Hillary Clinton swears she won't run again for president : "I have absolutely no belief, in my mind, that that will happen".
In her mind no, but in her heart, there's still that tiny little glimmer of hope.
HRC is 62, and BHO seems on his irresistible way to a second term, even if he fails miserably on Healthcare, the 1994 Clinton style.
2016 Hillary will probably be much fitter at 69-70 than 2008 John McCain, a 72 year-old Vietnam-and-skin-cancer survivor more or less losing his marbles. But a full throttle campaign, again ? Thanks, but no thanks.
Of course, there is the possibility of a "RFK moment"*, an unexpected opening for the top job... but my guess is that Hillary Clinton will settle for #2 with the help of her old(er) friend Joe Biden, who will turn 70 in 2012.
Joe has never hidden his respect for a person he himself would have picked as Obama's running mate. She would of course be at the top of his list should he have to select a Veep as the next POTUS.
I don't see Joe Biden running again. The risk of becoming a liability, the opportunity to leave office as a sound leader, and to be instrumental in the breaking of another glass ceiling... I'm sure he'll decline a second term as Vice-President.
Furthermore, Barack and Hillary have let Primary dust settle and would form the perfect 2012 ticket for America. This scenario, which already seemed obvious even as primaries raged, now definitely looks like the base case.
* see "Dial Hillary for murder"
20090724
News biorhythms and the future of newspaper
Before the introduction of printing in Europe by Guthenberg, people would travel for books. Then books could multiply, move and reach different readers in different locations. Now you don't even need paper and anyone can consult any priceless ancient manuscript from anywhere without fear of damaging it*.
Earlier this year, there was a exhibition in the library of Florence's Convento di San Marco on the process of book making, featuring beautiful objects and illuminations. I remember thinking, as I moved from one marvel of patience to another, about how people would look at a newspaper press a few years from now.
Doesn't it already seem like a black and white scene from Citizen Cane ? The journalist getting his scoop, writing it down, submitting it to the chief editor, the prints running like crazy, a headline splashing on a newstand, yelled by a street vendor...
Scenes from last millenium.
The future of newspaper definitely looks like "more news and less paper".
Many players are folding their last issues, and folding, period. The sector had been looking for new business models for years when depression struck, precipitating bankruptcies in an already fragile ecosystem.
Sourcing, writing, editing, printing, distributing, advertising... now it's less a linear value chain than a shape shifting value cloud. But there's still value out there, be it in relevance, ergonomy, utility, actionability, exclusivity, analysis / insights / advice, local, reassurance, trust, fun... or why not, the quality of the paper (actually, that's the reason why there's still a thriving market - readers and advertisers - for certain magazines).
Likewise, brands are more often scattered among media, platforms, authors, journalists, and contributors who can even be anonymous members of a popular online forum. With a high churn rate because things and people tend to come out of fad more quickly by the day. Any local newspaper can get its 15 Warholian minutes of fame because say, their cute kitten rescued from a fire in Armpit, TN has been over-retwitted as a scoop of michaeljacksonian magnitude.
Reading has become a multimedia experience with pop-ups, background music, rollover images... you start reading an article and end up watching a movie while purchasing virtual pop-corn for your tamagotchi.
Sometimes, the article you're reading is being edited under your very eyes. Like that page devoted to post-elections unrests in Iran on HuffPost, or DemConWatch's SuperDelegate list, which I consulted about every other minute last year.
News and hoaxes are everywhere, and each individual has what I call his or her own "News BioRhythm" : depending on the context you consume more or less but you somehow have to be fed at certain moments of the day.
The future of newspaper ? The term will more often cover the medium instead of the media brand : you won't be talking about the NYT nor the WSJ, but about your favorite epaper smartphone application, your favorite dedicated device (ie your Kindle, your foldable screen...), where you chose to consult the news.
We all have tools to arrange our own newspapers, but that's not necessarily what you want nor need. I started with My Yahoo! around 1995-96 but quickly switched to a more pervasive browsing mode. There are usually about 30 sites always on on my screen - half of which about news, news gathering, or keeping track of news I read.
I know, I have a problem with my NBR... I should twit my shrink about it (he takes only $13.59 + taxes per character).
* These days, you should fear more for your dutifully purchased ebook (see "Kindle's Total Recall")
Earlier this year, there was a exhibition in the library of Florence's Convento di San Marco on the process of book making, featuring beautiful objects and illuminations. I remember thinking, as I moved from one marvel of patience to another, about how people would look at a newspaper press a few years from now.
Doesn't it already seem like a black and white scene from Citizen Cane ? The journalist getting his scoop, writing it down, submitting it to the chief editor, the prints running like crazy, a headline splashing on a newstand, yelled by a street vendor...
Scenes from last millenium.
The future of newspaper definitely looks like "more news and less paper".
Many players are folding their last issues, and folding, period. The sector had been looking for new business models for years when depression struck, precipitating bankruptcies in an already fragile ecosystem.
Sourcing, writing, editing, printing, distributing, advertising... now it's less a linear value chain than a shape shifting value cloud. But there's still value out there, be it in relevance, ergonomy, utility, actionability, exclusivity, analysis / insights / advice, local, reassurance, trust, fun... or why not, the quality of the paper (actually, that's the reason why there's still a thriving market - readers and advertisers - for certain magazines).
Likewise, brands are more often scattered among media, platforms, authors, journalists, and contributors who can even be anonymous members of a popular online forum. With a high churn rate because things and people tend to come out of fad more quickly by the day. Any local newspaper can get its 15 Warholian minutes of fame because say, their cute kitten rescued from a fire in Armpit, TN has been over-retwitted as a scoop of michaeljacksonian magnitude.
Reading has become a multimedia experience with pop-ups, background music, rollover images... you start reading an article and end up watching a movie while purchasing virtual pop-corn for your tamagotchi.
