Parti québécois on the wearing of religious symbols

Having lived in France for several years, I'm quite familiar with bans and proposed bans on the wearing of religious symbols in a country where religious freedom is guaranteed by a neutral state. This week the Parti québécois in Canada is stirring things up with a controversial proposal. Martin Ouellet's article on the subject immediately attracted my attention. You can read it online here in today's Le Devoir.

 My translation is below.

--
TRANSLATION of Martin Ouellet's article appearing in the online edition of Le Devoir, 21 August 2013, under the title: 

"L'interdiction des symboles religieux serait une erreur, selon Charles Taylor."

Philosopher Charles Taylor maintains that it would be a serious mistake for the Parti québécois to ban the wearing of religious symbols in public institutions. He drew a parallel between the proposal and the errors committed by Vladimir Putin's government in Russia.

During an interview Tuesday with La Presse canadienne, the co-president of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission on reasonable accommodations didn’t mince words in his denouncement of the measures mentioned Tuesday by the Journal de Québec. He said he feared the exclusion of entire communities from the public sector’s job market, because of their religious convictions.

“Let’s spare ourselves that!” decried Taylor, convinced that such measures designed to insure “state neutrality” would wield a “real blow” to Quebec’s reputation around the globe.

Taylor suggested we look at Russia for an example of such systematic “exclusion":

“A similar kind of exclusion exists in Russia, although it’s a criminal offense there and thus far more serious. For example, not only is homosexuality forbidden in Russia, in itself serious, but advocating for homosexuality is also forbidden.”

“The legislation proposed here is less extreme in that it doesn’t involve the criminal code. But it does say that if you have certain beliefs, [...] you are a second class citizen, since those who have such beliefs cannot apply for jobs in public service. This is something quite serious. I don’t believe people realize to what extent.”

While it is reasonable to demand that a teacher’s face be uncovered during class, it is however very serious to forbid a woman wearing a hijab to seek work in civil service, asserts Taylor. He is convinced that if the government of the Parti québecois continues in this direction, it will isolate Quebec from the Western world.

“I challenge you to find another country in the Western Hemisphere where this kind of exclusion exists. There are countries much more diverse than ours, like Brazil, who will be appalled. They’re going to say: ‘What are those Quebecois thinking?'”

According to information obtained from “reliable sources” by the Journal of Québec, the “charter of Quebecois values” to be presented this fall by Minister Bernard Drainville, in charge of “Institutions démocratiques,” will cast a much wider net than the Bouchard-Taylor Commission's recommendations.

The hijab, the burqa, the Jewish kippa, the Sikh turban and the Christian cross – if “conspicuous,” that is, “visible” – would be forbidden in ministries, state-owned companies and tribunals, as well as in public child-care centers, schools and hospitals. In its 2008 report, the Bouchard-Taylor Commission recommended freedom of choice for government employees, teachers and health-care workers.

Opposition parties are walking on eggshells in the explosive file; they reacted across the board with uneasiness to Tuesday's report.

Leader of the Quebec Liberal Party Philippe Couillard believes that the State does not have to impose so many bans and restrictions to affirm its neutrality: “We have religious freedom here. The State is neutral when it comes to religion; such bans are unnecessary. Suppose we take it a step further and require that hospitals such as Hôtel-Dieu, Enfant-Jésus, St. Mary’s or the Hôpital général juif change their names? The government would quickly find itself in a quagmire of serious contradictions,” predicted Couillard.

A supporter of “open secularism,” the liberal leader doubts that the Parti québecois’ proposal will go over well with the Quebecois and Canadian charters of rights and freedoms. And so he is pressing Justice Minister Bertrand St-Arnaud to rapidly clarify the intentions of his colleague Drainville.

Meanwhile the leader of the Coalition Avenir Québec party (CAQ), François Legault, reproaches the government of Pauline Marois for wanting to lead the Quebecois people in “an extreme direction that should be avoided.”

“We must defend Quebecois values; we must defend equality between men and women. We won't be as radical as the Parti Québécois, but we will go much farther than the Liberal Party, who doesn’t want to do a thing to protect their Allophone and Anglophone constituents in Montreal,” said Legault during an interview with a Saguenay radio station.

Caquistes and liberals haven’t yet put their cards on the table as to the subject of secularism. Their proposals are still on the drawing board.

Françoise David, spokesperson of Québec solidaire opposes the ban on the wearing of religious symbols by state employees in public service – as long as the face is not covered. She is especially concerned with the potential exclusion of women from the job market.

“Imagine two teachers in a school. Both are Muslim. He wears a beard; she wears a veil, but one that does not cover her face. She will no longer be able to teach, yet he will. Some people have quite visible tattoos with religious connotations. What do we tell them? You can’t work anywhere in public service anymore?”

Minister Drainville refused to grant any interviews on Tuesday.
--
Article written by Martin Ouellet and appearing in Le Devoir Wednesday August 21, 2013.

Salafist Attacks on the University Communities of Tunisia

Journalist and author Djemila Benhabib has recently returned from Tunisia, where she witnessed first hand the serious attacks on the college communities there. She invites us to join her and express our solidarity to Tunisian women and students as they continue their resistance against extremist religious demands. You can read her text below; the English translation follows, so just scroll down if you're an English-only reader.

