Why did you enter a state of emergency?
According to Prime Minister Manuel Waltz, the regime of restrictive measures should be maintained until the final victory over the terrorist organization of the IG (banned in the Russian Federation) is achieved. It is noteworthy that the majority of the French agree with the Prime Minister. People prefer to give up some civil liberties in return for a sense of relative security. Indeed, the terrorist attacks in France in 2015 put the French society in a difficult situation. On the one hand, the long-standing democratic traditions of the country and the flirting of left-wing forces with migrants did not allow to seriously restrict the freedoms of the population, on the other hand, the risk of repetition of tragedies that took place in France last year is too great. In a situation where Europe accepts millions of refugees and migrants from Asia and Africa, the abolition of security measures cannot be justified. After all, with all the desire the police services cannot control each of the foreign migrants arriving in France. Mass flows of migrants cause fear and indignation of the European population, not only representatives of European nations, but also descendants of yesterday's migrants, who have already managed to adapt and integrate into European societies. Therefore, the position of those French politicians who insist on extending the state of emergency in the country seems quite reasonable.
Recall that the introduction of a state of emergency in France was caused by a series of bloody terrorist attacks. 7th of January 2015 The brothers Said and Sheriff Koushi broke into the editorial office of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, whose staff had just gathered for the planning meeting and opened fire. Killed 12 people - magazine staff and a policeman. On the march of solidarity with Charlie Hebdo, tens of thousands of French and guests came out. They said that the terrorists touched upon the fundamental values of European and, in particular, French culture, namely, the freedom of speech, thought and expression. The attack was perceived by French society as an attempt on the inviolability of the secular foundations of the French state. However, neither the march of solidarity, nor the wave of indignation in the French and world press could influence the positions of those who in France are considered radical fanatics. The terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo opened a string of armed attacks of terrorists in France. So, November 13 2015 three terrorist groups carried out several attacks in Paris and its suburb of Saint-Denis. At the Stade de France stadium, where a football match was held between the teams of France and Germany, three "bomber" exploded. A group of four terrorists attacked cafes and restaurants in the northeastern district of Paris. Three militants broke into the Bataklan concert hall. The victims of the series of attacks were 130 people, more than 350 people were injured of varying degrees of severity. This attack was the last straw for the French authorities, who were forced to impose a state of emergency in the country. A proposal to impose a state of emergency was then made by French President Francois Hollande. The majority of French parliamentarians supported the position of the head of state, after which the country began to significantly increase security measures, and the police and gendarmerie received broader powers compared to “peacetime”. However, ordinary law-abiding French almost did not notice the changes. Transport in the cities of France works as before, public places have also not been closed, there is no curfew. At the same time, at the entrances to public institutions, security guards may ask for the contents of bags and packages. On the borders of France began to more seriously check the documents, and sometimes inspect cars. The police received the right to conduct searches of apartments at night, to place under house arrest citizens suspected of the fact that their actions could threaten public safety. At the same time, the mass media kept the freedom of speech, which the French authorities didn’t do so, moreover, they stressed that this issue could not be discussed in a democratic state. However, prohibitive measures did take place in relation to rallies and demonstrations.
