lundi

Hadil le bébé qui quitte Gaza pour la cité des anges

Hadil Al Haddad, un bébé d’à peine 19 mois, une Gazaoui qui a subi une opération à cœur ouvert il y a 6 mois, vient de décéder hier à l’hôpital de Gaza… Son arrêt de vie vient d’être signé par Israel et le blocus assiégeant hommes, femmes, enfants, étudiants, malades et innocents !

205ème patiente à perdre la vie suite au blocus, rejoignant ainsi le paradis des 44 enfants l’ayant précédée…

des suites des punitions collectives et journalières subies par le peuple palestinien, ce peuple qui meurt à petits feux dans un endroit où les victimes d’Israel se comptent même parmi les patients dans les hôpitaux.

Les hôpitaux,

ces endroits où le désespoir tue l’espoir

ces morgues pour vivants où l’odeur de la mort plane

ces morgues pour vivants où l’odeur de la mort plane depuis

depuis

longtemps

depuis le temps

le temps de l’occupation,

le temps du blocus,

le temps des interdictions de circulation,

le temps du bafouage des droits humains

par les défenseurs mêmes des droits

humains

les mêmes défenseurs

qui défoncent ces droits

ce n’est plus Inn d’être

humains

humains, huez ces sales mains !

sales mains de ces mêmes défenseurs

qui humilient l’humanité

ôtant le droit d’exister !

Comme c’est ironique, les Humonétaires qui s’associent aux Tueurs !

Dans l’espoir de la paix !?

dans les Dés-Espoirs de faire la paix je dirais !

bref vous ne convaincrez jamais

Décidément ! On en aura tout entendu un certain 14 juillet …de ce… siècle dernier!

De ce… siècle dernier, on en aura tout vu

tout entendu sauf…

sauf les cris…

les cris de ces tout petits

les cris de détresse des innocents

Des innocents comme Hadil Al Haddad partie de ce monde hier à 19 mois déjà

A l’âge d’un an déjà elle a subi une opération à cœur ouvert en Palestine, faute de moyens, elle devait se rendre dan s un autre pays pour poursuivre les soins, Israel en a décidé autrement ! Son arrêt de mort a été signé ! Car qui sait peut-être qu'elle représente un éventuel danger pour la sécurité d'Israel !

Des innocents comme ces ces 7 frères et sœurs morts dans une tuerie il y a tout juste 3 ans !

Paix à ton âme Hadil et à toutes les innocentes victimes !

Islamophobia

IS BRITA IN ANTI-MUSLIM?

THE HISTORY of post-war Britain is a proud story of enlightenment and the steady eradication of irrational fears and resentments. Prejudice against foreigners, homosexuals, gays and blacks has been softened or even eliminated. But today, one resentment is stronger than ever. Islamophobia — prejudice against Islam — is Britain’s last remaining socially respectable form of bigotry, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for it.

This dangerous demonising of the country’s 1.6 million Muslim inhabitants is happening all around us. Take the story in a red-top newspaper earlier this year about a bus driver who apparently ordered his passengers off his bus so that he could kneel towards Mecca and pray.

It was taken up by those who want to exaggerate and exploit divisions in our society and added to the growing list of perceived outrages committed by Muslims in this nominally Christian (though largely secular) country of ours. Pictures of the driver on his prayer-mat went the rounds.

Except it didn’t happen like that. The truth was that his bus had been taken out of service by an inspector because it was running late, and the passengers switched to the one behind — not an unusual occurrence by any means, as bus travellers know.

The driver, with his bus temporarily idle, took the opportunity of a break and used it for his prayers. Meanwhile, as CCTV cameras show, the passengers waited for no more than a minute before boarding the next bus and going on their way.

That is the explanation the bus company would have given if it had had the chance. Instead, the newspaper chose to believe its one informant, a 21-year-old plumber, who had arrived late on the scene, jumped to the wrong conclusion and seen the chance to make some money by selling the story.

In these disturbing times, when Muslims are seen as fair game for any mischief or mendacity, the newspaper jumped at it. ‘Get off my bus: I need to pray’, screamed its headline, and another Islamophobic nail was hammered into the coffin of inter-racial harmony in this country.

Again, six months ago, there was a widely reported story that hospital nurses in Yorkshire were having to stop treating other patients while they moved the beds of sick Muslims to face Mecca five times a day.

The source was an unidentified nurse, and there was, as with so many of these Islamophobic urban myths, a small grain of truth about it — caring staff would sometimes help the terminally ill in this fashion. But, as the hospital authorities made absolutely clear, never five times a day. Nonetheless, the story took on a life of its own as angry letters poured in and MPs voiced their protests. The incident is now part of the folklore, a central piece of evidence for those who make the case that Muslims are invading, infecting and destroying the British way of life.

Not surprisingly, it was the terrible 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist outrages in New York and London that detonated much of the reaction we see today, but Islamophobia was causing concern well before these events. Back in the Nineties, the multicultural think-tank, the Runnymede Trust, was warning of its dangers, and a report to this effect was endorsed by the incoming Labour Home Secretary, Jack Straw, in 1997.

SO IT was sad, therefore, to see Straw, a decade later, joining in the chorus against Muslim women wearing the veil. It was clear to me that this was more than a random rumination from a member of the Government. Rather, Labour appeared to have made the extraordinary decision to try to identify with the general mood of anti-Muslim resentment.

I was shocked. In such volatile times, it was incumbent on all those in positions of influence —— politicians as well as commentators like myself — to get their facts and language right.

Instead, Straw’s intervention liberated the British media to go to extremes. Soon practically every day brought forth news of some fresh

affrontery perpetrated by a Muslim. This cumulative litany of condemnation became an anti-Islamic crusade. Nor is it confined to one side of the political and cultural spectrum. It enlists militant atheists alongside Christian fundamentalists. It unites liberal progressives and curmudgeonly Tory commentators.

Take Polly Toynbee of the Guardian, normally regarded as a model of political correctness and a champion of the oppressed. As long ago as 1997 she wrote: ‘I am an Islamophobe, and proud of it.’

Or this from one Conservative columnist, writing in The Independent: ‘There are widespread fears that Muslim immigrants, reinforced by political pressure and, ultimately, by terrorism, will succeed where Islamic armies failed and change irrevocably the character of European civilisation.’ He was in no doubt that we are fighting a remorseless war against Islam.

This is a gross distortion. There is, of course, no question at all that Britain, along with many other countries, finds itself in a battle with certain groups of Muslim terrorists. But that is not the same as being in a battle with Islam, and it is morally wrong, inflammatory and intellectually feeble to make that claim.

Nonetheless, one columnist in an upmarket Sunday paper could ask rhetorically: ‘Islamophobia? Count me in.’ Imagine him declaring: ‘Anti-semitism? Count me in.’ This just wouldn’t happen. Anti-semitism is recognised as an evil, noxious creed and its adherents barred from mainstream society and respectable organs of opinion.

But there is no social, political or cultural protection for Muslims. As far as the British political, media and literary establishment is concerned, the normal rules of engagement are suspended.

In their arguments, all those making such sweeping dismissals of Islam interpret the Koran as a violent text and Islam itself as bloody and oppressive. They ignore its overwhelming message of peace and tolerance. Paradoxically, the result is they end up sharing the same warped interpretation of a great religion as Osama bin Laden and the violent extremists they denounce.

The vast majority of Muslims view their faith very differently. Shahid Malik, minister for the Department for International Development, is MP for Dewsbury, where the lead July 7 bomber, Mohammad Sidique Khan, comes from. ‘All Muslims I’ve come across find him and what he did abhorrent,’ Malik told me.

‘He doesn’t speak for them, any more than the last bomber in this country before 7/7, a man called David Copeland, who bombed Brixton, Brick Lane and Soho and killed three people and maimed and injured over 80, reflected white or Christian opinion. That’s really the message we’ve got to get across, that evil exists in all walks of life, across all religions, but it doesn’t represent that religion.’