You can also find two articles by Djemila on her blog:

http://blogues.journaldemontreal.com/benhabib/actualites/la-manouba-la-tunisie-des-lumieres-a-besoin-de-vous/
http://blogues.journaldemontreal.com/benhabib/actualites/la-tunisie-a-la-croisee-des-chemins/

--

Djemila Benhabib's call for solidarity:
 

Agissons pour soutenir les démocrates en Tunisie!

Depuis le début de l’année 2011- 2012, la communauté universitaire en Tunisie vit, dans son ensemble, des moments de grandes tensions. De graves incidents se sont produits à la Faculté des lettres et des sciences humaines de Sousse, à l’École supérieure de commerce de la Manouba, à l’Institut supérieur de sciences appliquées et de technologie de Kairouan ainsi qu’à l’Institut supérieur de théologie de Tunis.

C’est sans conteste à la Faculté des Lettres, des Arts et des Humanités de la Manouba que se sont concentrées les pires attaques perpétrées par des milices salafistes qui exigent l’ouverture d’une salle de prière et le port du voile intégral pendant toutes les activités pédagogiques, y compris durant le déroulement …des examens !

            En effet, depuis le 28 novembre 2011 cette faculté a connu des scènes de guérilla menées par un groupuscule (tout au plus une dizaine) d’étudiantes vêtues de niqab et soutenues par des militants salafistes pour la plupart extérieurs à la faculté, dirigé par Mohamed Bakhti, un étudiant de 27 ans inscrit en première année d’histoire,  anciennement membre d’un groupe armé tunisien jihadiste directement impliqué dans des attaques terroristes en sol tunisien en 2007 et lié à Al-Qaïda.

Les revendications, les agissements et les motivations des ce groupe ultra minoritaire ont jeté l’effroi au sein de la communauté universitaire par le caractère fallacieux et pervers de leur contenu. Pourquoi exiger une salle de prière alors qu’un lieu de culte est disponible à un jet de pierre du campus ? Pourquoi ne pas respecter la décision du conseil scientifique de la faculté qui a jugé le port du voile intégral incompatible avec les règles élémentaires de la sécurité des personnes et antinomique avec les exigences pédagogiques ?

Face au refus du doyen de la faculté, Habib Kazdaghli, de céder aux pressions des salafistes et compte tenu de la grande solidarité de la communauté universitaire, ce groupuscule n’a pas hésité à utiliser des méthodes d’une extrême violence, paralysant la faculté pendant près d’un mois, occupant des locaux administratifs, chassant le doyen de ses propres bureaux, le séquestrant pendant plusieurs heures, le menaçant de mort et agressant physiquement des enseignant(e)s, des étudiant(e)s, des employé(e)s et des journalistes.

Au lieu d’assurer la sécurité au sein de l’établissement académique, les autorités tunisiennes font mine de ne rien voir et de ne rien entendre, laissant ainsi perdurer un climat délétère où prospèrent l’arbitraire et la tyrannie de la pensée totalitaire. Pire encore, le ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche scientifique, dirigé par Moncef Ben Salem, un député du parti islamiste Ennahda, a tiré à boulets rouges sur le doyen en affirmant que ce dernier « n’a pas fait ce qu’il fallait faire pour résoudre le problème pacifiquement et qu’il a des arrière-pensées politiques ».

Nous ne pouvons rester silencieux face à cette insoutenable situation. C’est pourquoi, nous, démocrates qui œuvrons dans différentes sphères professionnelles et paraprofessionnelles, rendons hommage à la résistance héroïque des enseignant(e)s, des étudiant(e)s et des employé(e)s des institutions académiques de Tunisie, particulièrement à la  Faculté des Lettres, des Arts et des Humanités de la Manouba et à son doyen Habib Kazdaghli et appelons à exprimer notre solidarité concrète et agissante au Comité Tunisien de Défense des Valeurs Universitaires.

                                                                                           --Djemila Benhabib

--

A Call to Support Our Sisters in Tunisia!

The entire Tunisian university community has been living under grave tension since the beginning of the 2011-2012 academic year.  Serious incidents have taken place at the College of Humanities and Sciences in Sousse, the College of Commerce in La Manouba, the Institute of Applied Science and Technology in Kairouan, and the College of Theology in Tunis.

The worst attacks have occurred at the College of Arts and Letters in La Manouba, where Salafist militias are demanding that a prayer room be opened and that full veils be worn during all pedagogical activities, including exams!

Ever since November 28, 2011 this College has seen guerrilla warfare, led by a small group of female students (twelve at most) dressed in niqabs and supported by militant Salafists,  who for the most part are not associated with the College. They are led by Mohamed Bakhti, a 27 year-old in his first year of history studies, a former member of an armed group of Tunisian Jihadists linked to Al-Qaïda and directly implicated in terrorist attacks on Tunisian soil in 2007.

The ultra-minority group has injected fear into the heart of the university community through the deceptive and perverse nature of their demands, actions and motives. Why insist that a prayer room be opened when a place of worship is available just a stone’s throw away from the campus? Why not respect the decision of the College’s Scientific Board, who has determined that wearing a full veil is incompatible with the basic requirements of personal safety and also contradictory to educational requirements?
 
