We had an extremely eventful day, centered around the action projects that Humanity in Action fellows are expected to complete in teams. These projects are centered around one particular issue within a larger problem and serve as the culminating product of our time in Lyon. The many lectures, presentations, site visits, and conversations up to this point were intended to provide us with the framework, background, and current tools to approach our topics of interests.

The first part of our morning involved brainstorming the various problems and topics we are interested in creating an action project around. As expected, a myriad of diverse and complex subjects were brought up by the fellows; these topics included immigration and integration, LGBT rights, sex work, anti-Islam sentiments, and intercultural discourse in France. Our brainstorming process was facilitated by community organizer and former director of Humanity in Action, France,  Tara Dickman. In order to provide us with a better understanding of an action-oriented project, Tara presented her work as a community organizer around racial profiling and stop-and-frisk situations of Arab and Black youth in France. I must say Tara's work was extremely impressive and demonstrated the value of community organization and the power of collective action with good and strategic plans.

After a wonderful and filling lunch, we proceeded to discussed action projects within our respective groups. Afterwards, we held an open forum for each team to present their initial ideas and proposals with the larger group. Each team had their chance to discuss their ideas and received critical feedback and questions from Tara and the rest of the fellows. This process proved to be helpful in allowing us to posit our ideas and get multiple perspectives and guidance on how we can better refine our projects.

After Tara, we had a workshop on public speaking, led by the compelling and engaging Ladji Real. We started out with some stretches, as Ladji made the point that public speaking requires a huge amount of body consciousness. We moved out cheeks, jaws, necks, ankles, backs, and basically every other part of our bodies in order to loosen some tensions and prepare ourselves to participate in a public speaking workshop. We dived right in, as Ladji asked for a volunteer to introduce themselves in a speech to the group. No one volunteered.



So I was chosen to be first. It was an intense experiences as I was put on the spot to gather my thoughts, make them coherent, and speak to the entire group while standing in front of them, the audience in a semi-circle setting. After I received feedback of the positives and negatives, which were all extremely helpful, others in our group volunteered. Overall each person did wonderful in their own way and allowed for the group to receiver a series of wise advice on public speaking. Though the day was coming to an end and the group was feeling low energy, Ladji was a phenomenal facilitator and had everyone entertained as well as engaged. The workshop reinvigorated the group and gave us the last piece of excitement to end the day with a very thought-provoking film, "Des Francais sans Histoire," by Raphael Pillosio.

The film dealt with the Nomad population in France and their hardships with discrimination and prejudice during the WWII period. In general, it was a particularly challenging film to sit through, given the extremely violent and suppressive history of the Nomads in Europe. For some fellows, the film was an eye-opener, particularly French fellows just having learned some of the history of treatment that was directed at the Nomads in France at the time period. Moreover, the film was challenging on an intellectual level. Given France's stance on minority issues and the countries reluctance to acknowledge minority groups (in the context of race and ethnicity), I found it interesting and captivating that the nomadic people were given a categorization based on their ethnic and group identity. As I spend more time in France, I have come to realize that there are multiple levels of nuances and complexities around issues of diversity in this country. Each day, I am constantly being challenged and learning more about how societies can look when their governments and history revolve around certain historic events. 

Defender of Rights, Laicité and some personal thinking about feminism

June 11^th’s report:

Today, we learnt about:

-A French institution aimed at fighting discrimination, the defender of rights

-The difficult concept of Laicité

-Feminism in France

Valérie Fontaine, who is at the head of the HALDE chairman’s private office came to speak about the theme of discrimination in the French law and to present the role of the Defender of Rights. She explained the French paradox between the law that punishes racism and the fact that nobody dares to say the word “race” (whereas “racism” is based on the existence of “race”). Besides, it is difficult to find a good balance between racism and freedom of expression. French’s Press’ freedom of expression was limited by a law in 1972, whereas everybody else’s freedom of expression was limited in 1990 by the Gayssot law. Discrimination was also a big issue. Valérie Fontaine’s definition of discrimination was interesting: Treating person differently in a same situation on basis of a criteria prohibited by national or international law. It can be direct, deliberate, or indirect if it is apparently neutral but preventing a group to access a job actually. Discrimination can be constitutive of the infringement or aggravating it (this one being much more punished). The situation of accessing job for minorities may become worst as there is an increase of anti-Semitism, anti-Islam, and violence in the French society. What does the French law provide to help these victims? The HALDE was created in 2004 to advice victims of discrimination on their legal options or on how to collect evidences. It has been dissolved in 2011 and referred by the Defender of Rights which is a constitutional authority with important power aiming at protecting individual rights and promoting equality. It gives different solutions besides helping victims like the previous HALDE used to give: mediation, observations sent before the Court, recommendations to public or private individuals or organisations. 

Then we had a lecture about the principle of Laicité in France by Patrick Weil who is an historian and the founder of HIA France. He started by an interesting comparison between France and the US. Indeed, when in the US you do not brag much about being a non-believer. In France on the contrary you have to prove yourself to be a real believer. It is the result of a reaction against the Catholic Church which used to resist republicanism. Besides, the law of 1905 introducing Laicité is composed of 3 principles:

-Freedom of consciousness

-Seperation between Church and State

-Equality and respect of all religion

But nearly everyone can have his own interpretation of this law. Actually, the 1905’s law has been completed by other laws such as in 2004, when after a girl was expelled from school (because she was wearing an Islamic veil in 1999) every religious signs were forbidden in schools.

Mr Weil raised the point that different “public spaces” exist. Military rules and school rules are different and we mustn’t forget it.

This afternoon we first heard a debate broadcasted on the French TV on March 2013. It was a discussion on the theme “are women in danger in France?”. It was particularly shocked by a man telling “when we drink a glass of alcohol we are called an alcoholic” and I could imagine the end of the sentence like “when we give a slap to a woman we are called a violent man” as if it was an excessive way of thinking. I was also shocked by the way the Femen see feminism as being a violent fight against men to dominate them. How can we go forward by reproducing what women want to be free of (that is to say: domination)? To me, the right way to solve the debate is Mrs Soumahoro’s way of thinking: being a free woman does not necessarily mean showing her breasts in the street. Women will be free when they will be able to do anything they want without being limited by their condition of women. Women will be free when they are able to walk in the street without being insulted.

As a conclusion, let’s think about the opinion of Judith Lefebvre that I share: this fight is difficult enough without excluding some women that are considered to be submitted. First, wearing the headscarf is not necessarily a proof of submission to patriarchy, it is a personal choice referring to a faith. Then, as feminists, we are not allowed to reject any woman, particularly if she wants to join feminism.

The screening of “La Haine” in the evening was great, even if I am still wondering if Hubert dies at the end. 

David C. Unger, "Europe's Social Contract, Lying in Pieces," The New York Times (June 8, 2013)

Political Voice & Some Thoughts on Free Speech

Today, we heard from three different speakers on three very different subjects: first on the role of social integration and identity in rural France, then on discrimination in the French overseas territories, and finally on the nature of right wing extremist groups in the French political system. It seems to me that one theme that connects all of three of these topics is the theme of political voice; namely, who in French politics is and isn’t allowed or given the space to have a voice.

In the case of the first lecture, Pierre Cornu explained to us the difference between “subject class” and “object class” in the context of the French rural population, the former being a Marxist concept used to describe the working class, engaged in revolutionary struggle and with the ability to act upon or change history, and the latter being a sociological term for a class of people upon which history acts. The fact that French peasants have, for much of France’s history, been part of the “object class,” without political voice or agency—Marx’s “sack of potatoes”—has amplified, I think, the importance of communalism and independence amongst village communities that M. Cornu described this morning.