Sometimes, the article you're reading is being edited under your very eyes. Like that page devoted to post-elections unrests in Iran on HuffPost, or DemConWatch's SuperDelegate list, which I consulted about every other minute last year.
News and hoaxes are everywhere, and each individual has what I call his or her own "News BioRhythm" : depending on the context you consume more or less but you somehow have to be fed at certain moments of the day.
The future of newspaper ? The term will more often cover the medium instead of the media brand : you won't be talking about the NYT nor the WSJ, but about your favorite epaper smartphone application, your favorite dedicated device (ie your Kindle, your foldable screen...), where you chose to consult the news.
We all have tools to arrange our own newspapers, but that's not necessarily what you want nor need. I started with My Yahoo! around 1995-96 but quickly switched to a more pervasive browsing mode. There are usually about 30 sites always on on my screen - half of which about news, news gathering, or keeping track of news I read.
I know, I have a problem with my NBR... I should twit my shrink about it (he takes only $13.59 + taxes per character).
* These days, you should fear more for your dutifully purchased ebook (see "Kindle's Total Recall")
20090722
John Thune raises his profile and his guns
Senator John Thune's idea of raising his GOP profile is to raise his guns : the Republican Policy Committee Chairman from South Dakota wants to allow gun owners to carry concealed firearms into states with similar gun regulations.
In other words : Weapons of Mass Destruction will pass seamlessly between members of the Axis of Smith & Wesson.
This just follows a law allowing guns in National Parks (see "Open Season for Yosemite Sam"). I mean come on : the only political platform these guys seem to consider is a shooting gallery ! Don't be evil, GOPgle !
I'm sure Rush & co are wetting their pants just thinking about promising solutions to unemployment and depression (feeling depressed ? press the trigger and put a hole in'em vagrants on the dole !)... but I keep wondering what kind of vision of politics and education people like Thune have in mind.
John Thune's vision of the future ? Don't look further than the sight at the end of his gun.
In other words : Weapons of Mass Destruction will pass seamlessly between members of the Axis of Smith & Wesson.
This just follows a law allowing guns in National Parks (see "Open Season for Yosemite Sam"). I mean come on : the only political platform these guys seem to consider is a shooting gallery ! Don't be evil, GOPgle !
I'm sure Rush & co are wetting their pants just thinking about promising solutions to unemployment and depression (feeling depressed ? press the trigger and put a hole in'em vagrants on the dole !)... but I keep wondering what kind of vision of politics and education people like Thune have in mind.
John Thune's vision of the future ? Don't look further than the sight at the end of his gun.
20090716
Tony Blair : a newborn fundamentalist President of Europe ?
Unsurprisingly, Tony Blair came out in the open as a candidate for the Presidency of Europe.
The problem is that previously, he also came out in the open as a newly converted Catholic. Some - including yours truly - would rather say "born again fundamentalist".
After palling and praying around with a fundamentalist imposteur (George W. Bush), after courting a fundamentalist pope (Benedict XVI), The Right Honourable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair will be welcomed by people like fundamentalist Luc van den Brande, the man who a couple of years ago censored a report denouncing creationist / Intelligent Design lobbies at governmental levels across western Europe.
So this man can campaign on consensual and noble causes as much as he wants on his website (he just published "Technology for a Low Carbon Future" - tonyblairoffice.org), make no mistake : his job is to boost fundamentalism and to turn Europe into a safe haven for US style cults and megachurches.
Europe simply must not be represented by a Tony Blair - Jose Manuel Barroso ticket.
Other "political" news ? Former Solidarnosc Jerzy Buzek, the European Parliament's new President, is following the Lutherian Evangelical Church of Augsburg.
Amen.
The problem is that previously, he also came out in the open as a newly converted Catholic. Some - including yours truly - would rather say "born again fundamentalist".
After palling and praying around with a fundamentalist imposteur (George W. Bush), after courting a fundamentalist pope (Benedict XVI), The Right Honourable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair will be welcomed by people like fundamentalist Luc van den Brande, the man who a couple of years ago censored a report denouncing creationist / Intelligent Design lobbies at governmental levels across western Europe.
So this man can campaign on consensual and noble causes as much as he wants on his website (he just published "Technology for a Low Carbon Future" - tonyblairoffice.org), make no mistake : his job is to boost fundamentalism and to turn Europe into a safe haven for US style cults and megachurches.
Europe simply must not be represented by a Tony Blair - Jose Manuel Barroso ticket.
Other "political" news ? Former Solidarnosc Jerzy Buzek, the European Parliament's new President, is following the Lutherian Evangelical Church of Augsburg.
Amen.
20090715
Lake - Hodson - Stevens
I used to like Fareed Zakaria and Christiane Amanpour (pronounce: meeee, Christiaaaaaann Amaaaanpur) when they focused on their subjects instead of themselves. Now I don't see journalists but ambitious egos. I hope Hala Gorani won't follow the same path.
What I do enjoy on CNN International is the World Business Today NYC-HK-London trio composed of - respectively - Maggie Lake, Andrew Stevens, and Charles Hodson. They are kind, eager to bring the news, and obviously enjoying the moment they share together without competing against each other (not a meagre feat in this mine field). Don't expect in-depth analysis from Stevens, but don't expect a horripilating Richard Quest moment either : where Quest plays the clown, Stevens seems closer to the circus announcer launching a pleasant ping pong game between a sharp and to the point New Yorker (Lake) and a witty Beeb-raised Britton (Hodson).
CNN International's weird roster also includes a Canadian garden elf sans beard (Jonathan Mann), a bambi mesmerized by her own reflection in a mirror (Anjali Rao), an overweight Peter Graves (Jim Clancy), or a nip / tuck survivor (when Rosemary Church needs to workout her calves, she only has to pronounce the letter "o" - I don't want to know what happens when she goes all the way and closes her mouth).
