The conflict between the United States, Israel and the Islamist regime in Iran could result in terror blowback across Europe, German security officials have warned.
The chairman of the Bundestag’s Parliamentary Control Committee (PKGr), which oversees Germany’s intelligence services, warned on Sunday in comments reported by Die Welt that “retaliatory measures” by pro-Iranian regime terrorists, including “sleeper cells in Europe”, could not be ruled out.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Ministry of Interior said, “The Iranian regime has repeatedly demonstrated in the past that it carries out its terror beyond its own borders.
“The federal and state security authorities… are highly vigilant and will adjust appropriate protective measures as needed.”
Berlin’s Commissioner for Jewish Life and the Fight against Antisemitism, Felix Klein, said that in light of the conflict in Iran, it would be prudent to “assume an increased threat level for Jewish life in Germany.”
Following the outbreak of fighting, several German states said that they would review their security measures to protect Jewish or Israeli institutions, many of which have already been on high alert in the wake of the October 7th terror attacks on Israel by Hamas terrorists in 2023
In neighbouring France, Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez called for regional governments to heighten security measures around Jewish places of worship.
“In light of the current international situation in the Middle East, I reiterate my instructions to remain vigilant and ask you to immediately implement enhanced security measures for Jewish places of worship and religious gatherings,” he said per Le Figaro.
Over the past decade, France and Germany have been primary targets for Islamic terror attacks in Europe. The two countries have also experienced a significant rise in antisemitic incidents following the October 7th attacks on the Jewish states.
The mass shooter in Austin, Texas, who killed two and injured 14 others on Sunday morning, has reportedly been identified as Ndiaga Diagne, a 53-year-old Senegalese immigrant who was living in Pflugerville, Texas, as a naturalized citizen.
Police reportedly also found a Quran in his car, and he was wearing clothing that said “Property of Allah” and a shirt that had Iranian representations on it.
This comes after the Iranian Supreme Leader and dozens of top Iranian officials were killed on Saturday in the US’s Operation Epic Fury.
Acting special agent in charge of the FBI’s San Antonio field office, Alex Doran, told reporters earlier that they’ve found “indicators on the subject and in his vehicle that indicate potential nexus to terrorism” and that they are investigating the shooting as an act of terrorism.
UPDATE: Per multiple federal law enforcement sources to me & @Brooketaylortv, the Austin, TX mass shooter was wearing clothing that had the words “Property of Allah” on it and was possibly wearing an undershirt/T-shirt that had an Iranian flag or Iranian representations on it.
The killer, who is a US citizen from Senegal, had a Quran in his car and clothing described as Islamic garb when he opened fire on Buford’s Backyard Beer Garden near the University of Texas-Austin campus, according to sources familiar with the investigation.
The gunman has a history of arrests in Texas, and is believed to have lived in New York City from 2000 to 2008, the sources said.
In another shooting on Sunday, nine people were shot at a Cincinnati, Ohio, music and event venue overnight. Details about the suspect in this case remain unclear.
Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis further confirmed that a bomb squad was called in to investigate the suspect’s car, but they did not find a bomb.
Davis further told reporters that the suspect never entered the bar, and instead, “He drove by, was firing outside the window with a pistol. Once he exited the vehicle after parking on Wood, he exited with a rifle at that point.”
Mayoral candidate Maurer after the attack before the ambulance arrived (Photo: ScreenshotFacebook)
Michael Maurer, an AfD candidate was attacked and injured at an information stand for the local elections in Upper Bavaria. According to police reports, three young adults attacked the 70-year-old after a verbal altercation at the stand in Rosenheim. The victim suffered bruises and injuries to his leg and stomach. An ambulance took the AfD politician to hospital. The police are investigating the two 18-year-olds and a 19-year-old for grievous bodily harm. The police have classified all three as members of a left-wing group.
Is there any better evidence that the Europeans are as hidebound, bureaucratic, and ridiculous as we think they are than this statement from European Union Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen in the wake of the U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran’s mullah regime?
Following the ongoing situation in Iran, I am convening a special Security College on Monday.
For regional security and stability, it is of the utmost importance that there is no further escalation through Iran’s unjustified attacks on partners in the region.
Don’t let the bombing of Iran, the retaliatory strikes against civilians in the Gulf states, the closure of airports and vital shipping lanes, the decapitation of its mullah leadership, and even the attack on EU-member Cyprus interfere with your weekend, fellas.
