Marine Le Pen: “It is Common Sense to Say We Cannot Continue With This Policy”

During her recent visit to Quebec, Marine Le Pen, the leader of the Front National in France, was interviewed by a presenter for the state broadcaster CBC. “Interview” is perhaps the wrong word — “prosecution” would be more apt, as Ms. Le Pen points out. The unremitting attack questions by the interviewer were handled more than adequately by her guest, who put the “prosecutor” in her place.

Many thanks to Oz-Rita for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


00:00   Mme Le Pen, good evening, welcome to 24/60.
00:04   Since your arrival you have caused
00:08   some controversies. I will make you listen
00:12   to what happened last night on our channels.
00:16   Listen well. Today I was er… very shocked
00:20   there is “someone” who is visiting Quebec
00:24   who comes from Old France, who walks about
00:28   on the right, and on the right
00:32   says things that do not correspond to a certain reality.
00:40   In particular she criticises the governments of Canada
00:45   and of Quebec for having opened the doors to Syrian refugees.
00:49   And the worst is that she says
00:53   she criticises these governments
00:57   to defend the culture of Quebec.
01:01   I could not speak to you about this today
01:05   because the culture of Quebec does not need that type of defence.
01:09   We can do this ourselves.
01:21   (standing ovation)
01:25   And? Mme Le Pen this Monsieur is one of our greatest filmmakers.
01:29   (Name?) he was in the entourage of Salvador
01:33   Allende in the seventies before Canada became his host country.
01:38   He suggests you should stay out of it, and that you have come to lecture
01:42   the Canadians and that we don’t need your lessons. Well, firstly
01:46   this gentleman has probably not heard what I have said, but that’s rather traditional.
01:50   It’s a common fact that actors,
01:54   filmmakers, singers
01:58   stick their noses into politics. They have the right to do it. What this Monsieur forgets,
02:02   of course they have the right to do it, but what this Monsieur forgets is a concept
02:06   we are attached to which is called democracy. And democracy consists of
02:10   also allowing to speak those who do not agree with you. It’s magnificent
02:14   as a concept; it’s wonderful, provided it is respected. You see,
02:18   I’m absolutely not disturbed by the fact that everyone
02:23   can have a view different from mine. But
02:27   I find it surprising that one forbids me
02:31   to address a certain number of topics,
02:35   there is no interdiction…
02:39   and that these topics cause a form of hysteria.
02:43   I’m surprised — why? Because I think that in a mature democracy
02:47   everyone can debate, agree
02:51   or disagree. So we are an immature democracy? You said, for example,
02:55   that to take in 25,000 Syrian refugees is madness.
02:59   Yes, it’s a political idea, it’s my political conviction.
03:03   But you have been able to say everything you wanted since you have been here,
03:07   and people respond.
03:11   What I have a problem with is that I arrive and say
03:15   I am against immigration. Does one have the right to say this? Or not? If one does not have the right,
03:19   just tell me immediately. One needs to tell me that if you say you are against immigration, you will be insulted
03:23   as racist, xenophobe, closed-minded, fascist etc.
03:28   Tell me — does one have the right to say “I am against communitarianism,
03:32   I think it’s a bad model”? Has one the right to say it, or is
03:36   one insulted in response? That’s the real question.
03:40   Has one the right to invoke these ideas, or only the ideas that are authorised by a certain
03:44   oligarchy, a certain caste, by the PCs
03:48   because if that’s what it is, believe me those who try to prevent me
03:52   from talking will be in for their expenses.
03:56   Maybe you feed yourself with this victimisation saying, what is democracy.
04:00   You arrive here, you have an insult on the your lips at every moment…
04:04   Whom have I insulted, Madam?…I don’t know, the oligarchy?…I have been insulted… Whom have I insulted?
04:08   You mentioned that
04:12   our political class was a world of teddy bears.
04:16   you have said… er…(unclear)… you triggered hysteria.
04:20   Well, Madame… yes, I said that
04:24   a certain number of governments are naïve regarding the problems of immigration.
04:29   That’s what I call the “world of teddy bears”. I have experienced more serious insults
04:33   than that one…The “world of teddy bears” is a concept
04:37   which insists on saying that everything is well and all
04:41   is lovely and that there will never be any problems, whereas I say that there are problems.
04:45   (anchor is unclear “same as… you?) Yes, the same causes have the same effects…
04:49   So you are wise? That’s called popular wisdom.
04:53   How would you know? Because I see well what happened,
04:57   notably in Quebec, (anchor unclear) I see the drift, particularly in Quebec,
05:01   of the communitarianism which creates, like everywhere, because there is no exception,
05:05   politico-religious claims,
05:09   more and more important, to which a portion of Quebecers
05:13   object.
05:17   That’s it, I expose my political ideas. I am elected and I am the head
05:21   of the foremost party of France. Eh, you are not yet
05:25   President. Does that forbid me to speak, Madam? No. Ah, OK,
05:29   because if the only ones who can speak are Presidents, that would be boring.
05:33   Since you evoke Democracy, permit me to ask the questions.
05:38   But please do, but since the start these have not so much been “questions”; it’s rather a
05:42   prosecution. Okay, so… so I quote you… er…
05:46   er (unclear) our immigration is madness…
05:50   our political class is the victim of intellectual terrorism. Have you come
05:54   during the Presidential campaign to give lessons to the Canadians and Quebecers,
05:58   who have democratically elected governments? Madame, I give lessons to nobody.
06:02   So what do you do? I arrived.
06:06   I have not asked to see politicians;
06:10   this was neither the purpose of my trip, nor
06:14   my aim. The entirety
06:18   of the political class took the floor to declare: NEVER,
06:23   we will not meet her, we do not want to speak to her, etc.
