"No, Mr. Castaner, the mantilla of Catholics has nothing to do with the Islamic veil! "

Home"TO THE ONE""No, Mr. Castaner, the mantilla of Catholics has nothing to do with the Islamic veil! "
31 Partages


FIGAROVOX / TRIBUNE - Responding to Christophe Castaner who drew parallels between Muslim women wearing headscarves and the veil formerly worn by Catholic women to attend mass, Fatiha Boudjahlat reminds us that the Islamic veil is a religious symbol of subordination of the woman.

- Photo credits: Deer.



Fatiha Boudjahlat is co-founder with Céline Pina of the Viv (r) e la République movement. She is also the author of Feminism, Tolerance, Culture: The Great Diversion (Cerf ed, 2017).




The device is clear and now well prowled. Minister Blanquer is responsible for reassuring the laity's conservative camp, while President Macron and LREM leader Castaner quietly send strong signals to the clerics, and quietly install ecumenism and multiculturalism that will delight the liberals. they dismantle the nation-state and our most original and valuable political heritage: secularism.

Christophe Castaner comes to amend the presidential speech for once too clear about the misogynistic nature of the veil, so that all the camps, and first those of religious, are reassured and that everyone remember that it abounds in its meaning. The sequence begun by a homily against the bishops could not be concluded on this negative note. On the radio, Castaner initially suggested that a particular fate would be reserved for Islam: "The question was asked a few years ago when all Catholic women wore a veil? I do not believe." Was his model of society the one in which women did not have a bank account and were not equal to men? A quick glance at Google Images reassures: Yvonne De Gaulle did not wear the veil. We should not have told her that by doing so, she was a very poor Catholic ...

It is a lie to pose the religious equivalence between the mantilla of Catholic women and Islamic veiling. 

Castaner adds: "A few years ago, when in France, including our mothers wore a veil, wore the Catholic veil, we did not ask the question". The first lie of Castaner is historical and spatial: like Moses gathered on the Nile, Castaner is probably born in a cowshed of Provence and grew up in a convent. Let's hope that his father was not the pastor of the parish ... His second lie is to pose the religious equivalence between the mantilla of Catholic women and Islamic veiling. The first was a sign of piety, which was only worn at mass, and, moreover, it is only seen at the church more and more rarely. The second is a mandatory, permanent, which is accompanied by all sorts of restrictions.

Castaner has the same reasoning as Juppé when he evoked the "damn of his mother". At the time of the debate on the presence of veiled mothers during school trips, Juppé had said that when she went to Mass, her mother was wearing a headscarf, and that he was hardly shocked to see him worn by women Muslims nowadays. Confusion of places and acts. Above all, the Muslim veil is worn by women of all ages, in all places and to practice all activities of daily life. The damn of then has nothing in common with the buckling of our days. It is the same relativistic logic used by Hamon when he was invited to react on a report shot in the cities of Sevran and Rillieux-la-Pape illustrating the exclusion of women from places of conviviality such as cafes: the MP The District of Trappes did not immediately condemn this sexed apartheid. He analyzed this exclusion and relativized it by a detour, like Plenel, by the story: "Historically, in the coffee shops, there was no woman". Politically savvy, he ended up remembering that he was a member of the Republic and that the situation was illegal as well as intolerable. Apart from the fact that his assertion on working cafes without a wife was false, he turned to allochronism: since this exclusion existed, according to him, before, we could understand that it exists nowadays, in certain districts, religion and tradition explaining this double regime of historicity and this "delay" of development. Muslims in ultra-orthodoxy will appreciate.

It is bourgeois condescension that consists in thinking that we can not expect or demand "true Muslims" to be at the same level of modernity as we are, nor that they live like us. The corollary of such a conception is an invitation to "others" to an orthodoxy as a guarantee of authentic identity: to be a "good Muslim", we must refuse this regime of historicity common to the rest of the population. An ontological otherness is thus constructed from scratch. We consider that we can not ask "these people" to be at the same level of development as we are. We must let them do it, because it is done like that at home, when they do not live in consular territory: they were born here and it is here that they are at home. In this way, our compatriots are locked up in spatio-temporal capsules, to use the expression of Tahar Ben Jelloun.

A bourgeois condescension is to think that we can not demand "true Muslims" to be at the same level of modernity as we are.

According to Castaner, Juppe, Hamon, and even Plenel with his picture of the women of 1900 in swimwear, our Muslim compatriots are 50 to 120 years behind us. Their false tolerance and their lies belie any openness of mind but assign our Muslim compatriots in a regime of different historicity, even as they were born and raised here.