The college’s dean, Habib Kazdaghli, has refused to give in to Salafist pressure.  As a result of his decision and given the great solidarity within the university community, this small group has not hesitated to use extremely violent methods: paralyzing the college for nearly a month, occupying administrative sites, ousting the dean from his own office, holding him for several hours and threatening him with death; physically abusing teachers, students, employees and reporters.

Instead of assuring the safety of those within the academic establishment, Tunisian authorities turn a blind eye, thus allowing a deleterious climate to continue, a climate in which the arbitrary and the tyranny of totalitarian thought flourishes. Worse yet, the Department of Education and Scientific Research, directed by Moncef Ben Salem, a deputy of the Islamist Party Ennahda, has severely criticized the dean by affirming that Kazdaghli “has not done what he should have to resolve the problem peacefully and, furthermore, has political ambitions.”

We cannot remain silent in the face of this untenable situation. This is why we women, democrats working in different professional and paraprofessional realms, commend the heroic resistance of the teachers, students and employees of the academic institutions of Tunisia, and particularly pay tribute to the College of Arts and Letters in La Manouba and to Dean Habib Kazdaghli. We urge you to join us in expressing our steadfast solidarity with the Tunisian Committee for the Defense of University Values (Comité Tunisien de Défense des Valeurs Universitaires).

Dogs Bites Dog: Sic her!

The latest word from our local village chat room, aka boulangerie-épicerie: 

Madame T's dogs attacked and wounded the baker's dog, 

after which

the Mayor, 

who witnessed the attack, 

knocked on Madame T's door to complain, 

only to hear Madame T reply that he could stick his opinion là où tu penses...

where the sun doesn't shine. 

Erreur, ma pauvre! The gossip — in this case true — has created a chain reaction unleashing a stream of heretofore undisclosed (openly) incidents with the infamous new-comer Madame T.

1. "She takes advantage of everyone." Clearly lacking in details.

2. "When the temperature dips, she doesn't bother to walk her dogs, just lets them out the door to do as they wish, where they wish." Note speaking to Madame's T's mentality: her house is smack in front of La Mairie.

3. "She scammed the butcher." Unforgivable. Our butcher is one of the kindest, most trusting and generous souls in the world. If you forget your checkbook or don't have enough cash on you, he tells you not to worry about it, hands you the bill and trusts you to pay him the next time he passes through the village. 

4. "When she walks her dogs, she lets them poop right in front of private residences." She is reported to have said to one outraged villager, "It's no big deal; the poop dries out." That makes it OK?

5. "One of her dogs bit me when I made a delivery to her house." This supposedly happened months ago but is only now being told? Hmm...

6. "She borrowed a liter of milk from X and never paid it back." In itself insignificant since a liter of milk costs under 1 euro, nevertheless fuel for a building fire.

7. "She has her own car but let's Madame R. take her into the city every market day."See criticism #5. Clearly Madame R's concern.

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

Incidentals: Madame T's dogs were off-leash and unaccompanied when the attack occurred. The baker's dog was on-leash and accompanied. The baker's son was also attacked as he rode by Madame's T's house on his bike; there is no other way into the village. It is illegal to let your dog(s) run free in this village. It is a well-known and accepted practice to walk your dogs along a road leading out of the village so their crottes won't pollute the village environment. Yes, Madame T has been informed.

I have my own issues with Madame T, not to be shared here because so much less amusing then those above. One lingering question however: Why would a single woman in her 70s settle into a tiny, remote village — where she knows absolutely no one — and immediately alienate her fellow citizens? It's tough enough, if not impossible, to break into an established French circle. Perhaps she's doing research for a book? Or maybe she's a witch? Alliteration, folks, alliteration.

Blue Laws, French-style

BLUE LAWS? Most in the U.S.  have either been repealed, declared unconstitutional, or are not enforced, but they haven't all disappeared. They persist, in the U.S. and all over the Western world. Even in post-Revolution guillotinons-les France, where separation of church and state is, in theory, sacrosanct.

Blue laws were created to enforce religious (Christian) standards and ensure the observance of Sunday as a day of worship or rest, and to that end, restrict Sunday shopping.

I'm most familiar with the Massachusetts Blue Laws, which place restrictions on business openings on Sundays and holidays. In the past, retailers weren't allowed to open before noon on Sundays, but a 1994 change to the Massachusetts' laws permits retailers to open at any time on Sundays without specific approval by the Department of Labor, and without a special local police permit.

[Amusing aside: click on the link dumb laws in Massachusetts to go to a web site listing laws such as the following, not necessarily Blue Laws, but well deserving of a brief aside: 

At a wake, mourners may eat no more than three sandwiches. 
Snoring is prohibited unless all bedroom windows are closed and securely locked. 
An old ordinance declares goatees illegal unless you first pay a special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public. 
Taxi drivers are prohibited from making love in the front seat of their taxi during their shifts. 
All men must carry a rifle to church on Sunday. 
It is illegal to go to bed without first having a full bath. 
A woman can not be on top in sexual activities. 
No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car. 
Tomatoes may not be used in the production of clam chowder. 
Quakers and witches are banned.

