In response to: Burqa: between judgments and prejudices, by Valeria Venturini

By Andrea Glioti*

At first sight, the French ban on the wearing of full Islamic covering – the niqab as well as the burqa – in official public spaces resembles the 90’s quarrel on the hijab, at least for the implied intentions to emancipate Muslim women. However, this time there is more at stake than women’s supposed subjugation and French laicїte`: the use of niqab sparks off a debate on its compatibility with integration, since a facial veil could be reasonably deemed responsible for social isolation. Forget about human rights in the Middle East, it is not about a “crusade” on the whole Muslim world to stop integral veiling, the context is a European society where different standards have to be applied to facilitate mutual understanding between migrants and pre-existing communities. Forget also about security issues, although allowing someone to be fully unrecognizable in public spaces is probably equal to walking around in a balaclava. The reasonable doubts on embracing multiculturalist tenets about this matter are to be traced elsewhere: most of those opposing the ban are worried by the disrespect for cultural differences, without even questioning whether the women wearing the niqab (munaqqabat) are willing to be part of this idealised multicultural society. Moreover, the whole debate has been going on prevalently without the munaqqabat participating in it, thus resulting in an overwhelming flow of opinions focusing only on the French proposal. Among the numerous videos uploaded on YouTube by the munaqqabat, the main concerns are to please God and to protect themselves from men’s gazes, although some of them are also convinced to contribute positively to society, without being judged for their physical aspect.

Nevertheless, the type of social engagement is quite ambiguous, considered that some munaqqabat strictly adhere to sexual segregation (purdah in Hindi), curtailing every kind of interaction with men outside the family’s boundaries. Regarding this, it should be reminded that the niqab is not a mere religious symbol, but a practice promoted by conservative groups (particularly salafi), firmly hostile to any innovation (bid’ah) in the framework of religious interpretation. These factions have clear stances on promiscuity: “Muslimahs should not socialize with non-mahram (non-relatives) men, and should only speak out of necessity to non-mahram men” is what prescribed by the salafi website Al-Muttaqun. As a general rule, Muslim women are explicitly encouraged not to engage in social conversations with the opposite sex. It is consequential that the munaqqabat willing to integrate themselves should stand up against this segregationist behaviour, otherwise they would be alienated from a society clearly accepting inter-gender relations.

Furthermore, the niqab is more related with habits introduced after Islam’s encounter with Persia and the Byzantine civilization, rather than with an Islamic legitimacy: Shaykh Tantawy of the al-Azhar Mosque of Cairo, the highest authority of the Sunni world, clearly uttered his opposition to niqab in 2009, when he defined it as rooted in tradition and devoid of any connection with Islam. Hassen Chalghoumi, imam of the Northern Paris suburb of Drancy, backed the “niqab ban”, claiming that the munaqqabat should migrate to Saudi Arabia where this piece of cloth is a tradition, whereas in France they have no part in society. It is consequently evident how the place of integral veils in Islam cannot be reduced to a “Western crusade” for the emancipation of women: the division on this issue clearly affects firstly the Muslim world. Since the niqab must not be considered a religious symbol, but more the expression of neo-traditionalist groups, how could Europe possibly benefit from encouraging this particular image of Islam? Is a religion more likely to be understood in its distorted forms by those not familiar with it? These are legitimate questions, considered also that the French proposal was drafted by a commission of different political parties and not exclusively by the Islamophobic components.

There is no doubt that our “alleged emancipation took the steps of a culture based on calendar and show girls”, but it is not from the contribution of integrally veiled women that we should expect to rescue our moral values. Islam will participate in shaping new European identities, but preferably through a contribution based on its enlightened values, rather than on its traditionalist deadlocks.

Reflecting the paradigms of a failing electoral strategy, multiculturalist leftists tend to consider less important the cultural sensitivity of the majority. However, reversing the perspective, the same advocates of the niqab would not bother about defending the rights of a European girl wandering about the streets of Cairo in miniskirt: such a behaviour is reasonably considered offensive in that cultural context. On the other hand, it is not clear why non-Muslims should be compelled to welcome the niqab in Europe, regardless of their cultural sensitivity. Moreover, not being able to see the face of someone during a conversation is considered to degrade significantly human relationships in a wide variety of different cultures (and not only in France).

