Tuesday, February 10, 2004
France's Scarf Ban
The battle over the hijab is only superficially a battle between religion and secularism. What is happening in France is by no means unique. It is but one example of European governments on both sides of the political spectrum rethinking their approach to religious and ethnic minorities. Lost in the kafuffle about religious head gear in France, for example, is plan by Belgium to enact a similar ban and a German plan to make arranged marriages illegal.
What spurs European governments to act is this. According to some estimates, if Europe continues on as it is, the median age in Europe will go from 37.7 today to 52.3 by 2050. By comparison, because of the high number of immigrants let into the country each year and because of its relatively high birth rate, the median age in American will go up only slightly to 35.4. What this means is that while the US will eventually recover from the impact of all those baby bombers retiring, things in Europe look progressively bleak. As Professor Charles Kupchan notes, “today there are 35 pensioners for every 100 workers within the European Union. By 2050, current demographic trends would leave Europe with 75 pensioners for every 100 workers and in countries like Italy and Spain the ratio would be 1 to 1.” Not only will there be a long and sustained pension crisis, but since the European population is on track to shrink quite rapidly, for that reason alone, prospects for economic growth do not look good. Despite a having a high immigration rate by European standards (Germany has highest percentage of foreign born residents in Europe), according to a UN report at its current pace the German population will drop by 10 million. Italy, which has a much lower immigration rate, will loose 15 million. Needless to say, there is recognition amongst the powers that be that Europe must open its borders to more immigrants.
The problem is that Europe has done a poor job interrogating religious and ethnic minorities into mainstream society. There is no better example of this Germany’s Turkish minority. Up until 1973, Germany recruited guest workers to help fill jobs that were going wanting during the post war economic boom. Most of these workers turned out to be Turks. However, Germany never intended for these workers to stay in Germany, let alone become part of German society. For this reason, German citizenship laws are based on blood, not on birth. Children of refugees, guest workers and other immigrants born in Germany are not guaranteed citizenship. Today roughly 30 percent of welfare recipients in Germany are foreigners -- three times the national average. Many of those on the dole are Turks. While German politicians tread lightly around the subject of race, not everyone follows those taboos. Barbara John, a Bundestag member for the Christian Democratic Union, has claimed that 42 percent of the 127,000 Turks living in Berlin are unemployed, and that only a few speak adequate German.
The situation in France is also troubling. Although composing almost 8 percent of the population, conservative politician and civil rights activist Zaïr Kedadouche notes that "There isn't a single Muslim in Parliament to vote on this law and not a single Arab among all the country's mayors." A disproportionate number of Muslims live in France’s banlieue, the gritty urban suburbs/ghettos that house the poor outside French cities. As noted in the New Republic recently “The unemployment rate in the banlieue hovers above 25 percent, and reaches as high as 40 percent in some areas. Only four percent of the beur--French slang for "Arab"--boys who grow up there reach university.”
The failure to ingrate its minorities, particularly its Muslim minorities, into society has helped spawn a European wide anti-immigration backlash in the 1990s that has led to rise of the likes of Jean-Marie Le Pen and Jorge Haider. The anti immigration sentiment blocks politicians from acting in two ways. The first is obvious. Like any key election issue, politicians must hone their message so that it is tune with public opinion. Going against the tide of public opinion will only get them thrown from office. The second is less obvious. Since many European countries have proportional representation, the 15% to 25% of the popular vote these anti-immigration parties garner in many European countries means that they inevitably from to time form part of a governing coalition.
911 and a corresponding spike in religious strife, particularly in France, have made resolving this issue even more urgent. Indeed, not only is there no political will to let in more immigrants, there is suddenly a push to fully assimilate existing ethnic minorities into European society.
To this end, many countries are finally getting at the root economic and social causes of the problem. In France the National Agency for Urban Renovation intends to refurbish or build new housing for nearly 6 million banlieue residents by the end of 2008. Some of the program will involve the relocation of partial neighborhoods to more affluent city centers, and the project could initially create around 100,000 new jobs for residents. And in Germany, the government has continued the process of remaking Germany’s archaic citizenship laws.