French left protect migrants
Meanwhile, the French left state of emergency is clearly not to their liking. The student unions in France claim that the state of emergency infringes upon university freedoms and the rights of students. The evidence shows the appearance of protection at the university buildings, and most importantly - the requirements to leave France for those students who do not have the necessary documents. The requirement is in the current situation - quite logical and reasonable, but the advocates of the rights of students do not like it. The French left see a state of emergency and fertile ground for the spread of racist and xenophobic attitudes in society. The growth of nationalist sentiment among the French, distrust towards refugees and migrants from Asian and African countries correlates, in the opinion of the French left, with the government’s policy to introduce additional security measures. The left see security measures as limiting the rights and freedoms of newcomers, and therefore seek to lift the state of emergency. It should be noted here that over the past decades, a significant part of the electorate of the French left-wing parties is made up of migrants and their descendants, who received French citizenship. A loyal and even somewhat idealizing attitude towards migrants is a long-standing trend of the European left. He goes back to the concept of one of the founders of the ideology of the "new left" Herbert Marcuse, who considered the so-called main revolutionary class of modernity. “Outsiders” to which all possible minorities, including national ones, belonged. During the confrontation of France and the national liberation movement of Algeria, the majority of the French left took an anti-state stance. In particular, they participated in information support, organizational and military assistance to the Algerian revolutionaries, and many French leftists personally participated in hostilities on the side of the National Liberation Front of Algeria. According to the French left, the anti-colonial struggle in Algeria had every chance to spread to the "metropolis" and turn into a socialist revolution in France itself. On the other hand, the independence of Algeria was also supported by many French patriots, in particular, General Charles de Gaulle. He explained his position by the high fertility of the Arab and Berber population in Algeria and liked to emphasize that if Algeria remains French, then in time France will become Arab. 5 July 1962 was proclaimed political independence of Algeria, but for France this did not mean getting rid of the "Algerian problem". Moreover, the political instability in Algeria, the low standard of living of the population led to the fact that hundreds of thousands of Algerians migrated to France. The Algerian migration was “diluted” by Tunisians, Moroccans, Mauritanians, Senegalese, Malians and people from other French colonies. Later they were joined by immigrants from countries that had no relation to the French colonial empire - for example, from Sudan, Eritrea and Somalia.
Immigrants from Asian and African countries stubbornly refuse to accept the French way of life, moreover, they strive to reproduce traditions, customs and behavioral attitudes characteristic of their native countries already on French soil. Bloody clashes between warring clans, blood feuds, polygamy, slavery, bride kidnapping - all this became a reality in French cities, where numerous Afro-Asian diasporas settled. It was not just a multicultural society that was formed, but a society in which enclaves of completely different culturalhistorical epochs. On the one hand, there is a French city living in the post-industrial era, on the other hand, there are enclaves of Afro-Asian migrants stuck in the Middle Ages. At the same time, the archaic foundations in the migrant diasporas are actively supported by religious leaders and organizations, which, having offices in France and French citizens among their supporters, nevertheless blame French society for all mortal sins. But if France is so “wrong” that it makes these people live in a European country, and not in their native and “ideal” states like Mauritania, Mali or Chad. The French government itself created the current situation, stimulating migrants with numerous benefits and benefits, spreading among the French population a complex of guilt in relation to immigrants from African countries during the era of colonialism. To be honest, the French military in the African colonies really behaved extremely cruelly. Suffice it to recall the famous "smoking" of the Algerians during the capture of Algeria in the XNUMXth century. But do the horrors of the colonial past give indulgence to modern migrants rampaging in French cities? Can they serve as an excuse for committing terrorist acts and even banal criminal offenses?
A significant number of migrants are young men of working age, which creates a number of additional problems for the French police - firstly, the migrant contingent is extremely criminalized, and secondly - among the migrants may be militants of terrorist organizations. But this factor does not confuse the French left, convinced that any restrictions on migration flows are a manifestation of discrimination by the “bad Europeans”. This “new left” paradigm is decisive in the policies of modern social democratic, socialist and leftist parties and organizations not only in France, but also in other European countries. It should not be forgotten that it was on the ideas of the “new left” that many modern leaders of the French socialists were brought up (as were the leaders of the socialists and the social democrats of other countries of Western Europe). Therefore, there is nothing surprising in the fact that they also consider migrants as objects of oppression rather than a potential source of danger for French society.
