EIIL, al-Qaïda… au-delà des justifications, des solutions !

EIIL, al-Qaïda… au-delà des justifications, des solutions !

Le développement d’un programme de coalition gouvernementale au niveau fédéral belge n’est jamais une partie de plaisir. Aujourd’hui pourtant, le travail devrait être plus facile : seuls des partis de droite siègent à la table des négociations. Au moins partagent-ils un référentiel idéologique commun, l’essentiel du débat entre eux étant plutôt le degré de libéralisation à appliquer à chaque question, ou encore jusqu’à quel point convient-il de privilégier le sécuritaire face au social.

A l’heure de la rentrée académique et politique, au moment où les négociations gouvernementales entrent véritablement dans le vif du sujet en matière de justice et d’intérieur, il n’est donc pas inutile de revenir sur certains événements qui ont agité l’opinion au cours de ce mois d’août, en particulier la question des exactions commises par l’Etat islamique en Irak et au Levant (EIIL) et ses corollaires : les exigences de justification de la part des musulmans de Belgique, le « boom » des jihadistes « maison », etc.

L’association « Empowering Belgium Muslims » (EmBeM asbl) est un collectif national rassemblant des citoyen-ne-s belges de confession et/ou de culture musulmane, de Bruxelles, Flandre et Wallonie. Tou-te-s sont des professionnel-le-s engagé-e-s : entrepreneurs, consultants, chercheurs, fonctionnaires, commerçants, artistes, cadres, des plus jeunes, diplômé-e-s ou non, jusqu’aux quadras. Toutes et tous se lèvent chaque matin en ayant pour ambition que notre pays, la Belgique, soit meilleure pour tous chaque jour que fait le Seigneur : qu’elle soit plus forte, plus inclusive, plus compétitive, plus résiliente, plus solidaire et moins inégalitaire.

Toutes et tous contribuent à faire croître la richesse nationale et à payer nos dettes collectives. Mais ils et elles ne s’arrêtent pas là : elles/ils sont aussi volontaires, engagé-e-s dans de multiples associations de terrain : qui, par une école de devoirs, permet à des jeunes de réussir leur scolarité, compensant les déficits de notre système éducatif ; qui, par une association de proximité, allège la souffrance et la misère de ses concitoyens en apportant nourriture et produits de première nécessité ; qui, par une association cultuelle, permet à de nombreux coreligionnaires de faire le pont entre leur spiritualité et leur vie quotidienne au service de tous.

Nous sommes plus d’une centaine déjà, et nous ne faisons que commencer. Les plus conscientisé-e-s et les plus mobilisé-e-s nous ont déjà rejoints. Au-delà de nos différences, nous partageons au moins une chose en commun : nous en avons assez que l’on nous demande de nous justifier, de condamner ceci ou cela, un tel ou une telle parce que musulman. L’EIIL, al-Qaida et tous leurs suppôts et leurs affidés ne nous représentent pas. Nous n’avons rien à voir avec ces gens qui prétendent parler et agir au nom d’une foi que nous partageons.

Mais nous ne sommes pas naïfs. Nous comprenons fort bien la logique de ce rappel à l’ordre constant : c’est un outil de domination. On nous rappelle que nous sommes une minorité, voire des mineur-e-s dont on pourrait disposer à l’envi pour bâtir carrière politique, médiatique ou encore pour faire adéquatement diversion quand sont mis en pièces, en catimini, nombre de conquêtes sociales qui permettaient aux plus fragiles de tenir jusqu’au lendemain, etc.

Nous avons, quant à nous, assez de savoir-vivre pour ne pas exiger de nos concitoyens de confession ou de culture (judéo-)chrétienne qu’ils condamnent tout acte de barbarie à l’encontre de nos coreligionnaires avant de traiter avec eux. Les musulmans belges n’ont pas exigé de Monseigneur Léonard qu’il condamne les actes d’anthropophagie à l’encontre des musulmans tels qu’il y en a eu, il y a quelques mois, en Centrafrique. Nous savons, nous, que la barbarie est universelle et qu’elle se parera de n’importe quelle référence idéologique, politique, scripturaire ou théologique pour justifier le pire. Ni que personne n’a le monopole dans la moralité en la matière. Les excuses pour la colonisation, les guerres de décolonisation, les mensonges ayant mené à la guerre en Irak et aux massacres de centaines de milliers de personnes innocentes pour rien se font toujours attendre. A ce petit jeu-là, personne ne sort gagnant, ni grandi. Certainement pas celles et ceux qui, aujourd’hui, se drapent dans de nobles idéaux pour cacher leur incapacité à élaborer de véritables solutions politiques à l’effondrement du Moyen-Orient tel que dessiné par les puissances européennes après 14-18 et ses terribles conséquences.