Mr Malik, 40, warned that Muslims have become targets for the rest of society in the same way that Jews were once persecuted: ‘I think most people would agree that if you ask Muslims today what do they feel like, they feel like the Jews of Europe,’ he said. ‘I don’t mean to equate that with the Holocaust,’ he added.

MUCH media coverage ignores moderate Muslim opinion and serves only to increase hatred and resentment. There was a shiver of horror, for example, when a poll revealed that 81 per cent of Muslims in Britain felt they were Muslim first, and just 7 per cent British first.

What went largely unreported was another poll with significantly different results — 46 per cent of Muslims said British first and Muslim second, just 12 per cent Muslim first and British second. Most importantly, 42 per cent said that they did not differentiate, an option that had not been offered in the previous poll.

People often accuse Muslims of arrogance and of refusing to engage in the British way of life, and undoubtedly there is some truth in these criticisms. But media reports tend to enhance rather than diminish this sense of separateness and confirm stereotypes, however much mistaken.

Earlier this year, a tabloid newspaper dramatically warned that thousands of hospital patients were in danger of catching superbugs because female Muslim medical students refused to follow new hygiene rules and bare their arms below the elbow.

This was supposedly happening at Leicester University, so I and a team of researchers from the Channel 4 Dispatches programme went there to investigate. Not a single member of staff we spoke to had come across any problems with hand-washing.

The students were shocked by the stories. One said: ‘I always roll up my sleeves, and everyone that I know does.’ The university told us that one student had asked a question about the new regulations, but had never objected to them.

Once again, a small grain of truth had been grossly distorted. The insulting claim that Muslim medics were putting their religious beliefs before patients’ safety was simply not backed up by evidence.

Leicester was the site of another distorted story when the highly respected Economist magazine reported that the campus cafeteria was banning pork and serving exclusively halal food. In fact, the student union had made just one out-cafe halal, leaving the other 26 on site, including the main canteen, serving pork as usual.

None of this misreporting would matter so much if it weren’t for its consequences. For many, physical attacks are the manifestation of the growing anti-Muslim sentiment, even though they receive scant attention from the mainstream media.

Sarfraz Sarwar knows this only too well. He has lived in Basildon in Essex for 40 years. Since 9/11, pigs’ trotters have been left outside his front door and the walls covered with graffiti. There was an unsuccessful fire-bomb attack.

Among the incidents we came across in our research was one in Bolton this year, when a group of young people chased Muslim men, shouting racial and religious abuse and wielding a chainsaw.

Barely reported was the story in Cornwall, at a Methodist chapel being converted into an Asian community centre, where the words ‘F*** off you Asian bastards’ were written on a table and a pig’s head nailed to the door.

In Birmingham, three men were jailed for tying a Muslim colleague to railings and force-feeding him bacon. In East Yorkshire, a man was jailed for 16 years after police discovered four home-made nail bombs as well as bullets, swords, axes and knives in his flat. He had been preparing himself for a war against Muslims. He was a Nazi sympathiser with links to a far-Right group.

Herein lies a growing danger: Islamophobia, inflamed by media reports, is being hijacked and exploited by the far Right in politics.

The British National Party has in recent years turned away from its usual anti-semitism and anti-black campaigning. Party members are now rebuked for bringing up the Holocaust. Instead, they focus on terrorism, the evils of Islam, and scare stories of Britain becoming an Islamic state.

AND wherever there are tensions between Muslims and the local community, you can bet the BNP will be there, fanning discontent. In Stoke on Trent, where it has nine elected councillors, it has made progress by falsely linking the town’s high unemployment in the wake of the collapse of the pottery industry to Muslim immigration.

The BNP plays upon ordinary people’s sense of not being heard by police and politicians, of being a silent majority. But ordinary Muslim families feel themselves to be virtually a silenced majority, too, all tarred with the brush of extremism and deafened by the clamour of negativity against them.

It is about time that we collectively extended to them the rights and respect other citizens enjoy.

I am not arguing here for special treatment for Muslims. They should be subject to the law of the land and the same democratic scrutiny as the rest of us. Virulent anti-semitism or homophobia being preached in British mosques should be exposed and rooted out.

But by exactly the same token, Muslims should be given the same protection from insults or ignorant abuse as other minority groups.

Regrettably, though they are our fellow citizens, we nevertheless misrepresent them and in certain cases we persecute them. Our attitude can lead only to estrangement and alienation. And therein lies the greatest danger.

Because if we continue to demonise Muslims, we make it all the easier for Al Qaeda to find recruits from within those communities. Islamophobia will backfire on us — and simply magnify the very threat it presumes to address.

DISPATCHES: It Shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim is broadcast on Monday July 7 at 8pm on Channel 4. An accompanying pamphlet, Muslims Under Siege: Alienating a Vulnerable Community by Peter Oborne and James Jones, is available from Democratic Audit, University of Essex.

Peter Oborne Daily Mail 4.7.2008

Is Fear of Islam a New Desease?


FEAR OF ISLAM: BRITAIN’S NEW DISEASE

Suspicion of the Muslim community has found its way into mainstream society - and nobody seems to care.

Three years ago, four young suicide bombers caused carnage in London. Their aim was not just to kill and maim. There was also a long-term strategic purpose: to sow suspicion and divide Britain between Muslims and the rest. They are succeeding.


In Britain today, there is a deepening distrust between mainstream society and ever more isolated Muslim communities. A culture of contempt and violence is emerging on our streets.

Sarfraz Sarwar is a pillar of the Muslim community in Basildon, Essex. He is constantly abused and attacked, and the prayer centre he used has been burnt to the ground.

Mr Sarwar, who has six children and whose wife is matron of an old people’s home, is a patently decent man. His only crime is his religious faith. He and his fellow worshippers now meet in secret to evade detection, and the attacks that would follow.

The first abuse that Mr Sarwar’s family suffered was in October 2001 – just after the 9/11 attacks – when pigs’ trotters were left outside their door, the walls of their house were covered with graffiti and two front windows were broken.

Since then, the family has suffered many attacks, including a failed firebombing. In February, the tyres of Mr Sarwar’s new car were slashed; in March his windows were broken again. He has now installed CCTV cameras, replaced his wooden back door with one made of steel and erected higher fences.

An investigation for Channel 4’s Dispatches programme discovered many violent episodes and attacks on Muslims, with very few reported; those that do get almost no publicity.

Last week, Martyn Gilleard, a Nazi sympathiser in Yorkshire, was jailed for 16 years. Police found four nail bombs, bullets, swords, axes and knives in his flat. Gilleard had been preparing for a war against Muslims. In a note at his flat he had written, “I am sick and tired of hearing nationalists talking of killing Muslims, blowing up mosques and fighting back only to see these acts of resistance fail. The time has come to stop the talking and start to act.”

The Gilleard case went all but unreported. Had a Muslim been found with an arsenal of weapons and planning violent assaults, it would have been a far bigger story.

There is a reason for this blindness in the media. The systematic demonisation of Muslims has become an important part of the central narrative of the British political and media class; it is so entrenched, so much part of normal discussion, that almost nobody notices. Protests go unheard and unnoticed.

Why? Britain’s Muslim immigrants are mainly poor, isolated and alienated from mainstream society. Many are a different colour. As a community, British Muslims are relatively powerless. There are few Muslim MPs, there has never been a Muslim cabinet minister, no mainstream newspaper is owned by a Muslim and, as far as we are aware, only one national newspaper has a regular Muslim columnist on its comment pages, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of The Independent.

Surveys show Muslims have the highest rate of unemployment, the poorest health, the most disability and fewest educational qualifications of any faith group in the country. This means they are vulnerable, rendering them open to ignorant and hostile commentary from mainstream figures.

Islamophobia – defined in 1997 by the landmark report from the Runnymede Trust as “an outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination” – can be encountered in the best circles: among our most famous novelists, among newspaper columnists, and in the Church of England.

