France Settles l’Affaire Houellebecq — at Least for Now
Rather surprising that a novellist is so influential
Incident over. The Chief Rabbi of France, Haim Korsia, brokered a compromise between a famous French novelist, Michel Houellebecq, and the rector of the Great Mosque at Paris, Chems-Eddine Hafiz. Mr. Houellebecq agreed to “correct” some of his recent statements about French Muslims. Rector Hafiz withdrew the complaint for “community violence incitement” he had filed against Mr. Houellebecq.
The whole story started six weeks ago. Front Populaire, a quarterly edited by another cultural celebrity, philosopher Michel Onfray, published a lengthy discussion between Messrs. Onfray and Houellebecq. The two men are in fact on friendly terms and share a common right-wing populist perception of the present situation of France.
As part of this conversation, Mr. Houellebecq warned about a growing rejection of Islam as a religion and Muslims as a community among the native, non-Muslim French. He even prophesied that “when whole areas will be under Islamic control … acts of resistance will take place.... There will be attacks in front of mosques, in cafes frequented by Muslims: in short, Bataclan in reverse.”
Indeed, every word here may look like dynamite. The very idea that the country might be overtaken by a foreign population and that the French democratic state is being superseded in a piecemeal way by an Islamic, theocratic regime, runs against France’s “national myth” since the Revolution: “La République, une et indivisible” (“A single, unbreakable Republic”).
Even more problematic is the prospect of an anti-Islamic “resistance” — that is to say of an ethnic and religious civil war. And what about the ominous final prediction that “resistance terrorism” might eventually lead to the anti-Islamic equivalent of the Islamist slaughter at the Bataclan theater and other places at Paris on November 13, 2015, which left 130 dead and 413 wounded or crippled?
Still, it may be argued so far that Mr. Houellebecq is not actually calling for civil war, but rather dealing, in a realistic way, with a worst-case scenario. Just as a socialist president, François Hollande, admitted shortly after Bataclan, in 2016, that there was a real danger of “partition.” Or as the present centrist president, Emmanuel Macron, had a law against “separatism” passed by the National Assembly in 2021.
The real issue, from a legal angle, lies rather with Mr. Houellebecq’s next sentence: “What the native population really strives for is not so much the Muslims’ assimilation into the French mainstream than the end of Muslim robbery and violence against them.” The implication may be that all Muslim citizens or residents of France are criminals. And this may be construed as racist incitement against a particular human group.
Mr. Houellebecq is arguably France’s best and most important contemporary writer. There is a widespread feeling that he deserved much more a Nobel Prize than the 2022 French laureate, Annie Ernaux. While both deal at length with social and societal issues, like class, sex, gender, and race, Mr. Houellebecq never gets stuck, unlike Ms. Ernaux, in Manichean postures, and devotes equal attention and sympathy, as the author, to all his characters.
Ms. Ernaux bought her ticket to fame — and ultimately the Nobel Prize — by subscribing to what America and the rest of the world, it seems, call woke orthodoxy. This includes a denial of Islamist threats to France in 2015 and support for anti-Israel campaigns. Mr. Houellebecq, on the contrary, did not shy away from tackling the Islamic and Islamist challenges to France and the West.
Mr. Houellebecq’s novel “Platform,” originally published in France in 2001, is primarily about the sex tourism industry in Thailand. However it culminates in a massive Islamist terrorist attack that literally blows hundreds of happy sinners into pieces. And it already pondered about the cyclical mechanisms of hate, murder, retribution, and revenge launched by terrorism.
“Submission,” published in 2015, envisions the election of a “Muslim-democratic” president and the ensuing gradual, peaceful transformation of the country into an ever more radicalized Islamic regime, complete with polygamy and hijab, under his administration. The way Mr. Houellebecq describes the French elites’ surrender to Kuranic supremacy is hilarious.
Rather intriguingly, both stories foreshadow real events: the 9/11 attacks of 2001, the Bali massacres of 2002, and the Paris attacks of 2015. Likewise, “Serotonin,” in 2016, anticipated the Yellow Vests crisis that was to rock France for months. As one magazine put it, Mr. Houellebecq could convincingly pass as a psychic or a soothsayer. It is not a crime under French law to engage in such activities. Itt can make all kinds of people nervous.