BBC World News boasts a different stable : a Philippino toad speaking like a machine-gun (Rico Hizon for Asia Business Report), a hedgehog speaking through his nose (Jonathan Charles), a British-Pakistanese cat articulating like no other (Mishal Husain), a Mel Gibson wannabe pantomime-ing business news (named ???), a tall Droopy unable to say "you know what ? I'm happy" (Peter Dobbie), or a veteran CSIS / MI5 / KGB / Mossad / DST / mole (Lyse Doucet).
Most of them are endangered species : simple English will eventually prevail worldwide as it does across the US.
blogules 2009
What I do enjoy on CNN International is the World Business Today NYC-HK-London trio composed of - respectively - Maggie Lake, Andrew Stevens, and Charles Hodson. They are kind, eager to bring the news, and obviously enjoying the moment they share together without competing against each other (not a meagre feat in this mine field). Don't expect in-depth analysis from Stevens, but don't expect a horripilating Richard Quest moment either : where Quest plays the clown, Stevens seems closer to the circus announcer launching a pleasant ping pong game between a sharp and to the point New Yorker (Lake) and a witty Beeb-raised Britton (Hodson).
CNN International's weird roster also includes a Canadian garden elf sans beard (Jonathan Mann), a bambi mesmerized by her own reflection in a mirror (Anjali Rao), an overweight Peter Graves (Jim Clancy), or a nip / tuck survivor (when Rosemary Church needs to workout her calves, she only has to pronounce the letter "o" - I don't want to know what happens when she goes all the way and closes her mouth).
BBC World News boasts a different stable : a Philippino toad speaking like a machine-gun (Rico Hizon for Asia Business Report), a hedgehog speaking through his nose (Jonathan Charles), a British-Pakistanese cat articulating like no other (Mishal Husain), a Mel Gibson wannabe pantomime-ing business news (named ???), a tall Droopy unable to say "you know what ? I'm happy" (Peter Dobbie), or a veteran CSIS / MI5 / KGB / Mossad / DST / mole (Lyse Doucet).
Most of them are endangered species : simple English will eventually prevail worldwide as it does across the US.
blogules 2009
20090712
Scoop : Cheney is not a democrat... but why this 5 month delay ?
Leon Panetta put the last nail on Dick Cheney's coffin.
As soon as he learned, on June 23rd, the existence of a secret CIA counterterrorism program hidden from Congress for 8 years (guess which years), Panetta closed it and alerted both Congress intelligence committees, revealing the fact that this secrecy was imposed by direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney*.
I can't see how Lobby Dick can avoid justice now (he'll probably have to answer to other criminal charges**). David Addington is also in the line of fire on that one. At last, Eric Holder can start the cleaning and America a fair inventory of the doomed Bush Legacy***.
So Dick Cheney is a soon to be convicted felon, an enemy of the State and democracy... nothing new under the sun.
The key question here is : why did it take 5 months to brief Panetta ?
According to CIA Spokesman Paul Gimigliano : "It's not agency practice to discuss what may or may not have been said in a classified briefing. When a C.I.A. unit brought this matter to Director Panetta's attention, it was with the recommendation that it be shared appropriately with Congress. That was also his view, and he took swift, decisive action to put it into effect."
Well the team was not swift at all. Unless Cheney's orders were to go beyond the Bush-Cheney administration. The time to solve technical issues, like paper jams in the shredder room.
* see "Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project" (New York Times - Scott Shane -20090711)
** see previous blogules on Lobby Dick, including "Welcome on Waterboard", "Yoo got mail"... or on a lighter side "Lobby Dick tries to retire, fails to retract.
*** BTW: Holder is considering - at last - probing Bush torture policy : see "Independent's Day".
As soon as he learned, on June 23rd, the existence of a secret CIA counterterrorism program hidden from Congress for 8 years (guess which years), Panetta closed it and alerted both Congress intelligence committees, revealing the fact that this secrecy was imposed by direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney*.
I can't see how Lobby Dick can avoid justice now (he'll probably have to answer to other criminal charges**). David Addington is also in the line of fire on that one. At last, Eric Holder can start the cleaning and America a fair inventory of the doomed Bush Legacy***.
So Dick Cheney is a soon to be convicted felon, an enemy of the State and democracy... nothing new under the sun.
The key question here is : why did it take 5 months to brief Panetta ?
According to CIA Spokesman Paul Gimigliano : "It's not agency practice to discuss what may or may not have been said in a classified briefing. When a C.I.A. unit brought this matter to Director Panetta's attention, it was with the recommendation that it be shared appropriately with Congress. That was also his view, and he took swift, decisive action to put it into effect."
Well the team was not swift at all. Unless Cheney's orders were to go beyond the Bush-Cheney administration. The time to solve technical issues, like paper jams in the shredder room.
* see "Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project" (New York Times - Scott Shane -20090711)
** see previous blogules on Lobby Dick, including "Welcome on Waterboard", "Yoo got mail"... or on a lighter side "Lobby Dick tries to retire, fails to retract.
*** BTW: Holder is considering - at last - probing Bush torture policy : see "Independent's Day".
20090705
GOP - From Morale Building to Moral Damage Control Mode
Senator John Ensign (R-NV) and Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) left without a word the office of the new GOP boss. So did Michael Steele, after a last attempt to keep his job.
"I came to fix this heckuva mess and believe me, change is coming to the GOP", said Sarah Palin to a forest of microphones. "Enough blows below the Bible belt. Enough Appalachian Trails to nowhere. I know about family values : how much do you think it cost me to cancel the party for Bristol and Levi ? And don't try to stop me. I already received stupid e-mail from macho Republicans, and stupid stuff from the letter man. Even Mark Foley tried to page me."
Is she going to run for 2012 ? You betcha.
"I can't hide that I can run", continued the theocon icon. "I'm rather fit for a hockey granma, see ? Actually, I ran all the way from Wasilla down to DC. Bobby wouldn't let me stop. Bobby, the pitbull chasing me... I can run, I tellya. Obama ? He couldn't even run a fever after a trip to swine flu infected Mexico".
