Rechercher dans ce blog

samedi 16 avril 2011

A new law in France / Une nouvelle loi en France

This week, the French government began enforcing its ban on face-coverings in public. Two women wearing niqabs were arrested at a protest in front of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. French newspapers and blogs have debated the pros and cons of the niqab issue since last year, but opinion remains divided on the ban and on the larger issue of immigrant integration in France.


Veiling has been a fraught and contentious point of conflict in France since at least the 1980s. Those who oppose it point to the French principle of laïcité which demands a strict separation of religion in the public sphere. Supporters point to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states : “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”


People in America have a good deal of trouble understanding why France has such a big problem with what seems to them to be an individual woman's personal choice. On closer examination, it appears that the French are not convinced that it is a personal choice. Additionally, throughout history, the French have been uncomfortable with the relationship between women and religion, believing that Catholic clergy exercised undue influence over women parishioners.


The Open Society Foundations published a study that profiled women in France who wear niqabs, which revealed a complex reality that conflicts with popular perceptions. Notably, it showed that many women choosing to wear niqabs were French converts, and thus the “go back where you came from” attitude is not applicable to them. It also contradicted the idea the women are forced to wear this garb.


However, freely chosen or not, the question still remains: by wearing a niqab, is a woman refusing to engage with society?


It is here that the distinction ought to be made between public and private. While there should be no difficulty with a woman choosing to wear a discreet headscarf, there are circumstances under which wearing a face-covering niqab could constitute a problem.


The two main concerns are identification and security. In daily life, many circumstances require identifying a person, from access to some buildings, to renting a car, to picking up children from school. Without seeing a person's face, it is almost impossible to establish that the person is who they claim to be. The second concern, security, is more nuanced. Most banks and many stores require that a person remove face coverings before entering. This is not limited to niqabs, as it often includes sunglasses, hoodies and masks, and is intended to ensure people are not able to threaten the personnel or patrons inside. This is also because in face to face interactions, a good part of communication is non-verbal.


However, these instances do not comprise the bulk of day to day life. It should not be a problem for a woman to wear a niqab while walking around in her neighborhood, taking children to the park, or buying groceries. These are all activities she is undertaking as a private person. Yet, this dynamic changes depending on the circumstances. Most people would be uncomfortable being treated a doctor whose face they could not see, or dealing with a cashier whose face was invisible. And they would certainly balk at opening the door to someone dressed this way or leaving their children a day care with an employee wearing a niqab.


An example from Philadelphia illustrates how wearing a niqab adapts to circumstances in daily life. A nurse works in a facility for senior citizens. While at work, she removes the niqab from her face in order to put the patients at ease and be recognizable. When her shift is finished at midnight, she puts her niqab back on and walks to the bus stop. Since it is late at night and her niqab could appear threatening, she flips it up when she boards the bus and flips it back down when she gets off. At no point does her niqab pose a problem to the people around her, nor is she refusing to participate in society.


On the surface, then, it would seem possible to arrive at a compromise solution where a woman is able to express her religious conviction without infringing on the safety or comfort of the people around her. Yet, this issue just won't go away in France. Why therefore does it continue to make headlines, even in the midst of an economic crisis, multiple wars and the aftermath of the major disaster in Japan?


Tellingly, this week, Jeune Afrique ran a piece on Marine Le Pen and her growing influence and popularity in France. It is not difficult to draw a connection between economic hardship and a surge of anti-immigrant sentiment or scape-goating of minority groups. It is also worth noting that President Sarkozy's poll numbers have been slipping. In order to counter this, reviving an anti-minority discourse is politically advantageous in two ways. First, it distracts from other pressing problems or unpopular legislative projects, such as raising the retirement age. Second, it demonstrates to voters who feel resentment towards immigrant and minority groups and who might be attracted by the Front National, that Sarkozy and his party share their concerns.


Disappointing as it may be to believe that this law is a political ploy, the theory is not easily dismissed. However, whatever the motive behind the law, it does little to resolve any of the underlying tensions within French society. Additionally, as reported in Le Monde, it does not enjoy the support of police officers, who already have a tough job in France. Given the protests and backlash, one can expect that the ban will continue to face challenges, whether or not this controversy does anything constructive for the French rank and file.