Its appeal is wide-ranging. “I am an Islamophobe,” the Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, wrote in The Independent nearly 10 years ago. “Islamophobia?” the Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle asks rhetorically in the title of a recent speech, “Count me in”. Imagine Liddle declaring: “Anti-Semitism?

Count me in”, or Toynbee claiming she was “an antiSemite and proud of it”.

Anti-Semitism is recognised as an evil, noxious creed, and its adherents are barred from mainstream society and respectable organs of opinion. Not so Islamophobia.

Its practitioners say Islamophobia cannot be regarded as the same as antiSemitism because the former is hatred of an ideology or a religion, not Muslims themselves. This means there is no social, political or cultural protection for Muslims: as far as the British political, media and literary establishment is concerned the normal rules of engagement are suspended.

“There is a definite urge; don’t you have it?”, the author Martin Amis told Ginny Dougary of The Times: “The Muslim community will have to suffer until i t gets its house in order. Not letting them travel. Deportation; further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they’re from the Middle East or Pakistan. Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children.” Here, Amis is doing much more than insulting Muslims. He is using the foul and barbarous language of fascism. Yet his books continue to sell, and his work continues to be celebrated.

And we found the language of Islamophobic columnists such as Toynbee, Liddle, or novelists such as Amis, duplicated by the British National Party and its growing band of supporters.

All over Europe, parties of the far right have been dropping their traditional hostility to minorities such as Jews and homosexuals; in Britain, the BNP has come to realise that antiSemitism and anti-black campaigning won’t work if they are serious about electoral success.

To move to mainstream respectability, they need an issue that allows them to exploit people’s fears about immigrants and Britain’s ethnic minority communities without being branded racist extremists.

They have found it. Since 9/11, and particularly 7/7, the BNP has gone all out to tap a rich vein of anti-Muslim sentiment. The party’s leader, Nick Griffin, has described Islam as a “wicked, vicious faith” and has tried to distance himself and the party from its anti-Semitic past. Party members are now rebuked for discussing the Holocaust and told to focus on terrorism, the evils of Islam, and scare stories of Britain becoming an Islamic state.

Griffin’s strategy has been inspired by the press. He said: “We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it’s the thing they can understand. It’s the thing the newspaper editors sell newspapers with.”

Last month, we visited Stoke- on-Trent, a BNP heartland with nine BNP councillors, a council second only to Barking and Dagenham in far-right representation. The party has made this progress in large part by mounting a vicious antiMuslim campaign. Stoke has one of the lowest employment rates in the country since the pottery industry collapsed. The BNP has tried to link this decline to Muslim immigration.

Other campaigns have focused on planning issues over mosques, a flashpoint elsewhere too. The BNP accuses the Labour council of cutting special deals with Muslim groups in exchange for support. Wherever we explored tension between Muslims and the local community we tended to discover the BNP was present, fanning discontent.

Many categories of immigrants and foreigners have been singled out for hatred and opprobrium by mainstream society because they were felt threats to British identity. At times, these despised categories have included Catholics, Jews, French and Germans; gays were held to subvert decency and normality until the 1980s, blacks until the 1970s, and Jews for centuries. Now this outcast role has fallen to Muslims. And it is the perception that Muslims receive special treatment that fuels the most resentment. When we investigated clashes at a Muslim dairy in Windsor, we found the perception that police had failed to investigate what seemed to be a racist attack by Asian youths on a local woman played a powerful role in fanning resentments.

But by the same token we believe that Muslims should be given the same protection as other minority groups from insults or ignorant abuse. This protection is not available. Ordinary Muslim families are virtually a silenced minority.

We should all feel ashamed about the way we treat Muslims, in the media, in our politics, and on our streets. We do not treat Muslims with the tolerance, decency and fairness that we often like to boast is the British way. We urgently need to change our public culture. Peter Oborne’s Dispatches film, “It Shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim”, will be screened on Channel 4 at 8pm on Monday 7 July. The pamphlet Muslims Under Siege, by Peter Oborne and James Jones, is published next week by Democratic Audit.
Peter Oborne The Independent (4.7.2008)

British MP: Muslims in the UK feel like ‘the Jews of Europe’

British MP: Muslims in the UK feel like ‘the Jews of Europe’

LONDON – Addressing the issue of anti-Islamic prejudice in the UK, a British government minister has said that the growing culture of hostility has led many Muslims to say they feel targeted like “the Jews of Europe.”

Labor MP Shahid Malik, Britain’s first Muslim government minister, made the statement in an interview with to be broadcast on Monday on the UK’s Channel 4, to coincide with the third anniversary of the 7/7 bombings in London which killed 52 people.

Malik, appointed minister for international development by Prime Minister Gordon Brown last year, said it has somehow become legitimate to target Muslims in a way that would be unacceptable for any other minority.

“Somehow there’s a message out there that it is OK to target people as long as it’s Muslims, and you don’t have to worry about the facts, and people will turn a blind eye,” he told the Dispatches program.

Malik made clear that he was not equating the position with the Holocaust.

“I think most people would agree that if you ask Muslims today what do they feel like, they feel like the Jews of Europe,” he said. “I don’t mean to equate that with the Holocaust, but in the way that it was legitimate almost – and still is in some parts – to target Jews, many Muslims would say that we feel the exact same way.”

The Channel 4 documentary, entitled “It Shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim,” will look at claims that negative attitudes to Muslims have become legitimated by think-tanks and the media who use language now being used by the far right.

He said that many British Muslims now felt like “aliens in their own country” and that he himself had been the target of racist incidents. The MP said he regularly receives anti-Muslim hate mail at his constituency office in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, which was home to Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of bombers.

To show how Muslims were being targeted, Malik used an example of a newspaper story that ran in the British press last December claiming that staff in a Dewsbury hospital had been ordered to turn the beds of Muslim patients towards Mecca five times a day.

“It’s almost as if you don’t have to check your facts when it comes to certain people, and you can just run with those stories,” he said. “It makes Muslims feel like aliens in their own country. At a time when we want to engage with Muslims, actually the opposite happens.”

A poll accompanying the program found that 51 percent of Britons blame Islam to some degree for the 7/7 attacks while more than a quarter of Muslims now believe Islamic values are not compatible with British ones. Eight out of 10 said they felt a marked increase in hostility toward their faith since the 2005 bombings, while 90% of Muslims said they still felt attached to Britain.

Former Metropolitan Police head of counter terrorism, Andy Hayman, who was Britain’s most senior anti-terrorism officer until he resigned last December, is asked on the program why it is important to engage with Muslims who express extreme views.

“Because we’re tackling headon the people that we feel are at the heartbeat of this whole complex agenda,” he said. “Not to have a dialogue with them would seem that we are apprehensive, we’re scared, we’re frightened... So even if it’s appeasement in some quarters, that is still a conversation that is not being had and needs to be had.”

Simon Woolley, a member of the government’s task force tackling race inequality, concurred, saying: “On an almost daily basis, there is rampant Islamophobia in this country, the effect of which is not for our Muslim community to get closer to a sense of Britishness but to feel further away from a feeling of belonging in British society.”

JONNY PAUL Jerusalem Post correspondent
06.07. 2008

Are Muslims the 'New Jews of Europe' ?


Muslims feel like ‘Jews of Europe’

Minister’s shock warning on rise of anti-Islamic prejudice

Britain’s first Muslim minister has attacked the growing culture of hostility against Muslims in the United Kingdom, saying that many feel targeted like “the Jews of Europe”.

Shahid Malik, who was appointed as a minister in the Department for International Development (Dfid) by Gordon Brown last summer, said it has become legitimate to target Muslims in the media and society at large in a way that would be unacceptable for any other minority.

Mr Malik made clear that he was not equating the situation with the Holocaust but warned that many British Muslims now felt like “aliens in their own country”. He said he himself had been the target of a string of racist incidents, including the firebombing of his family car and an attempt to run him down at a petrol station.

“I think most people would agree that if you ask Muslims today what do they feel like, they feel like the Jews of Europe,” he said. “I don’t mean to equate that with the Holocaust but in the way that it was legitimate almost – and still is in some parts – to target Jews, many Muslims would say that we feel the exact same way.

