The Revised Text of Bat Ye’or’s Speech in Toronto

A week ago Bat Ye’or gave a speech at a conference in Toronto. Thanks to the Flygirls, who videotaped and transcribed the speech, we were able to post a transcript the following day.

Transcribing from a tape is a difficult job at best. Depending on the quality of the audio, it can be all but impossible to make an accurate transcription of every word.

Fortunately for all of us, Ms. Ye’or has gone through the transcript to revise and correct any mistakes, and has kindly made the results available for Gates of Vienna readers.



The Fraser Institute: Immigration Policy, Borders Controls,
and the Terrorist Threat in Canada and the United States
June 28-29, 2007
Sheraton Centre Toronto Hotel

Europe without Borders: the Birth of Eurabia
Bat Ye’or
Ladies and gentlemen I would first like to thank the Fraser Institute for having invited me and for having organized this prestigious Conference on the most topical issues of our time. I have to congratulate the Institute and the speakers for the clarity of their speech and for the acute examination of today’s current problems.

Coming from Europe, I must say that I am full of admiration because such a conference would have never taken place in Europe. Perhaps in Italy… maybe… but with such topical discussions, so much frankness and sincerity and also objectivity, it is really remarkable. So my thanks to the Institute for having invited me to participate in this very prominent Conference.

I have learned much from the distinguished speakers who exposed their policies to prevent the immigration of terrorism or its development into Canada. This problem emerged from two modern phenomena: mass immigration and global Jihadism linked to petrodollars. However, there is no reason to see that every immigration is a path to terrorism, especially if the immigrants share the democratic values of their host countries. Immigration is a danger for Western democracies, their values and freedoms if this immigration is linked to a global jihadist ideology; if it is culturally and religiously hostile to Western values, to secularism; if it refuses integration and aims at replacing the Western Judeo-Christian culture and secular political institutions by a Shari’a-Jihadist system.

Terrorism must be seen as the ultimate attack on the human being, on human rights and freedoms, as a modern expression of physical and intellectual enslavement. And I want to take this opportunity to express my deep admiration and sympathy for all the victims of terror, whatever their religion, and who are persecuted because of their resistance to tyranny.

And this situation is not limited to dictatorships but it exists also in Europe where intellectuals, professors and journalists are threatened and have to hide or have to be guarded just for having exercised their constitutional rights.

Terrorism is the means used by foreign forces to dominate and control other countries - thereby, for instance, using their leaders as puppets. These latter, if they submit, maintain the functional appearance of independence and democracy while in effect, the whole system is corrupted and can crumble suddenly, giving way to civil war.

For historical, geographic, and strategic reasons, the situation in Europe is different from that in America, but from what I heard since yesterday, I found striking similarities between the situation in Canada and in Europe. In fact, the situation we are living now in Europe is the result of the decisions that have been taken in the 1960s and 1970s following two events: Palestinian international terrorism in Europe from 1968 onward, and economic terrorism with the Arab oil boycott from October 1973 against European countries friendly to Israel. The then nine countries of the European Community accepted the conditions of the PLO and the Arab League which were:

European recognition and legitimization of Arafat, support for the PLO and the adoption of an anti-Israeli and anti-American policy. The political agreements went together with economic and cultural collaboration with the Arab countries and the PLO and with a new immigration policy whose consequences we are seeing now.

This framework set up between the European countries, the European Commission and the Arab league states with the PLO was institutionalized in the Euro-Arab Dialogue of 1974 and 1975. From this moment started politically, economically and culturally, the Palestinization of Europe. This means that terror was no longer a crime but a worthy and glorious act performed by Palestinians heroes against two evils: Israel and America.
- - - - - - - - - -
With Nazism creeping back, Europe became the greatest supporter of Palestinian Jihadist terrorism against Israel. Such development empowered the European heirs of Nazism and communism, linked to the Arab states by a common Judeo-phobia and anti-Americanism or by economic interests.

