"História dos três porquinhos considerada ‘demasiado ofensiva‘", para os muçulmanos in BBC News

A story based on the Three Little Pigs fairy tale has been turned down by a government agency's awards panel as the subject matter could offend Muslims.

The digital book, re-telling the classic story, was rejected by judges who warned that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

Becta, the government's educational technology agency, is a leading partner in the annual Bett Award for schools.

The judges also attacked Three Little Cowboy Builders for offending builders.

The book's creative director, Anne Curtis, said the idea that including pigs in a story could be interpreted as racism was "like a slap in the face".

'Cultural issues'

The CD-Rom digital version of the traditional story of the three little pigs, called Three Little Cowboy Builders, is aimed at primary school children.

But judges at this year's Bett Award said that they had "concerns about the Asian community and the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

The Three Little Cowboy Builders has already been a prize winner at the recent Education Resource Award - but its Newcastle-based publishers, Shoo-fly, were turned down by the Bett Award panel.

The feedback from the judges explaining why they had rejected the CD-Rom highlighted that they "could not recommend this product to the Muslim community".

They also warned that the story might "alienate parts of the workforce (building trade)".

The judges criticised the stereotyping in the story of the unfortunate pigs: "Is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and builders are like pigs?"

Animal Farm?

Ms Curtis said that rather than preventing the spread of racism, such an attitude was likely to inflame ill-feeling. As another example, she says would that mean that secondary schools could not teach Animal Farm because it features pigs?

Her company is committed to an ethical approach to business and its products promote a message of mutual respect, she says - and banning such traditional stories will "close minds rather than open them".

Becta, the government funded agency responsible for technology in schools and colleges, says that it is standing by the judges' verdict.

"Becta with its partners is responsible for the judging criteria against which the 70 independent judges, mostly practising teachers, comment. All the partners stick by the judging criteria," said a Becta spokesman.

The reason that this product was not shortlisted was because "it failed to reach the required standard across a number of criteria", said the spokesman.

Becta runs the awards with the Besa trade association and show organisers, Emap Education.

Merlin John, author of an educational technology website which highlighted the story, warns that such rulings can undermine the credibility of the awards.

"When benchmarks are undermined by pedestrian and pedantic tick lists, and by inflexible, unhelpful processes, it can tarnish the achievements of even the most worthy winners.

"It's time for a rethink, and for Becta to listen to the criticisms that have been ignored for a number of years," said Mr John.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7204635.stm
JPTF 2008/02/13

"17.000 mulheres vítimas de crimes de honra no Reino Unido" in The Independent, 10 de Fevereiro de 2008

"Secularismo à europeia" faz progressos nas universidades da Turquia

O Arcebispo pró-Sharia e a corrupção das democracias liberais e secularistas

As recentes declarações do Arcebispo de Cantuária, Rowan Williams – o principal dignitário religioso da Igreja Anglicana e um dos tradicionais pilares do estado britânico – a favor da introdução da Xária (Sharia) islâmica no Reino Unido (para já) em matéria de família, mostram uma personalidade que, ou por crise pessoal de fé na religião que representa, ou por ingenuidade política, ou ambas as coisas, não está à altura de liderar a Igreja Anglicana. Mas esse é um problema dos anglicanos e não é o lado mais preocupante da questão para a generalidade das sociedades democráticas e pluralistas. O que é mais preocupante para qualquer observador atento da sociedade britânica (como de outros países europeus e ocidentais), é que esta é apenas uma ponta visível de um processo que está a corroer, por dentro, os próprios fundamentos da democracia liberal secularista. Nesse processo, o Arcebispo de Cantuária está longe de ser um actor isolado e de ter emitido uma opinião marginal e sem apoios. Na génese da actual dinâmica de perversão da democracia liberal e secularista encontra-se uma ideologia – o multiculturalismo –, que, sob uma aparência de democraticidade, procura promover até à exaustão a diversidade, pondo lentamente em causa o próprio funcionamento das instituições e valores que suportam as sociedades abertas, democráticas e pluralistas. Os efeitos negativos da ideologia multiculturalista para as democracias pluralistas (note-se que o pluralismo não é sinónimo de multiculturalismo, o pluralismo é tolerante com a diferença mas não tem por objectivo promovê-la, ao contrário do multiculturalismo e do seu programa ideológico – este é um aspecto distintivo crucial), já foram amplamente dignosticados e denunciados por politólogos como Giovanni Sartori (Pluralismo, Multiculturalismo e Estrangeiros, 2000) em Itália e Brian Barry nos EUA (Cultura e Igualdade, 2001). Todavia, várias décadas de enraizamento desta ideologia, associadas a uma burocracia e a grupos e organismos que dizem representar comunidades e grupos minoritários, vivendo e florescendo à sombra do sistema, não são fáceis de reverter. No caso britânico, tal como acontece em outros países europeus e na União Europeia, uma elite sem rosto, sem legitimidade democrática – e, ao que tudo indica, também não reflectindo a opinião e vontade da maioria da população –, trabalha em múltiplos comités, grupos de trabalho, task-forces, organismos, etc., por trás dos bastidores, na operacionalização deste tipo de medidas de “democracia" étnico-religiosa. Quando as coisas aparecem para a opinião pública já são praticamente facto consumado, ou apresentadas como medidas inevitáveis, que é necessário tomar. Tudo indica que o terreno está agora a ser preparado desta forma para tentar abrir caminho a uma legitimação da Xária islâmica na Europa. No Canadá, em 2005, foi necessária a corajosa de acção de uma mulher, Homa Arjomand, uma iraniana fugida da revolução islâmica de 1979, que sabe muito bem o que é o carácter retrógrado e opressivo da Xária, sobretudo para as mulheres. Quanto às elites canadianas, refugiarem-se, ou ficaram bloqueadas, no relativismo fashion e falsamente tolerante da sua ideologia multiculturalista. A experiência do Canadá e agora as pressões visíveis no Reino Unido para o reconhecimento, pelo Estado, da Xária, mostram que estamos à beira de um perigoso retrocesso civilizacional que está a transformar as democracias liberais e seculares em “democracias" étnico-religiosas.
JPTF 2008/02/08

"Arcebispo de Cantuária pede que partes da Sharia sejam adoptadas no Reino Unido" in Telegraph, 8 de Fevereiro de 2008

The Archbishop of Canterbury has been widely criticised after he called for aspects of Islamic sharia law to be adopted in Britain.

Dr Rowan Williams said that it "seems inevitable" that elements of the Muslim law, such as divorce proceedings, would be incorporated into British legislation

The Archbishop's controversial stance has received widespread criticism from Christian and secular groups, the head of the equality watchdog, several high-profile Muslims and MPs from all parties.

Amid the storm of protest, Downing Street moved quickly to distance itself from the Archbishop's remarks, insisting that British law would and should remain based on British values.

A spokesman for Mr Brown said: "Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes.

"If there are specific instances like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's consistent with British law and British values, in a way to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the Government would look at.

"But the Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values."

Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, said Dr Williams was "wrong" to advocate the adoption of elements of sharia law.

"This isn't a path down which we should go. The system, the British legal system, should apply to everybody equally. You cannot run two systems of law along side each other. That in my view would be a recipe for chaos, social chaos," he said on BBC1's Question Time.

"British law has to be based on British values. If people choose to live in this country, they choose to abide by that law and that law alone. It has got to be fundamental and a cornerstone of our country and our democracy that everybody is equal before that one system of British law."

The storm of protest which started after the Archbishop's comments on the BBC's The World at One shows no signs of abating.

"The Archbishop's thinking here is muddled and unhelpful," said Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

"Raising this idea in this way will give fuel to anti-Muslim extremism and dismay everyone working towards a more integrated society."

Baroness Warsi, the shadow minister for community cohesion and social action, said: "The Archbishop's comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities.

"All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."

The storm of protest which started after the Archbishop's comments on the BBC's The World at One shows no signs of abating.

"The Archbishop's thinking here is muddled and unhelpful," said Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

"Raising this idea in this way will give fuel to anti-Muslim extremism and dismay everyone working towards a more integrated society."