The penitent bourgeois want to relativize the intrinsically religious nature of Islamic veiling, to trivialize it and make it a cultural attribute, as F. Dubet writes in his book What unites us,Discrimination, equality and recognition State Councilor Thierry Tuot, in his report entitled The Great Nation, for an inclusive society awarded in 2013 to Jean-Marc Ayrault: "We have already changed our food habits, and that the clothing evolves will make us perhaps a little less gray, stiff, and encravated. Still, let's resume! Has France ever depended on the fact that a piece of cloth - boubou, Breton headdress, chèche or beret - is worn in one way or another?

In doing so, they despise the religiosity and orthopraxy adopted by some of our compatriots and are contradicted by them. So, while these big-hearted people like Hubert Huertas are returning to the kerchief worn by Grace Kelly, the CCIF itself had written, following the exclusion of a veiled woman from a gym, that "A religious sign is in no way comparable to a banal headgear or a fashion accessory such as a hat or a cap. Indeed, it is the outward manifestation of a religious conviction, which national and international law protects and guarantees. Thus, the wearing of the headscarf is recognized as a religious sign and as such enjoys special protection.

Faced with the desire to normalize the veiling, which eventually became the norm in many ghettoized neighborhoods, the strategy of useful idiots of Islamism was to relativize the religious dimension of veiling, to make it a cultural attribute, almost anthropological and so make us feel guilty about rejecting it. The second strategy consisted in making this sign of subordination of the woman to the Eastern patriarchate a vector of autonomy, emancipation, even of "power to act" feminine. It is pure communication and the sign of a great diversion. Edward Barnays, considered the father of public relations, author of the book Propaganda, says he was contacted by the boss of a tobacco company, because the women do not smoke, he lost a large market. How to convince them to smoke, when it was a taboo in American society? Barnays takes advantage of a militant suffragette march for the right to vote, warns the journalists that a particular event is going to happen, pays actresses who, at an agreed signal, take out a cigarette, light it up and talk to journalists about " torches of freedom. This is how the cigarette became an object of subversion against the Western patriarchate and a sign of the emancipation of women! The same thing happens with the capture of the Women's March by Islamist women clamoring their feminism, while subordinating themselves to the requirements of the Eastern Patriarchate: the veiling becomes by the grace of an advertising manipulation a sign of emancipation, which he is not.

The veil is not Muslim. He is Islamist.

There is little more than naïve bourgeois or clientelists to refuse to consider veiling for what it is: the free choice to consent to the ultra-orthodox demands of community leaders of the Eastern Patriarchate. Because building and belonging to a community is not natural. By the lever of the hyper-orthopraxie, this one is guaranteed. The religious assume it. The laymen who fight the veiling are in fact much more respectful than the condescending bourgeois.

While the prince of multiculturalism Justin Trudeau is visiting France, it is advisable to remain lucid and firm, and to refuse to normalize this sign of the subordination of the woman. The buckling is not a damn, a protection against the wind, a fun fashion accessory, arguments all used successively: it is the anchor to a fantasy religious culture, which locks into an overbid and ends up building what Fethi Benslama call the surmusulman, either "The constraint under which a Muslim is led to outbid the Muslim that he is by the representation of a Muslim who must be even more Muslim". The veil is not Muslim. He is Islamist.

Castaner on the radio, but also Macron against the bishops, lend a more than naive clientelist contest. The logical political consequence is the injunction to multiculturalism, which is not the empirical recognition of the multicultural reality of our country, but the political agenda of differentiation of rights and separatism carried by the indigenists and Islamists.

The editorial advises you:



Fatiha Boudjahlat


Source: © "No, Mr. Castaner, the mantilla of Catholics has nothing to do with the Islamic veil! "

31 Partages

4 Responses to "« Non, Monsieur Castaner, la mantille des catholiques n’a rien à voir avec le voile islamique ! »"

  1. Eveline Chouquet
    Eveline Chouquet   20 April 2018 at 12 h 59 min

    He sleeps d or that one

  2. Michèle Pons
    Michèle Pons   20 April 2018 at 13 h 00 min

    He'd better shut up

  3. Nadina Delgado
    Nadina Delgado   20 April 2018 at 18 h 02 min

    What a badger that one!
    SHUT UP !

  4. Christian Abraham
    Christian Abraham   20 April 2018 at 20 h 39 min

    Question of culture!

Comments are closed.

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By: XYZScripts.com