Furore in France over ad featuring Eiffel Tower in hijab
A new promotional video by a Dutch modest clothing brand featuring the Eiffel Tower draped in an Islamic headscarf has sparked a barrage of anti-Muslim criticism and commentary in France this week.
The realistic animation by Merrachi, which caters primarily to Muslim consumers, was published on TikTok this week with the text: "The French government hates to see Merrachi coming," hinting at its imminent launch in the country with a tongue-in-cheek reference to France's restrictions on Islamic dress.
The video was slammed by far-right politicians, commentators and social media users as a deliberately "provocative" ad that served to "attack" a French symbol.
"Unacceptable! The Eiffel Tower, symbol of France, has been hijacked by the Merrachi brand, which covers it with an Islamic veil in a provocative advertisement," wrote Lisette Pollet, an MP with the far-right National Rally, adding that the ad was an offence to French "republican values and heritage".
"This is a terrifying political project, an unacceptable provocation!" posted Jerome Buisson, another representative from National Rally.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Philippe Murer, a French economist and co-founder of the Citizen Political Movement, called for a ban on Merrachi stores and to cut off access to their website in France.
this is not just an ad campaign from Merrachi , this is a clear intention of a take over of Europe.
They are covering Eiffel Tower of Paris in Hijab, this may look like a creative advertorial, but understand the meaning behind it, its a clear warning of take over and we are just… pic.twitter.com/IwqFPRKfYr — Make Europe Great Again - M.E.G.A (@Woketard82) March 12, 2025
Others said the ad was a sign of the impending "Islamist takeover" of France, and some called for a ban on "Muslim immigration".
"For fear of appearing intolerant, we tolerate the intolerable... And meanwhile, little by little the bird builds its nest..." one user said.
🚨 La marque Merrachi a publié hier une vidéo montrant la Tour Eiffel en train de se faire couvrir par un voile islamique ☪️. Les commentaires de nombreux utilisateurs musulmans ont salué cette initiative qui s'attaque au plus grand symbole français.https://t.co/QhiiKREi2X pic.twitter.com/zw0jM4e0io — Lino Bauer (@LinoBauer3) March 11, 2025
Translation: Yesterday, the Merrachi brand published a video showing the Eiffel Tower being covered by an Islamic veil. Comments from many Muslim users praised this initiative, which attacks France's greatest symbol.
Another said that the ad posed an existential threat to the country.
"How can this MERRACHI brand advertisement be allowed? For those looking for an existential threat to France, here is one! Stop political Islam!" the person said.
Some social media users, however, welcomed the ad, praising it as a "creative" and "brilliant" marketing approach that they said would draw attention in France and challenge the country's policies on Muslim women's religious practice.
The Eiffel Tower in a hijab? Merrachi really said 'We're not just shifting boundaries — we're wrapping landmarks.' Bold move. — TacticalEdge (@EdgeE50124) March 12, 2025
A person on Instagram wrote, "'The Islamization of France' 🤣😭. Honestly hats off the marketing idea is really great".
"Bold move! Merrachi challenges fashion norms with creative marketing," one social media user wrote.
Others echoed the playful tone of the ad with comments "celebrating" the iconic monument's "conversion" to Islam with comments like: "Beautiful hijab sister Eiffel" and "welcome to Islam sister Eiffel".
Islam in France
The advert's caption, "Do you remember when they banned the hijab?" has also sparked discussions regarding France's policies on Islamic attire.
Some users argued that the caption was misleading because the hijab was not entirely banned in the country despite state restrictions.
In 2004, the French government banned 'conspicuous' religious symbols in state schools and hospitals, which was widely believed to target Muslim girls and women wearing the hijab.
This was followed by a 2010 law prohibiting full-face veils (niqab) in public spaces.
More recently, in 2023, the government banned abayas - full-length, loose dresses that are worn by some Muslim women and girls - in schools.
In 2024, French athletes wearing the hijab were banned from competing in the Summer Olympics hosted in Paris, which UN experts and rights organisations slammed as a discriminatory policy.