Cette semaine, la loi interdisant le port de voile intégral rentre en vigeur en France. Deux femmes portant des niqabs ont été interpellées en train de se manifester sur le parvis de Notre Dame de Paris. Les journaux et blogs français tournent en rond en discutant cette loi depuis l'année dernière mais les avis restent divisés sur cette interdiction et aussi sur l'integration des immigrés en France.


Le port du voile crée un tollé depuis les années 1980. Ceux qui l'opposent le font au nom du principe de laïcité qui restreint la place de la religion dans l'espace publique. Ceux qui le soutiennent signalent l'article 18 de la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme: “Toute personne a droit à la liberté de pensée, de conscience et de religion ; ce droit implique la liberté de changer de religion ou de conviction ainsi que la liberté de manifester sa religion ou sa conviction seule ou en commun, tant en public qu'en privé, par l'enseignement, les pratiques, le culte et l'accomplissement des rites.”


Les Américains ont du mal à comprendre la logique d'un tel polémique sur ce qui semble pour eux le choix personnel d'une femme. Mais, en le regardant de plus près, les Français ne sont pas convaincus qu'il s'agit d'un choix personnel. En plus, au cours de l'histoire, la relation entre les femmes et la religion dérange, surtout dans l'idée que les curés exercaient trop d'influence sur les paroissiennes.


Récemment, la fondation Open Society a publié une étude sur les femmes en France portantes le niqab, qui relève une réalité assez complexe qui s'affronte contre les perceptions. Notamment, plusieurs femmes qui choisissent de porter le niqab sont des converties de souche, alors l'attitude “Rntrez chez vous” ne s'appplique pas. Cela contredit aussi l'idée que ces femmes sont contraintes de le porter par leur entourage.


Cependant, choisi librement ou pas, reste la question: en portant un niqab, une femme refuse-t-elle se participer à la vie de société?


Ici doit se faire la distinction entre privé et publique. Tandis que le port d'un foulard discret ne pose aucun problème, il existe des circonstances où dissimuler le visage pourrait gêner.


Les deux grands enjeux sont l'identifcation et la sécurité. Au cours de la vie quotidienne, il est essentiel de pouvoir identifier une personne, que ce soit pour rentrer dans certains immeubles, louer une voiture, chercher les enfants à l'école. Sans pouvoir distinguer le visage d'une personne, il devient presque impossible de verifier qu'il s'agit vraiment de la personne prétendue. L'enjeu de sécurité s'avère plus complexe. La plupart des banques et plusieurs magasins exigent que les clients retirent tout objet qui cache le visage. Cela ne se limite pas au niqab, mais comprend aussi les lunettes de soleil, le capuches et les masques, sand le but d'empêches des menaces au personnel ou aux clients. En plus, au cours de rencontres en face à face, une grande partie de communication passe par des expressions de visage.


Cependant, on ne passe pas toute la vie à la banque, ni à la préfecture. Le port du niqab ne doit pas poser problème en marchant dans les quartier, ni en jouant avec les enfants au parc, ni en faisant les courses. Elle exécute toutes ces tâches en tant qu'une personne privée. Mais cela varie selon les circonstances. La plupart de gens ne seraient pas à l'aise en visitant chez un médecin au visage dissimulé, ni en passant à la caisse d'un caissier dont on ne voit pas la figure. Et plusieurs hésiteraient d'ouvrir la porte à une personne habillée de cette manière, ou de confier leurs enfants à une assistante de crèche portant un niqab.


Un exemple de Philadelphie illustre comment une femme peut porter un niqab en s'adaptant aux circonstance de sa journée. Une infirmière travaille dans un centre d'acceuil pour des personnes agées. Travaillant, elle enlève le niqab afin de mettre ses patients à l'aise et pour pouvoir être reconnue. Une fois sa période de travail finie, elle le remet et va à l'arrêt de bus. Mais, comme il est tard, elle le relève afin de ne pas apparaître menaçant au conducteur et le remet en descendant du bus. Au cours de sa journée, la présence du niqab ne gêne pas les gens autour d'elle et elle ne refuse pas l'interaction sociale.
Alors, il ne semble pas impossible d'arriver à un compromis qui permet à une femme l'exercise de la liberté religieuse sans perturber la sécurité ni le confort de ceux qui l'entourent. Pourtant, le port du niqab reste un problème épineux en France. Pourquoi il fait toujours la une, même en pleine crise économique, plusieurs guerres à la fois, et le désastre au Japon?