"I came to fix this heckuva mess and believe me, change is coming to the GOP", said Sarah Palin to a forest of microphones. "Enough blows below the Bible belt. Enough Appalachian Trails to nowhere. I know about family values : how much do you think it cost me to cancel the party for Bristol and Levi ? And don't try to stop me. I already received stupid e-mail from macho Republicans, and stupid stuff from the letter man. Even Mark Foley tried to page me."
Is she going to run for 2012 ? You betcha.
"I can't hide that I can run", continued the theocon icon. "I'm rather fit for a hockey granma, see ? Actually, I ran all the way from Wasilla down to DC. Bobby wouldn't let me stop. Bobby, the pitbull chasing me... I can run, I tellya. Obama ? He couldn't even run a fever after a trip to swine flu infected Mexico".
20090630
If Americans knew
It's easy to twist figures or maps, but they simply can't lie when unfairness is so obvious.
Founded by journalist Alison Weir, If Americans Knew (ifamericansknew.org) is one of many trying to fill the gaps, but this site targets the American audience and that's an essential step towards peace in the Middle East.
Fair pedagogy is crucial, and the American audience must hear Palestinian voices as well as Israeli voices. Right now, that's not the case : US media tend to take the Israeli side even when Israeli leaders err on the wrong side of the road
Traditionally, Americans are not well informed of what's going on overseas in general. And too often, they can only see one side of the coin. It's not only a matter of networks being biased, but also of viewers with a short attention span for things not American.
Yet change seems to be coming with new voices (Obama, J Street...), and the internet. In spite of the Israeli blackout (foreign media were blocked outside of the strip), all major channels had to somehow mention things happening in Gaza because these things were all over the web, because that was the "story" to "tell".
What Americans have been told for decades is that Palestinians are terrorists and Israeli under siege. What the world is realizing is that terror has changed sides, that Palestine is under siege, and that if hatemongers are gaining ground in Gaza, it's mainly because hatemongers are winning in Tel Aviv.
BTW, excellent and timely report from the Red Cross today.
blogules 2009
Founded by journalist Alison Weir, If Americans Knew (ifamericansknew.org) is one of many trying to fill the gaps, but this site targets the American audience and that's an essential step towards peace in the Middle East.
Fair pedagogy is crucial, and the American audience must hear Palestinian voices as well as Israeli voices. Right now, that's not the case : US media tend to take the Israeli side even when Israeli leaders err on the wrong side of the road
Traditionally, Americans are not well informed of what's going on overseas in general. And too often, they can only see one side of the coin. It's not only a matter of networks being biased, but also of viewers with a short attention span for things not American.
Yet change seems to be coming with new voices (Obama, J Street...), and the internet. In spite of the Israeli blackout (foreign media were blocked outside of the strip), all major channels had to somehow mention things happening in Gaza because these things were all over the web, because that was the "story" to "tell".
What Americans have been told for decades is that Palestinians are terrorists and Israeli under siege. What the world is realizing is that terror has changed sides, that Palestine is under siege, and that if hatemongers are gaining ground in Gaza, it's mainly because hatemongers are winning in Tel Aviv.
BTW, excellent and timely report from the Red Cross today.
blogules 2009
20090627
France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one
As soon as Nicolas Sarkozy said that Burqas were "not welcome" in France, the debate rippled across the World.
I mean THE debate. Not about the burqa, but about France itself : the country would be intolerant and undermining freedom of religion.
I faced the same misunderstanding from Muslims, Jews, Christians, and even atheists following my blogule "No to Burqa = No to Fundamentalism... Christian Fundamentalism included" ("Non à la Burqa = Non au fondamentalisme... Chrétien y compris").
I should say the same double misunderstanding :
Thus the key point in that blogule : in France more than anywhere else, wearing a burqa is a political statement. France should deal with the issue peacefully, on the grounds of the republican law. It is not and should not become a debate about religion.
So I fully agree with Sarkozy when he says that "Burqa is not a problem of religion" and "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic".
But I have a slightly different position when I consider his full sentences :
=> "Burqa is not a problem of religion, but a problem of dignity of women / Burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement" : yes and yes, human rights are definitely involved, but the cause of enslaved women will be even better defended if we act simultaneously at the political level.
=> Burqa "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic. We must not be afraid of our values, nor of defending them" : yes and yes, it is a matter of values. But let's be very careful not to fuel mutual hatred within the Republic and beyond.
Dalil Boubakeur, Rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, denounced the rise of communautarism, radicalization, and fundamentalism in France. But as the President of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, he must also respect all the sensibilities represented in this institution. That's the reason why his critic of the burqa per se sounds rather weak : "wearing the burqa is not a formal answer to a prescription of Islam", and is "foreign to our traditions".
And when he praises Sarkozy, Boubakeur smartly manages to point an accusatory finger at the French Islamist minority : "this well balanced position, exposing a great secular conscience from the President of the Republic, can only fortify the recommandations issued by the Great Mosque of Paris and encourage French citizen of Muslim faith to integrate harmoniously republican values". In other words : if the vast majority of French Muslims applauds, a minority of fundamentalists does refuse the Republic - those are the enemies of both Islam and France.
Boubakeur also issued a clear warning to the President after his speech : "but you have to hope, Insha'Allah, that there won't be any ill-feeling, controversies, nor incidents".
The third key point I raised (the logical counterpoint of the second), was more direct : I really don't trust Nicolas Sarkozy on that one. He is the kind of man to fuel tensions instead of removing them, particularily when he has an opportunity to help fundamentalists and undermine the French secular system. The 2004 ban on religious signs for civil servants or in public schools passed well and calmed things down as expected because it was implemented under Jacques Chirac's watch, a man who, as Bush well knows, makes no compromise with fundamentalist imposteurs.
In France, everybody is fully aware of Sarkozy's reputation as a troublemaker, and his more or less direct promotion of fundamentalism is becoming a less and less hidden agenda.