The philosopher Bernard Henri Levy is one of the most ardent advocates of migration and the most active Russophobes in French politics. It was this man, whose youth also fell at the end of the 1960's and participation in the “new left” movement, who subsequently called for the bombing of Serbia, Libya, and Syria. In 1984, Levy participated in the creation of the public organization SOS racisme. The whole point of this organization was to organize the involvement of the votes of African and Arab migrants on the side of the Socialist Party of France. In the 1990 years, Levi became famous for unconditionally sided with the Bosnians in the conflict in Yugoslavia, and then supported the separatists of Kosovo, demanding to bomb the sovereign Serbia. Then he participated in the organization of "color revolutions" around the world. Now Bernard Henri Levy acts as one of the key advocates for uncontrolled migration. The words that migrants “take over Europe”, he calls only vile. In Levy's perception, migrants arriving in Europe are in love with her and shout “Europe, Europe!” The fact that migrants are seen as potential terrorists or criminals is to blame, according to Henri Levy, the European press. It is the journalists, according to the philosopher, who incite hatred of migrants, trying to present the ongoing resettlement of "freedom-loving people" as a tragedy for European states. Of course, Bernard Henri Levy really does not like Russia. And he loves ... Ukraine. Probably, not so long ago, Levy had very approximate knowledge about this Eastern European state, whose sovereign history began only in the 1991 year. But now Levy is an ardent defender of the Kiev regime and a denouncer of the Kremlin. In 2015, Bernard Henri Levy became one of the founders of the Agency for the Modernization of Ukraine. Of course, it’s difficult to call Levy a representative of left or, especially, left radicals, but in the modern world it’s time to get used to the fact that a significant part of “leftists” expresses the interests of transnational corporations, the United States of America and world financial and oligarchic circles. Therefore, the positions of radical leftists and systemic European liberals on such key issues as migration, the protection of same-sex marriage, the situation in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and other “hot spots” of the planet coincide. Since a significant part of the leftists condemned the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan and opposed it with a united front with American diplomacy and special services, European leftists have become the front line of the same liberals. It is worth noting that Bernard Henri Levy and his like-minded people still managed to achieve their goals. Today, the French left are leaving, largely due to support from ethnic minorities of African and Asian descent, who see socialists and others like them as expressors of their own political, economic and cultural interests.
The positions of the left are the strongest in the major cities of the country, including Paris, where a large number of French left-wing intellectuals, students, migrants and their descendants, who traditionally sympathize with left-wing views, are concentrated. The support of the left is much weaker in a province dominated by more conservative sentiments, and many ordinary French people sympathize with the right parties, above all with the National Front. However, is division into “right” and “left” applicable in modern society? The conditional French leftists, by their actions, support the policy of the United States of America, they contribute to the affirmation of the “new world order”. The mass migration of the population from the countries of the “third world”, encouraged and approved by the French left, is another blow by the so-called “defenders of the people” in the interests of the people. After all, representatives of the elite, the upper layers of French society, may not come into contact with migrants in everyday life, because they live in prestigious areas, are surrounded by personal security, their children study in elite educational institutions. But ordinary Frenchmen manage to fully experience all the “benefits” of migration, ranging from competition in the labor market to the increased criminality of certain groups of migrants. Therefore, the same National Front, considered to be a right-wing radical party, but at the same time raising social slogans and advocating an adequate migration policy, begins to receive support from more and more strata of the French population.
Surprisingly, when the French leadership spoke of such a measure as deprivation of citizenship of those citizens of the country who went to Syria or Iraq to fight on the side of terrorist organizations, and, at the same time, have a second citizenship (usually their home country), a number of left-wing politicians sense demonstrated their rejection of such measures. In particular, the French government 27 in January 2016 was abandoned by Christian Tobira, who had held the post of Minister of Justice for almost four years. A native of French Guiana - one of the last overseas territories of France in Latin America (for the autonomy of Guiana, by the way, she does her best), 64-year-old African-American Christian Tobira was a representative of the Radical Left Party in the government. In her youth, Tobira took part in the Guiana decolonization movement, actively advocated the autonomy of this overseas territory. Political activity did not prevent Tobir from obtaining a thorough academic education in the field of sociology and economics. Already in 1978, at 26, she became a professor of economics. Despite the name, the Radical Left Party really has little to do with the classical left radicalism — anarchism and radical modifications of Marxism. France’s radical left party is in favor of secular society, European integration, individual freedoms and private property. Christian Tobira has always been considered one of the main defenders of the rights of migrants and sexual minorities in the French parliament and, then, in the French government. It was Tobira who pushed through the reforms of juvenile justice, the prison system in France and the introduction of the law on same-sex marriage. When the French leadership decided to deprive immigrants from other countries who were convicted of terrorism, Tobira sharply criticized the project. After leaving the post, Tobira published an 100-page speech, in which she stated that she could understand the terrorists. According to Tobir, those young people who go to war in Syria and Iraq and join the ranks of terrorist organizations need understanding - they are not criminals, and should be subject to psychological rehabilitation. The French left considered Tobira a representative of the most radical views in the government, a defender of minority rights, and are convinced that after her departure from the post of the justice minister, the government of the country will inevitably recover.