The talkfest at the Security College can wait till Monday. Because nothing gets between a eurochicken and his days off.
It’s by far the most telling statement about the frivolous priorities of the European Union, and the dead-serious mission to save the world from a nuclear strike of President Trump and his Israeli ally. There is even a new report out that Iran’s mullahs had been cooking up new terror attacks against the West, which could directly impact Europe, and this strike was to shut it down.
But Le Weekend beckons and that’s what’s really important: Nothing gets between a eurochicken and his weekend.
This tells us all we need to know about most of Europe’s reliability as a U.S. NATO ally. The vocal opposition to the strikes from Germany, France, the U.K. and Spain add more fuel to this fire, but the EU is the one that does it best.
If this isn’t reason enough for an immediate meeting of whatever it is they’ve got to add, what, exactly, is?
Courts are used to listening to excuses, each more far-fetched than the last. The excuse given by this 21-year-old from Besançon is not without some novelty. When he refused to respond to the gendarmes’ order to stop, he said it was because he did not want to interrupt his Ramadan. We need to start from scratch to understand the cause and effect relationship. The fact remains that on Thursday, February 26, at around 3:30 p.m., motorized police officers from Villars-sous-Écot in the Doubs spotted a Citroën C4 Picasso that appeared to be speeding. (…) Instead of obeying, the driver pressed the accelerator. A frantic chase ensued, covering almost 70 kilometres (…)
Due to his relatively clean criminal record and his attitude – he admitted to the crime – the public prosecutor’s office decided to proceed with a trial based on a prior admission of guilt. (…)
The young man from Besançon was sentenced to one year in prison, but with conditions. He will serve his sentence wearing an electronic tag.
Two lanes are closed – for an Islamist mosque consisting of four pavilions. The Hessian Administrative Court officially allows mullah supporters to pray on the street. They are demonstrating against the German state. The state that closed their mosque because of terrorist links to the Iranian regime, and whose courts now allow the mobile tent mosque in front of the building. From 6.30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Thursday evening, two lanes of Eschborner Landstraße at number 79 belong to the members of the Imam Ali Mosque. The Muslims arrive in vans and cars, set up the pavilions, lay out carpets and set up huge loudspeakers. Large posters in black, red and gold hang on the walls, bearing the federal eagle and ‘Art. 4 GG’, a reference to Article 4 of the Basic Law, which guarantees freedom of religion.
Young and old men, veiled women with children arrive from all over. The prayers begin at around 7:20 p.m. Calls from the Koran and chants boom from the loudspeakers, audible several hundred metres away. Muslims are no longer allowed to enter the mosque behind them. It is barricaded. In July 2024, the then Federal Minister of the Interior, Nancy Faeser (55, SPD), banned the Islamic Centre Hamburg (IZH), which also includes the Imam Ali Mosque in Frankfurt. Because it is an arm of the regime in Tehran. For a year and a half, the community members have been demonstrating against this every Thursday evening and Friday afternoon. The city of Frankfurt did not want to grant permission for the protest event in 2026. The mullah’s supporters first took the case to the Administrative Court in Frankfurt and then to the Administrative Court of Appeal. And they were proved right.
During the prayer on the street, the newspaper BILD encounters Muhsin Abboud (aged 26), who registered the mobile mosque. He states, ‘We are relieved that we have been proven right and that we can have confidence in German courts. We demand the return of the mosque.’ Hesse’s Interior Minister (55, CDU) Roman Poseck, on the other hand, says: ‘We must not allow prohibition proceedings to be undermined under the guise of freedom of assembly. It is paradoxical that groups invoke fundamental rights while at the same time trampling on our fundamental values.’ Across the street – without a blocked lane – Iranian counter-demonstrators stand on the narrow cycle lane and pavement. Young women without headscarves with bleached hair, men who have fled the Islamist terrorist regime. They shout: ‘Mullahs, piss off, nobody misses you.’
BILD meets Elnaz Yarijoo (37), who uses a megaphone to rail against the terrorist regime. She demands that German authorities refrain from making deals with the mullahs. Yarijoo: ‘This is not a normal mosque, it is an Islamist centre. They are controlled directly by Iran.’ The counter-demonstrators wave Persian flags. Chants from the crowd: ‘You don’t care about anything except your bloody prayers. We won’t let you pray today. You have murdered 30,000 young people in Iran! You pray on the blood of our children.’
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is currently in hiding / photo via a previous sermon
Israeli officials have reported that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is dead after the US and Israel’s strikes on Iranian targets.
