Transcription
Madame Le Pen, good evening, welcome to 24h60. Good evening. This televised interview, Madame Le Pen, since your arrival, you have raised certain controversies, stirred up certain controversies. I am going to play for you what happened on our airwaves at Radio Canada last night during the cinema gala. Listen carefully.
Today, I was very shocked. There is someone visiting Quebec, who comes from old France, who is walking around here and there, saying things that do not correspond to a certain reality. Notably, she criticizes the government of Canada and Quebec for having opened the doors to Syrian refugees. And the worst is that she says that she criticizes this government to defend Quebec culture. I could not not talk to you about this today because Quebec culture does not need this type of defense. We can do it ourselves. And Madame Le Pen, this gentleman is a filmmaker, our great filmmaker of Chilean origin. He was in Salvador Allende's entourage in the early 70s, before Canada became his host country. Basically, he is telling you to mind your own business, that you have come to give lessons to Canadians, and you are making them say, "We don't need your lessons."
First of all, first of all, this gentleman has probably not listened to what I said. But that is quite traditional. It is a common fact that actors, filmmakers, singers get involved in politics. But what this gentleman forgets, yes, of course, they have the right to do so. But what this gentleman forgets is that there is a concept to which I believe, to which we are all attached, called democracy. And democracy also consists of listening to those who disagree with you. Imagine that! It's a wonderful concept, provided it is respected. For my part, it absolutely does not bother me that everyone can have positions that diverge from mine. But I find it a bit surprising that certain subjects are forbidden, or that the prohibition of these subjects leads to a form of hysteria in return. I am surprised by this, why? Because I think that in a mature democracy, everyone can debate, agree or disagree.
So, are we immature? Are we in an immature democracy? You, who say, for example, that having 25,000 Syrian refugees is madness, is that a political idea? Yes, it is my political conviction. So you have been able to say everything you wanted to say since you've been here, and people are responding to you. And perhaps they don't know, it's not what poses a problem. What poses a problem for me is that I have the impression that I come, I say, "I am against immigration." Do we have the right to say that, or do we not have the right? Because if we don't have the right, we should be told immediately. We should be told, "If you say you are against immigration, you will be insulted, called a racist, a xenophobe, insular, a fascist, I don't know what." We should be told. Do we have the right to say, "I am against communitarianism, I think it's a bad model"? Do we have the right to say it, or do we get insulted in return? That's the real question. Do we have the right to express our ideas, or do we have the right to express only the ideas that are authorized by a certain oligarchy, by a certain caste, by political correctness? Because if that's the case, then believe me, those who try to prevent me from chatting will be disappointed.
You perhaps feed on this victimhood. You invoke democracy, you arrive here, you have insults on the tip of your tongue at every moment. Whom have I insulted, Madame? I have been insulted. The oligarchy. But I will play for you an excerpt. You mentioned that our political class was a world of teddy bears. You just told me that you triggered hysteria. You say... Yes. So, Madame, yes, I say that a certain number of governments are naive about immigration issues. That's what I call the world of teddy bears. I have known more serious insults than that, anyway. Well, it's not an insult. The world of teddy bears is the concept that consists of believing that everything is fine, that everything is wonderful, that there will never be any problems, whereas I say that there are problems, that these problems can worsen. Yes, but that the same causes lead to the same effects. That's called popular wisdom.
You are wise when you know that? Well, because I see clearly what has happened, notably in Quebec. What has happened. I see clearly the drift of communitarianism, which creates, like everywhere else, because there is no exception, like everywhere else, increasingly important politico-religious demands with which a part of Quebecers, with whom a part of Quebecers disagree. So, I am presenting my political ideas, Madame. I am elected, and I am the head of the leading party in France. So... Yes, but you are not president yet. So, how would you like me to be forbidden to speak, Madame? Because if the only ones who can speak are presidents, then indeed, it's tedious. So, as you invoke democracy, debate, allow me to ask you questions. But please, since you've been talking, these are not so much questions, it's more of a prosecution.
