France: Violence and sexist acts - The case which the CGT has stifled

TW: descriptions of violence, apologism
By Mathilde Goanec & Dan Israel
Originally published 27 JUNE 2018 in Mediapart

One of the members of the General Confederation of Labour’s (CGT) most powerful federations, a Parisian garbage collector, is implicated in acts of violence and for the sexist climate that persists in his union. The case could have become a positive example for the union, which is increasingly vocal about gender equality issues and awareness of violence against women. However, in 18 months, the organisation has not managed to resolve the situation, which turns into a quagmire.

Attacks at protests, sexist remarks, equivocal slogans, and even a physical confrontation: several women activists of the CGT have complained for many long months of a sexist climate tolerated within the CGT City of Paris, and the actions of one the most prominent trade union leaders of this union, a member of the Executive Board of the powerful Federation of Public Services. Despite repeated warnings, no sanctions were pronounced, according to a series of documents obtained by Mediapart and confirmed by activists at all levels of the organisation.

Against sexist violence, all together!

At the end of 2017, a dozen women activists created the Collective Femmes-Mixité in the CGT City of Paris. In a letter sent to the secretary general of the union, Philippe Martinez, and to the leader of the Federation of Public Services, Baptiste Talbot, eight of its members denounce not only "verbal, sexual and gender-based attacks", actions according to they are "repeated and conscious", but also a case of physical violence. The letter regrets that the perpetrators implicated "continue to exercise their mandates as trade union leaders without any difficulty" and hopes that the CGT will answer, "in view of its consistent work in terms of understanding, prevention and fight against violence ".

The main events focus around the year 2016 and the beginning of 2017. They all concern the CGT union of the City of Paris (called "US", which has about fifteen unions representing different trades), and more particularly interaction between two of its organisations. On the one hand, the Paris cleaning union, which represents the city's garbage collectors, almost all men; on the other hand, the early childhood union, which brings together professionals, almost exclusively women, supporting young children. Both unions, as well as the US, are under the leadership of the Paris Departmental Union (UD) and under the authority of the Federation of Public Services, the premier federation of the CGT with 80,000 adherents claimed at the national level.

The letter of the eight women describes several problematic episodes, featuring men from the cleaning union, including its secretary general Régis Vieceli, attacking women, often from CGT Early childhood. These incidents vary in severity, ranging from oppressive remarks to violent altercations.

On March 9, 2016, during a demonstration against the labour law, a cleaner union activist yells into the microphone "Michel and Jacquie, take care of El Khomri", a direct reference to the porn site "Jacquie and Michel" and the then Minister of Labour. On May 1, 2016, the slogans are aimed this time directly at a CGT activist, who passes by the cleaning union's truck, recognisable within the thousand thanks to its red and black star and two mannequins dressed in the garb of garbage men who sit on the roof. "We'll fuck you, we'll fuck you," spits the speaker. Shortly after, at the microphone, Regis Vieceli invites women to a party organised at the Ivry-sur-Seine (Val-de-Marne) incinerator, then occupied by his union, and offers activists "3 condoms and 2 mojitos, and if you are not CGT, 2 condoms and 3 mojitos".

CGT Early Childhood Logo

A month later, during a major demonstration in the capital, two women complain this time of touching on the buttocks and breasts, committed by men around the cleaning union truck. "We wore our red T-shirt with the CGT Early Childhood logo," reports one of them. There were a lot of people, and men were close to us. One of them groped my chest, another put his hand on the buttocks of my young colleague. She was shocked, and since then she has never been to a protest again. For my part, it took me some time to put on a CGT T-shirt, and I took the largest size to hide the shape of my body."

"He grabbed me by the hair and pushed me violently on a table"
On December 2, 2016, in the morning, the tension rises sharply. A lively quarrel broke out between CGT officials of the City of Paris, in the premises of the Paris Labour Exchange, close to the Place de la République. At issue: a banal history of office occupation between, on the one hand, two women in charge of the CGT early childhood union of the City of Paris, and on the other, Régis Vieceli.

The stories of both parties diverge completely, except on the brutality of the incident. For Emma* and Olympe* (many witnesses have preferred to appear under aliases, see our black box), the facts are clear: it is an assault. "My back was to him when he caught me by the hair and pushed me violently on a table, said the Olympe the same day in the complaint she filed at the police station. While I was half lying on the table, I saw my colleague raise his arm as if to give me a punch. I wanted to avoid it but I still received a slight blow in the right jaw. Despite my colleague, who interposed between us, he did not let go and continued to shake me in all directions, tearing the sleeve of my T-shirt. He finally ejected me violently against a table that fell to the ground. "

The activist complains of back and neck ailments, says her body had scratch marks and a blow on her back. Her statements are confirmed by pictures taken immediately after the violent episode. After filing a complaint, she went to the North Paris medical and legal unit, which granted her three days off work. Very shocked, Olympe will then be stopped from working a further two months by her doctor.

