Louis Chagnon, professor of History at the George Pompidou College
THE COMPLICITY OF THE FRENCH STATE IN THE ISLAMIC EXPANSION
The incredible story of Louis Chagnon, professor of History at the George Pompidou College in Courbevoie, who for more than 5 years has been hounded by an Islamic cabal endorsed by the State education system for teaching real Islam.
I taught History and Geography at the Georges Pompidou College in Courbevoie in September 2003. On October 1 I left State education to join the Ministry of Defence at my request. A few days beforehand, I had given a lesson on the history of the Muslim world, in which I had revealed to my pupils that Mohammed had been a robber, who had plundered the Meccan caravans, and an assassin, who had cut the throats of 600 to 900 Jews in one day, referring to the massacre of the Jewish tribe of Qurayzah in 627. After leaving the State education sector, I learned that a collective of parents of pupils had been constituted against me to require my suspension from State education, because of my course on the Muslim world in a class in year 5. A petition had been presented to the Director of the college accusing me of anti-Muslim racism and for having said that “Mohammed will turn into a robber and assassin (…) he will impose his religion by terror, (…), he ordered the execution of 600 to 900 Jews per day”. Several articles had already been published on this story in the newspapers the Parisian one, Métro and on the Internet
In fact, the petition in question was signed by seven people of whom only two were parents of my pupils in year 5. Among the signatories was the leader of the Moslem collective, Kamel Zmit, a doctor anaesthetist, who was the father of a pupil in year 6, whom I had never taught, who signed petitions on ouma.com…
When I eventually gained access to the papers for the course, several months later, from the vice-chancellorship of Versailles, I saw that somebody had added by hand the words “per day” on the worksheet of the pupil whose relative had signed the petition, a falsification (confirmed later by a graphological and scientific analysis) designed to discredit me as a professor of history.
The State education system, far from lending me support, has pursued me and imposed Islamic censorship on the public school of the French Republic: On November 5, 2003, the vice-chancellorship of Versailles, under pressure from the collective of Muslim parents, ordered the removal of the pages concerning the course, which were thus torn out of books by the pupils themselves. My course, rigorously exact from the historical point of view, thus underwent a Muslim religious censorship and this censorship was carried out by the civil servants of the Republic! Lastly, on November 17, a letter from Daniel Bancel, vice-chancellor of the Academy of Versailles, a close associate of the socialist former minister Lionel Jospin, informed me that disciplinary proceedings were commencing against me, following a report submitted by a teaching Inspector who had never seen me nor spoken to me. The teaching inspector, Paul Stouder, in his report asserted that like all nomads, the Arab tribes practised raids and so one could not call this practice theft. Worse still, it affirmed that in Islam, the fight against the merchants of Mecca had been the first stage of the holy war, which made it legitimate. Thus, for this inspector, civil servant of the French State, the Muslim murders are legitimate when they are carried out within the framework of Jihad! It overlooked the massacre of the third Jewish tribe of Medina and also accused me of “anti-Muslim racism”.
I thus appeared in front of a disciplinary board and to my amazement the vice-chancellorship disputed the truncated sentence, falsified by a collective of Muslim activists, without bringing the original document which would have enabled me to highlight this swindle. I was indeed obliged to note that the vice-chancellorship was accessory to these individuals. I was blamed for “simplistic formulation” and “attitude of provocation or awkwardness”. Moreover, the disciplinary board did not uphold the charge of racism brought by the teaching inspector and recognized the historical veracity of the taught facts. The fact of affirming that somebody who cut the throat of several hundreds of Jews is an assassin is thus for the vice-chancellorship of Versailles, a “provocation or an awkwardness”. Even if this sanction is tiny, I never accepted it. In 2004 I thus set in motion a procedure with the Administrative Court to dispute the blame, but for all these years, the file has still not been reviewed. The administration of State education was not the only one to pursue me because the Muslim collective had also involved the MRAP and the League of Human Rights (LDH). This gave place to a media campaign which presented me as an “islamophobe”, an “anti-Muslim racist”. The complaint of the LDH was finally rejected by the Prosecutor Department of Nanterre and the MRAP, in front of the Magistrates’ court of Nanterre where it had succeeded in making me appear in March 2004, which finally gave up pursuing me by asserting that the blame of the disciplinary board had sanctioned me “with the height of the gravity of the facts”, insinuating that I had been sanctioned for “racism” by the disciplinary board and Kamel Zmit adding that the blame had been voted unanimously.
All this was perfectly false and I thus pursued for slander all those who had attacked me, namely Kamel Zmit, Jean-Claude Dulieu, the person in charge of the external communication of the MRAP and Mouloud Aounit, general secretary of the MRAP. The latter declared on January 13, 2005 on television that the offence of blasphemy was to be reintroduced into French Law! Any critical teaching of Islam would be thus legally prohibited and liable to criminal prosecutions.
At the beginning of 2005, slander was indeed recognized but the defendants, Mouloud Aounit, Jean-Claude Dulieu and Kamel Zmit were released “for the benefit of good faith” (whereas the Court had in its hands the graphological evidence on the falsified book of the pupil!) I was also to pay 500€ damages to Kamel Zmit under the pretext that he had been stigmatized in the press as an islamist, which is a legal aberration (the law does not authorize the payment of damages to the slanderer by the defamed). On appeal, in September 2005, the court did not want to uphold the slander but removed the damages which I owed to Kamel Zmit. In cassation, the judgement was confirmed and I was unable to have them condemned.
I also brought a case for forgery and use of forgery, on the basis of the falsified course sheet but the Court did not take action pursuant, saying that the investigation had not made it possible to know what had occurred.
Thus, in France, to describe as an assassin somebody who cuts the throats of 600 to 900 Jews is “racist” France became an officially anti-semitic State since a French civil servant can be sanctioned if he describes as an assassin somebody who cuts the throats of hundreds of Jews. To transmit historical truth on the Muslim world is impossible in France. There is a true collusion of interests between MRAP, the League of Human Rights, the politicians of all shades and the fundamentalist Muslims. The first see Islam as an anti-American political weapon which should be supported at all costs, the second sees Islam as a minority among other religions and for this reason, must be defended and even promoted at all cost, in the name of the right to be different and of multiculturalism. Moreover, the Muslims are seen as an important section of the electorate which should be cherished… As for the Muslims themselves, they infiltrate core associations and political parties whilst aiming at the control of whole sections of French society. My story proves that they are succeeding perfectly and I think that Freedom of Expression and of Thought is in very serious danger in France.
On 28 March 2008 the Paris Tribunal notified me that the verdict on my case of 2004 had been annulled (after 4 years wait). For the first time since the beginning of my story, justice had been done. The judgement indicated that guilt had not been proved and the State was required to pay me a sum of Euros 1000 to cover costs
Louis CHAGNON March 24,