He was the one who created the Council, thus offering an official tribune to Islamists... and putting outspoken moderates like Boubakeur under constraints. He was the one who, as tensions around the 2004 ban on religious signs were receding, and right before US Elections, dared publish "La Republique, les religions, l'esperance", a provocative essay recommanding the revision of the 1905 law, cornerstone of secularism in France. He was the one who pleased Benedict XVI and other Christian fundamentalists with his "laicite positive" concept (see "N'ayez pas peur"). He was the one who almost condemned French secularism in highly controversial speeches delivered in Latran or Riyadh. He was the one who seeked favors from then Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, palled around with Tom Cruise and tried to remove Scientology from the lists of cults under watch in France...
Yet, if Nicolas Sarkozy obviously pledged allegiance to US theocons a few years ago and has ever since repeatedly attempted to undermine secularism, I don't think he is himself a theocon. More prosaically : hardcore fundamentalists aside, there's a lot of money to make for megachurches willing to open franchises in France... Besides, Sarko's ego is more complex than it seems : this man really loves to please powerful or famous people, wants to be recognized as an equal. He is surrounded by theocons, but also by celebs acting as entry points for theocons.
Now let's put aside this big question mark, and consider French secularism as it is or rather, as it was before Sarkozy. That would be the fourth point missing in my blogule, which was written in French and for a mostly French audience, very much aware of this oddity.
As others may not know, French secularism has proven an efficient yet fragile shield for both democracy and religions against fundamentalism.
People ask "What's wrong with France ?"
Is France intolerant ?
I'd rather say "intolerant to intolerance".
Is France extremist ?
I'd rather say "extremely moderate".
Is France persecuting Muslims ?
I'd rather say "preventing persecution of Muslims, victims of a few fundamentalists who want to cut them from their own country and from their own sound religion".
Regarding religion, the cultural gap couldn't be wider between France and the US : there's a religious persecution syndrom in the US and a religious neutrality syndrom in France, and that explains the way each democracy chooses to defend freedom of religion. Both systems have their pros and cons.
Freedom of belief and religion does mean something in the US. Many founders escaped religious persecutions. On the other hand, fundamentalism is very popular, creationism commonly accepted, and extremist cults are highly visible... In fact, many among the worst enemies of US democracy are US citizens who are tolerated in their own country but would be considered as dangerous extremists anywhere else, and not only in France.
In France, many US preachers would be charged for incitation to hatred, many US cults seriously restricted if not forbidden... and the Creation Museum closed for bold revisionism. Of course, people proudly parading in Nazi uniforms would go straigth to jail. And such ayatollahs as Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh would have to tone down a few notches or face the consequences.
Both the US and France have cornerstones for religious neutrality and for separation of church and state, with a common ground dating from the late XVIIIth century, thanks to people like the very francophile Thomas Jefferson :
- the 1789 US Bill of Rights. In particular Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")
- the 1789 Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In particular : "No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order", "The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it", and "Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law". One could also mention the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights : "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".
- the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
- ..
Separation of church and state is still a raging debate in the US, and fundamentalists are fighting every jurisprudence that secures it. Religion in general is a very big business and partisans of genuine secularism (ie no mention of "God" during inauguration speeches) are a minority.
By contrast, most French are ardent defensors of secularism, and most churches, temples and mosques are poor. Which by the way makes it easier for rich fundamentalist sponsors from overseas.
France put an end to a heated debate on secularism thanks to the December 9, 1905 law on the Separation of the Churches and State, which goes beyond the sentence "the Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion". The Republic's unity was clearly under threat, and mutual hatred bloomed everywhere, with a peak of anti-semitism during the Dreyfus Affair (settled - and in the right direction - soon afterwards, in 1906).
But as History cruelly reminds us, anti-semitism survived in France, and World War II atrocities led to another set of reforms. If French census bureau doesn't collect any data about race, and if French laws strictly forbids databases based on religious beliefs or race***, it's because all humans are considered as one race, but also because the French police collaborated with Nazi occupants and kept files on many citizens, leading to their most tragic fate.
In 1958, France entered its Vth Republic. And the Article 1 of the Preamble of the 1958 Constitution clearly stipulates : "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs" ("It shall be organised on a decentralised basis" being added much later). "Secular" goes with "indivisible", and freedom of religion should not lead to any division.
There is also a cultural issue : in France, religion is considered as something personal, proselytizing as an aggression, and categorizing people as rude. Most French Muslims or French Jews don't want to be singled out as Muslims or Jews. They are true believers, but they want to be simply considered as French citizens. The first thing fundamentalist imams do is to negate Republican laws as a preamble to their own political constitution.
For decades, France enjoyed a relative peace without significant intra- nor inter-religious tensions, fundamentalism remaining well below the radar. But obviously, change has come :
Fundamentalists are clearly waging a war on secular exceptions like Turkey and France. Both countries stand at key cultural crossroads, and see their institutional shields against fundamentalism repeatedly tested. Sunni fundamentalists are methodically working on the destruction of secular Turkey (and European Christian Fundamentalists applauding their efforts), but France sits at the top of the agenda for all breeds of radicals : the "Eldest daughter of The Church" lies at the heart of the EU, and boasts its biggest Muslim and Jewish communities.
Fundamentalists mean to destroy France's very foundations : liberty, equality, and fraternity within the "indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic". And if they don't succeed in amending laws, they try to play "religious freedom" against systems precisely meant to protect, fueling communautarism against integration, forcing people to take sides following their own agenda, to the point that even moderates can sound radical when they talk about them.
Even if French laws and Constitution were clear enough to avoid it, France had to pass a law to specifically ban religious signs in public schools and for civil servants. Islamic headscarves had almost become an obligation in certain areas, where young Muslim women couldn't (and still now can't) go out anymore without a headdress for fear of being violented, and not only verbally. A 2005 poll showed that 77% of French Muslim women wearing headscarf (we're talking the lightest form of garment) don't do it from their own will and wouldn't wear it if given the choice. A Muslim woman founded the association "Ni Putes Ni Soumises" (Neither Whores Nor Slaves) to defend women and particularily Muslim women. This fierce advocate for secularism is now Minister for Urban Policies.
