Diversity / Minorities

It began on 11th March, when Imad Ibn Ziaten, a paratrooper of Moroccan origin, was shot dead when he went to meet someone who he believed was interested in buying his motorbike.

Four days later, a gunman on a scooter shot at three soldiers at a cashpoint in Montauban, near Toulouse. He killed Corporal Abel Chennouf and Private Mohamed Legouad, both of North African origin, and seriously injured Corporal Loic Liber from Guadaloupe. But the event that focused the eyes of the world on the Midi-Pyrenees, that caused shockwaves to reverberate across France, Europe and beyond, occurred on 19th March. The gunman, once again on a scooter, opened fire outside a Jewish school in Toulouse, killing Rabbi Jonathan Sandler and his two sons, Gabriel, 3, and Aryeh, 6, and the daughter of the headteacher, Miriam Monsonego, 7. President Nicolas Sarkozy hurried to the scene, and all presidential candidates suspended campaigning as police confirmed that they believed all shootings to have been carried out by the same perpetrator. Speculation immediately began as to the motives of the killer, with many suspecting a right-wing extremist to be responsible.

They were soon proved wrong, however. On 21st March, an armed response unit surrounded the Toulouse flat of 23-year-old Mohammed Merah. A 23-year-old French Muslim, born and raised in France to parents of Algerian origin, he had telephoned French news agency France 24 just 2 hours before the siege began, confessing to the attacks and claiming to be a member of Al Qaeda. He said the attacks were a protest against France’s ban on the burqa, and the French military presence in Afghanistan. When asked why he had attacked a Jewish school, he responded, “The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine”.

The siege lasted 32 hours, ending with Merah being shot and killed by a sniper. But as the pain and grief continue for the families and friends of those he murdered, so do the questions about his motives. What turned a petty criminal into a radical jihadist who was willing to murder seven innocent people, including three children? Was he, as some have claimed, a “lone wolf”, mentally ill and thus not representative of a wider problem? Yet others have pointed out that he bore the hallmarks of a trained and motivated operative.

Whatever the insane reasoning behind these fatal actions, the repercussions are already evident, especially for some of France’s minority groups. Despite Sarkozy’s statement that “our Muslim counterparts have nothing to do with the crazy motivations of a terrorist", French Muslims fear stigmatism and an increase in islamophobia as a result of the attacks. Meanwhile, the attack on the Jewish school also brought the issue of anti-semitism back into focus, with various other anti-semitic incidents being reported in the days following the shootings. A 12-year-old Jewish boy was assaulted in Paris by youths chanting anti-semitic slogans, Jewish graves in Nice were vandalised and, shockingly, the school at which the murders took place received threatening emails.

As the election draws ever nearer, these are certainly testing times for France. Not only is there the fear that there may be more Mohammed Merahs in their midst, ready to commit murder arbitrarily, but his actions have provoked tensions within society that may not be so easy to resolve.

Image source: go dutch baby on flickr

On 14th March, the UK government launched a consultation paper on same-sex marriage, with the intention of introducing civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples in England and Wales by 2015 (Scotland and Northern Ireland will legislate the issue separately; Scotland has already held a consultation process).

Homosexual couples in the UK can currently obtain a so-called “civil partnership”, which was introduced in 2005, but while this grants them the same legal rights and tax benefits as married heterosexual couples, there remain several crucial differences. For example, couples having a civil partnership are legally not permitted to describe themselves as “married”; they must use the term “civil partners”. Therefore when having to declare their marital status, for example to an employer, they must also implicitly reveal their sexual orientation. In addition, couples wishing to get married can choose between having a religious or a secular ceremony, whereas for a civil partnership only the latter is possible (although as from December 2011, civil partnerships are permitted to take place on religious premises, although the ceremony itself must remain secular). Civil partnerships also lack some of the more traditional elements of marriage: no vows are required to be spoken at a civil partnership ceremony, and adultery and non-consummation cannot be given as reasons for dissolving the union.

The paper proposes to allow same-sex couples to have civil marriage ceremonies, to say vows and to describe themselves as married. The rules for dissolution of a same-sex marriage will be the same as those for a marriage between a man and a woman. However, the ban on religious ceremonies will remain, even if the religious institution in question is happy to perform a homosexual marriage. This has been criticised by some, such as gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, who says “This is not only homophobic but also an attack on religious freedom. While no religious body should be forced to conduct same-sex marriages, those that want to conduct them should be free to do so.”

However, church leaders and Christian groups have strongly criticised the proposals to introduce even civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples with Cardinal Keith O’Brien, leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, saying that the plans were “a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.

But it is unlikely that the church, or indeed any other protesters, will prevent the proposals being implemented. The consultation paper focuses on HOW gay marriage should be introduced, rather than whether it should be. Ministers have confirmed that before the next election in 2015, gay and lesbian couples will be allowed to marry in England and Wales.

However, laws concerning homosexual marriage and partnerships vary considerably across the EU. Marriage between two individuals of the same gender is legal in Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands, with Denmark planning to legalise it in June 2012. At the other end of the spectrum, homosexual couples can gain no official recognition of their union at all in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.

Read the full consultation paper here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public...

Image source: slowfade on flickr

In anticipation of the appointments of European Council President and Foreign Policy chief, a lot of noise was made about gender balance. Member states were also urged by activists, NGOs, as well as Commission President Barrosso to consider nominating female candidates to the Commission. The promotion of a gender balanced Commission is a cause supported by at least 2 360 facebook users, and 888 petition signers on official website, www.genderbalancedcommission.eu, though it’s reasonable to expect some overlap in members. The result? The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is a certain Catherine Ashton, and nine women have been nominated to the new Commission (the same number as were in the last Commission). While ideally we would live in a world where underpaid and overlooked women is not the norm, the debate on positive discrimination and gender quotas is again on the table. On the one hand, a visible gender equality within the European institutions has positive effects both for gender issues and for the image of Europe. On the other, appointing underqualified women does not further women’s rights. Rather, it risks proving sexist people right. The female appointees may however well be qualified, and for their sake and the sake of gender equality, we certainly hope they are.

Photo: Flickr, DogFromSPACE

The 2008 European cultural year has been all about intercultural dialogue. The European Union as a unique interplay of different cultures, languages, religions and traditions has been the focal centre for discovering the other throughout 2008. The European Commission supported different European, national and thematic projects with a budget nearing 2,4 million euros. It focused on migration and integration issues, education and youth projects, and many others. More than 300 projects applied. The resonance of this community project was very positive at the end of the year. Without a doubt, it has contributed to raise awareness on the wealth of European diversity. However, it cannot dissimulate that most European citizens remain sceptical towards the EU and only few are in touch with European projects. 2009 will focus on the themes of creativity and innovation.

Information about the different projects 2008 can be found under: European Year of the Intercultural Dialogue

Photo: www.interculturaldialogue2008.eu

The international conference on interreligious dialogue held Wednesday 16 July in Madrid is good news in that it brought together the high representatives of the three Book religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – to jointly proclaim their will towards dialogue and mutual comprehension. The conference was the intitiave of King Abdallah II of Saudi Arabia, a country embodying the most severe Islamic doctrine, Wahhabism. This paradox explains itself by Abdallah’s will to change the kingdom’s image, tainted by the 2001 terrorist attacks of which the majority of culprits were Saudi. At the end of the Madrid Conference, participants called for the organisation of a special session of the United Nations General Assembly dedicated to interreligious dialogue. At a time when relations between religions are too often the pretext for tension and nearly violence, such an initiative deserves recognition.