Between provocation and contrition: the new 'Houellebecq case'

Michel Houellebecq, pictured at the La Rochelle Francofolies Music Festival, in 2019.Barbara Neyman (Barbara Neyman)

There is nothing new by Michel Houellebecq in French bookstores at the beginning of the year, the date around which he usually publishes his novels, which crudely and lyrically dissect the deep malaise of our societies.

But everything that has happened in recent weeks, since the author of

magazine

, could perfectly be the plot of one of these books.

It contains the ingredients: explosive statements, denunciations of hatred of Muslims, intellectual polemics and, finally, a scene in which the accused writer and the Muslim leader who has denounced him smoke the pipe of peace.

A happy ending open to interpretations.

The new

out at the end of November, when the sovereignist magazine

, co-directed by Onfray, published the river-interview between Onfray himself and Houellebecq.

It is a meeting between the most popular philosopher in France, formerly identified with the libertarian left and now accused of having drifted towards national-populism, and perhaps the most talented and certainly impactful novelist of his generation, as well as a polemicist. fierce, with positions often described as reactionary.

The title on the cover says it all: “The end of the West?”

From the first lines, Houellebecq demonstrates his talent to provoke.

He attacks General Charles de Gaulle, a true totem in his country, except for the extreme right, for having abandoned, after the independence of Algeria in 1962, the

, Algerian soldiers who fought with France.

"Because of his behavior with the

, De Gaulle would be willing to be shot," says the novelist.

He defends the death penalty.

“Shouldn't the state avenge us a bit?” he suggests.

And, when the philosopher objects that executing a murderer does not bring the murdered back to life, he replies: “No, it does not bring anyone back, but I know that the culprit has died.

This restores a balance.”

Friday prayers at the Grand Mosque in Paris, France, on Oct. 30, 2020. Kiran Ridley (Getty)

When he discusses with Onfray the possibility of a civil war in France, Houellebecq utters the words that almost landed him in court.

There are two disputed statements.

The first: “When the Reconquista began, Spain was under Muslim rule.

We are not in this situation yet.

What we can already see is that people are armed.

They get hold of rifles, they take classes at shooting centers.

And they are not buzzed.

When entire territories will be under Islamist control, I think there will be acts of resistance.

There will be attacks and shootings in the mosques, in the cafes frequented by Muslims, in short, a Bataclan [nightclub in Paris where in November 2015 the Islamic State killed 90 people] in reverse.

And Muslims will not limit themselves to putting candles and bouquets of flowers.

Then yes,

Houellebecq says in the second statement: "I believe that the desire of the pure-blooded French population, as they say, is not for Muslims to assimilate, but for them to stop stealing and assaulting, in short, for their violence to decrease, for them to respect to the law and to the people.

Or, another good solution, that they leave ”.

It was not the novelist who was speaking;

he was the citizen.

And there was little ambiguity.

The interview sparked debates on social media and in intellectual circles.

“The virulence of [his] words marks a further stage in the radicalization towards the extreme right of a successful author,”

wrote .

Without referring to the interview, the Nobel Prize winner for literature, the left-wing writer Annie Ernaux, had commented on her colleague in

: "He has completely reactionary, anti-feminist ideas."

And she, when asked about Houellebecq's Nobel candidacy, she replied: "Frankly, it better have been me."

"The desire of the purebred French population is not for Muslims to assimilate, but for them to stop stealing and assaulting (...).

Or, let them leave", said Houellebecq

On December 28, the Grand Mosque of Paris announced a complaint against Houellebecq for inciting hatred against Muslims in the two quoted statements.

"The Grand Mosque of Paris recalls that, in a democratic society, the law allows criticism of religions, and fully accepts this debate, in which everyone can contradict themselves", justified the rector of the mosque, Chems-Eddine Hafiz, a Franco-Algerian lawyer identified with moderate positions and threatened by Islamists.

And he added: “In this case, however, it is a call to reject the Muslim component as a whole.

In this way, the debate is not possible, and now it is necessary to ask for the strict application of the law”.

There was a precedent.

In 2000, Hafiz denounced Houellebecq after declaring: "Islam is without a doubt the most stupid religion."

The court found the writer not guilty.

He protected freedom of expression and the right to criticize a religion.

In the case of the statements in

it was not so clear that the same thing happened.

According to the Grand Mosque, what was in question was not the insult to a religion, but to specific people, the Muslims of France.

"For once, the denunciation of the Grand Mosque of Paris does not seem unreasonable," wrote

journalist Caroline Fourest, a prominent defender of secularism and the right to freedom of expression in its broadest sense , in

Fourest finds the new complaint "understandable."

She says that “those from the reverse Batacán” that Houellebecq refers to have already struck, in fact: on December 23 a man with a xenophobic background shot dead three Kurds in Paris.

And she points out that there is a line between freedom of expression and hate, and that this line is precisely "the one that generations of cartoonists and teachers have literally killed themselves to explain."

Alludes to the cartoonists of the satirical weekly

, murdered in January 2015 for drawing Muhammad, and high school teacher Samuel Paty, beheaded in October 2020 for showing these cartoons in class.

French-Algerian lawyer and rector of the Paris Grand Mosque Chems-Eddine Hafiz poses at the Paris mosque on October 13, 2022. JOEL SAGET (AFP)

Other intellectuals disagree, such as the conservative Alain Finkielkraut, who in

recalls that Houellebecq "has become a target [of the Islamists]" and that "when he talks about

, he contemplates the worst, but does not want it" .

That is the debate: if in his statements, the author of

stigmatizes a group and incites to hate him.

Or if he only expresses his perception of reality, his personal fears, and makes one of those predictions that have given him a reputation as a visionary, although he himself admits: "As a prophet it has always seemed to me that I am overrated."

Everything seemed to be settled in court when, on Thursday, the story took a turn.

Chems-Eddine Hafiz and Michel Houellebecq met at the initiative of the Chief Rabbi of France, Haïm Korsia.

Houellebecq promised to modify his words in the version of their conversation that Onfray would appear in book format.

In the new version, which

has advanced, the writer conditions the idea that there is going to be a civil war and, when speaking of the desire of a part of the French for Muslims to stop "robbing and attacking" or “let them go”, circumscribes it to delinquents and criminals.

In return, the Grand Mosque has withdrawn the complaint.

The conversation between Hafiz and Houellebecq, lasting six hours and for now confidential, could give for another volume.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I'm already a subscriber