Well, I've had my coffee, so here ya' go. Happy to oblige!
Posted on 07/12/2005 6:02:05 AM PDT by BJClinton
Thanks to the war in Iraq, much of the world sees the British government as resolute and tough, the French one as appeasing and weak. But in another war, the one against terrorism and radical Islam, the reverse is true: France is the most stalwart nation in the West, even more so than the United States, while Great Britain is the very most hapless. Consider:
Counterterrorism. U.K.-based terrorists have carried out operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Russia, Spain, and the United States. Many governments – Jordanian, Egyptian, Moroccan, Spanish, French, and American – have protested London’s refusal to shut down its Islamist terrorist infrastructure or extradite wanted operatives. In frustration, Egyptian president Husni Mubarak publicly denounced Britain for “protecting killers.” One American security group has called for Britain to be listed as a terrorism-sponsoring state.
Counterterrorism specialists disdain the British. Roger Cressey calls London “easily the most important jihadist hub in Western Europe.” Steven Simon dismisses the British capital as “the Star Wars bar scene” of Islamic radicals. More brutally, an intelligence official said of last week’s attacks: “The terrorists have come home. It is payback time for … an irresponsible policy.”
While London hosts terrorists, Paris hosts a top-secret counterterrorism center, code-named Alliance Base, whose existence was just revealed by the Washington Post, where six major Western governments since 2002 share intelligence and run counterterrorism operations. (The latter makes it unique.)
More broadly, President Jacques Chirac instructed French intelligence agencies just days after 9/11 to share terrorism data with their U.S. counterparts “as if they were your own service.” This cooperation is working: former acting CIA director John E. McLaughlin calls this bilateral intelligence tie “one of the best in the world.” The British may have a “special relationship” with Washington in Iraq, but the French have one in the war on terror.
France accords terrorist suspects fewer rights than any other Western state, permitting interrogation without a lawyer, lengthy pre-trial incarcerations, and evidence acquired under dubious circumstances. Were he a terrorism suspect, says Evan Kohlmann, author of Al-Qaida’s Jihad in Europe, he “would least like to be held under” the French system.
Radical Islam. The myriad French-British differences in this arena can be summarized by the example of what Muslim girls may wear to state-funded schools.
Denbigh High School in Luton, 30 miles northwest from London, has a student population about 80 percent Muslim. It years ago accommodated the sartorial needs of their faith and heritage, including a female student uniform made up of the Pakistani shalwar kameez trousers, a jerkin top, and hijab head covering. But when Shabina Begum, a teenager of Bangladeshi origins, insisted in 2004 on wearing a jilbab, which covers the entire body except for the face and hands, Denbigh administrators said no.
Their dispute ended up in litigation and the Court of Appeal ultimately decided in Begum’s favor. As a result, by law U.K. schools must now accept the jilbab. Not only that, but Cherie Booth, wife of British prime minister Tony Blair, was Begum’s lawyer at the appellate level. Booth called the court’s judgment “a victory for all Muslims who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry.”
In contrast, also in 2004, the French government outlawed the hijab, the Muslim headscarf, from public educational institutions, disregarding ferocious opposition both within France and among Islamists worldwide. In Tehran, protestors shouted “Death to France!” and “Death to Chirac the Zionist!” The Palestinian Authority mufti, Ikrima Sa’id Sabri, declared that “French laws banning the hijab constitute a war against Islam as a religion.” The Saudi grand mufti, Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, called them a human rights infringement. When the “Islamic Army in Iraq” kidnapped two French journalists, it threatened their execution unless the hijab ban was revoked. Nonetheless, Paris stood firm.
What lies behind these contrary responses? The British have seemingly lost interest in their heritage while the French hold on to theirs; even as the British ban fox hunting, the French ban hijabs. The former embraced multiculturalism, the latter retain a pride in their historic culture. This contrast in matters of identity makes Great Britain the Western country most vulnerable to the ravages of radical Islam whereas France, for all its political failings, has retained a sense of self that may yet see it through.
Um...sorry Frenchies but it goes back much farther than that...I'm thinking it goes back centuries...
Pretty amazing that we have these people in mycountry (UK). Even more surprising is a pro-France story appearing in FR!!
Interesting point. If they are being pretty much shut down around the world, that they have to start blowing up their own base of operation, we must be making headway.
Interesting point. If they are being pretty much shut down around the world, that they have to start blowing up their own base of operation, we must be making headway.
French criminal law has always been that way. It's not as if they treat terrorists any differently than someone accused of theft.
Unusual headline... :-)
Cheers.
While in Paris last year I noticed FAMAS-packing soldiers everywhere. Heavily armed security was far more present than in either UK or the US, IMO.
France surrendered to Corsicans, rock throwing Canacks in New Caledonia, Haiti moaning Voodoo nutsoes and muslims long ago.
That stance on the shador is simply a stance against Christianity under garbs of "secularism", and secularism is not a tradition of France but of the French revolution romanticism.
I dont think that our intel services as subaltern of the French is a good relationship either. Sounds to me the French are more on the collaboration side than on the offense side. They do what they can and that is very little.
This piece is certainly thought provoking.
11 posts before "France Surrenders", gettin' kinda slow, folks.
The words "tough" and "French" do not belong in the same sentence.
This article is based on an incorrect assumption that the legal principles underpinning the French and British systems are equivalent. This is false - the British system has at its base the rights of the individual. The French system favours the state. This means that the French can do things such as take private property for national projects and hold terrorists in a way that makes the state more effective, but the individual is less protected. The British system favours individual liberty; yet it is fair to say the terrorists exploit it.
The French "toughness" as such, is not a response to terrorism, it is business as usual.
Regards, Ivan
This article is based on an incorrect assumption that the legal principles underpinning the French and British systems are equivalent. This is false - the British system has at its base the rights of the individual. The French system favours the state. This means that the French can do things such as take private property for national projects and hold terrorists in a way that makes the state more effective, but the individual is less protected. The British system favours individual liberty; yet it is fair to say the terrorists exploit it.
The French "toughness" as such, is not a response to terrorism, it is business as usual.
Regards, Ivan
Well, I've had my coffee, so here ya' go. Happy to oblige!
I think that assertion is incorrect. What French intel has over the U.S. or the Brits is that they had colonial holdings in Muslim countries in N. Africa, so they've had a large network in place for a long time, and have been generous with their information.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.