06:27   People had asked to see me. Appointments were fixed at their
06:31   request, and they have canceled these appointments. If that is not
06:35   intellectual terrorism, if they were not afraid of something,
06:39   why is it that people ask to see me, and
06:43   as soon as there is agitation in the media, they give up
06:47   because they are afraid? Is that it? That’s the question I ask myself.
06:51   I’m confronted with the events and I analyse them, Madame.
06:55   It’s as simple as that; I give lessons to absolutely no-one.
06:59   …understand your speech, when you arrive you say that it is a mistake
07:03   to welcome 25,000 refugees when this government has been elected
07:07   democratically by making this promise. Canada and Quebec
07:11   have been welcoming countries for decades, and they are well integrated… er Madame…
07:15   I have difficulties believing that you don’t know the meaning of “democracy”.
07:19   Democracy doesn’t mean to fall silent before
07:23   those who have been elected. Because democracy only functions, Madame,
07:27   if there are elected people, and people in opposition. We have subjects
07:31   on which we disagree with the Socialists of all countries.
07:36   With my French socialists, we have strong disagreements, with
07:40   the socialists in the European Parliament
07:44   we do have disagreements, and do I have the right to express this, or not? Of course.
07:48   And so I express it. I say that I think the immigration policy
07:52   implemented by Mr. Trudeau is a folly, and I have the right to say this.
07:56   How… If I don’t have this right, then you have to ban me from entering the country.
08:00   because manifestly a certain number of
08:04   ministers have just cancelled the entirety of appointments they had with the delegation
08:08   of the Commission ‘Commerce International’ of the European parliament, proving,
08:12   allow me, at best a discourtesy vis-à-vis
08:16   elected politicians who come from all the countries of Europe
08:20   to discuss with the politicians
08:25   the agreements between Canada and the European Union,
08:29   and of a series of other subjects… is there not a problem?
08:33   You find this normal… do you find
08:37   this is normal behavior? I don’t.
08:41   Would you be a pariah because people see in your speeches
08:45   which you express totally freely, insults, abuse and lessons?
08:49   Madame, give me a single insult.
08:53   You are journalist, Madame? Yes. You are not a militant? Good, consequently
08:57   you are obliged to (unclear) factual about things.
09:01   Show me an insult. So I will… (unclear) no…
09:05   Show me, Madame, you said “Insult and abuse”, show me an insult and abuse. I don’t answer your questions, Madame.
09:09   I am the one who asks the questions. Ah, so Madame Prosecutor, if it’s you
09:13   who asks the questions… indeed under these conditions… Madame, I have insulted
09:18   nobody… so, very good… I have abused nobody. So, very good…
09:22   I say what I think, and I say it with frankness,
09:26   and I believe that many Quebecers love frankness.
09:30   If I believe the avalanche of messages I have received from
09:34   Quebecers on my Facebook account, and who tell me: Madame Le Pen,
09:38   we are happy to hear you speak about this, because there are a certain number of taboo subjects in Quebec,
09:42   and we are happy that your presence generates
09:46   a debate about subjects which we think should be
09:50   discussed in political forums. I am happy about this.
09:54   Facebook is more democratic than the words of our elected (?)
09:58   I will make you listen to the words of our elected, our prime minister of Quebec,
10:02   Mr. Brouillard, and I will also quote you a text
10:06   by Mr. Pedalo of the Quebec Party, who thinks
10:10   that his party has nothing to do with your values, your doctrine.
10:14   I have heard Mr. Pedalo; I heard
10:19   what he had to say. I was surprised because there are at least two subjects
10:23   that I see immediately which are subjects which one could at least
10:27   debate… What? Sovereignty
10:31   and the defense of the Francophone community. But Mr. Pelagone (?)
10:35   seems to see in your program absolutely no similarities with your program (sic).
10:39   I will give you… I let you listen to Mr. Couillard(?) and then I will give you…
10:43   Mr. (Couillard?) is that the one who went to Saudi Arabia recently and who came back
10:47   having become a friend of communitarianism, when he had been its adversary?
10:51   It’s that one, yes? OK…
10:55   Listen, Mme Le Pen has no position in the French Government.
10:59   She is visiting, that’s all I have to say about her. I have certainly no intention of
11:03   starting a debate with Mme. Le Pen. We can make you listen to
11:07   your response to students who protested, you told the kids to go to bed.
11:12   You find… But Madame, what you are saying is,
11:16   yes, lets hear them, yes yes
11:24   (not clear)… The Front National
11:28   you are singing off-key.
11:32   F*** you. [On vous emmerde]
11:36   Go, kiddies, go to bed.
11:40   Madame — there is obviously a big problem.
11:44   These young militants from the extreme Left, forced their way
11:48   into a press conference I had organised.
11:52   They insulted me, treated me as “fascist”,
11:56   “Nazi”, told me “f*** you”.
12:01   What should I have done to please you? Offer them
12:05   lunch, thank them, perhaps, for coming
12:09   to disrupt a press conference, violently?
12:13   Is that what I should have done? We give you the floor here.
12:17   Madame, is this what I should have done? Yes or No? This really is
12:21   a rather “special” vision. Excuse me, but I do not disrupt
12:25   any meetings. I don’t introduce myself
12:29   into press conferences to insult people. But you seem to
12:33   have a lot of complacency for these youth from the extreme Left. You have also undertaken
12:37   to er… eh… remake a sort of, at the Front National
12:41   a kind of er…what French commentators call
12:45   de-demonisation of your party, putting a distance between yourself and your father, Jean Marie Le Pen.
12:49   Has his exclusion from the Party something to do with
12:53   your desire to remake the image of the party?
12:57   Madame, excuse me, but I am a politician.
