse

Luc Ferry, philosopher, former minister

Alain Finkielkraut, philosopher, writer

Patrice Franceschi, writer

Renée Fregosi, philosopher

Christian Frère, professor

Claudine Gamba-Gontard, professor

Jacques Gilbert, historian of ideas

Gilles-William Goldnadel, lawyer

Monique Gosselin-Noat, academic

Gabriel Gras, biologist

Gaël Gratet, professor

Patrice Gueniffey, historian

Alain Guéry, historian

Éric Guichard, philosopher

Claude Habib, writer, professor

Nathalie Heinich, sociologist

Clarisse Herrenschmidt, linguist

Philippe d’Iribarne, sociologist

Roland Jaccard, essayist

Jacques Jedwab, psychoanalyst

Catherine Kintzler, philosopher

Bernard Kouchner, doctor, humanitarian, former minister

Bernard de La Villardière, journalist

Françoise Laborde, journalist

Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine, essayist

Dominique Lanza, clinical psychologist

Philippe de Lara, philosopher

Josepha Laroche, academic

Alain Laurent, essayist, editor

Michel Le Bris, writer

Jean-Pierre Le Goff, philosopher

Damien Le Guay, philosopher

Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, jurist

Barbara Lefebvre, teacher

Patrick Leroux-Hugon, physicist

Élisabeth Lévy, journalist

Laurent Loty, historian of ideas

Mohamed Louizi, engineer, essayist

Jérôme Maucourant, economist

Jean-Michel Meurice, painter, film director

Juliette Minces, sociologist

Marc Nacht, psychoanalyst, writer

Morgan Navarro, cartoonist

Pierre Nora, historian, editor

Robert Pépin, translator

Céline Pina, essayist

Yann Queffélec, writer

Jean Queyrat, film director

Philippe Raynaud, professor of political science

Robert Redeker, writer

Pierre Rigoulot, historian

Ivan Rioufol, journalist

Philippe San Marco, author, essayist

Boualem Sansal, writer

Jean-Marie Schaeffer, philosopher

Martine Segalen, ethnologist

André Senik, teacher

Patrick Sommier, man of the theater

Antoine Spire, vice-president of Licra

Wiktor Stoczkowski, anthropologist

Véronique Tacquin, professor, writer

Pierre-André Taguieff, political scientist

Maxime Tandonnet, author

Sylvain Tesson, writer

Paul Thibaud, essayist

Bruno Tinel, economist

Michèle Tribalat, demographer

Caroline Valentin, essayist

David Vallat, author

Éric Vanzieleghem, documentalist

Jeannine Verdès-Leroux, historian

Emmanuel de Waresquiel, historian

Ibn Warraq, writer

Yves-Charles Zarka, philosopher

Fawzia Zouari, writer

France: Toward Total Submission to Islam, Destruction of Free Speech

Gatestone Institute, by Guy Millière, 

  • The French government and the French justice system claim to treat all religions equally, but they treat Islam as if it were “more equal than others” — able to enjoy special privileges. Those who criticize Islam — or who just show the results of Islamic terrorism — are victims of fierce prosecution, while hate-filled, racist organizations are never touched.
  • “Who has the right to say that in thirty to forty years, France will not be a Muslim country? No one in this country has the right to extinguish our right to hope for a society that is globally faithful to Islam “. — Marwan Muhammad, spokesman of the “Collective against Islamophobia in France”.
  • President Macron recently said he wants a law against “fake news”. If the law is adopted, all online magazines in France that do not broadcast what the government defines as “true news” could be subject to immediate government suspension. If they are located outside France, access to them would be blocked. Islamic online magazines and websites are not on the list of “fake news” providers. What online magazines and websites top the list? Those that question Islam.

After the murders of much of the staff at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris on January 7, 2015, the hostage-taking and slaughter at a kosher supermarket two days later confirmed what was already obvious: France was a target of Islamic terrorism. A huge demonstration, organized in Paris on January 11, brought together a million and a half people, with politicians from around the world in attendance.

For a brief moment, France seemed to be the country where the multitudes were ready to stand up for freedom of speech, and the government was ready to fight for Western values.