For what concerns the reactions abroad, the British PM Gordon Brown logically criticized French assimilationism. However, the debate on the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, some teachers reluctant to talk about the Holocaust, because of Muslim sensitivity, and the recent rise of the British National Party (BNP) are only a few examples questioning the superiority of British multiculturalism. The British approach is frequently under revision and sometimes, rather than a model, it is more of a compensation for the UK’s disgraced image in the Islamic world (Iraq war?) by pleasing British Muslims.

Arguing that the niqab is chosen by a tiny minority of Muslim women does not prevent anyone from being worried by the perspective of a return of religious fanaticism and sexual segregation, considered all the efforts produced in Europe to fight their Christian versions. This has nothing to do neither with Islam nor with Islamophobic parties, although those opposing the French ban are more worried about not being associated with anti-Islam circles, rather than about the significance of the niqab. Nonetheless, encouraging the niqab will not improve the Western image in the Muslim world, as this is already divided on the matter.
Sometimes the best way of defending minority rights is wrongly supposed to be unconditional tolerance: on the contrary, the conditional acceptance in the body of citizens is the main requisite for mutual understanding. Having said that, all this attention for Muslim women’s garbs is superficial, further confirming the underlying need for a charter of shared beliefs: the solution for all these confrontations on marginal aspects resides in a written agreement between the State and Muslim communities representatives. A significant step in this direction, for instance, was made in Italy in 2005 with the set up of the Islamic Council (Consulta Islamica), gathering delegates from different Muslim organizations, and the subsequent signature of a Charter of the Values of Citizenship and Integration (Carta dei valori della cittadinanza e dell’integrazione) in 2006. Nonetheless, the efficiency of this institutional body has been nullified so far by both unreliable Muslim counterparts and Islamophobic parties.
Despite the lack of important achievements, a charter of mutually agreed values remains crucial to any integration in a pre-existing cultural texture.

It must also be reminded that the Muslim countries signed a separate Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (1990), thus underlining a different understanding of these rights and the consequent necessity for Muslims to re-negotiate them, when arriving in a non-Muslim country. Whether the niqab is compatible with Europe’s position on inter-gender relationships or not has to be encompassed in a charter of shared beliefs between the State and Muslim representatives. The next step would be a European charter regulating the same aspects, overcoming the State rationale, on the basis of an agreement with the European ‘umma (community of the believers). For sure, an exclusively downward approach, imposing a ban on a feature of Muslim integration, is unlikely to work in the long term and it fails to address the wider complexity of the issue.

*Andrea Glioti is finishing a Master in Near and Middle East Studies at SOAS, University of London.

Related posts:

1. Burqa: between judgments and prejudices
2. Prague’s Muslims look towards Europe
3. German Muslims and the changing election rhetoric

Iinformation about the event can be found here

Interested in coming? Drop us an email at: editors [at] euroalter [dot] com

Related posts:

1. 23 March – Berlin – Challenging Exclusion: New forms of participation
2. Berlin Local Group Members meeting – Dec 9 – 4pm, and 8pm

What is the future for political parties in Europe?

31st March 2010
Time to be confirmed
London Metropolitan University, 31 Jewry Street London EC3N 2EY

Part of the European Alternatives ‘Future of Representation’ Series, in partnership with the Federal Trust and supported by the European Parliament.

Political parties are undergoing a crisis of membership in many European countries, including in particular the UK, just at the time when European political parties are trying to establish themselves. Yet parties still seem to be crucial components of a functioning democracy. What is the future for political parties in Europe? Can European political parties seize the chance to define a new kind of party that is better suited to contemporary forms of political engagement, which often take place outside of ‘formal’ political institutions, and what new means of participation can they define?

Confirmed speakers:

Brendan Donnelly, Federal Trust
John Palmer, former ‘Europe’ editor of the Guardian
Henning Meyer, editor of Social Europe journal

Draft Agenda:

Opening analysis: The crisis of political parties: an analysis

Table 1:
European political parties: their evolution, their problems and their potential for innovation as new kinds of political parties

In what ways have European political parties developed since the beginning of the EU, and what new opportunities does the Lisbon Treaty give to them to become more important public players in European politics? In what ways can European political parties innovate in finding new ways to connect with citizens.

Table 2:
New Modes of involvement

What new modes of political engagement are available to political parties, particularly in the UK context? What are some of the limitations of participative models, and what is the balance that should be struck between participation and representation?

Table 3:
The Media and European political parties

In what ways do the media and political parties need to find new ways of collaborating to build a revived political demos? How is this possible at a European level?