13:01   It would be good if one could talk about politics,
13:05   because since the start of this program I have the impression
13:10   that this is a court hearing
13:14   where you would have the position
13:18   of prosecutor (unclear…your style…your attitude).
13:22   No, since the start of this program you have not been asking to know what I think.
13:26   You lead a veritable
13:30   tribunal. I have no intention of submitting
13:34   to your Court, Madame. So, either you ask questions about
13:38   my political ideas, and I will answer with pleasure and with a smile, because that’s my
13:42   habit… So you don’t answer questions about your father… If it’s to respond
13:46   to a series… an indictment…
13:50   there is no accusation… which I find deeply unjust, and, well…
13:54   I will not submit to such, Madame. It’s not at all accusations…
13:58   your own niece said that the Front National
14:02   owes its success (just during the past few hours Marion) to the fact
14:06   that Jean Marie Le Pen started to contest the migratory flow before it
14:10   was an emergency. This is an example. And so your discourse on immigration,
14:15   does it cause, as you said from the start of this conversation,
14:19   (see, we did talk about politics, we spoke about immigration) a certain intolerance?
14:23   But in what is the fact to be against immigration.
14:27   a proof of intolerance? Is it… er… a withdrawal into oneself?
14:31   It is neither racism, nor a withdrawal,
14:35   nor intolerance. Immigration is a phenomenon.
14:39   it’s a global phenomenon; firstly it’s an economic phenomenon.
14:43   Many countries use immigration to
14:47   weigh in on lower salaries, because they will look there for cheap labour
14:51   I find this, permit me, deplorable.
14:55   Because one uses people who work for a low pay,
14:59   and whom one puts in competition with the compatriots of the country.
15:03   I am opposed to this use, often
15:07   by big business, incidentally, of mass immigration.
15:11   Secondly, immigration into countries where there is unemployment,
15:15   it consists of bringing in people who will not find
15:19   employment by definition, because there is unemployment.
15:23   So, if one brings in people without offering them anything, well, these people will
15:27   weigh down the system of social protection. In my opinion,
15:31   it is an economic aberration. And third, I find this
15:35   very unjust because one makes them believe that
15:39   they will find El Dorado, and more often than not they finish up
15:43   without employment, in some form of difficulties,
15:47   and forced to stay within a community.
15:52   That’s not my vision for humans, it’s not the vision I have,
15:56   not of people, nor of the economy, ergo I am opposed
16:00   to this policy. So is it because of this in your program, which I have here,
16:04   on immigration, on the implementation of national priorities,
16:08   being that by equal competence the people with the French nationality must have
16:12   precedence over the migrants, that they have the same priority
16:16   for public housing, and that a foreigner who does not find work,
16:20   a foreigner in legal status, who does not find work within a year,
16:24   they are induced to return to their countries after one year of inactivity.
16:28   Its… (unclear)… are the immigrants (unclear) second class for you?
16:32   Are what? Second class citizens for you? Pardon, Madame.
16:36   All constitutions in the world admit that between those who have the nationality and those
16:40   who don’t have the nationality, there are evidently differences.
16:44   In Canada (unclear) Quebec, everyone is equal (?). Very good, Madame.
16:48   It’s perfect, I am very happy for you. I am not sure that all Quebecers are
16:53   very happy. (interjection by anchor not clear) Yes, at an equal level of competence,
16:57   I think it is very normal that a national
17:01   has priority access to employment. I find this of an absolute common sense.
17:05   Absolute! Why?
17:09   The French have only one country. So if he cannot work in his country,
17:13   well, it’s difficult to force him to leave France.
17:17   Is that not racism? But what racism is in that? Whereas the foreigner who comes
17:21   to a country and doesn’t find work
17:25   he can return to his country of origin. Where is the racism? I cannot see
17:29   a trace of racism in this proposition, which is implemented
17:33   in Switzerland, in Morocco, without
17:37   anyone thinking for half a second to treat them as racists.
17:41   Do you know that in Canada…(unclear)…Quebec and Canada… and…
17:45   we have Canadian charters and the discrimination according to origin and all that, and
17:49   it’s not discrimination according to origin…
17:53   Once more, a priority of access to employment and public housing
17:57   given to the nationals, to those who have the nationality,
18:01   whatever their color, whatever their origin, whatever their religion.
18:05   These are not the consideration, we
18:09   talk about membership in the nation, of nationality.
18:14   It’s the backbone of our program, so don’t be surprised to find
18:18   it in this program, it’s totally legitimate and natural. This can be legitimate
18:22   and natural for people to ask themselves about the discriminatory
18:26   character, or the racist character
18:30   of this policy? No? It’s not (legitimate?) to ask questions about this? Madame, what racism?
18:34   Explain to me, because I don’t get it, what is the racism in this policy? I ask the questions.
18:38   But I have answered. You continue to speak about racism? What racism is in that policy?
18:42   What is the racism? I really don’t understand.
18:46   So, the question of immigration is… I… you…quote (sic),
18:50   it was your niece Marion, who quoted your father, in fact who said
18:54   that it’s thanks to your father that this discourse here…in fact… (sic)
18:58   gives a great success to the Front National, and do you
19:02   believe that it is (unclear),
19:06   which is the base of your policy which will permit you to continue to advance? No, Madame.
19:10   After the seventies French big business appealed to immigration
19:15   to put a downward pressure on wages. They were looking for low labor costs.
19:19   So they organised the immigration, and after this labor immigration,
