LE FIGARO. - Cited to the bar at the November 13 trial, a first for a former president before an assize court, François Hollande defended his record and the war against the Islamic State organization. As someone at the Eagles of Death concert on the night of the bombings, what do you think of his words?
Victor ROUART. -
François Hollande, through his testimony at the trial of the attacks of November 13, 2015, believes that all the measures aimed at the fight against terrorism and the protection of the French were taken during his mandate. Emergency measures were voted and actions carried out. But after the massacres perpetrated on our soil which has mourned and destroyed so many innocent families, it seems to me necessary to analyze the fight against terrorism in its entirety, taking into account its various aspects. If the former head of state has continued to hammer
"we are at war" for
evoke the jihadist threat and rightly so, what about the effectiveness of these measures?
Was it not possible to act upstream, against a phenomenon of radicalization which has been expanding in our society for several years?
While no one disputes the difficulty of finding the necessary balance between public freedoms and the security of the French and that measures have been taken against terrorism, it is necessary to analyze whether they were sufficient.
It is permissible to doubt it.
I can understand that Eric Zemmour's remarks in front of the Bataclan may have seemed out of place and elicit reactions from associations of families of victims due to the timing chosen.
Victor Rouart
Regarding the fight against Islamist radicalization on our soil and although the government of François Hollande is not the only one concerned, it is still possible to be indignant and to reproach the socialist power for its laxity in the face of the development of an ideology radical Islamist who has been able to prosper in particular through the allocation of subsidies to the profits of associations linked to the Brotherhood of the Muslim Brotherhood or through the practice of patronage.
The former president defends his record, but on the question of Islamism, it is permissible to dispute it.
Did the executive at the time take the measure of the threat posed by Islamist terrorism?
After the terror caused by the
Charlie Hebdo
attack
and that of the Hyper Cacher at the Porte de Vincennes, the public authorities took emergency measures on French soil with the establishment of the sentinel operation or again the alert file for the prevention of terrorist radicalization (FSPRT).
To read also "The psychic bullets slowly killed him": Guillaume hanged himself, two years after having escaped from the Bataclan
However, it seems to me that François Hollande and his government did not fully appreciate the danger posed by Islamism, the declaration of the former President of the Republic during his hearing as a witness at the trial of the terrorist attacks of November 13, 2015, recognizing the presence of Islamist terrorists hidden among the streams of migrants is, in my opinion, revealing and symptomatic of an underestimation of the threat and can be likened to a lack of political will linked to ideological reasons. Why did the president prefer to keep this information silent, which nevertheless represented a significant danger for the safety of the French? Especially since part of the press, at the same time, qualified as "fake news" this possibility ofinfiltration of terrorists among the refugees and demonized anyone who spoke of this possibility. It seems to me that the omnipresent moral and humanist question as to whether or not migrants were welcomed during this year 2015, as sensitive and complex as it is, did not justify what can be compared to taking risks on the part of political power, the security of our fellow citizens being one of the essential missions of the State.
Eric Zemmour recently attracted controversy by going to the Bataclan and then reproaching François Hollande (among others) for not having defended the French against “a war of civilization” which would be “waged on our soil”. Do you think this controversy is justified? Why ?
I can understand that Eric Zemmour's remarks in front of the Bataclan may have seemed out of place and elicit reactions from associations of families of victims because of the timing.
To read also “They symbolized the carefree youth who like to go out and listen to music”: who were Marie and Mathias, the “Bataclan lovers”?
However, I am still amazed at the variable geometry indignation of moral professionals who have seemed far more complacent with the authors of previous provocations. For example, I would have appreciated being able to see an equivalent degree of indignation when in 2018, the rapper Medina, whose proximity to Islamist organizations had been established, had to do a concert at the Bataclan to promote his album entitled "Jihad", which was nevertheless provided with fairly explicit elements as to the message conveyed. The reactions and the vocabulary used at the time by the same people who are indignant today at Zemmour's intervention, seemed much more measured despite the seriousness of the manifest provocation and the attack on the memory of the victims. and their families.Same observation concerning a demonstration of November 10, 2019, initiated by associations close to Islamist circles such as the CCIF (Editor's note, since dissolved by the Minister of the Interior Gerald Darmanin), during which several people chanted “Allah akbar” to a short distance from the Bataclan where many victims had perished under jihadist fire, using the same expression. Among those who today are crying out loud, some were discreet about this event. As a person directly affected by the attacks, I am especially shocked by this difference in treatment and can only deplore this "double standard".Dissolved since by the Minister of the Interior Gérald Darmanin), during which several people chanted “Allah akbar” not far from the Bataclan where many victims had perished under fire from the jihadists, using the same expression. Among those who today are crying out loud, some were discreet about this event. As a person directly affected by the attacks, I am especially shocked by this difference in treatment and can only deplore this "double standard".Dissolved since by the Minister of the Interior Gérald Darmanin), during which several people chanted “Allah akbar” not far from the Bataclan where many victims had perished under fire from the jihadists, using the same expression. Among those who today are crying out loud, some were discreet about this event. As a person directly affected by the attacks, I am especially shocked by this difference in treatment and can only deplore this "double standard".orfraie, some had been discreet about this event. As a person directly affected by the attacks, I am especially shocked by this difference in treatment and can only deplore this "double standard".orfraie, some had been discreet about this event. As a person directly affected by the attacks, I am especially shocked by this difference in treatment and can only deplore this "double standard".
Eric Zemmour, however, has he not gone too far in attacking the former head of state directly? Was this really the place and the time?
I think he should have used different terms to respond to François Hollande on the day of the commemoration of the attacks to avoid his intervention resembling a communication blow.
Nevertheless, the form should not make us forget the essential subjects and the substance of his intervention.
It does not seem devoid of meaning, on the part of the victims or the families of victims, to wonder about certain political choices, the responsibility of those in power and to want to obtain answers on the occurrence of the attacks of November 2015 which have mourning the country
Victor Rouart
Éric Zemmour, whether we like it or not, asks questions about social issues (immigration, assimilation, terrorism) which are part of the concerns of a majority of French people and which are often overlooked by part of the political class. while they are legitimate. It does not seem devoid of meaning, on the part of the victims or the families of victims, to wonder about certain political choices, the responsibility of those in power and to want to obtain answers on the occurrence of the attacks of November 2015 which have bereaved the country, especially after the declarations of François Hollande on the Islamist terrorists infiltrated in the flow of migrants. I think these words should raise further questions.
According to lawyer Raquel Garrido, former spokesperson for La France insoumise, we are now "in a process of reparation" and "the families" of the victims "have made immeasurable efforts [...] to find the path to reconciliation, including with the terrorists themselves ”. What do you think of these words? Is a form of "reconciliation" with the terrorists possible?
I consider Raquel Garrido's words appalling but unfortunately not surprising.
This type of declaration reveals in my opinion that a certain left has gone astray by operating an ideological rapprochement, under the guise of the fight against discrimination and good feelings, with movements close to political Islam.
How could a reconciliation take place between on the one hand, individuals and families bruised and victims of atrocities, and on the other jihadist terrorists who do not wish, until proven guilty, to ask for forgiveness?
For this to be granted it is necessary to meet two wills, the executioner and the victim.
I find this statement "indecent".