The version of Régis Vieceli on these facts is quite different. In a letter also sent the same day to the Federal and Confederal Directorate of the CGT, he says that it was he who was "provoked and assaulted by two comrades". He assures that he no longer feels physically safe on the premises of the Labour Exchange, says he no longer wants to go alone and therefore decides to be "accompanied by my comrades from my union to ensure [his] safety" in future meetings.

Regis Vieceli, supported by written testimonies of men and women from several unions, still maintains this line. Contacted by Mediapart, he did not answer any of our questions. At the Federation of Public Services (of which he is a member of the Executive Board), Natacha Pommet, a member of the federation's national leadership, believes that doubt persists on the facts and underlines the "contradictions" in the testimony collected, encourages "caution". The complaint filed by Olympe was dismissed on 29 June 2017 by the prosecutor's office, on the grounds that the facts "could not be clearly established by the investigation" and that "the evidence is not sufficient for the case to be tried by a court".

In January 2018, Régis Vieceli was nevertheless blamed by his employer, the City of Paris. The City Executive briefing note states that "it is established that [he] has committed threatening and violent acts against his colleague and that the latter struck a piece of furniture as a result of these actions", but that it cannot "be clearly established whether he delivered a direct blow", or whether "his actions were made in response to a physical aggression" on the part of Olympe.

"If you want, I'll train you in my room"  On February 17, 2018, the secretary general of the cleaning union again crosses a line against Rosa*, a young activist of the Technicians and Executives section of the City of Paris, while she is with several male comrades in an office of the Republic Labour Scholarship to prepare a union meeting.

"Three people have arrived, someone from my management and two other men, including this activist, who I did not know," Rosa tells Mediapart. He said, "If you want, I'll train you in my room." I did not react in the first few seconds, then I told him it was humiliating and degrading. I was in an office, in the evening, the only woman facing five guys older than me, I felt unsafe. Especially since he got upset, saying that I was sexist, that it was a joke, and that we can not say anything to the women ... I told myself that if it continued, he would slap me. I went out crying from the office. "

The following week, Rosa writes to the leadership of the union, asking that the official apologise and receive a booklet on gender equality. She did not receive a response. A month later, Rosa's union officially complained to Regis Vieceli himself, as well as the federation, the US and the UD, saying that "coming from a federal official, this attitude is simply unacceptable."

"We did not communicate on this because Regis Vieceli said he apologised”, explains Natacha Pommet today, who admits that the federation did not directly meet Rosa on this subject. “He regretted having said these things after drinking alcohol. But we recognise the context: a mostly male union, sexist behaviours that unfortunately the CGT, like the rest of society, is not immune from”. Rosa, for her part, continues to affirm: she has never received an apology from Regis Vieceli.

The discomfort prevailing in the CGT City of Paris around the facts denounced by the Collective Femmes-Mixité is probably also explained because there is a serious precedent. In 2015, an activist was unable to work due to illness for several months, after being the victim, according to her, of moral and sexual abuse. The episode involves some of the actors struggling with the current issues that hang over the union. The victim, interviewed by Mediapart, confirms the facts but does not wish to comment. Yet they have remained rooted in the heads of those who are concerned about the internal atmosphere. They note that after the illness of the activist in 2015, there was a period of calm, then the incidents have resumed, reaching a crescendo.

The Collective Femmes-Mixité was received, at its request, by Confederal officials, the highest echelon of the CGT. It was March 9, 2018, more than a year after the fact. "We were there to say that under no circumstances could the CGT accept a sexist environment or physical violence against a woman," said the confederal leader Boris Plazzi. It was necessary to remove any ambiguity because the comrades can have the feeling that one does not worry about what happens to them. We took time because we had to convince everyone to sit around the table. I am an activist, a leader, who tries to understand, to recut. I understand that activists find it too long. "The second meeting with representatives of the confederation took place Thursday, June 21, without further concrete progress in the eyes of the collective and the departmental union of Paris, which supports it.

For Philippe Martinez: "Unacceptable" abuses 

Philippe Martinez leads a CGT contingent

Most of these cases, including those of Olympe and Rosa, were also reported to the watch cell against sexual and sexual violence, created by the CGT on an experimental basis at the end of 2016. This cell, supported by the general secretary Philippe Martinez, reports directly to the Confederal Executive Committee, a sort of "parliament" of the CGT. In April 2017, the cell officially alerted the Federation of Public Services on the events occurring within the CGT of the City of Paris, to denounce the cluster of events, all signalling the existence of a sexist environment within or around the federation.

