Well, first French answers are a military force in Africa since 2013.
Other answers are judiciary and administrative ones, with for instance expulsion of dangerous foreign people, closing of mosques, .
State of emergency has been set 5 years ago, and so. It gives special powers to the police, for instance to house arrest some dangerous people.
Now, what is lacking is a political answer. I explain:
We are at war, not at war against terrorism, but against Islamist.
Obviously, the West and, particularly France, constitute an important strategic issue. The position of France, like that of Germany, can be explained by their attachment to values, such as equality between men and women, and by the presence of strong Muslim communities.
To use an overused phrase: “War is the continuation of politics by other means. "
- So, if we want to win this war, we have to repress, but repression will not be enough, we have to play politics, have a political analysis, have a political action.
The Algerian war was won militarily by French army and lost politically.
The first step is to understand who is the adversary and what is his political goal?
Islamists are not all Muslims, and not all Islamists are terrorists. But all Islamists share the same political project. Impose the values of Islam, as they see them, in the West, at least in the areas they control and take control of the Muslim populations and impose themselves as legitimate in the eyes of the authorities. Moreover, it is obvious that not all Islamists share exactly the same vision of Islam and may differ in the application of the same global project.
Terrorism is one of the means of action of some Islamists. This does not make the project of other Islamists legitimate. Terrorist and non-terrorist Islamists share the same political project.
Besides terrorism, they use threat, intimidation, propaganda and manipulation.
The publication of the prophet’s cartoons in Denmark had gone unnoticed at first. Danish imams put together a dossier, adding drawings that were really insulting to the prophet, and toured Muslim countries.
To fight politically Islamism is very difficult and meant to fight in every district, with ideas, values and effective means, to rebuild cities, to uphold our values and so.
- There are a number of mistakes that should not be made.
The first mistake would be to feel guilty by believing that we are responsible for terrorism because of the mistakes that we have made. All Western countries are affected to varying degrees, regardless of their policy towards Muslim populations and their degree of integration. The errors committed in no way justify terrorism, compromise with Islamists, and other reasonable accommodations. Repression is sometimes necessary.
Not to blame does not mean denying a past instrumentalised by the Islamists. The Crusades were an enterprise of looting and massacres, admitting that the creation of the State of Israel was done to the detriment of the Palestinian populations, does not mean calling into question the principle of this state, but recognizing a problem and give yourself a chance to treat it fairly. Since 1957, Western policy in the Muslim world has been a series of errors that ultimately culminated in the second intervention in Iraq, the consequences of which we are now suffering.
One of the Islamists’ primary objectives is to separate Muslim populations from non-Muslim populations to encourage them to take refuge under their tutelage, to take control. The second mistake is anti-Muslim racism. Any act of racism, any attack on a mosque, any insult, any humiliation inflicted by the police constitutes an argument given to the Islamists. These behaviors justify their project by giving credence to the idea that coexistence is not possible.
The third mistake would be to compromise on our values, which does not mean to make them an instrument of combat against Islam per se.
Secularism in France constitutes the best protection from which Islam can benefit, since it guarantees Muslims the right to exercise their worship without being disturbed…
From this point of view, the repeated breaches of secularism are disastrous. When a municipality installs a crèche in the town hall, when the state maintains the concordat in Alsace-Lorraine, formidable signals are sent to Muslims.
I reject the idea that our will to defend our values amounts to an attempt at ideological imperialism. A man tortured in the East suffers as much as an individual tortured in the West, and neither torture is admissible. Freedom of expression cannot be claimed for some and denied to others. Now it is true that we cannot impose these values by force. Freedom cannot not be imposed from outside.
I understand that Muslims, Christians and Jews can be shocked by certain words, by certain drawings. I too am. I am also shocked by certain behaviors, certain habits, of such and such a person. But I think that it is for the law alone to set the limits on the exercise of freedoms, while respecting fundamental principles.
The fourth mistake would be to give the impression that we are hypocrites, acting as if only non-Muslims can benefit from Republican principles.
From this point of view, and from this point of view alone, positive action is essential. It is not only a matter of imposing the laws of the Republic everywhere, but of demonstrating that all, Muslims or not, benefit from the same rights and the same advantages, that positive and effective actions are carried out wherever there is need. .
To answer the question about which religions are rising in France, on one hand, I would say atheism and agnosticism and, in the other hand, every know religion in its integrist form. and that’s true for Islam as for christianism and so.Majority is less religious, but a minority is more religious and more integrist. That’s what I feel.