Multidimensional Multiculturality

Borders, violence, and the need to reconstruct our sensitivity

June 22, 2008 · Leave a Comment

As Le Monde reports today, sixty to seventy people from Subsaharian Africa tried to cross the border between Morocco and the Spanish city of Melilla, one of the Southern entries to Europe. RNE, the Spanish public radio station, reported that several security agents were “slightly blessed”, as well as that immigrants were “armed” with stones and sticks.

It is always healthy to keep in mind that, at the end of the day, all those directives and laws, all those prejudices reproduced in street conversations, materialize in pure physicial violence. Not that symbolic violence is not relevant, not at all… But at the end, if we are brave enough to look down to the borders -all of them-, we will find actual blows and shots. The definition of who is a human, or who is entitled to rights -which is built up not only by governments or mass media, but also by all of us- has actual consequences in terms of livability for other humans. Let’s do not hide that.

Here comes a fragment from Dreams of Trespass: Tales of a Harem Girlhood, by Fatima Mernissi. I use to come back to this reading when I feel anxious about borders and their violence.

MY HAREM FRONTIERS

I was born in a harem in 1940 in Fez, a ninth-century Moroccan city some five thousand kilometers west of Mecca, and one thousand kilometers south of Madrid, one of the dangerous capitals of the Christians. The problems with the Christians start, said Father, as with women, when the hudud, or sacred frontier, is not respected. I was born in the midst of chaos, since neither Christians nor women respected the frontiers. Right on our thereshold, you could see women of the harem contesting and fighthing with Ahmed the doorkeeper as the foreign armies of the North kept arriving all over the city. In fact, foreigners were standing right at the end of our street, which lay just between the old city and the Ville Nouvelle, a new city that they were building for themselves. When Allah created the Earth, said Father, he separated men from women, and put a sea between Muslims and Christians for a reason. Harmony exists when each group respects the prescribed limits of the other: trespassing leads only to sorrow and unhappiness. But women dreamed of trespassing all the time. The world beyond the gate was their obsession. They fantasized all they long about parading in unfamiliar streets, while the Christians kept crossing the sea, bringing death and chaos.

Trouble and cold winds come from the North, and we turn to the East to pray. Mecca is far. Your prayers might reach it if you know how to concentrate. I was to be taught how to concentrate when the time was appropriate. Madrid’s soldiers had camped north of Fez, and even Uncle ‘Ali and Father, who were so powerful in the city and ordered around everyone in the house, had to ask permission from Madrid to attend Moulay Abdesslam’s religious festival near Tangier, three hundred kilometers away. But the soldiers who stood outside our door were French, and of another tribe. They were Christians like the Spaniards, but they spoke another language and lived farther north. Paris was their capital. Cousin Samir said that Paris was probably two thousand kilometers away, twice as far away from us as Madrid, and twice as ferocious. Christians, just like Muslims, fight each other all the time, and the Spanish and the French allmost killed one another when they crossed our frontier. Then, when neither was able to exterminate the other, they decided to cut Morocco in half. They put soldiers near ‘Arbaoua and said from now on, to go north, you needed a pass because you were crossing into Spanish Morocco. To go south, you needed another pass, because you were crossing into French Morocco. If you did not go along with what they said, you got stuck at ‘Arbaoua, an arbitrary spot where they built a huge gate and said it was a frontier. But Morocco, said Father, had existed undivided for centuries, even before Islam came along fourteen hundred years ago. No one ever had heard of a frontier splitting the land in two before. The frontier was an invisible line in the mind of warriors.

Cousin Samir, who sometimes accompanied Uncle and Father on their trips, said that to create a frontier, all you need is soldiers to force others to believe in it. In the landscape itself, nothing changes. The frontier is in the mind of the powerful. I could not go and see this for myself because Uncle and Father said that a girl does not travel. Travel is dangerous and women can’t defend themselves. Aunt Habiba, who had been cast off and sent away suddenly for no reason by a husband she loved dearly, said that Allah had sent the Northern armies to Morocco to punish the men for violating the hudud protecting women. When you hurt a woman, you are violating Allah’s sacred frontier. It is unlawful to hurt the weak. She cried for years.

