2004 December 04 Saturday
French Prime Minister Moves To Ban Hezbollah TV Channel

In France the government has more power to regulate speech and the press and the French are moving against a radical Islamic satellite TV channel.

French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin on Thursday called for a television channel run by the Lebanese Shi'ite terrorist group Hizbullah to be taken off the air after it accused Israel of exporting AIDS to the Middle East.

Raffarin told the upper French Assembly, the Senat, that he intends to revoke the license of the Al-Manar satellite station that had been granted by the CSA, the French Broadcasting Authority.

Al-Manar could no more keep itself from spewing blatantly false propaganda about Israel than a retriever dog can hold back from running into a creek or a pond.

The CSA cited as evidence an al-Manar broadcast last week that spoke of "Zionist attempts to transmit dangerous diseases like Aids through exports to Arab countries". The broadcast said Israel had "no scruples" about infecting Arabs and Muslims.

What was that French regulatory agency thinking by granting Al-Manar approval in the first place? Here's another way to appease the Arabs? That must have been it. Expecting the serializers of a series on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to behave according to Western norms was really unrealistic.

The 29-part series, "Al-Shatat," was produced in Syria and broadcast throughout the Middle East by Hezbollah. Based on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," it depicts among other scenes the killing of a Christian child on the orders of a rabbi so the blood can be baked into matzos for Passover.

CSA director Dominique Baudis, in a letter that accompanied the license, warned that some of the programs aired by the network in the past would violate the license's terms.

Some programming by the channel "depicts violence toward civilian populations in a favorable light," could incite hatred among religious or national groups and "bring trouble to the public order," he said.

My guess is that some of Al-Manar's staff doesn't even know when the station is being absurd. What, you mean "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" isn't the gospel truth? Everyone in the Casbah knows it is.

Al-Manar's Head Of News Hassan Fadlallah defends the Arab and Muslim values portrayed on Al-Manar.

"Our programs are based on cultural, Islamic and Arab values that a billion people believe in, and it fits with some French values like freedom, justice and human rights.

Should Arabs be free to tell other Arabs that Jews are plotting to take over the world, that Jews are spreading AIDS, and that Jews should be hated? There are American and French Jewish groups who think the answer to that question is "No".

Freedom? To do what? Plant car bombs?

The American Jewish Committee wants al-Manar and similar Arab channels out of Europe.

"By acting promptly to remove this promoter of hatred and violence from the airwaves, Prime Minister Raffarin has acted in the best interest and traditions of France and of all Europe," said David A. Harris, AJC's executive director. "Al-Manar, and other channels carrying similar anti-Semitic, anti- American and anti-Western messages, can have no place in a Europe that values tolerance, pluralism and peace."

In acting today to request the Conseil d'Etat, the supreme French judicial-executive body, to ban Al-Manar from the French communications satellite Eutelsat, the prime minister responded to evidence that the station violated terms of its conditional license by airing outrageous accounts of "Zionist" plots to spread AIDS in Africa. In authorizing Al-Manar to broadcast on Eutelsat, the French broadcasting authority, CSA, had imposed a code of conduct consistent with French anti-discrimination laws.

The Jewish Anti-Defamation League wants al-Manar off the French satellite.

The decision by the French Broadcasting Authority to allow Al-Manar, the satellite network of the Hezbollah terrorist organization, to continue to broadcast in France, "undermines the significant progress that the Government of France has made in the last year to combat the anti-Jewish and incendiary anti-Israel environment that exists in some sectors of French society," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, in a letter to French President Jacques Chirac. "Indeed, your Government had come to understand that attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions do not occur in a vacuum, that hateful propaganda coming from the Middle East is a major catalyst.

Noting that "anti-Semitism continues to be a serious problem in France," and that the "government has taken a number of steps to quell these anti-Jewish acts," Mr. Foxman said that by "allowing Al-Manar to preach its message of hate through television sets across France sends a very contrary message." He urged President Chirac to have "your government to reconsider this decision."

