SHARE
COPY LINK

ISLAM

OPINION: Who’s to blame for Macron’s war of words with the Muslim world?

With the Islamic world in a war of words with the French president and countries including Turkey calling for a boycott of French products, commentator John Lichfield looks at the mistakes that have been made on both sides and what Emmanuel Macron could do to ease tensions abroad, but most importantly at home.

OPINION: Who's to blame for Macron's war of words with the Muslim world?
In this file photo taken on December 4, 2019 France's President Emmanuel Macron (R) gestures as Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan walks past him during a family photo as part of the NATO summit

A war of words may sound harmless enough. Not this one.

President Emmanuel Macron is being verbally attacked –  insulted in some cases – by the leaders of several Islamic countries for defending France’s right to publish caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.

The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said that  Macron was “mentally unwell”. The Pakistani Prime Minister, Imran Khan, said that the French president had “chosen to deliberately provoke Muslims, including his own citizens.”

The immediate cause of their anger was a brief passage in  Macron’s hommage last Wednesday to Samuel Paty, the teacher brutally murdered after he showed Charlie Hebdo’s controversial cartoons of Mohammed to a civics class in the western Paris suburbs.

Macron said: “We will not give up caricatures and drawings, even if others back away.”

He also said that “liberty can only exist by ending hatred and violence and promoting respect for others.”

That part of the speech has not been widely reported in the Islamic world.

First, some perspective (even if it is an unfashionable commodity these days).

Appeals in a series of Muslim countries for mass demonstrations against Macron and France at the weekend flopped. They attracted, at most, a few hundred people. 

OPINION: How publishing Mohammed cartoons became a quasi-religious act in France

The Turkish president, Mr Erdogan, is in the middle of a series of disputes with Europe – and especially with Macron – about Libya, unauthorised gas-exploration by Turkey in the eastern Mediterranean and Ankara’s part in encouraging the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. 

He is struggling in the opinion polls. The Turkish economy is floundering. The Turkish lira is at an all-time low against the dollar.  He has good reason to excite his base by insulting Emmanuel Macron.

The Pakistani Prime Minister has to contain the violent intolerance of radical Islamist forces within his own country. Defending Islam from alleged attack by Macron is politically astute.

Imran Khan’s indignation is selective, however. He, like many Muslim leaders, has little to say about the brutal repression of Islam and Muslim minorities by his giant neighbour to the north and east.

Macron is not entirely without blame. The homage to Mr Paty, which he wrote himself,  was an eloquent exposition of France’s commitment to free expression, tolerance and a secular Republic, where faiths are defended but not promoted or worshipped.

But his words on the cartoons were ill-chosen. “We will not give up caricatures…”

He made it sound as though publishing scurrilous drawing of Mohammed was an important French national custom – not a test of the boundaries of free speech practised by one virulently anti-religious magazine.

It would have been much better if Macron had used words closer to those in an excellent “model” sermon circulated to mosques last Friday by the main French Muslim representative body, the Conseil Francais du Culte Musulman.

“The law of the Republic permits these cartoons but obliges no one to like them,” the sermon said. “We can even detest them. But nothing. absolutely nothing, justifies murder.”

In the light of some of the inflammatory language against France in the Muslim world in recent days– and some of the shrill commentary elsewhere – it is worth quoting another section of the sermon.

“No! We Muslims are not persecuted in France. We are citizens just like any other citizens. We have the same guaranteed rights and the same duties to observe.” 

To which one could add. Yes, there is discrimination against Muslims in France. Yes, French Muslims are disproportionately confined to poor housing and ill-paid jobs. 

No, the great majority of France’s 5,000,000 Muslims do not support radical versions of Islam. About half are reckoned to be non-practising.

A growing number wishes to express their faith overtly. Some of them have been converted to rigid, restrictive anti-western and sometimes violent forms of the faith.

