In the Algeria of her youth, marked by the rise of Islamism, unveiled women were called “fucking westernized”. Djemila Benhabib then lived in Oran, listened to Madonna and walked “her mop of hair from one end of (her) city to the other”. Atheist communist activists, his parents had to flee Algeria in the 1990s and went into exile in Seine-Saint-Denis. The young woman left for Quebec, where she became known for her secular and feminist commitment.
Since 2019, she has lived in Brussels where she works at the Center d’action laïque. Djemila Benhabib returns to these commitments in the moving Islamophobia, my eye! (Kennes), while denouncing the omerta on political Islam. For L’Express, she comments (severely) on the debates between the two rounds of the presidential election, which focused on the question of the veil, and is also worried about a communitarization of the electorate of Jean- Luc Melenchon. But it also welcomes the progress made in France against Islamism, compared to Canada or even Belgium. Maintenance.
L’Express: The question of the veil came up in the interval between the presidential elections. Marine Le Pen wants to ban the veil in public space. What do you think ?
Djemila Benhabib: This is a very bad proposal, totally counterproductive. We do not suspend freedoms in order to fight a religious symbol. France is a rule of law. Political Islam presents us with a civilizational challenge, and we can only respond to it within the framework of this rule of law. In reality, Marine Le Pen’s proposal is simplistic, because it gives the illusion of being able to solve one problem, when it will create twenty others. A ban on the veil in public space will breed discrimination and racism, and it will feed resentment as well as the victimhood discourse of Islamists. Either all that should not be done.
Marine Le Pen described the veil as an “Islamist uniform”…
It is positioning oneself on slippery ground. Everyone can give a personal meaning to the veil. We live in a democratic and plural state, where people have the right to display themselves with signs. What is complex is managing to explain that there are different spaces and each is governed by a system of law. The school is not the street, the street is not a public administration. A user is not a civil servant. In an authoritarian or totalitarian regime, the distinctions between public space and private space are abolished. But in a rule of law, private space, public space and civic space are governed by distinct rights. It is only by recalling these nuances that we will come out on top.
There is room for everyone in a Republic, that’s what makes it strong. But the Republic can also assert its authority by demanding duties from everyone. The social contract means that we all have a set of rights and duties. The idea is in any case not to suspend rights, but to make them more effective.
“The ‘at the same time’ on Islamism continues at Macron”
In Strasbourg, Emmanuel Macron congratulated a young veiled woman calling herself a feminist. Are the veil and feminism compatible?
It was a staging in the middle of the election campaign. Let’s say it frankly: Emmanuel Macron was eyeing the Mélenchonist vote. I don’t think this type of debate, which is complex, can be dealt with during an election campaign. The candidates are looking to win votes, and they are ready to do anything for it, even setting aside principles. The staging in Strasbourg was frankly grotesque, because organized.
Five years ago, Emmanuel Macron seemed rather on a liberal and Anglo-Saxon line. Since then, his speech has become more republican. How do you judge its development?
When I discovered it, Emmanuel Macron was aligned with Anglo-Saxon standards. Its model was Canadian, with a logic of reasonable accommodation. He made no distinction between freedom of religion, which is perfectly legitimate, and religious fundamentalism. But during his mandate, we felt a real evolution. Terrible dramas have struck this country, and it has opened his eyes. It is the harsh reality that has changed Emmanuel Macron. He saw the barbarity of political Islam. When a teacher is beheaded for alleged “Islamophobia”, strong action must be taken.
This evolution of Emmanuel Macron was concretized on the political level by the law on separatism. This is significant progress. For thirty years, I had been waiting for a law like this, and for a clear and unambiguous diagnosis of Islamism to be made. Afterwards, the challenge is to remain consistent, which is the most complicated. We can see that the “at the same time” on Islamism continues with the President of the Republic. In the galaxy of interlocutors of the executive, the Muslim Brotherhood still occupies an important place. People clearly identified as Brotherhood are listened to by the highest authorities of the French State. But this is not specific to France, we observe this throughout Europe. The Brotherhood are the only organized force among Muslims. When the time comes to establish the Islam of France, or to want social peace, the Brothers are there. They work, make proposals, sell the idea that they will be able to establish a climate of peace and respect. Often these speeches work. It is therefore a question of breaking with this clientelist mentality. In France, the report on Islamism is made. This must now be followed by actions. However, this is only possible if there is a real break with Brotherhood-Salafism.
You lived twenty years in Canada. Why, in this book, are you so critical of the Canadian model, and in particular Justin Trudeau?
