Charlie Hebdo has broad shoulders

In three days, in France, a group of four or five people claiming to be both al-Qaeda in Yemen and the Islamic Emirate (Daesh) massacred the editorship of Charlie Hebdo and murdered a municipal police officer and more hostages in three different situations. France, which had not experienced such violence since the attacks of the OAS, over 50 years ago, responded while crying "We are all Charlie!" by shooting three terrorists and organizing a huge demonstration of several million people.

The President of the Republic, François Hollande, hosted the leaders of the political parties represented in Parliament. He appealed to French national unity and attended the event, along with fifty heads of foreign governments.

In a previous article [1], I observed that the mode of operation of the terrorists had nothing to do with that which is practiced by experienced jihadists, but rather resembled that of a military commando. I concluded that, as a result, no matter who they were, the only thing we need to know is who commanded them. I would like, in this second article, to return to the reactions aroused by this case.

The suspension of the right to protest

At the moment of the announcement of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, January 7, 2015 at noon, Prime Minister Manuel Valls decided to implement the Vigipirate attack Plan at Ile-de-France. This comprises a hundred automatic measures and about two hundred other options. Among the chosen measures, the Interior Ministry announced the postponement of all authorized demonstrations. The authorities feared that terrorists might fire on the crowd.

However, a far-left party called to demonstrate immediately in support of Charlie Hebdo. After a few hours of hesitation, the Commissioner of Police authorized a rally that would number 100 000 people. Even stranger: the Prime Minister declared a national day of mourning for the next day, January 8th. Many rallies were organized by government to celebrate a minute of silence. Still more surprising: the Socialist Party called for a broad national demonstration on Sunday the 11th, which attracted more than 2 million people in Paris.

Thus, the government could ban demonstrations because they might be dangerous to their participants, but its members could organize a huge one, inviting leaders of foreign governments without fear for their safety.

This manipulation confirms that, contrary to its declarations, the government knew precisely the extent of the threat and knew it did not concern gatherings.

They thus prefered to retain only this extraordinary popular movement for freedom.

National Union

In this crisis situation, the right and the left agreed to participate together in a national event. But for what values or against whom will they demonstrate?

We discover that the leaders of the left and right shared the anti-religious, anti-national and anti-militarist values of the very leftist Charlie Hebdo. We knew that its founder, Philippe Val, was a friend of the Sarkozys. Suddenly we discover that its new manager, Charb, was the companion of a right-wing minister, Jeannette Bougrab.

The latter was the guest of TF1’s journal. Very moved, she tells of her love. Then she presents Charb’s anti-religious convictions as a secular commitment in the face of Islamism, before comparing her friend to Jean Moulin and requesting that he be buried with him in the Pantheon. She ends by revealing that the couple had thought to leave France and start a new life elsewhere. We are left stunned. In a few words, Jeannette Bougrab just showed her contempt for her fellow citizens, assimilated secularism to the anti-religious struggle and put an anti-national comedian on an equal footing with the founder of the National Council of the the Resistance. The Charb family may well protest as it will but doubt has been cast.

And so that we may well understand what is the "national union", seen from the right and the left, socialist leaders declared that the National Front would be excluded from the "republican" demonstration. Have we really understood the enormity of the proposal? Political leaders evoke the Republic to exclude their rivals. Ultimately, the FN joined demonstrations in the provinces.

The International Union

By inviting all sorts of Heads of State and government leaders to open the event with him, President Hollande intended to give it an air of solemnity.

Among these present, one counted David Cameron and Benjamin Netanyahu, whose states wield omnipotent military censorship; or again the US Secretary of Justice, Eric Holder, whose country loves freedom of expression so much that it bombed and destroyed numerous TV stations from that of Belgrade to the Libyan networks; Turkish Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, whose country banned the construction of Christian churches (even if it seems set to soon authorize one); or again Benjamin Netanyahu who congratulated al-Qaeda fighters treated in Israeli hospitals; once again without forgetting Eric Holder, Ahmet Davutoğlu and King Abdullah of Jordan, whose States reorganized Daesh in January, 2014.

So what were these folks doing in Paris? Certainly not defending freedom of expression and worship which they actually fight.

Freedom of expression

It’s not only the political class that took the opportunity hog the blankets. So did the press. It sees in Charlie Hebdo an example of the very freedom of press it keeps trampling, self-censoring constantly and always showing solidarity with crimes committed abroad by the government.

The French press is indeed numerous, but extremely conformist and therefore not pluralistic. This is so right up to the unanimity with which it presents Charlie Hebdo. For, contrary to what it claims, the satirical newspaper proclaimed its opposition to freedom of expression, notably when it was petitionning to ban the National Front or campaigning for censorship of the internet.

Anyway, we can only be grateful that the press has finally come to the defense of those who are attacked for what they have said.

About the jihadist trail

Continuing its investigation in the wrong direction, the press provides a profile of terrorists and forgets to look into their sponsors. Without cracking a smile, it explained that this wave of attacks is a collaboration between al-Qaeda members in Yemen and Daesh, even though the two organizations have been engaged for a year in a fierce war that has killed at least 3,000 victims in both camps.

On this subject, I am surprised at these references; we should soon find a new one that connects the attack to Libya. Indeed, if François Hollande follows in the footsteps of George W. Bush, he should attack Yemen although France has no great advantage in such a project. However her personal chief of staff, General Puga, is preparing a new military intervention in Libya.

This target is much more logical. France could then reap the benefits that it hoped to obtain from its first intervention. And it would end the US project of remodeling the "Broader Middle East" as published by Robin Wright in The New York Times in September, 2013 [2] and begun by Daesh in Iraq and Syria.