Open Society Foundations » Helene Irving

Fear and Loathing in the French Elections

Helene Irving — Thu, 03 May 2012 19:09:09 +0000

As France prepares for a new chapter in its political and social history, Helene Irving from the At Home in Europe project spoke to people in France working on issues of social inclusion about the significance of what has passed to date and what the future may hold.

Participants

Karim Miské is a documentary filmmaker based in Paris. He is the director of the three-part documentary series Muslims of France and the author of a multicultural crime thriller, Arab Jazz.

Marwan Muhammad is the spokesperson for the Collective Against Islamophobia in France (Collectif Contre l’Islamophobie en France, CCIF).

Paul Max Morin is the executive director of the European Grassroots Antiracist Movement (EGAM).

Samia Chabani is the founder and director of Ancrages, a documentary resource center and association based in Marseille, working on issues of migration in the Provence-Alpes Côtes d’Azur region.

Mohamed Bensaada runs the association Quartiers Nords, Quartiers Forts, which works in the northern neighborhoods of Marseille.

What role do you believe xenophobia, the fear of foreigners or outsiders, has played in the French presidential election campaign so far?

Karim: Xenophobia has allowed us to talk about things other than the real problems of the country; the economic and social problems, the same as elsewhere in Europe and for which nobody truly has the solution.

Marwan: The campaign for the presidential election has been mostly focused on immigration and xenophobic issues. The Front National has been asking questions and the other parties have just had to answer the questions in a different manner, but they have all been following the Front National’s political agenda. So, of course it gives them a future advantage which explains the results of the first round of the elections. But there is no unemployment problem anymore, there is no housing problem, there is no social problem in the country because everyone’s attention is focused on phenomena such as the halal meat business, the presence of immigrants in the country and the place of Muslims and Islam in France nowadays. So that gives you the tone of these last weeks of the presidential campaign.

Samia: In all periods of crisis, the theme of immigration is used for electoral gain; the issue being to crystallize fears around the “foreigner.” For five years, part of the “classic” right has fallen in step with the Front National in this discourse.

Mohamed: The electoral score of the Front National is an answer to this question in itself. I do not agree with those who think that the Front National vote is a "normal" vote; it's a racist vote, and people who make that choice know exactly why they did it according to me, and I’m not afraid to say it; around 18% of the population made a negative vote against Muslims.

The Front National, a nationalist/far right political party founded in 1972, claimed almost 20% of the vote in the first round of voting. In your opinion, what is really behind the Front National results?

Karim: Behind these results, are a number of factors which could all be summed up by fear; fear of losing one’s social status, one’s job; fear of the insecurity that is presented to us on the television, fear of the “other”. More profoundly, I think that globalization means the loss of a superiority which has been taken as a given by white Europe. Unless you can alter the external conditions, people will have a go at these “foreigners” who are amongst us and who are dismissed to this form of radical otherness symbolized by Islam—even if they are French by three generations.

Paul: The Front National vote is very difficult to decipher as it is very diverse. Broadly speaking, it can be explained in the following way: Firstly, a disenchantment with parliamentary government, traditional political parties and an exasperation with the incompetence of governments to respond to the needs of French citizens.

There’s also neglect of the peripheral territories, in particular the outer urban and rural areas where the Front National vote has really progressed. The loss of public services, boredom; the imaginary vision of an invaded France and the fear of being downgraded are all issues. Moreover, contrary to previous times, the Front National vote is moving back into the cities where the fabrics of socialization are the thickest.

We need to consider the crisis vote—anti-globalization, anti-European—the turn to a closing of borders in the belief that alone and isolated we will be stronger.

Mohamed: The explanations are multiple, but xenophobia and particularly Islamophobia and its political instrumentalization is the major cause.

Thinking about the halal meat debate, which Nicolas Sarkozy claimed was the “issue that most occupied the French,” what in your opinion is the real priority for French citizens now and in the coming year?

Karim: The main concerns are social: employment, wages … There is also a real worry on the question of debt, of balancing the accounts. Nobody wants to see the banking system collapse. But it is important to know that the debate around halal plays on these profound feelings, these underlying worries. If not, it wouldn’t have happened. It encompasses a general anxiety about French identity, and in my opinion, a fear of having an identity weaker than that of Muslims. Consequently, there is a fear of being submerged.

Marwan: We are in a very difficult situation, and the same is true for other Western European countries but, we have big crisis and this crisis is not just an economic one. It’s also a social one … there’s the problem of social distance in big cities where people live more and more closer to each other physically but mentally and socially they are worlds apart, and they don’t talk to each other, there is a great distance which widens every day.

Paul: The first issue is still purchasing power, growth, and safeguarding social welfare. But in a sort of blind logic it served certain presidential hopefuls well to make believe that the French population think that halal meat is the first priority, and this led to a legitimization of racist speech.

Samia: It is obvious that the subject of “halal” meat is a diversion much like the debate on national identity. The subjects which most concern French people are employment and purchasing power, and to a lesser extent the tax system.

What does the future hold for France; is there still a place for liberté, egalité, fraternité?

Marwan: Unfortunately, this “motto” as we call it in France, is now only a slogan on the front of the city hall. It is nowhere to be seen in the society. Freedom is limited for a lot of people and when it comes to the Muslim, these elementary freedoms are not respected. This equality is not true anymore because it depends on whether you live in the center in Paris, or in the suburbs; you will have a completely different life experience of what opportunities there may be. And Fraternity—if we are brothers we should not be treating each other like that, and the politicians today are more about divide and conquer than they are about uniting people together. So if we look at the situation as it is today we have reasons to be very pessimistic.

Paul: Of course, “la liberté, l'égalité et la fraternité” are just a question of will. These values must become once more our ruling ideology.

Samia: The future of France will fluctuate with the economic crisis; if there is an upturn, "liberté, égalité, fraternité" will find a second youth. Multicultural France is a fact; its children are from different migrations. The success of national cohesion will depend on how this is considered by future governments.

At Home in Europe, an Open Society Foundations project, examines the position of minorities and marginalized groups in a changing Europe. Currently the project is studying Muslim inclusion in 11 cities across Europe. A report on Muslims in Paris will be launched this summer.

France's “Burqa Ban” Enforcing Not Solving Inequality

Helene Irving — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:52:57 +0000

It is now a year since the French government implemented a ban on the wearing of face coverings in public spaces, aimed at women who wear the full-face veil, popularly and incorrectly referred to as the “burqa.” Advocates of the ban argued it would protect gender equality and help maintain public order. A year later, it has done neither.

The legal application of the ban means women found wearing a full-face veil can face a fine of up to €150. This can be accompanied or replaced by a mandatory “citizenship service.” In an interview with Le Monde at the beginning of 2012, French interior minister Claude Gueant stated that, although 237 women had been stopped by the police, only six had been convicted. It is thought that today the number of convictions stands at around 20 women.

Outside the confines of the law, many more women are being singled out for unofficial “sanction.” According to a French civil society organization a growing number of Muslim women in France—veiled and unveiled—are victims of physical or verbal assault. The Collective Against Islamophobia in France (Collective Contre l’Islamophobie en France), recently released statistics from their forthcoming 2011 annual report. They estimate that 94% of victims of anti-Muslim physical and verbal abuse are women, and over 84% of all reported Islamophobic acts are targeted at women. Often these women are singled out because they are wearing the headscarf or niqab.

It is uncertain whether there is any direct link between the ban on the full-face veil and this rise in physical and verbal violence against Muslim women over the past year. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the intense debate and scrutiny surrounding the ban has provoked hostile and even violent reactions from members of the public towards women wearing the veil. In a report by the Open Society Foundations’ At Home in Europe Project published on April 11, 2011, 30 out of 32 Muslim women who wear the full-face veil in France stated that they had suffered some form of verbal abuse from members of the public prior to the implementation of the ban.

Those who had been wearing the veil for a long time believed that hostility towards them had increased significantly since the debate on the niqab started in 2009. A minority of women had been physically assaulted. A worryingly large number of the women interviewed believed that spitting and name-calling was a relatively normal, everyday experience. Many women spoke about avoiding certain areas or places and taking care not to travel alone:

To start with, when I’m alone, when I return home on my own, I’m careful about the bus routes I take. I take certain "strategic" routes. I commute through places which are not very crowded to avoid any problems.

According to an article published in Deutsche Welle on the law's one-year anniversary, the ban on the niqab has not served to “liberate” women as is claimed. Rather, it has served to increase the sense of exclusion and restriction voiced by many of the women we spoke to before its implementation:

I particularly miss going out. Now you have to think twice before going out and I’ve really withdrawn into myself a lot because when you go out people are really very, very nasty. Before, it was kind of OK. You had some stares, sometimes people took liberties and said certain things, but not as much as nowadays, especially since it’s been covered so much in the media.

Legislating and subsequently criminalizing the visibility of religion in a public space was never going to achieve gender parity. Arguably, it was never truly intended to. The absence of any comment from France’s political establishment on the anniversary of the ban speaks volumes. A year later there is a lack of any evidence to endorse the ban and its original mandate. It is time now to revisit the effectiveness and need for such a law. In light of the number of women who suffer abuse and exclusion—both imposed and self-imposed—as a consequence of the ban, France cannot afford to wait.