“Somehow there’s a message out there that it’s OK to target people as long as it’s Muslims. And you don’t have to worry about the facts, and people will turn a blind eye.”

Cahal Milmo The Independent 4.07. 2008


vendredi

De l'Art de s'Attribuer les Victoires des Autres


29/03/2008

Un ancien codétenu d'Ingrid Bétancourt raconte:

  • Le 4 février dernier, Luis Eladio Perez, le plus rebelle des otages des Farc, a entrepris la "marche de la liberté". Quelques jours auparavant, dans l’émission "Les voix des otages", sur une radio colombienne, il avait entendu que les Farc annonçaient sa libération ainsi que celle des ex-parlementaires Gloria Polanco, Orlando Beltrán Cuéllar et Jorge Eduardo Gechem. Il n’en a rien cru jusqu’aux dernières heures avant le départ, quand le commandant lui a ordonné d’emballer ses affaires. En sortant, il a vu Ingrid. Après un an de séparation, cinq minutes lui ont suffit pour se convaincre de l’état de santé alarmant dans lequel elle se trouve.
  • La libération de Luis Eladio Perez en compagnie de trois autres otages a été précédée de la remise en liberté de deux otages (Clara Rojas et Consuelo Gonzalez), comme gestes unilatéraux de la guérilla. Puis, Raul Reyes, le numéro deux des Farc, en charge des négociations avec les gouvernements étrangers impliqués dans le processus, a été abattu lors d’une incursion de l’armée colombienne sur le sol équatorien et un autre commandant emblématique a été assassiné par l’un de ses hommes de confiance, infiltré par les services secrets colombiens. Les Farc vont-elles poursuivre ces libérations malgré ces deux coups durs?
  • "Les Farc vont libérer de la même façon Ingrid Betancourt et les trois autres otages 'politiques' qui restent en leur pouvoir. Et le gouvernement colombien devra répondre à ce geste en libérant, en tant que prisonniers politiques, les guérilleros réclamés par les Farc.
source


10/04/2008

Affaiblies, les Farc manquent d'argent
  • L'état-major de la guérilla, qui vient de perdre deux de ses sept membres, pourrait être tenté par un repli stratégique dans la forêt tropicale.

  • Les temps sont durs pour la dernière guérilla marxiste léniniste d'Amérique du Sud. Au-delà de la perte depuis le début de l'année de deux membres sur sept de la direction du mouvement Raul Reyes, tué dans un raid de l'armée colombienne en Équateur, et Ivan Rios descendu par son garde du corps , il semble que les Farc connaissent de plus en plus de difficultés tant militaires que financières. «L'équilibre des forces entre les Farc et l'armée s'est totalement inversée depuis huit ans», explique Antonio Cavallero, analyste politique colombien.
  • Le plan Colombie, largement financé par les États-Unis, a permis à l'armée colombienne d'acquérir de nouveaux avions et de nouveaux hélicoptères. Les effectifs de la police ont considérablement augmenté ce qui a permis son retour dans 200 à 300 villages où auparavant l'administration et l'ordre étaient assurés par les Farc. À la fin des années 1990, la guérilla disposait encore une capacité offensive importante. Les Farc avaient l'habitude de s'installer dans des campements bien aménagés et donc peu mobiles. Ils ne le peuvent plus, les hélicoptères rendant très vulnérables ce type d'installation.
  • «C'est une guérilla du troisième âge. La plupart des cadres ont largement dépassé la cinquantaine, constate Otty Patino, ancien militant du M19, un mouvement qui a abandonné la lutte armée au début des années 1990. Guevara disait toujours que les campements sont les mouroirs des guérillas.» Désormais, les guérilleros sont forcés de se réfugier toujours plus loin dans la forêt et d'être très mobiles. L'un des seuls otages à être parvenu à s'échapper, John Frank Pinchao, a raconté dans un livre les incessantes marches pour échapper à la traque de l'armée.
  • Les enlèvements rapportent de moins en moins

  • c'est la crise idéologique qui mine de façon plus profonde les Farc. «Pour avoir privilégié les activités militaires, les Farc ont abandonné la formation politique
envoyé spécial à Bogota Patrick Bèle dans

26/05/2008
Colombie: après la mort du leader des Farc, une chance pour la paix

  • Avant même la mort par infarctus, confirmée ce dimanche par la guérilla, de Manuel Marulanda, leader des Farc, les forces publiques colombiennes avaient réellement pris l'initiative depuis un an. L'année dernière, les militaires commençaient à pouvoir attaquer les campements de la guérilla de manière un peu plus directe qu'auparavant. La mort du "Negro Acacio", en septembre, avait inauguré cette série de coups de force, quand celle de Reyes, numéro 2 des Farc, démontrait encore plus cette nouvelle capacité militaire. Ces progrès s'expliquent facilement par plusieurs éléments:
    Le premier, et probablement le plus important, est la réforme de l'armée entamée par le président Pastrana (1998-2002).
  • Ensuite, le Plan Colombie a apporté à l'armée des moyens qu'elle n'aurait jamais pu imaginer sans l'aide américaine, principalement en termes de mobilité, élément fondamental pour une lutte contre une guérilla.
  • Le troisième élément est une meilleure coordination de l'intelligence militaire. Au début 2007, le ministère de la Défense a embauché un groupe d'anciens militaires israéliens chargés de compiler et d'analyser les informations des forces publiques. Jusqu'à leur arrivée, l'armée colombienne avait les moyens d'attaquer et la technologie adéquate, mais bien souvent pas la formation. Il est d'ailleurs intéressant de voir que les Etats-Unis n'ont fourni qu'une formation médiocre pour l'utilisation de leur matériel.
  • La politique de "sécurité démocratique" du président Uribe a ainsi commencé à avoir de réels effets, comme le replis de la guérilla. L'armée commençant à démontrer sa supériorité de manière claire, il est normal de voir des pans entiers du groupe armé s'effondrer. Les guérilléros, bien souvent engagés depuis plus d'une vingtaine d'années, ne voient plus de terme possible à leur combat, une victoire devenant impossible. suite...

mercredi

L'antiterrorisme en France mis en cause par HRW

Eh voilà, je venais tout juste d'évoquer des pensées dans le message précédent, que je tombe sur le rapport de HRW, mais lisez d'abord cet article (lisez jusqu'au bout et ne vous réjouissez pas trop)