There are a few things that are interesting about this story. First off, France does not have as much free speech protection as the United States. My guess is that satellite and cable services in the US aren't going to carry Hezbollah TV because there aren't enough Arabs in the US to generate sufficient demand. But my guess (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that the US government wouldn't block a satellite TV service from carrying a paranoid, delusional, and extremely anti-Jewish satellite TV channel.

Of course the French need to be able to stomp down on their Muslims or else a lot more bombs would be going off in France.

Another interesting aspect of this story is the activity of American Jewish organizations which are basically advocating for censorship in France. Are all cultures and religions so compatible that free speech can always be allowed under all circumstances? These Jewish groups apparently think not. How does this translate into the American context? Will the ADL and AJC start advocating censorship of radical Imams in American? Or will they start advocating against immigration of Muslims into the United States? After all, if large scale immigration of some group is going to make censorship necessary then isn't that an argument against allowing that group to emigrate to some country? My guess is that the big Jewish groups in America are still unwilling to accept that they support immigration policies harmful to both American interests and Jewish interests.

Some French Jews think Arabs in France are making France into an inhospitable place for Jews. There are 600,000 Jews and 6 million Arabs in France. One third of one percent of the French Jews leave for Israel each year.

Since 2001, more than 2,000 French Jews have arrived each year, double the rate of the 1990s and more than from any other single country, says the Jewish Agency, the quasi-governmental agency that oversees immigration and absorption.

...

"France is an Arab country. That's enough for us to leave," says Moshe Bendrihem, 50, a Morrocan-born Jew who moved from a Paris suburb four years ago to Eli, a West Bank settlement. Bendrihem wears a skullcap, or kippah. He didn't always. "It is impossible to wear a kippah in France," he said, for fear of being singled out for attack.

...

Interest in the Jewish state can be gauged by the number of visitors. Nearly 200,000 French tourists came to Israel in the first nine months of 2004, a 74% jump over the same period last year.

Six million Arabs didn't show up in France overnight. Why weren't the French Jews arguing against so much Arab immigration decades ago?

85 year old former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt says that multiculturalism can only work in a totalitarian society and the Turks should not have been brought into Germany as guest workers.

"The concept of multiculturalism is difficult to make fit with a democratic society," he told the Hamburger Abendblatt newspaper.

He added that it had been a mistake that during "the early 1960s we brought guest workers from foreign cultures into the country".

Well, a bit late for the admission. When will the Europeans start deporting all the illegal immigrants and revoking residency of anyone with the slightest bit of radical Muslim leanings? It is time to at least slow the growth rate of the problem. Oh, and change your tax laws to encourage more natives to have kids.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2004 December 04 12:03 AM  Immigration Culture Clash


Comments
Randy McDonald said at December 5, 2004 7:18 PM:

Some French Jews think Arabs in France are making France into an inhospitable place for Jews. There are 600,000 Jews and 6 million Arabs in France. One third of one percent of the French Jews leave for Israel each year.

At this rate, it will take three centuries for the French Jewish population to disappear. Considering the small size of the French Jewish community, fluctuations in the rate of aliya are to be expected; small populations tend to fluctuate a lot. If this trend continues, there's cause for concern.

Six million Arabs didn't show up in France overnight.

Not Arabs, but "Arabs." Considering that most of them were born in France, speak only French, don't practice Islam, don't adhere to traditional gender and other mores, and increasingly intermarry with non-Muslims, Arab identity in France is increasingly notional. Yes, there are radicals. These constitute a highly visible minority.

Oh, and from INED, , Google's crude-but-serviceable translation of a fisking of five established ideas on immigration, touching on fertility rates:

"During the time 1991-1998, the average number children by woman was 1,72 in Metropolitan France for the whole of the women, and 1,65 for the only native Frenchwomen. The immigrant ones, which represents only it twelfth of the women in age to have children, are too very few to be able to seriously raise the general rate of fruitfulness of the country (of 1,65 to 1,72, there are never but 0,07 child). One can estimate that they had on average 2,2 children including 0,6 born before their arrival in France and 1,6 born in France. This result does not have anything of surprising when one knows at which speed fruitfulness fell in Europe of the South and, more still, in the Maghreb (more than 7 children per woman about 1970, nearly 2,5 today), drops which becomes also sensitive in the capitals of sub-Saharan Africa."

