Robert Spencer

|

Pamela Geller

|

Bat Ye'or

|

Brigitte Gabriel

|

Daniel Pipes

|

Debbie Schlussel

|

Walid Shoebat

|

Joe Kaufman

|

Wafa Sultan

|

Geert Wilders

|

The Nuclear Card

Juan Cole: Sarkozy’s Loss in Part Due to His Islamophobia

Posted on 10 May 2012 by Emperor

France’s Muslims may not be flexing their electoral muscle as much as they can be, but according to a recent poll 93% voted for Hollande, which would be a considerable boost for the Socialist.

Juan Cole dissects Sarkozy’s loss and how part of it was due to Islamophobia:

Sarkozy’s Loss in Part due to his Islamophobia

by Juan Cole (Informed Comment)

The bad economy in France and outgoing President Nicolas Sarkozy’s refusal to do a stimulus program, preferring instead “austerity,” were the primary reasons he lost the election to Socialist Francois Hollande. That and Sarkozy really is an annoying, strutting peacock who wore out his political welcome among voters.

But some of the margin of his defeat came from his pandering to the discourse of the French anti-immigrant far right, which he did especially vocally after he was forced into a run-off against Hollande. Sarkozy said there are too many “foreigners” (he meant immigrants) in France, that police should have greater leeway to shoot fleeing suspects, that the far right are upstanding citizens. He even talked about “people who look Muslim.”

Many observers in France argue that Sarkozy stole so many lines from the soft-fascist National Front of Marine LePen that he mainstreamed it, and made it impossible for the Gaullists of the Union for a Popular Movement (Sarkozy’s party, French acronym UMP) to argue that LePen and her followers should be kept out of national government because they were too extreme. (The irony is that Sarkozy himself is the son of a Hungarian father and his mother was mixed French Catholic and Greek Jewish; and he postured as Ur-French!)

Sarkozy tried to depict the French Left as so woolly-headed and multi-cultural that they were coddling and even fostering the rise of a threatening French Muslim fundamentalism that menaced secular, republican values. Theinfamous daily hour set aside by the mayor at a swimming pool in Lillefor a few years for Muslim women to swim without men present was presented as emblematic of this threat. But it was all polemics. Some Gaullist mayors did the same thing, and for longer.

And, Sarkozy showed much less dedication to Third-Republic-style militant secularism than most Socialists (only 10 percent of the French go to mass regularly and almost all vote for Sarkozy’s UMP, so the Catholic religious right is his constituency). But, he did support the Swiss ban on minarets and he banned public Muslim prayer in France, and the wearing of the burqa’ full veil (popular mainly in the Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and worn by like 4 women in France aside from wealthy wives of emirs in France on shopping sprees).

Sarkozy’s anti-immigrant rhetoric and punitive laws in the end drove centristFrancois Bayrou to repudiate him. Bayrou, leader of the Democratic Movement party, had run for president on a platform of reducing the national debt and reining in public spending, and was more center-right than center. He got about 9% of the votes in the first round of the presidential election.

Late last week, Bayrou made the astonishing announcement that Sarkozy’s obsession with “frontiers” just seemed to him a betrayal of French values, and that he was throwing his support to Hollande. Sarkozy’s political platform, he thundered, “is violent” and is “in contradiction with our values, but also those of Gaullism [the mainstream French right] as well as contradicting the values of the republican and social Right.” I am not and never will be, he said, a man of the left. He said he was sure he would be upbraiding Hollande for his spendthrift ways. But on the issue of republican values, he had to back Hollande.

Although he left them free to vote for whomever they liked, Bayrou threw about a third of his centrists’ vote to Hollande, or roughly 3% of those who went to the polls in the first round. Hollande won this round by 4%.

Only about a third of France’s roughly 4.5 million persons of Muslim descent (mainly North and West Africans) identify as Muslims. Only about 10 percent of Muslims are said to vote. So French Muslims are not flexing their electoral muscles yet in a meaningful way. Probably many more secular French voted against Sarkozy because of his odious language about immigrants than did Muslim-heritage French, in absolute numbers.

Sarkozy, by embracing the noxious language of hatred of immigrants and fear-mongering about secular Socialists spreading Muslim theocracy in the villages of France, failed to convince the hard right to vote for him but managed to alienate the center. Even MPs in his own party began speaking out against his having gone too far.

Of course, the kind of violent, anti-immigrant, and Muslim-hating language Sarkozy used is par for the course in the GOP in the US today. But aside from some Libertarians such as Ron Paul, where are the mainstream centrist Republicans who will openly denounce it? Who among Republicans recognizes that the sorts of things Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney say about a monolithic Muslim Caliphate menace are violent and contradictory to the values of the American Republic. Not to mention the things many of them say about Latino immigrants. Where is our Francois Bayrou?