Likewise, these days, France is compelled to position itself for or against burqa. The vast majority of French Muslims are against this import from Islamists, and a bill will probably be needed to specify a ban for burqa and niqab. Even if, unlike headscarves, there are only a few hundred cases in the whole country.
I know that, from a US perspective, such a ban can sound extreme, particularily after Obama's speech in Cairo (see "State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine")****.
But you have to understand how the vital battle under way within the Muslim world impacts this very special country, where fundamentalism is spreading like fire at the expense of the silent moderate minority (particularily young women). Except for a few Islamist radicals, Muslim organizations are in favor of these laws because they are precisely seeking from the state protection from fundamentalism.
Of course, producing the law remains tricky and legislators have to be very careful : it's about bringing everybody together and certainly not antagonizing. And of course, France must do better at the root of extremism, which thrives on poverty and unfairness. The self proclaimed "country of human rights" does support dictatures overseas and tolerate inequalities and discriminations at home.
As you see, France is a strange country... but its laws are not meant against religion but in favor of a clear separation between politics and religion, to better defend democracy and religion from those who want to destroy both.
stephane mot - blogules 2009
* elsewhere, wearing the burqa can be about both religion and politics (fundamentalism rules), or simply about tradition. But even in the case of tradition, the same political statement exists.
** I know that's unfair because positive meanings have been twisted. Some expressions can be most unfortunate, maybe not as criminal as the "crusade" mentioned by W. after 9/11, but "Western values" has unfortunately become almost a moto for the "Clash of Civilization" imposture.
*** Furthermore, every database featuring individuals should be declared to a specific commission, and every individual has the right to have his record deleted if he or she stops subscribing to a service.
**** On the other hand, what sounds extreme to French people is a democracy where the President swears in on a Bible, finishing by the words "so help me God". It's OK when Obama's speaking, but when Fundamentalist in Chief Dubya speaks, the words resonated very differently. I know that JFK said ("considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension"), but I had a dream : Barack Obama has a "Zapatero moment" for his second inauguration (see "So help me Rick Warren").
I mean THE debate. Not about the burqa, but about France itself : the country would be intolerant and undermining freedom of religion.
I faced the same misunderstanding from Muslims, Jews, Christians, and even atheists following my blogule "No to Burqa = No to Fundamentalism... Christian Fundamentalism included" ("Non à la Burqa = Non au fondamentalisme... Chrétien y compris").
I should say the same double misunderstanding :
- classic misunderstanding : fundamentalism is about politics, not religion. Claiming independence from fundamentalism is about saving democracy, but also about saving freedom of religion... see my usual pitch about the fundamentalist imposture ("Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").
- cultural misunderstanding : France's very specific flavor of secularism, and the cultural exception (particularly compared to the US) regarding religion in general
Thus the key point in that blogule : in France more than anywhere else, wearing a burqa is a political statement. France should deal with the issue peacefully, on the grounds of the republican law. It is not and should not become a debate about religion.
So I fully agree with Sarkozy when he says that "Burqa is not a problem of religion" and "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic".
But I have a slightly different position when I consider his full sentences :
=> "Burqa is not a problem of religion, but a problem of dignity of women / Burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement" : yes and yes, human rights are definitely involved, but the cause of enslaved women will be even better defended if we act simultaneously at the political level.
Typically, some woman do wear the burqa of their own free will, and fundamentalists do claim that burqas defend the dignity of women because they are protected from the gaze of men.
We must naturally stand strong in the women's rights and freedom of religion debates, but we must also position ourselves on different planes to embrace the true nature of the subject and the true nature of fundamentalism.
Because burqa is not "a problem of religion", but a problem of politics. And a Burqa doesn't protect a woman from male gaze : integral coverings in general (burqa, niqab, masks hiding the face) withdraw people (male or female, of their own free will or not, those are yet other stories) from the watch of the Republic. Accepting this would mean accepting the most essential claim of fundamentalists : their strict set of principles supercedes the laws of the Republic. And in France, what burqas do is to put people beyond the reach of law in a secular Republic, which makes it even more offensive*.
Actually, Sarkozy didn't raise the burqa issue in Versailles out of the blue (chadri ?) : he merely reacted to many complaints by mayors and representatives of the Republic who noticed the incompatibility of such garments with the exercise of law (not to mention, of course, complaints of human right activists, women, moderate Muslims...).
=> Burqa "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic. We must not be afraid of our values, nor of defending them" : yes and yes, it is a matter of values. But let's be very careful not to fuel mutual hatred within the Republic and beyond.
Sarkozy is talking about a garment, but certain people can interpret his words a very different way : "territory" and "our values" resonate very well in extreme right circles, where xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia... and the ultimate theocon-neocon myth of the "Clash of Civilizations" rule*. Typically, radicals like peroxyde-blond Geerd Wilders, who enjoys full support from Israeli Jewish fundamentalists as well as from European Christian fundamentalists, wants to ban the burqa... but as a part of a more general ban on Islam !French Muslims overwhelmingly reject fundamentalism, and feel ostracized each time a few extremists deliberately provoque intra- and inter-religious tensions, or openly reject State laws.
Such hatemongers complain about "the Islamization of Europe" and the threats to "Western values", but Islam belongs to the West as well as to the East, North, South and Center. Besides, European culture owes a lot of its richness and diversity to Islam, Europe wouldn't be Europe without its citizens who happen to be Muslims, and France wouldn't be France without its citizens who happen to be Muslims.
Furthermore, let us not stress obsolete geographical divisions as moderates from all confessions and from over the world are reaching out to each other.