19:23   they implemented family reunions.
19:27   which resulted in the modification of this labor immigration
19:31   into an immigration of installation. Since then, France has welcomed
19:35   Millions of immigrants on its territory. The problem is
19:39   that today we have seven million unemployed, nine million poor,
19:43   we can absolutely not afford to accommodate anyone.
19:47   The French social protection system is that if anyone
19:51   arrives on our national territory he is taken care of: his medical treatment is free of charge;
19:55   his children are educated — well someone has to pay, of course,
19:59   and that’s the French compatriots. They are housed
20:03   in public housing, and consequently
20:07   I think it is common sense to say we cannot continue with this policy.
20:11   It ruins us, because we cannot attract people indefinitely
20:15   who have no employment and will not find any, because we are victims
20:19   of mass unemployment. Once more, I cannot see what in all that
20:23   can be racist in this proposition… a form of intolerance
20:28   and exclusion does that do not feed… What does that mean? You seem to
20:32   charge ahead with a series of words without even trying to find out
20:36   if they match any reality at all. What does it mean? The immigrants
20:40   that are in your place and who find no employment and who could not…
20:44   find work for (?) economic reasons, would see themselves maybe
20:48   induced to depart and leave the country. Tell me, Madame, in the USA
20:52   if I go to the USA, I need firstly a card to
20:56   have the permission to work. Upon expiry of this card,
21:00   or if I cannot find work, do you believe that the Americans take care of my needs?
21:04   Surely not. And upon expiry of my card I’m sent back to my country.
21:08   Most countries, very objectively, implement
21:12   what looks like a rational policy, a wise policy,
21:16   a common sense policy. I do not see why France
21:20   could not implement it, too. I let you listen to an extract from our Canadian Minister of Immigration,
21:24   Mr. McCallum, I think that in Canada
21:29   there is a good consensus, at least among
21:33   the political class of Quebec and Canada
21:37   in favour of these refugees, so the fact that,
21:41   after what I have heard, the politicians do not want
21:45   to speak to her, does not surprise me. And so?
21:49   That’s our minister of immigration. Yes, and so he is there
21:53   to organise Immigration. It’s not completely extraordinary
21:57   that we don’t agree. On
22:01   the issue of migrants. I am as clear as is possible
22:05   The Islamic State uses the migrant flow to infiltrate a certain number of terrorists.
22:09   It’s a fact.
22:13   This caused dozens of deaths in France. Because three of
22:17   the terrorists at the Bataclan were
22:21   people who infiltrated the migrant flow, at the request of IS.
22:25   There are surely others, by the way, who do it. So I said
22:29   that I considered that accepting these migrant flows was a great danger.
22:33   You say that the 25,000 in Canada, that’s madness, here,
22:37   the migrants who have been received here, have been selected in the camps
22:42   of refugees. They had been there often for two or three years,
22:46   even five years, and it’s perhaps a part of the humanity of the Canadians
22:50   to want to receive them. Madame, if the security conditions
22:54   are absolutely granted, no problem.
22:58   On the affair of terrorism, you tell me there will be no difficulty. I have not said that
23:02   yes, you said it was very well done, total security,
23:06   one knows exactly who they are. Good, I wish for that, imagine that!
23:10   I wish it for the security of the Quebecers. However,
23:14   open immigration flows when one knows,
23:19   as Mme Merkel has learned at her expense, that when you receive
23:23   one person, there are ten who take the road to come
23:27   to join them. I believe that there one creates phenomena of migrant flows
23:31   which we will be unable to manage. And the EU is incapable
23:35   of managing it. Today all countries close their borders,
23:39   one after the other. Even the most generous, even those
23:43   who were very open to receiving them, are about to
23:47   try and return the migrants to their own countries and close
23:51   their borders once again. I say one must not be naïve in this field.
23:55   We are organising immigration flows that
23:59   most probably will be impossible to manage in the future.
24:03   This seems to me to be a harmful policy. I think we should have done
24:07   the opposite, notably implement the policy implemented by Australia,
24:11   which would have avoided a succession of deaths
24:15   in the Mediterranean by drowning, because these poor
24:19   try to arrive on the shores of the European Union,
24:23   and a significant number of them drown. I think that this is a consequence of a
24:27   devastating immigration policy, managed by the European Union, which I fight.
24:32   This means that the Canadian policy should not be madness. If in Europe
24:36   it poses a problem, in Canada that’s not the case. Lets speak about it in ten years, perhaps,
24:40   or even before. But if you were President of France
24:44   would all your proposals be realised
24:48   overnight, namely the Euro…?
24:52   You (unclear) Schengen Area and borders, evidently immigration
24:56   is…er…ah… Madame, I’m attached to sovereignty.
25:00   I think that a people is only happy when free.
25:04   Today France is not free. Consequently, if I’m elected President of the Republic, I will
25:08   turn towards the EU, asking them to return our sovereignty.
25:12   There are at least four essential pillars of our sovereignty.
25:16   Our territorial sovereignty: I want to know who enters and stays on
25:20   my territory, because I believe that is the right of the French people.
25:24   Monetary sovereignty, of which
25:28   the problematic Euro is part. Economic sovereignty,
25:32   part of which is our
25:36   sovereignty of banks, and our legislative sovereignty: I want
25:40   the laws voted at the request of the French people to have a force
25:44   superior to European directives. That’s what I will negotiate.
25:48   Exactly like Great Britain: either the EU tells me “OK”,