Education is to know the hudud, the sacred frontiers, said Lalla Tam, the headmistress at the Koranic school where I was sent at age three to join my ten cousins. My teacher had a long, menacing whip, and I totally agreed with her about everything: the frontier, the Christians, education. To be a Muslim was to respect the hudud. And for a child, to respect the hudud was to obey. I wanted badly to please Lalla Tam, but once out of her earshot, I asked Cousin Malika, who was two years older than I, if she could show me where the hudud actually was located. She answered that all she knew for sure was that everything would work out fine if I obeyed the teacher. The hudud was whatever the teacher forbade. My cousin’s words helped my relax and start enjoying school.

But since then, looking for the frontier has become my life’s occupation. Anxiety eats me whenever I cannot situate the geometric line organizing my powerlessness.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: borders · ethics · europe · literature · maghreb · migrants · spain

Fitna, or how western freedom of speech is shamefully biased when it comes to Islam

March 31, 2008 · 1 Comment

Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch right-wing, anti-Islam Party of Freedom has got what he wanted. Once again, the islamophobic prejudice is agitated all over Europe and beyond. Once again, the extreme right chairs a debate on freedom of expression in the West which hides a couple of extremely relevant points. And once again the challenge comes from the multicultural Netherlands.

Not so long after the Muhammad cartoons controversy, Geert Wilders released on the Internet, on March 27th, a 15 minute-video called Fitna. The movie  features anti-Western and anti-Semitic tirades by some imams altogether with images of the 9/11 New York and 3/11 Madrid acts of terrorism. Moreover, these images are alternated with images and prayers of some verses of the Quran calling for Jihad. Its main purpose, following Wilders’ own words (as NYTimes cites him), was to state that ”Islam and the Quran are dangers to the preservation of freedom in the Netherlands in the long term, and [...] to warn people of that”.

The relationship between this video and the Muhammad cartoons controversy is quite patent. The conflict raised when extreme right-wing newspaper Jyllands-Posten published, in September 2005, twelve editorial cartoons that depicted Muhammad while establishing a strong relationship between Islam and violence. Local Muslim organisations tried to raise public opinion’s awareness on the offense, and ambassadors from 11 Arab countries in the Netherlands tried to draw the attention of the Dutch government to the issue. Not only they weren’t heard, but the cartoons were further published by other mainstream media organisations in more than fifty other countries in what was presented as a legitimate exercise of democracy and freedom of speech.

At least in this very case of Fitna (unlike during the Muhammad cartoons controversy) European governments and media corporations “sharply” reject this act of “freedom of expression”. Nevertheless, regarding mainstream discourse about freedom of expression on issues related to Islam, things haven’t changed. After the whole continent spoke about democratic principles for defending the publication of the cartoons, now it’s Wilders’ Fitna what is presented by political leaders from all over Europe as a lawful and legitimate performance of western freedom of expression.

In principle, without a good dose of critical thinking, one could think that freedom of speech is a fundamental right and a basic value of democratic societies and, therefore, deserves limitless protection. Furthermore, one could argue that, indeed, religious fundamentalism is a risk for the survival of democracy.
But hey, wait a minute. Something smells a rat here. Regarding freedom of speech, isn’t Europe the continent where more than 10 countries have Genocide denial laws (mainly, but not only,  Holocaust denial laws)? And regarding democratic quality of religions… isn’t European Union the institution where Catholic fundamentalist governments (such as the outgoing Polish government leaded by Kazcinsky brothers, who executed an authentic crusade against sexual liberties) are respected and rarely criticised? Hasn’t it been actually Catholicism the  historically more warlike, imperialistic and proselytistic religion in the world? Let’s remember just the crusades and the European colonial adventure, which can’t be understood without the support and leadership of Christianity.

