A French-based imam who preached polygamy, the right of husbands to beat their wives, the stoning of adulterous women, and the eventual conversion of the whole planet to Islam was bundled on a flight to Algeria at 9.20 this morning (European Summer Time). Abdelkader Bouziane, a father of 16 children who hold French citizenship was arrested at Lyon airport on Tuesday.
The expulsion was justified by the French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkhozy (since moved to the Finance Ministry) in a ministerial decree dated 26 February 2004 on the grounds of incitement of violence, especially against women, as well as because the imam was allegedly “an apologist for terrorism”, a charge disputed by Mr Bouziane’s lawyers.
A complaint had been submitted to the French government by the Deputy Mayor of Lyon following remarks published in a local paper, which are the subject of dispute.
In unrelated news, official unemployment figures in France suggest that unemployment reached 2,707,000 in December or 9.9 per cent of the workforce. Meanwhile a proposed law – which would prohibit the wearing of the Islamic veil and other visible religious symbols in state schools – now proposes that bandanas would be exempt if worn as a fashion accessory but banned if worn as a religious statement.
Could this guy have been Kodiak?
Verity was right: France IS getting tough. Good for them. Although under US law, I don’t think we would not be able to expel such a person.
And it’s not the first time:
“BREST, France, April 16 (AFP) – France has deported an Algerian Muslim cleric seeking asylum in the country who was accused of trying to convert young people to a radical form of Islam, police said.
A police statement late Thursday said Abdelkader Yahia Cherif “has just left on a regular ferry for Algiers,” under a deportation order issued April 5″
It is instructive to compare the British government’s response to such individuals:
UK to Terrormongers: “How Can We Help You?”
Followup:
From a snippet in the “World Bulletin” section of today’s Telegraph:
“He is the fifth imam France has expelled this year.“
For the last 20-30 years London has been home for many leaders and members of Islamic fundamentalist groups and ‘terror’ organisations. There existed a tacit agreement between the security services and these groups that no terrorist activity would be carried out in the UK or against UK citizen’s abroad. In return, these groups were free to organise and raise funds with relative impunity, much to the chagrin of the French, amongst others. We also blocked or frustrated repeated attempts at extradition of certain individuals. We let them stay and continue to draw full welfare payments. They lived under notional state protection.
This policy, although duplicitous, has served us well. So far. Our security services monitored these groups extremely closely, cultivated and ran agents and accumulated a mass of valuable intelligence. We recognised them as the potential enemy they have now become and it served our purposes to hug them close. Many of them had, and have, too much invested in this country to consider attacking it.
Although all bets are now off, and 9/11 has changed this cosy landscape, the fruits of this policy remain and it’s legacy still lingers. That, in my opinion, is why we haven’t got rid of Abu Hamza and others. It would be easy to deport him, but it serves our purposes to keep him here. Who he speaks to, what he says, what he thinks is interesting to us. Let him stay. The French, feel it is better to expel their enemies where they may plot and organise against them out of earshot. They have taken a different, more robust approach. It remains to be seen which is more effective.
It is interesting to see the French learning the lesson the Spanish missed so badly. If if might be cynical for a second, the fact that the Front Nationale is gaining might have concentrated the minds of some in the Isle de France.
Andrew – With respect, the French have taken a robust approach to deporting people breaking French law for quite some time. As was posted above, this latest sleazebag was the fifth this year. There has been no lesson from Spain that the French don’t already know and act upon. The French move quietly and fast.
The National Front party is having its image softened by the accession to leader of Jean Marie Le Pen’s daughter Marine. Her rhetoric is less incendiary than her father’s – and less impassioned, but she is trying to gain mainstream acceptance for the party. I don’t know whether Chirac & Cie yet consider her a threat. I doubt it. But her tamping down of the drama will cause people to feel less ashamed of voting for the party, and that is the aim. And Jean-Marie is still around for when they need a flame thrower.
“The French move quietly and fast”. Yes, and as we’ve seen they’ve consistently taken a less tolerant and more decisive approach to persona non grata and kicked them out on the flimsiest of pretexts, as is their prerogative. Whether or not this latest expulsion is down to political expediency, I’ve no idea. But surely the question is, in terms of national security, is it the right thing to do? The DST seem to think so, but over here MI5 prefer to play the long game. I hope they’re right. And it is a measure of the faith that we have in our security services that someone hasn’t taken the law into their own hands and helped Mr. Hamza on his way to his great celestial orgy, despite some pretty intolerable provocation.
Andrew, I would be very worried if the domestic political climate and politicians’ concern for their careers dictated security policy. Hang on…that sounds familiar….
Ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali continues her jihad against radical Islam in Holland:
Dutch MP Demands Shut-Down of Radical Mosque
Pete – Yes, Britain’s and France’s attitudes as to the best methods of dealing with terrorists on their territories differ, and who is to say which method is more efficacious? The French are very decisive and, once the intelligence is in place, they move with jaw-dropping despatch.
I say a lot of scathing things about the French, but no one can say they are not highly intelligent people. Frankly, I pefer their attitude to Islamic thugs to that of the British (although I understand the British point of view), because it’s hostile and unpitying and doesn’t encourage dalliance in business against the state.