25:53   then we stay in the EU; if the EU tells me “out of the question”, then
25:57   I will suggest to the French to leave the EU by referendum.
26:01   That’s what I plan to do first, because if we do
26:05   not regain our sovereignty, we cannot even manage policies
26:09   which are necessary. Mme Le Pen, you have undertaken, I use a word
26:13   which is used in France, by journalists, commentators, the observers
26:17   when one speaks about the Front National and says the de-demonisation.
26:21   (there are?) documentaries on this
26:25   to make the Front National a party like any other, and your slogan,
26:29   I believe is “Appeased France”, if I’m not wrong.
26:33   If I speak of this. Appeased France, one can ask the question
26:37   so I ask you the question: Does one appease France when
26:41   one puts the accent on the fears one creates among the people facing immigration,
26:45   facing terrorism, facing the financial situation,
26:49   face…I ask you that question… You believe sincerely it is I who create
26:53   the fear of terrorism, Madame?
26:57   Or is it the 130 death at the Bataclan?
27:01   Or is it the six terrorist attacks that took place in France these last few years?
27:05   You believe sincerely that it is I who cause the fear?
27:09   No, Madame, I speak of real problems, I refuse to close my eyes.
27:13   I refuse to be in denial, I call a cat a cat,
27:17   and because I analyze the problems, because I have the courage to face them,
27:21   I have solutions. When I see that the politicians,
27:25   whatever the countries, and the politicians of my country
27:29   specifically are unable to say that the authors of the terrorist attacks
27:34   are Islamist fundamentalists, they don’t even dare say the word,
27:38   do you believe that, if one is not capable to put an emotive word
27:42   to an evil, do you believe sincerely that one is capable
27:46   of solving it? I don’t believe it. I believe that
27:50   to implement a solution, one has to make a good diagnosis.
27:54   They are not capable of making a good diagnosis, and as long as we have not done this,
27:58   there will be no appeasement for my country. And so my country will live
28:02   in the fear of terrorism. And I don’t wish for that. So, yes
28:06   I want an appeased France, and for France to be appeased the economic problems have to be solved,
28:10   freedom must be given back to the French people, democracy must be re-established
28:15   mass immigration must be fought,
28:19   communitarianism must be fought, Islamist terrorism must be fought, etc.
28:23   etc. Canada also fights against Islamist terrorism, there is no negation
28:27   of Islamist terrorism. I want to make you listen
28:31   to an announcement that was published this weekend in France
28:35   by the government: Warning. These words and pictures can shock. Inspired by true events.
28:39   And who makes a mess? The Arabs,
28:43   anyway, that’s how it is; they are all aggressive;
28:47   it’s in their nature. They make no effort to integrate, and anyway
28:51   they are not like us. Are you serious? You believe what you say?
28:55   Racism starts with words. It ends in spitting, beatings, blood.
28:59   Let’s react. All united against hatred.
29:03   I have seen that the French government
29:07   has produced two videos. One against racism, and another one against
29:11   anti-Semitism. I note that there is none against
29:15   anti-white Racism or anti-French racism. And yet
29:19   it’s, alas, a type of offence which multiplies today
29:23   in France, and which here too seems to have less importance
29:28   in the eyes of the Government. Whereas I fight ALL racism.
29:32   All racism, without exception.
29:36   Mme Le Pen, one has often evoked also
29:40   what’s happening in the USA, in Canada we speak a lot about it,
29:44   about Mr. Trump. What does he represent for you, Donald Trump?
29:48   He is like Mr. Sanders.
29:52   They are two figures who emerge from American political life,
29:56   because I think the Americans had enough of a political class
30:00   that seems to systematically defend private interests rather than to defend
30:04   general interests. And the American people
30:08   wants free people, free politicians, free
30:12   of shackles, free of lobbies, free of
30:16   blame-shifting, whether it is Mr. Sanders for the Democrats or Mr. Trump for
30:20   the Republicans — they represent this
30:24   desire for politicians, free
30:28   of all these chains. But as Mr. Trump proposes to build walls
30:33   to exclude immigrants, do you feel
30:37   you have more affinities with him than with Mr. Sanders?
30:41   But I’m not even asking myself this question. Because I believe it’s up to the Americans
30:45   once more, their leaders, just like the Quebecers,
30:49   Mr. Trump says things that are just, and some others I don’t
30:53   adhere to. (Which ones?) But for this I don’t insult…
30:57   I don’t name-call him for this, because once more
31:01   I am respectful of democracy. I think that the insult is contrary to
31:05   democracy. One says that one does not agree with someone, but
31:09   one does not call him racist, xenophobe, fascist, etc., because that
31:13   is facile, it’s when one has no arguments.
31:17   Instead of having an argument, one uses that litany one takes out the box
31:21   of insults and one serves oneself: Racist, xenophobe, etc., and one thinks
31:26   like this one can discredit the adversary, without the need for an exchange of ideas,
31:30   to confront ideas. That is precisely what you have done since the beginning
31:34   of this program. And what don’t you like in the discourse of Mr. Trump?
31:38   From what do you dissociate yourself with him? Well, I dissociate myself, for example, from the manner in which he differentiates
31:42   between people in function of their religion. I don’t do this.
31:46   But he does it, the voters judge,
31:50   but I’m not on the same line in this.
31:54   That’s an example. You know in France one watches
31:58   American politics less than you do.
32:02   Mr. Trump causes
32:06   enormity… it’s a phenomenon, it’s a big phenomenon, Mr. Trump,
32:10   it’s a political phenomenon, because I believe he breaks with the traditional political class.
32:14   Precisely. Mme Le Pen, thank you. Thank you.