A few comments: 1) even though I love a good Manhattan chowder, if you don't get the tomato-chowder law, you're clearly not a Yankee; 2) the law banning witches probably has no real impact on the activities of those practicing the craft (my brother can verify); 3) the ban on going to bed without a full bath is eco-insensitive; and 4) the law permitting snoring in premises where the doors and windows are locked down tight should in fairness be extended internationally to protect those inside the premises as well. Snoring is not culture-specific...sigh.] End aside, back to France.

A semblance of Blue Laws exists in France, as well as in other European countries. If you've ever visited France, you know that most retailers are closed on Sundays, especially in the tiny towns and villages around the countryside. They close up shop at 7 p.m. on Saturday and don't re-open before Monday or Tuesday morning. Sunday shopping is supposedly a no-no. However (surprise, surprise) there are exceptions in certain zones and municipalities of larger cities like Paris, Marseilles, Lille, Nice, Bordeaux, and in numerous smaller cities that have been declared as tourist sites. And most major stores across France open on the Sunday just before Christmas. Are you noticing a trend here? "Money, money, money...it's a rich man's world"

French supermarkets are allowed to open on Sunday mornings but have to close by 1 p.m. En principe, hypermarkets are not allowed to open. In 2009 French laws were relaxed to allow all stores to open in tourist areas; pre-2009 only sports, toys and cultural shops could open. Now clothing stores open every Sunday in hot spots such as the Champs Elysées and La Défense in Paris, for example...  

So why can supermarkets open Sunday mornings but not hypermarkets? Because French laws governing Sunday shopping are convoluted. Articles L.3132-13 and R.313-8 of the code stipulate that only establishments whose exclusive or principal activity is the sale of retail foodstuffs have the right to open on Sunday mornings.

The French hypermarket Cora, similar in size and style to a Fred Meyer/Walmart store in the U.S., is testing that law in the south of France, and the CGT (Confédération générale du travail = French trade union) is taking legal action. If you read French, check the article in last week's Midi Libre: "Bataille de procédure autour de Cora Alès" 

CGT attorneys are requesting that Cora cough up facts and figures concerning employees and sales affected by the Sunday openings, which continue despite the legal action underway. Cora is countering by arguing that it doesn't need to provide any such information since the request is inadmissible and illegitimate. Their attorney is claiming that the requested data is highly sensitive information.

One figure Cora is willing to share: 53% of its sales are alimentary. Will this suffice to successfully challenge the current selective Blue Law allowing benefits to some establishments while barring others? Apparently the law does not clearly state exactly what percentage of sales must come from foodstuffs to qualify the establishment as one whose primary purpose is alimentary. I warned you: French laws are convoluted. Legalese is legalese; like witchcraft and snoring, it is not culture-specific (mes excuses to all my attorney friends, whom I hold in the highest respect). 

The court date is set for early September. Meanwhile, Cora Alès remains open Sunday mornings and the Alèsiens are shopping. They don't look particularly blue about it either.

Take a look at the employees, though: Sunday shoppers require Sunday employees. The rise of establishments open on Sundays is provoking a devaluation of life outside the workplace. That's the real bottom line. Social benefits fought for hard and long are being lost as France backs up to a world of privileged power, where too many of its citizens are forced to play a hardball game of work or sink.

Blackmail in D.C.

Le Monde diplomatique's Serge Halimi recently published an insightful analysis of President Barak Obama's back-peddling during recent debt negotiations between the White House and right wingers. My translation of the editorial appears below, along with the original French.

août 2011: Chantage à Washington

August 2011: Blackmail in Washington D.C.

by Serge Halimi

Where the reduction of the American national debt is concerned, the dispute placing President Barack Obama in opposition to the Congressional Republican majority conceals what’s really at play: giving in to adversarial blackmail.  Mr. Obama immediately conceded that more than three quarters of the budget for the next ten years – 3 billion dollars – would come from budget cuts to social programs. The American right wing could have settled for this win but it always wants more, even at the risk of losing popularity.

Relative à la réduction de la dette américaine, la querelle qui oppose le président Barack Obama et la majorité républicaine au Congrès dissimule l’essentiel : cédant au chantage de ses adversaires, M. Obama a concédé d’emblée que plus des trois quarts de l’effort budgétaire des dix prochaines années, soit 3 000 milliards de dollars, proviendraient de coupes dans les budgets sociaux. La droite américaine aurait pu se satisfaire de ce triomphe, mais elle veut toujours plus. Y compris quand son intransigeance risque d’entamer sa popularité.