Verity, there is a difference between being intelligent and intellectual. The French are definitely intellectual. Intelligent is another story entirely.
Oh come, come, Sylvain! Anyone who frequents this blog knows that whenever there is an article relating to the French, I am the first to elbow my way in with a negative comment. But, while France does indeed have more than its share of intellectuals and poseurs, among whom we number the poetic Dominiqe de Villepin of the nuanced hair, it is ludicrous to say the people are not also very intelligent.
They are very backward in business and customer service because of an inexplicable attachment to socialism, but consider how the French have contrived to subvert the entire EU project to their own discrete advantage and you have to admit, that is pretty good going. They always saw the EU as a device that would underpin France, and by god, they’ve persuaded the rest of them that it is their destiny to be led by France.
I find this astounding. And they did it without a shot being fired. The only thing is, they are baffled about why Britain has resisted.
Verity, exactly my point. Intelligent people would not be such ardent statists and spend so much energy inflicting and coercing others into it given all the costly consequences to themselves. Nor would they pile on all the individuals with personal issues into ‘social housing’ to produce hotbeds of unemployment, poverty and violence, insisting that more social housing is what’s needed. Or systematically and childishly take the opposite position of everything America or the UK do. Or demand more state-managed social programs when their huge increase in the past few decades has only be accompanied by more poverty and social issues. Or come up with the 35-hour week and the concept of a static, defined number of hours in the labor market.
Achieving one’s goals and forcing others into them is not a proof of intelligence. If that was the case, your average street thug could be considered intelligent most of the time. Is Martine Aubry “intelligent” for imposing the 35-hour week fiasco ? Is Chirac “intelligent” for messing up the U.N. debate around Iraq ? Are the activists “intelligent” for having prevented the use of GM seeds based on nothing but cooked science and intimidation ?
It’s in the goals themselves, and the motivations behind their choice that intelligence can be discerned. And I don’t see a lot in France these days. Oh, sure, it happens every now and then. A broken clock will give you the right time once a day, right ?
And that is the pattern in France. You will find intellectual arguments to support everything. But how many times do you hear an intelligent, well-constructed rationale to do something or not do something, supported by facts, and competing and comparing with alternative rationales ? It’s more of a pissing contest between intellectual slogans, to see which one has most appeal with the populace. The French political debate has become the competition of intellectual PR and marketing. And the results are anything but intelligent.
And that is another reason to doubt French intelligence. Intelligent people assess choices against their results, intended and unintended, and compare them to the initial goals to determine success. How many people were hoodwinked into making or accepting that choice proves nothing.
Well, actually, Sylvain, you make a pretty convincing case.
But look at the choice of leadership that is offered to the electorate. They’re cloned. The only real choice they have is Jean-Marie Le Pen’s party – and given that no one will admit voting for him, it’s amazing that he is reported as having got 18% of the vote. The French electorate isn’t enthusiastic about any establishment candidate. If they’re in the public sector, they vote for the one who’ll promise them ever shorter working hours, ever longer holidays, ever younger retirement and ever more generous pensions.
The others vote for the candidate of the “right”, which in fact is less left of centre than the other lot. Viable candidates can’t just spring up out of nowhere in France in response to the wishes of the electorate. So it’s either vote for the least bad the establishment is putting forward, or don’t vote.
I’ll be interested to see what happens with Marine Le Pen. She certainly is not as charismatic as her father, but she seems able enough and she’s trying to remove the stigma of extremism from the party. Of course, as the government controls all broadcasting, she’s not likely to be invited on too many discussion panels.
It’s strange that the French killed off their royalty and then installed a ruling elite. So I would concede the point to you.
But what can the electorate do? The establishment has them by the throat.
Apparently we have celebrated too quickly. A French court has halted the deportation order.
(Link)
Susan, that’s very disappointing. My guess: the deportation will go through. France, though, has its share of bitter, hate-driven and noisy bleeding hearts, so who knows? Fifteen years ago, he’d have been food for the fishies without the opportunity to go back home to his third world squat.
Verity, in a democracy, maybe you do get the choice of politicians you deserve. Only those men and women who appeal to enough people succeed. Granted, the French political machine is frighteningly calcified and incestuous. Yet, to some extent, the choice available also reflects what the people are comfortable with.
What can the people do ? Well, do you believe they want to do something ? No. Everybody is only interested in preserving his little bit of the status quo. My retirement. My ‘acquis sociaux’. My perks. My privileges. My tax exemption. My welfare payment. My little exemption. Few will admit there is a fundamental problem with the system itself, assuming they ever considered there could be something wrong with the concept of statism even once in their life.
Everybody talks about reform as long as it applies to everybody else. Which is precisely the kind of apathy statism generates. Social programs, welfare checks, unemployment, retirement systems : after a while, you end up with a bunch of selfish drones who all depend on the state in some way and will fight the other factions of dependent drones to preserve their chunk of the pie.
So the problem is not that people are held by the throat by the establishment. It is that so many like it.