23 thoughts on “Marine Le Pen: “It is Common Sense to Say We Cannot Continue With This Policy”

  1. That was more like an inquisition than an ‘interview’ Ms. Le Pen did a superb job of defending herself and keeping her cool.

    • Echoes of the Nazi judges in the dying days of the other pc of ww2 show trials. “You dare to speak against and undermine our Islamic family way of life!!” When the tables turn and turn they will these so called journalists will have an impossible time.

      • Alas, judging from the standing ovation for the actor in the first clip played from Mme. LePen, it will be a long time before the beautiful people have any kind of an epiphany. Mention “immigration” and they all snap to attention.

        The interviewer didn’t like being called a prosecutor and, when challenged on one point, you have to love her saying that she’s the one who asks the questions.

        The interviewer clearly is astonished that a country is not open to all the world for it to enter and claim all that “compassion” allows.

  2. The behavior of the anchor is so nonsensical that it’s not only difficult to watch, but if she really wants to fight the ideas of M. Le Pen, she totally misses her target: so much gratuitous vitriol only speaks in favor of her guest.
    The whole lot of questions asked by the interviewer are non sequitur, from end to beginning. One seems to follow the other randomly. The questions themselves are either shallow or moronic, if not utterly insulting. And to top it all, she doesn’t even assume the meaning of her own questions: at some point she’s asking – something I can’t find again in the transcript, maybe it’s not been translated – a question, the obvious implication of which she denies.
    If I didn’t know better, I’d just say: unbelievable!