De façon révélatrice Jeune Afrique consacre un article à la montée en influence et renommé de Marine Le Pen. Il n'est pas difficile de faire un lien entre la crise économique et la hausse d'hostilité contre les populations issues de l'immigration. On ne peut pas ignorer le fait que l'opinion de Sarkozy s'écroule. Pour le neutraliser, il est de son avantage de stigmatiser les populations issues de l'immigration. En premier lieu, cette stratégie détourne l'attention d'autres problèmes ou encore des projets législatifs comme le report de l'âge de la retraite. Deuxièment, cela montre aux electeurs attirés par le Front National et le discours xénophobe que Sarkozy et l'UMP partagent leurs soucis.


Tandis que l'idée que cette loi relève d'une stratégie politique est décevante, on ne peut pas l'exclure. Cependant, peu importe le morif derrière cette loi, il ne contribue pas grand chose à calmer les crispations au sein de la société française. En plus, comme signale Le Monde, la police dénonce cette loi comme inapplicable, surtout dans un contexte tendu. Compte tenu de l'opposition, on peut attendre encore des contestations, même si cela ne rapporte rien pour la population en général.

dimanche 10 avril 2011

Where is Tunisia headed?

In the April 4 issue of The New Yorker, Steve Coll devotes seven pages to an interesting profile of the Tunisian Revolution. Since Coll has exemplary credentials and The New Yorker is an opinion-maker, this profile should work to raise a good deal of awareness about the stakes of the Tunisian Revolution.

Coll paints a skillful picture of the diversity of protesters “students, robed lawyers, jobless men, Islamists and parents toting young children” and captures Mohammed Ghannouchi's resignation. Then, he moves into the meaty part of his report. He meets with important actors and lets them speak.

Moncef Marzouki, the veteran dissident and leader of the League for Human Rights, expressed frustration with European and American hopes for reform:
“I am extremely surprised that in the West you have a lot of people who keep thinking that you can reform Syria, you can reform Saudi Arabia. It's complete nonsense....A dictatorship is a dictatorship, and it is not something you can reform.”

So Ben Ali had to go, but who or what will take his place? Here, Coll contrasts the Tunisian approach with the Egyptian. While constitutional amendments were rushed through a referendum in Egypt, on July 24th Tunisians will elect a new constituent assembly, who will rewrite the constitution. The hope is that this will allow the constitution to reflect the wishes of the people.

In a region full of turmoil, Coll is hopeful for Tunisia:
“The conditions in Tunisia seem more favorable to a durable democracy than those in many other Arab nations. The population is well educated; there are no sectarian or tribal divides; and there is a foundation of civil society. Tunisia's success would not guarantee that its neighbors will follow, but its failure would be a dark portent.”

At the same time, Coll is far from callow in considering the obstacles facing the burgeoning democracy in Tunisia. The repeated resignations from interim cabinets feed instability within the country. A prominent secular-socialist leader, Ahmed Néjib Chebbi, expressed worry: “There is no more confidence. I am seriously fearing that Tunisia will fall into turmoil and experience violence.”

Fear and violence were both rampant in the weeks following Ben Ali's departure, as gangs roamed the countryside, smashing and burning. Most people believed this was the work of the police politique trying to create the impression that liberty was dangerous and to make the populace nostalgic for the stability they enjoyed under the vanished rais. The revolution created a power vacuum, and almost no one is prepared to fill it. Coll points out the relative weakness of the Army, despite General Rachid Ammar's refusal to shoot protestors. Since Ben Ali kept the Army weak to avoid a coup like his own that replaced Bourguiba, there is no real possibility of a military government on the current Egyptian model.

But who else might fill this vacuum? Many politicians are too tainted by their ties to Ben Ali, and since the president and his family kept a stranglehold on business, there is no commercial elite. Instead there are trade-unionists, Islamists, and young wired activists. The General Union of Labor plays an important role, but has lost prestige over recent decades. Islamists are more of an unknown factor. While the best known group, Ennahda and it's leader, Rachid Ghannouchi enjoy a level of popularity, recently there have been tensions within Tunisian society over secularism. Finally, young bloggers have been key to spreading information and to organizing sit-ins, but while important, this does not directly translate into governing.

It's still a long time until July 24th, and in the time since Coll filed this report, alarming news of police brutality has surfaced in Tunisia. Additionally, the ongoing military operations in Libya and the presence of refugees, as well as the boats heading toward Lampedusa are problems that won't just go away. While the constituent assembly and a new constitution are laudable goals, Tunisians are agitated and risk a great deal of disappointment.

lundi 4 avril 2011

What's different in Algeria/ Qu'est-ce qui distingue l'Algérie?