This comes after reports suggested that the Ayatollah fled Tehran and was moved to a secure location during the strikes.
Per the BBC, Netanyahu said earlier there were “growing signs” that Khamenei is “gone.”
Fox News Chief Foreign Correspondent Trey Yingst reported on Netanyahu’s comments earlier with updates on the ongoing campaign in Iran. “The Israelis say they are still striking targets inside Iran,” Yingst reported.
Israeli officials are now reporting that Khamenei was killed, and that his body was found.
🚨🚨🚨Israeli ambassador to Washington Yechiel Leiter told U.S. officials that Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei has been killed in the Israeli strike on his compound, a source with knowledge said
The United States and Israel launched the most ambitious attack on Iran in decades on Saturday, and Israel said Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had been killed in the operation.
Khamenei’s body has been found, a senior Israeli official told Reuters. Iran called the strikes unprovoked and illegal and responded with missiles fired at Israel and at least seven other countries, including Gulf states that host U.S. bases.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed in an Israeli strike Saturday as part of a massive joint military operation between the U.S. and Israel, Israel’s ambassador to Washington told U.S. officials.
An Israeli official confirmed to Axios that Khamenei is dead, according to Israeli intelligence.
Why it matters: The 86-year-old Khamenei led Iran for 35 years, making him one of the world’s longest-serving authoritarian rulers. His death is a massive blow to the regime and could accelerate its collapse, which U.S. and Israeli officials have stated as their explicit goal.
On Thursday this week, the European Commission announced its support for the “My Voice, My Choice” European Citizens’ Initiative, while confirming that it will not allocate additional EU financial resources to facilitate cross-border abortion.
The Commission’s decision not to attach new funding mechanisms to this initiative is a welcome acknowledgement of the limits of EU competence. It signals an awareness that abortion policy remains outside the Union’s legislative authority and within the remit of member states. That restraint matters. Nevertheless, the support the Commission expressed for this pro-abortion initiative reveals biased political activism. Any efforts to promote abortion at the EU level violate its constitutional boundaries.
Attempts to advance an EU-wide abortion regime fall squarely outside the Union’s legislative competence. The EU may act only within the limits of powers conferred by the member states, and abortion liberalization is certainly not among them. The principle of subsidiarity—the idea that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to citizens, particularly in areas of profound moral and constitutional significance—is not a technicality but core to the European Project.
Laws protecting unborn life are deeply connected to a nation’s sense of moral order and right to democratic self-government. Every country has the right, and the duty, to uphold protections for the unborn. Without respect for this foundational human rights principle, the European project crumbles.
The initiative urges the EU to support access to abortion across member states, including by using existing EU instruments and funding mechanisms to facilitate cross-border access where national laws provide protections for unborn life.
To be clear, this ’Citizens’ Initiative’ in no way creates new EU competences. It merely required the Commission to consider the proposal and respond. Last December, the European Parliament adopted a non-binding resolution expressing support for the initiative. But, of course, political resolutions do not amend binding treaty law. What the Parliament should have done is firmly reject the proposal at that time.
Now, while the Commission insists, including during its press conference and with repeated reference to the EU treaties, that it is not overstepping its mandate, its political support for EU-level measures to advance the objectives of “My Voice, My Choice” tells a different story. Framing abortion access as an EU-level “right,” as the initiative does, encroaches on member states’ national sovereignty in practice. Even if health law remains formally within national authority, the Commission’s proposal to make use of instruments such as the European Social Fund Plus+ to support abortion-related measures would still entail the deployment of EU funds in this area.
Such funding mechanisms would clearly undermine national laws in areas where the EU has no authority. EU powers simply cannot be expanded through institutional activism.
The inconsistency becomes clear when viewed alongside the 2014 “One of Us” European Citizens’ Initiative, which gathered nearly 1.9 million signatures. This was one of the most supported initiatives in EU history and called on the Commission to ensure that EU funds would not be used to finance activities involving the destruction of human embryos. Despite this historic popular backing, the Commission declined to propose legislation.
The contrast is striking. When millions of Europeans mobilized to defend unborn life, their request was dismissed. Now, an initiative seeking to expand abortion access receives political endorsement. Such divergence invites the legitimate question of whether the Commission is engaging in principled legal assessment or cherry-picking initiatives that align with a preferred ideological direction.