The experiences of women who wear the niqab across the UK are the subject of a forthcoming report by the At Home in Europe project of the Open Society Foundations.

Paranormal Activity

Empire December 1, 2009 | Hewitt, Chris Empire investigates Paranormal Activity, the horror phenomenon that's being touted as the new Blair Witch Project...

APTLY, THE YEAR'S MOST SURPRISING AND UNSETTLING HORROR HIT BEGAN WITH SOMETHING GOING BUMP IN THE NIGHT. "THE SPECIFIC IDEA FOR PARANORMAL ACTIVITY STARTED IN 2003. AFTER I MOVED to a new house, and me and my girlfriend would start hearing strange noises at night," recalls Oren Peli, a 39 year-old, Israeli-born former software engineer-turned-director. "Most of it was probably just the house settling, but there were a few things we didn't know how to explain. We had one incident when a laundry detergent just fell off the shelf in the middle of the night and gave us a big scare. Being the logical guy, I thought maybe we could set up video cameras to see what was going on. I didn't actually do it, but that was the grain of the idea." Paranormal Activity's logline is as simple as they come: a couple, particularly the more sensitive female half, believe they're haunted by a ghost, so the alpha-male boyfriend sets up cameras to record any supernatural occurrences. Only - and this is where it gets freaky-deaky - it turns out that their nocturnal visitor, who likes to open doors at night, leave footprints in flour and drag the girl out of bed and down the corridor, isn't a ghost at all, but a demon. Gulp.

"That's something that evolved over the year that I was doing research on the whole subject," says Peli. "One thing I learned is that ghosts usually don't plan to cause harm to humans. Demons, on the other hand, are evil and are powerful, so I thought it would be scarier to have a demon in the movie." Empire has seen the film (the review is on page 60) and can testify to that. But we saw it in a screening room surrounded by critics - not the most animated authence. Paranormal Activity is designed to scare large crowds shitless, as demonstrated by its most recent trailer. Where an early teaser trumpeted approval from a slew of blogs (LA Weekly called it the "scariest movie of the year"), the new one combines movie footage with authence reactions filmed via night-vision cameras at an LA test screening in September. It gets the message across with every shriek, every widening of eerie green eyes, every hand clasped over startled mouth.

The trailer is just part of an unusual marketing campaign that has focused on word of mouth - fans are urged to visit Eventful.com and demand that the movie be screened in their local city. And it's working - in the US, the release schedule is expanding, and per-screen averages are huge: in its third week of release, just before Empire went to press, Paranormal Activity leapt into the US Top 10 in fourth spot, pulling in an astonishing $7.9 million from just 160 theatres across the country. It's hard, frankly, not to get that Blair Witch vibe.

For starters, both are 'found-footage movies', detailing a supernatural event after the event, even if Paranormal Activity is less frenetic than its 1999 predecessor. Both play on primal fears - "Who knows what goes on when you're asleep?" cackles Peli. Both, in an attempt to create a 'this really happened' myth, employ actors who use their own names for their characters (in this case, Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat), and then keep them off the promotional trail. Both were shot on a budget that wouldn't allow for shoestrings - the official bottom line for Paranormal Activity is around $11,000, with three grand going on the video camera Peli bought to capture the action in 2006, filming the entire movie with the help of his (now-ex) girlfriend and his best friend, Amir, across a single week (although he spent the best part of a year upgrading his movie's location - his own house - to movie specifications). see here paranormal activity 2 online

Rather than shun comparisons between the two films, Peli couldn't be happier. "I really admire Blair Witch," he says, "The whole idea that I could make a good movie if I had a good idea and a video camera was gestating ever since I saw it, and later Open Water. They're the ones that really had the most commercial success with the approach.' Dozens of movies since Blair Witch have tried to ape its formula and wound up going straight-to-DVD or worse. Paranormal Activity differs from virtually all of them in that it's genuinely good and authentically haunting. But just being good isn't good enough. You also have to lucky - say, Steven Spielberg-watching-film-and-freaking-out lucky. website paranormal activity 2 online

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY HAD ALREADY CAUSED SOMETHING OF A STIR AT THE SCREAMFEST AND SLAMDANCE FESTIVALS IN 2007, PICKING UP A COUPLE OF NEW PRODUCERS (JASON BLUM AND STEVE SCHNEIDER) ALONG THE WAY, AND attracting studio attention from DreamWorks. At some point, a DVD copy of the movie landed on the desk of Spielberg, who watched it and, apparently, loved it - so much that he was too scared to watch it all at night (Spielberg told USA Today, "I had to wait until the sun came up and put it on at 8:30 in the morning. Then I watched it in its entirety!"). Good enough.

But the next day, so the story goes, the door of his screening room inexplicably swung shut and locked from the inside. When a locksmith finally freed Hollywood's most powerful man from the grip of a playful ghost (or gust of wind), Spielberg sent back the screener, apparently convinced his copy was haunted. From that moment on, it was inevitable that Paranormal Activity would wind up at DreamWorks. True story. Well, probably.

"People are saying that's just a marketing ploy," laughs Peli. "But I heard the story way back when, when it was floating around DreamWorks executives. As far as I know, that actually happened." Spielberg's interest in the movie would ultimately shape Paranormal Activity for release, but the more eagle-eyed among you will have noted that there's a big gap between 2007, when the movie was picked up, and 2009, when it was finally released. A gap in which DreamWorks was trying to figure out what the hell it was it had bought.

The studio's first instinct was utterly pointless: it decided not to release the film, but instead hand Peli enough cash for a slicker remake. Thankfully, Peli convinced the suits to have one screening of his original, to gauge authence reaction, before heading down Remake Road. It played like gangbusters; the remake was quietly dropped. "We always believed that, once [DreamWorks] saw the movie in a theatre, they were going to forget the remake," says Peli.

However, no sooner had one bullet been dodged than another came whizzing towards Peli, in the shape of the ending. There are, in total, three alternative endings for Paranormal Activity. One, a bleak affair that ends with a suicide-tocamera, has only been seen by a couple of test authences. Another - Peli's original capper, which played at those early festivals - involved murder, catatonia and the boys in blue. And then there's the current ending, weird and unsettling and very memorable... and dreamed up by Mr. Spielberg.

"It tested by far the best," says Peli. "The audience just totally freaks out. Spielberg knows a thing or two about movies!" The filmmaker has already begun work on his next movie, a sci-fi horror called Area 51. It's another lost-footage flick, only this time with a bigger budget, reportedly around the $5 million mark. "We're trying to stay tight-lipped about it," says Peli, hoping to do what the Blair Witch boys couldn't: turn a surprise hit into a lasting directing career. "But hopefully it's going to turn out well." Paranormal Activity is out on November 25 and is reviewed on page 60.

[Sidebar] It gave Spielberg the willies. It's been called the "scariest movie of the year". It cost $11,000.

[Sidebar] BRIEFING Paranormal Activity Released: November 25 Director: Oren Peli Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat Plot: A couple (Featherston and Sloat) move into a new house and almost immediately start to experience odd nocturnal goings-on. When they set up cameras to capture the cause of all the bumps in the night, they find that something else has moved in with them.

[Sidebar] "I had to wait until the sun came up before I could finish watching it!" Steven Spielberg [Sidebar] "When the audience sees how it ends, they just totally freak out..." Oren Peli Hewitt, Chris

Influencing Inclusion in Europe at a Local Level

Helene Irving — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:06:04 +0000

“I never thought of our activities as advocacy; there’s no word for it in German.”

Turning an intuitive, sometimes spontaneous practice into a more deliberate process became the overriding theme at a recent gathering of human rights activists from around Europe. Sponsored by the Open Society Foundations, the workshop hosted participants from Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Marseille, Paris, Hamburg, Berlin, London, Stockholm, Copenhagen and Brussels. A range of interests and issues were represented including refugee women’s rights, combating racism and Islamophobia, and representing Roma as well as African diaspora.

Passionate and committed, all had one goal in common; to better understand and apply advocacy in their work to combat injustice. A mouthful even in English, activists all came with different understandings of what advocacy meant to them. “Advocacy was a way of reaching out, communicating” one activist from London shared, “but I hadn’t properly thought about policy makers.” “We weren’t thinking about it systematically” another activist from Berlin reflected, “advocacy was trial and error.”

Far from receiving hard and fast rules for advocacy, activists had the opportunity to apply models and structures to their own particular challenges. At times, these challenges were similar to those of activists in other cities. The intention was to consider the broadest range of options and learn to tailor the best formula for different situations. So what does this look like in reality?

Practically, it means translating seemingly insurmountable challenges—shifting perceptions on refugees for example—into tangible objectives. It means knowing your audience and working with them, particularly those who disagree with you. It means mapping the obstacles to the change you are proposing and working to pre-empt them. It means making the most of the leverage you have to tip the process in your favor. It means choosing the right tools to reach the right people in every stage of the process. “I see now that our work doesn’t end with reporting” one civil society activist from Rotterdam reflected, “we would like to prevent such problems in the first place. We must ensure all stakeholders take an active part.”