The Dialogue framework was enlarged in 1995 by the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, the so-called Barcelona process, which created a more complex structure this time including Israel. This structure, the Partnership, encompasses numerous economic, financial and legal instruments. These two processes - the Dialogue and the Partnership - encouraged massive Muslim immigration into the European Community, which became in 1993 the European Union. Such immigration was then considered the most important component of the European Common Strategy for Security and Defence in the Mediterranean and became, for this reason, a taboo subject.

We see, therefore, that because of Palestinian terrorism the European Community built its Common Defence strategy in the Mediterranean on its alliance with a Jihadist terrorist organization, the PLO, rather than relying on an independent military force, like America has done. This choice and this policy led to a new theory of peace management: the theory of multilateralism and international governance based on the appeasement of terrorist gangs, on compromises, rules and regulations mutually accepted by states and on building an economic interdependency.

In this view, the Europe-Mediterranean Partnership establishes linkages and networks between the civil societies and the NGOs of the two shores of the Mediterranean. It creates common and functional synergies and solidarities between Europe and the Arab world and develops common perceptions and cultural partnerships at all levels as is shown by the boycott of Israel’s academia by the British universities. Such linkages also encourage Muslim immigration to Europe. This policy is detailed in several EU documents. I mention some of them in my book, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis.

This structure that links several areas: politics, economic, culture and security, together with immigration, was implemented at the highest level of the EU. It engendered a proliferation of networks that are the very grounds for anti-Israeli and anti-American policies, for Judeophobia and anti-Western activism, as well as propaganda, the denial of terrorism and Jihadism, and support for immigration.

Such policy of close alliances with the Arab League states and the PLO induced European leaders to deny Jihadism and terrorism. Hence terrorism, which is a Jihadist tactic, is attributed to America and Israel like in the Arab and Muslim world.

Nor did the EU — the European Union — considers seriously the problem of border controls and this for two main reasons: Europe has no borders. It is seen by the EU technocrats as a system of continual expansion, expanding into Africa and Asia, hence the idea of controlling borders is irrelevant in this case. As for immigration, we have seen that it was welcomed within the vision of a new political and cultural order: a Mediterranean society whereby the mixing of religions and populations - multiculturalism - will allow the emergence of a new peace-loving and tolerant society. This could be achieved only by multiculturalism and the destruction of local European nationalisms in order to allow immigrants to integrate into a plural society. In fact, the European Union was planning the death of the European nations to replace them by a Mediterranean construct — what I have called “Eurabia” - because multiculturalism is limited to Europe only as the Arab countries and Turkey move toward exclusive Muslim societies.

After decades of this policy we can see that Europe’s policy to protect itself from Jihadic terrorism in the 1970s by espousing the terrorist Jihad against Israel has in fact led to its cultural Islamization, to a mimetism of the Arab world, and to a negation of its Judeo-Christian identity.

At the same time, Europe has become the fanatical champion of Palestinianism, supporting it by a vicious political and cultural war against Israel. Hence we can see that Palestinian terrorism has succeeded to transform Europe into a dhimmi-subdued continent. It has impacted on its home policy by opening the gates to immigration and on its foreign policy, changing its relation from friendly to hostility toward Israel and America. And this could only be achieved thanks to powerful European collusions and collaborations.

But now the developments of indigenous terrorist cells in Europe, general insecurity, the reconstitution of shari’a-type societies among millions of migrants (although many are very well-integrated into Europe) and the radicalization of the Muslim countries, which are the main sources of immigration into the West, has triggered strong European anti-immigration movements and requests for immigrants to integrate into European societies. However, such policies are considered by the powerful Organization of the Islamic Conference as racist, Islamophobic and xenophobic. Doudou Diene, the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism, Xenophobia and Related intolerance at the Human Rights Council (Geneva) links immigration controls, security measures and European cultural and national revivals to Islamophobia.

In a recent report dated January 12th, 2007 (United Nations, General Assembly, A/HRC/4/19) he says that racism and xenophobia “most often take the form of legislation and policies that approach immigration and asylum issues solely from a security point of view and criminalize immigrants and asylum seekers.” He deplores the growing emphasis of rhetoric based on “defense of national identity”, which promotes the defense of identity vis-à-vis immigration. Diene declares that “questions relating to the place of foreigners in society, immigration and asylum are treated increasingly on the basis of two criteria: the security imperative and the defense of national identity.”

