Marine Le Pen at the headquarters of the National Rally.
-
Alain ROBERT / SIPA for 20 Minutes
Already campaigning for the 2022 presidential election, Marine Le Pen gave an interview to
20 Minutes
this Thursday.
The president of the National Rally denounces the "total fiasco" of the government in the management of the coronavirus and the vaccine strategy.
The candidate also deplores "a retreat" of the executive on the fight against Islamism, while the law on "separatism" has been discussed since Monday in the National Assembly.
Already in the campaign, she curls Emmanuel Macron.
Marine Le Pen criticizes the management of the health crisis and the executive's vaccination strategy.
"A total fiasco", she judges.
The president of the National Gathering answered this Thursday to the
20 Minutes
questions
on the coronavirus, the presidential election of 2022 and the bill on the “separatism” of the government, debated since Monday in the National Assembly.
"The text is a political retreat and does not fight Islamisms", she laments.
A week away from a debate with the Minister of the Interior Gérald Darmanin on France 2, the RN candidate puts forward her proposals to "eradicate Islamist ideologies",
You believe that the bill "confirming respect for the principles of the Republic" is on a line "very different" from the speech of Mureaux by Emmanuel Macron at the beginning of October.
Why ?
I thought he understood that he had to fight against Islamist ideology.
However, this text is a semantic retreat - it no longer speaks of "separatism" - and a political retreat.
It attacks all religions, but not Islamists.
Some articles are going in the right direction, on the neutrality of public services for example, but, objectively, this law of Mr. Darmanin is wrong.
This text does not fight Islamism?
No.
Mr. Darmanin's law amalgamates and restricts freedoms.
An example: as a few hundred Islamists use home education to remove their children from school in the Republic, the law prohibits it for all [it will now require authorization from the academy].
My bill is much clearer: it is about combating and chasing all manifestations of Islamist ideologies.
In particular, it would make it possible to expel from the territory the 4,000 Islamist foreigners on file S. Islamism has declared war on us, we cannot respond to it with a small administrative police law.
It must be eradicated.
How do you define these “Islamist ideologies”?
Isn't it difficult to legally prove that a person manifests such an ideology?
Not at all.
We have established extremely clear criteria, for example: defending a war crime committed by Islamists, wanting to pass laws or behavior above the French Constitution, or even contest human dignity or equality between men. -women.
We do not have the right, in France, to express a racist or Nazi ideology, and fortunately.
I hope that it is the same for Islamism.
Your law specifically targets films, newspapers or books explicitly or implicitly "defending" Islamism.
Do you have any examples?
The role of the legislator is to foresee all the possibilities.
If, tomorrow, a book defends Nazism, it will be banned.
If, tomorrow, a book made the apology of Islamism, it would also be it with our law.
Because freedom of conscience is total in France, except when it represents a disturbance to public order.
Is there not a risk of unconstitutionality or of a drift towards censorship?
I do not believe that.
The Constitutional Council must protect the French from all totalitarian ideologies, and Islamism kills, rapes and commits mass crimes.
Not to legislate for fear of the Constitutional Council is not a valid argument.
You want to ban the veil in public space.
According to you, do all veiled women carry an Islamist ideology?
We propose to ban the Islamist veil, in particular the Salafist veil, which carries the Islamist ideology.
Justice will be able to distinguish it from the classic scarf.
But what definition of “Islamist veil” or “Salafist veil”, as you designate them?
Does this ban not involve a risk of amalgamation?
It seems difficult to prove that such and such a veil is political and another is not ...
No, it is not difficult.
The veil corresponds to requirements carried by Salafist, Tabligh, Wahhabi ideologies.
All the ideologies against which Emmanuel Macron, himself, wanted to fight.
These types of clothes are political, they should be treated as such.
The government says it wants to fight against separatism but it accepts the veil at the university or among those accompanying school trips.
We must protect the children of activists of political Islam.
This religious neutrality must apply everywhere.
Gérald Darmanin accuses you of a gap between your speech and your actions.
He says that you did not vote for the measures of the so-called “Silt” law, allowing radicalized places of worship to be closed, nor, in committee, the provisions concerning associations in the project against separatism ...
We did not vote for the texts that we consider ineffective and sanctioned by the Constitutional Council.
Regarding Mr. Darmanin's text, the article on associations poses a problem for me because it breaks in particular with a fundamental principle of French law, individual criminal responsibility.
As for the article on the dissolution of associations, its very broad wording could make it possible to dissolve the National Gathering, because we advocate national preference!
You are debating next Thursday on France 2 with Gérald Darmanin.
What do you expect from it?
This will demonstrate our fundamental differences.
He is Minister of the Interior, he must answer for the results of his ministry: immigration, insecurity, Islamism.
He should approach this debate with a little more calm because, for the past few days, I have found it very excessive and annoyed.