The recent United Kingdom Integration Strategy became a test case for one group during the summit to apply these advocacy insights. Long overdue, the strategy was quietly released by the Department for Community and Local Government at the end of February. At only 28 pages the strategy paper supports the importance of effective integration but falls down on how the Government is going to do this. The group felt that the spectrum of UK civil society bodies and their issues were inadequately represented in the final paper. Participants set about planning how they might present a concerted response to the integration strategy as well as working on ways to implement it in its current form.

As with any good summit, there was as much activity in the fringes as during formal sessions. Exchange of ideas, lessons learned and effective techniques ran throughout the day. “Even if someone has failed you still learn something,” suggested an activist from Paris. Advocates discussed the solidarity they were able to draw from each other and their growing European network. “Without Europe, we wouldn’t have these discussions about discrimination or racism. Europe has got these debates into German society” concluded one German activist. “Having this network in Europe gives us gravitas, momentum; it gives campaigners support and credibility” echoed another.

Though a German word for advocacy continued to prove elusive—as is the case in many other European languages—participants left the summit with the groundwork made for more strategic outreach in the future. The mix of tangible and less tangible effects of the three-day summit was best summed up by a human rights activist from Stockholm: “Coming here reminded me planning is crucial and of course, we mustn’t lost hope that change is achievable.”

Identity and Belonging in East London

Helene Irving — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:37:33 +0000

Living in Leytonstone: Identity and Belonging is a 12-minute film examining the experiences of pupils, staff, and community members in a diverse and multicultural part of East London. Located in the borough of Waltham-Forest, Leytonstone is one of several neighborhoods where immigrants to Britain from the Caribbean, South Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe have long made their home.

Moderated by BBC special correspondent Razia Iqbal, the film was supported by the Open Society Foundations’ At Home in Europe Project as part of its efforts to explore views and experiences of belonging and identity in 11 cities across Europe. It was recently selected to screen at the London Urban Short Documentary Film Festival (part of the London Short Film Festival), with a series of other films from young urban filmmakers that portray the glory, diversity, and reality of London.

Here, Razia Iqbal talks about her involvement in the making of the film and why she left Leytonstone School a little more hopeful than she went in.

It is an old adage in the movie business that one should never work with animals or children. Notwithstanding that a short film for a particular audience of policymakers is hardly Hollywood, I did approach the project with some trepidation. And the reason why was completely connected to the subject matter. It is hard enough to get adults to confront the thorny issue of identity and belonging, let alone young people who are in the throes of carving it out for themselves in the first place.

I do happen to think that how we navigate our place in the world from a very young age is among the most important building blocks in creating a healthy civil society. And in places where different ethnic backgrounds rub shoulders, sometimes uneasily, it is all the more necessary that these issues are discussed openly.

The young people of Leytonstone School, talking about their lives in front of teachers, turned out to be a surprising bunch. The paraphernalia of making a film must have seemed a little intimidating. But once they started to ignore the presence of the cameras, they began to relax and were quite forthcoming. I think a big part of it was to do with the kinds of open ended questions they were asked, and their willingness to engage with the subject matter.

It was quickly obvious that the school presented a good model for a multicultural institution, where the children mixed easily and were interested in other people’s experiences. But I was most struck by the distinctions some of the children made about the way they socialized in school—by and large quite willingly and with an openness which was genuinely heartwarming—and the way in which they socialized outside school. That appeared to be more limited by where they lived and who their parents socialized with. It was a common experience that those kids who were from different backgrounds tended to mix at school but not outside school. That seems to me to be an area worthy of some study and reflection.

Being a member of that often-reviled group, the media, it was not surprising to me that for the children, TV, newspapers, and journalists in general were held responsible for the negative images of black and minority ethnic groups and in particular of Muslims. Some of their comments were spot on, but I left feeling hopeful that it is their generation, knowing, smart, and open to learning, who can remake their own societies in their image, without feeling anything is being imposed from the outside.

I loved talking to the pupils of Leytonstone school. It is meant genuinely when I say it is a privilege to have conversations with anyone who is willing to speak honestly about issues that matter and the young people who took part in this film were generous and courageous in their willingness to talk about who they are, how that makes them feel, and where their place in society is and could be.

Razia Iqbal is currently a special correspondent for the BBC, reporting on a variety of foreign and domestic stories for BBC News programs. Born in Kampala, Uganda, into a Muslim family, she has been living in London since 1970. She joined the BBC in 1989 and has reported extensively on radio and television, from culture to domestic politics, the Haaj in Mecca to the civil war in Sri Lanka, where she lived for two years. She was the BBC’s arts correspondent from 2003 to 2009. She has presented on the BBC News Channel, on Radio 4, most notably the PM program, Woman’s Hour and Front Row, as well as on the World Service and 5LIVE. She has also been a reporter for the BBC in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Living in Leytonstone: Identity and Belonging was filmed and produced by Chocolate Films.

Muslims in Marseille: Rhetoric and Reality

Helene Irving — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:08:40 +0000

The Open Society Foundations have released a new report, Muslims in Marseille, which examines the city's deep divisions and the vast inequities facing Marseille's Muslim residents. The report is part of an ongoing series that looks at the integration of Muslims in 11 cities across Europe (Antwerp, Amsterdam, Berlin, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Leicester, London, Marseille, Paris, Rotterdam, and Stockholm). We spoke with Francoise Lorcerie, one of the researchers behind Muslims in Marseille; Alain Fourest, a human rights activist and founder of the Roma rights organization Rencontres Tsiganes; and Djamel Bouriche, a child psychiatrist, specializing in intercultural psychiatry.

Tell us why you got involved in this research.

Francoise Lorcerie: I was very curious about how to gain entry into research looking at the category of "Muslims" and the At Home in Europe Project's work on Marseille offered me the opportunity to do this. I specialize in urbanization and education, but until now I had not had the opportunity to study these fields specifically in relation to Muslims. Marseille offered me an opportunity to understand the wider picture. My research until now hasn't focused on housing, unemployment, and Muslims, at least not as a social group. There's a taboo about religion in France and within the field of research Muslims are in the margins of interest. I knew this report would allow for the existence of empirical data—as to date there is very little available—and would be important for other social scientists.

What can Marseille's policymakers do to make Muslims and other minorities feel accepted and to belong?

Alain Fourest: The only response is "respect." They have to treat people with respect and politeness. Use vous instead of tu when they speak to Muslims and other minorities. They also needs to rethink the way that they approach relations between Muslim communities and the city. For example, affirmative action within the police force in favor of Muslim police officers is not going to solve the tensions between the police and Muslim communities. What is needed is real strategic action and thinking about how to bring Muslims and other minorities together with policymakers to better improve the situation.

What does identity mean for Muslims in Marseille and how does the national rhetoric on this correlate with what you found in Marseille?

Djamel Bouriche: Identification and belonging to a traditionally Provencal town are different when compared with the capital and the dominant French culture. Identity and experiences are more grounded in the local area (in this case Marseille) and are not closely aligned with what is being said at the national level on identity. This is about the everyday experiences of Muslims and the rhetoric from the top can be unhelpful.

There is a difference between the national perception of the failure of Muslims to integrate and the reality of everyday integration at the local level. Does the report bring out this tension and difference?

FL: The tension between the national rhetoric and local realities is not very present in the report. This report's peculiarity is its empirical data. We try to point to the realities of life in Marseille, and this report is descriptive in its analysis. It mainly describes what the situation is and leaves the analysis to you, the reader.

The hijab has been banned, as has the niqab. What is next in line for legislative hysteria?

FL: In terms of legislative action the next thing is, in my opinion, reduced access to what we take for granted, such as use of public services, the labor market for women who wear the hijab, as well as a general proscription on women in the social sphere, such as mothers who wear the hijab accompanying children on school trip being banned. Here in France we have legislative action against established liberties—loi (law) conflicts with droit (right); it's a conflict between politicians and jurists—jurists are stable in their interpretation of the law whilst politicians change the law so that it can be used to control social attitudes. The law is being moved into the area of national identity whilst jurists are more clear what laicite (France’s long-standing policy of secularism in government affairs and public institutions) clearly is. Muslims are on the legal side of laicite whilst politicians are on the political side.

AF: All minorities will be affected—stigmatized, ridiculed. We have legislation targeting Muslims and Roma. Next it will be Roma children, Comorians (earlier this month Minister of the Interior, Claude Geant, claimed that the immigrants from the Comoro Islands were responsible for violence in Marseille). At this time of pre-election campaigning, anything is possible.

What should (and are) the Muslim communities of Marseille doing in order to engage with their city?

DB: Get over interethnic cleavages and create a real French Islamic theological thought, where people can find common framing for their Muslim identity. This will allow for more organization and mobilization and demands can be addressed to public powers.

What does this report say about integration in France?