He condemns as Islamophobic “the purely security-based approach to the inspection and surveillance of places of worship and culture and even the teaching of Islam, and thereby in the resurgence of policies and the adoption of legislative, administrative and police measures, that stigmatize or criminalize national or foreign minorities of the Muslim faith as demonstrated by the increase in the number of Imams who have been deported. Lastly, the rejection of diversity and multiculturalism is manifested by the creation of obstacles to the construction of mosques and by intolerance and repression of Islamic cultural expressions and symbols and attire and therefore its very visibility.”

He also condemns “the selective profiling in airport stations and at borders of people with alleged Islamic appearance, whether physical or because of their clothing”.

These accusations are, of course extremely serious because they deny to Europeans their own human rights to security under the pretext of Islamophobia, while in fact, security for the human being is a basic and primal right that comes before the rights of immigrants. In the same spirit, the sovereign, national and cultural rights of Western societies are denied in order to promote those of Muslims to immigrate into these societies with their own traditional rules, languages and customs.

We see therefore, that the issues of terrorism and immigration touches in some ways, the Jihadic principle of the right of Muslims to immigrate in the dar al-Harb, the land of War (Harb) of the infidels, to Islamize it and that this right has primacy over the rights of the infidels for security and their national or cultural rights, which are anyway not recognized. Doudou Diene requests Europe to accept (and this is repeated constantly in his reports), that it is multicultural as if Europeans should renounce their own culture and national patrimony in order to accommodate Muslim immigrants. He calls their refusal Islamophobia.

Let us remember that the regulations concerning immigrants were conceived in the 1960s in a totally different global context than today and I think this was said by Salim Mansur yesterday. Then, immigrant movements represented smaller numbers and there were not the repeated waves of millions of today and people could easily integrate into the host societies. But now, immigration movements has changed and gotten massive and moreover, this occurs in a situation of global war because Jihad is a war, and it obeys theological rules and not the international covenants. Hence international jurists have to examine how to adjust the human rights regulations to a current situation of Jihadic war against the West.

This last aspect does not appear in Mr. Diene’s report. As a conclusion, I will add one remark: the position of Doudou Diene resembles that of Europe against Israel, in relation to its concern over the security of citizens and their sovereign rights. In their constant condemnation of Israel, European officials totally overlooked the reality of terrorism and sanctioned Israel as if protecting innocents from being killed or maimed was wrong. Now the West, in particular Europe, will have to fight to impose the recognition of the rights it has denied to Israel, mainly the right to security against Jihadist terrorists and the recognition of full respect for Western sovereign national and cultural rights. Thank you.