A EmBeM, notre projet est différent : nous partons des richesses de nos communautés. Nous avons des savoir-faire, des talents, de l’énergie, de la jeunesse et une envie folle d’améliorer notre situation à tou-te-s. Nous croyons en l’avenir. Nous recréons des liens sociaux, nous fournissons des formations aux acteurs associatifs, nous organisons des rencontres pour partager nos savoirs et faire en sorte que, dans le long terme, la situation de nos jeunes s’améliore sensiblement, et qu’ils sentent enfin, qu’ils sont bien des enfants de cette nation, comme tous les autres. C’est loin d’être le cas. Et nous n’avons que nos moyens et des journées de 24h.

Aujourd’hui, les négociateurs de la future coalition gouvernementale s’apprêtent à adopter des mesures pour traiter le problème de ces « jihadistes » qui cherchent à rejoindre l’EIIL.

Sans surprise, on aura droit à un train de mesures sécuritaires et répressives. Il en faut, sans aucun doute, car ces gens sont un danger pour tout le monde, en particulier pour les musulman-e-s comme nous, considéré-e-s comme traitres à la cause, car trop enclin-e-s au dialogue.

Mais le répressif, n’est qu’un aspect de la question. Notre analyse, malheureusement, c’est que nous sommes partis pour au moins une, voire deux, décennies de crise.

D’un côté, l’Europe s’effondre et l’austérité frappe de plein fouet les plus fragiles. Parmi eux, beaucoup de jeunes musulman-e-s, confrontés au même « no future » que toute notre jeunesse, avec le facteur aggravant que la discrimination à laquelle ils font face sur le marché du travail est 2 à 6 fois plus importante que celles de leurs copains blancs, non-musulmans. L’austérité provoque un raidissement identitaire au sein de la population majoritaire qui se traduit par une augmentation lente, mais continue, des violences physiques et verbales envers nos communautés. La haine anti-arabe et anti-musulmane sur les réseaux sociaux est en augmentation constante et s’exprime librement.

De l’autre côté, l’EIIL jouit d’un fort pouvoir d’attraction, sait communiquer et a beau jeu de se présenter comme la solution à tous les problèmes des musulmans, y compris en Europe. Il se pose en modèle de société messianique qui, une fois tous les ennemis vaincus, établira la vraie justice sur terre.

Une machine infernale a ainsi été mise en place. L’incapacité, ou l’absence de volonté de nos gouvernements successifs de travailler à l’inclusion de leur jeunesse de confession et/ou culture musulmane depuis plus de 30 ans, a créé un tel abysse de désespoir qu’il vaut mieux pour certain-e-s mourir au combat à la poursuite d’une chimère, que de mourir socialement, spirituellement, économiquement, à petit feu, au sein d’une Europe qui s’écroule sous les coups de boutoirs du capitalisme financiarisé et qui se refuse à les reconnaître comme ses enfants légitimes.

A EmBeM, nous sommes convaincus qu’il n’y a pas de fatalité à cela et que nous pouvons changer le cours des choses. Nous sommes des partenaires de cette bifurcation.

Nous avons élaboré un catalogue de recommandations politiques concrètes, du court terme au long terme. Nous sommes prêts à rencontrer les négociateurs pour leur faire part de nos solutions en vue d’éviter le pire et de remettre les choses en ordre de marche.

Nous sommes convaincus, que sans le minimum que nous présentons, pas de salut. Il faut de l’ambition et de l’énergie. Nous tendons la main, une fois de plus. Il y aura-t-il, chez nos dirigeants, quelqu’un pour la saisir et enclencher, enfin, un cercle vertueux de coopération ? Mesdames et Messieurs nos représentants, la balle est dans votre camp, car nous sommes loin « d’être sortis de l’auberge ».

Michael Privot

Vice-Président de EmBeM asbl

« Empowering Belgian Muslims »

EmBeM: Recommandations générales pour un plan stratégique national pour enrayer le "boom" jihadiste en Belgique

Recommandations générales pour un plan stratégique national pour enrayer le "boom" jihadiste en Belgique

A) Court terme :

1. Mettre sur pied une véritable politique de partenariat entre les forces de l’ordre et les institutions communautaires musulmanes (mosquées, associations cultuelles et culturelles diverses…) pour établir des systèmes locaux/fédéraux de pré-alerte en matière de radicalisation, sur le modèle du community policing développé aux USA et au RU.

