Tariq Ramadan vs Jean Glavany [english subtitles] the French parliamentary commission


Uploaded by Indigenecom on 06.07.2010

Transcript:
0:08 President, I just wanted to let Mister Ramadan know in simple terms
0:12 that there are deputies and members of this parliamentary mission which refused to
hear you 0:19 and I wanted to explain in simple words
and as polite as possible why, 0:24 simply because the sum of your 'double
speaks' that Eric Raoult was kindly talking about a moment ago,
0:31 kinds of untruths, falsifications, and manipulation are such that your credibility
in France and Europe, I think, is seriously 0:36 in a constant slow down, and there are
less and less people to give you any intellectual credibility even if it's your only
0:45 talent, if there's one, is clearly wheedler of subjects that are effectively more fundamentalist
and unaccepetable. 0:55 A moment ago, we heard you talking about
secularism in terms far from the republican tradition, and above all, a total
1:06 absence of male-female equality, and women rights confirmed my judgement, and I
think that, I even said it here ahead 1:14 the mission, I also told the president
that welcoming you today is to give you a respectability and gallery that you don't
1:21 deserve, in my opinion. So I asked myself the question, why have some of us, by the
way I don't even know if we are 1:30 the majority in this mission, accepted
to hear you, maybe to allow in the name of the 'freedom of speech' and the
1:37 'tradition of pluralism' of this assembly national. I don't contest to say what you
think as well as what I say and think, and 1:45 I would like to say right now to those
who gave me this undreamed-of gallery, that I thank them warmly, even though
1:52 I think we could go without it. I have also heard that a such practise has incontrovertible
media-related values, 2:03 we just need to see the journalist helps
today. I find this insulting for the few journalists who follow our works
2:12 each weeks. Today we can see we are in the showbiz, not in a industrious work of
a parliamentary mission. 2:18 And I honestly say it - I regret it,
I regret it. 2:21 But I think I know why you are here,
you are a Swiss Preacher, so I asked myself why would a French parliamentary
2:29 listen to a Swiss Preacher, probably because we saw that the light comes from Switzerland,
from the judiracy condition 2:36 of a buyable filmaker that caused irrational
responses in France for instance the voting citizen on minarets,
2:44 here's a Swiss example, and his impacts. Anyways, I'm conviced that the French democracy
is well sick. 2:55 So to go fast Mister, I'm a little..
well not really.. surprised by your intervention, 3:05 but you determinate that I'm from Switzerland,
that the light comes from Switzerland, 3:11 I've been invited before Sunday's vote,
so the light came after it.. 3:15 If this is the light you are talking
about. 3:19 And when you say the 'falsifications'
of my quotes. 3:22 After all is said and done Mister, I
would like to know how many books and debates you have read and listened from me.
3:28 Mister, the person ahead of you isn't a Swiss Islamist Preacher.
3:34 He's Professor at Oxford University, whose his books are studied in 80 American
Universities. 3:39 Mister, 80 American Universities. BUT,
But Mister, since now 8 years ago has been forbidden to speak in any French University.
3:47 Ask yourself the question to know where is the freedom of speech instead of telling
me that I have a double speak, we should 3:54 better focus on France which is losing
its open values of critical debate, and the way you reacted to my intervention is not
4:01 at all a way to react to a critical debate, that's a judgement about the person, but certainly
not an intervention about ideas. 4:08 So dear Mister, I answer to your intervention
telling you that I truly hope that the light.. this last light will not come from
4:17 Switzerland, that we will wake up. Do you know what I hope for France? Because we
asked me one day if I liked France. 4:23 I like France's tradition as well as
its values when it is consistent with itself, but certainly not with a speech
4:30 that betrays its values in name of simplifications like the one I've just heard from you.
4:35 Your judgement about the person imposes on me the obligation not to even answer you,
4:39 because I consider what you said very insulting to me.
4:42 What a difference! 4:46 Your judgement about the person imposes
on me the obligation not to even answer you. 5:06 Your judgement about the person imposes
on me the obligation not to even answer you.