And this doesn't take into account the subject of cohort fertility, which is consistently higher than TFR, for which see Bongaarts et al .

Randy McDonald said at December 5, 2004 7:21 PM:

http://www.ined.fr/publications/pop_et_soc/pes397/PES3972.html

is the INED article, the original in French.

http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/wp/114.pdf

is the paper by Bongaarts et al. exploring the phenomenon of cohort fertility. Brief version: TFRs do a poor job of measuring completed fertility in countries like, well, everywhere in the First World not the United States where childbearing occurs at a late date.

Guessedworker said at December 6, 2004 6:07 AM:

Randle,

The AJC's published principles include the promotion of pluralism. That means or includes within its meaning ethnic pluralism for reasons every non-Jew ought to be pretty pissed off with by now. According to Lawrence Auster - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13894 - Jews tend to this racist objective because of an ingrained desire to destroy Christianity. Of course, Lawrence is clear that it's the sins of Christians down the ages against Jews that have caused this animus. What else could it be, I wonder?

People ask why Jews don't make common cause with the French against their, one would think, true Muslim enemy. But that misses the point that their pursuit of pluralism implies the destruction of both European and Arab by interbreeding and cultural self-immolation. Meanwhile, if it is necessary to save French Jews from the depredation of the odd radio station, well, presto - the French government step in.

As for old Helmut, he misses this point, possibly intentionally - in his twilight years he wants to cling to his image as a "Great and Good Man" (and definitely no crypto-Nazi!). So let's get it out there in broad daylight. Multiculturalism isn't the problem per se, though it is a tool of cultural marxist warfare. Actually, it provides distance between peoples, even balkanisation and conflict - which might at least lead to some sort of justice for the indigenes.

No, it's multiracialism itself - the presence of an alien population in another people's homeland - that is the problem. More specifically, it is racial integration. Whenever some idiot-coward of a politician proposes assimilation or integration in a European people's homeland I know I'm looking at a race-traitor. The hard truth is that interbreeding with an alien people is racial destruction. Racial salvation comes only with finding the unity and will to drive the aliens out.

Now, Randy ...

The French government does not produce population statistics by race. No one knows how many migrants of North African origin are in France. The official figure tends to 6 million but that is almost certainly an under-representation. I have seen one liberal-minded construct quoting 4 million. The French right assesses 7.8 million. Certainty is not available, and less so on the issue of birth rate. One has to dig as best one can.

The general birth rate is 12.1 per 1000 of the population. This compares to 24.16 in Morocco and 22.76 in Algeria, the historic and current, principal suppliers of migrants from North Africa. Tunisia is the lowest in the Arab world at 17.11 but does not supply great numbers of migrants.

Now, the 12.1 figure contains a measure of migrant fertility. All migrant populations in Europe outbreed the natives. Later generations of some decline with the adoption of western fertility To get at a true native birth rate I have averaged the main neighbours. Germany reports 9.16, Italy 9.05, Spain 9.26. As with France, these include their own migrant component. It is entirely possible that the native average in these countries does not reach 8.00.

France has one special circumstance. For decades it has had generous child allowance for families of 3/4 children. These have not stopped the slide in native births. But my expectation would be that they give much more encouragement to the North African component than the prosperous native one, since cultural/racial habits are demonstrably towards large families anyway and incomes otherwise far lower.

So it perfectly possible, without stretching the bounds of credibility, to arrive at a figure of 25 to 30% current births in France to women of North African origin.

As for the Jews, 300 years may seem them out. Their average age is something around 42, I believe. And they don't breed much either.

Randy McDonald said at December 6, 2004 9:26 AM:

Guessedworker:

Did you even read the links that I cited?

The official figure tends to 6 million but that is almost certainly an under-representation.

Why? The Economist estimates 4.5 million; that estimate is good enough for me.

I get into a deeper analysis on my blog at

http://www.livejournal.com/users/rfmcdpei/408410.html

Suffice it to say that a) birth rates per mille are a poor way of measuring long-term demographic trends given age bias b) immigrant fertility is not that high in France (and elsewhere in Europe) and is falling sharply and c) in France native fertility is actually quite high once one adjusts for the late age of childbearing, as high as in the United States in fact.