Every human life has inherent dignity and must receive legal protection, before and after birth. The right to life, as clearly enshrined in both EU and international law, must logically apply to the unborn without exception. The EU was founded on the solemn promise to uphold human dignity and the right to life as its non-negotiable core. It is undisputed that abortion itself is not an EU competence. Yet this very limitation does not create a vacuum of responsibility. The binding Charter of Fundamental Rights opens with the crystal-clear declaration that “human dignity is inviolable” and that “everyone has the right to life.” These are not aspirational slogans, but rather the constitutional DNA of the entire European project. To claim that the EU may remain neutral while unborn Europeans are legally terminated by the hundreds of thousands every year is not neutrality; it is a profound betrayal of the Union’s founding purpose.
Thus, it is not only that the EU must reject any and all efforts to mainstream abortion access across its members but, in fact, that it has a core responsibility to do the opposite and protect unborn life in every state. Beyond lacking competence to impose a uniform abortion regime, the EU possesses a definite positive obligation to protect life wherever its existing powers touch the issue.
Far from supporting the evils of activist abortion initiatives, Brussels can and must enact targeted measures to defend the right to life, starting with ring-fencing EU funds from abortion providers, guaranteeing conscientious objection, and supporting maternity and pregnancy services that uphold the dignity of every person. Anything less destroys the very essence of the European project.
The Commission’s endorsement of this new abortion agenda may be framed as symbolic, but symbolism shapes policy. Member states may now feel emboldened to rely on existing EU instruments, like the European Social Fund, to finance abortion-related measures.
The European project cannot endure if its foundational principles, most notably the protection of human dignity and all human rights, are treated as optional.
“In France, there is a problem of leniency toward violence by far-left activists, both among some in the judiciary and in the media, which often portray such activists in a positive light. This sense of impunity encourages the escalation of violence and, in our view, also contributed to Quentin’s tragic death.”
“Since the days of Lenin and Stalin, far-left ideology has featured the dehumanization of opponents as a means of justifying violence. If an opponent is considered a ‘Nazi,’ then – in this logic – you can do anything to him; you can kill him, because Hitler should have been killed earlier. This is what we experience all the time.”
“In France, there is also a phenomenon that we call the ‘extreme center.’ It is the one that shares responsibility for demonizing both our activists and the people who protect us. This narrative ends up justifying violence against us, which led to the gang murder of Quentin by the Antifa Jeune Garde militia during our protest in front of Sciences Po, the political science school, on February 12 in Lyon.”
“France is presented as a country of human rights, freedom of opinion, and debate. In reality, however, when you hold right-wing views and condemn immigration-related violence, you become a target of attacks from the far left. In practice, freedom of speech in France is seriously restricted. There are groups – both far-left and Islamist – that seek to intimidate and sometimes even physically eliminate their opponents.”
(Ordo Iuris) — Editor’s note: The followinginterview was conducted on February 19 by Olivier Bault, director of communications at the Ordo Iuris Institute.
Olivier Bault (Ordo Iuris Institute):You are the leader of the Némésis Collective. This collective is a “right-wing” feminist organization. Is this the correct definition?
Alice Cordier (Némésis): Yes, that’s true, although many media outlets claimed that we are far-right. This stems from the fact that we condemn violence against women, but above all, we condemn the overrepresentation of foreigners among perpetrators of sexual assaults and sexual harassment in public spaces.
This overrepresentation is also evident in cases of domestic violence. In France, as soon as you bring up the topic of the consequences of migration, you are immediately branded an enemy to be defeated, a fascist, and a racist. That’s exactly what happened to our association.
Our methods are simple: we organize small protest actions such as banner drops. We display banners and posters, sometimes in response to events, sometimes at feminist demonstrations or during our own marches. We also have a strong presence in traditional and social media in France.
OI: Were you present at the event in Lyon on February 12 that ended with the killing, at the hands of an Antifa group, of a young Catholic activist whom the media also described as a nationalist?
AC: No, I wasn’t there. I supported this initiative; I knew it would take place, but I wasn’t there in person.
OI: Could you briefly describe the protest your collective staged at Sciences Po to oppose the visit of Rima Hassan, an MEP from the far-left party La France Insoumise (LFI)?
AC: In France, there are institutes of political studies known as Sciences Po, including one in Lyon, which last Thursday hosted Rima Hassan, a person deeply involved in Palestinian issues.
During the war between Israel and Palestine, she spoke in a very aggressive manner, primarily using verbal abuse directed at our association, but also at anyone who opposed her views.