Baroness Warsi, the shadow minister for community cohesion and social action, said: "The Archbishop's comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities.

"All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said: "I think there is one law in this country and it's the democratically determined law.

"That's the law that I will uphold and that's the law that is at the heart actually of the values that we share across all communities in this country."

Sharia is the body of Islamic law implemented in some Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Libya and Sudan. In some, it is associated with draconian punishments for crimes such as theft, adultery or blasphemy, such as amputation of limbs, death by stoning or use of the lash.

In Afganistan, a student who downloaded a report on women's rights from the internet is facing the death penalty.

Women's rights are curtailed in many countries. Some interpretations of the law mean women have to cover themselves from head to toe in burkhas when they go out.

The Archbishop provoked the row by saying Britain had to "face up to the fact" that some citizens did not relate to this country's legal system and argued that officially sanctioning sharia law would improve community relations.

He said there was an argument that aspects of sharia law, such as those involving divorce, financial transactions and the settling of disputes, could be accommodated with British legislation.

Speaking before a speech on the issue Dr Williams said: "Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states.

"But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to divorce courts as we understand them."

Khalid Mahmood, the Muslim Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, said: "This is very misguided. There is no half-way house with this.
"What part of sharia law does he want? The sort that is practised in Saudi Arabia, which they are struggling to get away from?

"Muslims do not need special treatment or to be specially singled out. This would not contribute to community cohesion."

Some senior Muslim clerics are pressing for the introduction of Islamic penal law with its often brutal punishments.

However, religious groups and secularists attacked the Archbishop, saying that his comments were "baffling and bewildering" and would undermine social cohesion. Stephen Green, the director of Christian Voice, said: "This is a Christian country with Christian laws. If Muslims want to live under sharia law then they are free to emigrate to a country where sharia law is already in operation."

But Dr Williams said the argument that "there's one law for everybody" was "a bit of a danger" and called for "a constructive accommodation" with aspects of Muslim law.

The Church of England was allowed to operate its own courts, as were Orthodox Jews, and the anti-abortion views of Roman Catholics and other Christians were taken account of within the law. "I do not think we should instantly spring to the conclusion that the whole of that world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights just because it doesn't immediately fit with how we understand it."

It was "not at all the case that we have absolute social exclusion. We do have a lot of social suspicion, a lot of distance and we just have to go on working at how that shared citizenship comes through".

The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said last month that non-Muslims faced a hostile reception in places dominated by the ideology of Islamic radicals. He has since faced death threats.

Dr Williams appeared to suggest that sharia law should be recognised as an officially sanctioned alternative to British law in areas such as marriage, divorce and inheritance.

Legal experts said that it was already possible for Muslim couples contemplating a divorce to seek mediation from an imam and, if both consent, his ruling on their settlement can have a binding effect.

But they said Dr Williams seemed to be proposing that the British courts may also recognise sharia law on divorce, in which the husband can end a marriage by saying to his wife three times "I divorce you". Such reforms could also legalise polygamy for Muslims in the country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/08/nrowan308.xml
JPTF 2008/02/7

Al-Andalus: ‘O mito do paraíso andalusiano‘ em questão

Chateaubriand e Washington Irving têm uma brilhante sucessora pós-moderna na professora de Literatura Espanhola e Portuguesa na Universidade de Yale, María Rosa Menocal. No seu livro Ornament of the World. How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance (Ornamento do Mundo. Como Muçulmanos, Judeus e Cristãos Criaram uma Cultura de Tolerância, 2002), dá-nos uma magistral "lição de História" sobre a convivencia, lado a lado, das três culturas (muçulmanos, cristãos e judeus) no Al-Andalus e as realizações culturais dos árabes-berberes da Península. Já tinha essa impressão do livro de Juan Vernet, Lo que Europa debe al Islam de España (1999), mas agora, com María Rosa Menocal, fiquei mesmo convencido. Na escola andavam-nos a enganar sobre o nosso passado! Nem o Renascimento teve origem nas cidades do Norte de Itália, nem a revolução científica teve as suas bases no Ocidente do século XVII, nem o Iluminismo foi inventado pelos arrogantes filósofos franceses no século XVIII, nem o diálogo inter-religioso das três religiões abraâmicas foi criado pelo Concílio Vaticano II, nem sequer o multiculturalismo e as políticas de identidade pós-modernas, derivadas do pensamento de Foucault, Derrida e outros, afinal têm nada de original. Já tudo isto existia, de alguma maneira, no Al-Andalus. Quando aos nativos da península, os cristãos hispano-visigóticos e outros indígenas, eram sem dúvida uns rústicos agressivos e pobres de espírito, que só podiam ter ficado gratos à mission civilisatrice e ao "Iluminismo" dos conquistadores árabes-berberes. Aqueles que sustentaram que "todas as culturas são boas", como os antropólogos culturais Frank Boas, Margareth Mead e Claude Lévy-Strauss andaram a fazer ao longo de décadas, estão errados. A investigação "estórica" de María Rosa Menocal mostra convincentemente como há culturas superiores (a árabe-muçulmana) e outras inferiores (a cristã-latina).

Estranhamente, há ainda alguns escritores e professores de Literatura que não aceitam esta narrativa científica e escrevem coisas absurdas como esta: "A existência de um reino muçulmano na Espanha medieval onde diferentes raças e religiões viviam harmoniosamente em tolerância multicultural, é um dos mitos hoje mais espalhados. Os professores ensinam-no nas universidades. Os jornalistas repetem-no. Os turistas que visitam o Alhambra aceitam-no [...] O problema com esta crença é que é historicamente infundada, um mito. As realizações culturais fascinantes da Espanha muçulmana não podem obscurecer o facto de que esta nunca foi um exemplo de convivencia pacífica." (p. 23). Assim começa irritantemente contra a corrente, o artigo de Darío Fernandéz-Morera, professor de Espanhol e Português e de Literatura Comparada da Northwest University dos EUA, publicado em finais de 2006 na Intercollegiate Review o artigo The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise (O Mito do Paraíso Andalusiano). Adivinha-se que o artigo não fará parte da bibliografia utilizada por escritores, poetas e comentadores políticos românticos e outros não tão românticos, que andam a transformar subtilmente estórias (contos, narrativas) em História. A sua leitura é também (des)aconselhada para os crentes no mito da convivencia e para todos que pretendem (re)construir o passado à luz da ideologia multicultural do presente. O seu efeito pode ser mais traumático do que dizer a uma criança que o Pai Natal nunca existiu.
JPTF 2008/02/01

Livros que não se encontram nas livrarias de Teerão

Como é sabido por toda a comunidade académico-científica, desde que o Presidente iraniano, Mamoud Ahmadinejad defendeu a sua tese na Universidade de Columbia, em 24 de Setembro de 2007, "não há homossexuais no Irão". Assim, os estudos queer não existem nas universidades iranianas, não por qualquer preconceito da sociedade e do regime dos ayatollahs contra os homossexuais e, muito menos, por sentimentos de homofobia contra o "outro", mas pelo motivo bem objectivo e científico de falta de objecto de estudo. Só por esta razão, e, que fique bem claro, não por motivos de censura ou de homofobia como acontece nas sociedades europeias e ocidentais, não existe nas livrarias de Teerão o livro do professor David M. Halperin, Saint=Foucault, Towards a Gay Hagiography (aliás, essa é também a razão que leva a que o GLQ: A Journal of Gay and Lesbian Studies, co-editado por Halperin, não esteja disponível na biblioteca da Universidade de Teerão). Para aqueles que contestam a tese de Ahmadinejad, brilhantemente defendida em Columbia contra um júri e um público conservador, convém lembrar que vários estudos empíricos comprovam que o último (e único) homossexual alguma vez visto no Irão foi um ocidental, o filósofo francês, Michel Foucault, nos idos tempos da revolução iraniana de 1978/79, um dos maiores gurus pós-modernos da emancipação e empoderamento dos oprimidos. Na sua faceta de jornalista de investigação, Foucault mostrou fascínio pelo Ayatollah Khomeini e pela sua forma inovadora de "espiritualidade política" introduzida na sociedade iraniana, bem documentada nas crónicas jornalísticas para os leitores do Corriere della Sera, Le Monde e Le Nouvel Observateur. O entusiasmo de Foucault pela governação empoderadora dos oprimidos do Ayatollah Khomeini, e pela sua forma pré-moderna de "disciplinar e punir", que incluía técnicas de enforcamento de homossexuais, é de facto contagiante como mostra o livro de Kevin Anderson e Janet Afary. Por tudo isto, é fácil perceber a enorme injustiça das críticas a Ahmadinejad.
JPTF 2008/01/26