Political Islam is the enemy of democracy, and it is a transnational phenomenon. We will only get there if everyone makes an effort to stem it on an international scale. But Justin Trudeau dissociates himself from everything that is done elsewhere to fight political Islam. He never speaks out against Islamist terrorism, he takes a picture of himself with a woman wearing the full veil, he has identified Muslim Brotherhood as privileged interlocutors, he participates in events in which little veiled girls are shown in a manifest way. .. Justin Trudeau has no complex on these issues. He is an Islamo-compatible!
But he went a step further by conveying the idea that if European states are threatened by Islamist terrorism it is because they have a problem in their management of diversity and immigrant populations. We know how false and misleading it is. Political Islam carries within itself the seeds of violence, it is not a problem of integration. In Algeria, there were no problems with immigration or discrimination when political Islam fractured the country, and secular people were murdered. With this speech, Justin Trudeau harms all resistance fighters of political Islam. Its responsibility in the advancement of Islamism on an international scale is enormous. He cannot demand the release of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi and continue to reach out to the Muslim Brotherhood.
After the beheading of Samuel Paty, we could see the huge gap between the Canadian discourse and the Quebec discourse. The Quebec Prime Minister showed his solidarity with France, while Justin Trudeau remained evasive. Faced with such a tragic situation, we cannot accept such softness.
You live today in Brussels, where you denounce the electoral positions of the left, and in particular of the ecologists, on the Islamic veil. Why ?
In the Brussels region, three parties are vying for a certain Muslim electorate. There is historically the Socialist Party, considered to be the party of immigration. At his side, we find the ecologists and the extreme left of the Belgian Labor Party (PTB). These three parties flirt with the Muslim vote by aligning themselves with the demands of the most fundamentalist figures in the Muslim communities, completely setting aside the lay Muslims. It’s as if we didn’t count!
State neutrality, although a constitutional principle in Belgium, is now presented as representing racist discrimination against Muslims. Ecologists are the first to ask that we undo this neutrality. The ban on the wearing of belief symbols in public services and in education is in the process of disappearing. In a country already fragmented by a regional and linguistic divide, what will be left? I am very worried about the future of neutrality, and of Belgium in general.
“Mélenchon has an important culture, he should know this story”
In France, Jean-Luc Mélenchon won nearly 70% of the Muslim vote, a figure up sharply from five years ago. Should this be seen as a communitarisation of the vote, or can this be explained more by socio-economic reasons?
I think you have to be worried about it. We are witnessing a depoliticization of social ties and an ethnicization of problems. However, considering people as believers in a religion rather than citizens leads to the tribalization of politics. We no longer defend a cause, a principle, but our tribe. It is the beginning of the national fracture which can lead, ultimately, to the explosion and to the war of all against all, we must not tolerate that and come to this.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon acted with great talent to go fishing for votes, his responsibility is great in this shift. He clearly played on the ground of the victimization of Muslims, by making them believe that secularism would be a thing invented against them. While historically, those who adhered to secularism were first of all members of religious minorities, such as Protestants or Jews, because it allowed them to be on an equal footing with the religious majority, the Catholics. Why would it be different with Muslims? They too have won everything with secularism, which treats believers of all religions and non-believers with the same benevolence and the same respect.
In an electoral campaign, we are looking for votes, especially if the election is decided by a few hundred thousand votes. Jean-Luc Mélenchon has put himself in an untenable position from a philosophical and even ethical point of view, especially when we know where he comes from. I remember him giving that beautiful speech when Charb died. Could it be this same man? This is the ugly side of politics.
The success of Jean-Luc Mélenchon is to have been able to bring together a large number of people for this first round. But it was a specific moment, with specific circumstances. This score should not be over-interpreted, because it is marked by a precise situation. Our challenge will be to bring contradiction to his speech, and to remember what we gain by maintaining our republican model. The Republic is not about suspending rights, as Marine Le Pen wants to do, but neither is it presenting secularism as an evil weapon against Muslims, as Jean-Luc Mélenchon did.
We are truly faced with two extremes. One wants to suspend the rule of law, the other depicts the Republic as a diabolical project against minorities. But it is only in states governed by the rule of law that secular Muslims can breathe! Because in their countries of origin, they can display their freedom of conscience only at their own risk. In Algeria, Egypt or Pakistan, many have been killed or imprisoned for this. Jean-Luc Mélenchon has an important culture, he should know this story. Marine Le Pen, I’m not talking about it, she took Habib Bourguiba for an Algerian president…
“Islamophobia, my eye!”by Djemila Benhabib (Kennes, 208 p., €19.90).