The second lecture, by Sophie Elizéon, dealt with the relationship between France and her overseas territories and the discrimination faced by residents of these territories. We heard about the terribly unjust policies set up in the 1960s involving the forced immigration of thousands of Reunion Islanders—particularly young children—to departments of France facing urban exodus and an aging population. Once again, one of the central issues in Mme. Elizéon’s talk was one of political voice. The Reunion Islanders who sent their children to France during the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s had very little agency in the process of immigration. Barriers to political involvement such as illiteracy prevented the Reunion Islanders of this era from having a voice in the policies of their territory, and such barriers still pose tremendous problems today.

Our third and final lecture of the day was, to me, the most interesting, because it dealt with an issue that has been on my mind since left-wing student Clement Meric was killed by right-wing extremists last Wednesday in Paris. Jean-Louis Touraine discussed the different right-wing associations and political groups that are currently active in France, which led us to have a very interesting discussion on the lines between free speech, hate speech, and violent action. This is a very challenging subject, especially in the face of such fresh tragedy, and it is one that I have been thinking about for the past year while writing my thesis for my History degree at Yale. My thesis (which is very long and a bit dry, so I won’t share the whole thing with you guys—though I’m happy to share it with anyone who thinks they’re REALLY interested) explored the evolution of free speech and the First Amendment of the Constitution in the United States. Specifically, I was looking at free speech as it related to legal definitions of obscenity during the 1950s and ’60s… Which is neither here nor there, in the context of our discussion this afternoon. I think, though, that it is still important to think about free speech and, more specifically, public morality in the context of these debates about censorship of hate speech and the dissolution of groups associated with hate speech and hateful ideas. While I think hate speech is despicable and agree that it can inspire individuals to commit hate crimes, I think that the preservation of free speech is extremely important in the context of a diverse democracy. In the United States, the First Amendment (which guarantees free speech) wasn’t very important in legal discourse until people began disagreeing on what was appropriate or inappropriate. In the context of obscenity, the Supreme Court of the United States didn’t even attempt to define the term “obscenity” (which had been in use in court cases since the 1830s, and had been used time and time again to justify censorship) until 1957. There hadn’t been a need to define obscenity until the mid-twentieth century, because the enfranchised population of the United States—mostly white, middle- and upper-class men—was pretty much in agreement over what kinds of speech were acceptable and what were not. After 1957, however, it became very apparent that “obscenity” had begun to mean different things to different people, and the Court could no longer justify censorship on the basis of obscenity because it was no longer clear what exactly obscenity was. One person’s obscene book was another’s literary masterpiece. To ban an obscene book is (in the legal history of the U.S.) fine, but to ban a literary masterpiece infringes upon free speech and is an act of tyranny.

Today, France and the United States are both diverse nations. Diversity of opinion means that not everybody is going to agree on what constitutes inappropriate speech; for example, someone who is racist, homophobic, or Islamaphobic is not going to take issue with statements that I would find incredibly bigoted and inappropriate. If I choose to censor their statements, who is to say that they will not, in turn, censor my statements with which they probably will disagree? In a democracy, it is not our responsibility to censor that which we disagree with, but rather it is our responsibility to point out, to engage in debate with, and to denounce those statements and speeches which we find bigoted and wrong. And hopefully, by engaging in this debate and loudly protesting whenever we hear or see something we thing is wrong, we’ll prevent hate from spreading and turning into action.

Those are my two cents on free speech! Have a great night, everyone!

Migration and intellectual approach of diversity…

France has always welcomed immigrant people – said Jacques Barrou- because she wanted to and because she has needed to. It is so impregnated with immigration that 30% to 40% of its current population has at least one grandparent who was an immigrant. But France has always had his own philosophy regarding immigration and citizenship: “L’assimilation”.

At the beginning, the foreign person who is neither born in France nor born with the French citizenship is an immigrant. It is a demographic concept. Then this person can be naturalized and stops being neither an immigrant nor a foreign person (juridical notion).  But the price to pay is to remain as neutral as possible in the public sphere and as French as possible in the way of thinking, behaving and speaking.

Indeed, this is how Kings of France managed to unite the country. With arms and repressions, they have succeeded in establishing an official and homogenous language, an official religion and common traditions. This is where the “assimilation” tradition used during the Algerian colonization, comes from. And even if secularism separated the Church and the State, even if we live in a liberal and democratic country, there is still something of this sterilized way of thinking in the concept of “Abstract Citizen” and “Laïcité”.