Question and Answer Session

Q:		Thank you very much, I’ll just remind people again: if you write questions down, we’ll gather them up. I’d like to ask a question which follows on your last remarks about sovereignty: Is what we’re seeing in Europe somewhat of a battle over sovereignty between perhaps, the people on one side, state on another and an immigrant community that is not well integrated. Somehow, is there a conflict over authority and who is the final authority in Europe in these nations’ states?
A:		Yes, there are many battles which are fought now in Europe and I am afraid that this can take some time. This might take bloody aspects because of the censorship that was imposed on a very serious problem linked to terrorism and immigration. So, the battle is between so many different forces and it is in so many areas — it is the battle for the recognition of the security rights of Europeans but also the cultural rights and the universities, for instance.
		There have been for years a cultural Jihad which has Islamized the universities and also the media and this has been done thanks to the approval of the European governments because this policy was all organized and in collaboration with the Arab states by the European Union. So there is, as you have said, an opposition against immigrations; an opposition also and a battle against the customs of shari’a that are developing in European societies by the immigrants; and also an opposition to the policy of Europeans governments and of the EU. Because what we see now, is a result of the EU, the European Union policy. It was a policy which has total lack of transparency.
		The European people did not know what was going on and suddenly they are faced with a situation which is very critical and so there are many movements in Europe which demand the abolition of the EU.
Q:		I have several questions about the new president of France, Sarkozy, saying that he’s pro-American and more friendly to Israel than his predecessor and essentially asking about a) the role of France and the development of current policies and b) whether things are going to change now under new leadership?
A:		Yes, this is right about President Sarkozy being pro-American and we have to be happy about that - and I think also closer to Israel, which means not so much closer to Israel but at least not so partial, so anti-Israeli as his predecessors. And what he will do, it is difficult to say how he will manage the terrible situation we have now in Europe because the European countries have lost so much of their sovereignty and this is what Tony Blair fought against in order to maintain some sovereignty. So, so much has been destroyed by the European Union construct and whatever the policy of France will be, it will have to adjust to the regulations of the European Union and therefore to the regulations of the 27 countries. Now the European countries are no more free to act independently.
		But certainly there is a greatest awareness in Europe. This is thanks to America, I must say, about all these problems and I hope also of Canada because the discussions on the terrorist issues and the decline of Europe as expressed in American newspapers have pushed Europeans to react and to speak about those problems. So, I think that if we all engage in those discussions it will be profitable for all of us.
Q:		I have a question and I’m going to add a bit to it: It says if the Israel-Palestinian conflict is resolved, will Europe change its policy towards the Arab region and I want to add to that — do you think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be resolved?
A:		Well the Israeli-Arab conflict is a part of a wider conflict which is the Jihadist conflict against the non-Muslim countries and the Arab-Israeli conflict has taken such prominence because also it was seen by the Arab League and Arab countries as a way to play on European antisemitism in order to bring an alliance with the Arab countries and, by this way, to infiltrate into Europe and impact on its policy. But even if this conflict will be resolved, I don’t think that this will bring an end to the problem. I think the problem is for the Muslims to abandon the Jihadist ideology and to recognize that this has been set up and explained in books, theological books in Muslim jurisdictions from the 8th century. However, we are now in the 21st century and we have to share together this planet and we have to establish good relations between all types of people in all religions and start to abandon the Jihadist view which wants to implement one religion, Islam, all over the planet. And I think this is our duty to do it, to work out that with our Muslim friends because our Muslim friends who speak out like Ibn Warraq, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, Magdi Allam, Salim Mansur, and so many others whom I know very well, are very courageous, they are part of our battle and they are more courageous than us because they are threatened more than us. And it is a battle that we can all win, I hope so, because we can all win if we are frank, if we have the courage to expose the problems as they are.
Q:		I have a more critical question for you saying that terrorism in Europe has a long tradition which predates the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah and so on. The European Union has succeeded in preventing another Franco-German war. This writer says that Europe is more resilient than you fear and less Judeo-phobic than you claim. Don’t you think that you’re over-dramatizing the situation?
A:		Well, first of all, yes, that’s true that there is a tradition of terrorism in Europe before the PLO. We have the ETA, we have Irish terrorism, so that’s true; however, those terrorisms are linked to local situations and they are not theological-inspired terrorism. While Jihadism is linked to a global Jihad and also to a theological interpretation of sacred Muslim texts and we have to be very frank with this fact because if we hide it, we are only harming ourselves. We are then trying to ignore the threat that will suppress us. The other question is if I exaggerate. Well, I will say that me, personally, I live in a small place and I am not very social. I don’t know European antisemites, I have not met them. I think that European antisemitism was created by the European states. It is a culture that has been imposed over the European people in order to develop this anti-Israeli cultural and political war. And this is mentioned in European texts, that the Arab world has to acknowledge the cultural and political European efforts: support to the PLO as a strong asset for their cause because Europe could not send soldiers to kill and to destroy Israel after the Holocaust but they had established a whole network of hate, a global and world network of hate against Israel, and the same can be said against America and this is because of the network and the alliance with the Arab and Muslim world, because this in fact, is the guarantee for European security. Europe has built its security system on the hate of Israel, on the hate of America within its alliance with Arab and Jihadist movements and Palestinian movements.