Our main criticism of Sciences Po is that the university regularly invites individuals representing the far left, whereas people with right-wing views do not, in practice, have the opportunity to speak there. Right-wing conferences are automatically canceled due to the risk of disrupting public order, whereas such events are not canceled for people with left-wing views. We want both the right and the left to be able to debate freely at this type of college.
However, there is also a second aspect concerning Rima Hassan. She promotes views known in France as ‘Islamo-leftist’ that do not support gender equality between women and men. We also believe that she is associated with violent individuals and maintains close ties with terrorist groups, which makes her dangerous.
To express opposition to her arrival, we organized a small demonstration in front of the entrance to Sciences Po. Our female activists stood on the sidewalk, off campus, holding a banner that read: “Islamo-leftists out of our universities.”
Seven Némésis activists, around 20 years old, took part in the action. About 50 meters away, a dozen or so of our colleagues and friends were standing; they had come to support them, in the event of any violence. They stayed off to the side so the girls could carry out the operation without interference, but were to intervene in case of danger. However, they could not react in time.
Our female activists were attacked – one of them was choked, and two others were knocked to the ground and beaten. Doctors determined that, due to the injuries sustained, they were unable to work for eight, five, and two days, respectively. The men were unable to help them because they themselves were attacked by about 30 Antifa activists linked to the far-left movement La Jeune Garde (Young Guard).
The assailants had a significant numerical advantage and were also equipped with gloves with hard reinforcements around the fingers – typically used for motorcycling, but when used to deliver blows, they can cause very painful injuries.
OI: Since your organization asked a group of young men to accompany you during the action, does that mean it wasn’t the first time your female activists were attacked during peaceful protests?
AC: Exactly – this isn’t the first time we’ve encountered aggression, even though our actions are always peaceful. We oppose violence and do not use it ourselves. We are a movement of women activists who act decisively, but always within the law. However, the fact is that our female activists had already been brutally attacked many times, so this time we decided to have a dozen or so men present to ensure their safety. I want to emphasize that their role was not to fight Antifa activists, but solely to protect the girls.
OI: You yourself have repeatedly been a victim of violence, or at least of threats – including death threats from an LFI lawmaker – haven’t you?
AC: Indeed, this is not an isolated case. The far-left militant groups we are talking about are linked to a far-left party that today has numerous representatives in the National Assembly. One of them is Raphaël Arnault, elected two years ago, a former co-founder of the same militant group, namely Jeune Garde.
It was the members of this organization who attacked one of the young men who had come to keep us safe. He was knocked to the ground and brutally beaten, especially in the head. The blows resulted in a skull fracture and internal hemorrhage. He died at the hospital from the injuries he sustained. In practice, as soon as the lynching ended, his fate was sealed – the doctors concluded that the injuries were irreversible and fatal.
Thus, the people responsible for the death of 23-year-old Quentin Deranque belonged to the Jeune Garde organization, co-founded by Raphaël Arnauld, whom the La France Insoumise party allowed to run for office in recognition of his “anti-fascist” activism. So there are clear links between this far-left, aggressive organization and the La France Insoumise party.
Moreover, the group to this day has not distanced itself from Jeune Garde, and Arnault himself still holds his position – even though his parliamentary assistant was present during the lynching and, according to testimony, took part in it. [Two parliamentary assistants of MP Raphaël Arnaud were in fact arrested after this interview took place and charged with participation in the murder of Quentin by the prosecutor.]
OI: I’ve seen the footage, and there’s little doubt about the intentions of Quentin’s killers. In France, therefore, the far left is active; it attacks people in superior numbers for their views and also commits violence against women, endangering their health and even their lives. Among other things, I saw footage in which Anaïs, your spokeswoman – whom I had the opportunity to meet at the CPAC conference in Budapest – was being brutally dragged by the hair and thrown headfirst onto concrete steps.
AC: The Némésis organization has existed for six years, and throughout that time, we have been victims of psychological, verbal, and physical violence at the hands of far-left activists. I co-founded this association in October 2019, and by June 2020 I had already been attacked. I was 22 then. The female assailants were waiting for me at the station exit in the city where I was scheduled to give a lecture. There were about ten of them. I was hit in the face, and only the intervention of nearby restaurant owners prevented further escalation of violence.