Note, too, that even if you use age-biased TFR figures, the French fertility rate has risen sharply over the past decade, from ~1.6 children per woman to ~1.9 children per woman, even as immigrant fertility has declined.

Guessedworker said at December 6, 2004 1:43 PM:

Randy,

Statistically, the problem in France - as with the British government which desires black crime to be a non-issue - is that official migrant population figures are either not gathered by the authorities or not released. I could quite understand if this turned out to be cock-up as well as conspiracy. As a Brit I well remember that our last (2001) census was declared void almost immediately because on analysis the statisticians discovered they had "lost" one million young non-English males from the previous census. A few days later the figures miraculously appeared and today you, Randy, would base projections on them. They are worthless if you want to get at more than the most general trends.

The whole business of recording non-white immigration is deeply suspect. It isn't only illegals who don't fill in census forms. In France there are wholly immigrant districts in which the emergency services cannot work unless they are invited in. The French state is held in contempt.

It is as I said before ... nobody knows the real numbers. But intellectuals deplore a vacuum, and the result is that liberal-establishment sources (such as The Economist) quote low totals and New Right sources quote high. The 6 million is simply consensus. It is not fact.

I do think that the French tax system distorts the birth/age pattern - there we can agree. But if you are trying to construe therefrom that the two populations will remain in stasis and live happily ever you are in dire need of new reading matter - something owned by a genuine Frenchman, perhaps, though I can't think of anything off-hand.

At the moment Italy and Spain may well be taking more North African immigrants than France. But the borders of the European Union are open and, once in possession of a little piece of paper, every one of them has the right to settle and work where they wish. Nobody knows where they go, if they do, because no record is kept.

My own feeling, from visiting the south and talking to French friends, is that the country is progressing towards white minority around the sort of time that the US and Canada are, and ahead of every other European country except Sweden. Holland and Denmark were on the same track but they are now beginning to resile from happy liberal heaven. There is, as yet, no sign that France has the seriousness to do so. Indeed, Chirac talks about his own Muslim family and Sarkozy is just the man for a liberal Post-Nation.

Randy McDonald said at December 6, 2004 7:57 PM:

Statistically, the problem in France - as with the British government which desires black crime to be a non-issue - is that official migrant population figures are either not gathered by the authorities or not released. I could quite understand if this turned out to be cock-up as well as conspiracy. As a Brit I well remember that our last (2001) census was declared void almost immediately because on analysis the statisticians discovered they had "lost" one million young non-English males from the previous census. A few days later the figures miraculously appeared and today you, Randy, would base projections on them. They are worthless if you want to get at more than the most general trends.

What figures are you using, then? "I visit France" isn't exactly scholarly material.

The whole business of recording non-white immigration is deeply suspect. It isn't only illegals who don't fill in census forms. In France there are wholly immigrant districts in which the emergency services cannot work unless they are invited in. The French state is held in contempt.

OK. I'm going to ask for citations, here.

It is as I said before ... nobody knows the real numbers. But intellectuals deplore a vacuum, and the result is that liberal-establishment sources (such as The Economist) quote low totals and New Right sources quote high. The 6 million is simply consensus. It is not fact.

The Economist belongs to the liberal establishment? What sources are you using--the Front national? Citations, please; I've provided my own. If you want to be taken seriously, you should do the same.

I do think that the French tax system distorts the birth/age pattern - there we can agree.

"Distorts"? France has above-replacement fertility levels; French demography has always been distinct from the rest of Europe.

But if you are trying to construe therefrom that the two populations will remain in stasis and live happily ever you are in dire need of new reading matter - something owned by a genuine Frenchman, perhaps, though I can't think of anything off-hand.

So, INED isn't French? News to them.

At the moment Italy and Spain may well be taking more North African immigrants than France. But the borders of the European Union are open

Right. That's why Italy is opening detention camps in Libya--"open borders."

(Actually, non-Muslim immigrants outnumber Muslims in Italy--see http://www.livejournal.com/users/rfmcdpei/458489.html, please--and Spain, and the margin is growing.)