Unfortunately, that impression did not last long.

For years, freedom of speech in France has been in the process of being crushed, particularly regarding Islam and Islamic terrorism. Journalists who said that Islam often did not look much like a religion of peace but more like a religion of war were systematically and harshly prosecuted. Charlie Hebdo‘s new director and editor-in-chief were also not spared: they were sued as early as 2006, the year the magazine republished the Danish Mohammed cartoons. They were sued again in 2007, 2012 and 2013. The writer Michel Houellebecq was summoned to court in 2010 for saying that Islam is a “stupid” religion. The first judicial sentence against the polemist Éric Zemmour dates from 2011. The website Riposte Laïque was established in 2007 to fight censorship, defend secularism, and preserve the right to criticize Islam. Lawsuits against its founder, Pierre Cassen, immediately became overwhelming.

Judicial harassment against those who still dared to speak “incorrectly” about Islam did not stop after the murders at Charlie Hebdo: rather, they intensified. The terrorist attacks that took place in France in November 2015 and in July 2016 did not lead to any demonstrations; merely to displays of sadness, fear and resignation. French politicians used empty words, spoke of the dangers of “fanaticism” and said that France was “at war” — but they never named an enemy. Journalists and writers who said that terrorists attacking France were Muslim, and that “Islamism” was not foreign to Islam, had to answer for their words in court and were fined thousands of euros.

Both Éric Zemmour and Pierre Cassen have spent hours on trial providing conclusive evidence — in vain.

Since the election of President Emmanuel Macron a year ago, the situation has become worse. On June 20, 2017, at the end of a post-Ramadan iftar dinner he shared with Muslim leaders, President Macron stated that “…no one should make believe that Islam is not compatible with the Republic”; that ” no one should say that France reject Muslim faith” and that “attempt to give Islam the image of a religion condoning murder and terror” must be condemned. Most French critics of Islam got the message and cautiously chose silence. Riposte Laïque did not, but here were consequences.

On January 20, 2018, Pierre Cassen was convicted of “incitement to hatred against Muslims” and a fine of $12,000 was imposed on him. He was also given a three-month suspended prison sentence. He will soon be tried again for repeating the same “crime”, and could be sent to prison.

Several European governments have made it clear that criticizing Islam may lead to prosecution and conviction. Recently, BritishDanish and German citizens have been handed suspended sentences. If Pierre Cassen is imprisoned, it will be the first time that someone in a Western democracy is sent to jail for criticizing a religion.

Worse, Cassen is not even the author of the article targeted by the judges, and the article only says what is obvious: that extremist Muslims are at war with France and the West, and that incitement to kill infidels is present in the Qur’an. Cassen was sentenced as the editor of Riposte Laïque; since 2012, however, Riposte Laïque has been hosted by Switzerland and has a Swiss editor. Pierre Cassen no longer even has an official role in the organization. He is just easy prey because he lives in France. Pierre Cassen, clearly a victim of prosecutorial abuse, is planning to apply for political asylum in Switzerland.

Two members of the French National Assembly, Gilbert Collard and Marine Le Pen, a former presidential candidate who secured 35% of votes in the May 2017 run-off, were also recently charged with “inciting violence”. They did not even publish texts criticizing Islam. After a journalist compared their party (National Front) to the Islamic State, they tweeted photos showing atrocities committed by the Islamic State, and added under the photos: “This is the Islamic State”. They are also facing serious fines and prison sentences. The photos they tweeted are not even secret: they are widely available on the internet.

Originally, Collard and Le Pen were protected by parliamentary immunity. Their parliamentary immunity, however, was revoked by an almost unanimous vote in the French National Assembly. This is the first time that members of a democratic Western government risk being imprisoned for publishing widely available photos of Islamic crimes.

French laws are being used more and more often by the French justice system to suppress any criticism of Islam. Furthermore, in a dangerous inversion of reality, critics of Islamic terrorist violence are now systematically presented by French judges as examples of incitement to hatred and violence. The threat of jail time is added to the threat of fines.