A similar situation happened to our spokeswoman Anaïs – she was grabbed by the hair and brutally pulled backward by a woman. In fact, those perpetrating violence against us are not exclusively men. This incident took place in September of last year, the day before the assassination of Charlie Kirk in the United States.
We have also repeatedly participated in demonstrations against violence toward women, especially on March 8. As a feminist organization, we believe we have a place there. Unfortunately, almost every time, it resulted in aggression against us by masked individuals whose identities were never identified. Sometimes I would say to the assailants, seeing they were women: “Do you realize that you are attacking women during a demonstration against violence against women?” They replied that they were not hitting women, but “fascists.”
Since the days of Lenin and Stalin, far-left ideology has featured the dehumanization of opponents as a means of justifying violence. If an opponent is considered a “Nazi,” then – in this logic – you can do anything to him; you can kill him, because Hitler should have been killed earlier. This is what we experience all the time.
There is also a second problem – the functioning of the justice system. A few months ago, we were attacked along with journalists from the weekly magazine Valeurs Actuelles. We recorded the moment when they were being beaten. The police caught the main perpetrator red-handed. The officers testified in court that they saw him attacking journalists, and our footage was also available to the court. Nevertheless, he was sentenced to only a suspended one-month prison term and a two-year ban on participating in demonstrations. Moreover, since he filed an appeal, the ban was not yet legally binding, and a few weeks later, we saw him again at a far-left demonstration.
In France, there is a problem of leniency toward violence by far-left activists, both among some in the judiciary and in the media, which often portray such activists in a positive light. This sense of impunity encourages the escalation of violence and, in our view, also contributed to Quentin’s tragic death.
OI: In this situation, do you feel protected by the French state? Did you request police protection for your female activists or for yourself, given that you yourself have received death threats?
AC: There are many right-wing groups and identitarian activists who request protection but do not receive it. Even in situations where someone faces numerous threats on social media, that may still not be enough to secure real protection. Violence by Antifa activists is still being downplayed.
Just yesterday, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of LFI, held a press conference during which he verbally attacked us in a very direct way. He mentioned our group Némésis and stated that we are aggressive and dangerous and should be fought against. After what happened to the young man in Lyon, who was there to ensure our safety, Mélenchon continues to incite left-wing activists to attack us. Yesterday evening we requested police protection, but so far we have not received any response from the Ministry of the Interior.
Our female activists are being attacked in their neighborhoods by Antifa activists. Graffiti appears on their houses, which reads: “A female fascist lives here.” Mailboxes are being destroyed and marked with slogans: “A fascist from Némésis lives here.” There are young girls attending schools whose names are publicly labeled as “fascists.” It has intensified particularly in Rennes.
The faces of our female activists were recognized and photographed by members of Antifa. Their images were then printed along with information about their workplace and posted at bus stops in Rennes. So we are dealing with real violence and a genuine threat, yet no action is being taken to ensure our protection.
OI: You are fighting not only the left, but also the so-called Islamo-left. The slogan on your website reads: “We are the Cologne generation.” The Némésis Collective was formed after the New Year’s Eve events in Cologne in 2015, when hundreds of women fell victim to sexual assaults perpetrated by migrants. Are you also being attacked by Islamists and radical Muslims, or only by the far left?
AC: Indeed, the problem is not limited to the far left. We are being stigmatized for our fight against Islamism, which poses a real challenge in France. We criticize certain Salafi-oriented schools and mosques. We oppose the wearing of the Muslim headscarf and the veiling of girls. Yes, we are also being heavily attacked by part of the Muslim community, which is becoming ever younger and more radical. Young Muslims of my generation differ significantly from my grandparents’ generation – they are more inclined to strictly adhere to Sharia law. Research indicates that a significant proportion of young Muslims in France believe that Sharia is above the law of the Republic.
The worst thing is that France is presented as a country of human rights, freedom of opinion, and debate. In reality, however, when you hold right-wing views and condemn immigration-related violence, you become a target of attacks from the far left. And when, as a woman, you oppose the influence of Islamism, you also face threats from Islamists. In practice, freedom of speech in France is seriously restricted. There are groups – both far-left and Islamist – that seek to intimidate and sometimes even physically eliminate their opponents.
OI: It’s not only Islamists and the far left who want to demonize you. In the mainstream media, including belonging to the “moderate” left or the center-right, and even in statements by some politicians who are neither far-left nor Islamists, you are regularly labeled “far-right” because you defend women’s rights against Sharia law, which is gradually being imposed in Muslim neighborhoods, as well as against attacks from the far left, and also because you simply defend your right to equality between men and women and your right to personal safety as French women.