The French interpretation of secularism, known as laicite, is defined as the separation between the state and religious institutions. In practice, however, academics, rights advocates and commentators argue that it has become an ideological weapon wielded against Muslims in the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
War on Gaza: The world is turning, but Israel has yet to reckon with its crimes
As the father of a four-year-old daughter and a newborn baby, as I watch the international response to the genocide in Gaza, I cannot help but wonder: at what age will my children cease to be considered children, and their lives be deemed less important? The world is shocked at the number of children being killed and starved in Gaza, but there remains no substantive critique of what Israel has done over these past 19 months to all Palestinians in Gaza. The threshold of demands has been lowered to merely alleviating the humanitarian crisis. Israel has succeeded in destroying Gaza's infrastructure, healthcare system, municipalities, education networks, families, mosques and churches - in short, every framework that organised human life. But now, having exhausted its 'target bank' and with nothing left to bomb, Israel is striking refugee tent camps and burning people alive. Such cruelty, along with the passage of time and mounting international pressure, have led to a turning point, both globally and within Israeli society. Despite the support provided to Israel by two successive US presidents and the consensus among Democrats and Republicans alike to give Israel a free hand, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has failed to defeat Hamas or secure the release of the remaining hostages. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Across the spectrum, Israel's political establishment adopted a revenge narrative from day one, priming the Israeli public to be complicit in its forthcoming crimes. Israel's failure was not its inability to free the hostages or disarm Hamas. As early as November 2023, Israel could have reached a deal to free all the hostages, while various proposals have been advanced to settle the conflict, including bringing in other entities, such as the Palestinian Authority, to govern Gaza. But Israel's real objective is clear: to empty Gaza of its population. As Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich's recent statements candidly reveal, the true aim of the war is to conquer Gaza, expel its Palestinian residents, and occupy the territory. This was the original intention all along. Strategic failures This has resulted in two strategic failures for Israel. Firstly, it has failed to compel Egypt and Jordan to participate in this scheme and accept Palestinian refugees. Israel's second failure is moral. The government and Israeli society itself have normalised a narrative of genocide and ethnic cleansing, defending this stance with euphemisms like 'voluntary migration' and 'encouraging relocation'. Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war Now, with the intensification of international criticism, cracks have begun to appear in the Israeli consensus. The insistence of thousands of activists and media figures worldwide - Palestinian and non-Palestinian alike - to continue speaking out on Gaza has generated sufficient pressure to make an impact. This initially affected Israeli tourists, who discovered that most people around the world view genocide as an unforgivable atrocity, prompting Israel's foreign ministry to remind Israelis to suppress national symbols abroad, fuelling a silent boycott of Israeli academics and cultural figures. The West will scavenge for Israeli movements and leaders who speak out against the war, without offering a genuine moral alternative We are now seeing a shift in the tone of western foreign policies - late, but significant. The US administration's decision to hold direct negotiations with Hamas to secure the release of dual citizen Edan Alexander reinforced the feeling among Israelis that their government is not genuinely interested in advancing a hostage deal. Conversely, the US has grown weary of Israel, as evidenced by President Donald Trump's Middle East tour skipping over Israel. The shift in Israel's global standing was further evidenced by a recent Financial Times editorial titled 'The West's shameful silence on Gaza', as European threats to suspend trade agreements have begun to bite. French President Emmanual Macron has shifted his tone toward overt criticism, saying this week that European nations must 'harden the collective position' against Israel over Gaza's worsening humanitarian crisis. Even Germany's new chancellor said Berlin would not export weapons used to break humanitarian law, in a break from 19 months of loyal support for Israel's war. Within Israel itself, one of the most striking signs of fracture came in a recent statement from Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats party, who declared: 'A sane country does not fight against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not give itself the aim of expelling populations.' Golan, a former deputy military chief of staff, was disciplined two decades ago for employing the banned 'neighbour procedure' in field operations, a method in which civilians are used to persuade their neighbours to surrender to the army. The path forward This context suggests that Golan is no ethical pacifist. Rather, like many former Israeli generals, he realises that Israel is on its way to becoming a pariah state, incapable of surviving in the Middle East without western support. Indeed, many Israelis who were once fervent supporters of the war now frame the Gaza genocide as a political gambit for Netanyahu's survival. Yet this was a war many in Israeli society wanted and supported, including Golan himself. Today, public discourse in Israel oscillates between those who wish to continue the genocide, and those who are worried about the repercussions. This fracture is a byproduct of Israel's failure to ethnically cleanse Gaza, and the fact that it will have to face armed resistance for many years to come. Why the wall of silence on the Gaza genocide is finally starting to crack Read More » Amid this backdrop, Netanyahu's far-right coalition partners speak of returning settlements to Gaza, a move that would place Israel squarely on the blacklist of pariah states. Sadly, neither Golan nor others in Israel's political