Ministério da Cultura e Orientação Islâmica do Irão vai fechar a revista "Zanan" (mulheres) por criticar o regime

Já sabíamos que não há homossexuais no Irão, desde que Ahmadinejad foi à Universidade de Columbia, em Nova Iorque, em finais de 2007. Agora ficamos também a saber, pelo jornal espanhol "El Pais", que as críticas femininas ao governo dos ayatollahs não agradaram ao Ministério da Cultura e Orientação Islâmica, que resolveu encerrar a revista Zanan (mulheres). Isto porque a revista insistia em escrever sobre coisas que, obviamente, nunca existiram no Irão: maus tratos domésticos, comércio sexual, crimes de honra, tratamento discriminatório das mulheres, etc. Não se trata, pois, de censura, mas de repor a verdade e de assegurar que no Irão todos falam a uma só voz. Para além disso, devemos congratular-nos pelo zelo do Ministério da Cultura e Orientação Islâmica, que evita o triste espectáculo dado pelas democracias ocidentais, onde cada um diz e escreve o que lhe apetece. Note-se que os ayatollahs do Ministério da Cultura e Orientação Islâmica são também empenhados defensores dos Direitos Humanos: a eles se deve a criação de um dos termos mais populares actualmente em uso no Ocidente pelas organizações de defesa dos Direitos Humanos - a "islamofobia". Este foi originalmente criado durante a revolução iraniana de 1978-79, para denunciar as mulheres que recusavam o véu e estigmatizar as feministas ocidentais que as apoiavam, como a norte-americana Kate Millet, que acabou expulsa do Irão. Hoje, graças ao culto da diversidade celebrado pela ideologia oficial das sociedades ocidentais, o uso do véu, do hijab ou da burka é apenas um sinal de "vibrante diversidade" e de estilos de vida "alternativos". Mesmo sem termos um Ministério da Cultura e Orientação Islâmica entre nós, criticar o seu uso já não é muito conveniente, pois pode ser considerado uma manifestação de islamofobia. O conhecido guru da "emancipação" e do "empoderamento" dos oprimidos, Michel Foucault - um (in)confessado admirador do Ayatollah Khomeini -, tem também a sua quota de mérito neste processo emancipatório das mulheres. Khomeini está visivelmente satisfeito na sua tumba, pelo sucesso das suas ideias no Ocidente.
JPTF 2008/01/26

"Queremos oferecer a lei Xária (Sharia) à Grã-Bretanha" in Telegraph, 21 de Janeiro de 2008

Ibrahim Mogra, chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain's inter-faith committee, admits that to non-Muslims some laws may seem harsh on women. Those who are married to a man with a number of wives can be treated badly, for instance. But he insists that sharia is an equitable system.

"It may mean that a woman married under Islamic law has no legal rights, but the husband is required to pay for everything in marriage and in the case of a divorce all the woman's belongings are hers to keep."

In fact, Sheikh Mogra argues that sharia in Britain would give rights to women. "A Muslim man can take a second wife under sharia law and treat her as he wants, knowing that she has no legal rights in Britain. It means that she is regarded as no more than a mistress and he can walk out on her when he wants."

Critics warn, however, that in giving even parts of sharia law official status, Britain would be associating itself with a system that in many ways was intolerable according to Western values.

Professor John Marks, author of The West, Islam and Islamism, points out that apostates from Islam can suffer severe punishment, even honour killings.

"There are more violent cases that are being related to people who choose to convert from Islam," he says.

A survey by Policy Exchange found that 36 per cent of young British Muslims believed that a Muslim who converted to another religion should be "punished by death".

"This clearly goes against the laws of our country. If they come to live in this country they should live by our laws," says Prof Marks.

Haras Rafiq, the executive director of the Sufi Muslim Council, points out that Muslims are anyway divided on the correct interpretation of sharia law. He is particularly critical of those who support the strict penal law.

"Things like stoning are being used as a deterrent, but this is reinterpreting the Koran in a rigid and extreme way that misses the spirit of what is being said."

Perhaps the strongest argument in favour of some form of recognition of sharia in Britain is that it would help to regulate a system that operates beyond the law.

The Government has expressed concern about imams who may be using the Koran to justify fatwas that clash with British law.

Leaders of four major British Muslim groups published a government-backed report in 2006 that accepted that many imams were not qualified to give guidance to alienated young people.

They agreed to set up a watchdog aimed at tackling extremism and monitoring mosques, but Yunes Teinaz, a former adviser to the London Central Mosque, warns that one of the greatest problems is the imams who arrive in Britain unable to speak English, and with no regard for British law.

"The absence of anyone regulating the mosques and sharia courts means that they can act as a law unto themselves, issuing fatwas that breach people's human rights because they have no knowledge of the law," he says. "They can take people's money despite having no proper qualifications, but worse they can harm the communities that they are in."

Zareen Roohi Ahmed, the chief executive of the British Muslim Forum - one of the four groups on the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Body - concedes that sharia courts in Britain are still poorly organised.

"They need development - the government should be supporting them to deliver their service more effectively," she says.

"If sharia courts can be supported to be more professionally run and to have female involvement as well on the decision-making panels, then I think they can work quite effectively and meet the needs of Muslims."

She suggests that existing systems need to be supported and a wider range of scholars and academics involved to put more thought into making the rules and regulations applicable to today's society.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, points out that during British rule in India, Muslim personal law was allowed to operate and sees no reason why it wouldn't work now.

"Sharia encompasses all aspects of Muslim life including personal law," he says. "In tolerant, inclusive societies all faith groups enjoy some acceptance of their religious rules in matters of their personal life.

"I am sure some day our society here will also be more at ease with its Muslim community and see the benefit of allowing such rights to those who prefer this."

Back in the court in Leyton, the plight of Amnah is typical of the challenges facing Muslim women in Britain who are seeking to abide by the traditional Islamic teaching, but find themselves victims of the system as a result.

The husband she seeks to divorce is untraceable, but she married him in a purely Islamic ceremony so now she must fight to gain her freedom.

She met him on an Islamic matrimonial website, then discovered that he wasn't everything he had claimed to be.

"I found out he was stealing money from me," she says, adding that her husband had lied about having a job and a visa for the UK.

"So how come you married such a person who is not of your standard?" Dr Hasan asks quietly, leafing through the notes of her case.

"I made a mistake," Amnah says, simply. "Basically this man lied to me from the beginning until the end. Not only did he fool me, he fooled my family."

Despite Amnah's protestations and questioning, Dr Hasan goes on to explain that the methods and rules set out in the Koran are for very practical reasons.

A recently divorced wife must wait three months to remarry to give enough time for her ex-husband to know that she is not carrying his child. "This is for all," he says.

"There is no exception to this rule, in the sharia there is no exception, you have to accept it."

He takes down a copy of the Koran from a shelf and points to the chapter and verse that spells out the lengths of iddat - the waiting period - in detailed terms.

There are different lengths for widows, for wives whose husbands have authorised the divorce and for wives whose husbands have not. There is even a rule for pre-pubescent girls.

For Amnah, it is clear that the answer has thrown up further problems for her. "Another quick question," she says. "Because I'm going through a divorce now, is it right for me to have found someone or should I have waited?"

The man may not, Dr Hasan replies, clearly state his wish to marry her - he may subtly make his intentions known, as in "once you are free from marriage, remember me", but no, not propose. That is not allowed in the Koran.