Related content on our site

Hear interviews from our Berlin conference on this same topic in December 2010

Related posts:

1. The Future of Representation
2. Berlin Event – December 9 – Are transnational political parties desirable in Europe today?
3. Democracy major theme of Transeuropa in London

In the wake of the economic crash, the disillusionment with existing political structures and systems has become increasingly apparent. Ever growing numbers of societal groups feel themselves excluded from the machinery of political practice in its present form. It does not follow however, that society has become apathetic as a result. Rather, activists and groups throughout Europe are finding ways of participating by new means. Through the internet, on single issues or with innovative collaborative projects, people are rejecting traditional politics and forms of activism in favour of new types of street level politics. In the process, new solutions and transnational solidarity are gaining currency.

In “Challenging Exclusion: New Forms of Participation”, a number of these developments will be explored. What is the new participation? How does it seek to challenge exclusion? And what is the relation of these forms of political activism to existing party structures and European institutions? European Alternatives seeks to recognize these new forms and discuss the future development in a political, social and cultural context.

Programme coming soon!

No related posts.

These questsions are addressed by our event series Refiguring Citizenship, of which this event is part.

Thursday 18 March, 7.00-8.30pm
Institut Français, 17 Queensberry Place, South Kensington, SW7
Do Europeans need common values?
Kalypso Nicolaïdis, Professor of International Relations, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford and Director, European Studies Centre, St Antony’s College, University of Oxford.
Kalypso Nicolaidis will speak about the letter written jointly by Jacques Derrida and Jurgen Habermas on the protests throughout Europe against the Iraq war: ‘February 15th or what binds Europe together: a plea for Common Foreign policy, beginning in the core of Europe‘

Related posts:

1. Refiguring Citizenship: London Events from January 21
2. 18 February – London – Citizenship after Orientalism
3. London Event: The City and the Commons

(Photo db™/flickr)

Salon Europa – Dialogues on Transnationalism
Climate Change and Social Injustice
Monday 15th March 2010, h. 18:00
Libreria Feltrinelli, piazza Ravegnana, 1 – Bologna

European Alternatives organizes a new meeting as part of the Salon Europa series of events, focussing this time on the links between social injustices and climate change.

It is now clear that climate change should not be seen as an isolated problem which necessitates technical solutions. It is not only a matter of reducing emissions or inventing new miracolous technology to save humanity; it is rather the ultimate test that demonstrates the total unsustainability of the economic and social system that governs us.

This development model, based on the dogma of economic growth at all costs, resulted in increasing poverty, social injustice and seemingly irreconcilable conflict. The European Union has already acknowledged some years ago that climate change will cause the greatest wave of refugees into Europe, with an even greater impact than that of the second world war. The social costs of climate change will be huge and involve everyone: the poor countries and industrialized countries.

What lies ahead for the future and how we can adapt to the changes under way and revolutionize the development model that governs us?

We will discuss these issues with Lorenzo Fioramonti (Bologna University and founder of Beyond Development Inc) and the meteorologist Victor Marletto (Arpa Emilia-Romagna, pianetaserra). A projection of the documentary “The Age of adaptation” will be shown before the beginning of the discussion.

See here for past appointments of the monthly Salon Europa in Bologna.

Related posts:

1. Climate Change and the new President
2. Salon Europa: Transnational Journalism – Bologna, 14th January
3. 17 February – Florence – Salon Europa / Social Movements

Ci-dessous deux micro-trottoirs de participants :
- Dans la première vidéo, Fouad, coordinateur des régions, nous présente les actions et les activités du collectif en France dans les autres pays européens
- Dans la deuxième interview, deux participantes, exprime nt les raisons pour lesquelles elles se sont mobilisées : souligner la diversité de la population qui compose la société et les citoyens français.

Alternatives Européennes a relayé l’initiative : Le 23 février, les organisateurs du mouvement italien – dont Stefania Ragusa – ont participé au salon d’Alternatives Européennes sur les migrations à Rome. Voici les videos

Le 30 mars à Londres, nous proposons aussi d’en tirer les conclusions avec les organisateurs des manifestations européennes et d’élaborer ensemble des propositions pour le renforcement de l’action au niveau transnational.

No related posts.

The project Polis 21 / Locus Solus, organised by European Alternatives, Out of the Box, and numerous other partners and with the support of the European Cultural Foundation, asked about the boundaries of the city in Europe in the 21st century.