In 2008, after several  waves of immigration (Belgium and Netherlands, European countries, East Asia, South Africa, China, Maghreb), we can state that 44,9% of the immigrants in France come from Europe ( Spain Italy, Portugal, countries from the European union and other European countries); 29,7% come from Maghreb, from Turkey and 25,4% from other countries. But today a very precise part of the immigrants seems to raise issues, the Muslim ones. French authorities asses the Muslim population at between 2,1 and 5 million people in France. It’s the biggest Muslim community in Europe.  Even if they are all often considered as eternal foreigners, there are the French Muslims and the Immigrant Muslims. Among the French Muslims there even are up to 100 000 who converted. The huge discrepancy between the numbers raises a crucial issue: who is to be considered Muslim? What is the difference between a Muslim and a non-Muslim inhabitant of France? What is a Muslim?

Mohammed Ali Adraoui came to visit us at Sciences-po Lyon. He gave us an overview on the practices of Islam in France. Islam is part of the French history at least since the 18^th century and the colonization. Muslims gave their resources to France, their lives during the world wars, their sweat to reconstruct the country after the bombing and to build the Parisian metro for example, to say the least. France acknowledged the contribution Muslim people gave to France by building The Great Mosque of Paris for instance. But we still talk about them as strangers. French people keep seeing this religion they have been living with since the 18^th century as an UFO. So again, who are Muslim people?

You’re Muslim when you pronounce the Shahada (testimony of faith). There are five pillars in Islam. The Quran is the holy book and Allah means The Unique God, the one of all the believers. The last prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him), is the most important for Muslim people. Islam is a monotheist religion with no mediator between god and any believer. In a nutshell, Islam is universal but that doesn’t mean that the Muslim community is homogenous…

Mohammed Ali Adraoui suggests a classification of Muslim groups. There are the private faiths Muslims who most of the time don’t practice a lot and consider themselves as “believers”. Then traditional Muslims are often very keen on praying, fasting, dressing modestly, and practicing sexual abstinence. Militant Muslims are often very involved in politics, humanitarian organizations and claim rights, recognition and consideration for their contribution to the French society. Then, there are exclusive Muslims who consider themselves as Muslims only. They adopt a very purist way of life, following as much as possible Muhammad’s first followers (pbup) way of life. There also are extremist Muslims, but, sadly, I don’t have to explain who they are and what, if ever they are unbalanced, they can do.

I am not fully satisfied with this classification. Private faith Muslims can be militant too for example. And being exclusive is not necessarily closer to being extremist than being private faith Muslim. Indeed, Merah, the murderer of French soldier and Jewish kids, was not practicing at all. Regarding this issue I consider myself as private faith, traditional, militant Muslim. I don’t want my religion to be a public issue, that’s my privacy but, still, I fight against Islamophobia and for the image of Islam not to be tanned by medias and crazy people I’ve never seen or talked to. I also think my religious values can bring something valuable to my society: charities, the respect of the environment and no-interest mortgages for example. But that’s ME: being Muslim is not an identity.

Later in the day, at the “Centre Culturel de Vaulx en Velin” we played a game. We all had the same cards, the same goal, but each table had his own rules and nobody was aware of that. At the end of every round, the winner and the loser had to change tables and start over with another group. We were not able to speak. Imagine how messy things turned out to be! The reactions were a mix of anger, frustration, laughs, resignation or nonchalance. At the end of the game everybody realized that we had different rules and started analyzing their behavior. Some persons were ashamed, some other proud of themselves. Common rules are crucial! We have to be able to understand each other and to communicate. We may be different, think different, dress different, live different but  we can and have to abide by the same rules and live all together, happily.

Our trip to Vaulx en Velin was full of joy, awareness and music: it was awesome.

Inès.

