Read moreIn the “Ideas and Debates” section, Libération published an article on February 9, 2023 to promote the book by Fatima Ouassak, presented as an environmental, anti-racist and feminist activist. ©KENZO TRIBOUILLARD / AFPThe daily devoted a portrait to the co-founder of the Front de Mères collective, a parents' union in working-class neighborhoods, completely turning a blind eye to the racism and hatred conveyed by the activist. Find the second part of Naëm Bestandji's column here. In the "Ideas and Debates" section, Libération published an article on February 9, 2023 to promote the book by Fatima Ouassak, presented as an environmental, anti-racist and feminist activist. This is not the first time that the latter has been favored by the newspaper. However, if Fatima Ouassak is indeed sensitive to ecology, her radicalism is not found in the fight against global warming, short supply chains or healthy eating, but in her racialist and racist approach to certain ills of our society. An approach which also leads her to embrace aspects of Muslim extremism. Hatred and racism of an "ecologist" activist There is no shortage of warnings and writings, nor of sources, to paint a more nuanced and less hagiographic portrait than that of Libération. As early as 2017, for example, I was already warning about the dangerousness of the remarks of this woman nostalgic for the colonial era, where she saw herself as a rebel fighting against the "white" oppressor. She sees no problem with non-ethnic mixing in "decolonial" conferences. She also holds a populist and racist discourse. She believes that "the school institution is used by whites to maintain and transmit their privileges (…). The war that white people are waging to maintain their privilege is also being played out in schools, and it is our children who are being targeted.” She explains to us here that "the racist system does not see children, it sees threats to its survival." She explains to us that "school teaches our children to be ashamed of what they are." This is why the school's objective is supposedly "to destroy our family ties in order to better isolate our children and crush them." In October 2007, as an activist within the Party of the Natives of the Republic, she notably wrote an article for this racist movement in which she violently castigated Mohamed Sifaoui (a journalist committed to fighting Muslim fundamentalism), Abdennour Bidar (a Muslim philosopher) and Malek Chebel (an anthropologist of religions). The latter two have always campaigned for an enlightened Islam. An Islam hated by Islamists. So she declines some of her usual racist clichés in this surreal article of victimization. Malek Chebel, for example, would like to "please his friend the white man." According to her, "the descendants of Muslim immigrants" would be considered "sub-shit" by the Islam of the Enlightenment, "waste from the Maghreb and black Africa, completely illiterate, unworthy of practicing a religion as sublime as enlightened Islam, and who only know religion in "reflex mode", a bit like Pavlov's dogs, or just dogs." Thus, only Muslim fundamentalism, and its procession of sexism, patriarchy, identity and political demands, would be respectful of Muslims. Consistently, she then considers that any investment in society and politics must be made through her Islam (extremist version). Identitarianism and victimization for the benefit of the nationalist extreme right Her ultra-victim strategy plays more on emotion than reflection. The height of her victimization for better communitarization is undoubtedly found in one of her most cult statements, which she made in 2019: “I am really afraid that they will take [my children] away from me and put them on a train.” This is a reference to the Holocaust, a classic in Islamist circles to suggest that the situation of today's Muslims in France is comparable to that of the Jews under Nazism. The CCIF had made it a specialty. His remarks, also aimed at residents of working-class neighborhoods to cultivate the feeling of victimhood, are particularly dangerous. This exploitation of fears surfs on the difficulties of working-class neighborhoods that the activist exploits and overplays to cultivate an identity-based and reactionary approach reminiscent of Éric Zemmour. The nationalist extreme right, for its part, uses the radicalism of Fatima Ouassak, her companion Youssef Brakni (an activist who ensures the link between the extreme left and Islamism), the CCIF (which became the CCIE) and many others to also play on fears, cry out about the "great replacement", confuse Islam and Islamism, Muslims and Islamists and declare that it is fighting for the "Christian roots of France". In other words, Fatima Ouassak's identity, racial and religious demands, with the support of part of the left, galvanize those of the nationalist extreme right. The "decolonials", and especially their Islamist partners, are the best recruiting agents for the nationalist extreme right and the most effective providers of votes for their political parties. Approximations, omissions and false information: the bias of Libération Many are warning about the dangerousness of Fatima Ouassak, whether on Twitter or in the press. Yet, not only does Libération say nothing about all this, but it even prefers to brush it all aside. Indeed, beyond the article, it is also the newspaper's tweet that raises questions. To defend the reactionary activist, Libération abandons journalism for populism: all of Fatima Ouassak's opponents are "right-wing media". An accusation that is supposed to be infamous and which has the advantage of being exempt from any argument. However, if Fatima Ouassak is indeed denounced by the right and the extreme right, she is also denounced by a large part of the left, at local and national levels. The activist herself acknowledges this. Thus, Libération plays on its image as a news journal to get its political infomercial (long marketing message) across in an article of "ideas and debates", multiplying the approximations, omissions and false information in favor of Fatima Ouassak. Contrary to what the article claims, for example, Fatima Ouassak did not "snatch from the Bagnolet town hall" its 1000 m² of premises. On the contrary, they were willingly assigned to him by the town hall, without consultation. Members of the City Council expressed concern about this during the council meeting of November 18, 2021. Added to this is a letter addressed to the mayor from Bagnolet residents who are equally concerned about this attribution to an association, Front de mères, whose founding text reflects its founder Fatima Ouassak: racialist, indigenous, communitarian and racist. Its aim is to arouse fear among mothers from "non-white" working-class neighborhoods and to turn them against public schools and the Republic. This letter from residents, ignored by the mayor, never received a response. An unwavering supporter of Fatima Ouassak's association, he even declared that this open letter was a "non-issue". There were more difficult "uprootings"... On the other hand, a violent campaign of defamation and attempts at intimidation was led by those close to Front de Mères, including Youssef Brakni, against the signatories of this letter. Not only does the Libération article say nothing about these events, but it also suggests that Fatima Ouassak fiercely fought the city council to "snatch" the premises she so richly deserved. Find the second part of Naëm Bestandji's opinion piece here.

"This post is a summary of information from our information monitoring"