The second key point in my blogule was precisely that a ban on burqa, provided it were carefully and soundly planned and implemented, would undermine fundamentalism well beyond Muslim communities, and particularily Christian fundamentalism, also on the rise in Europe.
Dalil Boubakeur, Rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, denounced the rise of communautarism, radicalization, and fundamentalism in France. But as the President of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, he must also respect all the sensibilities represented in this institution. That's the reason why his critic of the burqa per se sounds rather weak : "wearing the burqa is not a formal answer to a prescription of Islam", and is "foreign to our traditions".
And when he praises Sarkozy, Boubakeur smartly manages to point an accusatory finger at the French Islamist minority : "this well balanced position, exposing a great secular conscience from the President of the Republic, can only fortify the recommandations issued by the Great Mosque of Paris and encourage French citizen of Muslim faith to integrate harmoniously republican values". In other words : if the vast majority of French Muslims applauds, a minority of fundamentalists does refuse the Republic - those are the enemies of both Islam and France.
Boubakeur also issued a clear warning to the President after his speech : "but you have to hope, Insha'Allah, that there won't be any ill-feeling, controversies, nor incidents".
The third key point I raised (the logical counterpoint of the second), was more direct : I really don't trust Nicolas Sarkozy on that one. He is the kind of man to fuel tensions instead of removing them, particularily when he has an opportunity to help fundamentalists and undermine the French secular system. The 2004 ban on religious signs for civil servants or in public schools passed well and calmed things down as expected because it was implemented under Jacques Chirac's watch, a man who, as Bush well knows, makes no compromise with fundamentalist imposteurs.
In France, everybody is fully aware of Sarkozy's reputation as a troublemaker, and his more or less direct promotion of fundamentalism is becoming a less and less hidden agenda.
He was the one who created the Council, thus offering an official tribune to Islamists... and putting outspoken moderates like Boubakeur under constraints. He was the one who, as tensions around the 2004 ban on religious signs were receding, and right before US Elections, dared publish "La Republique, les religions, l'esperance", a provocative essay recommanding the revision of the 1905 law, cornerstone of secularism in France. He was the one who pleased Benedict XVI and other Christian fundamentalists with his "laicite positive" concept (see "N'ayez pas peur"). He was the one who almost condemned French secularism in highly controversial speeches delivered in Latran or Riyadh. He was the one who seeked favors from then Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, palled around with Tom Cruise and tried to remove Scientology from the lists of cults under watch in France...
Yet, if Nicolas Sarkozy obviously pledged allegiance to US theocons a few years ago and has ever since repeatedly attempted to undermine secularism, I don't think he is himself a theocon. More prosaically : hardcore fundamentalists aside, there's a lot of money to make for megachurches willing to open franchises in France... Besides, Sarko's ego is more complex than it seems : this man really loves to please powerful or famous people, wants to be recognized as an equal. He is surrounded by theocons, but also by celebs acting as entry points for theocons.
Now let's put aside this big question mark, and consider French secularism as it is or rather, as it was before Sarkozy. That would be the fourth point missing in my blogule, which was written in French and for a mostly French audience, very much aware of this oddity.
As others may not know, French secularism has proven an efficient yet fragile shield for both democracy and religions against fundamentalism.
People ask "What's wrong with France ?"
Is France intolerant ?
I'd rather say "intolerant to intolerance".
Is France extremist ?
I'd rather say "extremely moderate".
Is France persecuting Muslims ?
I'd rather say "preventing persecution of Muslims, victims of a few fundamentalists who want to cut them from their own country and from their own sound religion".
Regarding religion, the cultural gap couldn't be wider between France and the US : there's a religious persecution syndrom in the US and a religious neutrality syndrom in France, and that explains the way each democracy chooses to defend freedom of religion. Both systems have their pros and cons.
Freedom of belief and religion does mean something in the US. Many founders escaped religious persecutions. On the other hand, fundamentalism is very popular, creationism commonly accepted, and extremist cults are highly visible... In fact, many among the worst enemies of US democracy are US citizens who are tolerated in their own country but would be considered as dangerous extremists anywhere else, and not only in France.
In France, many US preachers would be charged for incitation to hatred, many US cults seriously restricted if not forbidden... and the Creation Museum closed for bold revisionism. Of course, people proudly parading in Nazi uniforms would go straigth to jail. And such ayatollahs as Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh would have to tone down a few notches or face the consequences.
Both the US and France have cornerstones for religious neutrality and for separation of church and state, with a common ground dating from the late XVIIIth century, thanks to people like the very francophile Thomas Jefferson :
- the 1789 US Bill of Rights. In particular Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")
- the 1789 Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In particular : "No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order", "The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it", and "Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law". One could also mention the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights : "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".
- the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
- ..
Separation of church and state is still a raging debate in the US, and fundamentalists are fighting every jurisprudence that secures it. Religion in general is a very big business and partisans of genuine secularism (ie no mention of "God" during inauguration speeches) are a minority.
By contrast, most French are ardent defensors of secularism, and most churches, temples and mosques are poor. Which by the way makes it easier for rich fundamentalist sponsors from overseas.
France put an end to a heated debate on secularism thanks to the December 9, 1905 law on the Separation of the Churches and State, which goes beyond the sentence "the Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion". The Republic's unity was clearly under threat, and mutual hatred bloomed everywhere, with a peak of anti-semitism during the Dreyfus Affair (settled - and in the right direction - soon afterwards, in 1906).
But as History cruelly reminds us, anti-semitism survived in France, and World War II atrocities led to another set of reforms. If French census bureau doesn't collect any data about race, and if French laws strictly forbids databases based on religious beliefs or race***, it's because all humans are considered as one race, but also because the French police collaborated with Nazi occupants and kept files on many citizens, leading to their most tragic fate.
In 1958, France entered its Vth Republic. And the Article 1 of the Preamble of the 1958 Constitution clearly stipulates : "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs" ("It shall be organised on a decentralised basis" being added much later). "Secular" goes with "indivisible", and freedom of religion should not lead to any division.