Since the beginning of the Arab Spring, commentators have been speculating which countries will experience similar uprisings, how governments will respond, and what motivates citizens to rise up. Against the backdrop of ousted leaders in Tunisia and Egypt, civil war in Libya and stirring unrest in Morocco, why has Algeria remained relatively calm?

On the Foreign Policy Middle East Channel, Lahcen Achy advances five characteristics that differentiate the protest movement in Algeria from its neighbors.
  • The people do not have a shared set of grievances.
  • The opposition forces are divided among themselves and regulations prevent the organization of protests.
  • The security forces in Algeria are large and strong.
  • The military is integrated into the political and business power structure, so a change of president makes little difference.
  • People are still suffering from the traumatic effects of the civil war in the 1990s.
Achy admits that none of this makes change impossible in Algeria, simply that “in spite of the sporadic demonstrations and of the calls for change from prominent intellectuals and political figures, a unifying movement that transcends societal divisions is yet to be seen in Algeria.”

Much has been made of the characteristics that Tunisia and Egypt share (incidentally also with Iran) but now the movement has spread across a variety of countries all across the Middle East. For instance, while Egypt and Tunisia had cohesive historical identities, the same cannot be said for Yemen, nor for Syria. Tunisia has a relatively small and homogenous population, while Egypt has the largest, and a significant Coptic Christian minority. Algeria's population is also relatively large and diverse. While Tunisia's population is relatively affluent and middle-class, this does not hold true in other countries.
The only factor Achy mentions that may really have a durable effect is the legacy of the civil war. Other countries have experienced terrorism and atrocities, like the Hama massacre in Syria, but a civil war is different from even the most repressive tactics of a dictator. Having turned against one another in recent memory, it is understandable that they would want to avoid repeating the same situation.

Depuis le début du Printemps Arabe, les experts cherchent à discerner quel serait le prochain pays à se revolter, la réaction des dirigeants, et c'est quoi exactement qui pousse des citoyens jusqu'à là reprimés à agir. Entouré par des drames poltiques, le départ des dictateurs en Tunisie et en Egypte, la guerre en Libye, et la montée de contestation au Maroc, pourquoi l'Algérie reste relativement calme?
Sous la rubrique “Moyen Orient” de la revue “Foreign Policy”, Lahcen Achy signale cinq traits qui differencie le mouvement protestataire algérien de celui de ses voisins.
  • Le peuple ne partage pas des doléances communes.
  • Les forces de l'opposition ne sont pas réunis et sont limités dans leur capacité d'organiser et de se manifester.
  • Les forces de l'ordre sont nombreux et puissants.
  • Les responsables militaires sont bien integrés dans les milieux politiques et commerciales, diminuant l'importance de la fonction présidentielle.
  • Le traumatisme de la guerre civile reste dans les esprits.
Selon Achy, rien n'empêche un mouvement révolutionnair de déclencher en Algérie, mais “malgré des manifestations sporadiques et des appels au changement de la part des intellectuels et des hommes politiques, un bloc qui pourrait dépasser les divisions sociétales n'existe pas encore en Algérie.”
On parle beaucoup des caracterstiques que partagent la Tunisie et l'Egypte (et l'Iran d'ailleurs) mais maintenant que le mouvement prend ampleur et gangne plusieurs autres pays au Moyen Orient. Par exemple, tandis que la Tunisie et l'Egypte jouissent des indentités historiques cohésives, il n'en est pas ainsi pour le Yemen ni la Syrie. Un pays relativement petit, et d'une population homogène, la Tunisie se differencie de l'Egypt, avec ses 85 millions et sa minorité coptique assez importante. De manière analogue, la population algérienne comporte les Kabyles dans ses 35 millions. En fin, l'affluence relative et la place occupée par les couches moyennes en Tunisie se manifestent peu dans la région.

Le seul indice signalé par Achy qui peut jouer un rôle déterminant est la mémoire de la guerre civile. Bien que d'autres pays aient subi de terrorisme et des atrocités, comme le massacre de Hama en Syrie, une guerre civile dépasse même les tactiques les plus répressives d'un dictateur. Ayant vu la population s'en prend aux autres, le risque de faire reproduire la sitaution pèse lourd.