This is not seen as enough though. Mainstream parties have felt pressured into trying to beat the anti-immigration parties at their own game. This is one reason why Chirac has banned religious wear in France. 70% of the French population supports the ban. Surprisingly, Le Pen opposes the ban. Jeremy Harding in this Month’s London Review of Books attributes this to Le Pen's need to appeal to his base – no pun intended. “When it comes to veil-politics he hasn't much room for manoeuvre - on the grounds that by wearing the hijab, Muslim women distinguish themselves from 'les Français de souche', i.e. people of bona fide Gallic stock, and that this is fine: it will make things easier, the implication is, when it comes to throwing them out.”
“Teachers are ... clear that the wearing of religious symbols tends to exacerbate the divisions over heated issues such as Palestine.” As such, Harding is right to note that “this is a management issue … as much as a matter of principle, and a very urgent one, because of the frightening rise of anti-Semitic harassment in French schools. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, during one school term alone, more than four hundred anti-Semitic incidents were reported, which is why, on the eve of the war, the minister of education, Luc Ferry, suggested the time had come for students to 'drop crosses, veils, skullcaps' and 'play by the Republic's rules'." If nothing else the ban obscures the embarrassing fact that a de facto ban on skullcaps is already in place in many French schools and that this has been the case for a few years now.
Lastly the ban seems designed to create various fissures within the Muslim community itself and between the Muslim community and the French New Left. With regard to the former Chirac hopes that creating such a fissure he might be able to speed up the rate of assimilation. This is debatable, but the hijab is certainly natural point of attack. Not only has there been more than 80 years of debate about Turkey’s banning of hijab, 49% of French Muslim women support the ban. (It is worth juxtaposing Europe and Turkey on the issue of traditional Islam. The father of Turkey is of course the arch secularist Ataturk. It was his vision to turn Turkey into secular European State free from the trappings of Islamic traditionalism. The guardians of this vision are the Turkish military and the hijab, as it was in Ataturk’s day, is still banned in offices and schools. However, in recent years the military has slackened its grip on power. In 1994, for example, the former mayor of Istanbul was jailed for reciting a poem containing the following verse. ''The mosques are our barracks, the minarets are our bayonets.” That same man, Erdogan, is now the country’s Prime Minister. One of the reasons for the softened stance of the secular elite is that they need to loosen their grip on power if Turkey is to have any hope of meeting the Copenhagen Criteria for entrance into the European Union. "Membership requires that the candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and, protection of minorities.” Plus, Erdogan has toned down the rhetoric and promised to take Turkey into Europe. It is thus ironic that while, the Turkish elite has grudgedly held back their “Kemalist” tendencies and given the democratically elected Islamists more freedom in the hope getting into Europe, Europe has begun to bow to democratic pressures and has seemingly become “Kemalist”.)
With regard to a latter, Chirac seems to be hoping to break apart the alliance between the New Left that is the source of what French Education Minister calls a “spectacular rise in racism and anti-Semitism in the last three years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/magazine/29ANTISEMITISM.html?ex=1078635600&en=9d1417a44ee51579&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
The Atlantic Monthly summarizes the findings of controversial EU report on the spike of anti-Semitism in early 2002 thus: “The authors argue that the confluence of the Palestinian intifada and the passionate debates over 9/11 led to a spike in public expressions of anti-Semitism, and also in violence against Jews and Jewish property. The report goes on to point out that although this violence—physical attacks, the desecration of synagogues—was primarily the work of young Muslim men, anti-Semitic rhetoric was increasingly heard from the far left, where vicious attacks on Israel and the United States often relied on traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes. The report singles out pro-Palestinian demonstrations at which Arab-Muslim and leftist groups stood shoulder to shoulder, and anti-Semitic slogans and placards were prominent. It suggests that among many European leftists, legitimate opposition to Israeli and American policies has metamorphosed into a belief in that hoariest of anti-Semitic clichés, a "Jewish world conspiracy" that is pulling the levers of power around the globe. A leaflet from a German anti-globalization organization neatly captures the idea: drawn in the style of Nazi propaganda, it depicts Uncle Sam with a "Jewish" hooked nose, dangling the world from his finger.” In a recent poll 59% of Europeans named Israel as the biggest threat to world peace.
By pitting the secular minded lefts, who preach gender equality, against the most militantly minded Muslims, who tend to be fundamentalist and traditionalist in outlook, Chirac is aiming at destroying alliances that have developed between these two groups over the last decade.