  • Sarkozy Is a Racist

    Steve you are clearly a racist pig !! Sarkozy is gone now and I’m over the moon. Too many world leaders use immigration and hate speech against foreigners whenever they are under immense pressure to fix the economy. Or accomplish any goals that benefit the citizens of their country. Pitting the citizens against immigrants simply does not work for long. Good riddance Sarkozy

  • http://www.yellow-stars.com eslaporte
  • http://www.yellow-stars.com eslaporte

    I had another thing to say about Steve’s post. The servers were going a bit crazy today…so let me finish…

    The third thing here was preventing people from praying in the streets. I understand that in some countries the local mosque is in need of more space for worshipers – and the local bigots have refused to let them mosque community to expand. They must be accommodated for and the refusal probably violates basic human rights on freedom to worship by closing the streets at the same time not allowing the mosque community to expand.

    @JT – Excellent post!!! Yep the Swiss minaret ban was also based on the easily disprovable Islamization myth and the myth that “Muslims are overrunning Europe.” Many of the Muslims living in Switzerland come from the Balkans, from Bosnia, and the Bosnian Muslims are a native European ethnic group!

  • JT

    Steve, Churches don’t need spires. Houses don’t need windows. People don’t need gardens. No building needs anything, but if someone is paying for its construction then he should be allowed to build it any which way he wants. The only law that should apply are local construction/zoning laws. If the local council feels that minarets won’t be appropriate, then they are free to bar Muslims from building one just as they are free to bar them from building a car park or a garden, if it inconveniences local people.

    It’s certainly not the national government’s job to decide what forms of architecture are acceptable or not. The kind of governments that have blanket national restrictions on what is deemed inappropriate art are not democracies like Switzerland.

    Are you honestly going to claim this is just an innocent debate on architecture? Only about 5 minarets existed in the entire country and all had not been opposed by the local council. The ban was clearly rooted in Islamophobia as: (1) It was unnecessary and voted on in a national referendum with the sponsoring party arguing that fighting minarets was necessary to prevent radical Islam. (2) Posters went up that showed minarets ripping through the Swiss flag which was deemed so hateful it was banned in multiple cantons of Switzerland (3) It was discriminatory as it specifically banned minarets.

  • Franczeska

    Prostitution is legal in Switzerland, the minimum age being sixteen years.

  • Steve

    Mosques don’t need minarets. Maybe people in Switzerland like how Switzerland looks and would prefer it to stay that way without all manner of unneccesary foreign architectural fripperies.

  • http://www.yellow-stars.com eslaporte

    Second, the ban on burkas has also been condemned by the Council of Europe.

    QUOTE: “Islamophobia and anti-Muslim prejudices continue to undermine tolerance in Europe. One symptom is the debate about banning the burqa and niqab in public places. In Belgium a law will enter into force on Saturday 23 July, which besides a fine provides for up to seven days of imprisonment for women wearing such a dress.

    In fact, the banning may run counter to European human rights standards, in particular the right to respect for one’s private life and personal identity. In principle, the state should avoid legislating on how people dress.”

    See: Penalising women who wear the burqa does not liberate them.
    http://commissioner.cws.coe.int/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=157

  • http://www.yellow-stars.com eslaporte

    Well, steve – what you propose above either violates human rights, which we can draw from statements for the Council of Europe, or reasonable accommodates need to be made so that Muslims in Europe can enjoy the same freedoms as non-Muslims.

    “The swiss ban on minarets is entirely reasonable..”
    Why is this “reasonable?” Because “we cannot build churches in Saudi Arabia?” Well – this was the argument. This ban has been condemned by the Council of Europe, the human rights body:

    QUOTE: “The delegates from the 47 Council of Europe countries demanded that Switzerland lift the ban and halt the imposed suspension of building work. As with other buildings, the construction of minarets need only meet the relevant security and planning measures. The building of minarets was compared with that of church spires: ‘If the building of church spires were banned, then we would have reacted in the same manner’, commented one correspondent…”

    See: The Council of Europe is demanding a lifting of the Swiss minaret ban. http://tinyurl.com/79ut4x7

  • Steve

    “and a ban on human rights is entirely reasonable”

    Who is banning human rights?

  • http://www.yellow-stars.com eslaporte

    @steve

    …and a ban on human rights is entirely reasonable, true?

    Yes – people, the Dutch are also waking up…Over the weekend (Saturday) Volkskrant (a pro-Wilders rag) posted an article where Wilders declared that the PVV would be “the largest party after the September 12 elections” – but on Volkskrant’s Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/volkskrant) the reactions from readers was negative and even mocking of Geert Wilders, as well as his claims. I even joined in…

    Hatemongers in government never do well, and after a while, the hate message loses traction when real issues are not solved, like economic problems. Wilders and the PVV lost the “Islam critical” brand when they attacked East European, EU citizens. The Dutch people are tired of Wilders antics and its quite true by his current and past actions that he does not care about his own country of the Netherlands (what we’ve been saying all along), but Israel and American neocons.

  • Steve

    The swiss ban on minarets is entirely reasonable. A ban on mass praying in public which caused roads to be closes is entirely reasonable. A ban on face covering on public is entirely reasonable.

  • Anticipated Serendipity

    Good riddance!

  • Glorfindel

    It would seem that there are a few with the esprit of Zola still knocking around in France today…

  • Sir David Illuminati membership number 16.69

    I second that ;-)

  • Averroe’s Ghost

    Thank God Sarkozy is gone!!

Advertise Here
Advertise Here