Amnah thanks him with deference, and leaves. Coming through this religious court is the only way she will be truly at liberty to remarry but, for now, she must wait.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JVX5N1CMK4TCJQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2008/01/20/nsharia_120.xml&page=3
JPTF 2008/01/21

Holanda: "Receio de violência com a exibição de filme sobre o Islão" in Guardian, 20 de Janeiro de 2008

The Dutch government is bracing itself for violent protests following the scheduled broadcast this week of a provocative anti-Muslim film by a radical right-wing politician who has threatened to broadcast images of the Koran being torn up and otherwise desecrated.

Cabinet ministers and officials, fearing a repetition of the crisis sparked by the publication of cartoons of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper two years ago, have held a series of crisis meetings and ordered counter-terrorist services to draw up security plans. Dutch nationals overseas have been asked to register with their embassies and local mayors in the Netherlands have been put on standby.

Geert Wilders, one of nine members of the extremist VVD (Freedom) party in the 150-seat Dutch lower house, has promised that his film will be broadcast - on television or on the internet - whatever the pressure may be. It will, he claims, reveal the Koran as 'source of inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror'.

Dutch diplomats are already trying to pre-empt international reaction. 'It is difficult to anticipate the content of the film, but freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend,' said Maxime Verhagen, the Foreign Minister, who was in Madrid to attend the Alliance of Civilisations, an international forum aimed at reducing tensions between the Islamic world and the West. In Amsterdam, Rotterdam and other towns with large Muslim populations, imams say they have needed to 'calm down' growing anger in their communities.

Government officials hope that no mainstream media organisation will agree to show the film, although one publicly funded channel, Nova, initially agreed before pulling out. 'A broadcast on a public channel could imply that the government supported the project,' said an Interior Ministry spokesman.

Demonstrations are also expected from those opposed to Wilders beyond Holland's Muslim community - a number of left-wing activists have already been arrested - and from his supporters. Members of a group calling itself Stop Islamisation of Europe are planning to travel to Amsterdam. 'Geert Wilders is an elected politician who has made a film, and that he is under armed guard as a result is absolutely outrageous,' said Stephen Gash, a UK-based member, yesterday. 'It is all about free speech.'

In November 2004, anger and violence followed the stabbing and shooting by a Dutch teenager of Moroccan parentage of the controversial film-maker Theo Van Gogh, a distant relative of the artist.

The attacker said the killing was in response to a film about Islam and domestic violence that Van Gogh had made with the Somalian-born activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, then an MP, which showed images of naked veiled women with lines from the Koran projected over them.

From her self-imposed exile in Washington, Hirsi Ali last week criticised the new film as 'provocation' and called on the major Dutch political parties to restart a debate on immigration that has split Dutch society in recent years, rather than leave the field to extremists.

Wilders announced his plans last November, saying he was making a film to show the violent and fascist elements of the Muslim faith. The maverick politician's remarks about Islam have become increasingly radical. In February last year he said that if Muslims wanted to stay in the Netherlands, they should tear out half of the Koran and throw it away. In parliament he then called for the Koran and Hitler's Mein Kampf to be banned, a proposal that was rejected.

Job Cohen, the left-wing mayor of Amsterdam, echoed Hirsi Ali's words and called for a debate 'so that the moderates can make themselves heard'.

During a visit to the European Parliament in Strasbourg last week, Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun, the Grand Mufti of Syria, said that, were Wilders was seen to tear up or burn a Koran in his film, 'this will simply mean he is inciting wars and bloodshed ... It is the responsibility of the Dutch people to stop him.'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2243805,00.html
JPTF 2008/01/20

"Acesa controvérsia na Alemanha sobre a criminalidade dos imigrantes" in New York Times, 14 de Janeiro de 2008

A brutal war of words has broken out between the two major parties here over violence committed by youths with immigrant backgrounds, and neither side is backing down.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has found herself straddling the divide, caught between her contradictory roles as party leader during a heated regional election campaign and as the head of a delicate coalition government.

The controversy began suddenly in late December, when a 20-year-old Turk and a 17-year-old Greek were caught on videotape severely beating a 76-year-old retiree in the Munich subway. The pensioner’s skull was fractured in the attack, which shocked the nation. Far from a brief flare-up, the political battle over crime, punishment and ethnicity has only intensified since.

Germany has its difficulties with its immigrant residents, of which Turks are the largest group, but nothing like the kind of raw conflict seen in other European countries, particularly France. Germany’s Nazi past, and, as a result, the pains that mainstream politicians here usually take to avoid even the appearance of overt nationalist sentiment, have tended to keep a lid on the kind of debate pursued more openly by far-right parties elsewhere on the Continent.

Yet there are signs that could be changing. Roland Koch, a Christian Democrat and the premier in the state of Hesse, home to Frankfurt, seized on the Munich attack as an opportunity to push for tougher penalties for juvenile immigrants who commit crimes. Voters in Hesse and Lower Saxony go to the polls on Jan. 27 in closely watched races for their state parliaments, with Hamburg following in February.

At an election rally here on Sunday before thousands of supporters, Mr. Koch made the typical candidate’s speech, touching on roads and schools, chances missed by his Social Democratic predecessors and the successes of his own government. The loudest cheers came when he turned to his theme of law and order.

“Anyone who raises their fist in this country will experience the combined resistance of the entire civil society of this republic,” Mr. Koch said. His position struck a chord with Christian Democratic voters.

Herbert Thiel, 66, who had come from the Hessian town of Eschborn for the rally, said, “The others, their politics are all illusion and utopia, as if all people are the same.” He said that safety was the most important issue in the campaign. Privately, everyone discusses the problem, he said, but not talking about immigrant crime in public “is an unwritten rule.”

Mr. Thiel was far from alone in his thinking at the campaign stop in Wetzlar, where a majority of those who were asked said fighting crime was the top priority. The question for Mr. Koch on election day will be how important the undecided voters think the issue is. The Social Democrats are campaigning on instituting a national minimum wage, also a popular and highly emotional issue here.

At stake in the election is control of the three state governments, as well as their seats in the upper house of the federal Parliament. But beyond the short-term political tussle lies the question of long-term damage to the country’s halting attempts to integrate its newcomers, many of whom were born here but are still viewed as outside society’s mainstream.

Politically, the Christian Democrats have everything to lose, since they already control all three governments. Even if they manage to maintain control, simply losing seats would likely be interpreted as a sign of weakness, as the campaign for the next national elections in 2009 already looms large. Mrs. Merkel hopes to win a large enough share of votes to break up the marriage of convenience with the Social Democrats known as the “grand coalition.”

She struck a more measured tone when she spoke at the rally after Mr. Koch. “Violence in this country, whoever is responsible, is not acceptable,” Mrs. Merkel said. She asked for a discussion “in all calmness” with the Social Democrats.

When the debate first flared up, Mrs. Merkel seemed to steer clear of the controversy. Then a few days later she stepped up to support Mr. Koch. “It cannot be that a minority in this country creates fear in the majority,” she said, leaving wiggle room as to whether she was referring to immigrant youth specifically or to young people generally.

Mrs. Merkel pointed to the high share — 43 percent — of violent crimes committed by those under 21, and the fact that close to half of those were by what she called “foreign youths.”

Critics argue that the problem lies in disproportionately disadvantaged backgrounds, and that poor German youths are as likely to commit crimes as poor Turks or Russians. Statistics show that juvenile crime rates fell in 2007 from the prior year, but the debate has been more rhetorical than statistical.

Immigrant groups, Germany’s Jewish community and in particular the rival Social Democrats have called Mr. Koch a populist xenophobe and worse. Peter Struck, parliamentary floor leader for the Social Democrats, went so far as to accuse Mr. Koch of being “glad at heart” that the Munich subway attack had happened, a charge Mr. Koch denied.