Un partenariat implique des discussions équilibrées, de prendre en compte les recommandations et les conseils des responsables musulmans sur le terrain ; une radicalisation ne pourra leur échapper longtemps, mais il faut impérativement recréer de la confiance réciproque pour se donner des chances de succès. La cote de confiance envers les forces de l'ordre étant au plus bas au sein des communautés musulmanes, toute tentative de coopération fructueuse pour la protection de tous est rendue particulièrement difficile (voir recommandation suivante).

2. Mettre de l’ordre dans les forces de police ; les rendre responsables de leurs actes/actions sur le terrain.

Les communautés musulmanes en particulier, mais les autres minorités également, n’ont plus confiance dans les forces de l’ordre (abus de pouvoir, discrimination dans les interpellations, profilage ethnique). Cela passera par des mesures radicales : caméras sur les agents, dans les commissariats ; développement de récépissés d’interpellation et surtout : facilitation des processus de plainte contre les forces de l’ordre et condamnation sans appel des abus éventuels par les instances responsables. Une police en qui les citoyens en confiance est une police disciplinée (dans tous les sens du terme). Réciproquement, en cas d’abus de la part de citoyens, ceux-ci ne pourront plus jouer de l’ambiguïté actuelle et de l’absence de preuves.

3. Donner accès aux ressources financières publiques à toutes les associations, en particulier musulmanes, qui font de la première ligne (soutien psycho-social, soutien scolaire, lutte contre la violence intrafamiliale, contre les femmes) – sur base de dossiers, comme tout le monde.

La plupart des associations musulmanes (ou identifiées comme telles) font un travail formidable sur le terrain, quasi sans moyens, car ils leur sont systématiquement refusés par toutes les instances qui décident de l’allocation de subsides. Par crainte du prosélytisme soi-disant. Cela va des refus d’accorder des travailleurs sous article 60, à des refus de subventions… Toute mise en place de détection et de traitement précoces des problèmes est dès lors empêchée.

4. Engager une lutte sans merci contre les discriminations ethniques et religieuses dans l’emploi, dans l’éducation, en matière d'accès au logement, aux biens et aux services, en particulier contre l’islamophobie, et plus spécifiquement à l’encontre des femmes musulmanes, particulièrement visibles et identifiables quand elles portent des signes extérieurs d’appartenance religieuse. 

La discrimination sur base de l’appartenance philosophique, réelle ou supposée, visible ou pas, est strictement interdite en Belgique. 

Il est indispensable de mettre en place aujourd’hui des services efficaces de soutiens aux victimes, en vue de les aider à aller en justice ; de prendre des mesures dissuasives à l’encontre des employeurs voyous…

Cela implique un renforcement législatif des peines, le suivi de leur application ; un renforcement du centre pour l’égalité des chances, des associations antiracistes et communautaires ; soutien et aide aux victimes ; accès gratuit aux avocats pro deo, etc.

B) Moyen terme :

5. Réformer en profondeur le système judiciaire.

On constate trop de jugements et de peines discriminatoires à l’encontre de certains segments de notre population. Un Blanc, un Arabe, un Noir ne reçoivent pas toujours les mêmes peines pour les mêmes faits. 

Il faut impérativement former tous les juges, les greffes, les avocats… à l’anti-discrimination, ainsi qu’à la gestion de ses préjugés et de ses biais inconscients.

La radicalisation laïciste d’un nombre grandissant de juges devrait également être adressée par les plus hautes instances judiciaires, car il s’installe un biais évident à l’encontre d’une partie de notre population, entraînant un déni de justice évident.

6. Réformer en profondeur le système carcéral.

La philosophie initiale de nos prisons est de reconstruire des êtres humains : une fonction réparatrice. Aujourd’hui, on ne pratique plus qu’un enfermement sans vision, destructeur, ne créant aucune perspective de réinsertion par la suite. 

En outre, le traitement de certains détenus musulmans est affligeant – le cas de Nizar Trabelsi extradé récemment vers les USA, dans un déni total de l’Etat de droit, est hallucinant. La Belgique vient d’être condamnée par la CEDH – sans aucun impact.

7. Mettre sur pied de véritables formations universitaires d’imâms et de cadres religieux en Belgique pour développer une pastorale répondant aux besoins religieux et spirituels de nos populations musulmanes.

C) Long terme :

8. Mette en œuvre une véritable formation obligatoire à l’interculturalité pour tous les enfants dès le plus jeune âge. 

Il faut former à la diversité tout le corps enseignant, revoir entre autres les cours d’éducation à la Shoah pour les rendre vraiment pertinents pour toute la population d’aujourd’hui (le Musée de l'Holocauste à Los Angeles fait un travail brillant à ce propos).

9. Financer des programmes d’actions intercommunautaires concrètes. 

La connaissance de l’autre se forge dans le travail commun, non pas dans les discussions académiques. Tout projet financé sur des fonds publics devrait avoir une dimension anti-discrimination, interculturelle, promotion de la diversité, avec des indicateurs précis d’impact.