In December 2010, in a first buckling to pressure, the President of the United States opted to maintain the very unequal tax cuts of predecessor George W. Bush, for a period of two years.  Four months later, sounding like Ronald Reagan, Mr. Obama delighted in “the biggest annual reduction of expenditures in US history.” He continued negotiations with the Republicans of the Congress, announcing that he was prepared to be reprimanded by his party in order to get results. Result: more White House back-peddling…

En décembre 2010, cédant une première fois à sa pression, le président des Etats-Unis avait prolongé de deux ans les baisses d’impôts très inégalitaires décidées par son prédécesseur George W. Bush. Quatre mois plus tard, parlant cette fois comme Ronald Reagan, M. Obama s’est réjoui de « la réduction annuelle des dépenses la plus importante de notre histoire ». Il a ensuite enchaîné les cycles de négociations avec les parlementaires républicains, annonçant : « Je suis prêt à me faire taper sur les doigts par mon parti pour arriver à un résultat. » Résultat : de nouveaux reculs de la Maison Blanche…

The right wing is opposed to any debt reduction that would call for tax hikes. This preliminary condition may seem odd in a country where the avalanche of fiscal privileges heaped on the wealthiest results in a level of global deductions at its lowest point in fifty years. In reality, beyond a determination to target expenses only, Republicans want “to starve the beast,” that is, in the words of one of their strategists, “to reduce government to the size where [we] can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

La droite s’oppose à toute réduction de l’endettement qui passerait par un relèvement des impôts. Ce préalable pourrait sembler farfelu dans un pays où l’avalanche des privilèges fiscaux déversés sur les plus riches fait que le niveau global des prélèvements n’a jamais été aussi bas depuis cinquante ans. Mais, au-delà d’un entêtement à ne cibler que les dépenses, les républicains veulent en réalité « affamer la bête » — c’est-à-dire, pour reprendre l’expression d’un de leurs stratèges, « réduire la taille de l’Etat de façon à ce qu’on puisse ensuite le noyer dans une baignoire ».

How can the recent soaring of the American public debt be explained? Firstly, by the economic crisis, largely provoked by decades of financial deregulation. Secondly, by the consistent renewal of temporary tax reductions voted in 2001 (2,000 billion dollars income loss). And finally, by the post-September 11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (1,300 billion dollars). The party of Reagan and Bush nonetheless claims to resolve the debt problem by protecting both the rich, whom they call “job creators,” and the Pentagon budget, that has increased (in real terms) by 67% in ten years.

Or comment s’explique l’envol récent de la dette publique américaine ? D’abord par la crise économique, que la déréglementation financière des dernières décennies a largement provoquée. Ensuite, par la reconduction régulière des baisses d’impôts provisoires votées en 2001 (2 000 milliards de dollars de manque à gagner). Enfin, par les guerres de l’après-11-Septembre en Afghanistan et en Irak (1 300 milliards de dollars). Le parti de Reagan et de M. Bush prétend néanmoins résoudre le problème de l’endettement en protégeant à la fois les plus riches, qu’il appelle les « créateurs d’emplois », et le budget du Pentagone, qui a augmenté (en termes réels) de 67 % en dix ans.

Last April 5, Paul Ryan, president of the House Budget Commission, in fact outlined Republican projects for the coming decades. His plan proposes that public expenses, presently equal to 24% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), will not move beyond 14.75% of the GDP in 2050, with the maximum tax rate moving from 35% to 25% (the lowest level since 1931). All the tax havens for the privileged would be preserved, but health benefits for the elderly and the poor would be frozen.

Le 5 avril dernier, M. Paul Ryan, président de la commission budgétaire de la Chambre des représentants, a d’ailleurs détaillé les projets des républicains pour les décennies à venir. Son plan prévoit que les dépenses publiques, actuellement égales à 24 % du produit intérieur brut (PIB), n’atteindront plus que 14,75 % du PIB en 2050, le taux d’imposition maximal passant de 35 % à 25 % (niveau le plus bas depuis 1931). Toutes les niches fiscales des privilégiés seraient préservées, mais les remboursements de santé destinés aux personnes âgées et aux pauvres seraient gelés.

If Mr. Obama continues to avoid this battle, the social missions of the American government may very well soon look like the cadaver in the bathtub.

Si M. Obama continue à esquiver ce combat-là, les missions sociales de l’Etat américain risquent bien de ressembler sous peu au cadavre dans la baignoire.

Serge Halimi on the Western Intervention in Libya

Serge Halimi's editorial "Révoltes arabes, chaos libyen : Les pièges d'une guerre" appears in April's online edition of Le Monde Diplomatique.

Click on the above link to read the original article in French. Continue here to read my English translation.
---
Arab Revolts, Libyan Chaos
The Snares of War

by Serge Halimi

For several months now, the Arab revolts have been reshuffling the political, diplomatic and ideological cards of the region (read “Une région en ébullition”). Libyan repression was threatening this dynamic. And the UN authorized Western war has just added to the landscape a factor with unpredictable consequences.

 

Even a broken watch shows the correct time twice a day. That the United States, France and the UK have taken the lead in the Security Counsel resolution authorizing the use of force against the Libyan regime is insufficient in and of itself to object to it. An unarmed movement rebelling against a regime of terror is at times reduced to calling on disreputable international police forces for aid. Focused on their own problems, they will not refuse this aid, even though it comes from who turn a deaf ear on the pleas of other victims – the Palestinians, for example. The rebellion will even forget that the international police force is better known for repression than for support.

That which logically guided the Libyan insurgents facing extreme danger is not enough to legitimize this new war by Western powers on Arab soil. The intervention of NATO member countries constitutes inadmissible means for trying to reach a desired end (the fall of  Muammar Qaddafi). If these means seem obvious, a “choice” between Western bombings and the crushing of Libyan rebels, it is solely because other possibilities – the intervention of UN, Egyptian or Pan Arab forces alongside the rebel forces – were rejected.