Consequently, those who criticize Islam — or who just show the results of Islamic terrorism — are victims of fierce prosecution, while hate-filled, racist organizations are never touched. The Islamic “Natives of the Republic” movement, for instance, regularly publishes texts saying that ” greedy Jews control the global financial system” and that “Zionists kill Palestinian children for pleasure” but are never condemned. Houria Bouteldja, the spokesperson for the movement, published a book describing Jews as vicious supporters of “Islamophobia”, and stating that the Holocaust is “infinitely less than a detail” of history. She recently took part in anti-Israel demonstrations where flags of Hamas and Hezbollah were waved and portraits of murderers of Jews were held up. Jewish organizations expressed their indignation and filed complaints — to no avail.

The French government and the French justice system claim to treat all religions equally, but they treat Islam as if it were “more equal than others” — able to enjoy special privileges.

In France, attacks against Islam are benign and rare, but lead to severe convictions: in January 2016, a man dropped slices of ham in front of a mosque. He was immediately sent to jail for several weeks. Attacks against Christianity, however, are countless, sometimes violent, but almost never lead to any conviction. French theaters produce anti-Christian shows almost every year. In a play called “On the Concept of the Face of God,” currently on tour throughout the country, for almost two hours, a large portrait of Jesus Christ is insulted and covered with matter that is supposed to be feces. The French Ministry of Culture subsidizes the tour. No theater director, however, would imagine producing an anti-Islam show.

Six to eight million Muslims live in France, and the number is increasing. France’s 400,000 remaining Jews have not yet left France, but every year their the numbers shrink. Practicing Christians vanish; churches are often empty.

Polls show that a significant proportion of the French population thinks that Islam is a threat, but French authorities choose to harass those who speak of this threat.

In 2005, the situation was already serious. Muslim riots took place throughout the country. French President Jacques Chirac asked imams to restore calm and began to abandon the French government’s sovereignty over many districts. A few years later, President Nicolas Sarkozy claimed to organize an “Islam of France”, based on a structure he had created in 2003 when he was Minister of the Interior. He asked French Muslim leaders to call for “moderation”. He failed: French Muslim leaders said unanimously that “Islam is not violent” and “does not need moderation”. He promised to end “no-go zones” and to take back the districts abandoned under Jacques Chirac. He also failed; in 2006 there were already 751 no-go zones in France, and “as of last count,” that number is no different. President François Hollande did nothing and let the situation rot. President Emmanuel Macron now speaks of the need to “reorganize the Islam of France” but instead appears to surrender.

In 2005, Muslim riots took place throughout France. President Jacques Chirac began to abandon the government’s sovereignty over many districts. Pictured: Riot police watch as a warehouse burns in the Paris suburb of Aubervilliers on November 4, 2005, on the eighth consecutive night of rioting. (Photo by Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images)

Macron recently said he wants to create the post of “Grand Imam of France”, a man who would be the “spiritual leader” of Islam in France. He added that he would like to see the construction of large “cathedral mosques” in every important French city. He also wants the Arabic language to be taught in every high school, to maintain a relationship between Muslims and the language of their religion. He promises affirmative action in favor of Muslims and a more resolute fight against “those who attack Islam”. He never uses the words “radical Islam”. He speaks of “radicalization”, but says that the main danger is the “radicalization of secularism“. He does not hide that those who defend secularism — and a clear separation between the government and Islam (Riposte Laïque, for example) — are an obstacle on the path he intends to follow. Clearly, the fight against “radicalization of secularism” is in high gear!

Marwan Muhammad, spokesman of the “Collective against Islamophobia in France” said in 2011:

“Who has the right to say that in thirty to forty years, France will not be a Muslim country? No one in this country has the right to extinguish our right to hope for a society that is globally faithful to Islam “.

Every day in France, men such as Marwan Muhammad have more reason to hope.

Prominent Islamic preacher Tariq Ramadan is presently being held at the Fleury-Mérogis prison near Paris: judges could not dismiss the overwhelming chargesagainst him of rape. Some French Muslims still claim he is being unfairly accused. Many others say he is an impostor and seem ready to get rid of him. They say it is urgent to create “authentic French Islamic institutions” fully “recognized by the French government”. President Macron could not have said it better. The Islamization of France will not stop.