The battle over the hijab is only superficially a battle between religion and secularism. What is happening in France is by no means unique. It is but one example of European governments on both sides of the political spectrum rethinking their approach to religious and ethnic minorities. Lost in the kafuffle about religious head gear in France, for example, is plan by Belgium to enact a similar ban and a German plan to make arranged marriages illegal.
What spurs European governments to act is this. According to some estimates, if Europe continues on as it is, the median age in Europe will go from 37.7 today to 52.3 by 2050. By comparison, because of the high number of immigrants let into the country each year and because of its relatively high birth rate, the median age in American will go up only slightly to 35.4. What this means is that while the US will eventually recover from the impact of all those baby bombers retiring, things in Europe look progressively bleak. As Professor Charles Kupchan notes, “today there are 35 pensioners for every 100 workers within the European Union. By 2050, current demographic trends would leave Europe with 75 pensioners for every 100 workers and in countries like Italy and Spain the ratio would be 1 to 1.” Not only will there be a long and sustained pension crisis, but since the European population is on track to shrink quite rapidly, for that reason alone, prospects for economic growth do not look good. Despite a having a high immigration rate by European standards (Germany has highest percentage of foreign born residents in Europe), according to a UN report at its current pace the German population will drop by 10 million. Italy, which has a much lower immigration rate, will loose 15 million. Needless to say, there is recognition amongst the powers that be that Europe must open its borders to more immigrants.
The problem is that Europe has done a poor job interrogating religious and ethnic minorities into mainstream society. There is no better example of this Germany’s Turkish minority. Up until 1973, Germany recruited guest workers to help fill jobs that were going wanting during the post war economic boom. Most of these workers turned out to be Turks. However, Germany never intended for these workers to stay in Germany, let alone become part of German society. For this reason, German citizenship laws are based on blood, not on birth. Children of refugees, guest workers and other immigrants born in Germany are not guaranteed citizenship. Today roughly 30 percent of welfare recipients in Germany are foreigners -- three times the national average. Many of those on the dole are Turks. While German politicians tread lightly around the subject of race, not everyone follows those taboos. Barbara John, a Bundestag member for the Christian Democratic Union, has claimed that 42 percent of the 127,000 Turks living in Berlin are unemployed, and that only a few speak adequate German.
The situation in France is also troubling. Although composing almost 8 percent of the population, conservative politician and civil rights activist Zaïr Kedadouche notes that "There isn't a single Muslim in Parliament to vote on this law and not a single Arab among all the country's mayors." A disproportionate number of Muslims live in France’s banlieue, the gritty urban suburbs/ghettos that house the poor outside French cities. As noted in the New Republic recently “The unemployment rate in the banlieue hovers above 25 percent, and reaches as high as 40 percent in some areas. Only four percent of the beur--French slang for "Arab"--boys who grow up there reach university.”
The failure to ingrate its minorities, particularly its Muslim minorities, into society has helped spawn a European wide anti-immigration backlash in the 1990s that has led to rise of the likes of Jean-Marie Le Pen and Jorge Haider. The anti immigration sentiment blocks politicians from acting in two ways. The first is obvious. Like any key election issue, politicians must hone their message so that it is tune with public opinion. Going against the tide of public opinion will only get them thrown from office. The second is less obvious. Since many European countries have proportional representation, the 15% to 25% of the popular vote these anti-immigration parties garner in many European countries means that they inevitably from to time form part of a governing coalition.
911 and a corresponding spike in religious strife, particularly in France, have made resolving this issue even more urgent. Indeed, not only is there no political will to let in more immigrants, there is suddenly a push to fully assimilate existing ethnic minorities into European society.
To this end, many countries are finally getting at the root economic and social causes of the problem. In France the National Agency for Urban Renovation intends to refurbish or build new housing for nearly 6 million banlieue residents by the end of 2008. Some of the program will involve the relocation of partial neighborhoods to more affluent city centers, and the project could initially create around 100,000 new jobs for residents. And in Germany, the government has continued the process of remaking Germany’s archaic citizenship laws.