Une ONG met en cause l'antiterrorisme en France dans un rapport
Reuters
Les méthodes du système judiciaire français de lutte antiterroriste sont mises en cause par une ONG américaine, Human Rights Watch (HRW), qui estime dans un rapport qu'elles portent atteinte aux droits fondamentaux et suggère leur réforme. "Poursuivre des personnes à cause des gens qu'elles connaissent et de ce qu'elles pensent porte atteinte aux droits fondamentaux.
Il s'agit d'un principe erroné et d'une pratique dangereuse", écrit Judith Sunderland, chercheur à la division Europe de HRW. "L'approche adoptée par la France risque d'aliéner des personnes de confession musulmane, éventuellement de radicaliser certaines personnes et d'éroder la confiance dans les forces de l'ordre et de sécurité", estime HRW. Dans son rapport intitulé "La justice court-circuitée", l'organisation suggère la réforme du système français instauré en 1986 et qui se caractérise par une centralisation de facto des enquêtes sur le terrorisme dans un "pool" de juges spécialisés à Paris. L'équipe de juges français dispose de pouvoirs procéduraux étendus comme la garde à vue de quatre jours - six jours si des préparatifs d'attentat sont avérés - et fonde presque toujours ses enquêtes sur l'incrimination d'"association de malfaiteurs en relation avec une entreprise terroriste". Cette incrimination, trop vague selon HRW, permet d'arrêter de manière arbitraire "sur la base d'une minimum de preuves", estime-t-elle. Elle remarque que la base des enquêtes est souvent le travail des services de renseignement, français - la DST est aussi un service de police judiciaire - ou étrangers, dans des pays ou la torture est pratiquée. L'ONG, qui dit avoir travaillé sur la base d'entretiens avec une vingtaine de personnes impliquées dans des enquêtes, dénonce le caractère "oppressant" des interrogatoires de garde à vue ou sont monnaie courante selon elle "la privation de sommeil, la désorientation, les interrogatoires incessants et répétitifs ainsi que les pressions psychologiques".RECOMMANDATIONSAu stade du procès, l'incrimination d'association de malfaiteurs amène aussi souvent aux yeux de HRW des condamnations peu étayées par des preuves. HRW suggère de définir plus précisément le délit d'association de malfaiteurs en relation avec une entreprise terroriste, en exigeant la preuve de l'intention de participer à un projet, d'améliorer les protections pendant la garde à vue en permettant la présence d'un avocat aux interrogatoires. Elle préconise aussi de renforcer le rôle et l'indépendance des juges des libertés et de la détention et de déclarer irrecevables les preuves obtenues sous la torture ou au moyen de mauvais traitements, y compris de pays tiers. HRW demande à l'Onu et au Conseil de l'Europe de se pencher sur le sujet. Les critiques contre le système avaient été violentes dès 1999, lorsque le dossier "Chalabi" visant un groupe de soutien au Groupe islamique armé algérien (GIA), avait vu finalement innocentées 89 des 173 personnes initialement poursuivies, cumulant une cinquantaine d'années de détention provisoire. Après les attentats du 11 septembre 2001, la situation s'est renversée et la France a même parfois fait figure de modèle. Les partisans du système français relativisent ses défauts en soulignant que les Etats-Unis ont instauré la détention extrajudiciaire illimitée dans le camp de Guantanamo et légalisé certaines formes de torture. Le Royaume-Uni a aussi permis la détention sans cadre judiciaire d'étrangers accusés de terrorisme de 2001 à 2004. Une incrimination du type de celle "d'association de malfaiteurs", jugée nécessaire pour démanteler les groupes avant leur passage à l'acte, a été introduite par plusieurs pays.

Interrogé sur le rapport de l'ONG en marge du compte rendu du conseil des ministres, le porte-parole du gouvernement a fait valoir que les lois françaises en matière de lutte contre le terrorisme avaient été édictées en "riposte à une menace". "Notre pays a suffisamment souffert de cette menace, qui a été mise à exécution à plusieurs reprises", a dit Luc Chatel. "Ensuite, nos dispositions législatives sont souvent calées sur ce qui existe dans d'autres pays en la matière", a-t-il ajouté.


Lire le rapport:

La justice court-circuitée
Les lois et procédures antiterroristes en France


Who must panic ?


Je suis américain, je crois en Dieu : je suis patriote
Je suis français, je crois en Dieu : je suis ringard
Je suis italien, je crois en Dieu : je suis croyant
Je suis français, je ne crois pas en dieu car y'en a marre qu'on me traite de vieux plouc
Je suis allemand, je ne crois pas en dieu car ce n'est pas une fabrication allemande
Je suis turc, je crois en Dieu car il ne m'empêche pas d'être moderne
Je suis oriental, je crois en Dieu...

mais...

attendez !!!

ne partez pas comme ça !!!

je suis juif...

ouf...

soulagement !!!

Je suis aussi oriental et je crois en Dieu...

je suis musulman...

nooon !!! Ne paniquez pas comme ça !!!

mais...

chuuut...

ne le dites à personne car il parait qu'il n'est plus permis de l'être...

sous peine de se faire soupçonner,
persécuter,
dénoncer,
enlever,
déporter vers une prison secrète,
torturer,
assassiner...


vendredi

France Sarkovision


Télé publique: France Sarkovision
Le chef de l'État veut pouvoir nommer lui-même le président de France Télévisions et annonce la fin de la publicité après 20 heures dès janvier 2009.


Voici ce qu'on pouvait lire hier à la une du journal Libération.
Alors à l'image de cette nouvelle trouvaille, les titres et les articles des journaux français ou non, n'ont pas manqué d'originalité, ainsi on pouvait lire en deuxième page du même journal:

Nicolas Sarkozy, la main sur la télécommande

L’essentiel : Nicolas Sarkozy a rendu ses arbitrages sur France Télévisions : il nommera lui-même le président de la télé publique et la pub s’arrêtera le 1er janvier 2009.

La rumeur a fait hier matin le tour du petit monde des médias à la vitesse d’un Sarkozy au galop. Lors de la remise du rapport de la commission Copé à l’Elysée, le président de la République allait annoncer qu’il démettait le président de France Télévisions Patrick de Carolis de ses fonctions. Allons, allons, on est en démocratie tout de même et le temps de l’ORTF où le pouvoir avait une ligne téléphonique directe avec la télé publique est révolu… Et de fait, Nicolas Sarkozy n’a pas confirmé la rumeur. Il a fait mieux : il a annoncé que, désormais, le président de la télé publique serait «nommé par l’exécutif» . C’est-à-dire par bibi, Nicolas Sarkozy. Ce même Sarkozy qui, recevant en février l’intersyndicale de France Télévisions, avouait benoîtement que son rêve aurait été d’être directeur des programmes, réalise son fantasme. Vrai pote. Un ex-directeur de campagne à la direction de TF1 (Laurent Solly), Alain Genestar patron de Paris Match viré pour une une déplaisante, un ami, Jean-Claude Dassier, à la direction de l’info de la Une, laquelle est détenue par un vrai pote, Martin Bouygues, tout comme l’est Bernard Arnault ( Les Echos), Vincent Bolloré (Direct 8 et des gratuits), Arnaud Lagardère ( le JDD, Paris Match, etc.) et de très gros soupçons d’intervention dans la nomination de Laurence Ferrari à la place de PPDA… Toujours fourré la main dans les affaires des médias, Sarkozy est allé encore plus loin hier : «Les choses doivent être claires, a-t-il martelé, il y a un actionnaire, cet actionnaire nomme le président.» Ça, pour être clair… Même si l’actuel système de nomination par le CSA reflète les majorités présidentielles, là, c’est du jamais vu. La bronca ne s’est pas fait attendre : le «patron [de France Télévisions, ndlr] va être nommé par le pouvoir, et ses financements dépendront chaque année du bon vouloir des gouvernants» , a dénoncé le président du Modem François Bayrou. Le député PS Christian Paul a fustigé un «nouveau modèle français, que Poutine et Berlusconi vont pouvoir bientôt envier» . Seul garde-fou: le CSA pourra donner son avis et une majorité de députés, si elle est qualifiée, pourra s’y opposer. C’està-dire que trois quarts des députés devront être contre le candidat de Sarkozy pour qu’il ne soit pas nommé. Autant dire impossible. Depuis sa décision du 8 janvier de supprimer la publicité sur France Télévisions, Nicolas Sarkozy n’en fait de toute façon qu’à sa guise. Il l’a encore démontré hier en balayant une bonne partie des préconisations de la commission Copé. Il n’en retient que ce qu’il avait lui-même proposé en janvier : une taxe de 0,9 % sur le chiffre d’affaires des télécoms et des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet et une autre sur la pub des chaînes privées. De même, l’indexation de la redevance que Jean-François Copé s’enorgueillissait d’avoir obtenu de haute lutte : elle n’a même pas été évoquée par Sarkozy hier. Aux syndicats de France Télévisions qu’il recevait un peu plus tôt, il a dit en substance : «D’abord on fait la réforme, ensuite, on en discute.» De même, l’idée de la commission de ne supprimer la pub qu’à partir du 1er septembre 2009 après 20 heures a été retoquée par Sarkozy : «Pardon, hein, Jean-François, j’veux pas critiquer, mais le téléspectateur est en droit d’exiger un changement tout de suite.» Va donc pour le 1er janvier prochain, Sarkozy a parlé. La suppression totale de la pub est maintenue pour fin 2011. Porte dérobée. Cette accélération et ces volte-face de Sarkozy ont mis un sale coup au moral des salariés de France Télévisions. L’intersyndicale se déclare ainsi «encore plus en colère» après le discours de Sarkozy : «Toutes les mesures préconisées, tous les chiffres avancés sont remis en cause par Sarkozy. On ne sait plus où on va» , se désole Jean-François Téaldi. Après son entrevue avec Sarkozy, l’intersyndicale a été priée de quitter l’Elysée par une porte dérobée avec interdiction de passer par la rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré où s’amassaient les journalistes. Drôle de méthode. A 16 heures, au moment de la remise du rapport, des banderoles étaient déployées partout en France sur les sites de la télé publique: «Hold-up sur l’audiovisuel public». Les premières victimes du «braco» devraient être les salariés de la régie publicitaire puisque, dès le 1er janvier, une grande partie d’entre eux va se retrouver au chômage technique.