President Macron recently said he wants a law against “fake news”. If the law is adopted, all online magazines in France that do not broadcast what the government defines as “true news” could be subject to immediate government suspension. If they are located outside France, access to them would be blocked. Islamic online magazines and websites are not on the list of “fake news” providers. What online magazines and websites top the list? Those that question Islam.

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

Paris Terror Attack Targets Police on the Champs-Elysees, Suspect is Yet Another ‘Known Wolf’

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, Aug. 9, 2017:

A man previously known to French authorities for radicalism has rammed his car into a bus filled with police on the iconic Champs-Élysées in the heart of Paris this afternoon.

This is yet another “Known Wolf” terror attack. Virtually all terror attacks are committed by someone already known to authorities:

Reports claim that the car exploded upon impact and that the suspect had an AK-47 but was reportedly killed at the scene:

French reports indicate that the still-unnamed suspect was on on the “fiche S” terror list for radicalism and previously known to authorities:

Read more

Also see:

France: “Jihad by Court”

Gatestone Institute, by Yves Mamou, July 10, 2017

  • The goal of this trial is to create judicial precedent: to ensure that in the future, any criticism or insult against Islamism must be considered “racism”.
  • Valentina Colombo, a professor at the European University in Rome, warned early on about jihad by court. In 2009, she wrote that, “The lawsuit that was initiated by The Union of the Islamic Organizations of France and the Great Mosque of Paris against the satirical magazine ‘Charlie Hebdo’ for republishing the Danish cartoons about Muhammad is one of the most recent examples of this kind of jihad.” But nobody paid attention to the warning. And when jihadists came in 2015 to murder eight journalists and cartoonists, nobody understood that “jihad by court” is only the first step.
  • “Legal action has become a mainstay of radical Islamist organizations seeking to intimidate and silence their critics.” — Steven Emerson, Founder and President of The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

A silent jihad is under way in France. Spread by a constellation of Muslim organizations allied to powerful (non-Muslim) “anti-racist” associations, “jihad by court” is attacking freedom of press, and freedom of speech. Any journalist, politician, lawyer or intellectual who talks or writes either about Islam or some of its representatives in a critical way, is at risk of being taken to court for “racism” or “outraging a group of people because of their religion.”

The so-called “jihad by court” began in an experimental way in France at the beginning of the century. In 2002, the famous French writer Michel Houellebecq was sued for “incitement to hatred” by Islamic organizations allied to the Ligue des droits de l’Homme, (“Human Rights League”), a prestigious “anti-racist” organization. Houellebecq was sued for having said in an interview with Lire magazine that, “of all existing religions, Islam is the dumbest. We read the Coran, we all collapse.” Houellebecq was acquitted.

In 2007, a similar lawsuit was initiated by the Union of the Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF) and the Great Mosque of Paris against the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, because it republished the Danish Muhammad cartoons. The plaintiffs accused Charlie Hebdo of “racism”. Charlie Hebdo was acquitted. In 2011, unknown arsonists burned Charlie Hebdo‘s offices. The magazine was sued again in 2012 and in 2013. Each time, the plaintiffs were different Muslim organizations claiming different instances of “racism” or “blasphemy”. January 7, 2015, two Muslim terrorists stormed into the offices of Charlie Hebdo and murdered 12 people.

Two years after that, jihad by court is everywhere.

Against Intellectuals and Journalists

Éric Zemmour, a writer and journalist, was sued in February 2011 for “racial incitement”. He saidon television that “most dealers are blacks and Arabs. That is a fact”. He was fined €2,000. In May 2012, Zemmour was sued for defamation by Patrick Lozes, president of Council of Black Associations (CRAN). Zemmour had written in 2008: “Patrick Lozes said ‘Obama is our president’, which proves that for him, racial solidarity is superior in his enamored eyes than national solidarity”. Zemmour was acquitted.