AC: I agree – in France, there is also a phenomenon that we call the “extreme center.” It is the one that shares responsibility for demonizing both our activists and the people who protect us. This narrative ends up justifying violence against us, which led to the gang murder of Quentin by the Antifa Jeune Garde militia during our protest in front of Sciences Po, the political science school, on February 12 in Lyon.
The problem is also that many people don’t want to acknowledge reality. These are the same people who, just ten years ago, claimed there was no problem with immigration, that everything was fine, that we should open the borders. Today, these people from the extreme center are trying to present themselves as the foremost defenders of security.
And if we find ourselves in such a situation today, it’s precisely their fault. It is not the fault of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally. The center is responsible for it. These people are also responsible because, by demonizing right-wing and far-right parties, they are the ones who brought left-wing activists into the National Assembly. We forget about it too often.
In constituencies where voters could choose between an RN deputy and a far-left deputy from LFI, the extreme center – what we increasingly call France’s current presidential camp – called on voters to support the far left. They were the ones who sent people like Raphaël Arnault, co-founder of Jeune Garde, to the National Assembly. It was they who sent those “antifascists” there, and it was they who placed their trust in them and gave them impunity, which is why today those “antifascists” have completely dominated the public sphere.
OI: I think we should talk about Antifa, which is the proper name of a certain movement, rather than about “antifascists,” because these people do not fight fascists. Personally, I don’t know any fascists in France. I imagine there may be a few of them, but there definitely aren’t too many.
AC: That’s right – the term “fascist” is used today as a tool to demonize the opponent and to justify violence against them, and for them, fascism actually begins with Emmanuel Macron.
OI: You are risking your health and lives to carry out your activities because, as women in France, in connection with the mass immigration that has been taking place for decades, you feel threatened in your rights as well as in your safety in your everyday life. Is being a woman in Emmanuel Macron’s France really dangerous and difficult?
AC: Yes, and that’s exactly why we’re taking that risk. The level of uncertainty and aggression in the public sphere is very high. Security in France is clearly deteriorating. Today, tourists receive maps of Paris’s dangerous neighborhoods so they know which neighborhoods they can go to and which to avoid. Women’s daily lives have become unbearable. There are entire neighborhoods that women do not go to, and where they cannot go unless they cover themselves in the Islamic manner, because otherwise they are at risk of harassment.
Some women choose not to leave home to avoid assault. Fewer and fewer women go out in the evening. Some women carry a change of clothes with them so they can go home in sweats. Women carry small tear-gas spray canisters, even though possession of them in public places is prohibited in France. But nowadays, almost all women have them, because if you are attacked, that’s all you have left. The number of self-defense kits currently being sold online is enormous. We also have pocket-sized alarms.
It’s terrifying to see all the kinds of small weapons that women are forced to carry with them just to be able to defend themselves. Self-defense and martial arts clubs are experiencing a real boom in the number of women signing up. It’s a disaster, because it means that women currently don’t feel safe in their everyday lives. And that’s exactly why we’re not going to stop. We cannot stop our fight. We may do things differently, but our association has no intention of stopping, because this is simply about the future of our children.
OI: From what we’ve heard in the media, Quentin, the young man murdered by Antifa militants, became involved with the Identitarian movement following his conversion to the Catholic faith. Are there many Catholics or Christians in your collective as well, and does your faith have anything to do with your courage and your commitment despite the risk? Does faith matter to you personally?
AC: Yes, for me, faith plays a huge role in my life, in my community work, because it is what allows me to believe, to carry on, to stand on my own two feet, because when you do good on Earth, good is promised to you elsewhere.
Faith has enabled me to learn to serve others and to lead a meaningful life in the service of a cause greater than myself. It is faith that helps me hold on despite the hardships, because what you have been told and what I have told you about the violence against us is only one-tenth of what we experience every day.
We experience violence on many levels – physical, media, and administrative. Even everyday things, like finding an apartment, are often made more difficult for us. But because I believe in God, I will never stop doing what I do. I believe in God, but I also believe in the future of my children, in the future of France, and, above all, in the future of Europe.
I take this opportunity to appeal to Poles: take care of yourselves, take care of your country; do not let left-wing politicians convince you that the borders must be opened, that so many people must be let in. Preserve your identity and that strong sense of belonging, thanks to which your nation is still safe today – unlike ours.
