Nicolas Sarkozy's decision on Monday to ban hate-preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi from entering France was a sensible move. After the killing of Jewish children by Toulouse massacrist Mohammed Merah, a man so driven by anti-Semitism, it would have been unthinkable to welcome Qaradawi - a man who has previously published a fatwa endorsing the murder of Jewish civilians in Israel.
Sadly, not all of Sarkozy's responses to Merah's terrorist attacks have been as well thought through. For example, his proposals announced last week to punish those who repeatedly browse Islamist websites or travel abroad for indoctrination threaten to undermine his previous success in balancing national security and civil liberties.
Radicalisation and indoctrination - whether sought online or abroad - act as the 'conveyer belt' that often leads individuals towards committing terrorist acts. However, to impose sweeping laws on those that visit the websites - and Sarkozy has threatened to send them to prison - not only smothers free expression; it broadens the definition of terrorism to extent that it becomes meaningless, therefore skewering efforts to effectively prevent it. Sarkozy could expect to see this new legislation bringing in a sharp increase of arrests and charges but few convictions while those already radicalised who might dodge these websites could slip under the radar.
While the French intelligence services had identified and interviewed Merah on several occasions, the DCRI failed to effectively use the resources available to prevent him from acting. Therefore, if this recent case shows Sarkozy anything, it's that the answer is not broadening the search for extremists in order to identify potential threats - Merah became known to the French security services in 2010. Instead Sarkozy needs to adopt an effective monitoring system with tighter surveillance of potential terrorists, in order to prevent them from going on to commit acts deserving of harsh punishment.
Sarkozy has also failed to consider those visiting the websites who are merely curious or even actively trying to counter extremism. For example, having the law treat everyone who views extremist online material as "trainee terrorists and their supporters" would make it impossible for those of us who work in, or indeed study, counterterrorism to do our jobs properly. Surely it would be a better use of the DCRI's resources and time in tracking down and punishing those that encourage and glorify terrorism, rather than those they are reaching out to? Just look at the UK's successful convictions of those such as Younes Tsouli, Tariq al-Daour and Waseem Mughal for running jihadist websites and chat forums. The conviction of Tsouli in November 2005 was the first under British Law for inciting terrorism over the internet.
Sarkozy's proposals echo Tony Blair's reaction to the 7/7 London bombings. Blair was quick to assure a grieving and angry Britain that "the rules of the game are changing". This speech marked a significant turning point and his proposed 12 radical new measures dramatically altered the landscape of counterterrorism in Britain. Some proved extremely effective, such as excluding foreigners who encourage terrorism and arresting those who glorify terrorism. Others though were poorly thought out, such as using the Muslim Council of Britain as the single voice of British Muslims and attempts to tighten civil liberties by promising to extend the length of time for which terror suspects could be held without trials to 90 days. Blair's pledge to extend the use of control orders ended in failure after it was ruled as a breach of human rights laws, and his vow to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir came to nothing.
Sarkozy opened the announcement of his new proposals with "don't tell me it's not possible." He has successfully batted away taunts from the far-Right blaming immigration for the recent violence, and criticism from the left that his crackdown on terrorism is an attack on Islam. While his commitment to fighting terrorism must continue, the nature of his heavy-handed swipes at large chunks of society and its freedoms threatens to create more problems than it solves.
Up until now, Sarkozy has successfully maintained a delicate balancing act between the protection of individual civil liberties and running one the most advanced counter-terrorism programmes in Europe, if not the world.
Rather than pandering to populism in the run up to the French elections, Sarkozy should spend the time he has before his next session starts to think carefully about his next steps. His banning of Qaradawi showed movement in the right direction, and he should continue to make clean, acute incisions such as this to manage the threat of fundamentalism.
Anne Sinclair: 2012, Bleak Wilderness
Rachida Dati: A Vote for France
An appreciation of the hundreds of thousands of peace loving and lawful Muslim citizens of France better serves the interests of France and better serves our world and all concerned, especially our beloved Jewish people wherever they may be..
Sarkozy gets that. I am not sure the author gets this crucial message.
The French Government should think before it act's and explain it's actions at every stage. The vast majority of Islam does not support terrorism and doesn't need to feel as though it does. Blaming every muslim, for the actions of a few, creates understandable upset and uncertainty. These people are our nieghbours.
However, everyone attacking the Muslims love to stand up and defend the "freedom of speech" of nazis.
- You should follow Israeli politic closer, then you will hear those who call for killing and ethnic cleansing of Arabs. In fact some of these folks are in government today, and ethnic cleansing is the official policy of Jewish state.
-The Arab peace plan, a monumental piece of work for such a body, is now ten years old. A plan that guaranteed peace and signed by all Arab states, did not get even a response from Israel. Do you really believe all Israel wants is to live in peace?
- What deafening silence? See how the world deals with Muslim/Arab miscreants? Compare this with all crimes Israel gets away with.
- Israel can not commit outrage and then hide behind Jewish identity. Single biggest contributor to antisemitism around the world is this dual play. If you insist on associating all things Jewish with the Israeli state, then other associations will follow naturally.
- Origins of antisemitism is in the West, not in ME where Jews had lived in peace for two thousand years. Gas chambers and rape camps are European inventions.
- As far as loyalties, it is ironic you bring it up, since so many have also questioned Jewish loyalties. Islam is universal and supra-national. Judaism is not.
- Your problem with Muslim prayer is simply an extension of your dislike. Some of the greatest empires and cultures in histroy were established and thrived by people who prayed five times a day.
Jews are only loyal to the Judaism and therefore can never be true citizens of a christian country.
Jews do not assimilate to common society and are therefore a threat to said society.
Jews drink the blood of Christian babies because their hearts are filled with hate rather than Christ.
I say this as a Jew, these arguments are always and have always been false no matter what race or people they refer to.
I'm sure everyone is to blame, however, why 'must' France become 'multicultural' especially when it causes so much strain AND the vast majority of the French are opposed to it?
Africa is a beautiful place rich in culture and resources. Perhaps we should help the Africans develop instead of importing them into a place where they will be perpetually disenfranchised and angry.
Paris is very quickly turning Arab and African, which is a shame, because it will be lot forever.
I'm sure the Saudis would have a few things to say were Mecca to be Europeanized.
Let France be French and they can have much simpler problems to deal with.
Let Africa be African and enjoy pride in their own identities.
Multiculturalism is a failure - it can only work when we eradicate culture entirely.
Where I live in Canada - we have no culture at all. Sure - we get along just great as we look at our feet and shop at big American box stores - of that I am proud. But if Toronto were erased from the map, the world would not skip a beat, why should it? There is no 'existence' here, just basic material survival.
The cultures of the world are beautiful - let them thrive - we don't need to massacre them with the knife of
Lets turn this on its head then, shall we?
Do you think than that every cultural group deserves its own country to develop said culture?
Or do you think only the dominant cultures that have suppressed other cultures in "their" country should have that right?
Mono-culturalism is failure because it always ends at the oppression of some group, either by forcing them to live under the monoculture as the Turks do the Kurds (where they ban the Kurdish language to force assimilate) or by removing a certain group from an area to make a country for a landless cultural group (as happened in Israel, and would happen if the Kurds or Sikhs were to get their own country).
Things really aren't as simple as you try to make them.