There have been 36 serious Islamist terror attacks in France in the last eight years – ranging from the indiscriminate mass slaughter of the Bataclan and related attacks almost five years ago to individual atrocities like the murder of Mr Paty.

Despite these attacks, there has been – despite what the radicals may have hoped –  no widespread, retaliatory violence against muslims and no lurch into the hard-right politics of  intolerance. 

All of this context is strangely absent from some of the present accusations against France – both in the Muslim world and in Britain and the United States. 

The inflammatory comments by Erdogan and others are dangerous. In the context of recent history, they amount, de facto to an incitement to further islamist, radical attacks in France or against French targets abroad.

But Macron and his government also have some share of the blame and some responsibility to try to restore calm.

This – remember  – is all about the murder of a man who  tried to teach 13 and 14 year old tolerance and openness to the ideas and culture of others. Some of the commentary by government ministers in recent days has strayed into the intolerant register of the hard right (forcing Marine Le Pen it seems to shift even further towards outright islamophobia.)

The interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, even suggested that the secular values of the French Republic – its very existence – was threatened by halal and other ethnic aisles in supermarkets. 

The danger is that the attacks by the Turkish president and others will push the government into other statements or actions which appear to target all Muslims – not just the extremists.

In his tweeted replies last night, in French, Arabic and English, Macron came over as determined – but also rather intransigent. “We will not give in, ever. We respect all differences in a spirit of peace. We do not accept hate speech and defend reasonable debate. We will always be on the side of human dignity and universal values.”

That’s fine but fails to acknowledge that the Mohammed cartoons are “hate speech” to some muslims.

Macron needs – urgently – to make a statement which returns to the spirit of the speech that he gave on Islam, freedom and separatism on October 2nd. This speech has been presented in the Muslim world as an attempt to “conquer” or “constrain” Islam. That is a distortion.

Macron promised a draft law  in early December to combat extremist Islam by banning the “importation” of foreign-financed and trained imams. Financial support will be available to mosques which sign a charter accepting French principles of secularism, democracy and the rule of law.  

Macron recognised, however, that France’s Muslims had been let down by successive governments. He admitted that France had created its own “separatism” by dumping poorer people in suburban ghettoes with poor housing and few jobs. He promised new actions to improve opportunities for the people of multi-racial inner suburbs or banlieues.

He should make the speech again – not for Erdogan or Imran Khan but for the great majority of French Muslims who wish to practise their religion but also to be part of a successful, tolerant France.

Member comments

  1. What one has got to realise is that Macron has no experience of public office or how to communicate with people as he has always been a backroom boy. So his social skills are zero.

  2. Erdogan and Imran don’t have the guts to say anything to China, which has put millions of Uyghur muslims in concentration camps and is committing unspeakable atrocities against them. Guess we all know who the bully is now?

  3. I don’t particularly care for Macron, but I don’t understand why HE should be the one to be careful what he says?
    A “tolerant France” should start by the French Muslims showing us that they accept our way of life.
    It angers me to the core that “There have been 36 serious Islamist terror attacks in France in the last eight years”, but “Despite these attacks, there has been no widespread, retaliatory violence against muslims and no lurch into the hard-right politics of intolerance”.
    So, pray tell me, how much more tolerant do you want me to be??

  4. In response to Tarquin above….
    To repeat, I don’t like Macron, but to say his social skills are zero is rubbish. He’s the only French PM I know who speaks fluent English – at least he’s got that as a skill. And besides that, to call him a “backroom boy” is ridiculous for a person who was a minister of economy, industry and digital data for PM Francois Holland.
    Get your facts straight.

  5. Latest wave of state-sponsored Islamophobia a way to overshadow from the terrible economic decisions they’ve made. Same as with austerity & the burqa law 10 years ago.

    Yawn… basic stuff.

    “This – remember – is all about the murder of a man who tried to teach 13 and 14 year old tolerance and openness to the ideas and culture of others.” Via showing children porn of someone’s Prophet? Ugh… this guy is always not worth reading.

  6. Who’s to Blame? If that isn’t glaringly obvious, you’re in the wrong job.

    One party is talking about standing up to censorship and violence from a religion and defends free speech.

    And the other from states thathappily tolerate, and even support, mutilation of the genitals of its children and promotes violence against non-believers, and suppresses free speech.

    Have a guess who the good guys are….

  7. Very disappointing to see some of the comments here, from people who don’t use a real name, are as lacking in thought & analysis as so many on word-count-restricted Twitter.
    eg. Intellectually Boggy: “showing children porn of someone’s prophet”. Teachers *use* their materials with sensitivity, context, background, warnings & debate in order to enlighten (education from ex + ducere, lead out) to a broader, balanced view of the world. Sorry you don’t know that.
    eg. Solid: reference to extremes as if the entire “other side” were a homogenous evil. Generalisations get nowhere.

    As for the title, it’s there to attract readers to consider what is written. The idea of “blame” is very interesting when you look at one particular section above,
    ‘ But (Macron’s) words on the cartoons were ill-chosen. “We will not give up caricatures…”.
    He made it sound as though publishing scurrilous drawing of Mohammed was an important French national custom – not a test of the boundaries of free speech practised by one virulently anti-religious magazine’ in contrast to the wording from the Conseil Francais du Culte Musulman.

    Furthermore, Solid, the idea of “blame” is shown not just to be dependent on extremists, it is also part of the political influencing going on with countries’ leaders (Turkey & Pakistan) trying to drum up support. That’s happening in the US right now & happened with the UK, be it Brexit or the most recent election. You are looking at blame as if it were based on whole populations, this is about elected leaders’ reactions to a speech & their exploitation of it for their own limited reasons. Personally I don’t think Macron was trying to drum up support from the far right, even if there’s been some wording which required more thought, whereas I think it’s obvious the other two leaders were, so I think the article is an interesting discussion of a difficult situation. A lot of people in Turkey also wanted to continue with a secular state, don’t confuse them with their current leader.

  8. Anyone who interprets Macron’s words as describing an important French custom? That’s reaching a bit.

    And only you have invoked the idea of comments being about ‘whole populations’. Although perhaps the citizens of any country are in some small way guilty for the acts of their leaders. Who elected them?

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.
For members

OPINION AND ANALYSIS

OPINION: Why Germans’ famed efficiency makes the country less efficient

Germans are famous for their love of efficiency - and impatience that comes with it. But this desire for getting things done as quickly as possible can backfire, whether at the supermarket or in national politics, writes Brian Melican.

OPINION: Why Germans' famed efficiency makes the country less efficient

A story about a new wave of “check-outs for chatting” caught my eye recently. In a country whose no-nonsense, “Move it or lose it, lady!” approach to supermarket till-staffing can reduce the uninitiated to tears, the idea of introducing a slow lane with a cashier who won’t sigh aggressively or bark at you for trying to strike up conversation is somewhere between quietly subversive and positively revolutionary – and got me thinking.

Why is it that German supermarket check-outs are so hectic in the first place?

READ ALSO: German supermarkets fight loneliness with slower check outs for chatting

If you talk to people here about it – other Germans, long-term foreign residents, and keen observers on shorter visits – you’ll hear a few theories.

One is that Germans tend to shop daily on the way home from work, and so place a higher premium on brisk service than countries where a weekly shop is more common; and it is indeed a well-researched fact that German supermarket shopping patterns are higher-frequency than in many comparable countries.

Bavarian supermarket

A sign at a now-famous supermarket in Bavaria advertises a special counter saying “Here you can have a chat”. Photo: picture alliance/dpa | Karl-Josef Hildenbrand

Another theory is that, in many parts of the country (such as Bavaria), supermarket opening hours are so short that there is no other way for everyone to get their shopping done than to keep things ticking along at a good old clip.

The most simple (and immediately plausible) explanation, of course, is that supermarkets like to keep both staffing and queuing to a minimum: short-staffing means lower costs, while shorter queues make for fewer abandoned trolleys.

German love of efficiency

Those in the know say that most store chains do indeed set average numbers of articles per minute which their cashiers are required to scan – and that this number is higher at certain discounters notorious for their hard-nosed attitude.

Beyond businesses’ penny-pinching, fast-lane tills are a demonstration of the broader German love of efficiency: after all, customers wouldn’t put up with being given the bum’s rush if there weren’t a cultural premium placed on smooth and speedy operations.

Then again, as many observers not yet blind to the oddness of Germany’s daily ‘Supermarket Sweep’ immediately notice, the race to get purchases over the till at the highest possible rate is wholly counter-productive: once scanned, the items pile up faster than even the best-organised couple can stow away, leaving an embarrassing, sweat-inducing lull – and then, while people in the queue roll their eyes and huff, a race to pay (usually in cash, natch’).

In a way, it’s similar to Germany’s famed autobahns, on which there is theoretically no speed limit and on which some drivers do indeed race ahead – into traffic jams often caused by excessive velocity.

Yes, it is a classic case of more haste, less speed. We think we’re doing something faster, but actually our impatience is proving counterproductive.

German impatience

This is, in my view, the crux of the issue: Germans are a hasty bunch. Indeed, research shows that we have less patience than comparable European populations – especially in retail situations. Yes, impatience is one of our defining national characteristics – and, as I pointed out during last summer’s rail meltdown, it is one of our enduring national tragedies that we are at once impatient and badly organised.

As well as at the tills and on the roads, you can observe German impatience in any queue (which we try to jump) and generally any other situation in which we are expected to wait.

Think back to early 2021, for instance, when the three-month UK-EU vaccine gap caused something approaching a national breakdown here, and the Health Minister was pressured into buying extra doses outside of the European framework.

This infuriated our neighbours and deprived developing countries of much-needed jabs – which, predictably, ended up arriving after the scheduled ones, leaving us with a glut of vaccines which, that very autumn, had to be destroyed.

A health worker prepares a syringe with the Comirnaty Covid-19 vaccine by Biontech-Pfizer. Photo: John MACDOUGALL / AFP

Now, you can see the same phenomenon with heating legislation: frustrated by the slow pace of change, Minister for Energy and the Economy Robert Habeck intended to force property owners to switch their heating systems to low-carbon alternatives within the next few years.

The fact that the supply of said alternatives is nowhere near sufficient – and that there are too few heating engineers to fit them – got lost in the haste…

The positive side of impatience

This example does, however, reveal one strongly positive side of our national impatience: if well- directed, it can create a sense of urgency about tackling thorny issues. Habeck is wrong to force the switch on an arbitrary timescale – but he is right to try and get things moving.

In most advanced economies, buildings are responsible for anything up to 40 percent of carbon emissions and, while major industrials have actually been cutting their CO2 output for decades now, the built environment has hardly seen any real improvements.

Ideally, a sensible compromise will be reached which sets out an ambitious direction of travel – and gets companies to start expanding capacity accordingly, upping output and increasing the number of systems which can be replaced later down the line. Less haste now, more speed later.

The same is true of our defence policy, which – after several directionless decades – is now being remodelled with impressive single-mindedness by a visibly impatient Boris Pistorius.

As for the check-outs for chatting, I’m not sure they’ll catch on. However counterproductive speed at the till may be, I just don’t see a large number of us being happy to sacrifice the illusion of rapidity so that a lonely old biddy can have a chinwag. Not that we are the heartless automatons that makes us sound like: Germany is actually a very chatty country.

It’s just that there’s a time and a place for it: at the weekly farmer’s markets, for instance, or at the bus stop. The latter is the ideal place to get Germans talking, by the way: just start with “About bloody time the bus got here, eh?” So langsam könnte der Bus ja kommen, wie ich finde…

READ ALSO: 7 places where you can actually make small talk with Germans

SHOW COMMENTS