Okay. So, so you have, I quote you, so the 25,000, it's immigration, it's madness. Our political class is a victim of intellectual terrorism. Did you come on a presidential election campaign to lecture Canadians and Quebecers who have elected governments? But Madame, I am not lecturing anyone. What you are doing, I note that I arrived, I did not ask to have political officials. This was neither the purpose of my trip nor, in this case, my objective. The entire political class spoke out to say, "We will never meet her, we don't want to talk to her, etc." People sought to see me, appointments were made at their request, and they canceled these appointments. If that is not intellectual terrorism, if they were not afraid of something, how is it that people demand to see me and that, from the moment there is media agitation, they give up seeing me because they are afraid? Is that it? That's the question I'm asking. I am confronted with events, I analyze them, Madame. It's as simple as that. I am not lecturing anyone at all.
To understand your discourse, when you arrive here, you say that it is a mistake to welcome 25,000 refugees, whereas this government was elected democratically by making this promise. Canada is a land, and Quebec are lands of welcome for decades, and they are well... Madame, I have trouble believing that you do not know what democracy is. Democracy does not consist of remaining silent in the face of those who have been elected, because democracy only works, Madame, if there are elected people and people who are in the opposition, possibly. We have subjects on which, with the socialists of all countries, we have disagreements. With my French socialists, we have strong disagreements. With the socialists within the European Parliament of all the countries of the European Union, well, we have disagreements. Do I have the right to express them or not? So, I express them. I say, "I think the immigration policy implemented by Mr. Trudeau is madness." Do I have the right to say it? If I don't have the right, then they should ban me from entering the country.
But it's surprising that, since a certain number of leaders and ministers have just canceled all the appointments they had with the delegation of the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament. Let's show some, allow me at least, some courtesy in our discourse towards elected officials who come from all the countries of Europe to discuss with political leaders the agreement between Canada and the European Union, and many other subjects. Isn't there a problem there? Finally, is there not a concern? Do you find that normal? Do you find that normal behavior? I do not find it so. Would you be unapproachable because you arrive and people see in your speeches that you express insults, injuries, and lectures, reprimands, quite freely? Madame, give me a single insult. You are a journalist, Madame, you are not an activist, you are a journalist. Therefore, you are obliged to provide a factual analysis of things. Show me an insult.
Then I will... They are all wrong, these people. No. Show me, Madame. You said insult and injury. Show me an insult. I am not answering your questions, Madame. It is I who am asking the questions. Ah, ah. Well, Madame Prosecutor. So, if it is you who are asking the questions, then indeed, in these terms... Madame, I have insulted no one. I have injured no one. I say what I think, and I say it with frankness. And I believe that many Quebecers appreciate frankness, if I am to believe the flood of messages, Madame, that I have received from Quebecers on my Facebook account, and who tell me, "Madame Le Pen, we are happy to hear you talk about this because there are a certain number of taboo subjects in Quebec, and we are happy to see that your presence is sparking debate on subjects that we believe should be discussed within the framework of politics." Facebook.
So, Facebook is a more democratic space, in fact, than the words of our elected officials. I will play for you the words of our elected officials. I will play for you our Prime Minister of Quebec, Mr. Couillard. And I will also quote you a text from Mr. Péladeau of the Parti Québécois, who believes, in any case, that his party has nothing to do with your values, your doctrine, it does not correspond. So, I have heard Mr. Péladeau. I have heard what he had to say. I am surprised by it, moreover, because there are at least two subjects that I see immediately on which we could at least have a debate, moreover with the Parti Québécois: sovereignty and the defense of the Francophonie. But Mr. Péladeau does not seem to see any similarities with your program at all. I will give you... I wanted to play Mr. Couillard for you. And Mr. Couillard is the one who went to Saudi Arabia not very long ago and came back having become a friend of communitarianism, whereas he was its adversary. Is it him? No. Okay. I spoke about it very briefly.