Randy McDonald said at December 6, 2004 8:00 PM:

And the point about French Muslims is that the population isn't in stasis: It's assimilating. A dropping fertility rate, growing and overwhelming religious nonobservance, lack of fluency in ancestral languages, intermarriage with people of different religious backgrounds ... French Muslims are looking rather like American Jews a century ago.

Randall Parker said at December 6, 2004 8:13 PM:

Randy,

You mean French Muslims are smart? Or that they are not trying to blow up trains? Or that they aren't creating ghettoes where the fire departments and police are afraid to enter? Or that they aren't going around attacking anyone who wears symbols of a competing religion?

Or that American Jews of a century ago were dumb, were trying to blow up trains, were attacking firemen and police, and were attacking people of other religions?

I figure Theodore Dalrymple and Guy Milliere and Alain Madelin know what they are talking about.

Guessedworker said at December 7, 2004 3:45 AM:

Randy,

Believe it or not I've already been embattled with an anti-white liberal on the issue of France's future. That was about six months ago now. My figures, which I had kept on Word, were drawn from several sources available on the net, and used again in the above comment. But I kept no source record - sorry.

I am struck by your touching faith in INED, as though demographics was a science. It is not, though its specialists depend for their livelihood on making it appear so. Let me give you an example of how the liberal political mentality corrupts demographic research.

Prior to the British 2001 census no figures had been collected for mixed-race people living here. The 2001 Census provided a series of tick boxes for racial origin invluding, therefore, the vital one that said mixed race. But ... for reasons of political correctness there was no box under which I, for example, could record my ethnicity as English (the Scots, Welsh and Irish had boxes but they vote Labour). All I had to tick was British.

So here we are. A mixed-racer can say, "Yay, proud of my Mum & Dad" and tick away in his allotted little compartment or he can say, "Fuck that, I'm as British as anybody". Well, all we know is that 893,000 of them ticked the mixed-race box. We certainly do NOT know the number mixed-racers in Britain. More significantly still, we do not know the number English people - which was as intended because integration depends on the English being unware of themselves and accepting these aliens in a fog of self-ignorance. Politics informs statistics.

Incidentally, I was immediately struck that the INED figures include no Britons. But France is almost certainly the second country of choice, behind Spain, for Brits fleeing our climate. To give you some idea, an estimated 50,000 emigrated to live in Spain just in 2002, and the number is increasing. There are considered to be 250,000 living in Germany. According to INED less than 68,636 Brits reside in France, that being the number from "former Yugoslavia".

On the subject of non-Muslim immigrants to Italy, btw, where these are Brits, Germans, Dutch, Swedes etc they will be heavily biased towards the relatively wealthy and middle-aged or older, ie not of childbearing age.

It is a mystery to me why liberals like you, Randy, so dislike your own kind (are you one of us, actually?) that you deny the necessity of self-defence by white populations. To that end liberals frequently proffer the transparent ruse of assimilation - as you do here. Well, alien blood is what it is. It doesn't assimilate - it's alien. It transforms. Assimilation is the end of whiteness - which you clearly hate anyway so you have to convince the rest of us that it's no big deal. Jews don't much assimilate, by the way - unless they sacrifice their Jewishness. They change their names and do their best to look the same as us. But that's disguise, not assimilation.

Last point, I'm glad that the EU (not Italy in isolation) is looking at opening detention camps in North Africa. But actually our protection lies in scrapping the clause originally inserted in the Treaty of Rome, and maintained in all subsequent treaties, that guarantees freedom of movement of goods AND people across intra-community borders. Goods alone would be sufficient.

Randy McDonald said at December 7, 2004 9:16 AM:

Believe it or not I've already been embattled with an anti-white liberal on the issue of France's future. That was about six months ago now. My figures, which I had kept on Word, were drawn from several sources available on the net, and used again in the above comment. But I kept no source record - sorry.

And you haven't found any replacement citations?

I am struck by your touching faith in INED, as though demographics was a science. It is not, though its specialists depend for their livelihood on making it appear so. Let me give you an example of how the liberal political mentality corrupts demographic research.

[. . .]