Past results of Western armies prevent us from regarding them them as motivated by the generosity they claim today. Who believes that States, no matter which ones, consecrate their resources and armies in order to accomplish democratic objectives? Recent history is enough to remind us that if wars claiming such motivation initially achieve dazzling success, with equally dazzling media attention, what follows is more chaotic and sober. In Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting has not ceased, although Mogadiscio, Kabul and Bagdad “fell” years ago.

The Libyan rebels would have preferred toppling despotic powers on their own, as their Tunisian and Egyptian neighbors did. Franco-Anglo-American military intervention threatens to force them into a debt towards those never before concerned themselves with Libyan freedom. The responsibility of this regional emergency, however, lies with Qaddafi. Without the repressive rage of a regime that, over the space of forty years, moved from an anti-imperialist dictatorship to pro-Western despotism, without his tirades treating all opposition as “Al-Qaida agents" or "paid moles and informants working for foreigners,” the fate of the Libyan uprising would have depended solely on the Libyan people.

The 1973 Security Council Resolution authorizing the bombing of Libya will perhaps prevent crushing a revolt condemned by the poverty of the insurgents. It resembles nonetheless a dance of hypocrites. For it is not because Qaddafi is the worst or the most murderous of dictators that his troops have been bombed, but because he is also weaker than others, with no nuclear arms or powerful friends likely to protect him from a military attack or defend him in the Security Council. The intervention against him confirms that international law does not lay down clear principles, the violation of which, in every case, would lead to disciplinary measures.

The same goes for diplomatic and financial whitewashing: the moment of righteousness permits the erasing of decades of turpitude. Thus the French president has his former business partner bombed, the partner he welcomed in 2007 and while everyone knew the nature of his regime – we will be grateful to Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy for not having proposed to Mr. Qaddafi the “savoir faire of our security forces” offered last January to Tunisian President Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali… As for Mr. Silvio Berlusconi, the “close friend” of the Libyan Guide who made eleven visits to Rome: he is rallying the righteous coalition by dragging it by its feet.

A majority of old men contested by the democratic thrust are headquartered in the heart of an Arab league that joins the UN movement then pretends consternation when the first American missiles are fired. Russia and China held the power to veto the Security Council resolution, to amend it in order to reduce its reach and the risks of escalation. Had they done so, they would not have had to “regret” the use of force. Finally, to size up the honesty of the “international community” in this affair, it must be pointed out that the 1973 resolution reproaches Libya for “arbitrary detentions, forced disappearances, tortures and summary executions,” naturally things that do not exist in Guantanamo, Chechnya or China…

The "protection of civilians” is not simply an indisputable demand; in times of armed conflict, it also imposes the bombing of military targets, that is of soldiers (often civilians obliged to wear the uniform…), mingled among the unarmed population. Control of a “no-fly zone” for them means that planes patrolling the area risk being shot down and their pilots captured, which will then justify their liberation by the ground commandos. Scrub the vocabulary as you will, war cannot be eternally euphemized. 

And in a final analysis, this war belongs to those who decided it and who lead it, not to those who recommend it, dreaming that it will be short and joyous. Drawing up spotlessly clean plans for a war without hate, without “blunders," is a charming notion, but the military force to whom falls the task of executing the plans will do so according to its own inclinations, methods and requirements. It may as well be said that the corpses of Libyan soldiers machine gunned during their retreat are, as the joyful crowds of Benghazi, the result of the 1973 UN resolution. 

The progressive forces of the entire world are divided on the Libyan affair, according to whether they stress their solidarity with an oppressed people or their opposition to a Western war. Both standards of judgment are necessary, but one cannot always demand simultaneous satisfaction of the two. When there has to be a choice, it remains to be determined just what an internationally obtained “anti-imperialist” stamp of approval authorizes its people to be subjected to each day. 

In Mr. Qaddafi's case, the silence of several leftist Latin American governments (Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia) on the repressions ordered by him is disconcerting, just as much as the Libyan Guide's opposition to the “West” is pretense. Mr. Qaddafi denounces the “colonialist plot” against him -- after reassuring the former colonial powers that “we are all in the same fight against terrorism. Our information services work together. We have helped a great deal these past years.”

Like Hugo Chávez, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro, the Libyan dictator claims that the explanation for the attack against him lies in the desire to “control oil.” And yet the oil is already exploited by the American company Occidental Petroleum (Oxy), the British BP and the Italian ENI (read Jean-Pierre Séréni’s article on this subject: “Le pétrole libyen de main en main”). A few weeks ago, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was hailing “Libya’s strong macro-economic performance and its progress in the reinforcement of the private sector's role." Mr. Ben Ali, Qaddafi’s friend, had received comparable compliments in November 2008, served up personally by IMF’s General Director, Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, arriving straight from... Tripoli. 

 

Mr. Qaddafi’s antique revolutionary, anti-imperialist spin, fed in Caracas and Havana, no doubt equally escaped Mr. Anthony Giddens, a theoretician of Blair’s Third Way. He announced in 2007 that Libya would shortly become a “Norway of Northern Africa”: prosperous, egalitarian, turned towards the future.” Compared with the very eclectic list of his dupes, how is it still possible to believe that the Libyan Guide is as crazy as he is purported to be?

