Council of Ex-Muslims of France launches tomorrow

Le 1er juillet 1766, le jeune Chevalier de la Barre (1745 –1766) fut torturé et mis à mort, son corps ensuite brulé sur un bucher en compagnie du  Dictionnaire Philosophique de Voltaire: son seul crime fut d’avoir refusé de soulever son chapeau au passage d’une procession religieuse.

Aujourd’hui, d’innombrables Jean-François Lefevre de la Barre sont menacés, torturés, emprisonnés, mis à mort pour apostasie, blaspheme, hérésie et pour refus de se plier aux dictats islamistes.

En commémoration de l’assassinat de La Barre et en solidarité avec les nombreux hommes et femmes qui, comme lui, refusent et résistent aujourd’hui, nous annonçons le lancement d’une nouvelle organisation: le Conseil des ex-Musulmans de France, qui aura lieu le samedi 6 juillet 2013, de 14 à 17h à la Maison des Ensembles, 3-5 rue d’Aligre, Paris 75012. ( Salle au premier étage, à côté des locaux de Femmes Solidaires et de Clara Magazine).

Le bloggeur palestinien Waleed Al-Husseini, la cinéaste tunisienne Nadia El-Fani, la journaliste laïque Caroline Fourest, la sociologue algérienne Marieme Helie Lucas, la fondatrice du Conseil des ex-Musulmans de Grande Bretagne Maryam Namazie et beaucoup d’autres seront parmi les intervenants…

Le Conseil des ex-Musulmans de France se donne les objectifs suivants:

Nous réclamons les droits universels, l’égalité totale, et nous nous opposons à toute tolérance envers des croyances inhumaines, envers toute discrimination et tout mauvais traitement, infligés au nom du respect de la religion et de la culture.

2. La liberté de critiquer les religions. L’interdiction de toute restriction à la liberté inconditionnelle de critique et d’expression, sous couleur du caractère sacré  de la religion.

3. La liberté de religion et d’athéisme

4. La séparation de la religion d’avec l’Etat, le système éducatif, et le système légal.

5. L’interdiction des coutumes, règles, cérémonies ou activités religieuses qui sont incompatibles avec ou violents les droits et libertés des peuples

6. La prohibition de toute coutume culturelle ou  religieuse qui freine ou s’oppose à l’autonomie des femmes, à leur volonté et à l’égalité. La prohibition de la ségrégation des sexes.

7. La prohibition de toute interférence par quelque autorité, familiale ou parentale, ou par les autorités officielles dans la vie privée  des femmes et des hommes et dans leur relations personnelles émotionnelles et sexuelles, et leur sexualité.

8. La protection des enfants contre toute manipulation et abus  par la religion et les institutions religieuses

9. L’interdiction de toute forme de soutien financier, matériel ou moral accordé par l’Etat ou les institutions de l’Etat aux religions, aux activités religieuses et à leurs institutions.

10. L’interdiction de toute forme de menaces et d’intimidations religieuses.

Nous comptons sur votre présence et votre soutien,

Waleed Al-Husseini, bloggeur palestinien

Maryam Namazie, Conseil des ex-Musulmans de Grande Bretagne


  1. Pen says

    Interesting. It goes far beyond being a group for the support and defense of apostates as I had at first expected. It’s actually a manifesto for atheist activism that makes Dawkins look soft. I’m a bit amused that it starts by asserting freedom of religion in clause 3 but many of the subsequent clauses are a list of prohibitions to be placed on various practices within religion! Since it speaks in general terms it’s hard to tell if the boundaries on that are where I would put them. The rest is about separation of religion and state, they want a protection for blasphemy and a ban on hate speech. I suppose as is typical for a manifesto it uses a lot of big ideas. I can imagine the practical details would need a lot of working out.

  2. Pen says

    I should add that it obviously has international ambitions since I’m pretty sure clauses 4 and 9 about the separation of religion and state are already in place in France.

  3. Maureen Brian says


    All those prohibitions are on actions done in the name of religion to people who may have no choice, to people outside the religion and actions which do harm.

    Preventing harm in no way defeats freedom of religion or the concept of human rights. It even protects those within a religion who may have a slight difference of opinion about a particular edict, teaching or custom. The test is not whether something is prevented but whether it is prevented to lessen harm.

    All totally compatible with the UN stance on human rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, etc, and definitely not compatible with made-up-on-the-spot definitions of blasphemy which can get you killed and/or strange definitions of “honour’ ditto.

    Is that not what you would want to see? A shoulder to cry on, useful though that is, will not break the power of those who only have that power because they have long since induced fear of the wrath of god – which god? – into the population by use of religion.

  4. Pen says

    @ Maureen Brian – It was more a quick summary for the benefit of non-French speakers than a criticism. And partly an expression of surprise as to the character of the organisation, given that most of the harms it’s campaigning against are actually forbidden in France, whether they’re committed in the name of religion or otherwise. That’s why I assume they plan to campaign internationally.

    There’s one exception that stood out for me: ‘A prohibition on segregation of the sexes’. I think I know what kinds of segregation they’re getting at but there’s an irony in the fact that many of us don’t see the segregation of the sexes commonly practiced in western societies: bathrooms, changing rooms, sports teams from school to professional level. We think it’s common sense until it’s not there. In some European cultures some or all of those things are not gender segregated. Actually, I don’t mind at all if we do away with all of them, but I doubt it’s what the French Council of ex-Muslims have in mind.

    I do think the manifesto is a bit vague and over-broad. When you said:

    prohibitions are on actions done in the name of religion to people who may have no choice, to people outside the religion and actions which do harm.

    .. you were much more precise than the manifesto. You read what they meant as opposed to what they said. They said, for example:

    A prohibition on interference by any authority, such as the family, parents of official authorities in the private life of men and women and in the personal, emotional or sexual relations and their sexuality.

    They don’t mean it. Laws against rape and sexual assault, laws codifying marriage, gay or straight, even laws regulating what condition you can keep your garden in before the nuisance to your neighbours becomes too great, in fact a great many laws fall into this category. And most of them have nothing to do with religion. We probably share a sense of what they do mean but in situations of conflict, you should avoid relying on common sense, because a commonality of sense is exactly what you don’t have. So maybe they should have been a little bit more precise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>