The Muhammand cartoons as well as the Fitna movie constitute a serious issue. Evidently, a different criterion is used in Europe for measuring the limits of freedom of speech. When it concerns Muslims, everyone forgets about them and focuses on how important freedom of expression is in a democratic system, which is not at all the case when it comes to issues related to other minorities such as Jews.

Definitely, this is another case of western hyprocisy. It’s not only that Islam and Muslim people and culture are humiliated and pictured as extremely violent and essentially anti-democratic. It’s much more than that. It’s western societies adopting a self-righteous attitude for judging Muslim societies and culture. It’s the West taking a post-colonialist point of view for looking downwards to societies that have historically been (and are still today) under the domination of European and North-American military, economic and political interventions. It’s Christian, wealthy, western (ethnocentric), white (racist), male (sexist), heterosexual (queerphobic) elites attempting to purge Europe from what they conceive as “dangers”. Dangers to what? To their modern illustrated task of ruling the world in all the fields: cultural, economic, military, political, religious, etc. Besides, they start from a conception of Europe that is everything but real: the so-called Old continent can’t be understood without the cultural, scientific and philosophic contribution of Muslims through history, and talking about Christian, white Europe is an outrageous attack to historical facts.  At the end of the day, the publication and defense of this video is but a justification of western tyranny.

Even if Fitna is an extremely good example of prejudice-based, hatred-inciting material, I’m not sure about whether it should be banned or not. Looking at some Western countries’ legislation (e.g. French laws), forbidding the publication of such a video wouldn’t be any eccentric idea. However, I believe limits  to freedom of speech should be subjected to deep, mature debates. This hasn’t taken place yet.

The State has the obligation to defend democracy, which includes, among others, freedom of speech (which can’t be limitless) and the protection of minorities (including Muslim minorities). Indeed, the limits of freedom of expression constitute a very complex debate, the importance of which should not be underestimated, especially today. Holocaust-denial laws and other legislative instruments that limit freedom of expression have often been approved by agitating fear and are possibly not the best model to follow. On the other hand, promoting civil society’s and medias’ role in creating public discourses that are respectful and constructive within a democratic framework could be an alternative.

So let’s allow Fitna to work for something constructive and responsible. Let’s realize, through this controversy, how western views of freedom of speech and democracy are often biased by xenophobia and racism. Let’s all say aloud that we need a real, mature debate on the limits to freedom of speech. Let’s avoid forthcoming Fitna.

→ 1 CommentCategories: cleavages · culture · ethics · eu · europe · islam · islamophobia · mainstream · media · nationalism · postcolonialism · public opinion

An exception to “jus soli” proposed for French Mayotte: is the Republic falling into racial bias?

February 22, 2008 · Leave a Comment

French Secretary of State for Overseas Collectivities, Christian Estrosi, has declared today to public TV channel France 2 that the French State could take an exceptional decision in order to prevent children born in Mayotte from non-legal immigrants from demnding French citizenship. Mayotte is a French overseas collectivity formed by a group of islands placed in the Comoro islands,at the north of the Mozambique Channel, in the Indian Ocean.

Mayotte location

The reason why these statements are relevant today, is that such a decision would go agains the French traditional principle of jus soli for the recognition of citizenship (the attribution of nationality to any person who is born within the State’s territory), in contrast with the jus sanguinis principle (its atribution on the basis of ancestors who are nationals of the State). This hypothetical suspension of jus solis in Mayotte would be justified on the difficulties for managing increasing illegal immigration flows into these French territories from other Comore islands. According to Estrosi, more than 30% of Mayotte’s population is in an irregular situation, and the tendency is but to continue.

