by Hugh Fitzgerald
While nearly everyone has expressed an opinion about the burkini ban that was put in place by the mayors of several dozen French municipalities, and then overturned by a decision of the Conseil d’Etat, the views of Jean-Louis Harouel, a French legal historian and polymath, are of unusual significance.
Harouel, a professor emeritus of the History of Law at the University of Paris, criticizes the members of the Conseil d’Etat for their decision, which he says reflects their failure to take into account the difficult period that France is now going through. In the present circumstances, writes Harouel, the “jurisprudential liberalism”’ that might have been acceptable in relatively peaceful times can no longer be justified, given what France is enduring.
I have freely translated his words:
Furthermore, the Conseil d’Etat failed to take into account the fact that France is now engaged in a clash of civilizations, that just in the past year has cost it hundreds of deaths on its own territory, and which made it necessary to maintain the State of Emergency. “Islamism” is now making war on France, and there is no real boundary-line between Islam and Islamism.
The Conseil d’Etat failed to take into account the shock felt by the French people on seeing burkinis deliberately appearing on the beaches so soon after terrible massacres had been committed in France by Muslims acting in the name of their god. So soon after the carnage on the promenade in Nice and the slitting of the throat of a priest while he was fulfilling his priestly duties, such an increase in the flaunting of Muslim identity is truly indecent.
The Conseil d’Etat failed to take into account the fact that at present a silent conquest of Western Europe is underway. This conquest finds its source in the Qur’an where one can read that Allah has promised to give to the Muslims as the spoils of war the lands of the Infidels. That’s how sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradawi, one of the leaders of the UOIE (Union of Muslim Organizations in Europe), the French branch of which is the UOIF (Union of Muslim Organizations in France) put it: “With your democratic laws, we will colonize you. With our Koranic laws, we will dominate you.”
The Conseil d’Etat refused to see that the conquest of our beaches by these burkinis is only one stage in the taking over of France by the forces of political Islam. The Conseil d’Etat refused to see that those wearers of the burkini – like all those who wear variations on the Muslim veil — are the foot-soldiers, whether deeply convinced or merely docile, of a civilizational jihadism which is now trying to conquer our country by stealth.
To speak simply, the “rule of law” too often means condemning the peoples of Europe to helplessness when confronted by the mass immigration that is submerging them, and the aggressive Islam that is in the process of conquering their countries. To be able to react, it will be necessary to give the “rule of law” a bit of a shove, as it is currently being imposed on Europeans in this positively suicidal fashion by the secular religion of human rights.
In this confrontation with Islam, to conceive of the principle of “laicite” as being neutral in regard to different faiths will not work. For Islam is only secondarily a religion in the sense given to that word in Europe. In our country, Islam is now an aggressive civilization that is at war with our own and claims to replace it. Now, facing another civilization bent on our conquest, we cannot be neutral: we have to defend ourselves and counter-attack.
The main point is this: a Muslim living in Europe should not expect to be able to live as he would in a Muslim country. Muslims who have settled on European soil have constantly to be reminded that they are not in Dar al-Islam but, rather, in the land of the Infidels where, even their own sacred texts tell them, they should keep a low profile. If the Muslims living in Europe come to feel that they are living in Dar al-Islam, that will mean the end of Europe.
Professor Harouel is neither “far-right” nor “xenophobic.” He is a scholar accustomed to measuring his words. But in taking to task the Conseil d’Etat for its failure to understand the gravity of the menace, and in limning the limitless ambitions of Islam, what he says is absolutely terrifying.
First published in Jihad Watch.
- Like
- Digg
- Del
- Tumblr
- VKontakte
- Buffer
- Love This
- Odnoklassniki
- Meneame
- Blogger
- Amazon
- Yahoo Mail
- Gmail
- AOL
- Newsvine
- HackerNews
- Evernote
- MySpace
- Mail.ru
- Viadeo
- Line
- Comments
- Yummly
- SMS
- Viber
- Telegram
- Subscribe
- Skype
- Facebook Messenger
- Kakao
- LiveJournal
- Yammer
- Edgar
- Fintel
- Mix
- Instapaper
- Copy Link
One Response
It seems to me that there are two potential sources of law : the 'will of God', or the will of the people. So-called Human Rights Law appears to be neither. It completely refutes any divine authority, not least in France, which foolishly prides itself on its anti-clerical tradition. Meanwhile it flouts the will of the people too.
English Common Law, although temporarily in suspension here, thanks to our foolish commitment to the EU and the ECHR, finds no authority higher than the will of the people as reflected in the decisions of our representatives in Parliament. Hence, in wartime, those known to be sympathetic to the Nazi cause were imprisoned at least for a while, even though they had been free to speak until the outbreak of war itself. Circumstances change the rules by which societies function. Rightly so.
That is why in English law no Parliament may bind its sucessors. Law has to be the maidservant of the people, not its master. In the U S, thanks to the subservience of President and Congress to the Supreme Court, you have laws 'discovered' in the constitution which could never pass a democratic test.
Any attempt to create universal rules regardless of circumstance are necessarily implausible and unjust. It is the will of the people anywhere which should author the law.
Otherwise, there is judicial tyranny.