Continuo a trattare il tema dell’integrazione perché mi appassiona, mi fa riflettere e mi fa dibattere.
Proprio ieri dibattevo su Facebook con un conoscente su questo argomento e – puntualmente – è spuntato il tema "banlieue, integrazione mancata e islam". Io, come sapete, non considero le tre cose così stringenti.
Poi, per caso, ho scovato una riflessione di Tom Henegan, giornalista della Reuters esperto di religione.
Prende spunto da un fatto. Dopo la pubblicazione dell’ennesimo articolo sugli ennesimi casi di auto bruciate in Francia a Capodanno (1.137), molti lettori hanno scritto agli editors chiedendo lumi sul perché non venissero "taggati" (permettetemi il termine) come musulmani e non come francesi.
Dietro queste lettere e commenti, scrive Henegan, c’è "la forza della convinzione senza prove":
"We could have said “vandals” or “delinquents” or “arsonists,” which they certainly were". (…)
They may not know that there are no official statistics on religious or ethnic backgrounds in France, so the statement they want us to make cannot be backed up with authority.
(Parlando degli émeutes nelle banlieue) there were no specifically Islamic factors or demands in the protests, the areas were mixed neighbourhoods rather than Muslim ghettos and the unrest was an outburst by a multiethnic underclass against a society that has sidelined it. Sure, there were Muslims among them — but there were non-Muslims as well.
La cosa era già successa, ricorda il giornalista, nell’autunno 2005…
This is not to say there are no Islamists in the Paris banlieues or that they don’t stir things up when they want. They did stoke the headscarf controversy of 2003/2004 quite effectively. But even as the rioting was going on, we journalists covering it on the ground noticed the classic Islamist demand in France — to repeal the law banning Muslim headscarves in state schools — was never expressed by the rioters. Interviews with residents in riot-hit areas (Muslims and non-Muslims) showed they didn’t buy the Islamist explanation.
There may well have been some Allah-o-akbars shouted in the din of the rioting but, like one swallow not making a spring, they didn’t make an Islamist plot that the MSM (main-stream media, nda) just didn’t see. We have known this for quite a while, and now have even more evidence for it. Is it finally time to retire the misleading term “Paris intifada?”
o nell’autunno 2007 (dopo l’episodio di Villiers-le-Bel), quando alcuni chiamavano gli scontri "French intifada" o "Muslim riots".
They did not shout Muslim demands, spray Muslim graffiti or wear the trademark beards and baggy pants of a salafi. They did not gather at mosques or shout “Allah-o-akbar!” (…)
Many of these people have family roots in majority Muslim countries like Algeria, but they are French citizens who identify themselves as French. Many do not regularly pray in mosques (local Muslim leaders admit this). You see women and girls wearing headscarves, but they are not in the majority in these neighbourhoods. Many of them are actually older immigrant women who’ve always covered their heads, not “neo-orthodox” or “born-again” young French-born women who wear headscarves to assert their Muslim identity. (…)
In 2005, when Nicolas Sarkozy was putting out the story that Muslims fundamentalists were behind the rioting, I went out to the suburbs and found the people out there weren’t buying it.