Symbol of the embarrassment surrounds the file, it is only orally that the cell presented its first annual report to the Executive Board on March 6, 2018, at the CGT headquarters in Montreuil. The report largely evoked, without citing directly, the facts that occurred within the CGT Paris. Contrary to the usual procedures, no written report has been circulated, even to members of the Executive Board who were absent on 6 March. Its conclusions remain inaccessible to the vast majority of the organisation.

"The general secretary Philippe Martinez is publicising this watching in the media, but it is muzzled”, say the insurgent members of the Collective Femmes-Mixité of the CGT Ville de Paris. “Not only does it not help us, but it also generates real anger. One has the impression that there is a difference of treatment when it comes to punishing not a simple member, but an official. "

"It is unacceptable that such abuses occur in our organisation. But the cell is not a court," Philippe Martinez tells Mediapart. The objective of the cell is indeed to "sensitise, train and listen to the victims," he says, but then "we pass the baton" to the federations, under the autonomy of the trade union organisations vis-à-vis the confederation that oversees them. "This is the principle of federalism, insists the CGT leader. In the confederation, if I learn stories of this kind, and I have evidence, I act, it has happened to me already. We assume our responsibilities but we are not entitled to take sides for this or that organisation. "

"The cell did its job, it went to the end. It has no decision-making prerogatives of sanction, contrary to the organisations concerned”, underlines for her part Sophie Binet, member of the confederal executive commission of the CGT, in charge of the questions of equality between women and men. “The confederation must put everyone around the table to find a solution. The process is too slow and laborious, but it is engaged. "

The responsible implicated, spearhead of the CGT for elections?
In 2013, the CGT appended to its statutes a charter dealing with sexism and internal violence. It states that any activist convicted by the courts for acts contrary to the values of the union must be removed from office. "When there is a judicial conviction, our statutes are clear. The problem is that issues of gender-based violence are under-apprehended by police forces and outsourced by the courts”, notes Sophie Binet. “But without judicial support and when, as in this situation, there is a difference of interpretation between the organisations concerned, it is longer and more complicated to settle. "

Marilyn Baldeck, head of the Association Against Violence Against Women at Work (AVFT), takes a sharp view of the whole affair. Especially since her association has partnered with the CGT to train its executives and support its activists on the issue. Today, she also works with the Collective Femmes-Mixité and believes that there is no doubt about the credibility of the facts described and documented, including physical violence. "To say that the file has been closed without further action by the justice system is a good outcome for some union officials," says the lawyer. “They are sometimes able to be distant from legal processes, but this time, the closure without follow-up being the end of this story? It is not possible. "

For Marilyn Baldeck, "the fact that a CGT official is filing a complaint against another CGT official is so far removed from the traditional union culture that it requires taking this matter seriously". But for now, it is far from being heard by the Federation of Public Services or the Cleaning Union. Because Régis Vieceli, on whom the debate crystallises, is a powerful unionist, almost unanimously considered a "hero of the struggles", all the more difficult to contest that he must be one of the spearheads of the CGT in Paris for the next professional elections.

"If we had condemned the one who is considered to be the aggressor, he would have had a very heavy penalty from the mayor of Paris, but he is an important trade union figure," defends the federation. "I'm a political activist, I'm sensitised to sexism, I know it's everywhere," notes Rosa. “But such a protection system, I have never seen that. I do not understand. At work, for less than that, we would all be up in arms ... "

The Federation of Public Services claims the course of "education and pedagogy". It assures that Regis Vieceli is gradually becoming aware of these issues, like the rest of his union. "We know that some activists have been sexist, and must take ownership of the changes," says federal leader Natacha Pommet. “But between the moment we are a "big macho" and the moment we are convinced of these issues, it can take time”. On the Confederal side, Boris Plazzi agrees:" I am in favour of the policy of small steps. At first, there was no question of talking about all of this, and since then there has been an internal discussion within the federation. Between what it said a year ago and what it is saying now, there has been a real journey. You have to train, you have to do pedagogy to get out of this type of practice. "

A letter denounces those who play "frightened virgins rather than fight"
In this case, the cleaning union and the Federation of Public Services have regularly downplayed the facts or dodged the issue. In March 2016, in response to the official protests of several trade unionists, including those in charge of the Paris UD, on the slogan associating Myriam El Khomri with "Michel and Jacquie", the cleaning union issued a letter denouncing those who play "frightened virgins rather than fight". The letter assures that the slogan simply referred to "two of our retired comrades whom we had the pleasure of hosting in the demo".

At a meeting held just days after the aggression against Olympe, bringing together officials of the UD and trade unions of the City of Paris, some supporters of Regis Vieceli have also persisted, that what was described by witnesses is the sort of "fight which is normal, man or woman". As for the accusations of touching, the response was equally flippant: "When there are many demonstrators, pressed tight, it is a normal that thing that happens".

For its part, the Federation recognises the touching without spin but claims not to have been able to go further. "The touching took place in the motorcade of Paris, in the union of Regis Vieceli, it is condemned and condemnable”, insists Natacha Pommet. “But it was impossible for the women who spoke to identify their attackers and to know whether or not they were part of that union. We know how these events happen, especially in the summer, with the distribution of drinks of all kinds, it is very complicated”. The federation also recalls that it has drafted a joint statement with the UD and a number of unions, including CGT Early childhood, after a difficult discussion. "It never appeared, and today we still ask the question of why?" says the organisation.

But it was especially around the physical confrontation of December 2, 2016, that the Federation of Public Services has delayed. It collected the testimony of those involved a few days after the fact but did not return its investigation report until March 5, 2018. From the first lines of this report, the tone is clear: "Beforehand, it is necessary to note that the issues mentioned above arise in a context of strong internal conflict within the CGT City of Paris issues of power and control of trade union freedoms and finances."

For several months, the US is indeed in a state of decomposition, three unions (including that of cleaning) have jumped ship, supported by the Federation of Public Services. Soon joined by five other unions, they now form a coordination on their side, unprecedented in the history of the CGT in Paris. Officially, the disagreement is political, but personal enmities also seem to be at work.

The conclusion of the federation's report assures that "sexism must be fought" and welcomes the fact that no new sexist statements or words have been reported during the recent period, "which seems to us to demonstrate that an in consciousness has taken place ". In doing so, it ignores the "training room" proposal made to Rosa, which was denounced at the time in many letters.

The report finally warns critics of the federation: "In an era of sharpening the class struggle, as our organisation faces decisive elections, the Federation believes that those who threaten to publicly defile the CGT act in the interest of our enemies. Asked about this very controversial tone, Natacha Pommet assumes: "There was a reaction from the federation to a number of unfortunate facts, we follow this trade union very closely, and therefore we find it detestable that this kind of things can go out anyway, while professional elections are coming. We think that it is not preferable. Last time, remember, we had already had the Lepaon affair, which had not been very favourable to us ... "

A petition to denounce sexism ... of accusers
The scandal of 2014 around the then secretary general of the CGT, Thierry Lepaon, accused of having his office redecorated at a high price, remains a trauma for many union officials. To the point that some people are now cultivating the ambiguity: "It is perhaps also because this man is a militant recognised in his militant activity that he may be the target of attacks, even if he has had unacceptable behaviour, "says Natacha Pommet.

A position shared by Maria Da Costa, another supporter of Régis Vieceli. A former head of the early childhood union and one-time secretary-general of the US, the latter does not question the "gender problem" or the importance of feminist struggle. However, she denounces what she considers as a manipulation: "We use a number of things to make sure that those who have a certain vision of unionism and struggle are harmed," she says.

Armed with this suspicion, Regis Vieceli's supporters have made their positions widely known. At the end of 2016, a petition hostile to accusations against the union leader has for example circulated within the US. "The fact of taking sides for the woman without waiting to know all the versions of the facts shows that the mentality of some (s) did not change on the superiority of the men who would be the strong sex, and, on the women, who would be inferior to the man, "assured the text. "We reject this retrograde, degrading and infantilising image of women. Just like the image of the alcoholic violent worker ... ", it continued.

On the door of the premises allocated to the cleaning union on the Bourse du Travail de République, a poster exposes the local doctrine: "Here we can laugh at everything, but not with anyone! "That is to say, not with" the fascists, the collaborators, the anti-communists, the breakers of the CGT, strikebreakers", nor with" the homophobes, the sexists, the misogynists "or ..." the misandrists ". Misandry, this hostility towards men, appeared in the local vocabulary following the incident of December 2 and its aftermath.

The pressures are sometimes more direct. Three days after Rosa's sexual invitation, one of her comrades, close to Régis Vieceli, wrote to her to express his regret at not having intervened directly that day, but also to dissuade her from reporting the incident to the federation. "Your first union action would be to feed what is already dividing our organisation," he writes. During a general assembly, the same activist and a handful of supporters of the secretary general of the Cleaning Union directly call out the young woman: "They have deployed the catalogue of strategies for the defence of sexism, she recalls. Stereotypical arguments: "You want her skin", "You instrumentalise feminist issues", "He did not rape you anyway, he is ready to discuss" ...".

The same author used the same arguments to blame Flora* for having signed the common letter alerting to the sexist climate in the US. Following the release of the letter, the young woman said she had "a difficult week". The activist calls her for 45 minutes to discuss disagreements between activists, and ask her to justify her signature of the letter. "He reproached me for attacking a super activist, destroying the CGT, making him want to leave" the organisation ", he told me that during all his years of activism, he never had was arrested on harassment issues ... "During the week, the young woman receives at least one call per day, together with an email or an SMS.

Trade union solidarity, therefore, plays a full role, acting as a protective barrier around the responsible party. "We know this type of strategy, they have been deployed in other types of organisations, including political”, Sophie Binet notes. “And that's what you have to work on. We must succeed in dissociating the militant collective from an aggressive leader. It is to that end that I keep saying that you cannot be a good union activist and an abuser. It's incompatible. "

"It still seems crazy to us that it happens in our organisations"
Benoît Martin, head of the departmental union of Paris, has been advocating feminist issues for several years and has taken a firm stance on the matter with the federation, the confederation, and two CGT publications. "I have been very exposed since. I am criticised for talking about these issues that would only be internal disputes. I believe that there continues to be a macho solidarity in my trade union organisation, obviously. But this may not be essential: there are clearly issues surrounding the preservation of the organisation. And to preserve is to be silent, even where it would be necessary to listen, to repair, to prevent and to sanction. "

Suffering is all the greater as union loyalty is strong. "We must read the resolution number 5 from the last Congress, in April 2016, underlines Benoit Martin. There is a formal commitment to combat sexism outside and in the CGT and to combat violence against women in the workplace and in the union. Some consider me "over-committed", but I simply exercise my responsibility to the CGT, which clearly claims to be a feminist union. "The departmental manager is proof of the exemplary fight led by his union within the International Labor Organisation (ILO) just recently. The CGT represents all French employees in the negotiation of new binding rules against violence against women.

For the confederal leader Boris Plazzi, however, we must understand that the union is living a new situation. "All this is very new at home, it falls on us, he testifies. If you ask us to talk about everything else, employment, social justice, etc., we will be inexhaustible. But before this kind of business, we are a little like a chicken in front of a knife. We are not seasoned, it seems to us insane that it happens in our organisations. "

The birth of the collective has been experienced by the activists who have constituted it as a lifeline, the opportunity to lead "a trade union struggle, noble and beautiful", bringing together women who sometimes come from different pathways and trades. "It has changed my life a lot, and this is the case for all of us because this aggression triggered our setting in motion, our personal and collective development," says Angela*. “Our story is also about stopping feeling guilty about what can happen to comrades, it is to tell us that the CGT means as much to us at it does to them. If we do not unite in a common struggle, it will never stop."

This new solidarity does not prevent either bitterness or sometimes the desire to slam the door. "I know that real values are carried by my union and it is this orientation that makes me want to stay, Rosa insists. For a year, I see a lot of evolution, the speeches are not quite the same, there is an awareness among some men and women. But what is tiring is to live sexism both outside, in the street, and in my union, which should be a space that protects us from all this. Today we spend a lot of time fighting around this issue when there are many other fights we would like to see."

Read more...

France: "Pigs and their allies are right to worry": Caroline De Haas and feminist activists respond to the column in "Le Monde"

Originally published by Franceinfo
10/01/2018

Some thirty personalities and members of associations react, Wednesday, January 10, on Franceinfo, to the arguments of the text of 100 women defending the "freedom to pester" of men after the movements "#balancetonporc" (#exposeyourpig) and "#Metoo".

A paper that does not pass. 
Tuesday, January 9, 100 women have signed a forum published in Le Monde where they defend the "freedom to importuner", after what they call a "campaign of denunciation" targeting men accused of sexual harassment in the wake of the Weinstein case. A text written by several renowned authors, including Catherine Millet and Catherine Robbe-Grillet, and signed by figures such as actress Catherine Deneuve and journalist Elisabeth Lévy, who defend, among other things, the "freedom to pester" scoundrels face "public denunciations and impeachment of individuals (...) placing them exactly on the same level as sexual assailants".

The text drew a response from feminist activist Caroline De Haas who wrote one, in turn, co-signed by thirty activists and feminist activists, to denounce what she considers a "#Metoo, it was good, but ... ". Whenever women's rights progress, consciences awaken, resistances appear. In general, they take the form of "it is true, of course, but ...". This January 9, we had a "#Metoo, it was good, but ...". Not really new in the arguments used. We find the same arguments in the text published in Le Monde as we see at work around the coffee machine or in family meals. The letter is a little like the embarrassing colleague or boring uncle who does not understand what is happening.

"We could go too far." 
As soon as the equality advances, even half a millimetre, good souls immediately alert us to the fact that it risks falling into excess. Excess, we are right in it. It is the world in which we live. In France, every day, hundreds of thousands of women are victims of harassment. Tens of thousands of sexual assaults. And hundreds of rapes. Every day. This is a caricature.

"We can not say anything anymore." 
As if the fact that our society tolerates sexist remarks - a little - less than before, such as racist or homophobic remarks, is a problem. "Well, it was frankly better when we could treat the women as quiet sluts, huh?" No. It was less good. Language has an influence on human behaviour: accepting insults against women means allowing violence. The mastery of our language is a sign that our society is progressing.

"It's Puritanism." 
Portraying feminists as stuck up, or even badly fucked: the originality of the signatories of the letter is ... disconcerting. Violence affects women. All women. It weighs on our minds, our bodies, our pleasures and our sexualities. How can one imagine for a moment a liberated society in which women freely and fully dispose of their bodies and their sexuality when more than half of them claim to have already experienced sexual violence?

"We can not flirt anymore."
The signatories of the letter deliberately conflate a relationship of seduction, based on respect and pleasure, with violence. To conflate everything is very practical. This puts everything in the same bag. Basically, if the harassment or aggression is "repeated pestering" it is that it is not so serious. The signatories are wrong. This is not a difference in degree between dragging and harassing but a difference in nature. Violence is not "increased seduction". On one side, we consider the other as his equal, respecting his desires, whoever they are. On the other, as an object available, without taking into consideration her own wishes or her consent.

"It's women's responsibility." 
The signatories of the letter talk about the education to be given to little girls so that they do not let themselves be intimidated. Women are therefore designated as responsible for not being assaulted. When will we ask the question of the responsibility of men not to rape or assault? What about boys' education?

Women are human beings. Like the others. We are entitled to respect. We have the fundamental right not to be insulted, whistled at, assaulted, raped. We have the fundamental right to live our lives in safety. In France, the United States, Senegal, Thailand or Brazil: this is not the case today. Nowhere.

The signatories of the letter in Le Monde are in the majority of the recidivists in the matter of defence of paedophiles or as apologists for rape. They are once again using their media visibility to trivialize sexual violence. They despise the millions of women who suffer or have suffered the violence.

Many of them are often quick to denounce sexism when it comes from men in working-class neighbourhoods. But the hand in the ass, when it is exercised by men in their midst, according to them is the "right to pester". This strange ambivalence allows them to proclaim their attachment to the feminism of which they claim for themselves.

With this letter, they try to close the lead lid that we started to lift. They will not succeed. We are victims of violence. We are not ashamed. We are standing. Strong. Enthusiastic. Determined. We will end sexist and sexual violence.

Pigs and their allies are worried? It's normal. Their old world is disappearing. Very slowly - too slowly - but inexorably. Some dusty reminiscences will not change anything, even published in Le Monde.


Signatories to the statement:
Adama Bah, Afro-feminist and anti-racist activist; Marie-Noëlle Bas, President of the  Chiennes de garde; Lauren Bastide, Journalist, Fatima Benomar, Co-spokesperson of the Effronté.es; Anaïs Bourdet, Founder of Paye ta Shnek, feminist activist; Sophie Busson, feminist activist; Marie Cervetti, director of FIT and feminist activist; Pauline Chabbert, feminist activist; Madeline Da Silva, feminist activist; Caroline De Haas, feminist activist; Basma Fadhloun, journalist; Clara Gonzales, feminist activist, Leila H., Check your privileges; Clémence Helfter, feminist activist and unionist; Carole Henrion, feminist activist; Anne-Charlotte Jelty, feminist activist; Andréa Lecat, feminist activist; Claire Ludwig, communication officer and feminist activist; Maeril, illustrator and feminist activist; Chloé Marty, social worker and feminist; Angela Muller, feminist activist; Selma Muzet Herrström, feminist activist; Michel Paques, feminist activist; Ndella Paye, afro-feminist and anti-racist activist; Chloé Ponce-Voiron, feminist activist, director, producer, and actress; Claire Poursin, co-president of Effronté.es; Sophie Rambert, feminist activist; Noémie Renard, host of Antisexisme.net and feminist activist; Rose de Saint-Jean, feminist activist; Laure Salmona, co-founder of Feminists Against Cyberbullying and feminist activist; Muriel Salmona, psychiatrist, president of Traumatic memory and victimology and feminist activist; Nicole Stefan, feminist activist; Mélanie Suhas, feminist activist; Monique Taureau, feminist activist; Clémentine Vagne, feminist activist;  l’association En Avant Toute(s), l’association Stop harcèlement de rue, the association to Stop street harassment.

Read more...

Sexist burkini ban based on Islamophobia, not secularism

Lisbeth Latham

Since the announcement of an ordinance banning the wearing of burkinis on the beaches of the French Mediterranean city of Cannes in late July, France has been swept up in a new wave of Islamophobia.