    • That news anchor needs a few run ins with “diversity” and she’d change her tune. Assuming she lived.

  3. Just a few comments. All of the stories coming out of Europe and the problems we have here in North America lead me to thank God on a regular basis that we here in the US have absolutely refused to give up our guns.
    Whether its fighting Islam, feral blacks or leftist totalitarians, its hard to do if you’re unarmed. Look at what went on in Brussels after the Islamic attacks, when the people came out to show their rightful outrage the authorities turned water cannon upon them. Its madness and it won’t end well I’m afraid.

  4. First class performance by Ms.Le Pen. I wish to God that we in Britain had someone of her calibre in government but our Cameron and May et al are mere weasels when compared with her.

    Ps : who on earth was the silly cow of an interrogator ? The only things missing were the strong light in the eyes and the rubber truncheon.

    She should go to Sweden and interview a few “Swedes”.

  5. “I call a cat a cat” I think this was an unfair attack on the interviewer. Ha! The good aspect of this interview is that the interviewer represents many of the half baked views and Ms.Le Pen, demolished them so cleanly and clearly.
    The interviewer was obviously reading from a script and had someone talking to her in the ear piece. She had no knowledge of the issues ( that is not part of her job) and therefore had no way to really reply. She just has to look interested, nod, tilt her head, look amazed, grimace.. She is a female version of Max Headroom on the old software. The new upgraded software will replace her completely. I bet she goes to all the charity functions, does the occasional MC job, cares deeply about the unfortunate. She has had a major crisis in her life that has taught her a lot.
    Wait till she meets the real Islam.

  6. Perhaps now our American friends will have a better understanding of what we here in Canada are up against. This witch of an interviewer is absolutely typical of the state broadcaster CBC, pretty much throughout the country, not just in Quebec.

    This brainwashed stooge must be angling for an appointment to one of those kangaroo-court Human Rights Commissions Canada is so fond of … the same ones that hauled Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant in front of them, for expressing politically incorrect thoughts.

    Who could fault her? After all, this is the country that elevated not just one but two radical feminist CBC talking heads to the top position in the country : Governor General (Adrienne Clarkson, Michaëlle Jean). Unbelievable! Canada (under Liberals, at least) is a joke.

    ‘State broadcaster’ is the correct term … not ‘public’ broadcaster. But in Canada it would be better to call the CBC the ‘house’ broadcaster of the Liberal and NDP parties. There isn’t a chance in hell Justin Trudeau would have been elected had not the CBC spent the entire term of Stephen Harper’s Prime Ministership hammering the Conservatives.

    CBC is politically correct to a fault. For eons they have been getting about a billion a year subsidy from the government – taxpayers’ dollars. Generally, they have had only one program in the Top 30 in Canada … Hockey Night in Canada ! (And now, thank God, they have lost that contract.)

    [In any media market in Canada where the consumer has choices, none of them choose CBC. In the Far North the market is captive … just the way CBC likes it.]

    Imagine PBS in the U.S.A. getting 10 billion a year of taxpayer money! [ U.S. being ten times Canada’s population. ] But the CBC makes PBS look like hard-core right-wingers.

    Many Canadians have lobbied for de-funding of the CBC. Some say it should be privatized. I don’t think so. Most of the personnel would simply wheedle their way into new positions with private broadcasters. I think the only solution is to raze all the CBC buildings in the country, with the staff inside and at their desks, and then, following the ancients Romans, SALT THE EARTH on which those buildings stood, so they can never rise again.

    And then, using fire hoses, spray the ground with holy water, and plant garlic!

  7. She’s very good, very sharp “Show me an insult” and interviewers are advised be very well prepared before debating her. She made a very important point that the Left while claiming to be democratic are the first to shut down opinions that differ with them, which of course is anti democratic. The interviewer couldn’t see it.

  8. Whew! Ms. La Pen made mincemeat of the interviewer. But the sad thing is that the interviewer never seemed to appreciate any of Ms. La Pens points. She seemed to want to “get her” from the start. Which is to say that she was well prepared for her hatchet job. The only problem for her was that Marine La Pen knows her stuff and presents it so well. She is one articulate person.

    In the “old days” liberal in my mind always stood for having an open mind. Now it means having a set leftist set of values. So today a “liberal” is really a closed minded person who eschew values without facts, only fantasy. They don’t seem to understand that when the Koran says words to the effect to not take Christians and Jews as your friends, it means just that. When it says there is a Jew hiding behind a tree it is the duty of a Muslim to kill him it means that. That “people of the book”, i.e. Jews and Christians have to pay a special tax to live “peacefully” as second class citizens it means just that. And I presume people who aren’t even people of the book, if I can put it in those and even these terms, are even lower in rank than Christians and Jews. That’s why the Iranians persecute and kill the Bahais, and those Isis bums kill the Azidis.