So here we are. A mixed-racer can say, "Yay, proud of my Mum & Dad" and tick away in his allotted little compartment or he can say, "Fuck that, I'm as British as anybody". Well, all we know is that 893,000 of them ticked the mixed-race box. We certainly do NOT know the number mixed-racers in Britain. More significantly still, we do not know the number English people - which was as intended because integration depends on the English being unware of themselves and accepting these aliens in a fog of self-ignorance. Politics informs statistics.

Um, question: What happens if someone of mixed parentage (say, Jamaican and old-stock Lincolnshire) identifies himself or herself as "English," or British?

On the subject of non-Muslim immigrants to Italy, btw, where these are Brits, Germans, Dutch, Swedes etc they will be heavily biased towards the relatively wealthy and middle-aged or older, ie not of childbearing age.

Again, did you read the link I provided? The immigrants in question weren't from the rest of the European Union, but were rather from southeastern and eastern Europe, East and Southeast Asia, and China.

It is a mystery to me why liberals like you, Randy, so dislike your own kind (are you one of us, actually?) that you deny the necessity of self-defence by white populations. To that end liberals frequently proffer the transparent ruse of assimilation - as you do here. Well, alien blood is what it is. It doesn't assimilate - it's alien. It transforms.

You know, I'm product of a mixed marriage, (Irish/Scottish) Catholic and (Scottish/English) Protestant. Many of my relatives on the side of my Catholic parent disapproved of this admixture. Fortunately, my Catholic parent told them to go to hell.

And who said anything about hating whiteness, or hating myself?

Assimilation is the end of whiteness - which you clearly hate anyway so you have to convince the rest of us that it's no big deal. Jews don't much assimilate, by the way - unless they sacrifice their Jewishness. They change their names and do their best to look the same as us. But that's disguise, not assimilation.

Wow. Racism and virulent anti-Semitism. Nice combination.

I'm done. Clearly, there's no possible mode of discourse with you.

Guessedworker said at December 7, 2004 2:40 PM:

Randy,

You give in too easily, pal. You should stick around so I can some real hand-holds on you. Anyhow, although you don't want to play anymore I'll answer:-

No I didn't search for replacement citations. I am English and I belong to that extremely interesting generation - born after the war - that was the last bought up on the old virtues of duty and sacrifice. We were expected to fight as our fathers and grandfathers fought. Many of my peers had no content to their souls - in my view a consequence of Durkheimian social instability brought on, in fact, by war. But even today they pay for that, running loose at the mouth with the pieties of self-hate.

What it comes down to, Randy, is this. If a conservative of my generation tells you something, it is highly likely to be because that is what he has found to be so. He will not dissemble because it offends him to do so.

In contrast, your habit of demanding citations is nothing more than a method of saying only an "expert", probably paid by the state, has a legitimate view. I have demonstrated that experts can be self-serving bureaucrats whose function is to "factualise" the sensibilities of their employers - witness the British 2001 census writers or the unseemly position of the hapmap geneticists whose interim report of about three weeks ago appeared in the scientific press. These poor bastards have to protect their income streams and keep protect themselves from faux-moral assault (I have a citation but I am sure you know what I'm talking about).

Now ... liberalism, being the pursuit of self-definition, has it's root in the denial of what is. Some right-wingers, such as the excellent John Ray, believe that the foundation of leftism is self-regard - looking good. I suspect that, actually, this only enters the equation when the rebellious petty-mind has to refer to its peers for affirmation that it has, indeed, escaped from the torments of childhood. Again, no citations but I have never met a middle-class leftist who was sane. Not one. How were things at home, Randy?

Lastly, why throw names at me? Surely, a clever guy like you can prove me wrong, complete with those all-important citations? Come on, Randy, prove to me that:-

a) assimilation is NOT the end of whiteness.
b) Jews assimilate and don't remain hyper-ethnocentric.

But you won't. You can't. That's why you hurl insults. Typical leftist response. Not awfully scientific but it has an amazing track record of shutting the opposition down. Sadly for you, not this opposition, though.

Randy McDonald said at December 7, 2004 8:13 PM:

That's why you hurl insults.

Actually, no. They're accurate descriptors.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright