France: Our country is in mourning and angry (united appeal)

Original is available here

Our country is in mourning and anger. The murder of Nahel, killed by a police officer at point-blank range in Nanterre, has laid bare the effects of decades of discriminatory public and security policies targeting working-class neighborhoods and the youth who grow up there, particularly racialized and precarious people. The escalation of violence is a dead end and must stop. The essentially repressive conception of the police, and the legislative evolution of 2017 on the use of service weapons, aggravate what the population experiences and suffers in terms of discrimination and racist practices.

The tensions between the population and the police come from afar and are part of a history marked by injustice, prejudice, violence, discrimination, sexism... and systemic racism that runs through society as a whole and has not yet been eradicated.

The inhabitants of the neighbourhoods concerned, and especially women, often make up for the shortcomings in terms of public services alone. It is indeed the regression of these, the school, the places of sharing and culture, sports, the post, the administrations etc. and the decline in State support for associations, which have largely contributed to marginalizing these neighbourhoods and entire territories well beyond, particularly in the overseas territories.

The abandonment of these neighborhood populations is aggravated by the economic context of impoverishment, inflation, rising rents, energy prices and the reform of unemployment insurance. Social inequalities particularly affect children and single mothers. This is shown by the revolts that have shaken the working-class neighborhoods in recent days in reaction to the tragedy of Nanterre.

In addition to decades of excesses of a policy of maintaining order, security laws (global security law, separatism law ...) and exceptional measures, we have witnessed in recent days pressure from the government to set up expeditious justice. The imposition of systematic preventive detention with increasingly heavy sentences is not acceptable!

The urgency is not that of repression, which will only strengthen the extreme right and set back rights and freedoms once again.

Lasting appeasement is only possible if the government takes the necessary measures to respond to the urgency of the situation and the demands of the populations concerned.

The UN has repeatedly criticized security policies and institutional problems of racism in France, particularly in law enforcement.

It is discrimination that is a toxic poison that undermines the very idea of equality and sows despair.

The far-right is making it its bed to further divide society. We denounce the call for civil war against working-class neighborhoods and the characterization of people who come from them as "harmful" by police unions.

We condemn the constitution of a fundraiser in support of the policeman who killed Nahel at the initiative of a member of the extreme right and the absence of any action by the government, thus adding fuel to the fire.

Everything has to be rethought and built. We must start from new bases, create spaces for broad discussions and learn from the mistakes of public policies over decades, respecting the histories, backgrounds, cultures and singularities that feed our collective aspiration for equality. It is high time to listen and take into account the demands of the inhabitants of working-class neighborhoods and in particular its youth!

The situation requires the government to assume its responsibilities and provide immediate responses to get out of the confrontation:

• Repeal of the 2017 law on the relaxation of the rules on the use of firearms by law enforcement agencies; 
• an in-depth reform of the police, their intervention techniques and their armament;
• the replacement of the IGPN by a body independent of the police hierarchy and political power; 
• the creation of a service dedicated to discrimination affecting young people within the administrative authority chaired by the Defender of Rights and the strengthening of the means to combat racism, including in the police.

However, nothing can be done without a different sharing of wealth, without fighting against social inequalities. Nothing can be done without the fight against poverty and precariousness, aggravated by climate change, rising rents and charges, and without strengthening public services and popular education. It is these projects that the government should tackle instead of carrying out regressive public policies that pave the way for the far right.

Our trade unions, associations, collectives, committees and political parties are mobilized to maintain public and individual freedoms.

In the immediate future, we call to join all the rallies and marches around these demands, everywhere in the country from Wednesday, July 5, like the march organized by the Truth and Justice Committee for Adama on July 8 in Beaumont-sur-Oise, and that of the National Coordination against police violence on July 15.

We call for citizen marches on Saturday, July 8 throughout the France and overseas territories.

We will build together the follow-up of these mobilizations.

Signatories
Unions:
Confédération générale du travail (General Confederation of Labour); Confédération nationale des travailleurs-Solidarité Ouvrière (National Confederation of Workers-Workers' Solidarity); Fédération Syndicale Étudiante (Student Union Federation); Fédération syndicale unitaire (Unitary Union Federation); Solidaires Étudiant-e-s (Student Solidarity); Syndicat des Avocats de France (Union of France Lawyers); UNEF le syndicat étudiant (UNEF the student union); Union Syndicale Solidaires (Trade Union Solidarity); Union Étudiante (Student Union).

Associations:
350.org; Adelphi'Cité; Amnesty International France; Alternatiba; Alternatiba Paris; Les Amis de la Terre France (Friends of the Earth France); ANV-COP21; ATTAC France; Bagagérue; Conscience; Coudes à Coudes; DAL Droit au Logement (DAL Right to Housing); La Fabrique Décoloniale (The Decolonial Factory); Fédération des Associations de Solidarité avec Tou-te-s les Immigrés-e-s (Federation of Associations of Solidarity with All Immigrants); Fédération Nationale de la Libre Pensée (National Federation of Free Thought); Fédération nationale des maisons des potes (National Federation of Houses of Friends); Femmes Egalité; Fondation Copernic (Copernicus Foundation); Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigré·es (Information and Support Group for Immigrants); Greenpeace France; Jeune Garde Antifasciste (Young Anti-Fascist Guard); Ligue des droits de l’Homme (League of Human Rights); Memorial 98; Observatoire nationale de l’extrême-droite (National Observatory of the Far-Right); Organisation de Solidarité Trans (Trans Solidarity Organization); Planning familial; Réseau d’Actions contre l’Antisémitisme et tous les racismes (Action Network against Antisemitism and All Racism); REVES Jeunes (DREAMS Young); SOS Racisme.

Collectives:
Alliances et Convergences; Assemblée des Gilets Jaunes de Lyon & Environs (Assembly of the Yellow Vests of Lyon & Environs); Colère Légitime (Legitimate Anger); Collective civgTENON; Collectif des Écoles de Marseille (Collective of Marseille Schools); Collectif national pour les Droits des Femmes (National Collective for the Rights of Women); Collectif Nouvelle Vague (New Wave Collective); Collectif Vérité et Justice pour Safyatou, Salif et Ilan (Truth and Justice Collective for Safyatou, Salif and Ilan); Collective des mères isolées (Collective of single mothers); Comité des Soulèvements de la Terre Sud-Essonne (Committee of the Uprisings of the Earth South Essonne); Comité Local de Soutien aux Soulèvements de la Terre Aude (Local Committee for the Support of the Uprising of the Earth Aude), Comité Soulèvement Bas-Vivarais (Bas-Vivarais Uprising Committee), Comité les Soulèvements de la Terre Lyon et environs (Committee the Uprisings of the Earth Lyon and surrounds); Comité local de soutien aux Soulèvements de la Terre Villefranche (Local Committee for the Support of the Uprisings of the Earth Villefranche), Comité local de soutien aux Soulèvements de la Terre Romans-sur-Isère (Local Committee for the Support of the Uprisings of the Earth Romans-sur-Isère); Comité nîmois de soutien aux Soulèvements de la Terre (Nîmes Committee for Support to the Uprisings of the Earth); Comité de soutien à Moussé Blé (Support Committee for Moussé Blé); Comité justice et vérité pour Mahamadou (Justice and Truth Committee for Mahamadou); Comité Les Lichens Ardéchois; Comité Vérité et Justice pour Adama (Truth and Justice Committee for Adama); Coordination des comités pour la défense des quartiers populaires (Coordination of committees for the defense of working-class neighborhoods); Democra'psy, Dernière Rénovation; En Gare; Justice pour Othmane; La Révolution est en marche (The Revolution is underway); Lla Terre se soulève en Corrèze (The Earth rises in Corrèze); Le Peuple Uni (The United People); Les Soulèvements de la Terre - comité Île-de-France (The Earth Uprisings - Île-de-France committee); Les Soulèvements de l'Entre2Mers (33); Lyon en lutte (Lyon in Struggle); Lyon Insurrection; Nîmes Révoltée (Nîmes revolted); Réseau GBM (GBM Network); Rejoignons-nous (Let's join); Collectif du 5 novembre - Noailles en colère (Marseille) (Collective of November 5 - Noailles angry (Marseille)); Syndicat des quartiers populaires de Marseille (Union of working-class neighborhoods of Marseille); Collectif Justice pour Claude Jean-Pierre; Youth for Climate IDF.

Political organizations:
ENSEMBLE! – Mouvement pour une Alternative de Gauche, Écologiste et Solidaire (TOGETHER! – Movement for a Left Alternative, Ecologist and Solidarity); Europe Ecologie Les Verts (Europe Ecologie Les Verts); La France insoumise (Rebellious France); Front Uni des Immigrations et des quartiers populaires (United Front of Immigrations and Popular Neighborhoods); Gauche Ecosocialiste (Ecosocialist Left); Génération.s; Nouveau parti anticapitaliste (New Anti-capitalist Party); Parti Communiste des Ouvriers de France (Communist Party of France Workers); Parti de Gauche (Left Party); Pour une Écologie Populaire et Sociale (For a Popular and Social Ecology); Parti Ouvrier Indépendant (Independent Workers' Party); Réseau Bastille (Bastille Network); Révolution Écologique pour le Vivant (Ecological Revolution for Life); Union communiste libertaire (Libertarian Communist Union).

Read more...

France : Mobilising Islamophobia to mask the deepening authoritarian state

Lisbeth Latham

Since the brutal murder of Samuel Paty in October, there has been a ramping up of rhetoric from the French government against the Muslim community in France. This rhetoric came to a head with the announcement of draft legislation to prevent “Islamic Separatism” by French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin which makes more explicit the state's vision of the Muslim community as a threat to the Government’s vision of Republican values. This attack on the Muslim community, and any critics of racism, islamophobia, or colonialism within French society – is paired with the introduction of new security laws that would further protect France’s repressive state apparatus from scrutiny for violence against France’s social movements -repression which has been dramatically escalating since the declaration of a state of emergency following the terror attacks in Paris in November 2015.

On October 16, Paty, a history teacher, was murdered in Paris, he was publicly beheaded by Abdullakh Anzorov, an 18-year-old Chechen refugee from Russia. The brutal murder had been motivated by Paty’s sharing with students, in a class on freedom of expression, satirical images of the Prophet Mohammed published by Charlie Hedbo in 2015, which had provoked a terror attack on the office of that publication and across Paris. Paty’s display of the images caused significant anger not only within France’s Muslim community, but globally, and followed a familiar pattern of anger at the previous publication of similar images globally. This included the sharing of a video by Abdelhakim Sefrioui an Imam describing the Paty as a thug and denouncing him for displaying the pictures and arguing he should be disciplined.

In the wake of the murder, President Emmanuel Macron described the attack as “a typical Islamist terrorist attack”, whilst describing the motivation of Paty’s murder as being “for teaching children freedom of speech”. Seven people were quickly arrested. This included students who had pointed the teacher out to the killer, Sefrioui, and Brahim Chnina a parent of a student at the school who had protested outside the school and sought a meeting with the school’s principal with Sefrioui’s support. Darmanin made a public statement indicating that up to 51 institutions faced dissolution including BarrakaCity and Collectif contre l'islamophobie en France (Collective Against Islamaphobia in France – CCFI) which he described as being “enemies of the Republic”, and threatened to move to dissolve them. This was despite the fact that there was no evidence that the CCIF, which was formed in 2003 to monitor and combat Islamophobia in France, making any statement supporting the attacks. Darmanin went further arguing that it was an “Islamist dispensary”. French Minister of Education, Jean-Michel Blanquer, also argued that indigenist, racialist, and “decolonial” ideologies,’ imported from North America, were responsible for ‘conditioning’ the violent extremist who assassinated school teacher – a position endorsed by a manifesto of 100 academics published in Le Monde on November 1. This attack on anti-racist academics has prompted a counter open letter against the threat of "threat of academic authoritarianism"

.

On November 9, Darmanin announced the final draft of the “law confirming republican principles”. This legislation contained the following proposals: 

• An extension France’s public school student ID system to students enrolled in private schools; Make it an offence to share online information which allows an individual to be identified; 
• Provision for summary trials of individuals accused of “online hate speech”; 
• Make it illegal to intimidate public officials, including teachers; 
• Will allow judges to bar individuals convicted of certain offences, such as provocation of acts of terrorism, or incitement of discrimination, hatred, or violence – from entering places of worship; 
• Requiring associations seeking public funding to agree to "respect the principles and values of the republic" and return the money if found to have flouted the rules; 
• All foreign donations above €10,000 must be declared.

While not stipulated in the bill, the government has requested that France’s Muslim federations form a national council of imams. This council will be in charge of proclaiming new imams. The council must also draft a charter of "republican values", which will stipulate that Islam is a religion and not a political movement in France.

While on the face of it some aspects of this legislation could be seen as necessary protections or limitations, the reality is they are both very vague and open to abuse. This combined with the fact that they are aimed at France’s marginalized Muslim community specifically, rather than France’s Catholic-inspired far-right and neo-fascist organisations reflects a racist vision, shared throughout many western countries, that Muslim communities are the real threat rather than far-right extremist groups.

Coinciding with this assault on the rights of France’s Muslim community. Has been the release of the draft legislation of the “Global Security Law”. This law:

• authorizes the police and gendarmes to film their interventions by "mobile cameras", to access the images they have recorded and to transmit them in real-time to the command post; 
• authorizes the deployment of drones to monitor public space; 
• prohibits the public from disseminating "the image of the face or any other element of identification of an official of the national police or of a soldier of the national gendarmerie when acting within the framework of "a police operation" and when this dissemination is made "with the aim of harming his physical or mental integrity”.

This new legislation has created considerable anger in the context here over the past five years, there have been escalating levels of repression against France’s social movements, most notably the Yellow Jackets, labour and students movements – with “non-lethal” weapons being regularly deployed at protests resulting in injuries, most notably the maiming and death of protestors – with riot squad units in both the CRS (Republican Security Companies) within the National Police and gendarmerie (France’s national police force which is part of the military) acting with impunity against the social movements.

While releasing two such anti-democratic and repressive pieces of legislation would normally be a tactical error, as it would provide an opportunity to unite an even more diverse array of social forces against the bills, in this case, it is likely to have the opposite effect. This is because like the rest of French society, much of the French left and other progressive forces hold deeply Islamophobic outlooks, which are justified on the basis on the need to defend laïcité (the French concept of secularism) and women’s rights. However, these actions, particularly the bans on the wearing of the veil and attempts to control the Muslim community, are premised on anti-secular, racist, and sexist ideas about the right of the state to control not just how people practice their religions, but its right to control the lives of women within the Muslim community.

In the past sections of the French left have supported the ban on the wearing of the hijab in public schools, bans on the burqa and niqab, and participated in attacks on other left parties, like the Nouveau parti anticapitaliste (New Anti-Capitalist Party – NPA), who have stood candidates who wore the hijab. There have also been broader problems of the left being slow or inconsistent in their response to attacks on the Muslim community in France. While some of the left have been very clear regarding their rejection of this attack on the Muslim community, most notably the NPA, other parties have not been so explicit, the Communist Party and France Insoumise however have both argued that while they argue that the law fails to address the marginalization of significant sections of French society and instead seeks to hide the social crisis behind the stigmatization of Muslim communities.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...

Why I don't support a national day for Australia

Lisbeth Latham

There is an important discussion currently occurring about the status of “Australia Day” and the date of January 26 – particularly whether the day should simply be abolished or moved to an alternative date. I fully support the idea of there not being a public holiday celebrating Invasion Day. I personally I think that the debate is one that should be decided within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, with the rest of society taking our cue from the resolution of this discussion by those communities. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have been making powerful arguments explaining the need to abandon January 26 as a celebration – with articles written by Celeste Liddle and Amy McQuire being examples. However as some white groups and publications, such as New Matilda having argued for changing the date of Australia-- I will add my views as to why I think having a national day in Australia is problematic.

Obviously holding a celebration of Australia on the date that the ongoing dispossession and genocide against the First Nations people began, is seriously problematic and the celebration of that date needs to stop. My concern is that simply changing the date does not and will not fundamentally change the character of Australia Day. The idea of a national day - celebrating the nation- while fraught in any context is particularly so in the context of an imperialist colonial settler state such as Australia. To say moving the date will somehow change the character of the day, ignores that invasion and dispossession did not start and stop on January 26, 1788.

Some advocates of the date being shifted have noted that the day has not always been held on January 26. There have been other “Australia Days” held on May 24 and July 30 while other days have also been raised such as April 29. May 24, marked an attempt by Irish Catholics to subvert Empire Day held on Queen Victoria’s Birthday, while July 30 was used during the First World War to collect money for the war effort. April 29, was suggested by some members of the Australian Natives Association (a White Nativist organisation that had been central to the Federation project and subsequently to the institutionalisation of Australia Day) as an alternative day to January 26 (describing the date as a bad start). April 29 was the anniversary of Cook’s landing at Ka-may (Botany Bay).

Changing the date also doesn’t address the reality that Australia already has other public holidays to celebrate its imperialist and colonialist character such as ANZAC Day, which is a date that has been proposed as an alternative date for Australia Day, and the various state-based celebrations of invasion like Foundation Day in WA. While ANZAC Day has changed in character over time, in my lifetime it has become even more of a celebration of war and imperialism, but it has always been an imperialist project – it was created as way to combat the widespread anti-war sentiment that existed in Australia after the First World War, particularly amongst returning service personnel.

All of these alternative dates were still celebrations of “White Australia” - and this goes to the question of what does "Australia Day" celebrate? I would argue it celebrates a project which fundamentally racist to its core and premised on the dispossession of the First Nations Peoples and a generally narrow definition of who or what is Australian (a definition which has expanded over the years but remains a basis for exclusion). Irrespective of the date you pick an Australian National Day will be a day that lends itself to jingoism, racism and attempts to erase the dispossession and genocide experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples whilst simultaneously marginalising these communities.

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...

On Cologne and the problem of hegemonic masculinity

Lisbeth Latham

Protest against both sexual violence and racist attacks 

Over New Year’s Eve, a series of large scale attacks against women took place in Cologne and other German cities. A number of perpetrators were reported as being from refugee communities resulting in an intensification of the debate over how Germany and other Western societies should respond to asylum seekers from non-Western cultures particularly from predominantly Arab and Muslim countries - particularly as far-right forces have sort to use the attacks to build support for their own attacks on migrant communities, especially Muslim communities. Sections of the German left (which is also reflected in the Anglophone left) have sort to respond the right’s use the Cologne attacks, by attempting in various ways to downplay the seriousness of the events of New Year’s Eve and by shifting focus onto sexual violence within German and other Western societies. In doing so the left’s arguments while differing significantly in premise from that of the right, still shares much of the right’s logic regarding the violence in Cologne and refugee policy - albeit the logic is inverted. Much of the left arguments are primarily aimed at proving how racist the right is - and that the right’s supposed concern for women is disingenuous - but ultimately is not useful in either challenging violence against women in our society or the attempted mobilisation of those concerns to attack migrant and refugee communities.  

What happenedOn New Year’s Eve there were large scale attacks on women at train stations in the German cities of Cologne, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Dortmund, and Bielfeld. The largest of these attacks took place in Cologne where an estimated 1000 men participated in attacks. Groups of men reportedly acted isolated individual women these isolated were then robbed and/or assaulted. These attacks took place despite large scale police presences. Angela Klein reported that 213 local and federal police were deployed at the Cologne station and the adjacent cathedral square. Initial complaints to police were, ignored, but women continued to make complaints and media attention and public awareness around the incident grew, by January 30 to more than 1,000  complaints had been reported to police in Cologne alone (more than 400 involving sexual assault), some of these complaints include complaints against the police for failing to assist women on the night. The other German cities where large numbers of complaints have been made include Hamburg (236 complaints involving 391 victims - with only three of these complaints not involving sexual assault) and Dusseldorf where 113 complaints were made regarding sexual assault and theft.

Official responseThe initial responses of the German state and media pretended that the attacks had not occurred. A press release from Cologne Police headquarters on January 1 stated, “Shortly before midnight, the station forecourt in the area of the stairway to the cathedral had to be evacuated by uniformed officers in order to prevent a stampede caused by the firing of pyrotechnic munitions by about 1000 revelers. Despite the unplanned break in celebrations, the situation was relaxed, because the police were well placed at critical locations and showed their presence.” ZDF, one of Germany’s state broadcasters did not cover the attacks until January 5, and had made a deliberate decision at least on January 4 to delay reporting on the incidents. They subsequently issued an apology.

When the nature of the attacks were revealed, Henriette Reker, Mayor of Cologne, suggested that “there’s always the possibility of keeping a certain distance of more than an arm’s length – that is to say to make sure yourself you don’t look to be too close to people who are not known to you, and to whom you don’t have a trusting relationship.” She later stated that women in the city should follow a ‘code of conduct’ including a dress code to prevent further attacks.

The Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the dominant party in the coalition government, under pressure over the slow public acknowledgement of the violence and criticised by far-right parties over the government’s policy supporting large scale (but inadequate) intakes of refugees announced that it will look at quicker mechanisms to deport migrants and asylum seekers guilty of crimes, the government has also made threats that it will reduce its refugee intake.

Thomas de Maizière, the CDU interior minister has called for a review of Germany’s laws around deportation to make it easier to deport individuals (including refugees) convicted of crimes. Currently only attracting prison sentences in excess of three years impact on refugee status.

While this call has been met with opposition from some within the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), the minority partner in the German government. Ralph Stegner, SPD deputy chief, accused de Maizière of knee-jerk opportunism. “We don’t need to change either the basic right to asylum or the Geneva refugee convention to deal with organized criminality by whoever in Germany”. However, other sections of the SPD have engaged in their own anti-refugee rhetoric. Heiko Mass, the SPD justice minister, has stated that those who are applying for asylum can be deported for crimes attracting a one-year prison sentence, while three local chapters of the SPD in Essen have called for blockades against the establishment of refugee centres in the city. The SPD Essen city organisation has distanced itself from these calls.

In the wake of the attacks there have been a raft of changes in Germany. The governing coalition has Bundestag approved new laws providing for the creation identity cards for refugees linked to a centralised data system - these cards will include country of origin and fingerprints and will be accessible by all government agencies. On February 26, passed of new refugee measures including a two year suspension of family reunions for refugees and reducing payments to refugees by €10 and provision for quick asylum decisions for refugees from an expanded list of “safe countries” which now includes Algeria, Morroco, and Tunisia.

Far-Right responseDuring 2014, Germany had seen the emergence and strengthening of a number of hard right and neo-nazi organisations, most notably Pegida (Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes - Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West), a Far-Right organisation established in Dresden in October 2014, which were able to mobilise large regular anti-Muslim protests in a number German cities. These actions peaked with a march of 25,000 in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings in January 2015. These organisations have seized upon the New Year’s Eve attacks as “proof” of the “existential threat” posed by refugees - particularly Muslim, Arab and North African refugees, to German culture and society.

It is important to note that while some of those who are alleged to attacked women have been identified as coming from North African and Arab backgrounds (including some of whom are refugees) others have been German and US citizens. The Far-Right organisations have sought to pose as the “true” protectors of German women. These organisations accuse the local, state and federal governments along with the media and police of engaging in cover up to conceal the “threat posed” by refugees and Islam to German society.

Since New Year’s Eve, in a number of German cities there has been a series of anti-refugee protests and an escalation of physical violence against refugee and migrant communities – including a protest of 2000 people in Leipzig on January 11, which included hundreds of Far-Right activists torching cars and smashing windows and resulted in the arrest of 211 people. On February 6, Pegida, with other European far-right organisations, organised Europe-wide anti-Muslim protests, which they have dubbed “Day of European Patriots”, with the largest protest in Dresden involving between 8000 and 15000 people. Pegida has also sought to use outrage over Cologne to attempt to establish Pegida franchises in a number of countries including Ireland and the Netherlands.

In response to the attempts to use violence of New Year’s Eve to promote anti-refugee and broader islamophobia as mechanisms to “protect women” Laurie Penny argues that the right is seeking to “steal feminism” - however the right are not only not interested in “stealing feminism” they are generally hostile to feminism and it’s liberatory project. Instead they are motivated to mobilise racism - the extent to which the right has a concern for women it is primarily regarding who controls women in society.

Far-Left responseThe German Far-Left has attempted to mobilise around two core issues - opposition to sexism and to anti-refugee sentiments. This has notably occurred at protests organised by feminists, Left and anti-fascist forces in Cologne on January 6 and January 16. These protests have expressed anger both at victim blaming calls for women to modify their behaviour – attempting instead to focus on sexual violence as a problem, and rejecting the Far-Right’s’ claims of caring about women as cynical hypocrisy to cover their racist attacks on refugees and Muslims. The importance of these dual themes have also been a feature of articles published in Australia and England.

While I agree with a need to reject both sexism and anti-refugee racism, many of the articles from the Left have a tendency to give more weight to their anti-racist arguments by downplaying the seriousness of the attacks - reflecting the tendency of sections of the Left towards a cynical hypocrisy when it comes to taking violence towards women seriously. Indeed Angela Klein argues that significant sections of the German left failed to take the attacks on New Year’s Eve seriously. This downplaying is a consequence of the poor understanding of why violence towards women occurs (and a lack of real concern when said violence is an inconvenience when addressing other priorities). Also, much of the Left shares with Far-Right and mainstream political forces an orientalist understanding of non-Western cultures, particularly Islam.

Silke Stockle and Marion Wegscheidher, in an article for the German website Marx 21 (which has been republished by a number of Left-wing Anglophone publications and websites), argue that the mainstream discourse fails to discuss the systematic character of violence against women in Germany and state that the “hundred police officers present at the scene who did nothing to intervene in order to protect the women victims, despite the fact that there was even an undercover policewoman among them, is speaking volumes”. It is undoubtedly the case that the police response to the attacks exacerbated the situation. Angela Klein argues that the police response was deeply flawed in the following ways:

• Despite being aware that something was occurring as early as 9.30 pm, the police failed to seek additional support and, feeling overwhelmed, reportedly departed the square at 11.35 pm, when attacks were still happening and continued through until the early hours of the morning;
• The police responded, if at all, above all to acts of theft. Women reported that the police in case of sexual harassment were merely “watched”. Even a female officer who had been sexually harassed in the crowd got no help from her fellow officers. Angela Klein argues this is consistent with the general behaviour of police and legal authorities in Germany towards sexual harassment, which in Germany is still regarded as a “peccadillo” that is not punished under criminal law;
• There are also reports of women attempting to escape the square being pushed back into it by police.

However, the failure of the police response, which has seen the Cologne Chief of Police take early retirement - while undoubtedly influenced by misogyny and victim blaming attitudes - does not negate or reduce the responsibility of the perpetrators.

Much of the discourse of the Left has positioned the gendered violence in Cologne within the context of the pervasive gendered violence in German and other Western cultures. At one level, this is an extremely important point, combating a tendency to focus on the violence and problems of the “other” to minimise and erase the violence within one’s own culture.

However, in seeking to highlight the problems of sexism within Germany, and Western cultures more broadly, there is a tendency to minimise what occurred in Cologne and other cities. This is done in a number of ways, including:

• Failing to acknowledge that the number of reported attacks have risen and continuing to comment based on the very early figure of 100 complaints to police;
• Making a false distinction between rape and sexual assault and then focusing on the number of reported rapes, effectively ignoring the hundreds of sexual assaults that occurred;
• Making false comparisons to other violence against women in German society, such as at Oktoberfest, to suggest that anger and concern is purely motivated by xenophobia. I argue that these comparisons are false because they do not acknowledge that while sexual violence is a feature of both the Cologne attacks and Oktoberfest, the scale and scope of both the violence and the events are very different. Each year the estimated number of sexual assaults at Oktoberfest is several hundred (of these just 10 to 12 are reported to the police!), at a 16-18 day festival attended by millions of people, which is less than half the number of reported assaults in one square on New Year’s Eve in Cologne);
• Arguing that the violence either did not occur or was perpetrated by other groups of people;

These strategies are problematic for a number of reasons. Most importantly because they demonstrate a clear lack of empathy for the women attacked, whose experiences are being erased. This is also the case for women attacked at events like Oktoberfest, whose experiences are being mobilised to erase the experiences of the women assaulted in Cologne.

Kate Davison writing in Overland, and Ulrich Rippert writing on the World Socialist Website argue the small number of arrests to call into question whether attacks occurred at all. The Huffington Post’s German edition ran an article suggesting that the allegations of violence in Cologne were false rape allegations either consciously or unconsciously prompted by the racist atmosphere in Germany. More recently The Idependent ran an article headlined “Cologne: Three out of 58 men arrested over mass sex attack on New Year's Eve were refugees from Syria or Iraq”.

These arguments are seriously flawed. Whilst it is true that only a small proportion of alleged perpetrators have been charged - this speaks to the difficulty in identifying people in the circumstances of the New Year’s Eve attacks - to suggest that it reflects a broad conspiracy by the German state does not fit the early response of the German state. Tobias Lill in arguing that the allegations reflect false rape allegations - relies on a number of examples women reportedly making false allegations against refugees- however only one of which was associated with the Cologne attacks - out more than 400 allegations (which is consistent with experiences around the world that very few allegations of rape are false). Lill misses the right’s argument - they are not only opposed to refugees but Muslms particularly from North Africa and the Middle East - of whom the refugees fleeing persecution and war are a subset - so arguing that those perpetrating violence were not refugees (which is questionable) will is not sufficient counter the racist fear campaigns being mounted by the right, particularly when they can shout that a significant proportion of those individuals who have been charged from the Cologne attacks (albeit primarily for theft) were from North Africa (25 Algerians, three Tunisians and 21 Moroccans), Syria, Iraq and Iran.

Underlying all of these minimising arguments, is an assumption that if refugees were responsible for violence then it calls into the question the legitimacy of the right to asylum for other refugees. Rather than reject this logic these arguments simply attempt to negate the facts on which the right makes its arguments. Downplaying the seriousness of attacks is a flawed strategy as it not only doesn’t negate the racist arguments - but instead risks alienating anyone who has a genuine concern about the violence and leaves the left in a weakened position in dissuading them from accepting the xenophobic arguments of the right. A far more effective and honest argument is simply to deny the relevance of the actions of some individual refugees when it comes to answering the question of what Germany’s (or any other Western country’s) response should be to address the needs of millions of people currently in need of refuge globally.

Orientalist approach of both the right and far-left
A major factor underlying the attempt to erase and downplay the extent and seriousness of the violence on New Year’s Eve is that much of the Left discourse accepts the racist logic and assumptions of the Far-Right, Right and centrist parties - i.e. that non-Western cultures are homogenous - but the Left reject the Right’s argument that these cultures are universally misogynist and instead argue the opposite: that they are universally unproblematic. In order to sustain this position it is necessary for responsibility for violence to be shifted onto causes other than “culture”:

• Sexual violence that is inherent with capitalism;
• Marginalisation and alienation experienced by refugees;
• The violence being a consequence of the perpetrator’s gender rather than their culture.

All of these perspectives, while making some valid points, are flawed in their own way. It is undoubtedly the case that late capitalism promotes cultural products which objectify women and promote violence against them. However, it is odd to think that a brief exposure to the violence and sexism of German culture would be able to quickly overcome a cultural background that contained no attitudes and values that normalise and legitimise violence against women.

Similarly, while alienation can be an important factor in triggering acts of violence, why would gendered violence manifest in the scale and organised fashion it did on New Year’s Eve? Alienation and disempowerment only make sense if the violence is seen as an antidote to those feelings; or if the targets of the violence are perceived somehow to be responsible for this alienation and thus deserving of punishment.

While gender is undoubtedly a factor in the violence, gender is not culture-free. Indeed, masculinity and femininity - or what it means to be a “man” or a “woman” - are generally viewed as being culturally constructed and not universal characteristics.

Viewing non-Western cultures as homogeneous is a reflection of what Edward Said described as Orientalism. Said also argued that orientalist views of culture see Westerners as being less bound or influenced by their culture than non-Western people. While we may view the right’s orientalist views as being more problematic (as they legitimise violence and war), the left’s Orientalism is also problematic as it erases:

• The agency of women in North Africa and the Middle East, and their supporters, in seeking to transform their society’s attitude towards women;
• The extent to which attitudes towards women within Western cultures are a consequence of feminist struggles;
• The extent to which misogyny and sexism towards women within non-Western countries has been actively promoted by the West.

There are long histories of struggle against sexism within North Africa and the Middle East and the involvement of women in broader liberation struggles. The most notable current example is the contribution and leadership of Kurdish women in the struggle against ISIS in Syria, particularly in the Women’s Protection Units. However, the struggle in the region for women’s rights has deep roots. The Turkish and Egyptian feminist movements date back to the nineteenth century, Turkish women achieved full suffrage in 1934 (this is earlier than in France and prior to the elimination limits to suffrage based on race based exclusions in Australia and the US), with 18 women elected to parliament in the Turkish elections that year (there were not that many women elected to Australian federal parliaments until the mid 1990s). It is also important to note that there were refugees in Cologne’s cathedral square who sought to stop attacks on women, and there have been the protests by refugee communities in Germany against the violence on New Year’s Eve - both of which have received little attention outside of Germany.

Central to arguments that refugees pose a threat to Western societies is the idea that the West has a benevolent attitude towards women, or what Klein refers to as a thin “varnish of a civilized behaviour towards women”. Of course to sustain this position distance must be created between the gendered violence that exists in Western and non-Western cultures themselves. Those who seek to justify the exclusion of refugees based on the “inherently violent” cultures that refugees come from, ignore that Western cultures are themselves highly violent and misogynist. This is reflected in the already too-high level of violence against women in Germany (which at 1 in 7 of German women is lower than the 1 in 5 Australian women who have experienced sexual violence) but also other forms of violence in German society, such as the Far-Right’s recent spate of assassination attempts against politicians, including the attempt on Henriette Reker’s life the day prior to her election as Mayor of Cologne.

White Germans (and white Australians) create distance between themselves and violence which occurs in Western societies. The perpetrators of violence are “othered” so it can be more easily argued that they do not represent the culture of that society. So pick-up artists and neomasculinists who advocate and teach rape tactics are not indictments against Western culture - but instead simply “sad losers” who live in their mother’s basement. Even the violence within institutions such as the police and armed forces are argued away as instances of bad apples or at worst problems with the internal culture of those institutions rather than a reflection of broader problems with western culture.

Whilst most people in Australia (and for that matter Germany) would not publicly agree with the attitudes towards women articulated by MRAs - the National Community Attitudes Towards Violence Against Women Survey suggests that the vast majority of Australians understand that violence is a crime (96%), and that violence against women is a serious issue (95%). However below this general opposition to violence, lie widespread attitudes and beliefs that justify and legitimate violence, including sexual violence, against women: 1 in 5 Australians think that domestic violence is excusable if a person gets angry or later regrets it; only 59% of surveyed Australians “believe that women rarely make false claims of rape” - meaning that 41% believe that women often make false rape allegations (they don’t). These seemingly contradictory attitudes reflect the existence of both a view, which has been achieved through struggle, that violence towards women is wrong existing along side widespread attitudes that justify and legitimise such violence.

The right’s cynical use of the New Year’s Eve attacks are premised on the idea that “Western attitudes towards women” are somehow more “enlightened” than the supposed “misogynist and patriarchal views” of non-Western countries - and that these attitudes are inherent to the respective cultures. However we should remember that the West’s “enlightenment” is not only superficial (as indicated above, but the gains for women that the idea of enlightenment is premised on, have only relatively recently been achieved through changes in laws (and not necessarily in cultural beliefs). Some of the rights for women, which women in Australia have achieved formally (but are not always able to access due to class and other oppressions) as a result of campaigns over the last 120 years include:

• Ending women’s status as the legal property of their fathers and husbands;
• The right to attend university;
• The right to divorce and gain custody of children (in particular the introduction of no-fault divorce);
• An end to compulsorily dismissal from government jobs upon marriage;
• Criminalising domestic violence and marital rape;
• Increased control of fertility [albeit limited and constantly under legal  threat - particularly for women experiencing additional intersections of oppression];
• Some legal limits on mobilisation of victim blaming in rape prosecutions [most notably shield laws which formally limit the ability of a defence from raising a survivor’s sexual history, but sexist judges may still allow such defences];
• Some restriction in the application of provocation defences which allow men to justify assault and murder on the basis “that their partner provoked them”;
• Legal protections against discrimination in employment.

Western imperialism has played a central role in supporting reactionary misogynist political movements in the Middle East that have undermined the political status of women. The Taliban in Afghanistan emerged as a part of a reactionary counter-revolutionary movement (led primarily by landlords) hostile to the land reforms of the government of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan. The Taliban sought to mobilise a broader opposition to the government by harnessing anger at advances in the rights of women. The success of the mujahedeen (from which the Taliban emerged) was made possible by the large scale military and financial support from the West, particularly the US government.

Similarly, the US and other Western government have been hostile to other governments in Arab and predominantly Muslim countries that have advanced the rights of women - as these governments challenged Western interests - whilst propping up thoroughly misogynist regimes such as the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia. The impact of the Western imperialism’s support for misogyny can be seen in the decline in formal and practical rights between the Ba’athist regime in Iraq and the subsequent US protectorates in Iraq (women’s rights had been under assault in Iraq in the decade between the first and second gulf wars).

Hegemonic masculinity

If we recognise that all cultures contain progressive and reactionary characteristics, how can we account for violently misogynist attitudes that permeate society? Hegemonic masculinity is a concept coined by Australian sociologist Raewyn Connell in her 1993 work Masculinities. Rooted in Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, hegemonic masculinities are those masculinities that base themselves on the subordinate position of women in relation to men. Like other hegemonies these masculinities primarily rely on ideas of the superiority to maintain the stability of this dominance. Behind these ideas of superiority is a capacity and willingness to mobilise violence to defend the domination of men.

Implicit in this, is that there is not a singular hegemonic masculinity, but multiple masculinities which have their own concerns regarding threats to their hegemony and how best to respond to these threats.

Anne Summers in her 2003 work The End of Equality argued that the emergence in Australia in the 1990s of various father’s rights groups was a response to gains of women in the Family Court associated with child custody. These groups sought and were successful in weakening the legal gains by women. Summers argued that part of the push back was associated with escalating violence by men towards women - violence which was most clearly articulated in the emergence of the Black Shirt father’s rights group. These developments in Australia continued, and has been seen in other Western countries, with the emergence of Men’s Rights Activism. These ‘activists’ are implacably hostile to feminism and advocate violence against women, asserting such violence exists in the ‘natural order’ of relations between men and women. MRAs simultaneously paint men as experiencing a uniquely ignored victimhood in order to undermine positive action to eradicate violence against women.

The concept of hegemonic masculinity does not explain all violence by men towards women - nor does it deny the existence of gendered violence which is not perpetrated by men against women - however, it argues that much gendered violence can be explained within a framework where men’s violence towards women seeks to maintain, justify and legitimise men’s dominance over women.

The existence of Western hegemonic masculinities supports the logic of the slogans of sections of the German Left which claim that violence against women is not an import into German society - at the same time, German hegemonic masculinity is not the primary cause of the New Year’s Eve attacks and the misogynist aftermath. At the same time there is no escaping that this misogyny (particularly by police and other state agents) did play a driving role in the series of events that followed.

Across the West, we are seeing concerted attacks on refugees, asylum seekers and Muslim communities. These attacks, and the attempts by the Right to justify them based on the individual criminal individual acts by members of these communities, should be rejected totally as a cynical and racist attempts at collective punishment. It is important to fight against the marginalisation of refugees and any policies that seek to limit the rights of refugees to be united with their families. If violence within within our society is to be overcome the actions of the state actions needs to be directed by marginalised sections of the community - particularly the women in these communities. At the same time it is necessary to confront misogyny and violence against women and recognise that gendered violence is a problem in all communities. If we are to live in societies free of gendered violence then the attitudes and values that legitimise and justify that violence must be challenged with a focus on the many hegemonic masculinities in our communities as a priority.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

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...

ADI applies for right to discriminate

Lisbeth Latham
On August 31, Australian Defence Industries informed the Western Australian Equal Opportunity Commission that it intends to apply for an exemption from the WA Equal Opportunity Act.

If upheld, the application would allow ADI to exclude from employment workers born in any of the 20 countries that appear on a US government blacklist. It would also require all employees to wear tags indicating their country of birth.

While the changes would meet the requirements of the recently introduced US International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and allow ADI to bid for lucrative US defence contracts, it is estimated that 40% of ADI's 220 employees in Western Australia would face dismissal or transfer.

The application for exemption is being opposed by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Equal Opportunity Commissioner Yvonne Henderson and UnionsWA. AMWU state secretary Jock Ferguson told Workers Online on September 3 that the proposal was a form of apartheid and was unacceptable.

According to the September 3 West Australian, ADI has already been granted an exemption by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, in order to prevent ADI losing US contracts, and is expected to apply for exemptions in Queensland and New South Wales.

From Green Left Weekly #597.

Read more...

Why this is a racist war

Lisbeth Latham

Recently at an anti-war rally in Perth, I was asked by another participant ``is it really a racist war?’‘ George Bush, Tony Blair and their bellicose supporters in Australia, John Howard and Kim Beazley, have argued that the bombing campaign on Afghanistan is not a war on the Afghan people and it is definitely not a racist war.

The central aim of these statements has been to attempt to block the ability of opponents of the war to mobilise public opinion against the war. This aim has been necessitated by the growth since the 1960s of a general sentiment against racism. This popular anti-racist sentiment means that racists do not always openly claim to be racist or speak in openly racist terms.

This raises the question ``what is racism?’‘ Racism is the view, expressed either overtly or covertly, which justifies social inequality between people based on fetishising superficial external physical features, most particularly skin colour.

Racism first emerged with the development of capitalism to justify the forcible transportation of millions of Africans to the Americas in order to provide a system of institutionalised forced labour on the plantations of the European settler colonies.

At the end of the 19th century, racism continued to provide justification by the capitalist rulers of imperialist countries, whose populations were predominantly white, for the economic and political subjugation of the non-white peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America.

The current US bombing campaign against Afghanistan has been justified as necessary to ensure that terrorist attacks like that on September 11 in New York and Washington, in which more than 4000 people were killed, do not occur again. But the bombing has already been estimated to have killed 1000 Afghan civilians.

Moreover, aid agencies such as Medicins Sans Frontiers (MSF, Doctors without Borders) estimate that at least two million Afghans (with upward estimates of seven million people), will die from starvation by the end of winter if the bombing does not stop and aid agencies are unable to deliver large-scale food aid. The widespread unchallenged implication is that the lives of at least two million people, 10% of the Afghan population, are of less value than those who died in the US on September 11.

Imperialism is a word that is often misused. Marxists use it to refer to a particular stage in development of capitalism that emerged in the industrially developed countries at the end of the 19th century. Nearly all branches of their economies came under the monopolist control of a few large corporations.

These large corporations were owned by super-rich capitalist families, like the Rockefeller and Morgan families in the United States, who also owned the big banks, insurance companies and stock exchange investment houses. These families were often financially and personally inter-related and formed a financial oligarchy that dominated not only the economy but the political life of the developed capitalist countries.

The corporations and banks in the developed countries took advantage of the uneven development of the world capitalist economy to preserve their monopoly of ownership of advanced technology and to use this monopoly to extract above-average profits from the underdeveloped capitalist countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

As a result of the emergence of monopoly capitalism, the world was divided into a handful of predominantly white, rich nations dominating the economic and political life of the great majority of the world’s population.

The division of the world into rich and poor nations created a massive drive towards the militarisation of the imperialist nations. This was essential to ensure that they would be able to protect their investments and markets from challenges by their imperialist rivals. This was the central focus of both the first and second world wars.

Since the second world war, the imperialist powers have subordinated their rivalry to uniting behind the strongest imperialist power, the United States, to crush any challenges from the oppressed nations to throw off imperialist domination. This was the driving force behind the US-led military interventions into Korea in the 1950s and Vietnam during the 1960s and 1970s.

During the US-led war against Vietnam, anti-war sentiment became widespread in the United States and other imperialist countries like Australia. So too did anti-racist sentiment.

Widespread acceptance of the idea that it was racist for the governments of rich, white nations to wage war to stop the non-white peoples of the poor, Third World countries from choosing governments that US and its allies were hostile to, helped to limit the ability of the US and its allies to utilise their own armies to wage such wars.

Instead, the imperialist powers were forced to rely on the creation and support of right-wing proxies to attempt to maintain their domination over Third World countries. This is what the US did in the 1980s in Nicaragua with the contras, and in Afghanistan with the mujaheddin and the Taliban.

Since the September 11 terror attacks, the rulers of the imperialist countries have sought to regain public acceptance for the large-scale use of their own ground troops to impose on Third World countries governments that are totally subservient to the imperialist interests.

This is the real goal of the current “war on terrorism”. But it is being masked by claims that it is aimed at defending “civilisation”. Blair has even attempted to present the US-led war as part of a drive for a better world for “the starving, the dispossessed, the ignorant, those living in want and squalor”.

The US government has increasingly made it clear that the “war on terror” will have no end, and has already identified more than 60 countries that it will take action against for allegedly harbouring “terrorist organisations”.

The imperialists’ “war on terror” aims to crush all resistance to their ability to exploit the peoples of the Third World, and thus to maintain global inequality between the rich, predominantly white, nations of the First World and the poor, predominantly non-white, nations of the Third World. That is why this is a racist war.

From Green Left Weekly issue #472

Read more...