The Politics of Memory, Slavery and Colonialism

This post should have been written on Tuesday, but a few unexpected events rendered it impossible. Hence, while the post is primarily on the twin issues of reparations and colonialism, it will borrow from other conversations that have informed our debates until now. To a considerable degree, I feel like we are making tremendous progress as the issues become clearer. I am therefore grateful for the courage and empathy that have been exuded in each and every single facet of these difficult conversations.

An honest inquiry into the tumultuous events that characterize our pasts is hardly an easy task.  In deed, Friedrich Hegel is perhaps right when he states that , "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history". It is for this reason that the greatest tragedy of history is in its tendency to repeat itself. As such, we are not prophets of doom and gloom when we warn that past mistakes are bound to repeat unless society buries the ghosts. Accordingly, the unbearable injustices committed during both slavery and colonialism serve as a powerful indictment on our current society of the need to vigilantly put into action the words, "Never Again!"

To be sure, we cannot be confident that these atrocities will never happen again unless society has the moral courage to examine them. The mass killings in Algeria are just but one bullet-point on a long list of colonial shame. There are credible examples that make us believe so. For instance, by the end of Second World War the whole world, shocked by the extent of Nazi barbarity, had been convinced (perhaps too soon) that genocide would be a historical term. Yet in 1994, the world witnessed mass killings of unbelievable proportion in Rwanda--where this author comes from. The sad reality is that France (a victim of Nazi invasion) was complicit in this horrible atrocity--although denialism continues to pervade much of the contemporary discussions on this matter.

Yet, the victims of atrocities have the right to be heard. Progressive communities have the duty to ensure that the memories of victims are not only protected but also respected. Otherwise, how would we, as society, learn from our past mistakes? If we are truly sorry then we have to be willing to let victims win the "battle of recognition." Otherwise, in my view, society will be left in a dangerous impasse that neither reckons with the past nor inspires a healthy future.

The issue of reparations, I believe, was fairly well articulated. As it seemed, the audience had less of a hard time understanding the rationale for reparation. The resistance remained on the particulars of how reparations would play out. in other words, as one person suggested,  what it would look like "from a practical point of view." Moreover, it is a fair comment to suggest that at times it feels as though the reparation debate is not hinged on reality. In deed, the following two questions might at first appear to be quite legitimate. in societies that still remain deeply racists, how can we even begin to talk of reparations? In societies where people are reluctant to recognize white privilege and where confronting the past remains a taboo, why should reparations be a priority? But, of course, reparations can be a method of confronting both white privilege and of dismantling racism. But at what cost? And wouldn't this create some backlash? But again do we expect such a process to be a "dinner party?" While this sort of change is, of course, nowhere close to a revolution; every social change is naturally bound to provoke a considerable degree of backlash. In fact, no one should expect the process of giving up privilege to go on so smoothly. On a practical perspective, I believe some of the suggestions by the speaker (such as the various ways of approaching reparation) would help minimize the backlash.

The events that unraveled in Algeria make it clear that the reparation of slaves would open a can of worms. Perhaps this is yet another reason behind the "backlash" premise. If we offer reparations to the descendants of African slaves, whose request will we honor next? Again, this is a fair comment and I would want more conversation on why (as I believe) that the fear that others will ask for reparations shouldn't obscure or limit the broader debate. It is possible for society to deal with the merits of each case independently. For instance, Britain is now seriously considering offering Kenya's freedom fighters (Mau Mau) compensation for the torture they endured during Kenya's war of independence. Now I believe they know this might start a "dangerous" precedence, but they are nonetheless willing to consider such issues on a case by case basis. Such is courage!

What happened in Algeria is beyond repugnant. This we learned from the history of a Veteran who fought along the French army in Algeria. The courage of this man is remarkable since he is willing to expose the skeletons in his dark closet . He recognizes this from a self-interested point of view: a search for personal salvation. Nonetheless, considering the lingering "Tyranny of Silence" there is a certain sense in which this man (despite his deeply troubling past) is a hero. I agree that the man was a victim on many levels as well. However, there are a number of questions that must be asked. Are we willing to do away with individual responsibility because people are victims? Is it a marker of privilege that one can commit such monstrous crimes and be able to enjoy impunity? How would the victims have felt about his presentation? I  mention these questions since the confession of the speaker fits the textbook descriptions of what entails war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, the answers, I agree, are not anywhere as easy as they might seem. As we very well know, there are many instances in history whereby justice has been sacrificed for some form of peace--if only temporal. To gain sustainable peace though we might need to consider that, "peace is not the absence of war but the presence of justice."