The best thing is that the debate takes place under republican conditions.
It is his right to fight the RN, but he can do so with arguments that are neither outrageous nor offensive.
The minister wants to talk to your constituents.
Can he do it with this text?
I fear he is disappointed.
And I would have preferred that he made a law to fight against Islamisms, not to try to obtain votes.
He should think more about protecting the French than his political communication or his political interests.
Marine Le Pen.
- Alain Robert / Sipa for 20 Minutes
February vacation starts on Saturday.
Should the restrictions be tightened to fight Covid-19?
I do not have all the information on the virus, because the Prime Minister excluded me from the parliamentary monitoring committee.
What I am observing is that the government has been fumbling around, without a strategy, for a year now.
His crisis management is a total fiasco.
We are closing everything, throughout France: this form of egalitarianism is crazy.
I believe in the “zero Covid” strategy implemented in Australia and in certain Asian countries: a generalization of the analysis of wastewater in order to identify clusters to put in place territorialized and time-limited restrictions.
In the event of a cluster, we would confine an nursing home, a school, or even a district or a city, for seven to ten days.
Let's also take advantage of the holidays, lengthening them a little, to create a sort of crawl space.
And we have to treat people because, for the moment, we only treat those who enter the hospital with a serious form.
Is it not because there is no consensus today on a study validating a drug?
It's been a year, what are we waiting for to study the effectiveness of certain treatments, such as ivermectin, possibly chloroquine, colchicine?
Emmanuel Macron announced Tuesday evening that all French people who wish can be vaccinated before the end of the summer.
Do you believe it?
Not at all.
At the current rate, we will still be there in 2023. We have a shortage of vaccine supplies and a shortage, with the risk that a number of people will not have their second dose.
However, a too long time between two doses can weaken the person, in the event of contact with the Covid, and accelerate the mutations of the virus.
Here again, there is a total lack of anticipation.
France has not secured its orders, trusting the EU completely.
Why did Germany directly order its doses, and not us?
It was not until Tuesday that the president announced the start of vaccine production in France, in March or April.
This failure is humiliating for the French.
New border restrictions were announced on Friday.
Are they sufficient?
No.
It's extremely late, we already have all the variants on the planet here.
And these checks are only carried out on arrivals by plane, but not by train or car.
However, the government carries out “random” road checks ...
It's new.
On the borders, the government is in the ideology.
There is no immunity within Schengen.
It was therefore necessary to protect our national borders from the start of the epidemic, as many member countries did, without asking for EU authorization.
The only thing that works is what we did in our overseas: ask for a negative test of less than 72 hours [it has been the case since this weekend] and impose a minimum of seven days in isolation, because false attestations abound.
Has the coronavirus crisis made it possible to advance some of your theses?
Everything we have stood for for years has been validated.
This crisis is the great victory of borders, of nation-states, because the EU has been totally failing.
Emmanuel Macron's ideology has been totally invalidated.
This crisis is the end of ultra-liberalism and the theory of just-in-time flows, which have led us to cease certain productions, by focusing on imports.
It also invalidates the government of experts, and pleads for the return of politics.
We can consult the scientists, but we don't let them decide for the president.
Did the Scientific Council go too far in its speeches?
It was the president who let him go too far.
This Council should not even appear publicly.
But it has almost taken the place of government.
The president should have decided based on two imperatives, health security and the economy.
However, we had the feeling that the President was awaiting Council decisions, so his policy was unbalanced.
Do you think the country could accept a new lockdown?
I do not know.
But the government continues to make the French feel guilty, with an unbearable form of paternalism, while, from the start, they respect the measures very well.
Emmanuel Macron now advocates industrial and health sovereignty, with 15 billion euros provided for in the recovery plan, including one billion for relocations.
Is the Macron of 2022 still as “globalist” as you judged him in 2017?
A billion for relocations is derisory compared to the financial windfall made available by the EU.
I don't think Emmanuel Macron can become a sincere promoter of relocation, sovereignty and national independence.
When you are a sovereignist, and even a believer in the last hour, you do not fully submit to the EU for the supply of vaccines.
Recent polls tell you that the hypothesis of your victory is "plausible".
More than in 2017?
Yes, a lot more.
There is a realization that Emmanuel Macron's policies lead to chaos and division in society.
It leaves the door open to all the evils that affect France, such as massive immigration and conquering Islamization.
In 2017, many French people may not have perceived that the big issue was to decide between globalists and sovereignists.
They will receive it in 2022.
Politics
Bill on "separatism": Fifty shades of opposition to the government text
Politics
Bill on "separatism": Faced with opposition, a united majority on the text
Covid 19
Emmanuel Macron
Gerald Darmanin
Islamism
Separatists
Coronavirus
National gathering
Interview
Marine Le Pen