Critics say the racial overtones cross the line. A campaign poster in Bavaria showed a still image from a surveillance video of the attack, in which the one attacker in the frame is a black silhouette. The victim’s image is cut out, making him a pure white shape. Where he slumps on the ground are written the words, “So that you are not the next.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/world/europe/14germany.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
JPTF 15/01/2008

"O multiculturalismo está a criar intolerância" in Telegraph, 7 de Janeiro de 2007

por Philip Johnston

It has taken a long time to happen, but at last an authoritative and senior establishment figure has pointed to the elephant in the room. Before the Bishop of Rochester's article yesterday in The Sunday Telegraph, the debate about immigration focused almost exclusively on who benefits financially. We have tiptoed around its effect on our society and culture. Even the somewhat belated recognition by ministers that newcomers should show a commitment to British values and demonstrate a knowledge of English tends to be couched in economic terms and ones favourable to the immigrants themselves - that they will get a job more easily and their lives will be enhanced if they are more integrated.

However, few politicians have been willing to do what Michael Nazir-Ali has done, which is to question the impact of a growing Muslim population upon the very fabric of the nation, turning it within half a century into a multi-faith and multicultural land. It is hardly surprising, perhaps, for a Christian prelate to lament the powerful appeal of another faith challenging where his own once reigned supreme. Furthermore, the recent immigration of more than half a million eastern Europeans has delighted Roman Catholic leaders whose churches were full to bursting over Christmas.

But they share an historic and religious heritage. The issue that Bishop Nazir-Ali raised has more to do with our failure to integrate Muslims because our political elites were in thrall to what he called "the novel philosophy of multiculturalism". One consequence was the ease with which extremists exploited an emphasis on separatism to recruit among the more impressionable young men in their communities.

Attempts have been made to impose an "Islamic" character in some cities by insisting on artificial amplification for the adhan, the call to prayer, and even to introduce some aspects of sharia to civil law. Sitting in the background, seemingly stalled for the time being, are plans to establish Europe's largest markaz - an Islamic prayer and meeting area able to accommodate at least 40,000 people - right beside the site for the 2012 London Olympics, where it would be a potent icon of how Britain has changed.

In truth, the bishop has simply articulated what many in the Government and in the race relations world have already come to realise (and which most of the rest of us understood years ago), and that is the baleful consequences of three decades of multiculturalism. Last year, even the Commission for Racial Equality, once a cheerleader for the concept, recanted with a report that depicted Britain as an unequal and segregated nation in danger of breaking up.

Like Bishop Nazir-Ali, it feared that extremism was being fostered by the retreat of different groups behind their ethnic walls. For many years, those who wanted Britain to be recognised as a multicultural society which needed to revise, or even jettison, five centuries of Protestant hegemony held centre stage. Anyone who questioned it had their reputations trashed. The multiculturalists even coined an insult - Islamophobia - to try to close down the debate. Some of them yesterday accused the bishop of "scaremongering".

But while multiculturalism began as a facet of Britain's characteristic toleration of other people's ways, religions, cuisines, languages and dress, it metamorphosed into a political creed that held that ethnic minority groups should be allowed to do what they like. It became a guiding principle of governance. When he became prime minister in 1997, Tony Blair urged the nation to embrace multiculturalism. Almost 10 years later, as he prepared to leave Downing Street, he was making speeches informing immigrants they had "a duty" to integrate with the mainstream of society. "Conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed," he said.

But the "hate-mongers" were already here; and if they weren't they found getting here easy enough. There was a ready-made audience for their anti-western rhetoric among some sections of the Muslim community who had become estranged from the rest of the country - not just from the white Christian majority but from everyone else. So estranged that some were, and still are, prepared to kill others and themselves. When Mohammed Siddique Khan, the leader of the July 7 suicide bombers, spoke in his "martyr video" of "the injustices perpetrated against my people" he did not mean the folk among whom he grew up in Yorkshire.

As Bishop Nazir-Ali recognises, the religious diversity that can - and should - be easily accommodated in a liberal, democratic and (still) overwhelmingly Christian country has taken on a more malign aspect which politicians are belatedly seeking to address. Ministers are even trying to enlist the help of Muslim women in countering the extremists by sending them on training courses to give them the skills and confidence to confront fanatics. This may be a laudable aim but simply is not going to happen in many Muslim communities.

Inevitably, Bishop Nazir-Ali's comments have proven controversial, not least his observation that some parts of the country are no-go areas for non-Muslims. But this segregation has been apparent for many years and was officially acknowledged as long ago as 2001 after riots in some northern towns. The inquiry into their cause was appalled to find British people living "parallel lives", with some young people from ethnic minorities able to go through life exclusively in the company of their own kind.

The diminution of this country's commitment to Anglicanism mourned by the bishop was taking place even without the arrival of another proselytising faith as potent as Islam. However, there is a wider issue that affects everyone: it has to do with the sort of country in which we all want to live. Religious intolerance breeds political intolerance; and we are seeing the great legacies of an enlightened Christian tradition - individual liberty and freedom under the law - squandered because of a need to face down extremists who deride such concepts and who should have been confronted a long time ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=C3LSQF2Y4RNOXQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2008/01/07/do0702.xml
JPTF 2008/01/07

"Multiculturalismo e segurança societal" in revista R:I nº 9

O multiculturalismo está cada vez mais no centro da agenda política nas sociedades abertas da Europa/Ocidente, devido à crescente heterogeneidade e diversidade cultural da população. No último ano, acontecimentos dramáticos e extremamente mediatizados como os atentados terroristas no metro de Londres, em 7 de Julho, e os distúrbios e turbulência social verificada em França, a partir de 27 de Outubro e prolongando-se pelo mês de Novembro, reforçaram esta tendência, pela associação, correcta ou incorrectamente efectuada, ao “multiculturalismo de emigração”. Neste contexto político, o objecto deste artigo é a análise das relações que se podem estabelecer entre o multiculturalismo e a segurança societal, quer ao nível da discussão teórico-académica (com particular incidência no campo da Filosofia Política), quer ao nível de algumas evidências empíricas que se podem observar em sociedades europeias (Reino Unido e França) e da América do Norte (Canadá), associadas sobretudo às comunidades muçulmanas que vivem nesses países. Em particular, procura-se avaliar em que medida o multiculturalismo comporta um risco de ruptura da coesão societal, por erosão das instituições, práticas e valores que suportam e estabilizam as sociedades abertas e pluralistas. Ver texto integral do artigo.

"A crescente divisão étnica da Grã-Bretanha" in BBC one, 7 de Maio de 2007

Panorama visits Blackburn in Lancashire to investigate how increased separation and segregation between Muslim Asians and whites is dividing communities. Blackburn presents a stark example of a difficult, national problem. For all the hopeful talk about "integration", "multiculturalism" and now "cohesion", the reality on the ground appears to be that Britain's Muslim Asian community and its white community have few points of contact, and that the white majority often feel they share little in common with the growing Muslim Asian minority. Of course there are hopeful exceptions, but Blackburn - where Muslim Asians on the last census made up 24% of the population and whose local council takes the issue very seriously - demonstrates clearly what the problem is. Anyone who goes to Blackburn's town centre, and takes a look around, will see that whites and Muslim Asians are sharing the shopping centre and that everyone is behaving perfectly courteously to each other. So what's the problem? Well, look a bit more carefully, and you'll see that they are both here doing their shopping - but they're not shopping together. They're nearly always shopping separately. And that's the typical pattern here.

Defined areas
There's very little casual, social association between whites and Muslim Asians. There's an obvious geographical separation. The risk is of separate communities, and of people breathing the same air but walking past each other. The areas originally settled in the 60s by immigrants from Pakistan and India are clearly defined. And in the other parts of town where the communities appear to be "mixed", there's little actual mixing. Ted Cantle reported to the Home Office on "parallel lives" after the riots in Burnley, Oldham, and Bradford in 2001 (there were none in Blackburn). He says of the town: "There is not just simply residential segregation, but there is separation in education, in social, cultural, faith, in virtually every aspect of their daily lives, employment too."