Q:		You talked about multiculturalism in Europe and critics of multiculturalism of being accused of Islamophobia. How do you defend your own views if one was to say that your views are Islamophobic.
A:		Well I will say that when I go for instance to India, I enjoy seeing the culture, the Indian culture in India. I think it is very good, very nice, very colorful. And I am very grateful to the Indians or to the Buddhists to have added their own culture to world cultures. In the same way, I am very happy to see European culture. I don’t think that European culture should disappear and I think that when Indians come and ask to live in Europe, they have to be grateful to the state that welcomes them and they have to respect the culture of this country. And I spoke about the Indians, the Indians are doing that without any problems, but the problems come from other populations — mainly Muslim populations but not all, who have in their historical traditions and their religious text also the tradition of fighting Jews and Christians. And also, to refuse to have contacts or to link with Jews and Christians as friends, so there it is a difficulty. This is in Koranic verses so there are two or three Koranic verses that say: don’t become friends to Jews and Christians — make friends with your own (5:56-65).
		So we have to know that there are these aspects in the Muslim religious texts which don’t exist in Hindu or Buddhist or other religions. So there is a difficulty there for integration. On the other hand also, we have to know (sorry for being a little long), that Islamic civilization was created by Jihad; that means by the conquest of Christian lands, in Asia it was Buddhist and Hindu lands - but the Christian lands that Muslims took over were from Hungary to Nubia, from Portugal to Iraq. And all over this enormous territory, over three continents, there were Christian populations living there with Jews. So when those lands were conquered by Jihadist armies, the Muslim theologians and jurists established special regulations concerning Jews and Christians. Those regulations were oppressive; they recognized them the right to live as non-Muslims but on the condition that they would be humiliated and totally inferior to Muslims. So there is this tradition in the Islamic history and we have to take this into account and we must, in order to establish friendly relations with Muslims, discuss these problems. It is extremely important otherwise we will not be able to eliminate the problems between us.
Q:		I have a question about two other European leaders. Your views of Merkel in Germany and Brown in the UK regarding this issue?
A:		Well, Angela Merkel is, of course, a very admirable woman and she has succeeded in many things and especially I am happy with what she has done: she has abandoned the anti-American policy of the Schröder government and she also has adopted a more pro-Israeli stance. It is true that Germany has always had, since the Second World War, very good relations with Israel, has helped Israel, and has established friendly relations with Israel, and that is true. I think Merkel has emphasized this aspect but it is also good that she opposes the current issue now of global Jihad. We didn’t allow a Western alliance rather we fostered a situation where Western countries are fighting between themselves, which is of course what our enemies want.
		Now about Gordon Brown, well he just took over I think yesterday, and it is too early to speak. But unfortunately, the ten years of the Blair regime has been dreadful for the future of England because now England is in such a state and we saw this morning the terrorist attack, and I don’t know what Brown can to do in this situation. This situation in England is the same for instance in France or in other countries: Belgium, Holland, Sweden. It is a very difficult situation because if we try to stop immigration, there will be certainly terrorist reprisals. If we try to do what you have said here, what Canada should do — if we try to do it in Europe it will be extremely difficult and we have to expect a period of terrorism.
Q:		I think we have time for one more question: What are the implications if any, for European development in Canada?
A:		It is very important because Europe is very important to Canada. If Europe become more and more Islamized — this is a process that I have examined in my book: The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, where I examined all the processes of Islamization of Christian civilization and societies and this study has allowed me to recognize this movement developing now under my eyes — so if Europe is going on this path, it will have negative effects for Canada because it won’t be an ally to Canada. It will become an enemy to Canada, like it has become an enemy to America. I mean, when you read the book of Chris Patten, the former European Commissioner for External Relations of the last Commission, Cousins and Strangers, America, Britain and Europe in a New Century, he always writes in this book nasty things about America and he hopes that Blair could impact and change the policy of America to bring it to adopt the European-Arab position. And this of course, is a dhimmi-position, is a surrender position and this I’m afraid can be done also to Canada, especially if Canada changes policy. According to the Fraser Institute, there will be some grassroots works on those problems. Now about Canada, I must say that when I was reading the documents on the Euro-Arab dialogues and the Euro-Arab meetings, Canada was mentioned. So I think that Canada was also part of this policy which I have now described to you, which was European.