Many Muslims, in France or abroad, got nervous as well from “Platform,” about Mr. Houellebecq’s “Islamophobia.” Death threats and police protection became steady fixtures in his life. In 2002, he was sued for the first time by the Paris Great Mosque (whose distinguished counsel, Jean-Marc Varaut, was a right-wing Catholic): not about his novel, but rather an interview published by Lire, the French literary magazine, shortly before 9/11.
True to his provocateur profile, Mr. Houellebecq observed there: “I suddenly felt an absolute rejection of all monotheistic creeds, including Islam…. Islam, however, is the stupidest of them all, a religion of asses…. You get appalled when you read the Kuran…. At least, the Bible is a beautiful book, since Jews are awfully talented in literary matters.”
The case was then dismissed by the French court, setting a 20-year-old precedent that Chief Rabbi Korsia, did not fail to mention to Rector Hafiz, when he suggested to him that he drop the complaint. All the more so since most of the French have doubled down, in the wake of the murder of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in 2015, and more recently in front of a spreading wokeism, their traditional aversion to censorship.
Eventually, Mr. Houellebecq met the rector under Mr. Korsia’s tutelage, and agreed to reword his previous statements incrementally, when the interview will be published again as a book. Mr. Houellebecq may have learned one thing at least from the Islamic culture: taqia, the permissibility to please adversaries if needed.
https://www.nysun.com/article/france-settles-laffaire-houellebecq-at-least-for-now
**************************************************Why I HATE the phrase 'happy holidays' - far from being inclusive, it is in fact exclusive
PADRAIG COLLINS
I hate the insipid drivel of being wished 'happy holidays', and anyone who says it to me gets wished 'happy Christmas' right back at them.
If the dreaded phrase - popularised by the 1942 Bing Crosby song Happy Holiday - is said to me by someone I know, they also get told exactly why I hate the phrase.
'Happy holidays' is used by people who think doing so makes them inclusive, but it does not do that. Instead, it achieves the exact opposite - it excludes the 43.9 per cent of Australians who are Christian and who celebrate Christmas.
It also excludes a large proportion of the 38.9 per cent of Australians who ticked the 'No religion' box in the last census, but who were raised Christian and still celebrate Christmas.
Those saying 'happy holidays' do so in the belief that they are saving the 17.2 per cent of the population who have another religion from the terrible insult of having to hear the word Christmas.
The 'happy holidays' sayers are just utterly wrong in thinking it's the polite thing to say - do they also put up holiday trees, or is it OK to say Christmas tree?
I have never met anyone who objects to Christmas - the word or the feast - though I've heard and read about them, so I presume they are real.
But why would anyone object to something that at its heart - the birth of baby Jesus in Bethlehem 2022 years ago - is a good thing?
I am not offended by the existence or mention of any other religion's feast days.
On the contrary, if someone wished me, for instance, happy Hanukkah, Eid Al-Fitr or Diwali, I would be delighted.
These important days do not represent my religious upbringing, but I know how vital they are to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism and others.
I do not say 'happy holidays' to someone celebrating Hanukkah, Eid Al-Fitr or Diwali - I say the proper name of the time being celebrated.
Doing otherwise would be offensive to how important to it is to them and their families, and it's why I hate having 'happy holidays' said to me.
I don't want to be a Grinch about this, but Christmas is a very special time of the year to billions of people around the world.
Please stop taking away from its joy by diluting it to 'happy holidays'.
**********************************************************
Christian maths teacher accused of 'misgendering' trans pupil and calling Muhammad a 'false prophet' denies misconduct
A Christian maths teacher accused of 'misgendering' a transgender pupil, calling Muhammad a 'false prophet' and saying men in today's society 'are not masculine enough' has denied misconduct.
Joshua Sutcliffe is accused of referring to a transgender student as 'she' while working at a secondary school in Oxford, as well as making 'inappropriate' comments about gay marriage and masculinity at another school in London.
