I even explicitly said that the fear of Islam does not mean hatred of all Muslims, which you apparently missed completely in your quest to denounce me.
That's very good, but it makes complete nonsense of your complacency about Fillon in France concerning whom you have blithely observed to me:
You just described every right-wing opposition hopeful anywhere. Yes, that's what they campaign on, that's what they promise and that's what occasionally deliver. What of it?
What of it?
This is an interesting angle from Fillon. I don't think his version of the "deplorables" have the grit required for mano a mano with the mad mullahs. What is to be done? Let us imagine
"Boss, we hear you want to raise retirement ages, reduce workers' rights and cut social security."
"So I do. Because of the economic crisis. You want to do something very constructive about that? Make yourselves really useful?"
"Yes Boss."
"Then go harass some brown-skinned girls and women on the beach. Safe. Good fun, and you're helping your country too, to save it from these weirdo aliens."
Here's Fillon quoted in
Figaro, 19 August. My translation.
"The burkini is a mere avatar of the burqa and it isn't based on religious rules or a cultural dimension, said the Right's candidate in the primary election. Rejecting the "reasoning that justifies wearing the burkini on grounds of individual freedom, or the right of women to wear whatever garments they choose", which he describes as "sophism", M Fillon calls for wearing the burkini to be seen within an inherently political dimension."
He supported the mayors who tried to ban it on French beaches during the holiday season. "The mayors who issued regulations banning the burkini were behaving responsibly in an emergency situation (contexte d'état d'urgence)... and I support them"
(My bolding) So why does a traditionalist catholic see woman wearing unrevealing garments on beaches as an "emergency" requiring formal intervention from the municipal authorities? Because the wearers are Muslims. But this clothing is no more an emergency, dangerous to other people, than orthodox side curls are, and were in 1933. Yet you think this prohibition is all perfectly normal, do you? What of it? You ask regarding Fillon's prejudice.
The last time, back in the thirties, Jewish side curls were cut, orthodox women's wigs pulled off, and then synagogues burned and sacred scrolls destroyed, before the people themselves were murdered. The object of attack is a different ethno-religious group this time, reflecting international political developments, but the diversionary functionality of the abuse is precisely the same. May heaven decree that the outcome will not be.