Listen, Madame Le Pen holds no position in the French government. She is visiting. That's all I have to say about her. I certainly do not intend to start a debate with Madame Le Pen. And Mr. Péladeau, can we play your response to the students who demonstrated when you... Go to bed, kids. You find, Madame, that what you are saying is unbelievable. We will hear them. Yes, yes, we will hear them. It's a great originality. The Front National Quebec. The Front National. You sing out of tune. We don't care about you. You speak falsely, Madame. Well, go to bed, kids, go to bed now. Madame, I... There is still a huge problem. These young far-left militants infiltrated a press conference I organized by force. They came to insult me, call me a fascist, a Nazi, tell me that they didn't care about me. And what would you have liked me to do? Offer them lunch? Thank them, perhaps, for coming to disrupt a press conference by committing violence? Is that what I should have done? No, but Madame, is that what I should have done? Yes or no? It's still a rather peculiar vision, excuse me, but I don't disrupt anyone's meetings. I don't barge into press conferences to insult people. But you seem to have a lot of complacency towards these young far-left people.
So, you have also undertaken to give the Front National a sort of what the French, or several French commentators, call the "de-demonization" of your party. Taking distance from your father, Jean-Marie Le Pen. Does his exclusion from the party have anything to do with your desire to reshape the party's image? No, Madame. I... Excuse me, but I am a political leader. It would be good if we talked about politics, because since the beginning of this show, I have the impression of attending a trial where you would have the place... We can question your style, your attitude. The place of prosecutor. No, since, since the beginning of this show, you are not questioning me to know what I think. So, you are leading, you are leading a real, a true trial session. I do not intend to submit to your trial, Madame. So, either you question me about my political ideas, and I will answer you with great pleasure and with a smile, because that is my habit. So, you are not answering the questions? It is to answer, if you want, to a series of... an indictment. There is no accusation that I find, moreover, profoundly unjust. Well, I will not submit to it, Madame.
But then, it's not at all... Listen, I am making public statements. Or listen, your own niece, Marion, said that the Front National owes its success in the last elections, her father, in fact, said that it is thanks to your father that this discourse, in fact, gives great success to the Front National. And do you believe that it is this, this vein, in fact, that is the foundation of your policy, that will allow you to continue to advance? No, no, Madame. In the 70s, the big French employers called for immigration to drive down wages. They were looking for cheap labor. Well, they organized immigration, and after this work immigration, they implemented family reunification. This led to the transformation of this work immigration into settlement immigration. Since then, France has welcomed millions of immigrants to its territory. The misfortune is that today we have 7 million unemployed, 9 million poor. We absolutely no longer have the means to welcome anyone. Yet, the French social protection system means that when someone arrives on national territory, they are taken care of, they are treated for free, their children are educated, well, for free. Someone pays, of course, it's the French compatriots. They are housed in social housing. And therefore, it is, I believe, common sense to say, we can no longer pursue this policy, it is ruining us, because we cannot indefinitely attract people who do not have jobs, who will not find them, since we are victims of mass unemployment. I do not see, once again, what could be racist in this political proposal.
Does it not feed... What does that mean? You seem to be reciting a series of words without even trying to see if they correspond to the slightest reality. What does it mean, immigrants who are in your country, who would not find jobs, who could not find work for a year, for all sorts of economic reasons, would perhaps be encouraged to return to their country, to leave the country? But tell me, Madame, in the United States, if I go to the United States, I first need a card to have authorization to work. Upon expiration of this card, or if I do not find a job, do you believe that the Americans will cover my expenses? Surely not. And upon expiration of my card, I am sent back to my country. This is what most countries, very objectively, implement, which appears as a rational policy, a wise policy, a common-sense policy. I do not see why France could not implement it.