The teacher, who is an evangelical Christian, is facing allegations of misconduct by the Teacher Regulation Agency (TRA).
At a misconduct hearing in Oxford this week Andrew Cullen, representing the TRA, said Mr Sutcliffe had a 'strong belief and unshakeable conviction' that gender cannot be changed from the one assigned at birth.
Mr Sutcliffe is accused of misgendering the student, known only as Pupil A, at The Cherwell School in Oxford in 2017. Mr Sutcliffe admits he used the wrong pronoun but denies it was due to his beliefs and says he apologised for the mistake.
The tribunal heard that after Mr Sutcliffe was suspended and later left the school, he appeared on ITV's This Morning to speak about the incident.
Mr Cullen said Mr Sutcliffe misgendered the pupil again during the segment, and also misgendered the student in an email to the school in December 2018 - which the TRA say also amounts to misconduct.
Mr Sutcliffe is also accused of expressing his views on gay marriage and homosexuality during maths lessons - including making a comment that his roommate had 'stopped being gay through God' - which he denies.
From September 2018, the maths teacher went to work at a boys St Aloysius' College in Islington, north London, where he is accused of showing students videos that were 'inappropriate and had the potential to cause pupils distress'.
He allegedly played his own video to pupils at the boys-only Roman Catholic school in which he said Muslims have a 'false understanding of God' and that Muhammad was a 'false prophet'.
He is also accused of making comments about masculinity, including that there is a 'growing problem in today's society that men are not masculine enough' and that women 'want real men' and are 'not attracted to passive men'.
Mr Sutcliffe also allegedly said children who grow up without a father are more depressed than their peers and are at 'far greater risk of incarceration, teen pregnancy and poverty'.
Mr Sutcliffe accepts the videos are on his Youtube account but denies showing them to students or making the comments in class, the tribunal heard.
Mr Cullen said: 'All these issues are at the tip of public debate at the moment and issues that are hotly contested. 'It is not that a teacher can't hold personal beliefs or that one may not express their beliefs in an open way or in a public way - but context is vitally important.'
Michael Phillips, representing Mr Sutcliffe, said the teacher's views on gender are 'controversial but upheld and protected in law'.
Mr Phillips claimed there was no policy, risk assessment, or report from a social worker or psychologist to require teachers to use Pupil A's preferred pronoun, and Mr Sutcliffe would usually avoid using pronouns by referring to Pupil A by their name.
Mr Phillips added: 'There's nothing to suggest he must [use male pronouns] except for a brief conversation with a colleague that "if you don't do this, Pupil A will get mad".'
He said Mr Sutcliffe did not believe he had to use Pupil A's preferred pronouns on This Morning or in an email to the school in 2018 as the student was 'not privy to those conversations'.
In response to allegations he showed pupils in Islington his Youtube videos, Mr Phillips said: 'He does have a YouTube channel and he would endorse the comment of the video but he didn't show it.
'It may be that pupils looked him up... found out who he was, saw what he was about.'
Mr Phillips said even if Mr Sutcliffe had shown the videos, the point of view expressed was something 'wholly in keeping with the Christian faith' and 'upheld' by the Catholic school.
***********************************************************
My last phone call with Cardinal Pell
Andrew Bolt
I sure won’t forget the last time Cardinal George Pell rang me. Not now that I’ll never speak again to this holy man. He called me one night from Rome with an anxious question: Had I finally answered Christ’s call?
He’d even sent me an unimpressive book by Antony Flew to hasten the conversion he felt was imminent, so I was embarrassed to disappoint him and admit I was still agnostic.
Here’s why his call will stay with me now that he’s died in hospital of a heart attack, just as he was chatting to an anaesthetist about his hip operation.
It underlined something Pell’s critics never understood about him. To them, Pell was a schemer. A cold politician who rose to be the Vatican’s treasurer, third in line from the Pope, by putting his church above people. And, they wickedly added near the end of his life, he was a paedophile.
For decades, the media pumped out this hatred of Australia’s most senior Catholic, a conservative who opposed their global warming religion.