Complex factors
Blackburn's MP Jack Straw, a senior member of the government, puts it like this: "The risk is of separate communities, and of people breathing the same air but walking past each other." The problem that Panorama observes cannot be simply dismissed as "racism", although there will be racists, inevitably, on both sides. What differentiates the communities is not just skin colour but a more complex combination of race, religion, and language and culture, and these factors added together are a recipe for social separation. And the phenomenon of so-called "white flight" is one result.

'White flight'
Blackburn's original Pakistani and Indian immigrants came to the town seeking work in the 60s in what was then the booming cotton industry. Many of them spoke little English and they settled together in the town, buying the cheap terraced housing they could afford. So this then became an "Asian" area. And as their numbers have expanded they've become more prosperous and moved to other areas. But many whites have moved out in response. This is "white flight". As some Asians see the process, when they seek to integrate and live with whites the whites avoid them. Then, to add insult to injury, they complain that Asians don't integrate. An Asian talks about taking chocolates round to his white neighbours, who then avoid making eye contact with him. "I don't know," he says, "I find that a little odd." And Jack Straw says: "It's been striking in the last 10 months or so the number of Asian people who... have expressed resentment to me about how they feel they've been treated when they've moved into white schools, or moved into white areas."

Controversial issue
But as some whites see it, these new Asian neighbours bring too much change to the areas they move into. I fear that my children will end up living like apartheid in South Africa. Asian Blackburn resident. Local pubs close, different food is sold in the shops, and at school many of the pupils now come from homes where the language spoken may not be English. Meanwhile more and more young Muslim women, not just in Blackburn, are wearing the veil - an issue already controversial and made even more so when Mr Straw described it last year as "visible statement of separation and of difference". A white man, living in the same area, sums up the concerns many whites feel: "We're slowly getting swallowed up, and we're losing our identity. "We should work more together," he says, "and keep the place as it is - English."

'Small pockets'
And, as Ted Cantle makes clear, separation and segregation is not just a problem for places like Blackburn."It exists as a problem, to some degree or other, throughout the country, and it may be in small pockets and neighbourhoods within larger cities like London and Birmingham and therefore not quite so evident. "It might be whole boroughs or whole cities, but to some degree or another it exists. There is some degree of separation or segregation in most towns and cities." Panorama deals openly in this programme with a topic many in both communities have been too nervous to discuss, although it's a discussion which the local council in Blackburn has itself promoted with its "100 Voices" dialogues. The prospect, otherwise, is of even greater separation. A white Blackburnian says, regretfully: "You'll end up with Muslim Asian towns, you'll end up with white British towns." An Asian Blackburnian agrees: "I fear that my children will end up living like apartheid in South Africa."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/6631541.stm
JPTF 2007/07/12

"Uso da raça para colocação de alunos nas escolas limitado pelo Supremo Tribunal" in New York Times 28 de Junho de 2007

In a decision of sweeping importance to educators, parents and schoolchildren across the country, the Supreme Court today sharply limited the ability of school districts to manage the racial makeup of the student bodies in their schools.

The court voted, 5 to 4, to reject diversity plans from Seattle and Louisville, Ky., declaring that the districts had failed to meet “their heavy burden” of justifying “the extreme means they have chosen — discriminating among individual students based on race by relying upon racial classifications in making school assignments,” as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court.

Today’s decision, one of the most important in years on the issue of race and education, need not entirely eliminate race as a factor in assigning students to different schools, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in a separate opinion. But it will surely prompt many districts to review and perhaps revise programs they already have in place, or go back to the drawing boards in designing plans.

The opinion’s rationale relied in part on the historic 1954 decision in Brown vs. Board of Education that outlawed segregation in public schools — a factor that the dissenters on the court found to be a cruel irony, and which they objected to in emotional terms.

Chief Justice Roberts said the officials in Seattle and in Jefferson County, Ky., which includes Louisville, had failed to show that their plans considered race in the context of a larger educational concept, and therefore did not pass muster.

“In the present cases,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, recalling words from an earlier Supreme Court ruling, “race is not considered as part of a broader effort to achieve ‘exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.’ ”

“Even as to race,” he went on, “the plans here employ only a limited notion of diversity, viewing race exclusively in white/nonwhite terms in Seattle and black/other terms in Jefferson County.

“Classifying and assigning schoolchildren according to a binary conception of race is an extreme approach in light of this court’s precedents and the nation’s history of using race in public schools, and requires more than such an amorphous end to justify it.”

In the now familiar lineup, Justices Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. sided with the chief justice on most points.

Rather than working toward a level of diversity and its “purported benefits,” the chief justice wrote, the school had “worked backwards to achieve a particular type of racial balance.”

“This is a fatal flaw,” the ruling said. “When it comes to using race to assign children to schools, history will be heard.”

The four dissenters wrote, in effect, that the majority was standing history on its head. Justice Stephen G. Breyer said that today’s result “threatens to substitute for present calm a disruptive round of race-related litigation, and it undermines Brown’s promise of integrated primary and secondary education that local communities have sought to make a reality.”

“This cannot be justified in the name of the Equal Protection Clause,” Justice Breyer went on, alluding to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which bars states from denying people “the equal protection of the laws.”

Justice Breyer’s dissent was joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, the tribunal’s longest-serving member, who wrote a separate dissent that was remarkable for its feeling.

“While I join Justice Breyer’s eloquent and unanswerable dissent in its entirety, it is appropriate to add these words,” Justice Stevens wrote. “There is a cruel irony in the chief justice’s reliance on our decision in Brown vs. Board of Education.”

Today’s ruling breaks faith with the 1954 ruling, Justice Stevens asserted. “It is my firm conviction that no member of the court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision,” he wrote.

Justice Kennedy’s opinion concurring in part with Chief Justice Roberts, and with the overall judgment, agreed that the Seattle and Louisville plans went too far. However, in language that some people on the losing side found heartening, he said that race may still be a component of plans to achieve diversity in the schools.

“Diversity, depending on its meaning and definition, is a compelling educational goal a school district may pursue,” he wrote.

But Mark Rahdert, a Temple Law School professor and a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, said that today’s ruling means that “racial balance” will be “the new catchphrase conservatives will use to attempt to eradicate any form of affirmative action.”

As for Justice Kennedy’s “willingness to leave the door open to some forms of affirmative action,” it will be impossible as a practical matter, Mr. Rahdert said.

The decision today, in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, No. 05-908, and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, No. 05-915, runs to some 180 pages, including the dissents. It was eagerly awaited by the National School Boards Association and by the Council of the Great City Schools, representing 66 urban districts, which had filed briefs on behalf of Seattle and Louisville and had warned of disruption if the justices overturned lower court rulings upholding the diversity plans.

The Bush administration participated as a “friend of the court” on behalf of the plaintiffs who challenged the diversity plans.

One plaintiff was a white woman in Louisville whose son was denied a transfer to attend kindergarten in a school that needed more black pupils to keep its black population at the district’s required minimum of 15 percent.

The other plaintiffs were Seattle parents who opposed the district’s “tiebreaker” system, which applies only to the city’s 10 high schools and is aimed at keeping the nonwhite proportion of their student bodies within 15 percentage points of the district’s overall makeup, which is 60 percent nonwhite.

Harry Korrell, lead attorney for the plaintiff-parents in Seattle, said his clients were “very pleased” with today’s decision. “This case was about protecting all children — regardless of skin color — from race discrimination,” he said.

Unlike the Seattle district, the Jefferson County school system was once segregated by law. Its current diversity plan was adopted in 2000, after the district emerged from 25 years of federal court supervision.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/us/28cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
JPTF 28/06/2007

“Abrindo caminho para uma sociedade muçulmana paralela” na Alemanha in Spiegel online International, 29 de Março de 2007

A recent ruling in Germany by a judge who cited the Koran underscores the dilemma the country faces in reconciling Western values with a growing immigrant population. A disturbing number of rulings are helping to create a parallel Muslim world in Germany that is welcoming to Islamic fundamentalists.

