It is amusing to read French press coverage (or non-coverage) of my activities in other countries. The approach is selective, to say the least. Le Monde is not alone; most daily newspapers and magazines manage little better. A handful of courageous journalists excepted, a story must satisfy certain prerequisites to get into print. The writer must remind his readers that Tariq Ramadan is “the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood,” that he is “controversial”, that he uses “double-speak”, that he has been “accused of fundamentalism”, is “against women’s rights”, “suspected of anti-Semitism” and “homophobia” to name a few. In other words, he must present a diabolical figure, a pariah, an example of “intellectual rabble”, as French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner described me several years ago when I criticized him for “selective humanitarianism” (quite accurately, in the event). Amusing indeed; but more than enough.
In an article on the situation in Rotterdam published in Le Monde on April 28, journalist Jean-Pierre Stroobants brings together several of the misrepresentations listed above, adds a sprinkling of half-truths, and worse, partial or false information. If the entire operation were not so insulting, it would be simply pathetic.
Moving beyond manipulation of fact, here is what Le Monde does not say, but must be kept in mind:
1. An article in Gay Krant, the Dutch newspaper with a primarily homosexual readership that accused me of double-speak, and of using homophobic language, draws almost entirely on Caroline Fourest’s book “Frère Tariq” [Brother Tariq]. Her website, which employs the same terminology as Jean-Pierre Stroobants’ article, identifies her as a journalist at Le Monde.
2. After a lengthy investigation (including translation and analysis of my audio cassettes and speeches of the last fifteen years, Rik Grashoff, vice-mayor of Rotterdam speaking for the Executive Committee of the City Council at a press conference held in Rotterdam on April 15, declared that the Gay Krant report (based on Caroline Fourest… of Le Monde!) was partial and biased when it was not completely untrue (often “exactly the opposite of what Tariq Ramadan asserts.”) Contrary to the Le Monde journalist claims, my contract with Rotterdam Municipality had already been signed; it was simply reconfirmed after the unfounded allegations were rejected. Furthermore, I am not an “advisor on Muslim affairs”, but hold a teaching chair in a university, while being closely associated with a social initiative focused on citizenship, identity and belonging. Three reports have already been issued: on education, the labor market and the media. Clearly Mr. Stroobants was unaware of these facts.
3. Le Monde’s journalist tells us nothing about the bitter conflict between the political parties fighting for the right wing and extreme right-wing vote. Liberal Party leader Frits Bolkestein was the first to single me out, on September 11, 2008. Bolkenstein’s attack was based almost exclusively on Fourest’s book (11 references out of 12). His political advisor would later provide the information used in the Gay Krant report. Mr. Bolkestein’s presentation can be consulted on my website. It has been generally described as pathetic. By no coincidence Henk Krol, the Gay Krant editor in chief, previously worked for Mr. Bolkestein, as well as being a Liberal Party member.
4. The same smear tactics are already being turned, in this election year in the Netherlands, against the most visible symbols of Islam (of which I am one); apparently they are paying off. Several years ago, Gerd Wilders walked out of the Liberal Party, accusing it of not taking a hard enough line on Islam and immigration. Recent polls now show that Wilders’s breakaway party is emerging as the Netherlands’ leading political force, as it tilts dangerously toward the racist extreme right. Meanwhile, the Liberal Party is challenging Wilders in an attempt to regain lost ground.
5. Instead of describing a complex and potentially dangerous situation that threatens the future of the Netherlands and of Europe, Le Monde’s reporter reduces the issue to a quarrel over personalities far removed from truth. Is Stroobants acting as a propagandist, does he deliberately intend to hurt, or is he totally blind?
Some researchers and journalists have rushed to endorse these tactics: “Tariq Ramadan causes problems wherever he goes… which just proves that we French know what we’re talking about!” Except that the allegations are always the same, produced in France, constantly and endlessly recycled. When put to the test, as in the case of the Rotterdam City Council, they are proven baseless and false.
Let us keep our spirits up! My commitment is firm; after a full investigation the City Council has forcefully confirmed that I do not “engage in double-speak.” The two Liberal Party members of the Council (who launched the attack) have resigned their seats. The extreme right-wing Leefbar party’s motion against my presence was voted down. Let us keep our spirits up! Insidious political scheming and media propaganda cannot always defeat the power of facts.
To conclude, I suggest—one last wish!—that Jean-Pierre Stroobants, or any other “independent” journalist employed by Le Monde, write an article that would take an “objective” look at the “double-speak” of their sources, colleagues and friends: Caroline Fourest and Philippe Val (editor of Charlie Hebdo) who rush nobly to the defense of free speech in France, then travel to Belgium to explain why I should be prohibited from speaking in Brussels. Or perhaps Gilles Kepel, along with Bernard-Henri Lévy, advising the U.S. State Department and key Bush administration figures to forbid me entry into the United States. Great thinkers to a man; great intellectuals; great journalists. It takes one’s breath away!
Such a story, however, we are unlikely ever to read in Le Monde.
Many muslims have spoken out in the media against these attacks on Tariq Ramadan and in return they got attacked because this would indicate they were not critical, defending a muslim. But it’s exactly what is said in the text: TR represents a symbol of unmarginalised islam in the west. Attacking him (on islamissues…) means attacking islam and the presence of muslims, and muslims understand this well. And so do many non-muslims, luckily.
What did Henk Krol and the Gay Krant now actually achieve, except increasing the fame of Tariq Ramadan in the Netherlands?