I will play for you an excerpt from our Canadian Minister of Immigration, Mr. McCallum. I think there is a good consensus in Canada, at least among the political class in Quebec and in Canada, in favor of these refugees. So, the fact that, according to what I have heard, politicians do not want to talk to her does not surprise me. So, he is our Minister of Immigration, yes, who defends... So, he is there to organize immigration, or is it not quite... It is not quite extraordinary that we have agreements. Therefore, well, on the matter of migrants, I said as clearly as possible, the Islamic State uses migrant flows to infiltrate a certain number of terrorists. That is a fact. It has caused dozens of deaths in France, since three of the Bataclan terrorists, three were precisely people who had infiltrated the migrant flows at the request of the Islamic State. There are surely others, moreover, who do it. So, I said that I considered that accepting these migrant flows was a great danger.
When you say that the 25,000 in Canada is madness, here the immigrants who were received here were selected in refugee camps. They had often been there for 2, 3, 4 years, even 5 years, and that perhaps it is the part of humanity of Canadians and Quebecers to want to receive them. No, but Madame, if the security conditions are absolutely... absolutely regulated, no problem. On the terrorist issue, you tell me there will be no difficulty. I hope so. I did not say that. Ah, well, you say it was done very well, there is total security, we know perfectly who they are. Either I hope so, I hope so for the security of Quebecers. Now, opening immigration flows, when one knows, as Madame Merkel also learned to her detriment, that when you welcome one person, ten others take the road to come join them, I believe we are creating migratory flows that we will not be able to manage. And the proof is that the European Union is incapable of managing them. That today, all countries are closing their borders one after another, even the most generous, even those who claimed to be very open to welcoming are now considering sending migrants back home and are closing their borders again, one after another. I say we must not be naive in this matter.
So, we are organizing immigration flows that we will probably not be able to manage in the future. That seems to me to be a harmful policy. I think we should have done the opposite, notably implementing the policy implemented by Australia, which also avoided a succession of deaths in the Mediterranean by drowning, since these poor people try to come, obviously, to the shores of the European Union, and a large part of them drown. I think that is the consequence of a devastating immigration policy led by the European Union, which I am fighting. Can it be that Canada's policy is not madness, if in Europe it poses a problem, then in Canada it is not madness? And we will talk about it again in 10 years, perhaps. Or maybe even sooner. Yes. But if you are President of France, will everything you propose be realized overnight? That is to say, against the euro, you are worried about the Schengen area, borders, obviously immigration. Is it... Madame, I am attached to sovereignty. I think a people is only happy when it is free. Today, France is not free. Therefore, if I am elected President of the Republic, I will turn to the European Union, asking it to return our sovereignty, and at least four pillars of our essential sovereignty: our territorial sovereignty, I want to know who enters and who stays on my territory, because I believe it is the right of the French people. Monetary sovereignty, of which, moreover, is part... the problems of the euro. Economic sovereignty, of which our banking sovereignty is part, and our legislative sovereignty. I want the laws voted at the request of the French people to have authority superior to European directives. That is what I would go and negotiate, exactly like in Great Britain. Either the European Union says yes, then we remain in the European Union. Or the European Union says, "That's out of the question," and at that point, I will propose to the French to leave the European Union by referendum. That is what I intend to do first, because if we do not regain our sovereignty, then we will not be able to implement any of the necessary policies.