Not only Christian Tobira is a radical opponent of the measure for depriving terrorists of their citizenship. Leader of the Socialist Party of France Jean-Christophe Cambadelis in December 2015 urged the French to prevent the victory of the National Front. He warned Hollande that the president could lose the support of the socialists if he adheres to the position of depriving terrorists of French citizenship. The leftist aspirations of Cambadelis are quite explicable - in his youth he was in the Trotskyist International Communist Party. The Socialist Party of France currently adheres to the position that there is no need to deprive anyone of their citizenship. Given that many Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian and other migrants and their descendants retain dual citizenship, the socialists believe that the procedure for deprivation of citizenship may cast a shadow over the integration of Arab-African communities into French society. According to the socialists, precisely the differentiation of French society and Arab-African migrants and their descendants is one of the most important goals of terrorists. Therefore, according to the French socialists, if the French government continues its policy and moves on to the practice of deprivation of citizenship, Arab and African migrants will be influenced by radical organizations even more than at present. Recall that in France there are currently approximately 4 million. citizens of the country who also have second citizenship. Basically, these are visitors from North Africa and the Middle East. According to the left, the deprivation of citizenship of terrorists will testify to the discrimination of a part of the population with dual citizenship, since the latter will not feel France as their homeland. The socialists threaten Francois Hollande with a refusal of support, which will be fraught with him a de facto fiasco in the presidential election. However, Hollande already has a low rating among voters, so that he himself most likely will not run for the presidency. By the way, at one time, Hollande won a victory, largely due to the votes of French Arabs and Africans - up to 80% of French citizens professing Islam voted for Hollande. Migrants and their descendants then saw in Hollande the most acceptable alternative to Nicolas Sarkozy, who became famous for his anti-migrant attacks and the campaign to evict the Romanian Gypsies from France. Later, however, Francois Hollande significantly undermined the confidence of his Arab and African voters by agreeing to the legalization of same-sex marriage. It is this topic that causes the greatest discrepancies between the left and migrant diasporas. The policy of the socialists in this context looks rather strange - on the one hand, they are guided by secular values, stand for individual freedom and legalization of same-sex marriages, on the other hand are opposed to restricting migration. But after all, the majority of migrants come from the Middle East and African countries, where strong foundations of traditional society remain, and religious traditions do not welcome homosexuality. Where is the logic here? It turns out that socialists support same-sex marriages, and one of the most negatively related to homosexual categories of the French population.