There are several reasons for some leftist Latin American governments' mistakes about Mr. Qaddafi.  They wanted to see him as the enemy of their enemy (the United States), but that should not have been enough to make him their friend. A mediocre awareness of Northern Africa – Mr. Chavez says he informed himself about the situation in Tunisia by calling Mr. Qaddafi… – led them to position themselves opposite the “colossal campaign of lies orchestrated by the media” (according to Mr. Castro). All the more so because this campaign took them back to personal memories whose pertinence was questionable in this particular case. “I do not know why this is happening and has happened in Libya, the Venezuelan president declared to me. It reminds me of Hugo Chavez on April 11.” On April 11, 2002 a coup d’état had attempted to overthrow Chavez; the media supported it through manipulated information.

Other factors leaning towards poor analysis of the Libyan situation include: a model for reading events that was forged by decades of armed intervention and violent domination on the part of the United States in Latin America; the fact that Libya helped Venezuela gain a foothold in Africa; the role of the two States at the heart of OPEC and Africa-South America summits; the geopolitical approach of Caracas aiming to re-balance its diplomacy towards closer relations between Africa and South America.

To this one must also add the tendency of President Chavez to consider the diplomatic ties of his country as a personal, close relationship with chiefs of State: “I was a friend of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, I am a friend of King Abdallan, who was here in Caracas (…). A friend of the Emir of Qatar, a friend of the president of Syria, who also came here. A friend of Bouteflika.” When Qaddafi’s regime (“my friend for such a long time”) engaged in the repression of his people, this friendship weighed in the wrong direction. In fact, Mr. Chavez missed an opportunity: of presenting the rebellion on the African continent as the younger brothers of leftist Latin American movements he knows well.

Beyond this error, diplomacy is no doubt the domain that best reveals, in every country, the flaws of exercising a solitary power made up of opaque decisions, no parliamentary control and no popular deliberation. Moreover, when diplomacy pretends to defend democracy through war, as in the Security Council, the contrast is necessarily striking.

After having exploited, and not without success, the geopolitical, anti-Occident recourse and the progressive argument of the defense of natural resources, the Libyan director did not long resist the temptation to play the ultimate card of religious confrontation. “The big Christian powers,” he explained last March 20, "have engaged in a second Crusade against the Muslim people, with the Libyans at their head. Their objective is to wipe Islam [off the map].” Thirteen days earlier, Mr. Qaddafi had nonetheless compared his work of repression to the repression suffered by one thousand four hundred Palestinians.” “Even the Israelis in Gaza had to resort to tanks to combat such extremists. It is the same for us.” That must not have increased the Guide’s popularity in the Arab world.

At least this last about-face has one virtue. It recalls the political noxiousness of the approach that reproduces, by inverting it, the neoconservative thematic of crusades and empires. The Arab uprisings, because they mixed the religious and secular – and because the religious and secular were opposed therein – may announce the death of a self-proclaimed anti-imperialist discourse that is nothing more than anti-Western.  In its hatred of the “West,” it confounds what is the worst in it – gunboat diplomacy, the disdain of “indigenous” people, wars of religion – with what is best in it, from the Enlightenment philosophy to social security. 

Barely two years after the Iranian revolution in 1979, the radical Syrian thinker Sadik Jalal Al-Azm scrutinized, in order to refute them, the characteristics of a “backwards orientalism,” that, refusing the path of secular nationalism and revolutionary communism, was calling for a fight against the West through a return to religious authenticity. The main postulates of this "culturalist" analysis, summarized then submitted to criticism by Gilbert Achcar, stipulated that “the degree of emancipation of the Orient must not and may not be measured by the yardstick of Western values and criteria, such as democracy, secularism and the liberation of women; that the Eastern Muslim cannot be understood through the epistemological instruments of Western science; that the factor that moves the Muslim masses is cultural, that is to say, religious, and that its importance surpasses that of economic and social factors that condition Western political dynamics; that the only path of Muslim countries towards rebirth is through Islam; and finally, that the movements brandishing the standard of a “return to Islam" are not reactionary or regressive, as perceived by the Western eye, but rather progressive, in that they resist Western cultural domination.”

 

Such a fundamentalist approach to politics has perhaps not had its last say. But, ever since the shock wave that began in Tunisia, one senses that the relevance of such an approach has been shaken by the Arab people who do not want to position themselves “against the West, nor in its service ." They prove this by sometimes targeting an ally of the United States (Egypt), and sometimes one of their adversaries (Syria). Far from fearing the defense of individual freedoms, freedom of conscience, political democracy, unionism, feminism as constituting as many “Western” priorities dressed up as emancipating universalism, the Arab people take hold of these things to mark their refusal of authoritarianism, social injustices and police states that treat their people like children, all the more spontaneously since they are lead by old men. And all this – recalling other great revolutionary upsurges, that day after day make social and democratic gains being lost elsewhere – is undertaken energetically, at precisely the moment when the “West” seems split between its fear of decline and its lassitude in the face of a dead and stagnant political system. A UN resolution as much for the struggles of Western peoples… 