RAPHAËL GARRIGOS et ISABELLE ROBERTS

Dans les Echos d'aujourd'hui on peut lire:

Levée de boucliers contre la nomination du PDGde France Télévisionspar l’Etat

L’opposition, la presse et lesmilieux culturels critiquent la volonté de l’Elysée de retirer au Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel la nomination du PDGde la télévision publique. Les inquiétudes sur le financement n’ont pas non plus été apaisées.

Tollé général après la décision de Nicolas Sarkozy de faire nommer le PDG de FranceTélévisionsparlegouvernement en lieu et place du Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA). La quasi-totalité des médias et des partis politiques − hormis l’UMP (lire ci-dessous) − fustigeait hier les desseins du président pour les chaînes publiques. Au sein même du gouvernement, une voix s’est élevée contre le projet présidentiel, celleduministred’ouverture, JeanPierre Jouyet : « Ilyaunparfumde Ve République du début qu’il faudraitpeut-êtremieux éviter. Jepréférerais qu’il soit désigné par le Parlement » , adéclarélesecrétaired’Etat chargé des Affaires européennes sur Canal+. « Il est normal que le président soit désigné par un actionnaire, mais aussi qu’il y ait un contrôle par le Parlement », avait-il rappelé.

Depuis ledébutdes années1980, le PDGde FranceTélévisions était en effet nommé, après auditions, par le gendarme de l’audiovisuel. Un gage supposé d’indépendance vis-à-visdupouvoirpolitique. Or ce dernier voit désormais son pouvoir réduit à un simple droit de veto. Hier, le CSA se refusait à tout commentaire. Pourtant, mi-juin, son président, MichelBoyon, avait défendu les prérogatives du régulateur, affirmant que le CSA « paraît compétent pour apprécier l’aptitude du candidat à présider et diriger ce groupe ».

Volonté politique

Mais la volonté politique de changer les règles l’a emporté. Hier, le Premier ministre, François Fillon, a qualifié le processus actuel d’ « hypocrite » . Il n’ « a jamais été indépendant et autonome a-t-il martelé. En revanche, avec le dispositif proposé par Nicolas Sarkozy, ce sera « plus clair et mieux contrôlé, puisqu’ily auraundouble contrôle, celui du CSA et celui du Parlement ». Ce dernier ayant lui aussi la possibilité de s’opposer à condition qu’une « majorité qualifiée » soit réunie, en d’autres termes que trois cinquièmes des parlementaires votent contre. Mais certains juristes s’interrogent sur la constitutionnalité de la mesure. Le Conseil constitutionnel impose au législateur une limite stricte : la loinouvelle doit offrir au citoyen au moins autant de garanties que les dispositions abrogées. Les sages devront donc encore vérifier que le dispositif de Nicolas Sarkozy respecte autant cette libertéquelanomination par le seul CSA.

PourlaministredelaCommunication, Christine Albanel, « il y a suffisamment de verrous et de contrôles pour qu’on ne puisse pas parler de prise de contrôle du pouvoir » . Mais tout n’est pas réglé. Une certaine confusion entoure ainsi le sort réservé auPDGactuel de France Télévisions, Patrick de Carolis. Pour la ministre, ce dernier pourra finir tranquillement son mandat jusqu’en 2010 et ne devrait pas être concerné par le nouveau dispositif, qui en revanche s’appliquera « aux nominations suivantes ». Le conseiller spécial de Nicolas Sarkozy, Henri Guaino, a en revanche donné une versionopposée au « Monde ». Selon lui, un nouveau PDG sera nommé après l’adoption de la loi.

L’autre faisceau de critiques porte sur le financement futur de France Télévisions. Le manque à gagner provoqué par l’arrêt de la publicité à compter du 1er janvier 2009 se chiffre à 450millions d’euros. Sur le papier, la taxe de 0,9% sur le chiffre d’affaires des opérateurs télécoms (quidevrait rapporter378millionsd’euros) etcellesur les recettes des chaînes privées (80 millions d’euros) comblent le trou. Mais le principe même de cette taxation, combattue par les intéressés, pourrait être remis en question par Bruxelles. Et à France Télévisions on ne sait pas comment seront financés les programmes de qualité qui devront remplacer lapublicité. « Pour2009 et la suite, rienn’est assuré. Tous les chiffresavancés sontremis encause par Sarkozy. On ne sait plus où on va », a déploré l’intersyndicale du groupe public.

Les sociétés d’auteurs (SACD, SCAM, UGS etClub des auteurs) et la Société civile des auteurs-réalisateurs-producteurs (ARP) redoutent déjà un « sous-financement durabl e de France Télévisions ». Reste lapiste de l’indexation de la redevance sur l’inflation, qui devrait rapporter quelquesdizainesdemillions d’euros supplémentaires. Nicolas Sarkozy « est toujours ouvert à cette hypothèse, mais uniquement pour financer le développement futur », déclarait hier l’Elysée à l’AFP.

Le Guardian quant à lui, titre aujourd'hui:

Le Téléprésident: Sarkozy tightens his grip over French state TV

Opposition accuses of ‘Berlusconi-style’ tactics Plans spark warning of return to censorship ‘This is the methodical organisation of propagandist strategy to control the media’

Nicolas Sarkozy’s plans to increase government control over state TV yesterday sparked an outcry from his political opponents who accused him of tightening a Berlusconi-style grip on the airwaves and dragging France back into its dark age of postwar censorship and propaganda.

The French president’s proposed “cultural revolution” for France’s five state TV channels prompted an uproar when he announced that in future, he and his cabinet would appoint the head of French state TV, instead of an independent body.

Sarkozy, known as the Téléprésident, prides himself on his numerous TV appearances, carefully studies his own ratings and has privately confided that he would have liked to have been a TV executive. So it was no surprise that he took direct control of the project to overhaul French state TV. He argued that a government appointment of the head of France Televisions was more “democratic”. This has reopened the festering row over the president’s influence over the media and closeness to his press and TV baron friends who are willing to lean on, censor or even sack journalists who displease him.

Last month, a fresh row erupted after Sarkozy was accused of influencing the appointment of a newsreader, Laurence Ferrari, to the leading private channel TF1, run by one of the his closest friends. Her ousted predecessor was rumoured to have upset the president, who is conscious of his height, by asking if he ever felt “like a little boy in a big boy’s playground”.

The left-leaning daily Liberation yesterday ran a front page headline: “France Sarkovision”. Staff at state TV and radio unfurled banners saying “Television holdup” in protest against any future government appointment of their boss.

“This is the methodical organisation of a propagandist strategy to control the media. It’s low-grade Berlusconi,” said the socialist MP Arnaud Montebourg. “Unlike Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, Nicolas Sarkozy doesn’t have the means to buy the television stations he dreams of. Instead, he has decided to take control of them, with a striking mix of brutality and cynicism,” said an editorial in Le Monde.

The plans sparked warnings of a return to France’s postwar era and the presidency of Charles de Gaulle when government controlled, vetted and censored public media — notably in its heavily repressed coverage of the May 1968 riots which led to journalist demonstrations.