Madame Le Pen, you have undertaken... I used a word that is especially used in France by journalists, commentators, observers when they talk about the Front National and say "de-demonization." It's about documentaries on this, to make the Front National a party like any other. And your slogan, I believe, is "France appeased," if I'm not mistaken. When I talk about this, well, "France appeased," and one can ask the question, in any case, I ask it to you: does one appease France by emphasizing fears that one can create in people regarding immigration, regarding terrorism, regarding the economic situation? Do you sincerely believe, sincerely believe, that it is I who create the fear of terrorism, Madame? Or is it the 130 deaths at the Bataclan, or is it the six attacks that have occurred in France in recent years? Do you sincerely believe that it is I who incite fear? No, Madame. I talk about real problems. I refuse to hide my eyes. I refuse to be in denial. I call a spade a spade. And because I analyze the problems, because I have the courage to look them in the face, I have the solutions to apply them. When I see that political leaders, whatever the country, and political leaders of my own country in particular, are incapable of saying that the perpetrators of the attacks are Islamist fundamentalists, they don't even dare to say the term. Do you believe that when one is incapable of putting a name to an evil, do you sincerely believe one is capable of solving it? I do not believe so. I believe that to be able to implement a solution, one must first be capable of making the correct diagnosis, and they are not capable of making the correct diagnosis. And as long as this is not done, then there will be no appeasement for my country. Then my country will live in fear of terrorism, and I do not wish that. So, yes, I want an appeased France. And for it to be appeased, we must solve economic problems, we must restore freedom to the French people, we must re-establish democracy, we must fight against massive immigration, we must fight against communitarianism, we must fight against Islamist terrorism, and so on and so forth. Canada also fights against Islamist terrorism. There is no denial of Islamist terrorism.
There remains one thing. I will play for you an advertisement that came out in France this weekend, which is an advertisement offered by the government. I will play it for you. Attention, its words and images may be shocking. And as usual, who is causing trouble? The Arabs. Anyway, that's how they are. They are all aggressive. Yes, it's in their nature. They make no effort to integrate. And anyway, they are not like us. But are you serious? Do you believe what you are saying? Racism starts with words, it ends with spitting, blows, blood. Let's all react, united against hate. I saw that the French government had produced two clips, one against racism and one against anti-Semitism. I note that there is none against anti-white racism and anti-French racism. Yet, alas, this is a type of offense that is multiplying today in France and which, again, seems to be of less importance in the eyes of the government. So, I fight against all racisms, Madame Le Pen. All racisms, without exception.
We have also talked a lot about what is happening in the United States. In any case, in Canada, we talk a lot about what is happening with Mr. Trump. What does Donald Trump represent for you? Well, he is like Mr. Sanders. They are two figures emerging from American political life because I think Americans have had enough of a political class that seems to systematically defend private interests rather than defending the general interest. And that the American people want free people, free political leaders, free from constraints, free from lobbies, free from favors owed. And whether it is Mr. Sanders for the Democrats or Mr. Trump for the Republicans, they represent this aspiration for politicians free from all these chains. But when Mr. Trump proposes to build walls, to exclude immigrants, do you feel that you have more affinities with him than with Mr. Sanders? I don't even ask myself that question. I don't ask myself that question because I believe it is up to the Americans, once again, to choose their leaders, just as it is up to the Quebecers. Mr. Trump says things that are partly true. There are a certain number of his other remarks to which I do not adhere. I do not insult him for that. I do not call him all sorts of names for that, because once again, I am respectful of democracy. I think insult is the opposite of democracy. So, we say that we disagree with someone, but we do not call them a racist, a xenophobe, a fascist, and so on, because that is easy. That is when you have no arguments, when you are incapable of having an argument on the substance, you use this litany, you take out the insult box, and you use... racist, xenophobe, and so on, and you think that by doing so you will discredit the opponent without needing to exchange ideas, to confront arguments. That is precisely, moreover, in broad terms, what you have been doing since the beginning of this show.
And what do you dislike in Mr. Trump's discourse? What do you disagree with? Well, I disagree, for example, with the way he differentiates people based on religion. I don't do that. But there it is, he does it. The voters judge. But I am not on the same line as him in that regard. That's an example. And you know, in France, we watch American politics less than you do. They are our neighbors, but still, it is Mr. Trump, he raises... It's a phenomenon. It's a big phenomenon. Mr. Trump is a political phenomenon. Because I believe he breaks with the traditional political class. Precisely. Madame Le Pen, thank you. Thank you to you. Thank you.