However, the proposed policy is more than controversial, as it would build up a legal exception within a part of French territory and for a part of immigrants in France: the very republican principle of égalité would be then at risk. Some important NGO in France have already stated their indignation with the proposal of such a measure. SOS-Racisme has defined it as “intolerable” and has stated such a policy would mean a suspension of “the republican legality”. Jean-Pierre Dubois, president of the Ligue des Droits de l’Homme (Human Rights League), has declared in an interview to Le Nouvel Observateur that the foundation of a double criterion concerning jus soli on one hand in metropolitan France and on the other hand in overseas collectivities is the principle of a “colonial regime”, claiming attention to the persistent inequalities between French citizens that are born in France and those who are born in African colonies.

Indeed, this controversy is worth our attention because it places on the table the problems that colonial models give rise to concerning the management of difference and national identities. The case of France is paradigmatic: its Republican model of liberté, égalité, fratérnité contrasts with an enduring increase of discrimination in the legal, social, political, economical and cultural fields that French public powers and society do not want to see. The French State’s color blindness is supposed to prevent it to make the difference between a white-skinned and a black-skinned citizen, but it actually prevents French society to realize the Republic’s actions are racially biased.

It seems the credibility of the main French Republican dogmas is getting into a crisis.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: citizenship · civil society · france · governance · migrants · race

An “integration contract” proposed in Spain: difference management, discourse and elections

February 8, 2008 · 1 Comment

Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish People’s Party (Partido Popular, PP) candidate for Government Presidency in this country (where elections are to be held in one month), promised to implement an “integration contract” for every immigrant aiming to obtain a visa for a period over one year.

This proposal, he said, would oblige non-EU immigrants to get a job, learn Spanish, respect the law and “Spanish customs”, as well as going back to their origin country in case they lose their job and have no financial backing. On the other hand, the State would help them get trained, would respect all their customs that are not contrary to the law, and would recognise equal rights between them and Spanish citizens.

This proposal raises concerns about the legal duty to respect “Spanish customs” the right-wing candidate would apply to immigrants in case he wins upcoming elections in Spain (on March 9th). First of all because most of the terms of the contract he proposed are already included in current laws, i.e. duty to respect of the law and pay taxes, equal rights as Spanish citizens (except for electoral rights), public support in training and employment.

Apart from the compromise to get back to their countries in case immigrants do not get integrated, the only new item would be this “legally binding” obligation to respect “Spanish customs”, wich is quite hard to implement from a legal point of view and problematic if we analyse it with a political and ethical approach. When asked to specify those “Spanish customs” he talked about, Rajoy centred his speech on islamic women issues, such as the use of hiyab in schools, not really going into the issue and presenting cultural homogeneity as a non-problematic aim any ordered society should have. Talking about “Spanish customs” is, however, very problematic indeed: Spain is a country where national identity was pretty much built upon catholicism, cultural monism (excluding regional and national diversity), and colonialism.

On the European perspective, the proposal seems to be pretty much inspired by Sarkozy’s contrat d’intégration or other initiatives such as the British test of “Life in the UK“, both of them having received many critics. Spain seems to be in a moment where some political leaders (especially in the right) are demanding to configure a model based on the monist French example.

Even if Spain has recently become the country with the highest migration balance after the US, it was only thirty years ago a clearly emigration country, as lots of people went to France, Germany and Belgium for a job. However, this doesn’t seem to be very present in the collective memory of Spanish society, where media are continiously building a discourse of fear to (Southern) differences and postcolonialism, despite (or thanks to) daily images of immigrants trying to enter Europe through Spanish borders. People’s Party, which doesn’t seem in recent polls to be in a position for winning elections, intends now to make the most of this mainstream discourse by demanding acceptance of cultural monism not only to those within the country who don’t feel included in “the Spanish nation” (Catalunya and Basque Country are only the two most well-known cases), but also against new comers who, praying to the East or to the West, are, at the end of the day, very necessary for Spanish economy.

Agitating fear and prejudice seems, once again, electorally profitable.

→ 1 CommentCategories: elections · migrants · parties · polis · spain