Nothing says that this Arabic energy and courage are going to continue to score points. But they are already revealing unexplored possibilities. Article 20 of the Security Council’s 1973 resolution, for example, stipulates that the Security Council “declares itself resolved to insure that (Libyan) holdings frozen (by a previous resolution) are at a later date, as soon as possible, made available to and used for the people of Arab Libyan Jamahiriya.” It would therefore be possible to freeze financial holdings and return them to the citizens of a country! Let us wager that this lesson will be remembered: States have the power to satisfy the people. For some months now, the Arab world has been reminding us of another lesson, just as universal: the people have the power to constrain States.

http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2011/04/HALIMI/20379 - avril 2011 

  

In my secret life...

…there are times when I hate France. Here’s why:

Up until a few months ago, the only Internet option in this village was a pokey dialup. Dropped connections, unreliable phone lines, frequent outages, fried modems. Then France Telecom installed DSL. Hallelujah?

Not so much. Every time a new customer’s hooked into the system, someone else is bumped out, disconnected. Yesterday it was our turn. Again. No phone, no Internet. No Customer Service you could count on either. Modern times, modern angst – French style. No wonder they so frequently take to the streets here.

Which is what I did: with research to do, online lessons to teach and promises to keep, the wretched and the weak (aka me) gathered up heart and France Telecom file, hiked over to the Post Office and called 3900 (Customer Service) from the PO phone. The odds are there to beat…

An accent from northern Africa answers. At least we both speak French and he seems to have a sense of humor. He runs through the list of standard questions, the last of which: “Are you calling from your landline?” I hear the edge in my voice as I tell him again that the reason I’m calling is because our phone is OUT, as in “it does not work,” so no, I am not calling from our home phone because it does not work. I am calling from the village Post Office phone. “Are you near your computer and router box?” he asks. No, I am not, because I am not at home, I am at the Post Office, I politely reply.

He asks for my cell phone number and tells me he’ll call me at home, on my cell, in five minutes. Twenty minutes go by before my cell rings. Pretty good, almost record time in fact and I appreciate it. He asks me to turn off the router box, wait three minutes then turn it back on. This, he says, will re-boot the system and all will be fine. I tell him that I’ve already done that, twice, before calling Customer Service. He decides to test the line. Announces that it’s not functioning normally. I don’t say that it's a good thing he’s on the other side of the Mediterranean.

Next, he proposes that we uninstall and re-install the router box. He is trained to assume the customer is in the wrong. He is trained to avoid confirming that the problem lies with FT’s phone line or Internet service. I do not share his illusion. Still, perhaps a reinstallation will fix the problem, so I follow his rather odd and lengthy instructions. Over an hour later, nothing has been repaired and now the router box is not working at all.

Mr. Customer Service calmly concludes that there “may” have been an “incident” and that, according to the report he’s reading on his computer screen, our phone service will be re-established in two weeks. Two weeks. No phone service, no Internet service for two weeks. This is unacceptable, I tell him with equal calm, explaining that I work online, that this is far from the first time our service has been interrupted and that I will be sending a very large bill to France Telecom. He gives me the appropriate department number and asks if there is anything else he can do for me, to which I reply: “What else can you do for me?” He can check back in the morning to see if the system is working (he doesn’t call).  Bonne fin de journée, au revoir, madame. No wait, I need you… I don’t need you… I need you… I don’t need you…

I need music. Now. At least the electricity’s still working (not always the case). I put on The Essential Leonard Cohen. There is no Essential Guide to France Telecom. No one would know where to start. So I’m counting on Leonard. Nothing can kill you in his tower of song.

He’s wrong though about that “ain’t no cure for love” thing. There’s a cure for Francophile love: going toe to toe with France Telecom on a regular basis. Descartes be hanged; these are Post Modern times and logic is dead. Even the French are pulling their hair out. Especially the women. Ever notice older women in France? Thin hair. Thin. Their service provider is probably France Telecom.

I listen to Cohen through both CDs then head to bed. As I drift off, I’m hearing France Telecom chant, “give me absolute control over every single living soul.” I punch back with: “I’ve seen the future, it is murder.”

When I wake up, I glance at the router box. Nope, the Internet angels have forgotten to pray for us. So I get dressed and head for the Mairie, where I ask Monsieur le Maire to call someone important, use a little muscle to rectify this mess once and for all (it’s election time). I learn that ours wasn’t the only line disconnected yesterday. But ours is the only line still out. The secretary tells me she’ll call France Telecom, give them our info and have them call me on my cell. Hours later the Mairie is closed and no one’s called. Sublimating, I eat M&Ms by the fistful, including the blue ones. Living in France sometimes drives you to drastic measures.

I make a command decision, to do exactly what France Telecom tells you never to do without their assistance: un-install and re-install our router box. The Customer Service guy from yesterday probably did something wrong, left out a step. He’s the expert (ah-hem) but who knows, maybe he screwed up. I glance through the manual, toss it on the floor and go to work.

Fifteen minutes later, it’s V-day in the trenches. We're back on boogie street.

In my secret life, I can count on Cohen.