In 2014, Zemmour was sued again because he said, “The Normans, the Huns, Arabs, the great invasions after the fall of Rome are now replaced by gangs of Chechens, Roma, Kosovars, North Africans, Africans, who rob, abuse or strip your belongings.” He was released in September 2015. The appeals court reconfirmed his release in 2016.

In December 2015, Zemmour was again fined €3,000 because he had declared to the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that the “deportation” of five million French Muslim seems “unrealistic”, but is comparable to “the five or six million Germans who had to leave eastern Europe after World War II”. Zemmour succeeded in proving that the word “deportation” was added by Corriere della Sera, but the judge did not take that into consideration, and Zemmour’s conviction was reaffirmed after an appeal in November 2016.

In June 2017, Zemmour was fined €5,000 after saying on television in September 2016, that “jihadists were considered by all Muslims, good Muslims.” The plaintiff was a pro-Palestinian association, CAPJPO-EuroPa­les­tine.

Pascal Bruckner, an author and essayist, was sued in December 2015, by the Islamic, “left-wing” associations, Les Indivisibles and Les Indigenes de la République. Bruckner had said on television that the plaintiffs had “ideologically justified the murder of Charlie Hebdo‘s journalists”. Bruckner was acquitted in 2016.

In January 2017, all “anti-racist” associations and the Islamist CCIF (Collective Against Islamophobia) sued Georges Bensoussan — an award-winning Jewish French historian, born and raised in Morocco — for racism. He had said on the radio that “in France, in Arab families… anti-Semitism is imbibed with one’s mother’s milk.” He was acquitted, but the prosecutor has filed an appeal.

Against the “Fachosphère”

The fachosphère (combination of “fascist” and “sphere”) is the term that the mainstream media are now calling a collection of websites — such as the Riposte Laïque, Resistance Republicaineand many others — that warn of the dangers of being overrun by radical Islam. Between 2012 and 2017, Riposte Laïque alone was sued “no fewer than 43 times” its editor-in-chief, Pierre Cassen, told Gatestone. This time, the plaintiffs were not only “anti-racist” associations (LDH, SOS-Racisme, le MRAP, la LICRA and Islamist CCIF) — but also the mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo; former Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, and various Islamic associations such as L’Aube du Savoir (“Sunrise of Knowledge”), journalists from the mainstream media (Libération, Le Monde), the Ligue de Défense Judiciaire des Musulmans (“Muslim Judicial Defense League”). These libel and racism suits asked for fines from €5,000 to €40,000.

Against Officials

On March 30, 2016, Laurence Rossignol, then Minister of Families, Children and Women’s Rights and known to be a fierce critic of the omnipresence of the Islamic veil in public places, was interviewed by the radio station RMC. She compared veiled women to “American negroes [“nègres américains”] who supported slavery”. Rossignol apologized for using “negroes”, but possibly too late. The Islamist Collectif Contre L’islamophobie en France (CCIF) and the Frantz Fanon Foundation launched a class action suit for “insult of a racial nature” and announced their intention to submit a complaint to the Cour de Justice de la République, a court empowered to adjudicate lawsuits against members of the government. The plaintiffs also threatened to sue the minister appointed to the Correctional Court and the Administrative Court of Paris.

In June 2017, Véronique Corazza, Head of Elsa-Triolet secondary school of Saint-Denis (a suburb of Paris), was sued by Majid Messaoudene, an official of the municipality of Saint Denis, because she republished on her Facebook page dozens “shameful tweets” of Messaoudène in which he supported BDS against Israel and mocked the secularist imam of Drancy, Hassen Chalghoumi.

On June 20, 2017, the jihadi terrorist Salah Abdeslam sued Member of Parliament Thierry Solère, for “breach of privacy”. Abdeslam is the only survivor of the Islamist terror cell that murdered 130 people and wounded 430 others on November 13, 2015 in Paris. Exercising his right as a member of parliament to visit prisons, Solère described to two journalists the life of the prisoner, from brushing his teeth to doing exercises in his cell.