    Since most westerners have grown up with the concept of religion meaning to do good by others it strikes me that a “religion” that comes along to our shores that has as a vision to either change all the other religions to it first peacefully and if peaceful doesn’t work, or else, it is not a religion of peace but a bullying religion.

    Is a bullying religion, really a religion? I have heard that Hitler said that if he had to choose a religion he would have chosen Islam. It that is true and I hope someone can confirm or deny this, then shouldn’t that give pause to anyone contemplating what that means? Why would a madman who killed millions have admiration for such a religion? What does the modern day liberal think of that I wonder. Or is such a contemplation simply another item to let fly over a liberals head?

    Now you are born into whatever you are born in. I have heard it said that a large percent of Muslims in the U.S. for instance haven’t read the Koran and care little about it. I believe that. But I also believe that at least 90% are anti Israel without knowing a historical fact about the region and the role of the Arab Muslim colonists. I can also say without any hesitation that at least half the Jews in America and even among those who support Israel feel for the fate of the Palestinians (the so called Palestinians is more like it) wish them well and wish them to get on with their lives without a desire to follow the prescription to kill Jews as put forth in the Koran.

    I seem to have veered off from my main point, cheers to Ms. La Pen and may her common sense reach those who never heard her arguments and at least greeted them with an open mind.

    Mike from Brooklyn

  9. Classic example of a left wing media whore abjectly failing in her intent to belittle and demean a free thinking, intelligent, literate political giant.
    Sanctimonious questioning throughout the interview without one hint of balance, hope she was demoted if not fired by her channel after such a debacle. Vive Madam Le Pen – she is absolutely correct, all the left wing luvvies and “No Borders” cretins keep on and on about is the poor migrants and the islamaphobia they are suffering. What about the lives of the Greek Islanders whose livelihoods have been utterly destroyed? The Swedish woman who have been told it is no longer safe to go out at night?
    The European women whose lives have been devastated by rape and sexual assaults? The muggings, the shop lifting, the “no go” areas, you could go on for ever! One classic example to close with – the inane and grinning protesters hanging onto the anchor chain to prevent the ferry from returning illegal immigration grants to Turkey. Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if the skipper had announced “third blast of my horn I will be raising anchor, I cannot sail astern, suggest you get out of the water NOW!” Until these stupid people actually suffer some consequences they will just keep on with their wearisome, trite, hackneyed actions because they do not appear to have anything more constructive to do.

    • Mme. LePen should whip out an 8X10 glossy photograph of a mass of invaders on the country roads of Europe and ask if this is evidence of a sound approach to immigration.

      Better yet would be a video of the cavorting, grinning African gentleman miming for the camera and saying, “Give me the money.” Or words to that effect.

    • I’m relatively certain she will not be fired. She’s was doing what she was hired to do which was to criticize, insult and attempt to marginalize La Pen. That’s what the MC/PC crowd does.

      This media whore did not even attempt to engage La Pen in a dialogue–that was not what this exercise was about.

  10. This is a fascinating and eye-opening exchange. Net result: my opinion of the CBC has dropped even lower than it was before; my opinion of Marine Le Pen has gone up significantly.

    The interviewer’s face speaks volumes: pinched, exasperated, sneering, barely able to contain her condescension and distaste for Mme Le Pen. One of the best parts is when Mme Le Pen asks her if she is a militant or a journalist, and if she is the latter she’d better stick to the facts. Regardless, the interviewer could not give any examples of the “insults” which she claimed Mme Le Pen had aimed at Canadians.

    There was not a whisper of balance in this interview but Mme Le Pen handled it all magnificently.

  11. Mme Le Pen shows the way. This is the best example I’ve seen of an interviewee turning the tables on the interviewer. She was wonderfully combative. Interviewers need to be made to define their terms – every accusation of racism must be countered with a request for a definition. Otherwise one ends up dancing to the interviewer’s tune.

  12. Typical lefty CBC employee got a good smackdown. The CBC gets over $1 billion a year. A tv network with around 6% viewership and very far left radio hosts across the country. All the CBC seems to gab about if “Global warming”, homosexuals, and feminism. They of course very rarely offer counterpoints and the salaries of their employees is private for some reason.

    BTW, In Canada, the so-called wealthy provinces must send money to the poorer provinces. They are called equalisation payments. Quebec got $10 billion, even though it has vast natural resources, the St. Lawrence seaway, and vast hydro. It was probably introduced to appease Quebec, but you know how that always ends.

  13. Perfect example of how PC/MC should be tackled. It must be countered head on, aggressively. As Le Pen said, ridicule the pathetic use of labelling and call it out for what it is: an excuse not to debate, but an attempt to browbeat, and if anything – a demonstration they are not confident with their arguments at all. If you are in command of the facts and hold your nerve, it drives the left mad. In real life they descend into victim hood mode or violence and it gets messy, but the interviewer (presstitute) did not have that option.

    My blog

Comments are closed.