There is also a cultural issue : in France, religion is considered as something personal, proselytizing as an aggression, and categorizing people as rude. Most French Muslims or French Jews don't want to be singled out as Muslims or Jews. They are true believers, but they want to be simply considered as French citizens. The first thing fundamentalist imams do is to negate Republican laws as a preamble to their own political constitution.
For decades, France enjoyed a relative peace without significant intra- nor inter-religious tensions, fundamentalism remaining well below the radar. But obviously, change has come :
- The first rifts within the Jewish community appeared as a minority took sides in favor of Israeli Jewish fundamentalists or at least in favor of conservative hardliners. The majority of French Jews distance themselves from Israel, and are as sick and tired of the confusion Jew = Tel Aviv Hawks bombing Gaza as Muslims are tired of the confusion Islam = al Qaeda. Yet, there is a French equivalent to an edulcorated AIPAC, but not to J Street. Yet. Regarding the conflict, a majority of French people, beyond Muslims, supports the Palestinian cause, particularily after Arafat gave up terror.
- If wahhabism had a tough time trying to buy its way into France (where moderate Islam has traditionally been sponsored by countries like Morocco), more recent and radical movements leverage on Islamist movements fighting against dictatorship in former French colonies, most notably Algeria. al Qaeda smartly outsourced part of its French operations to GSPC (Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat), now known as "al Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Magreb". Clearly, George W. Bush's crusade in Iraq helped the most radical Islamists gain ground, particularily among the younger generation of Muslims, many of North African origins and living in derelict suburbs, where integration failed most spectacularly. Fundamentalists did their "best" to cut those from their parents, who embraced the Republic and integration.
- Christian fundamentalism had been pretty much silenced since Vatican II, until George W. Bush and Benedict XVI revived it. Recently, the latter even lifted the excommunication of four bishops ordained in 1988 by then Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the French leader of the very fundamentalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Among them, Richard Williamson, an outspoken Holocaust negationist.
- Over the past few years, hatemongers of all kinds have been multiplying provocations, including profanations of Jewish or Muslim tombs...
Fundamentalists are clearly waging a war on secular exceptions like Turkey and France. Both countries stand at key cultural crossroads, and see their institutional shields against fundamentalism repeatedly tested. Sunni fundamentalists are methodically working on the destruction of secular Turkey (and European Christian Fundamentalists applauding their efforts), but France sits at the top of the agenda for all breeds of radicals : the "Eldest daughter of The Church" lies at the heart of the EU, and boasts its biggest Muslim and Jewish communities.
Fundamentalists mean to destroy France's very foundations : liberty, equality, and fraternity within the "indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic". And if they don't succeed in amending laws, they try to play "religious freedom" against systems precisely meant to protect, fueling communautarism against integration, forcing people to take sides following their own agenda, to the point that even moderates can sound radical when they talk about them.
Even if French laws and Constitution were clear enough to avoid it, France had to pass a law to specifically ban religious signs in public schools and for civil servants. Islamic headscarves had almost become an obligation in certain areas, where young Muslim women couldn't (and still now can't) go out anymore without a headdress for fear of being violented, and not only verbally. A 2005 poll showed that 77% of French Muslim women wearing headscarf (we're talking the lightest form of garment) don't do it from their own will and wouldn't wear it if given the choice. A Muslim woman founded the association "Ni Putes Ni Soumises" (Neither Whores Nor Slaves) to defend women and particularily Muslim women. This fierce advocate for secularism is now Minister for Urban Policies.
Likewise, these days, France is compelled to position itself for or against burqa. The vast majority of French Muslims are against this import from Islamists, and a bill will probably be needed to specify a ban for burqa and niqab. Even if, unlike headscarves, there are only a few hundred cases in the whole country.
I know that, from a US perspective, such a ban can sound extreme, particularily after Obama's speech in Cairo (see "State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine")****.
But you have to understand how the vital battle under way within the Muslim world impacts this very special country, where fundamentalism is spreading like fire at the expense of the silent moderate minority (particularily young women). Except for a few Islamist radicals, Muslim organizations are in favor of these laws because they are precisely seeking from the state protection from fundamentalism.
Of course, producing the law remains tricky and legislators have to be very careful : it's about bringing everybody together and certainly not antagonizing. And of course, France must do better at the root of extremism, which thrives on poverty and unfairness. The self proclaimed "country of human rights" does support dictatures overseas and tolerate inequalities and discriminations at home.
As you see, France is a strange country... but its laws are not meant against religion but in favor of a clear separation between politics and religion, to better defend democracy and religion from those who want to destroy both.
stephane mot - blogules 2009
* elsewhere, wearing the burqa can be about both religion and politics (fundamentalism rules), or simply about tradition. But even in the case of tradition, the same political statement exists.
** I know that's unfair because positive meanings have been twisted. Some expressions can be most unfortunate, maybe not as criminal as the "crusade" mentioned by W. after 9/11, but "Western values" has unfortunately become almost a moto for the "Clash of Civilization" imposture.
*** Furthermore, every database featuring individuals should be declared to a specific commission, and every individual has the right to have his record deleted if he or she stops subscribing to a service.
**** On the other hand, what sounds extreme to French people is a democracy where the President swears in on a Bible, finishing by the words "so help me God". It's OK when Obama's speaking, but when Fundamentalist in Chief Dubya speaks, the words resonated very differently. I know that JFK said ("considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension"), but I had a dream : Barack Obama has a "Zapatero moment" for his second inauguration (see "So help me Rick Warren").
20090624
Keep your eye on the ball, Barack !
Cartoon of the day :
"Back to you in a minute, Mahmoud... Benjamin too".
follows "Netanyahu's al Aqsa intifada" and "Khamenei's death wish"
"Back to you in a minute, Mahmoud... Benjamin too".
follows "Netanyahu's al Aqsa intifada" and "Khamenei's death wish"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search my personal portal :