A further 17 municipalities have announced their own ordinances banning the burkini — the full-body swimsuit worn by some Islamic women. These bans have been endorsed not only by France's far right, but by the Socialist Party Prime Minister Manuel Valls.

On August 27, France's highest administrative court suspended the bans after they were challenged by rights groups. However, the ruling still gives local authorities the ability to impose the bans if they can show a “proven risk” to public order. Those supporting the bans have sought to justify them in terms of defending women's rights, France's secular society and social order. But in reality, they are sexist and anti-secular — and promote the further marginalisation of France's Islamic community. The July 28 ordinance in Cannes prohibiting the burkini states: “Access to beaches and swimming in Cannes is prohibited … until August 31, to any person not properly dressed, in a way which is respectful of morality and secularism and that respects the rules for hygienic and safe swimming.” David Lisnard, Cannes's Mayor and a member of Nicolas Sarkozy's right-wing Les Republicains party, has defended the city's ordinance on the basis that only radicals would be upset by it. Lisnard described the burkini as “the uniform of extremist Islamism, not of the Muslim religion”. Lisnard has also argued that the ordinance is needed to maintain public order against a background of terror threats. But Lisnard's argument only makes sense if you accept the motivations that he projects onto women who choose to wear a burkini. France's Human Rights League and the Collective Against Islamophobia in France, on the other hand, have challenged the bans as an illegal restriction on the religious rights of individuals. However, the Nice administrative tribunal's ruling, that upheld the ban in Nice, said: “The state of emergency context and recent Islamist attacks in particular in Nice … wearing a distinctive dress, other than a usual swimwear, can indeed be interpreted as not being, in this context, a simple sign of religiosity.” Supporting the bans, Valls said the burkini represents “the enslavement of women” and reflects an “archaic vision” of feminine modesty “not compatible with the values of France”. Valls also endorsed the idea that banning the wearing of burkinis could contribute to public safety by saying “in the face of provocation, the nation must defend itself”. Although Valls has avoided supporting the idea of a France-wide ban of the burkini, this should not be seen as opposition on Valls's part to France-wide attempts at controlling the clothes of Muslim women. In April, he publicly called for a ban on wearing hijabs at France's universities. The bans on burkinis are not the first time that women's rights have been mobilised in France to justify bans on the clothes of Muslim women. Similar arguments were made in support of the 2004 law on secularism and conspicuous religious symbols in public schools, which banned the wearing of hijabs in public schools. There was also controversy in 2010 around the decision by the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) to stand Ilham Mousaid, a member of the far-left party who chose to wear a hijab, as a candidate in regional elections, and to support the 2010 law banning the wearing of face coverings in public. This was effectively a ban on the niqab, although popularly referred to as the burqa ban. This mobilisation of public concern over the rights of women is problematic on a number of levels. First, as University of Toulouse academic Rim-Sarah Aloune suggests, it creates the idea that the struggle of women over the right to choose how they dress only operates to reduce the amount of clothing that women are required to wear. But, as Aloune says, “women's rights imply the right for a woman to cover up”. Indeed, women workers in a number of Western countries have struggled to desexualise the clothes they have been required to wear — for example, in the airline industry. Secondly, it creates a false dichotomy between “archaic” and “misogynistic” Islamic cultures and “progressive” Western cultures. This dichotomy ignores the sexism that exists in Western societies. Finally, these bans in the name of protecting the rights of Muslim women in France have all worked to exclude Muslim women from French social life — whether it is from schools; standing for election to public office; going out in public or swimming at the beach. This alone demonstrates the thoroughly sexist character and effect of such bans. Defence of France's secular society may seem an easy argument to support bans against “religious clothing” but it isn't. This is particularly the case with efforts to justify bans on the burkini — its advocates and defenders are also arguing that the burkini is not religious dress. This sleight of hand is primarily aimed to cover the idea that the bans are themselves Islamophobic. However, arguments justifying attacks on Muslims in the name of defending secularism (which are not limited to France) are clearly hypocritical. They are overwhelming concerned with the actions of marginalised Muslims, with little concern over the influence of Christianity on Western states. But they also reflect an extremely one-sided understanding of secularism. Secularism is not simply a question of religion not influencing the state. Secularism is also about freedom for people to practice their religions without interference from the state. Part of the problem with the debates around the clothes of Muslim women in France is that decisions by individual Muslims regarding the clothes that they choose to wear is perceived as being influenced by religion in a way that clothing decisions — and other actions — by non-Muslims are not. This results in Muslims, particularly Muslim women, being seen as having less agency in their actions, particularly their choice of dress. It results in the most mundane actions being perceived as being religious when performed by Muslim women. An example of this can be seen with the 2004 ban on hijabs in public schools. In response to this ban, some Muslim students began wearing bandanas — which other people in French society also wore. In some schools, the wearing of bandanas by Muslim girls was then policed by schools and if a bandana was deemed “too modest” then the wearer was liable to be excluded from school. This position was upheld by the French Council of State — France's highest court — in 2006 on the basis that the bandana was deemed by the court to have been worn for a religious reason. The wave of bans against the burkini is also motivated on the basis of promoting “public order”. Instead, it will achieve the opposite. As NPA member Ugo Paleta points out, linking the wearing of particular clothes associated with Muslims, such as the burkini, with support for terrorism creates an image of all Muslims as potential threats to French society. It works to strengthen the discourse within France regarding the alleged “incompatibility of Islam with the French Republic”. The effect is that Muslims come to be seen as a “foreign body” within French society. This language serves to not only justify the draconian actions of French police in fining and excluding Muslim women from the beach for wearing burkinis and other covering clothing. It also legitimises the rising levels of Islamophobic violence against France's Islamic community — and places responsibility for this violence at the feet of the community rather with the perpetrators of that violence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article was originally published in Green Left Weekly #1108

Read more...

France’s Burqa Ban – A Sexist and Racist Law

Lisbeth Latham

The French Senate on September 14 passed the legislation that will make the wearing of either a Burqa or Niqab in public illegal. The ban was motivated by President Nicolas Sarkozy as an important step in the equality of women. The ban has accused of being racist, but equally importantly it is fundamentally sexist.

The legislation, which will go to the Constitutional Council for a final determination, will come into effect in six months time. Once in effect, any women wearing a Burqa, Niqab or other full faced veil in a public place will face a fine of €150 and the possibility of having to attend an education course in Republican values. Any individual found to have forced a woman to wear a veil will face a €30, 000 fine and up to a year in prison.

The legislation was passed overwhelmingly with a vote of 246 to 1 against. The only senator to vote against was Anne-Marie Payet from the Centrist Union. The senators of the Socialist Party (PS), Communist Party (PCF), predominantly abstained on the vote with 46 of the PS’s 116 senators voting in favour. The Left Party’s two senators voted in favour of the ban, with Agnes Marie La Barre, explaining in an article on the PG’s website on September 16 that “nobody is fooled by the xenophobic context in which the law is passed. However our senators felt that the struggle for women’s rights requires the passing of the law”. The decision by the majority of PS and the PCF to abstain reflects that both parties support restrictions on the Burqa, with PS supporting a ban that would be limited to public services and shopping centres. The PCF have raised concerns that a specific law would further stigmatise Muslims and that the law is an attempt by Sarkozy to win the support of the far-right.

The Sarkozy government, and supporters of the ban have argued that the legislation is necessary to free women form what Sarkozy labelled as “a sign of subjugation, of the submission of women” and to defend republican values. At the same time Sarkozy has argued that the ban is not attack on Islam, he told a cabinet meeting in May “I’m thinking in particular of our Muslim compatriots, who have their place in the republic and should feel respected".

The ban is obviously is clearly about Islam. While only immediately affecting a small group of France’s Islamic community – less than 1900 women, out of an estimated 5 million Muslims living in France, the law is aimed at targeting the insecurity felt by many in France over the economic situation and directing this fear at a scapegoat other than the government. Just as Sarkozy has also done with proposals to strip migrants of their citizenship if they are convicted of deliberately endangering the life of a public official or police officer.

The ban is clearly sexist on a number of levels. First it robs women of agency, by saying that the state can determine what women cannot wear; women are stripped of the right to say what they want to wear. While it is undoubtedly true that women are forced to wear Burqas and Niqabs as a result of threats of violence or exclusion by their fathers, husbands, brothers or other members of their communities, it ignores that some women would freely choose to wear it (a fact that is actually anticipated by the law in that it is women who are the primary target of as they are the ones who will be fined in the first instance). Thirdly, the law which is supposedly aimed at the liberation and integration of women is likely to result in greater levels of exclusion of a section of the women who wear it. Finally the law is both sexist and racist as it locates sexist behaviour within a small marginal section French society, hiding the broader experience of sexism by women in France, and also the extent to which women in France’s Islamic community experience oppression as a consequence of the sexist and racist character of broader French society – which results in higher levels of poverty and unemployment throughout the community.

With the passage of the legislation through the Senate, other countries are set to pass similar legislation. Beligium’s lower passed a similar bill in April, while in July, the Lower Chamber of Spain rejected a resolution banning Burqa (the Senate subsequently passed a motion calling for a ban of the Burqa). With similar debates likely to develop in other countries, it is important that opponents of sexism in supporting the right of women to not wear the Burqa recognise the broader sexist character of the society in which we live and that the struggle against racist scapegoating of migrant communities, particularly Islamic community is essential to that struggle.

Read more...