National Front Remains Hope for Many French
If Christian Tobira to some extent can be considered “the face of promigrant France”, another woman politician, MarinLe Pen, personifies the position of that part of French society that is very critical of uncontrolled migration flows and people living in the country integrate into the local lifestyle. 9 February 2016 city Marine Le Pen announced her desire to run for the French presidency. Naturally, radical organizations, including the IG banned in Russia, have already responded to this statement with MarinLe Pen threats. So, the IG promised to organize a terrorist act on any demonstration of the National Front. Meanwhile, the National Front is really gaining more and more supporters in France. The party Le Pen opposes mass migration to the territory of France. At the beginning of December 2015 The National Front won the first round of the regional elections - in the 6 regions from the 13 regions, candidates from the National Front won the first places. In the whole country, 28,22% of voters voted for the National Front. These figures are largely due not only to MarinLe Pen and her party comrades, but to the current French government, which actually put the society on the verge of confronting the majority of the indigenous population and migrants and their left-wing supporters. With the National Front, French voters associate the possibility of restoring order in migration policy, improving security in the country, fighting crime, and solving many social problems that the National Front currently talks about more than the French left. While the socialists and leftist radicals are concerned about the rights of sexual minorities and migrants, as well as European integration issues, it is the nationalists from the National Front who turn out to be the political force that is ready to offer the French protection of their social interests. Marine Le Pen emphasizes that the presidential election will also act from the position of Euro-skepticism. The politician urges to rethink the relations of France with the European Union, first of all - in the political and economic planes. One of the main challenges facing modern France, according to Le Pen, is to get out of the Schengen agreements. This will allow France to restore state borders and, accordingly, increase control over migration processes, improve the system of ensuring security and protecting public order in the country. In the previous presidential election in 2012 Marine Le Pen ranked third, receiving 17,90% of the vote. In November, 2015, after the terrorist attacks in Paris and Saint-Denis, Marine Le Pen said that France must decide who its real allies and enemies are. According to the politician, the countries that support terrorism and religious extremism belong to the unequivocal enemies of the country. Accordingly, the allies of France are countries fighting terrorism. By the way, in this context, Marine Le Pen has long been sympathetic to the Russian Federation, and supports the actions of the Russian state to combat the international terrorist threat. So, in one of her speeches, Le Pen said that France should follow the example of Russia, how to build a policy in the Middle East, specifically in Syria. The Russian policy in Syria, with its determination and focus on victory, arouses support from Le Pen, while the politician sharply criticizes the French authorities, who, in her opinion, act hesitantly and demonstrate duplicity - if official Paris earlier criticized Moscow for the fact that Russia did not joins the operation in Syria, today it criticizes the fact that Russia participates in the Syrian operation and effectively bomb the positions of terrorists. It is likely that if Le Pen wins the election (although the very possibility of this is in doubt, the politician may simply not be allowed to win, using all sorts of tricks), Russian-French relations may gain a new face. Secondly, Le Pen is in favor of restoring the power of the French state in the field of defense, security and public order, but the protection of the French language and culture is no less important for ensuring the national security of the country.
Clashes in Calais: migrants against the police, police against the right
French society is unhappy that migrants are behaving more arrogantly and aggressively. So, December 25 inter-ethnic clashes took place in Corsica. There, local residents were protesting against migrants, as the latter had previously attacked local firefighters. As a result, the outraged Corsicans staged a pogrom in a religious institution visited by migrants, and set fire to a shop selling products prepared in accordance with the requirements of religion. The Corsicans are a serious people and, most likely, this is not the last clash between the inhabitants of the island and the migrants. It would be better for the French authorities to find another place to accommodate African and Asian immigrants. As for the north of France, there the main passions - around Calais. Back in the 2000-ies, here, in the local forest, a spontaneous camp of migrants appeared, trying to penetrate the territory of Great Britain, overcoming the Pas-de-Calais strait. The main population of the camp were African migrants - Somalis, Eritreans, Sudanese, persistently calling themselves refugees. Recently, people from the countries of the Near and Middle East, primarily from Syria and Afghanistan, have also been added to Africans. But the UK is not eager to accept refugees, while the French government does not want to resettle them in France. The result of discontent of Africans and Asians are protests that escalate into riots. In early February, 2016. Refugees committed an act of vandalism against a monument to General Charles de Gaulle. In response, French nationalists tried to hold a demonstration of protest against uncontrolled migration, but the authorities did not give them permission to do so, referring to the law on the state of emergency. When the police began to demolish the migrant camp, also called the “jungle,” a crowd of refugees rushed into the city of Calais. The real outrage began on the streets - migrants attacked local residents, beat them, smashed houses, looted property, broke into apartments and settled natural needs there. The police, of course, responded to challenges, but not as intensively and effectively as they should be in such a situation. Naturally, the inaction of the authorities causes a backlash from not only the French right-wing parties, but also ordinary citizens.