Next is the issue of contesting memories. How can these memories be unified in order to create one narrative that would be essential for promoting reconciliation? I honestly don't know whether this is possible. However, I think it is imperative for us to try to create some sort of minimal agreement on what happened. Here, historians are crucial. And why it is true that history is on the side of the strong, the mere fact that we are aware of these contestations means that no one has an exclusive monopoly on memory. We all remember differently hence the need to try to accommodate each other's narrative--as long as the such a process does not aim towards silencing or disparaging the voices of the "weaker" party.

To conclude, how societies deal with their pasts will continue to differ. This is due to the fact that all societies have differing contexts. However, it is quite clear that such conversations are not only necessary but key ingredients of nation building. I hope that both the United States and France will continue to find the moral courage of dealing with these gruesome pasts in a way that gives hope to the victims and their descendants. (Etienne)

Minorities, Algers, Theatre & Devendra Banhart

This wednesday's session began with an intervention of Pap Ndiaye, about what means the concept of minorities in France and elsewhere. He notably highlighted how a minority could be, in terms of population, superior to its oppressors, while being discriminated. That immediately made me think about the situation in Bahrein, where the royal family and government (the political power) are from the sunniite confession, while most of the bahrainis are chiite, and suffer from a lack of representation in the country.

He notably expressed as well how the black people in France can be discriminated, depending on their level of success or fame :  he underlined for instance that « Lilian Thuram, a french soccer superstar, suffered an identity's control in a train station by a policeman who didn't recognize him at first » and that « for a brief second, he was brought back to his black colour (normally cancelled by his fame), whicj is something experimented on a daily basis by french black people, or others discriminated minorities ».

This example reminded me a scene from « La Bataille d'Algers », the breathtaking movie we saw the day before realized by the Italian Gillo Pontecorvo. There's a moment when three women of the FLN try to reach the other side of the city to put bombs in several places of the European quarters of the city. But to succeed, they have to get through a security's control by the french policemen without being suspected. The three women opted to change the way they look to embrace the policemen's representations about how must look like a french woman : the dress, the hair, the accent, the body language. After the Thuram anecdot, I felt like it was the perfect mirror of these three women.

During the afternoon, we had the pleasure to work with Guila Clara Kessous, who showed us the necessity to deal the past through culture, with the example of theatre. She prepared several exercices of improvisation which were supposed to reveal us the deep link between the idea of Master & Slave, and how the power can be reversed with these two (with no slave, a master loses his power, which is not the the case in a contrary scenario, which means that the « real » power belongs to the slave). We also had the opportunity to study the existing differences between being a director and an actor, and what feelings could bring each of these roles (uneasiness, discomfort, power, control, manipulation). Again, the interaction and the collaboration were something we really have to work on during the exercizes. We ended with some groups trying to make a theatre scene with a few sentences such as « No », « Hi », « Don't You Dare ? » or « Stop », which revealed how each kind of speech could represent a symbol of authority, vulnerability or decision. And I almost forgot to mention that we had some good fun while working on our respectives body languages as well, and trying to analyze what means to shake hands in different kinds of situations (« who's the leader ? Who's dominated?). Same thing when we all tried to appropriate the movements of the fellows to our own way of expressing ourselves : meaningful and FUN !

Speaking of fun, to finish, you know that one of my post wouldn't be a real post without a Devendra Banhart mention. Totally random? Not completely : while dancing on this video, you can also try to analyze in this video who are the leaders, and who are the followers.

*Trying desperately to justify this, hope you'll buy this*

*With the video, this post might look as big as Kelsey & Faheem ones*

Matthieu Barbarin