Salah Abdeslam (left), a member of the Islamist terror cell that murdered 130 people in Paris on November 13, 2015, filed a lawsuit against Member of Parliament Thierry Solère (right), for “breach of privacy”. Solère had described to journalists the life of Abdeslam in prison. (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)

On June 22, 2017, Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, head of the new anti-ISIS task-force created by president Emmanuel Macron, was sued and fined €500 euros for “defaming” Imam Mohamed Khattabi. In 2015, Bousquet de Florian said that Khattabi was a Salafist and a hate-preacher.

Against Secularist Muslims

On February 6, 2015, Soufiane Zitouni, a professor of philosophy, published an op-ed in the daily, Libération, questioning the Islamist style of Averroes Muslim College, which was employing him. He described the college as “Muslim territory under contract with the State” and criticized an incipient anti-Semitism in the school. He was sued for defamation by Amar Lasfar, president of Union des Organizations Islamiques de France (UOIF), an umbrella organization said to be “in conformity with” the Muslim Brotherhood. Zitouni was acquitted.

Between 2015 and 2017, Mohamed Louizi, author of Pourquoi j’ai quitté les Frères Musulmans(“Why I Quit the Muslim Brotherhood”) was sued four times. In May and July 2015, he was sued for defamation because he published six articles on his blog about Sofiane Zitouni’s case with Averroes College (see above). In these two cases, Louizi was acquitted.

Then, in 2017, Louizi again shed light on arrangements made behind closed doors between some Socialist officials heading the city of Lille and Islamists accused by Louizi to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was sued twice. Judgement is pending.

On June 6, 2017, Ahmed Meguini, secularist activist and founder of LaïcArt association, said on Twitter that Marwan Muhammad was “a son of a b**ch Salafist” and a “small sh**t”. Marwan Muhammad, an Islamist and Executive Director of CCIF was not angry at all. He simply picked up his phone and called his lawyer to sue Meguini — not for having insulting him, but for “racism“. The goal of this trial, according to Causeur magazine, is to create a judicial precedent: to ensure that in the future, any criticism or insult against Islamism must be considered “racism”.

These lists are not comprehensive; the trials above are just the most visible part of the iceberg.

A “Modern and Aggressive Form of Jihad “

Valentina Colombo, a professor at the European University in Rome, warned early on about “jihad by court”. In 2009, in Gatestone, she wrote:

“The lawsuit that was initiated by The Union of the Islamic Organizations of France and the Great Mosque of Paris against the satirical magazine ‘Charlie Hebdo’ for republishing the Danish cartoons about Muhammad is one of the most recent examples of this kind of jihad.”

But nobody (in France) paid attention to the warning. And when jihadists came in 2015 to murder eight journalists and cartoonists, nobody understood that jihad by court is only the first step. When people persist in what other people regard as “Islamophobia”, murderers have shown up to make sure the message sticks.

In another article, Colombo writes: “Jihad by court is another form of ‘intermediate’ jihad and is a modern and aggressive form of jihad through legal means.”

Jihad by court is one of the favorite means of the organizations and individuals ideologically linked with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the West and sometimes is connected with the accusation of Islamophobia. The strategy is clear: any journalist, writer, intellectual, academic, activist or any newspaper, organization, association criticizing or exposing a Muslim Brotherhood individual or organization is very likely to be sued for defamation. The Legal Project of the Middle East Forum, based in the U.S., has given a very useful definition of this tactic:

Such lawsuits are often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, but undertaken as a means to bankrupt, distract, intimidate, and demoralize defendants. Plaintiffs seek less to prevail in the courtroom than to wear down researchers and analysts. Even when the latter win cases, they pay heavily in time, money, and spirit. As counterterrorism specialist Steven Emerson comments, “Legal action has become a mainstay of radical Islamist organizations seeking to intimidate and silence their critics.” Islamists clearly hope, Douglas Farah notes, that researchers will “get tired of the cost and the hassle [of lawsuits] and simply shut up.”

French intellectuals, journalists, officials do not yet understand that they must organize, raise funds and elaborate strategies with lawyers to counter this threat. No one can compete individually against court by jihad. If an organized counter-strategy is not elaborated, the prediction of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian Islamic cleric and chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars — “We will colonize you with your democratic laws” — will come true.

Yves Mamou, author and journalist, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.