FL: The question of identity and Muslim identity is a very complex question in France. This report is about integration whereas discussion on integration about Muslims on the national level is not about inclusion or the common presence of Muslims.The debates on national identity in Marseille and across France are usually centered on and about the majority society. In contrast, our report is about a few people, Muslims. Though the question of discrimination and racism is not the sole focus of this report, it does play a role and is important in the problems now facing France. The report does not talk about the rest of society, the "usual suspects" in national discussions on identity and integration. What this report says is that groups in society continue to interact with each other and integrate despite often hostile political and public action and that integration is not just a matter of public policy.

SEAN MCCORMACK HOLDS STATE DEPARTMENT REGULAR NEWS BRIEFING

Political Transcript Wire May 5, 2006 STATE DEPARTMENT REGULAR NEWS BRIEFING MAY 5, 2006 SPEAKER: SEAN MCCORMACK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS [*] MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. How are you?

I don't have any opening statement, so I'm ready to get right into your questions, wherever you'd like to begin.

QUESTION: About a waiver that the secretary apparently has signed, making thousands of Burmese eligible to emigrate here.

MCCORMACK: Sure.

There's -- got a fact sheet that we have either put out or are going to put out on this...

(CROSSTALK) MCCORMACK: We're going to be putting it out.

Let me walk you through this, as it's a pretty complicated issue.

The context for this: There is a refugee camp along the Thai- Burmese border called the Tonkin (ph) Refugee Camp. In this refugee camp, there are a number of ethnic minorities from Burma. Among these ethnic minorities, there's a group of about 9,300 people from the Karen, K-A-R-E-N, ethnic -- Burmese ethnic minority.

So recently over the past -- I'm not sure exactly when it started -- but over a past period of time, representatives of the Department of Homeland Security have been going through this refugee camp and interviewing individuals to see whether or not they meet their criteria for possible resettlement in the United States as refugees.

Now, in the course of these interviews, the representatives discovered that there were members of the Karen National Union, combatants of the Karen National Union and those who might have provided some material -- quote, unquote, "material support" under the law to the Karen National Union.

Now, under the law, the intersection of the Patriot Act and the Clear ID Act of 2005, those who have -- might have provided material support to what under that act might be considered a terrorist organization would not be eligible for possible resettlement in the United States.

MCCORMACK: Now I have to distinguish between a foreign terrorist organization and what might be considered a terrorist organization under the Clear ID Act. There are several different tiers of this. It's referred to as a tier 3 organization.

So that's the overall context for where we stand right now.

Now what the secretary did was she exercised a waiver authority -- and this is under the Immigration and Nationality Act -- so that certain refugees who might otherwise meet all the criteria for refugee resettlement in the United States could be considered for resettlement in the United States.

So this waiver is not a guarantee that individuals might be resettled in the United States, but merely something that allows the Department of Homeland Security to consider them as potentially eligible, even though they might be considered under the law to have provided what I refer to as material support. That's the term under the law.

So that's where we stand now in the process. So, to my knowledge, there haven't been any individuals who have actually been designated for resettlement here.

And there's one more important point here, and that is: Anybody who might be a combatant or a member of the Karen National Union would not be eligible for resettlement in the United States, even under this waiver authority.

QUESTION: So I understand -- I think I do...

MCCORMACK: OK.

QUESTION: There was a blanket exclusion of all these refugees, whether or not there was evidence that they supported terrorism, until...

MCCORMACK: Not all the refugees in the camp. That's an important distinction, because you have a group of...

QUESTION: 9,000.

MCCORMACK: ... ethnic minorities, a little more than 9,000 people.

So some subset of them might be considered as potentially providing material support to the Karen National Union. So I'm not saying all of them, I'm just saying some group of them.

(CROSSTALK) MCCORMACK: This waiver would potentially affect a subset of that 9,300 people. And so I just want to draw that distinction between all of the refugees from this ethnic minority and some subset of them who might otherwise have been automatically excluded because of the Patriot Act or the Clear ID Act.

QUESTION: Were there people who, all along, have been eligible to resettle here in that group?

QUESTION: It sounds like you were going to go through the area and made a more discerning distinction between potential terror supporters and just people.

MCCORMACK: Right. Well, you'll have to...

QUESTION: Homeland Security.

MCCORMACK: Yes, you'll have to talk to Homeland Security for exactly where they are in the process, whether or not there were actually individuals who had already met the eligibility requirement.

QUESTION: Yes, that's what I don't...

MCCORMACK: Homeland Security would have a better read on that for exactly where they stand in the process.

So what the waiver does is it opens up a possibility for some subset of those group of people. But it would not include people who are either members or combatants in the Karen National Union.

QUESTION: Is there some nuance about whether -- last question -- whether that group you said may be considered, is it fair enough to say it's designated as a terrorist group?

MCCORMACK: Well, there are various different classifications, as you know -- foreign terrorist organization being something completely separate.

But under this law, the Clear ID Act of 2005, is a very expansive definition of what might constitute a terrorist group.

MCCORMACK: And that group, the Karen National Union, would fall under that designation.

Anything else on this?

QUESTION: When was the waiver issued?

MCCORMACK: She signed the waiver on Wednesday.

Anything else on this issue?

QUESTION: Any reaction to Jack Straw no longer being the foreign secretary?

MCCORMACK: Well, Secretary Rice called Foreign Secretary Straw this morning and it was, from her perspective, I think a bittersweet call.

She -- their -- especially in their particular relationship, there are two parts to this relationship. There is the professional relationship, and she has been -- had no better or closer colleague than Jack Straw in working through some of the most demanding foreign policy issues that have faced us over the past decades.

And then there's a second part, and that is their personal friendship. And I think you've seen -- that was evident in a number of different ways, in public in Birmingham, as well as in Liverpool and Blackburn when they were able to exchange those visits.

So she looks forward to that friendship extending out over the years, and certainly she and Foreign Secretary Straw will have numerous occasions over the years to come to keep up that friendship. And she will certainly, on the first part of that relationship, miss him as a colleague.

She also spoke this morning with Mr. Straw's successor and they had a good discussion, and the secretary really looks forward to working with her.

There are a lot of tough issues on the agenda, but there are no closer allies than the U.S. and the U.K. in facing up to these issues that are before us.

QUESTION: Couldn't you say unlike the departure of his predecessor, who sharply disagreed with policy on Iraq, the support that the Blair government was giving the United States, could you say that this has nothing to do with the policy on Iran or any other difficult issue?

MCCORMACK: In terms of the...

QUESTION: Yes, I know you can't speak to Straw, but...

(CROSSTALK) MCCORMACK: ... in terms of the domestic issue in the U.K., I mean, that's an issue for somebody else to discuss.

(CROSSTALK) MCCORMACK: I mean, from our perspective, there's been no better or closer working relationship on a whole host of issues, including Iran, with Foreign Secretary Straw, as well as the U.K.

QUESTION: So it's not a defection?

(LAUGHTER) MCCORMACK: I certainly wouldn't use that term.

QUESTION: Does she view her time spent with him, which was unusual in Alabama and Blackburn, as time well spent now that he's no longer there?

MCCORMACK: Absolutely. Yes, absolutely.

Like I said, they were colleagues, but they also developed a great friendship.

MCCORMACK: And those visits only served to deepen the friendship not only with Foreign Secretary Straw, but with his wife Alice.

And we very much enjoyed those trips and those visits. And we look forward to an equally good and close working relationship with his successor.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) (LAUGHTER) MCCORMACK: We'll take the idea under consideration.

QUESTION: Can we talk about Darfur please?

MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: And update us on any progress we know about and whether he's doing better and getting more rebel parties to sign on.

MCCORMACK: The situation now is still -- I guess the way to put it is "still evolving." Deputy Secretary Zoellick has talked to some of the media in Abuja, and right now what we hope is that this is a good and hopeful day for the people of Sudan and the people of Darfur.

The news reports coming out of Abuja have the government of Sudan and then the main faction of the rebel groups under the leadership of Mini Minawi agreeing on an accord. actquestionofthedaynow.com act question of the day

The talks are still continuing. And I think that there is still some consideration on the part of at least one of the other rebel groups led by Abdul Wahid, whether or not they are going to sign onto the accord.

So that's where we stand right now. I think it's still an evolving situation, but a potentially very hopeful day for the people of Darfur.

Now I just have to caution that, even if there is an agreement on paper, there will be a need to implement that agreement. And it's going to require as much, if not more work on the part of parties involved in the international community to see an agreement implemented. And we will be right there to work with members of the international community to see that it is implemented. But first we have to get signatures on a piece of paper.

And at this point, I'm not aware that we have that quite yet.

QUESTION: And what happens if only one party signs on? Is the deal invalid? Or do you try to move forward with (inaudible) supposed to sign?

MCCORMACK: No, I think you continue to move forward. I think that you -- again, we're getting to the realm of ifs here -- but if that is, in fact, the case, you continue working the political process.

MCCORMACK: You still -- there's no substitute for a political accommodation, a political settlement in order to ultimately resolve the grave humanitarian and security issues that exist there.

You address those in their own right, but ultimately you're not going to solve the issues in Darfur absent that political agreement.

QUESTION: Is this going to be under discussion with both the quartet and the P-5?

And how far are you getting in terms of finding troops and others to implement this agreement?

MCCORMACK: In terms of P-5, it could very well come up in that context.

The quartet I don't expect it to come up.

I know that the British government has made some suggestions about a potential meeting on Darfur up in New York, and that's certainly a very interesting idea.

We're going to follow up with them, as well as our other colleagues at the U.N. on that idea. But at this point, there's nothing that's jelled on that.

QUESTION: Are you talking within the context of these meetings next week when you're saying...

(CROSSTALK) MCCORMACK: Excuse me?

(CROSSTALK) QUESTION: ... but for next week, not just like in the future?

MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: You're talking about next week?

MCCORMACK: Right. Again, I've seen the press reports about that.

But there's nothing -- I mean, there's nothing to -- that certainly I could confirm on that. Our focus right now is on the Abuja talks and making those work, and doing what we can to see that they move forward.

QUESTION: So who would attend these talks possibly that the British are interested in?

MCCORMACK: Again, this is -- you know, I've seen the...

(CROSSTALK) MCCORMACK: ... news reports on this here, so it is not something that's on anybody's agenda at this point.

QUESTION: It's on the agenda of the French. They announced it officially...

MCCORMACK: Well, there we are.

QUESTION: ... that it will be Monday...

MCCORMACK: I didn't mean to leave out my French colleagues.

QUESTION: ... at 4:00 p.m.

QUESTION: That sounds fairly definite.

MCCORMACK: That would sound fairly definite.

As of right now, it's not on the secretary's schedule.

QUESTION: What are Deputy Secretary Zoellick's plans? Is he coming back? Is he staying to see if he can get more signatures? Is he going on to...

MCCORMACK: Right now, he is there and he's working hard, and he's working side-by-side with the A.U. negotiators and President Obasanjo of Nigeria.

MCCORMACK: And I just have to single out President Obasanjo and the leadership at the A.U. for the effort that they have put in to bring this negotiating process to the point at which it finds itself right now.

We hope that it is successful in terms of gaining as many possible signatures on the document from the rebel groups as possible. But President Obasanjo and the A.U. deserve great praise and great credit for the effort that they have put in and the focus that they have devoted to get the process to the point at which we are right now.

You don't have anything else on this?

QUESTION: Yes, Sean. This morning, U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan delivered a speech to faculty at George Washington University. And he spoke mostly about human rights concerns, such as Darfur, the new Human Rights Council, and he is looking to also implement a peace- building commission.

Now at the same time, the United States is going to call to Geneva before the implementation of this council on June 19th. There are hearings set for today and tomorrow concerning questions of torture.

Do you have any statements in regard to that?

MCCORMACK: Well, you've heard us before on this. John Bellinger, who's our State Department legal adviser, and Barry Lowenkron, are leading the delegation there and they're going to make very clear to this commission that the United States does not torture.

We abide by our international obligations. We abide by U.S. law. You've heard the secretary say that. You've heard the president say that. And that's the basic message that they're going to reiterate.

They're going to be there to answer any and all questions that the members of the commission might have.

QUESTION: In the Annan speech, which I'd listened to (inaudible) he's, you know, very tactful and very diplomatic, but there's no question he's critical of the U.S. excluding itself from the first round of elections, which are Tuesday, for membership in the new council.

MCCORMACK: I haven't seen any... QUESTION: If you haven't seen the speech, there's no...

MCCORMACK: I haven't seen the speech. You know, I can't...

QUESTION: Well, it's so nuanced, I wouldn't try to ask you for your reaction if you haven't seen it. But can you clarify at least one thing for me? I should know the answer. You're not in the first round.

MCCORMACK: That's right.

QUESTION: What about the future? Is there a decision on that? Or is it open?

MCCORMACK: It's certainly an open possibility. We talked about this at the time of the vote on the formation of a Human Rights Council.

MCCORMACK: And Secretary Rice called Secretary General Annan prior to our casting the vote to explain what our position was, and our position was we didn't think it was the right move for the United States to, at this point, on this round of elections, put ourselves up for candidacy.

There are a lot of other very strong candidates and we didn't -- who came out in support of the Human Rights Commission as it is currently -- Human Rights Council as it is currently constituted with the current rules.

So we didn't think it was really fair that you have a number of these very strong candidates who came out and actively supported it as it's currently constituted. To have the United States put itself up for candidacy it might have meant one of those other countries wouldn't run or it would have to take itself out of the running, and we didn't think that, that was fair.

We did leave open the possibility of the next time there is an election for the council that we would participate, but at this point we haven't made a decision on that.

QUESTION: Can we speak about the quartet meeting? Because this meeting comes at a time while the quartet is very, very divided.

MCCORMACK: I don't know if I'd characterize it that way.

QUESTION: Well, Moscow said that suspension of funding to the Palestinian Authority was a mistake. You don't seem very interested by the proposal of France (inaudible) escrow accounts to help Palestinians. You rejected yesterday the proposal of Abbas to start again the negotiations.

So what can we expect from this meeting?

MCCORMACK: I think this meeting is designed to take stock of where we are. It allows the international community, the members of the quartet to get together six weeks after a Hamas-led government has taken office and just a few days after a new Israeli government has been seated.

So it's an opportunity to take stock of where we are, take stock of what move there has been on the part of a Hamas-led government to comply with the previous statement from the quartet.

MCCORMACK: So it's an opportunity to take stock of where we are, take stock of what move there has been on the part of a Hamas-led government to comply with the previous statement from the quartet.

I think it's safe to say there hasn't been any movement on that front.

It's an opportunity to talk about the humanitarian situation and what the efforts of the international community and the members of the quartet to provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people. here act question of the day

So I think this session is really a taking-stock session. It allows, at the minister-level, for them to get together and really sort through all the variety of issues there.

But you characterized the quartet as deeply divided on these issues. I certainly wouldn't characterize it that way.

You mentioned the proposal by the French government and the British government for the use of the international financial institutions as a potential mechanism to pay some of the salaries in the Palestinian Authority.

You know, we've talked about our view, at this point, of funding the Hamas-led government in terms of salary support. But if this comes up as a topic of conversation, which I expect it will, certainly we're going to be ready to listen, to hear what French, British and other representatives have to say about it.

So I'm not going to prejudge an outcome, but I will say that, as a matter of law and principle, the United States doesn't provide money to a terrorist organization.

QUESTION: And you are not afraid to be seen as supporting the project of the new government of Israel to separate Israel and to design its own borders?

MCCORMACK: Well, in terms of what Prime Minister Olmert has said, our views are clear. We've made it clear on the issue of final status issues like borders, President Bush has talked about that -- there's no change in our policy on that.

QUESTION: You're also going to be meeting with Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia on Tuesday morning to discuss this. And they're saying that they would like to have a more realistic sort of view of funding towards the Palestinian Authority and that what's happening at the moment, this kind of stranglehold on the P.A., is just going to lead to a humanitarian catastrophe on the ground.

And so they're going to be pushing you to make some concessions and to find some creative, nifty ways of making sure that doctors are paid, teachers are paid.

So I wondered what your reaction would be to these, you know, strong allies.

MCCORMACK: The quartet, from time to time, hears from outside parties. The last meeting at the ministry-level -- the last meeting, I believe, we heard from Jimmy Carter, Jim Wolfensohn when he was in his job made reports every time they met. General Dayton has provided reports. So it is consistent with the practices of the quartet to hear from other parties. I would expect that there would also be a separate, just quartet meeting.

We're going to listen to what they have to say and hear their views in terms of where they are with their own programs. The principle for us remains the same: We want to address the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people, but we're also, like I said, as a matter of law and principle, not going to provide money to a terrorist organization.

So if there are suggestions, of course we're going to listen to suggestions, how to address the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people. But at this point, certainly we're not going to commit ourselves to any change in what we have already done.

And I have to point out that what we have already done is to greatly increase our level of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, to address a lot of these same issues in terms of health and making sure that people have enough to eat.

But fundamentally, the reason why the P.A. might in the future find itself in perilous financial circumstances is because they have refused to make the hard decisions, simple, straightforward decisions, like recognizing the state of Israel and turning away from terror. Those are pretty basic.

And the international community is certainly united around the idea that if the Palestinian people are going to realize a state of their own, you're going to achieve that via the negotiating table, not by sending 16 year olds to blow up other 16 year olds, which is where the Hamas-led government is right now.

QUESTION: Well, wait a minute...

MCCORMACK: No, let me finish.

So that's where we stand. And it is the fault of no other group than this Hamas-led government that they find themselves in the situation that they are right now.

QUESTION: You say that, and I'm not disputing the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization, but you say that Hamas is in a situation where it's putting 16 year olds to blow up other 16 year olds.

I mean, are you not recognizing that there is a cease-fire in effect, that the Hamas-led government, while still a terrorist organization, you're not saying that Hamas is responsible for the latest terrorist attacks?

MCCORMACK: Well, look, there's no pause button on terror, OK? You're either against it and you're acting against it, or you're not.

And I'll give you one example: the bombing in Tel Aviv by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This Hamas-led government had every opportunity to condemn that and to speak out against it.

Instead, what did it do? It condoned it.

So that's a pretty clear example and a pretty clear window into the thinking of this government.

QUESTION: So on this, I know we've talked about various incarnations of this, but now Benita Ferrero-Waldner says that she will propose or that the E.U. is proposing a joint fund that would be administered by the quartet members. Have you seen that?

MCCORMACK: I haven't seen the proposal. I haven't seen it.

So I mean, the same basic answer applies. Certainly, if somebody wants to bring up that kind of proposal, we're going to listen to what they have to say.

But I've also outlined what our principles as well as our policies and laws are.

QUESTION: Well, would you be open to such a thing?

MCCORMACK: I'm not going to prejudge a reaction. I think what we'll do is we'll let the secretary and members of the quartet hear what it is that the E.U. or others have to say.

QUESTION: But with Russia saying that it was a mistake to stop financing, and with E.U. offering new proposals and U.N. trying to organize this meeting, U.S. is seen as the blocking party.

MCCORMACK: Again, we all agree on the objectives. We all agree on the need for humanitarian assistance. We agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization and that they need to comply with certain demands of the international community.

Again, this is a situation in which Hamas has put itself. And they now find that the financial cupboard is practically bare. The reason for that is their failure to comply with the conditions that the international community has laid out for them. QUESTION: He is clarifying the situation with giving money to Mahmoud Abbas, whether that's still an option that you would consider or...

MCCORMACK: We ourselves have not provided funding to the office of President Abbas.

MCCORMACK: It's something that certainly remains an option, but not something that we've done to this point.

QUESTION: And what is the end game here in a sense of -- I mean, does this -- I mean, you can't seriously believe that Hamas is suddenly going to renounce violence, as you're urging. Is your desire here in cutting off funding to see fresh elections or what?

MCCORMACK: No.

Our desire in this is to see a Palestinian government that is a partner for peace.

And you've heard Secretary Rice say this before. It would be, I think, everybody's optimal outcome if a group like Hamas turned -- took the steps to turn away from terror and to be a partner for peace.

That's not at all the situation that we have right now.

So what we are doing, and what we are urging other members of the international community to do is to band together to have a common approach to dealing with the situation so you have a change in behavior and so that you can actually have a partner for peace and so that you can ultimately get back to the road map and potentially through negotiation see a Palestinian state be born.

But I'll tell you, with the current policies, the current tactics, the current behaviors of a Hamas-led government, you're not going to see that.

And the Palestinian people and the world need to understand that the single biggest obstacle to actually potentially moving forward to a negotiated solution is Hamas and a Hamas-led government. That's the biggest obstacle to the aspiration of the Palestinian people right now.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) always talk about that Hamas and, you know, other countries and organizations have to make these strategic decisions. So are you looking for them to make a genuine, strategic decision to pursue a peaceful path, or will you just be satisfied if they reluctantly go ahead with what you want because they can't govern any other way because they don't have the money?

MCCORMACK: Well, words have to mean something.

You know, you can't just mouth words, they actually have to mean something. They actually have to reflect a true change in policies. And also those words have to be -- you know, actions have to reflect those words.

But we're certainly not at that point right now.

QUESTION: At Boston College, the secretary has been invited to give the commencement speech and there seems to be some controversy over her appearance.

Can you tell me if she's confirmed her appearance there, and what you make of the protests against it?

MCCORMACK: She looks forward to delivering the commencement address there, addressing the students, the graduates, their friends, their families, as well as the faculty up at Boston College.

Yes, I've seen the news reports. And, yes, there are some individuals who would rather not her receive an honorary degree. I'm not aware of protests against her actually speaking, but those are just the news reports that I've seen.

She's a former university professor, a former provost of the university. She's fully aware of the -- in an academic setting a diversity of views and the need for healthy debate within the academic setting. That's a great tradition of the academy.

So I think her view is she looks very much forward to congratulating the soon-to-be graduates of Boston College -- especially congratulate their parents for getting them across the finish line -- and the friends and family members.

MCCORMACK: It's a day for celebration, it's a day to be joyous and a day to look forward to the future. And that's what she's going to do.

QUESTION: OK. So it never crossed her mind to not go because (inaudible).

QUESTION: Sean, there's been a report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles that hate groups are using United States Internet servers. And they've logged over 6,000 sites. And one of these particular videos included what is termed a vile hidden camera jihad.

Have you or the secretary spoken to any foreign governments concerning this?

As well as there's been an upsurge in racial violence in St. Petersburg, and this is roughly two months before the G-8 summit conference there.

MCCORMACK: I haven't seen the report.

Our concerns about violent groups spreading intolerance, whatever medium, is well known. I'm not aware of the use of government servers; certainly that would be a source of concern to us.

But I'm not aware of the specific report that you cite.

QUESTION: Just want to ask, did you get the formal request from Taiwan for President Chen Shui-bian to transit on the back?

MCCORMACK: Have we got a formal request?

STAFF: I honestly don't know.

MCCORMACK: OK. We'll check for you.

We'll check for you.

QUESTION: Another question, follow-up.

MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: It is said that when Taiwan canceled the trip on the way to South Africa they asked the State Department to keep this secret. And why on the 3rd that you publicly issued a statement that this trip was canceled?

MCCORMACK: I'm not aware of those sorts of allegations.

QUESTION: Sean, have you heard anything diplomatically from the Russian government expressing their unhappiness with things that...

MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: ... the vice president said? They've said things in public that...

MCCORMACK: Not aware that there's been a specific diplomatic interaction. I can't say one way or the other.

QUESTION: Back to the Taiwanese leader's transit...

MCCORMACK: Ah, good.

QUESTION: ... does it have to be -- this time the request, does it have to be, like, a written form, not just a verbal one? Because we heard that U.S. requested if they're going to have any transit on the way back, it has to be done written.

MCCORMACK: Whatever the standard procedure is for that, I don't know. I would expect that it be followed in this case, as well.

QUESTION: Any deadline? Anything that...

MCCORMACK: Not aware of any deadline.

Thank you.

END 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC

STATE SEN. GOLDEN ASSISTS PATRONS WHO WERE VICTIMS OF CONSUMER FRAUD

US Fed News Service, Including US State News January 25, 2008 New York State Sen. Martin J. Golden, R-Brooklyn (22nd District), issued the following news release:

State Senator Marty Golden (R-C, Brooklyn) today is announcing that help is available for customers of the recently closed AAA Optical Circle, located at 7214-3rd Avenue, who may have ordered and paid for new glasses. Golden was recently contacted by a resident who filled her eye glass prescription at Optical Circle and order new frames totaling $450, only to shortly thereafter discover the store has closed and no forwarding contact information provided. go to web site new york state department of education

Senator Golden has contacted the New York State Department of Education Division of Professional Licensing, which licenses Ophthalmic Dispensing and Optometry, and has been informed to advise residents who have paid for, but have not received their eye glasses, to contact the Office of Professional Misconduct and Discipline. this web site new york state department of education

Senator Marty Golden stated, "I encourage any customers of the former AAA Optical Circle who may have ordered glasses, paid for them, and not received them, to contact the Office of Professional Misconduct and Discipline and the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs. When a store closes, customers with pending business have a right to know where the store has either moved to or where previously paid merchandise can be picked up. By contacting the OPMD, the State will investigate and try to locate the owner of the Optical Circle and satisfy the outstanding orders of their former customers."

Free Speech or Hate Speech?

Helene Irving — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:12:41 +0000

Two weeks ago, Dutch far-right populist politician Geert Wilders was acquitted of charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims. While the court found that some of Wilders' comments were insulting, shocking, and on the edge of legal acceptability, they found him not guilty of all charges with the justification that Wilders' comments were made in the broader context of the public debate on immigration, multiculturalism, and identity—a fierce debate which is taking place not just in the Netherlands but across the whole of Europe.

One of the defining features of this debate—a favorite amongst populist and right wing parties—is the unfair and freely expressed targeting of groups of people who belong to a particular religion, race, or part of the world. This debate uses anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant rhetoric freely and without challenge. As expressed by Conservative politician Sayeeda Warsi earlier this year, Islamophobia has become "socially acceptable," and not just in Britain but also in France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and beyond.

The Wilders' case in particular has raised questions about the boundaries between freedom of expression and hate speech. When does the right to freely express one's opinions override the rights to dignity and respect? Is it really when the "context is appropriate," and how can the context ever really be judged to be appropriate, and by whose standards? As Aydin Akkaya, president of an umbrella organization for Turks living in the Holland fears, the verdict "means that everything is permitted in the Netherlands as long as you find the right context. [...] What's next to be thrown in our face?"

The answer is sadly evident. In the past two weeks in the Netherlands, proposals to ban ritual slaughter (which will impact both Jews and Muslims) and the full-face veil have been discussed in parliament with the real probability that they will come into effect (this past spring, the Open Society Foundations released a report on a similar ban in France); and the PVV (Partij voor de Vrijheid) has appealed to the Dutch interior minister to treat Dutch-born citizens of the Netherlands with foreign grandparents as "immigrants."

In France, Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right Front National party, appeals to voters by "warning against refugees from Tunisia, and against immigrants in general" and "demands social welfare systems for the French instead of for immigrants." These are just recent examples of how this broader debate is centered around the scapegoating and fear-mongering of certain groups of people (namely Muslims, asylum seekers, migrants, and Roma). And next week, and the week after that, there will be more examples because it seems that in the context of this debate, some people's rights trump others.

In an opinion piece for the Huffington Post, John L. Esposito and Sheila B. Lalwani discuss the perceived (and abused) conflict between freedom of speech and religious tolerance that we see manifest in this debate. The two are and must be regarded as compatible, the authors argue, to ensure equal treatment, rights, and protections for all. It is a message that should not be ignored and which is becoming increasingly urgent.

Against this backdrop, our At Home in Europe Project research and advocacy, on the status of minorities in a changing Europe, strive to identify approaches that will promote this compatibility.

Marmite and Migrants: Bad for Denmark?

Helene Irving — Tue, 24 May 2011 21:01:11 +0000

Marmite: you either love it or you hate it, as they have famously advertised. Denmark has decided that it hates it, along with other vitamin-fortified food products, and has introduced a ban on them. Seems odd to prohibit something that is both tasty and relatively good for you, and some of Marmite's fans in Denmark have put it down to the product being "foreign." Why? The ban follows the appointment of Danish immigration minister Søren Pind, whose comments on assimilation could perhaps be summarized as simply: "If you don't like it, why don't you just go home?"

Meanwhile, when not eradicating the scourge of yeast extract, malt drinks, and baby biscuits, the Danish government (led by Pind) intends to tackle the issue of gender (in)equality amongst "immigrants of Muslim culture." Deploying educators, the state aims "to convince immigrants that their attitude towards women is outdated." Opponents decry the campaign as "populist."

Immigration—you either love it or you hate it. In Denmark's case, it looks as if it depends on the immigrant.

How do you feel about Denmark's actions?

Fifth Circuit: Employee May Proceed with Hostile Work Environment and Constructive Discharge Claims under the ADEA.(Age Discrimination in Employment Act )

Mondaq Business Briefing October 25, 2011 Jonathan E. "Jon" O'Connell is an Associate in our Northern Virginia office The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently confirmed that an employer can be liable for allowing or failing to prevent age-based harassment. Milan v. Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, Inc., et al., No. 10-30767 (5th Cir. September 12, 2011). The decision reminds employers of the need to take steps to prevent and stop harassment based on any characteristic protected by law.

Background Milan Dediol filed suit against his former employer, Best Chevrolet, Inc., alleging that during his three-month-long employment as a car salesman he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his age. Dediol, who was 65 years old at the time, alleged that during the course of his employment, his supervisor regularly called him, among other things, "pops" and "old man." Dediol also alleged that his supervisor made a number of physically threatening gestures toward him and directed car sales to younger employees. this web site hostile work environment

Finding his work environment intolerable, Dediol ultimately resigned from his position and sued Best Chevrolet and his former supervisor, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).1 The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of Best Chevrolet, and Dediol appealed the lower court's decision to the Fifth Circuit.

Fifth Circuit Recognizes Hostile Environment Claim Based on Age In analyzing Dediol's claims, the Fifth Circuit began by noting that in prior decisions, it never "expressly adopt[ed] a cause of action for hostile work environment based on the ADEA." However, recognizing the decisions of a number of sister courts which allowed for such a claim, the court concluded that a "plaintiff's hostile work environment claim based on age discrimination under the ADEA may be advanced in this court." Continuing its analysis, the court concluded that based on the nature of Dediol's allegations, he could proceed with his claims of hostile work environment and constructive discharge against his former employer.

What the Decision Means for You Frequently, employers consider "harassment" and "hostile work environment" as terms only applicable to workplace conduct involving gender. However, as Best Chevrolet illustrates, employers should be aware that employees subjected to inappropriate conduct based on any characteristic protected by law - including age, gender, race and national origin - may bring hostile work environment claims. Employers should also be aware that depending on the jurisdiction in which they do business, state and local statutes can create additional protected characteristics not recognized under federal law, such martial status, political affiliation and matriculation. here hostile work environment

To protect against hostile environment claims based on protected characteristics other than gender, employers should:

Adopt and communicate a clear policy stating that harassment based on any legally-protected characteristic will not be tolerated.

Provide a clear and accessible mechanism for employees to complain about harassment. Make clear that you will investigate complaints, that you will take disciplinary action against harassers and that you prohibit retaliation against employees who complain about harassment.

Train all employees regarding your anti-harassment policy and procedures.

Investigate harassment claims, take appropriate action (including discipline) to stop any harassment you uncover, and appropriately document your response to the complaint.

Endnote 1 Dediol also asserted claims for hostile work environment based on religion under Title VII as a result of alleged comments made by his supervisor regarding his born-again Christian beliefs, as well as state law claims of assault.

www.hklaw.com The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mr Jonathan O'Connell Holland & Knight 10 St. James Avenue 11th Floor Boston MA 02116 UNITED STATES Tel: 6175232700 Fax: 6175236850 URL: www.hklaw.com Click Here for related articles

Questioning Fundamentalism in France

Helene Irving — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:42:44 +0000

On April 5, President Sarkozy’s center-right party, the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), will launch a public debate on the place of religion (read: Islam) in France. The debate, which aims to explore how the practice of religions may be compatible with the rules of the secular republic and to address the “question” of Islam in France, has caused rifts within the party.

Adberrahmane Dahmane, Sarkozy’s diversity adviser, was sacked after openly criticizing the debate and calling on Muslim members of the UMP not to renew their party membership unless the debate was canceled.

This was very quickly followed by the action of Abdallah Zekri, head of the Grand Mosque of Paris and the French Council of the Muslim Faith, who tore up his membership card and urged all fellow Muslim UMP members to do the same.

Others in the party have argued that this move to the right is a ploy to gain populist appeal which will only lead to the stigmatization of France’s Muslims, as Sarkozy flounders in the polls behind Marine Le Pen, the charmingly deceptive new leader of the far right political party, the Front National.

In response to the criticisms, Sarkozy claims–with Zekri’s support–that the original purpose of the debate is misunderstood, and that it is really intended to protect French Muslims from “Islamic extremism.” Jean François Copé, the real object of Zekri and Dahmane’s anger and the man in charge of this debate, also claims that the debate will protect Muslims from practices emerging from “fundamentalism” which the Front National are using against them.

In an interview with the Guardian, Copé used several examples of what he considers to be “extreme behaviors led by fundamentalists who are using their religion for political ends,” such as street prayers, the niqab, women refusing to be treated by male doctors, and girls banned by their parents from mixed swimming sessions. His example of solutions to these extreme behaviors is the ban on the niqab, arguing that "if you meet a woman in a burqa, she can't reply to your smile. It's a denial of identity."

Fundamentalism exists in many forms, including Christian and Islamic fundamentalism, but these behaviors can also be indicators of factors other than the existence of violent extremism. When I see a group of people praying in the streets, I might not see the influence of fundamentalists but a group of people who need a place to pray because it has been notoriously hard for them to build a place of worship in their neighborhood. When I see a woman wearing a niqab, I might see a woman who is choosing to express her religion–and herself–through what she wears in the same way that a Sikh might wear a turban or a Jain monk might choose to wear unstitched white garments and bare feet. When I see women refusing to be treated by male doctors, I might see myself requesting to see a female doctor, as is my right as a woman seeking medical treatment. I do not see fundamentalism in these actions because I am not looking for fundamentalism, but rather because I am looking for the human.

While it might be true that the 1905 Laicite law needs to be reviewed to take account of the fact that Europe’s largest Muslim population is present in 21st-century France, the French political elite needs to make sure that this debate does not become, as Socialist Senator of Paris Bariza Khiari fears, a debate against Islam and against Muslim citizens of France. It needs to address the real threat of fundamentalism in France and that is the populist intolerance towards Muslims, Roma, and other minorities that has only increased under Sarkozy’s presidency.

Etiquette;Something Old, Something New; A Wedding Invitation Both Traditionally and Environmentally Correct

The Washington Post June 17, 1993 | Jura Koncius Washington may be the birthplace of the ultimate environmentally correct wedding invitation.

The people receiving the 150 formal ivory hand-engraved invitations for the wedding later this month of Kristen Helen Schaefer, a Harvard medical student, and Tad Ashley Gallion, a graduate student in environmental studies at Yale, undoubtedly had no idea the envelopes and their contents were an environmental breakthrough.

The invitation looked very much like the one that the majority of America's annual 1.6 million first-time brides and grooms choose. It was folded over. It came on off-white paper. It had an inner and outer envelope and a piece of tissue paper.

To environmentalists, the Schaefer wedding invitation represents a something as welcome as dolphin-safe tuna. According to Lesley Macherelli, who orchestrated the order at La Bottega Fine Papers at Chevy Chase Pavilion, "It joined what were until now two totally irreconcilable issues in the paper industry: recycled paper and formal social papers." Although interest in recycled paper products is escalating as fast as environmental consciousness is spreading, they are still not easily available in top of the line social papers, according to Macherelli. "While the recycled social papers that are on the market might be cute, or fun, they are rarely elegant and they are never formal," she says. "So even those people most committed to the use of recycled papers were forced to abandon their commitment if they wanted to issue a formal wedding invitation." Of course, today, wedding invitations can be anything from handwritten notes decorated with dried flowers to hot pink invitations with purple ink and envelopes filled with confetti. "Brides today are very varied," says Barbara Tober, editor in chief of Bride's Magazine. "Some want the traditional pound cake, some want chocolate. Individuality is key in this country today: Every single part of the traditional wedding is being personalized." Individuality proved a lengthy and complicated process for the Schaefer family. The father, Washington attorney William Schaefer, was given the task of reconciling the differences of his wife and daughter. Bride Kristen, as well as her husband-to-be, wanted a recycled paper; the bride's mother, Sharon Schaefer, a psychotherapist, preferred a traditional invitation, specifically the familiar ecru style on stiff paper produced by Crane & Co. in Dalton, Mass.

"Six months ago, all I knew about wedding invitations is that occasionally I would get them and sometimes I would stick them in a personal file as a nice memento," says William Schaefer. "I like traditional wedding invitations myself. I saw that this was a potential clash of generations when both were saying they wanted to accommodate the other. My wife said, `Fine, as long as it doesn't look like cheap paper.' " They began by visiting Copenhaver Fine Engravers, since 1896 one of Washington's most social stationers. According to Isaac C. Lycett, president of Copenhaver, 90 percent of their wedding invitations are on heavy cotton fiber ecru paper by Crane, in the standard invitation 40 pound weight, which is almost twice as heavy as a regular letterhead sheet. Lycett says the Schaefer request was not the first. "Yes, environmental concerns are more important today than they were. We do consider that Crane's is environmentally friendly because it is made of scraps of cotton. It's not the case of someone having to grow a field of cotton especially for this paper. A tree was never killed for this. In fact, using Crane's for invitations is just as damaging to the environment as eating cold cereal." Crane does make a commercial recycled paper but not a social wedding paper that has been recycled in the strictest sense. It uses "recovered fiber," but Crane cannot call this paper recycled because it was not once used by consumers. go to site essing wedding invitations

"Our wedding invitations are made from 100 percent cotton," explains James Manning, director of public relations for Crane & Co. The paper company, founded in 1801, produces papers for brides and presidents, as well as the paper for U.S. currency. The recovered cotton is a byproduct of the ginning process, the fiber that remains on the cotton seed and would otherwise go into a landfill or be used for something other than making paper.

But it does not meet the current Environmental Protection Agency definition of "post consumer waste or recycled." Furthermore, for a paper to be labeled recycled, it must contain 50 percent or more recovered paper, according to the American Forest and Paper Association.

(A little-known fact is that some of the cotton used in the most correct Crane paper comes from cutting scraps from underwear factories. But that's another story.) Although the salesperson at Copenhaver explained the process to the Schaefers, they weren't sold. "It was still not recycling paper products," says William Schaefer. "I said, `Look, they aren't cutting down any trees - what is the problem?' but Kristen said no." Next stop, Macherelli's La Bottega, a small high-end store specializing in innovative custom-made invitations and hand engraving. "We have a lot of Washington people who ask for recycled paper," says Macherelli. "As a population, maybe we express our social conscience a little more. It's typically a very private issue. But this is a new age of brides who are willing to toss out some things to live by other things." Although Macherelli had never tried to find all the materials needed to compose a recycled traditional wedding invitation, she set to work looking for "the nicest, cleanest recycled paper we could find" in the three weights needed to make the different parts of the wedding invitation. It was a tough task that took several months and many meetings with the Schaefers. Paper distributors sent samples from all over the country. She finally found Kimberly Clark's Neenah Environment line in ivory wove, made with 100 percent recycled materials. go to web site essing wedding invitations

The envelopes had to be handmade, and La Bottega actually hand glued all of them together. "No, the envelopes aren't as heavy as Crane's," Macherelli admits. Everything was hand engraved, and the cost was comparable to that of a traditional engraved invitation.

"We're very pleased with the results, and more importantly, the customer was thrilled," says Macherelli, who hopes the paper industry will begin to answer the call from "customers committed to the future with a sense of propriety firmly fixed in a genteel past." And the bride? She was too busy on her surgery rotation schedule and other wedding arrangements to return phone calls. But her father says, "The whole thing was absolutely silly at times. My wife would say, `Bill, why aren't you doing this or that. What about the band? But we finally got them all, got them mailed, and we are all thrilled." Jura Koncius

Has Multiculturalism Failed in Europe?

Helene Irving — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:17:56 +0000

Last Thursday, French president Nicolas Sarkozy joined the chorus of leaders from across Europe and denounced multiculturalism as a failure and the cause of home-grown “Islamic” terrorism. France being notoriously secular, this was no great surprise. It is not the first time that a European politician has slammed multiculturalism. This recent flame of criticism in the political sphere, however—re-ignited by Germany’s Angela Merkel and consequently fanned by UK prime minister David Cameron, Sarkozy, and more recently the deputy prime minister of the Netherlands—should not be dismissed.

Almost all of those who have spoken out against multiculturalism lately have accompanied their remarks with finger-pointing and scapegoating of a particular community. In each case, the community happens to be both Muslim and a minority.

In last week's comments Sarkozy even makes reference to a Taliban-style Islam where all women are veiled, people are praying all over the streets, little girls are not allowed to go to school, and all imams preach violence in mosques. This is not an Islam, nor a France, that I recognize. Cameron put forth similar clichés around forced marriages and Islamist extremism in the UK.

It is this aspect of recent outcries about multiculturalism that is cause for concern. Undoubtedly, revised approaches to national identities and social inclusion are needed, but these statements singling out particular communities are not fostering feelings of belonging nor will they help build more inclusive societies.

Last week, I visited a school in North East London and listened to pupils and teachers sharing their experiences of belonging and identity. What struck me as I listened to them—Muslim, Christian, and of no faith, British and migrant—was their appreciation for living in a multicultural society, where they are valued and recognized for their differences as well as for their similarities.

It was not clear, however, that this feeling extended to a national sense of belonging: it is hard to hear a 15-year-old boy, born and brought up in the UK, talk about how he feels he might be “kicked out” of the country because of his ethnic and religious background.

In his speech on multiculturalism, David Cameron posed some questions which might be asked of Muslim organizations applying for government funding:

Do they believe in universal human rights—including for women and people of other faiths?
Do they encourage integration or separatism?

Maybe it is time to turn these questions around and ask what governments can do to make sure multiculturalism can help societies thrive.

Update February 22, 2011: Note that the clip subtitle contains a mistranslation: At 3.51', it states that Sarkozy is saying "we are a Catholic country"; the correct translation is "we are a secular country." (Thanks, Thomas!)

Update November 15, 2011: The video clip has been removed from this post as it is no longer publicly available on YouTube.

Muslims and France

Helene Irving — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:36:14 +0000

On December 2, a Paris court acquitted the leader of the far right political party Front National (FN), Jean-Marie Le Pen, of inciting racial hatred. The charges, brought against him by the antiracism group SOS Racism, involved FN posters issued ahead of regional elections in March 2010. Depicting a woman in a full black veil next to a map of France draped in the Algerian flag, with minarets shooting out of the ground like missiles, the poster bore the slogan “Non à l’Islamisme” (“No to Islamism”).

There was no mistaking the issue on which the FN was fighting this election, especially in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region—home to an estimated one million Muslims. In the heart of the region, the port city of Marseille was the first passage for many Muslim immigrants arriving in France: the first migrants from what is now Algeria arrived in the early 1900s to work in the port, followed by the subsequent recruitment of laborers from the Mediterranean and Africa and the arrival of troops from across the French Empire. The families of many of these men who fought and worked for France have since settled and form part of an increasingly diverse peuple français.

I have a French mother and close family members in the region and this particular history was unknown to me until recently when I came across Musulmans de France (Muslims of France), a three-part documentary which charts a century of Muslim presence in France. It made me wonder how many other people were in the same position. How many other people—who may have been persuaded to tick the box for the Front National in the last elections—were also ignorant of Muslim contributions in France and the complexities of French Muslim identity today?

The documentary raises questions such as: What does it mean to be French today? Is a French Muslim identity compatible with that of non-Muslims? Why the anxiety over France’s growing ethnic and religious diversity? How do French Muslims define themselves?

Muslims of France offers answers via thoroughly researched archive footage, and presents a full spectrum of those who would call themselves members of France’s Muslim community. Such documentaries deserve a wider audience both in and out of France.

More information about the film is available on the website of the production company Phares Balises.

Update November 15, 2011: The video clip from Muslims of France has been removed from this post as it is no longer publicly available on Vimeo.