Within Sarkozy’s government, the Europe minister, Jean-Pierre Jouyet warned that the plans had a “whiff” of the de Gaulle era. The media academic Dominique Wolton said it had taken several decades for French TV to emerge from the grip of the state and “depoliticise itself” but it was now going “backwards”.

The culture minister, Christine Albanel, dismissed the criticisms as “absurd” saying there were enough parliamentary “safety checks in place” so it could not be called “a government takeover”.

Sarkozy announced he would scrap advertising from state TV by 2011, beginning with a ban on advertising after 8pm from January. He argued that scrapping advertising would free state TV to be more creative and public service-minded.

The socialist party accused him of handing gifts to his friends in private TV who would benefit from increased advertising.

Angelique Chrisafis Paris Arnaud Montebourg, Socialist MP


Un autre titre non moins signifiant est apparu aujourd'hui sur The irish Times:

Outrage over Sarkozy’s move on state TV job

PRESIDENT NICOLAS Sarkozy has provoked outrage by announcing that he will chose the president of France Télévisions, the public television conglomerate comprised of five stations and employing 11,000 people.

“Public television; France Sarkovision,” was the front page headline of Libération newspaper yesterday, after Mr Sarkozy’s shock announcement late on Wednesday.

“Unlike Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, Nicolas Sarkozy doesn’t have the means to buy the television stations he dreams of,” said Le Monde. “So he decided to take them over; with a striking blend of brutality and cynicism.”

Until now, the head of France Télévisions was named by the High Audiovisual Council (CSA). Though its members are chosen by the president, the council provided a semblance of distance between the chief of state and government-financed television.

Mr Sarkozy justified the move in the jargon of free-market economics: “Things must be clear. There is one shareholder [the state]; this shareholder names the president [of France Télévisions].” L’état c’est moi. Mr Sarkozy behaved “as if public money were his own”, Le Monde noted.

Culture minister Christine Albanel sounded embarrassed when she attempted to defend the measure on French radio and television. Ms Albanel called the president’s self-appointed right to choose the head of public radio and television “democratic”. She said the CSA’s rubber stamp approval, along with the National Assembly’s ability to block an appointee with a vote by threequarters of deputies, guaranteed there could be no abuse of power.

Several commentators said the decision takes France back to the 1960s ORTF, when Charles de Gaulle maintained a direct phone line to the heads of radio and television stations.

The socialist deputy Christian Paul spoke of “a new French model, which Putin and Berlusconi will soon envy”.

On January 8th Mr Sarkozy announced that he would do away with advertising on public television. Faced with widespread accusations that the move was intended to create massive profits for Martin Bouygues, the owner of TF1, France’s leading private station (whom Mr Sarkozy calls “my brother”), the president created the Copé commission, which reported back to him on Wednesday.

Not only will he choose the head of France Télévisions, Mr Sarkozy will also starve public television of funding.

From January 1st,

advertising will be banned from 8pm until 6am, depriving public television of hundreds of millions of euro in revenue. The ban will become total in 2011.

To make up for advertising, which accounts for one third of public television funding, Mr Sarkozy will impose a 3 per cent tax on the huge advertising profits of private channels, and will impose a 0.9 per cent tax on mobile phone and internet operators.

There is widespread speculation that these new taxes will be opposed by the European Commission. And Mr Sarkozy has made no provision for programming to fill the former advertising time, which France Télévisions estimates will cost €400 million.

To an outside observer, Mr Sarkozy appears determined to destroy public television in France. According to L’Express magazine, he last week told Patrice Duhamel, the director general of France Télévisions, “I’m going to break everything, from ceiling to floor! Finished, the comfort and cushy sinecures! It is I who will run this reform, and nobody else.”

Through his friendship with Martin Bouygues, Mr Sarkozy already controls TF1. When he wants to speak on the evening news, the president reportedly calls Mr Bouygues.

Last year the deputy director of Mr Sarkozy’s presidential campaign was appointed deputy director of TF1. Earlier this month Patrick Poivre d’Arvor, France’s best-known news presenter, was replaced by Laurence Ferrari. Ms Ferrari successfully sued two publications that claimed she had an affair with Mr Sarkozy between his second and third marriages. He had reportedly told Mr Bouygues he wanted to see her on the evening news.

The undermining of France Télévisions will be a boon to TF1 and M6, the other leading private station, whose president, Nicolas de Tavernost, is also on familiar tu terms with Mr Sarkozy. L’Express revealed TF1 sent a “white paper” to the Élysée requesting a ban on advertising in public television and authorisation for a second advertising break during films.

Mr Sarkozy has granted both requests, as well as allowing private stations increase advertising from six to nine minutes an hour.

Le Figaro, which is owned by another friend of Mr Sarkozy, arms manufacturer Serge Dassault, more and more resembles the old Soviet newspaper Pravda. Le Figaro reported not one word of criticism of Mr Sarkozy’s decisions and buried the information that the president “clarified the mode of nomination of the president of France Télévisions” on the last page of its finance section.

LARA MARLOWE in Paris

The Wall Street Journal Europe, s'est intéressé à l'affaire publiant un article qui porte le titre significatif:

Sarkozy galls telecoms

Tax to offset ban of ads on public TV touches off a battle

PRESIDENT Nicolas Sarkozy’s proposal to ban advertising from state-owned television channels is touching off a battle with France’s biggest media and telecommunications companies.

Mr. Sarkozy wants to gradually phase out ads from France’s public TV stations, starting in January. To plug the resulting hole in the state media’s budgets, he would levy two new taxes on private broadcasters, such as TF1 SA, and telecom operators, such as France Télécom SA.

Private TV companies slammed the new tax, saying it would essentially force them to subsidize their state-backed competitors. Telecom companies complain that they are being unfairly singled out to shoulder the extra cost for ad-free public TV.

“We’ll fight this by every means possible,” said Maxime Lombardini, chief executive of Internet-service provider Iliad SA, which would have to pay the new tax.

The companies said they now plan to lobby French and European Union politicians against Mr. Sarkozy’s plan, which needs to be drafted into law and presented to Parliament.

In its current form, the proposal calls for a new 3% tax on the advertising revenue of private broadcasters with the aim of raising some OE80 million ($125 million) every year. Another tax of 0.9% will be charged on the revenue of telecom operators and Internet-service providers.

The government estimates public broadcaster France Télévisions will lose about OE450 million in revenue a year by getting rid of ads.

The ad ban represents an effort by the center-right president to burnish his cultural credentials by borrowing an idea that has long been championed by the left in France.

“We need to free public-service television from the tyranny of realtime audience measurement,” Mr. Sarkozy said in a speech at the Élysée Presidential Palace on Wednesday. “It leads state TV to treat viewers like consumers.”

France Télévisions, the main state-owned broadcaster, now gets two-thirds of its annual budget of OE2.78 billion from an annual fee of OE116, levied on all residents in France who own a television. The rest comes from advertising and sponsorship.

Yet the proposal to get rid of ads on public television comes at a time when the entire French media landscape is changing rapidly.

All broadcasters have struggled with deteriorating advertising revenue over the past year, as French people spend less time in front of the TV and embrace new technologies like Internet video.

While U.S. broadcasters have been struggling with these problems for several years, European television stations have been more protected because they have fewer competitors and are often subsidized by states. That now seems to be changing: TF1, the country’s biggest commercial-television station, has seen its share price cut nearly in half in the past year, reflecting investor anxiety over declining ad revenue.

When Mr. Sarkozy first floated his plan in January, he said he wanted France’s public-service broadcasters to focus on quality programs and leave the pursuit of ads to private channels. “Otherwise, what is the point of having public channels?” he said at the time. Under his proposal, ads on public TV would be reduced in January and eliminated completely by 2011.

Explaining his motives, Mr. Sarkozy recalled how, as a child, he enjoyed watching live theater productions that were broadcast on French public television. The president said his proposed ad ban will allow public-service channels to broadcast more culturally ambitious programs such as plays and concerts.