She didn't know it, nor did she even expect it. She had good intentions. Perhaps it was a mistake. In fact, it was most certainly a mistake. The best thing to do would be to wipe the slate clean. Last week, in the middle of the storm, Christa Datz-Winter, a judge on Frankfurt's family court, was speechless. But Bernhard Olp, a spokesman for the city's municipal court, was quick to jump in. Olp reported that the judge had been under emotional stress stemming from a murder that had been committed in her office 10 years ago, and that she was now planning to take a break to recuperate. He also mentioned that she was "outraged" -- not about herself or her scandalous ruling, but over the reactions the case has triggered. The reactions were so fierce that one could have been forgiven for mistakenly thinking that Germany's Muslims had won the headscarf dispute and the controversy over the Mohammed cartoons in a single day and, in one fell swoop, had taken a substantial bite out of the legal foundations of Western civilization. The ensuing media furor came from both sides of the political spectrum. The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung ran a story on the case titled: "In the Name of the People: Beating Allowed," while the right-wing tabloid Bild called it "An Outrageous Case!" The same unanimity across party lines prevailed in the political realm. "Unbearable," was conservative Bavarian Interior Minister Günther Beckstein's ruling, while Lale Akgün, a member of parliament of Turkish origin and the Social Democratic Party's representative on Islamic issues, commented that the Frankfurt judge's ruling was "worse than some backyard decision by an Islamist imam." Even the deputy head of the Green Party's parliamentary group, Hans-Christian Ströbele, noted that a German judge is obligated to uphold German law. The original purpose of the case was not to carry the clash of cultures into the courtroom. Instead, the case brought before Frankfurt's family court was that of a 26-year-old German woman of Moroccan origin who was terrified of her violent Moroccan husband, a man who had continued to threaten her despite having been ordered to stay away by the authorities. He had beaten his wife and he had allegedly threatened to kill her. But German law requires a one-year separation before a divorce can be completed - and exceptions for an expedited process are only granted in extreme situations. When the woman's attorney, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk, filed a petition for an expedited divorce, Judge Christa Datz-Winter suddenly became inflexible. According to the judge, there was no evidence of "an unreasonable hardship" that would make it necessary to dissolve the marriage immediately. Instead, the judge argued, the woman should have "expected" that her husband, who had grown up in a country influenced by Islamic tradition, would exercise the "right to use corporal punishment" his religion grants him. The judge even went so far as to quote the Koran in the grounds for her decision. In Sura 4, verse 34, she wrote, the Koran contains "both the husband's right to use corporal punishment against a disobedient wife and the establishment of the husband's superiority over the wife." Put plainly, the judge argued that a woman who marries a Muslim should know what she's getting herself into. In Germany, no less. Leading German feminist Alice Schwarzer argued that this was tantamount to a "softening of our legal system" that is "by no means a coincidence." Germany's only minister of integration at the state level, Armin Laschet, a member of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) from the state of North Rhine Westphalia, sees the Frankfurt ruling as the "last link, for the time being, in a chain of horrific rulings handed down by German courts" - rulings in which, for example, so-called honor killings have been treated as manslaughter and not murder. This, says Berlin family attorney and prominent women's rights activist Seyran Ates, is part of the reason one should "be almost thankful that (judge Datz-Winter) made such a clear reference to the Koran. All she did was bring to the surface an undercurrent that already exists in our courts." Out of a sense of misguided tolerance, says Ates, judges treat the values of Muslim subcultures as a mitigating circumstance and, in doing so, are helping pave the way for a gradual encroachment of fundamentalist Islam in Germany's parallel Muslim world. It's an issue Ates often runs up against in her cases. "In Frankfurt," she says, "someone expressly openly for the first time what many are already thinking."
Ver artigo integral em http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,474629,00.html
JPTF 29/03/207

“61% dos espanhóis contra o véu islâmico nas escolas” in El Pais, 30 de Março de 2007

El 61% de los españoles está en contra de que las niñas musulmanas lleven velo en la escuela, mientras que la sociedad está prácticamente dividida entre los que apoyan (41%) y los que se oponen (39%) a que los musulmanes recen en la Mezquita de Córdoba, según el primer Barómetro del año del Real Instituto Elcano. La oposición al uso del velo en el colegio crece con la edad, pasando del 52% para los menores de 30 años al 70% de los mayores de 65. También con respecto al rezo islámico en la mezquita, la tercera edad es más contraria (55%) y desciende hasta el 27% entre los menores de 30. Por otra parte, un 46% apoya la exhibición de los crucifijos católicos en las escuelas, mientras que se muestra en contra un 29%. Preguntados por la posibilidad de que los niños españoles estudien el Corán como estudian la Biblia en clase de educación cívica, un 48% se manifiesta en contra, frente a un 31,5% a favor. En el plano político, los españoles ven con buenos ojos que los musulmanes residentes en España puedan votar en las elecciones. Un 67% está a favor, frente a un 25% en contra. Sin embargo, este porcentaje es menor que cuando al entrevistado se le pregunta por los extranjeros en general y sin distinguir religión. Entonces defiende el derecho a voto un 70,5 por ciento.
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/61/espanoles/velo/islamico/escuelas/elpepusoc/20070330elpepusoc_1/Tes
JPTF 30/03/2007

“Livro escolar belga insulta Atatürk, fundador da República da Turquia” (por figurar numa lista de homossexuais famosos) in Zaman, 28 de Março de 2007

Following the broadcast of videos with explicit content about Atatürk by a Greek youth on the famous Internet site youtube.com, Belgium has engaged in similar infamy by listing Atatürk among the important homosexual and bisexual personalities of history. A book by the minister of education of the province of Valon in Belgium and distributed to all schools in the province claims that Atatürk was one of history's important and famous homosexual or bisexual figures. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was included on a list of "Famous homosexuals and bisexuals in history" on the 105th page of the 144-page book titled, "Fight Against Homophobia." The small book, prepared at the instructions of Valon Education Minister Marie Arena and distributed to all students in primary and secondary education, emphasizes that homosexuality is not actually a negative thing and that there were many famous and important homosexual or bisexual people in history. Today’s Zaman’s efforts to reach Marie Arena proved fruitless. It is unknown what source this information was based on, though it will certainly spark harsh reactions in Turkey. A leading paper in Belgium, De Standaard, covered the issue and in a related report wrote that Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey, was included on the list and noted that it was yet unknown whether the Turkish Embassy in Belgium was aware of the incident. Belgium is one of the few countries in the world that grants its citizens the right to same-sex marriages and child adoption by homosexual couples. It is stated that the distribution of the book was aimed at “enlightening the future of the young generation in Belgium” and informing them correctly by giving information on the history of homosexuality and the general sociocultural perception in regard to homosexuality. The book also touches on the equality of women and discusses the viewpoints of other societies regarding homosexuality, with an aim to prevent the younger generation from harboring negative opinions on homosexuality. Among famous homosexuals in history, according to the book, are Alexander the Great, Leonardo da Vinci, and Goethe. Other interesting names on the list are some spiritual leaders of the Catholic world such as Pope Benoit IX and Pope Jules III. Turkey currently has some other problems with Belgium, such as allowing the escapte of Fehriye Erdal, the murderer of Özdemir Sabancı, brother of late famous businessman Sakıp Sabancı. Belgium is also a country where members of the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front (DHKP-C) freely walk the streets. Belgium is also trying to punish the denial of the so-called Armenian genocide. Meanwhile a Belgian court found a security company guilty of discrimination after it refused to employ Turkish national Murat Çalışkan on the basis of his being a foreigner. The court accused the company of “apparent racism” and ruled that it should pay compensation to Çalışkan. He said he would use the compensation money in the fight against racism and donate it to immigration centers.
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=106725
JPTF 2007/03/29

“Ele batia-lhe e ameaçava-a de morte. Mas como marido e mulher nasceram ambos em Marrocos, a juíza não viu caso para alarme” in Spiegel online

por Veit Medick e Anna Reimann

The case seems simply too strange to be true. A 26-year-old mother of two wanted to free herself from what had become a miserable and abusive marriage. The police had even been called to their apartment to separate the two - both of Moroccan origin - after her husband got violent in May 2006. The husband was forced to move out, but the terror continued: Even after they separated, the spurned husband threatened to kill his wife.
A quick divorce seemed to be the only solution - the 26-year-old was unwilling to wait the year between separation and divorce mandated by German law. She hoped that as soon as they were no longer married, her husband would leave her alone. Her lawyer, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk agreed and she filed for immediate divorce with a Frankfurt court last October. They both felt that the domestic violence and death threats easily fulfilled the "hardship" criteria necessary for such an accelerated split. In January, though, a letter arrived from the judge adjudicating the case. The judge rejected the application for a speedy divorce by referring to a passage in the Koran that some have controversially interpreted to mean that a husband can beat his wife. It's a supposed right which is the subject of intense debate among Muslim scholars and clerics alike."The exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria as defined by Paragraph 1565 (of German federal law)," the daily Frankfurter Rundschau quoted the judge's letter as saying. It must be taken into account, the judge argued, that both man and wife have Moroccan backgrounds.