This is not seen as enough though. Mainstream parties have felt pressured into trying to beat the anti-immigration parties at their own game. This is one reason why Chirac has banned religious wear in France. 70% of the French population supports the ban. Surprisingly, Le Pen opposes the ban. Jeremy Harding in this Month’s London Review of Books attributes this to Le Pen's need to appeal to his base – no pun intended. “When it comes to veil-politics he hasn't much room for manoeuvre - on the grounds that by wearing the hijab, Muslim women distinguish themselves from 'les Français de souche', i.e. people of bona fide Gallic stock, and that this is fine: it will make things easier, the implication is, when it comes to throwing them out.”
“Teachers are ... clear that the wearing of religious symbols tends to exacerbate the divisions over heated issues such as Palestine.” As such, Harding is right to note that “this is a management issue … as much as a matter of principle, and a very urgent one, because of the frightening rise of anti-Semitic harassment in French schools. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, during one school term alone, more than four hundred anti-Semitic incidents were reported, which is why, on the eve of the war, the minister of education, Luc Ferry, suggested the time had come for students to 'drop crosses, veils, skullcaps' and 'play by the Republic's rules'." If nothing else the ban obscures the embarrassing fact that a de facto ban on skullcaps is already in place in many French schools and that this has been the case for a few years now.
Lastly the ban seems designed to create various fissures within the Muslim community itself and between the Muslim community and the French New Left. With regard to the former Chirac hopes that creating such a fissure he might be able to speed up the rate of assimilation. This is debatable, but the hijab is certainly natural point of attack. Not only has there been more than 80 years of debate about Turkey’s banning of hijab, 49% of French Muslim women support the ban. (It is worth juxtaposing Europe and Turkey on the issue of traditional Islam. The father of Turkey is of course the arch secularist Ataturk. It was his vision to turn Turkey into secular European State free from the trappings of Islamic traditionalism. The guardians of this vision are the Turkish military and the hijab, as it was in Ataturk’s day, is still banned in offices and schools. However, in recent years the military has slackened its grip on power. In 1994, for example, the former mayor of Istanbul was jailed for reciting a poem containing the following verse. ''The mosques are our barracks, the minarets are our bayonets.” That same man, Erdogan, is now the country’s Prime Minister. One of the reasons for the softened stance of the secular elite is that they need to loosen their grip on power if Turkey is to have any hope of meeting the Copenhagen Criteria for entrance into the European Union. "Membership requires that the candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and, protection of minorities.” Plus, Erdogan has toned down the rhetoric and promised to take Turkey into Europe. It is thus ironic that while, the Turkish elite has grudgedly held back their “Kemalist” tendencies and given the democratically elected Islamists more freedom in the hope getting into Europe, Europe has begun to bow to democratic pressures and has seemingly become “Kemalist”.)
With regard to a latter, Chirac seems to be hoping to break apart the alliance between the New Left that is the source of what French Education Minister calls a “spectacular rise in racism and anti-Semitism in the last three years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/magazine/29ANTISEMITISM.html?ex=1078635600&en=9d1417a44ee51579&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
The Atlantic Monthly summarizes the findings of controversial EU report on the spike of anti-Semitism in early 2002 thus: “The authors argue that the confluence of the Palestinian intifada and the passionate debates over 9/11 led to a spike in public expressions of anti-Semitism, and also in violence against Jews and Jewish property. The report goes on to point out that although this violence—physical attacks, the desecration of synagogues—was primarily the work of young Muslim men, anti-Semitic rhetoric was increasingly heard from the far left, where vicious attacks on Israel and the United States often relied on traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes. The report singles out pro-Palestinian demonstrations at which Arab-Muslim and leftist groups stood shoulder to shoulder, and anti-Semitic slogans and placards were prominent. It suggests that among many European leftists, legitimate opposition to Israeli and American policies has metamorphosed into a belief in that hoariest of anti-Semitic clichés, a "Jewish world conspiracy" that is pulling the levers of power around the globe. A leaflet from a German anti-globalization organization neatly captures the idea: drawn in the style of Nazi propaganda, it depicts Uncle Sam with a "Jewish" hooked nose, dangling the world from his finger.” In a recent poll 59% of Europeans named Israel as the biggest threat to world peace.
By pitting the secular minded lefts, who preach gender equality, against the most militantly minded Muslims, who tend to be fundamentalist and traditionalist in outlook, Chirac is aiming at destroying alliances that have developed between these two groups over the last decade.
Comments:
Post a Comment
