Mohamed Lamouaiej-Bouhlel certainly did not know that his reckless act would trigger the 2017 presidential election campaign.
After the exploitation by some right-wing politicians who insinuated the (indirect) responsibilities of the government and took advantage of the events for some media statements and gestures (the opportune presence of the party president at the religious service the next day at the Cathedral Sainte-Réparate resembled more propaganda than participation in mourning), it is now the National Front’s turn to get involved.
By orchestrating the jeers and boos during the gathering for the minute of silence, even though this responsibility is denied by Marion Maréchal Le Pen (“excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta,” as her colleague at the National Assembly, Master Gilbert Collard, might have suggested), as stated by the Vice-President of the Regional Council Philippe Tabarot?
In any case, the leader of the regional opposition “does not condemn them either because people are in such a state of concern, of sadness, that I can understand that there is a legitimate anger,” she said.
In any case, the two frontist deputies quickly took action by presenting a series of proposed laws that align with a heavily accentuated security policy.
Moreover, after the television statements by Nicolas Sarkozy (which echo those delivered at every possible occasion by Eric Ciotti), the frontists could not find themselves in a position of “moderation” in the race for votes from a portion (increasingly significant) of an electorate sensitive to this theme.
Even in these circumstances, or especially in these circumstances, political marketing imposes its rules.
“A proactive policy is imperative in order to protect our citizens. The war against radical Islam has still not begun in France. Measures need to be taken upstream. FN/RBM deputies will put all their energy into gathering and protecting the French,” they stated at a press conference.
First of all, “the dissolution of the Union of Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF), a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood linked to radical Islam and managing numerous mosques and associations in France.” A blow aimed at Christian Estrosi, whom local frontists have always accused of complicity (if not alliance) with this organization through which – they accuse him – to control the Muslim community’s vote.
But one must strike while the iron is hot. Therefore, the anti-Muslim measures do not stop at this first point.
This is followed by the appointment of a parliamentary inquiry commission to ensure the follow-up “of the closures of radical mosques and fundamentalist associations” and yet another on “the financing of Islam in France and of the Muslim cult in order to have better visibility on the influence of foreign funding emanating from countries spreading an integrist Islam and supporting Islamist terrorism around the world.”
A traditional frontist propaganda battleground is “the immediate suspension of the Schengen area, a preliminary step before the denunciation of said agreements. The reestablishment of borders is a necessary condition for the effective enforcement of deportations from the territory, travel bans, as well as the fight against illegal immigration or arms trafficking.”
In this zeal, other amendments to the current legislation find their place, such as “the immediate expulsion of foreigners convicted of crimes and certain serious offenses. Foreigners who attack France and the Republic cannot stay on the territory while continuing to benefit from French hospitality and generosity.”
In the end, other sensitive subjects are found: the reform “of the right of asylum, which today has become a new channel for illegal immigration and a major route for terrorist infiltration; the abolition of birthright citizenship and the halt of family reunification; the expansion of cases of nationality forfeiture to radicalized dual nationals as well as naturalized citizens convicted of serious crimes or offenses.”
Most likely, these proposed laws, if passed, would be overturned by the Constitutional Court or the International Court of Human Rights, but for these promoters, that is not the issue.
It’s just about taking advantage of the opportunity for some cheap propaganda at the right time, as we have seen and heard these past few days.
Of course, ethics and morality are something else entirely…