6 February 2016 was held in Calais anti-migrant rally organized by French nationalists opposing the mayhem of the inhabitants of the camp "Jungle" in the city. At the rally, the police detained about twenty people. Among them was the renowned retired general Christian Pikmal, who in the 1990-ies. commanded the French Foreign Legion. Despite the fact that the protesters did not take aggressive actions against the police and began to sing the French national anthem “Marseillaise”, the police not only did not support the citizens in the performance of the anthem, but began to detain them. General Pikmal said that he was shocked by the behavior of the French police: “I expected you to stand at attention and sing with us, but none of you opened your mouth. And this is France - great France, eternal France, which used to be a beacon of the world ... The country fell into decay. Decadence. I am sorry that you have been given such orders, you are compelled to carry them out, but you should not behave this way, ”quotes the words of General Pikmal“ BBC ”. 8 February 2016 has learned that the court of Boulogne-sur-Mer sentenced two participants of the rally of the French right in Calais to real prison terms, albeit small ones. A forty-year-old man, previously convicted of murder and released from prison in 2008, was sentenced to 3 months in prison for possession of two tear grenades, with which he came to the rally. Another man, 33, received a 2 month in prison for coming to a rally with a stun gun. Two months were conditionally received by a man who had brass knuckles with him, and in April they should consider the case of another rally participant who had a knife with him. In addition, the trial awaits 75-year-old honored General Pikmal. Due to the deteriorated state of health, the General’s case will be considered by the court in May 2016.
The power is not afraid of migrants, and the right
As we see, the French government is now most of all afraid of the growth of nationalist sentiments in society. In order to prevent the strengthening of the positions of nationalist forces, the authorities are ready to use the practice of police repression - just to prevent the victory of the National Front in the elections. On the other hand, ordinary Frenchmen less and less trust the government. The inhabitants of Calais will no longer vote for the Socialist Party, which allowed the situation with the pogroms of apartments and houses of peaceful French African migrants.
But one should not exclude from the political life of the country and a sufficiently powerful force - the first and second generations of migrants who have French citizenship and, accordingly, suffrage. These people are well aware that their position depends largely on what political power is in power in France. By and large, the position of yesterday's migrants - the "new French" are destructive for France. These people do not want to integrate into French society, accept the local “rules of the game”, do their best to emphasize their ethnic, racial or religious identity as opposition to the French identity, but at the same time they require special treatment. On the one hand, the equality of all French citizens is already protected by law, but on the other hand, the “new French” want to be “more equal” than the “old French”, insisting on a number of privileges, for example, on the right to wear national or religious clothing, including including in educational institutions.
In any attempt to defend the French identity, the “new French” see manifestations of racism and xenophobia. Therefore, any action of a Frenchman or a French organization, whether it is a refusal to hire or a requirement to comply with the rules of appearance, is perceived by yesterday’s migrants as discrimination based on national, racial or religious grounds. In such a situation, there can hardly be any talk of the unity of French society. Despite the fact that many of the “new French” have been living in France since birth, they are not integrated into French society, and their work is in fact aimed at building “small Somalia” or “small” in Paris, Marseilles or the same Calais. Algeria". The French left-wing parties, in the leadership of which there are also "new French", including such as Christian Tobira, give full support to migrants. After all, the concept of multiculturalism provides for the possibility of the coexistence of “little Somalia” in the territory of a large European country. Only if the country itself can exist as a single and stable political entity if it is a conglomerate of African and Middle Eastern enclaves “glued together” by the European population as a cementing mortar? This is very doubtful, therefore, there are many questions and the political future of France in the event that power remains in the hands of left political parties.