Just last Friday, browsing in a second-hand bookshop I found a copy of The Prince, a purported portrait of Pell by one of his nastiest critics, former ABC presenter David Marr.
The publisher’s blurb sums up the ABC gospel on Pell that did so much to destroy his reputation. Marr’s book was “a portrait of hypocrisy and ambition” of “a cleric at ease with power”.
But the Pell I knew was a man of God, who couldn’t even in his last days shake his concern for my soul. That real Pell is also there in his inspiring Prison Journal, written while in jail for 404 days for a crime he couldn’t possibly have committed.
The last paragraph says it all, with Pell, the son of a Ballarat publican, writing of the “man-God, whom I love and serve, whom I have followed for all my life”.
Oops. Sorry about all this God talk. It puts a lot of people off these days, and that was the problem with George Pell. No churchman here was firmer in defending his faith, and for that he was crucified.
Where did it all go so wrong? Many critics will point to May 1993, when Pell accompanied Australia’s worst paedophile priest, Father Gerald Ridsdale, to a court hearing. The media went berserk. Myths grew that Pell defended Ridsdale in court and tried to hide his crimes (both false). Even Pell was badgered years later into admitting he’d made a “mistake”.
It was a mistake only because few people now understand Christianity. Pell was trying again to follow Christ, who preached to prostitutes, tax collectors and the despised, telling them even the worst sinner need only repent to be forgiven.
But who understands that message today, when the woke forgive no one? Look at the jeering on Twitter at Pell’s death – “rot in hell”, “mongrel”, and “need to know if George Pell felt any pain before he died like a cockroach”.
Pell, a Christian, would never have been so pitiless. This is the great moral chasm – Christians vs barbarians – into which he fell.
But you’ll want me to say something bad about Pell, even if just to show he wasn’t perfect and I haven’t guzzled the altar wine. Well, Pell didn’t help himself by seeming aloof, cool and a little arrogant.
I once castigated him for using the birth of the beloved daughter of a friend of mine to preach against the IVF techniques which conceived her. Pell sometimes lacked a sensitivity that could have spared him.
Yet what was done to him was more damning than anything he did. For instance, Pell was accused by the witch-hunting Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse of helping the Bishop of Ballarat move Ridsdale from parish to parish, knowing he was raping boys.
Pell denied it, and the commission had no evidence he was lying. In fact, it bizarrely claimed Pell was at a meeting of consulters where the bishop said Ridsdale was a paedophile, yet it accepted another consulter there didn’t know this until a decade later.
No, Pell had to be the fall guy for his guilty church, and Victoria’s police made sure of it.
Pell had long been hated by the Left, even since he became Archbishop of Melbourne and insisted priests and Catholic schools follow the church’s teachings and not their Left-wing own.
He also set up the first compensation scheme anywhere for victims of child-sex abuse, and put in reforms – almost entirely successful – to guard against paedophile priests, but that didn’t save him.
In 2015, Victoria Police advertised for complaints against Pell, asking “victims” to come forward. They then charged him with 26 complaints of child sex abuse against nine “victims”.
The charges were so far-fetched that all collapsed, but not before Pell spent more than a year in jail after being convicted of somehow raping two teenage boys at once in the open sacristy of his Cathedral, in the bustle just after Mass.
In fact, the evidence was clear: Pell was at the front of the Cathedral, talking to worshippers, at the only time the sacristy was free, and his accuser must have been outside, walking back with the choir. Neither the raped nor the alleged rapist could have been at the scene of the crime.
One of the two “victims” even told his parents there was no rape, and the High Court decided, seven judges to nil, Pell was innocent.
Pell always suspected senior Vatican clerics planted or supported these bizarre allegation to stop him investigating them for corruption. One of his enemies is now on trial.
Yet to this day, thousands of Australians still prefer this lie of Pell the paedophile, and the ABC has never apologised for pushing it. Like Nero, they’d rather crucify an innocent Christian than hear the truth.
In that respect, Pell follows the Christ he adored. Let Catholics remember him as a man, flawed but holy, martyred by pagans to pay for their sins.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment