Open Society Foundations » Nazia Hussain

Muslim Identity and Integration in France

Nazia Hussain — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:42:26 +0000

To be French is to be a citizen of France, regardless of your race, origin, or religion. This is a vaunted and lofty ideal to hold and one which offers a reassurance of acceptance and fair treatment.

In reality, the path to inclusion, no matter what the system of integration, is fraught with anxiety, tension, and the vestiges of history. This is a story familiar to countries across Europe where diversity and the perceived irreconcilable nature of Muslim integration and identity preoccupy national debates, policies, and actions. Instead of economic and social policies to improve the situation of all members of society, there is an unhealthy focus on culture and religion.

Our report Muslims in Marseille examines the lives of ordinary individuals in the third district of the city and their hopes and aspirations. Its findings indicate a strong Marseillais identity and a compatibility of French values with their ethnic and religious backgrounds. However, it also highlights the struggle faced by residents in areas of the city which are blighted by poverty and where unemployment, poor housing, and limited civic and political participation should be urgent policy requirements.

We spoke to Jocelyn Cesari, a French political scientist and a research associate and lecturer at Harvard University. As an advisory board member for the At Home in Europe Project Muslims in EU Cities series, she shares some of her thoughts on secularism and the debate on identity in France.

Can you tell me a little bit about the national rhetoric on Muslims and Islam in France and the role identity plays in the debate?

Islam and its expressions (from dress code to prayers) have been defined in the last 15 years as the opposite of secularism and equality that French define as the pillars of their national identities.

The Open Society Foundations recently released a report on Muslims in Marseille. Are there any findings in the report that you think would surprise people in France?

Indeed a lot of people will be surprised to learn that on average Muslims behave like the other citizens of Marseille. They are also very proud of their local identity as much as the other people of Marseille (something I had the occasion to investigate myself more than 10 years ago with other colleagues with whom we published Plus Marseillais que moi, tu meurs! ("More Marseillais than me? No chance!").

What do you think is the appeal of Front national, a far-right political party that is anti-Muslim/anti-Islam?

The National Front started in the 1980s as an anti-immigrant party that has reshaped its discourse to become anti-Islam, adjusting to the greater fear of cultural difference brought by the presence of Muslims as nationals and citizens.

Do you think 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?

Yes it does. Everywhere, not only in Marseilles, the local level is where integration processes happen (civic/cultural/economic).

What do you think policymakers can do to help Muslims and other minorities feel more accepted in France?

They should emphasize the “normality” of Muslims: they are not exceptional because they are Muslims; actually Islam does not influence very much most of their choices when they act as citizens.

Muslims in Marseille: Rhetoric and Reality

Nazia Hussain — 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."

What’s Next for Norway?

Nazia Hussain — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:24:39 +0000

The tranquil, cultured, and tolerant portrait that many had of Norway was shattered on Friday, when a 32-year-old Norwegian man bombed a government building and killed scores at the ruling party’s youth summer camp. Most of the casualties were young people. Anders Behring Breivik's reason for such an atrocity was, according to his social media pages, laid at the door of Muslims and other immigrants to Norway, whom he accused of eroding Christian Europe.

Until Friday, the wider public would perhaps be forgiven for thinking that violent extremism has only one form and face. The media, politicians, and public commentators have been very clear in their vehement outcry against who and where the threat to our liberty supposedly comes from: Islamist groups and al Qaeda–inspired Muslim cells. But on July 22, all eyes were off the ball. News of the attacks were accompanied by a slew of commentators on television, radio, and print who speculated that this was the act of Islamic terrorists responding to Norway’s role in Afghanistan, and who blamed Muslim presence in Europe more generally.

The real source was home-grown and non-Islamic, with the attacker citing the Dutch far-right, viciously anti-Muslim politician Geert Wilders, as one of his heroes. Wilders was recently acquitted of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims in the Netherlands. Despite the unfounded speculations of so-called experts and media commentators on Friday, certain newspapers continue to beat the "Islamic terrorism" drum.

Norway has always struck me as a country in which equality and tolerance constitute admirable features of the landscape. Its humanitarian refugee program has offered a home to 151,000 people, or roughly 3.1 percent of 5 million residents. Together with non-refugees, its immigrant population totals 12.2 percent.

Yet a recent trip to Norway, to undertake mapping on future work on Somalis in Oslo, threw up a disparity between the ideal of a liberal society and the reality of difference and diversity in a largely homogenous society. There was considerable angst expressed about how to integrate certain groups (read Muslims), how the fabric of immigrant families was at times incompatible with traditional Norwegian values and traditions, the feeling that abuse and burdens were being placed on the country's universal welfare system, a perceived inability and unwillingness of immigrants to integrate, and media preoccupation with Muslim integration.

What needs to be watched now is the fallout of this atrocious action in Norway and surrounding countries, especially Denmark. Norwegian integration policies seem to focus largely on economic self-sufficiency, including language acquisition and Norwegian cultural traditions and values, but do not necessarily recognize what Bhikhu Parekh calls the equal validity and legitimacy of difference. There is no distinct policy that looks at Muslim integration in Norway, but its society is very focused on Muslim immigration.

Across Europe, politicians have increasingly adopted far-right rhetoric, and far-right views have entered the mainstream. Norway will now be watched to see how it responds to the twin attacks of July 22, and whether its words, actions, and policies create a more divisive or cohesive society. While most people would and do condemn this action, the Norwegian government should be rigorous in ensuring that there is no appeasement of individuals or views similar to that of Anders Breivik. There is a need for greater vigilance regarding the activity of far-right groups, who have a lot more in common with extreme Islamist terror groups than they or others are willing to admit.

Does Allah Make You Funny?

Nazia Hussain — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:36:11 +0000

The world of entertainment and sport is one arena where religious and ethnic barriers, and stereotypes, tend not to hinder appreciation of an artist’s talent. Do we know or care about the religious proclivities or practices of Omar Sharif, Snoop Dog, Mos Def, Cheb Mami, Zinedine Zidane, Amir Khan or, if permitted to be all-inclusive, David Beckham? Have they managed to transcend or render unimportant their ethnic and religious backgrounds for the worldwide public?

This question about the role of Muslims in the arts—whether they are successful in reaching mainstream society and normalizing Muslim presence in various European countries—was the focus of a panel that we organized on last week at the Copenhagen Eid Festival.

Held during the anniversary of 9/11 and amidst hourly updates on an American pastor who intended to burn the Qu'ran, the festival—including a photography booth and the panel, entitled "The Arts of Integration," sponsored by the At Home in Europe Project—began on an inauspicious note.

Did we figure out if there is a Muslim cultural scene? Do we know whether the arts are an unobstructed pathway for Muslims to be accepted in mainstream society? Does Allah make you funny?

Needless to say we left the festival with more questions than answers, but highlights included a Dutch academic, a French documentary filmmaker, a German writer/journalist, and an American stand-up comedian/jazz musician from the American comedy troupe Allah Made Me Funny. They all share the experience of having had a faith identity imposed upon them, and have used their various artistic forums as a vehicle to demand accommodation and a place in their societies.

This point was poignantly highlighted by the German panelist, Hilal Sezgin; although she sees herself as a German writer, she is often labelled as Turkish/Muslim. The Dutch panelist, Miriam Gazzah, pointed to her research on Dutch Moroccan youth who prize Moroccan music and do not want to share it with wider society. Why should they? It’s their way of developing a sense of belonging and accommodation along lines which are uniquely theirs, but which do not make them any less Dutch.

Preacher Moss of Allah Made Me Funny spoke of humor and its ability to cut across barriers: your religion or ethnicity does not matter—if you are funny you will make the audience laugh. Karim Miske’s three-part documentary on the history of Islam in France over the last century actively ensured that the individuals portrayed were diverse and the descendants of family who had been living in France for a very long time.

The overarching message from the festival was the need to challenge prejudice through whatever means you have. Creativity is one way but the end result must be to ensure representation, engagement, and interaction of all. In the words of the Persian poet Khayyam, “A hair divides what is false and true.”

I left the event with the lasting image of a blonde Danish woman singing to the crowd in fluent Punjabi, dancing the bhangra whilst two Sikh men played the drums. Who says Copenhagen doesn’t do diversity?

"Not Another Headscarf"

Nazia Hussain — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:59:15 +0000

My first thought upon looking at the photograph accompanying Ari Korpivaara's blog post concerning a Muslim woman was, "Not another headscarf." When people talk about Muslims, it’s often accompanied by a photo of women with their heads or indeed their whole bodies covered or images of violent protestations usually ending in burning of flags or effigies. What struck me was how some people would presume a certain kind of character about the person in that blog post which would invariably include piety, observance, rigidity and probably an absence of gaiety.

The lady in question is a pool-playing, music-loving Northerner (from England). Her faith identity and the visibility of it do not stop her from living and participating fully in a democratic society that is her home. Ari's blog post is spot-on as it succinctly explains what the At Home in Europe Project’s subtext is: never judge a book by its cover, and it's ok to be different as it’s this difference that makes for the virtues of an open society. It’s also this difference that is now assessed by some as being a threat to the values of Western society – irrespective of a consensus on what "values" are shared by Western societies and why they would be incompatible if you are from another ethnic or religious background.

What is usually missing from stories and reports about Muslims is the silent majority. This is the vast majority of people who have a Muslim background but who do not wear their religion on their sleeve or indeed their head. The debate raging in Europe on the burqa completely misses the point that it’s only a tiny minority of women who wear this apparel, and it’s not the uniform of Muslim women.

Public policy is increasingly influenced and shaped in certain countries in Europe on the back of counterterrorism strategies, the desire to control immigration and posturing political rhetoric. The majority of Muslims, secular or spiritual, are your average garden-variety residents and citizens of Europe who don’t want to stand apart because of their religious or ethnic background. Faiths forms one part of their identity and most are tired of having to be continually asked to defend themselves against the actions of a few. They are fully integrated members of their neighbourhoods, cities and countries. They throw out their rubbish on the same day as everyone else, they worry about the quality and type of schools available for their children, they want a safe and secure environment and they watch popular cultural TV shows like Pop Idol.

For your next blog post, Ari, it would be great if you could showcase an image of this kind of Muslim. We have 11 cities in Europe for you to choose from.

Philadelphia-Area Businessman Gets Jail in ATM Theft Scheme. here irs tax refund

Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News December 6, 2002 By Jake Wagman, The Philadelphia Inquirer Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Dec. 6--TRENTON, N.J. -- Calling him a "thoroughly dishonest person," a federal judge yesterday sentenced a Haddonfield man to six months in prison for his role in a multimillion-dollar ATM theft scheme.

Dennis C. Kelley, 52, also was fined $10,000 for forging the financial statements of a South Jersey armored-car company whose top executives are already in prison.

Kelley owns Meridian Accounting Service Corp. in the Pennsport Mall near Passyunk Avenue in South Philadelphia. He also worked at American Mortgage in Cherry Hill.

He pleaded guilty in September to creating fake annual reports for Tri-State Armored Services, which used the documents to get a contract with First Union National Bank.

"Any individual walking into his office should know that before them sits a convicted felon," Assistant U.S. Attorney Norv McAndrew said at the sentencing. "Mr. Kelley is a repeat offender. He will not rehabilitate. He will only get smarter." In 1988, Kelley was sentenced to five years of probation for embezzling a client's IRS tax refund.

The day after he was sentenced for that crime, Kelley was arrested for falsifying his corporate tax returns. He then served six months at the federal prison in Allenwood, Pa.

At an earlier hearing, a magistrate judge wondered how Kelley, who has declared bankruptcy several times, could afford a $413,200 Haddonfield home.

"I have come to the conclusion Mr. Kelley is a thoroughly dishonest person and a danger to the public," U.S. District Judge Garrett E. Brown said yesterday. "I think he deserves every minute of the six months." Federal prosecutors had sought a sentence of up to 27 months and a $40,000 fine for Kelley. But Brown declined to take into account Kelley's criminal history because the offenses had occurred more than 10 years ago. web site irs tax refund

Upon release, Kelley will begin five years of probation in a halfway house.

"I am responsible for my actions," he said yesterday in a brief statement. "I am honestly and truthfully sorry I ever became involved with Tri-State." Officers of the company, based in Hammonton, Atlantic County, have been convicted of embezzling millions of dollars intended to replenish 3,000 ATMs in the Northeast. Employees are also believed to have stolen millions in cash left in ATMs.

Kelley accepted $1,000 to convert -- on paper -- the company's losses to gains in order to secure the First Union contract. He admitted turning a $1.67 million operating loss in 1999 into a $379,609 profit. He also made it seem as though the company had earned $3,215 the year before, when it lost more than $700,000.

First Union, now Wachovia, said Tri-State had stolen $606,000 -- small change compared with what other former customers have reported.

Court documents filed since Tri-State declared bankruptcy in March 2001 show a $33 million gap between what banks and other customers say they are owed and how much has been recovered. Summit Bank alone said at one point it was missing $25 million.

FUR,