"The husband can beat his wife"
"The right to castigate means for me: the husband can beat his wife," Becker-Rojczyk said, interpreting the judge's verdict. In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, Becker-Rojczyk said the judge indicated to her that it makes no sense to insist on an accelerated divorce. The judge's advice? Wait for the year-long waiting period to elapse. The fax from the Frankfurt court granting the conflict of interest claim. The lawyer and her client were shocked. Immediately, they filed a claim alleging that the judge should have recused herself due to a conflict of interest. They felt that, because of the point of view presented by the judge, she was unable to reach an objective verdict. In the reply sent to Becker-Rojczyk, the judge expressly referred to a Koran verse - or sura - which indicates that a man's honor is injured when his wife behaves in an unchaste manner. "Apparently the judge deems it unchaste when my client adapts a Western lifestyle," Becker-Rojczyk said. On Tuesday evening, Becker-Rojczyk expressed amazement that the judge was still on the bench, given that the controversial verdict was handed down weeks ago. Becker-Rojczyk had elected to go public with the case to attract attention to the judge's conduct. It seems to have worked. On Wednesday, after the Tuesday evening publication of the story on SPIEGEL ONLINE, the attorney received a fax from the Frankfurt court granting the conflict of interest claim and excusing the judge from the case. Still, it is unlikely that the case will be heard again before the mandated year of separation expires in May. But the judge who heard the case may have to face further consequences for her decision. On Wednesday, numerous politicians in Berlin voiced their horror at the verdict - and demanded disciplinary action against the judge.

Further investigation
"In my opinion, this is a case of extreme violation of the rule of law that can't be solved with a mere conflict of interest ruling," Social Democrat parliamentarian Dieter Wiefelspütz told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "There have to be further consequences. This is a case for judicial supervision - this case needs to be further investigated."The deputy floor leader for the Christian Democrats, Wolfgang Bosbach, agreed. "This is a sad example of how the conception of the law from another legal and cultural environment is taken as the basis for our own notion of law," he said on Wednesday. This isn't the first time that German courts have used cultural background to inform their verdicts. Christa Stolle of the women's rights organization Terre des Femmes said that in cases of marital violence, there have been a number of cases where the perpetrator's culture of origin has been considered as a mitigating circumstance - although such verdicts have become seldom in recent years. But there remains quite a bit of work to do. "In my work educating sexist and short-sighted Muslim men," asked Michaela Sulaika Kaiser of the Network for Muslim Women, "do I now have to convince German courts that women are also people on the same level with men and that they, like any other human, have the right to be protected from physical and psychological violence?"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,473017,00.html
JPTF 2007/02/22

Livro “Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada” de Neil Bissoondath, Toronto, Penguin Books, 2002

“Vendendo Ilusões” é um livro da autoria do escritor e ensaísta canadiano, Neil Bissoondath – nascido em Trinidad e Tobago e de ascendência indiana –, sobre o que esta chama mordazmente o “culto do multiculturalismo no Canadá”. Tendo sido publicado pela primeira vez em 1994, ano em que se tornou um best-seller nesse país, foi reeditado em 2002. Apesar do tempo decorrido, são várias as razões que recomendam a sua leitura, ou re-leitura, e tornam o livro muito actual. O autor mostra facetas sociais e políticas pouco conhecidas no exterior e questiona aquelas que habitualmente são vistas como as virtudes do modelo canadiano. Na sua óptica, o multiculturalismo falha significativamente em matéria de cidadania e de integração social e económica de populações culturalmente diversas. Bissoondath faz uma crítica mordaz à principal imagem de marca do multiculturalismo oficial – os festivais de cultura que cada comunidade organiza com o apoio das autoridades multiculturais –, qualificando-os como representações estereotipadas e caricaturais dessas mesmas culturas. Mas o assunto pode ter contornos bem mais sérios do que os festivais de cultura. Como este refere (pp. 112-113), quando, no início dos anos 90, a Jugoslávia “começou o seu deslize inexorável para o horror, uma notícia da CBC relatava que um número estimado de 250 descendentes de emigrantes croatas, jovens com corpo robusto e mente sã, deixaram o país para pegar em armas em defesa da Croácia. A notícia levantava de imediato uma questão: como é que estes jovens se definiam a si próprios? Como croatas ou croatas-canadianos? Como canadianos de descendência croata, ou croatas nascidos no Canadá? E seria interessante saber que país escolheriam se um dia fossem obrigados a isso: a terra dos seus pais, pela qual escolheram lutar, ou a terra do seu nascimento, da qual escolheram partir?”. Em seguida, acrescenta a seguinte reflexão: “Lealdades divididas revelam uma alma dividida e uma alma dividida um país dividido. Estes jovens canadianos de descendência croata não estão sozinhos na sua lealdade adulterada ao Canadá. Outros também acham impossível efectuar um comprometimento sincero para com a nova terra, os novos ideais, a nova maneira de olhar a vida”. Já depois da publicação da segunda edição do livro de Bissoondath, ocorreu um episódio que vem dar ainda mais consistência às críticas às políticas multiculturais. Esse episódio foi a tentativa de criação de tribunais que aplicassem a Xária (Sharia) – a lei islâmica –, para as questões de família entre muçulmanos, na área de Toronto, liderada pelas organizações islamistas, durante os anos de 2004 e 2005, que afirmavam representar cerca de 1 milhão de muçulmanos do Canadá. Essa tentativa evidenciou bem a fragilidade do multiculturalismo e mostrou a “janela de oportunidade” que estas políticas representam para os movimentos que têm por objectivo a re-islamização do social e do político. Ironicamente, foi a uma suposta beneficiária das políticas multiculturais, a muçulmana canadiana, Homa Arjoman (uma advogada de origem iraniana, feminista e activista dos direitos humanos), que se deveu, em grande parte, o fracasso dos Tribunais Xária que a classe política e intelectual canadiana se preparava para aceitar, em nome da “celebração da diversidade”. Como salientou Homa Arjomand, “em nome do ‘respeito pelo multiculturalismo‘ e das vergonhosas ideias do relativismo cultural que deixam as pessoas sujeitas ao arbítrio da sua própria cultura, os Estados deixaram as portas amplamente abertas para as religiões e aderentes de antigas tradições promoverem escolas religiosas e centros; para legalizar casamentos arranjados e forçados; para segregar rapazes a raparigas com idades muito novas na escola, nos autocarros escolares e nos recreios; para impedir as raparigas de obterem iguais oportunidades em todos os aspectos das suas vidas; ver mas ignorar os homicídios de honra e muitas outras práticas… Todas estas práticas desumanas acontecem também no Ocidente”. Por tudo isto, percebe-se bem a aversão de Neil Bissondath (e Homa Arjomand) às políticas do multiculturalismo, que criam “canadianos com hífen” e não apenas “canadianos”, tendo, demasiadas vezes, um efeito oposto ao proclamado oficialmente: afastam as minorais da cultura dominante levando-as ao gueto cultural, o que lhes diminui drasticamente as possibilidades de integração e de sucesso económico e social. Uma experiência para reflectir, sobretudo nas sociedades europeias onde estas realidades são novas.
JPTF 2007/02/08