If we have the impression that forms of exclusion and alienation are not only present in our societies but growing in complex, subtle and interlinked fashions which often escape our habitual political categories, looking at the public space in situated contexts, and asking such apparently simple questions as ‘who does it belong to?’ and ‘who is welcome in it?’ are ways of returning to the root of politics and getting a vision over its contemporary concrete manifestations.

(text continues under the video)

The four cities in which the project took place – London, Athens, Belgrade and Zagreb – are strikingly different in the answers that can be given to these questions.In the former Yugoslavia the evolution of ‘socially owned property’ over the years following the breakup of the federation poses a challenge to the analytical models of the meanings of ‘neoliberalism’, ‘privatisation’ and ‘gentrification’ as they are understood in the western parts of Europe. Socially owned property was neither owned by individuals nor by the state, but by the society itself, and what has followed the breakup of this institution via the purchase of land can neither be understood as theft nor as strict privatisation, but is perhaps best understood by the metaphor of a cancer that infects the body politic itself.

Discussions as part of the Polis 21 project in Belgrade and Zagreb focussed on understanding this phenomenon from critical and artistic perspectives.In Athens the project looked specifically at the neighbourhood of Psirri-kerameikos-metaxourgio, once the setting of an ongoing gentrification process that became a no-go area after migrants settled there. The categories of philoxenia and xenophobia were interrogated critically by means of situated research in the neighbourhood itself, in a conference at the Byzantine museum (a suitable public place to challenge the dominant discourses of identity at its core), and by artistic interventions in public space itself.

European Alternatives is pleased to have organised this series of events and artistic interventions as a first attempt to forge the necessary networks of artistic activism that make transnational interventions possible.

Related posts:

1. The POLIS 21 project
2. Polis21: Migration, Exclusion, Democracy in the New City
3. Polis 21 – Events in Athens, Belgrade, Zagreb

Recent French history has shown the contradictions between governmental immigration policies and the increasing mobilisation of foreign workers. They are demanding rights. And are on strike to get them.

By Veronic Algeri, translation by Sarah Potter.

The only people you will find on Line 1 of the Paris Metro at 6 in the morning are tourists rushing towards the airports on the outskirts of the city where the budget airlines fly from. And lots of immigrants. When it is still dark outside, the men and women who work in the Défense or Neully districts are on their way to clean the most prestigious offices in the city. A mere couple of hours later, on the same Metro, and you’re crushed in the middle of a cloud of aftershave with newspapers hiding white, clean-shaven faces. Two peoples, who might never meet, spend the day barely missing each other, with the second completely unaware of the existence of the first. Because the ‘sans-papiers’, even more than they are workers, are and shall remain foreigners.

When, last autumn, the Press criticised the employment of illegal immigrants on the building sites restoring the Parliament buildings, public opinion began to ask questions about the unspoken worker-immigrant dichotomy. In June 2007, a strike by chefs and dishwashers from the restaurant chain “Buffalo Grill” was an initial experiment in measuring the impact of mobilised illegal immigrants. Then, in 2008, workers at Modelux, on the outskirts of Paris, conceived the idea of an organised movement. At the time, 15 companies’ operations were halted by an occupation of 200 striking workers. This showed people that, where the right to work is involved, it is worth more than just a demonstration in the town square.

Building on this example, the most recent demonstration involved no fewer than 6000 workers and was supported by a dozen organisations. Last November, while the government concerned itself with clearing the demonstrators and informing the businesses concerned (both small and large, totalling 2100), onto the public stage burst a paradox that rang out like a slap across the face of hypocrisy: the key role that the massive presence of illegal immigrant workers play in the organisation of the labour market. This strike was a departure from the traditional workers’ movements to reveal a new agent of subordination – immigrants. And all of this riding on the wave of a brand new movement; a strongly assertive strike.

An immigrant is first and foremost a foreigner. Over the past two decades the French government has been notorious for increasing policies against illegal immigrants. Between 2003 and 2007, many laws have been passed that weaken the validity of requests to recognise the right of residence for naturalisation reasons such as family reunification, ten years’ residence in the country and marriage with a citizen. The power to denounce illegal immigrants has been extended to new groups. In addition to the police force, the government has provided healthcare clinics and job centres with devices for recognising fake papers. The political desire to reach published expulsion quotas (28000 in 2008) accompanies their slogan for “chosen” rather than “forced” immigration, which began with the introduction on March 1st 2005 of CESEDA (Code de l’Entrée et du Séjour des Étrangers et du Droit d’Asile), which regulates the entrance and stay of immigrants in France. Also, since 2007, employers have been required to hand their immigrant workers’ papers into prefectures. Consequently, the number of businesses dismissing workers has increased, but so has the number of those drawing from the growing pool of workers guarantied only an arbitrary administrative process that is often contradictory.