But Bertrand Meheut, the CEO of Canal +, Vivendi SA’s pay-television unit, said Mr. Sarkozy’s plan would set up a perverse incentive because France Télévisions would receive funds even if its viewership declined.

Executives also warn that the move would lead to higher costs for French consumers. Mr. Lombardini said Iliad would have to raise the price of its package of Internet, television and phone services, which now costs OE30 month. “We wouldn’t have a choice,” he said.

By Leila Abboud And David Gauthier-Villars Paris

Pierre Brian
quant à lui, n'hésite pas sur les mots en titrant son article publié dans The National-Business:

Struggling Sarkozy has nothing to brag about

Nicolas Sarkozy had big hopes for France’s turn at the European Union presidency, in the second half of this year.

The French president thought he could cajole his partners into agreeing at least to one or two reforms that he would have called significant and brought back home as his world-class leader diploma. Last year, Mr Sarkozy thought he was off to a good start, when he managed to convince other countries to jump-start the stalled EU constitutional treaty – until Ireland killed that bird by voting the treaty down.

“Sarko” is learning the hard way that the surest way to lead is by example – and the problem is that the French economy will not be a beacon for anyone. There is nothing to brag about.

The government’s own statistics institute forecasts inflation at three per cent this year and growth at a paltry 1.6 per cent – which would put France in the eurozone’s lower tier. Even worse, the government will be trapped by Mr Sarkozy’s decision last year to do nothing about the public finances and budget deficit. According to the top audit body in France, the deficit will this year, once again, approach three per cent of GDP – the threshold which could trigger EU sanctions. This means that Mr Sarkozy will not be able to use fiscal policy to cushion the blow of a global economic slowdown.

There is some irony in seeing a president who campaigned on “rupture”, reform and change trapped in the same predicament as his predecessors. France shows that painful reforms of public spending and the state machine must be undertaken when the going is good.

It is too late when things get tough, but there is no strong incentive to act in rosier times when higher tax revenues give the illusion that deficit-shrinking can be painless. No wonder that the French presidential spin these days is all on foreign trips and his wife’s new album.

“You’re my dope,” she croons in one of the songs. That could be a sign of domestic bliss, but compatriots and the rest of Europe may struggle to feel exhilarated by the “Sarko” treatment.



Fernsehen à la Berlusconi

Un autre titre très symbolique qu'à choisi Rudolf Balmer le correspondant du journal autrichien Die Presse:

FRANKREICH. Das öffentlich-rechtliche TV soll ab 2012 auf Wunsch von Präsident Sarkozy
ohne Werbung auskommen. Gleichzeitig platziert er befreundete Journalisten im TV.

Ein Medienstar und eine Institution: Das ist Patrick Poivre d’Arvor, Sprecher der Hauptnachrichten des französischen Fernsehens TF1. Aber nicht mehr lange. Der 60-jährige Bretone mit schütterem Haar muss nach 20 Jahren TVNachrichten seinen Platz für die 41-jährige Blondine Laurence Ferrari räumen. Sie ist eine renommierte Journalistin und soll mit Ausstrahlung und Know-how die TF1-Informationssendung stärken, die zuletzt massiv an Einschaltquoten verloren hat. Nichts also wäre normaler als ein personeller Wechsel – und Generationenwechsel. „PPDA“, wie der Zwangspensionierte in Frankreich heißt, spricht von einer „politischen Kündigung“.

Denn die Tatsache, dass in den Wochen und Tagen zuvor Staatspräsident Sarkozy Ferrari als seine Wunschkandidatin für den Posten bei TF1 bezeichnet hat, macht die Nomination suspekt. Zu oft hatte sich Sarkozy in der Vergangenheit, als Minister, als Präsidentschaftskandidat und seit seiner Wahl ins Elysee,´ in die internen Angelegenheiten der Redaktionen eingemischt, manchmal direkt per Telefon oder indirekt dank seiner persönlichen Beziehungen zu den privaten Medienbossen Martin Bouygues, Arnaud Lagardere,` Bernard Arnault, Vincent Bollore´ und Serge Dassault, die zu seinem persönlichen Freundeskreis gehören. Diese zögerten nie, ihm einen kleinen Gefallen zu tun.

In Buchform erzählt z. B. der frühere Chef des Magazins „Paris Match“, wie er von Lagardere` gefeuert wurde, weil er 2005 die Fotos von Sarkozys damaliger Gattin Cecilia´ an der Seite ihres Liebhabers (und heutigen Ehemanns) Richard Attias veröffentlichte.

Um Konflikte und Sanktionen zu vermeiden, die peinliche Proteste auslösen, zieht es Sarkozy vor, seine Leute zu platzieren. Sein Ex-Kampagnenleiter Laurent Solly wurde in die Generaldirektion von TF1 als Leiter der Satellitensender ernannt. Neuer Informationschef bei TF1 und dem Nachrichtenkanal LCI wurde dank wohlwollender Förderung ein Aktiv-Mitglied der Regierungspartei UMP, Jean-Claude Dassier.

Agentur soll PR-Meldung übernehmen

Sein Vorgänger Nicolas Beytout, ebenfalls erklärter Sarkozy-Anhänger, wurde Chef der von Bernard Arnault gekauften Wirtschaftszeitung „Les Echos“. Sarkozy teilte den Redaktionsmitgliedern den Namen ihres künftigen Redaktionsleiters vor allen anderen persönlich mit. Die Presseagentur Agence France Presse ersuchte er, die Regierungsmitteilung unredigiert zu übernehmen.

Weit einschneidendere Folgen aber hat sein Beschluss, dass die öffentlichen-rechtlichen Sender ab 2012 ohne Einnahmen aus der Werbung, aber auch ohne Erhöhung der Gebühren von 116 Euro finanziert werden müssen. Den privaten TV-Unternehmen bewilligt er hingegen eine zweite Werbeunterbrechung in Spielfilmen. Als Generaldirektorin der Holding der öffentlichen Sender sähe er gerne Christine Ockrent, Gattin von Sarkozys Außenminister Bernard Kouchner.

Die neue Art der Finanzierung lässt die Beschäftigten des Öffentlich-Rechtlichen befürchten, dass sie künftig nur noch in pädagogischen, kulturellen oder regionalen Nischen arbeiten werden. Zeitungen und Opposition kritisierten Sarkozys Plan am Donnerstag als Angriff auf die Unabhängigkeit der Medien. Einige verglichen ihn mit Italiens Premier und Medienmogul Silvio Berlusconi.

800 Millionen Euro kompensieren

Wie von Sarkozy angeregt, schlug eine parlamentarische Kommission unter Leitung von UMP-Fraktionschef Jean-Francois¸ Cope´ Mittwoch in einem Bericht vor, die Einnahmenausfälle von France-Tel´ evision´ durch eine zusätzliche Besteuerung der Werbeeinnahmen der Privatsender sowie der Mobiltelefon- und Internetanbieter teilweise zu kompensieren. Dazu wären pro Jahr geschätzte 800 Millionen Euro nötig.

Fest steht: Direkt oder indirekt müssen die Konsumenten mehr fürs TV bezahlen. „Die Karten sind gezinkt. Unter dem Vorwand einer Reform der öffentlichen Sender werden die privaten Unternehmen gestärkt“, kommentierte die sozialistische Abgeordnete Aurelie´ Filippetti, die die Cope-´ Kommission unter Protest verlassen hat.


En somme, une presse qui ne digère pas les réformes sarkovisionnaires, en ne mâchant bien sûr pas ses mots !
Ainsi, on l'a vu, les réactions de la presse n'ont pas du tout été tendres ni envers les idées de Sarkozy, ni à son égard d'ailleurs.

Comment va-t-il se rattrapper cette fois-ci le petit Nicolas?
La vitesse avec laquelle on saura la réponse, ne tardera sûrement pas à venir au galop, ce qui n'est d'ailleurs pas étonnant : le petit Sarko a encore plus d'un tour dans les talonnettes!