and civil spheres - not even those who oppose the war - are prepared to admit that the state has carried out a genocide. But still, the public backlash against Golan's remarks took its toll: days later, in a televised interview, he declared that Israel 'has not committed war crimes in Gaza'. During a visit to the southern city of Beersheba on Tuesday, angry Zionist crowds heckled and booed Golan, who - despite retracting his earlier statements - is now being portrayed around the world as a supposed alternative to Netanyahu, even though he offers no real alternative. Regrettably, this is likely to be the future: the West will scavenge for Israeli movements and leaders who speak out against the war, without offering a genuine moral alternative. Similar to the periods after the First and Second Intifadas, millions of dollars will flow into Israel's 'peace industry', which will talk about Arabs and Jews living together, without confronting the essential political questions that brought us to this reality. In the meantime, we must support every statement and initiative that contributes to ending the war - because what matters now is Gaza, and not only the children of Gaza, but also the youths, the women, the men and the elderly. To prevent further disaster, we must demand more from Israelis, including a real acknowledgment of their actions over the past 600 days. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Raid on Asa Winstanley's home deemed unlawful by UK court
A raid on the house of British pro-Palestine journalist Asa Winstanley has been ruled unlawful by a British court. The Central Criminal Court ruled earlier this week that the Metropolitan Police needed to immediately return all devices seized during the October 2024 raid on the writer's home, which included computers and phones. Solicitor Tayab Ali called the ruling a victory for press freedom and accused the police of 'silencing a journalist who had made comments on the situation in Gaza". "This ruling is a resounding victory for press freedom and the rule of law," he said, according to Solicitors Journal. "The actions of the police, raiding a journalist's home under the guise of counter-terrorism, were not only unlawful but a grave threat to the democratic principle that journalists must be able to work without fear of state harassment.' New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Recorder of London Mark Lucraft KC, the senior circuit judge at the Central Criminal Court, stated he was 'very troubled by the way in which the search warrant application was drafted, approved and granted where items were to be seized from a journalist.' Winstanley, who has written for the Electronic Intifada since 2009 and has been its associate editor since 2012, regularly uses social media to comment on issues relating to Palestine and Israel, including the ongoing war in Gaza. 'This ruling is a resounding victory for press freedom and the rule of law' Tayab Ali, solicitor Winstanley contributed a number of articles to Middle East Eye between 2015 and 2018. He is the author of Weaponising Anti-Semitism, which accused the pro-Israel lobby in the UK of orchestrating a campaign to undermine former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Last year, the general secretaries of the UK's National Union of Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists wrote to Metropolitan Police Assistance Commissioner Matt Jukes, the head of Counter Terrorism Policing in the UK, to raise concerns about the use of counter-terrorism powers against journalists. The letter came after freelance journalist Richard Medhurst was detained and questioned by police at Heathrow Airport. Medhurst said he believed he was targeted for speaking out on the situation in Palestine.
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Why I support the UK taking a more nuanced position on Hamas
The reputation of Hamas sank to its lowest point after its attack on 7 October 2023, in which 1,200 Israelis and foreigners were killed and 251 taken hostage. In Israel, this attack provoked a tsunami of anger, strident calls for revenge, demands for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, and a national consensus in support of the total eradication of Hamas. The result has been the longest, deadliest and most ruinous war in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Hamas is a social movement and political organisation with a military wing, al-Qassam Brigades. The military wing was proscribed by the British government as a terrorist organisation in March 2001, and in November 2021, former Home Secretary Priti Patel added the political organisation to the list of proscribed groups. This decision marked an abrupt reversal of the government's previous policy, which made a clear distinction between Hamas's political and military wings. Patel, a staunch supporter of Israel, argued, unconvincingly in my opinion, that the distinction between the two wings was no longer tenable. For its part, Israel has always denied that there is any difference between the two wings. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters In August 2017, as secretary of state for international development, Patel went on a trip to Israel accompanied by Lord Polak, honorary president of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and a major fund-raiser for the Tory party. She had previously served as an officer for CFI's parliamentary group between 2011 and 2014. While pretending to be on a private holiday, Patel held 12 secret meetings with high-ranking Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Upon her return, she asked her officials to explore the possibility of diverting some of the foreign aid budget to enable the Israeli army to carry out humanitarian work in the occupied Golan Heights. She was subsequently forced to resign for concealing the nature and purpose of her trip to Israel. Baseless argument In 2019, then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson rehabilitated Patel by appointing her as home secretary. Johnson shared her Manichean view of the Middle East struggle, in which Israel represents the forces of light and Palestinians the forces of darkness. The change of policy towards Hamas was announced not by the foreign secretary, but by the home secretary. Patel said that designating the whole of Hamas as a terrorist organisation should be seen through a domestic prism: it would help to protect Jews in this country. This argument is baseless. Hamas does not carry out operations outside Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, it has no presence in Britain, and it poses no threat to British Jews in this country. Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war Hamas's 2017 'Document of General Principles and Policies' (unlike the 1988 Hamas Charter) explicitly distinguishes between Judaism as a religion and Zionism as a political project. It affirms that Hamas's conflict with Israel is due to occupation, not religion, and states that it would accept the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders without recognising Israel. Hamas has now instructed Riverway, a London law firm, to make an application to the home secretary to remove the government's designation of the movement as a proscribed terror group and recognise its legitimate role as a Palestinian resistance movement engaged in a struggle for self-determination and liberation. The application is made by Mousa Abu Marzouk, the former head of Hamas's political bureau. I am among 19 experts supporting this legal filing through reports on the history and context of Palestinian dispossession. My report describes the central role played by Britain in facilitating this dispossession, from the Balfour Declaration of 1917 up until the present. Why I wrote an expert report against the UK's classing Hamas as a terror group Read More » Western media outlets have relied heavily on the Israeli narrative of 7 October, including its countless false allegations and outright fabrications, such as the story of 40 decapitated babies, while under-reporting the Palestinian side of the story. One of Abu Marzouk's most significant correctives to the dominant narrative concerns the background to the Hamas-led 7 October attack. According to him, Hamas sought to achieve specific military objectives during the operation, with clear instructions not to target women, children and the elderly. Since deviations from these instructions admittedly occurred, Hamas is prepared to cooperate with the International Criminal Court and any other neutral third party in an independent and transparent investigation into the events of that day. This position stands in sharp contrast to Israel's denial of journalists' entry into Gaza, and its refusal to allow any independent investigation of the atrocities and war crimes committed by its forces. To explain Hamas's behaviour is not to justify it. Killing civilians is wrong, period. But here, as always, the context is all-important. The attack of 7 October did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred against the backdrop of decades of brutal and suffocating military occupation. Moreover, as a people living under unlawful military occupation, Palestinians have a right to resist, including the right to armed resistance. In effect, labelling Hamas's political leaders as terrorists pure and simple gives Israel a free pass to inflict death and destruction on Gaza without being held to account. The terrorist framing also stands in the way of a more balanced and nuanced understanding of the history, motives, policies and principles of Hamas. Crucial context The Hamas side of the story is hardly ever heard in the West, yet it makes a compelling reason for removing its political wing from the list of proscribed organisations. Here are some of the most relevant facts: in January 2006, Hamas won a clear victory in fair and free all-Palestine elections, and proceeded to form a government. Israel refused to recognise this government and resorted to a series of draconian measures to undermine it, supported by the United States and European Union. In March 2007, Hamas formed a unity government with its rival party Fatah, but Israel refused to negotiate with them. Instead, Israel and the US encouraged Fatah to stage a coup to drive Hamas out of power. Hamas pre-empted the Fatah coup by seizing power in Gaza, which led to Israel imposing a blockade on the enclave - a form of collective punishment proscribed by international law - which remained in force for 16 years before the Hamas attack on 7 October. The home secretary would do well to read the 700 pages of evidence that underpin this application for deproscription before making up her mind The distinction between the political and military wings of Hamas has always been crucial. Patel's decision to proscribe Hamas in its entirety was a politically motivated move that disregarded Hamas's democratic road to power and its growing political moderation once in power. Casting the whole of Hamas as a terrorist organisation also served to bolster Israel's hardline position, its refusal to negotiate, and its reliance on brute military force. Proscription by Britain and other western powers in effect endorsed Israel's refusal to put Hamas's willingness to compromise to the test. Israel's recurrent military offensives in Gaza since 2008 are chillingly described by its generals as 'mowing the lawn'. Under this grim rubric, the next war is always just around the corner. In the post-7-October military offensive, Israel has gone much, much further than ever before, committing the crime of crimes: genocide. As Abu Marzouk points out in his witness statement, Britain is not an innocent bystander in the genocide that is unfolding before our eyes in Gaza. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was made in Britain. Britain was the colonial power that enabled the Zionist settler-colonial movement to embark on the systematic takeover of Palestine. The war in Gaza is the latest and cruellest phase in this long-term colonial effort to displace, dispossess and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people. Hamas is a vital segment of Palestinian society and the vanguard of its resistance to Israel's illegal occupation. Deproscribing the political wing of Hamas would constitute a small step towards rectifying a monumental historical wrong. The home secretary would do well to read the 700 pages of evidence that underpin this application for deproscription before making up her mind. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. The purpose of this article is to set out the author's reasons for supporting Abu Marzouk's application. Nothing in this article should be understood as inviting or otherwise encouraging readers to support, or express support for, Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah (Hamas).