But immigrants are almost always workers. Construction, cleaning firms, restaurants, security companies, all the areas where personal assistance is fundamental, these are the main sectors of the French economy concerned by this phenomenon, from the corner shop to government offices. The Minister of Immigration, Integration, National Identity and Solidarity Development, together with the Finance Minister, has drawn up a list of so-called “desirable” careers – including 152 jobs requiring few qualifications and about 30 that require higher education – that are having great difficulty recruiting. Thus the rhetorical opposition between “chosen” and “forced” immigration proves itself to be contradictory: illegal immigrant workers are chosen by companies, but as the state considers them to have “forced” their way in, they are pushed into a subordinate position.

Irregular worker have no right to social support, which, in most cases, they pay for; they can be fired without warning; they have no holiday allowance, maternity leave or sick pay; and they can be paid for piecework, rather than salaried. So their working conditions, far beyond the legislation in question, have become a sort of “internal outsourcing”.

A repeat of the strike helped to reverse the utilitarian logic of the government’s policies and showed that there is no need to search for the famous “chosen” immigration method in countries outside of Europe, through useless diplomatic agreements following the expulsion of irregular workers, but it is already present within Europe. The strikers fought for their rights to stay and their social rights linked to their work to be recognised.

Today’s ‘sans-papiers’ are better integrated than previous generations. They play an active role in economic life and in their neighbourhoods. They certainly face greater opposition now, but they possess a wider range of tools to deal with this situation. And the strike by the sans-papiers is the best proof of this. According to the data provided by the organisation “Droits Devant!” the result of the strikes held between 2008 and today is a positive one, with 1500 regularisations along with a positive reaction from public opinion. According to the survey published by the newspaper “Le Parisien” on 27th April 2008, 68% of French people surveyed would be in favour of the regularisation of irregular workers.

Related posts:

1. If Odysseus was alive today, he would end up in an asylum camp
2. A migrants’ strike in Italy and France
3. The UN and discrimination in Italy

In this regard, a group of Italians living in Barcelona is organizing a very interesting event, called LoSbarco, which is taking place the 25th June 2010 in the waters between Spain and Italy. A cruise boat filled with Italians living abroad, mainly in Europe, will sail from the port of Barcelona to arrive in Genoa the 26th June. The idea is to ironically reproduce the landing of those 1000 Garibaldians that in 1860 led to the conquest and unification of Italy. The goal is to express the discomfort floating over who escaped Italy’s mediocrity and take Italy back. At the basis of the project there’s the will of making people aware of the real causes and consequences of departures, which are not solely related to politics but also to a broaden sleeping sense of community.

LoSbarco has been created to wake young generations up and make them react to put the basis for a more fruitful future in Italy. A civic, peaceful sea-trip, including concerts, artistic performances and seminars held by professionals and academics, will finally give voice to those speaking up against widespread mafia culture, machismo, ignorance, arrogance, lack of valorisation of talents and merits, precarious works and nepotism, i.e. the main Italian faults driving people to leave the country. The project, already supported by a good number of relevant Italian artists, is going to be the first example of trans-national meeting organised outside Italy calling for participation from all over Europe.

Around 45 euro’s will be asked per person to take part in the event; further forms of self-financing are going to be organised, through subscriptions and festivals, so that even those who are facing economic difficulties (students, unemployed, families …) have the opportunity to participate. Once in Genoa a welcoming-committee will introduce the travellers to the city and the foreseen places to sleep for one night. The day after, Sunday 27 June, a meeting/manifestation will be organised in the main square of the port, as well as the return of those living abroad.

Brussels and Athens are participating in the initiative through the actions of local Committees created by Italians interested in taking active part in the organization process.
Those cities interested in contributing to the outcome of the event should just check the website www.losbarco.org
That could be the right moment to implement one of the most interesting and fascinating projects of recent times based on transnationalism. Let’s hope it will hit the mark.

Related posts:

1. Berlin Local Group Members meeting – Dec 9 – 4pm, and 8pm
2. E-Tribal Workshop
3. European Alternatives Members’ Meeting- Bologna, November 17