A new (progressive) narrative for Europe

Opinion publiée en juillet 2014 dans la revue "New European" de l'organisation UNITEE. J'y reviens encore sur l'importance d'un nouveau grand récit pour l'Europe, qui parte de la base et ne soit pas une construction intellectuelle fumeuse destinée à servir de cache-sexe à la misère néo-libérale de l'actuel consensus de Bruxelles.

A renewed narrative for the EU seems to have been the Grail of the outgoing European Commission. A couple of years ago, EC President Barroso tasked a group of high profile intellectuals and artists to lay the ground for a narrative that could breathe new life into the European project. Confined to a very philosophical, though interesting, exercise, there is little hope that this narrative will ever have any impact. 

The power of narratives lies in mobilising forces that all political leaders are desperately striving to harness. Narratives give a sense of purpose, of direction; they manage to get the best out of individuals, groups and communities because they offer a better horizon – that still remains achievable in a not-so-distant future.

Narratives are simple: they encapsulate in a few words a project for society and give confidence to those who adhere to it that it is worth committing to, joining forces and collectively overcoming obstacles. It is never a philosophical statement or a rational demonstration. It is about intuition and deep connection between all the partakers. Let me give a few examples of narratives in different contexts: the most recent one is the “Yes, we can!” motto initiated during Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign. Every single US citizen could, through these 3 words, reconnect with the egalitarian founding values of the United States of America. No explanation was needed: people could identify immediately with equality, the dream of a better society, the necessity to act together and the idea of unity it conveyed. It got Mr. Obama elected twice and still resonates deeply in the USA and around the globe as a banner for collective change.

In a totally different context, the Turkish AKP’s motto is also a narrative: “Do not stop moving on” (Durmak Yok, Yolla Devam). It paves the way towards ongoing societal transformation, translating the push and pull of History, the collective duty to embrace change – for the better. More than a decade after the launch of this narrative, it is still pushing AKP’s supporters to endorse the changes promoted by the government they elected as part of an ongoing drive towards a better society.

Finally, the French national motto is also a trans-historical narrative: “Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood” (Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité) has been able to mobilise the best energies and feelings across centuries, anchoring progressive societal change at the heart of a nation’s identity. Of course, narratives can be derailed over time. The French one also served to justify colonialism and other similar atrocities, but this will never delegitimise the values – one could say the Platonic ideas – that this combination of words encapsulates. To this day, millions of people are struggling daily to make them a concrete reality by challenging the structures of power and oppression, in France and around the world.

The European Network Against Racism (ENAR) has been an innovator in this area as early as 2008, when we identified the need for a new narrative for the European anti-racist movement, but also for the whole of Europe. As of 2009, we tried to figure out a mobilising narrative, starting from the grassroots. The challenge was to keep it understandable from East to West, from North to South, by the average wo/man on the street, a newly arrived migrant, a Roma nurse working in her settlement, a banker from the City, or the President of the Commission himself.

It took us three years to encapsulate our narrative for Europe as “Realising full equality, solidarity and well-being for All in Europe”. The power – tested ever since – of our progressive narrative is that it re-establishes a strong and direct connection between all residents of Europe and the aspirations that were at the heart of the European project, right after WWII. It is not about new wishy-washy “forms of imagination and thinking for Europe” as in Mr. Barroso’s project. It is about empowering people to regain agency on their lives and their collective destiny through the European project.

But agreeing upon a mobilising narrative is just the beginning of the journey. Once we know the horizon we want to reach, we have to design concrete plans and strategies to access it within a reasonable time frame, mapping opponents and allies along the way, taking stock of the resources available and constantly exploring possibilities for increased leverage. This part of the work is the most challenging: it is about devising all the concrete steps to make a dream come true at the level of a continent, whilst representing a crucial, but small, cluster of the population with little resources.

It took us another 2 years to sharpen our objectives and methodologies, though we know it is a never ending task. Along the way, we realised that our narrative could actually be shared by other progressive movements and even by the EU as a whole, reconnecting with the founding values and vision of the EU. This also enabled us to grasp the widening gap between the discourses of political leaders and the harsh realities lived on the ground by most Europeans, and in particular our communities. 

Indeed, over the last 35 years, before every European election or ratification of any new Treaty, citizens and residents alike were promised prosperity, growth, employment, increased security and improved access to all sorts of services. Yet, in parallel, they faced an increased liberalisation of European economies and a corollary dismantlement of public services, leading to structurally high levels of unemployment, lack of growth and growing insecurity. If European Union GDPs have been skyrocketing, prosperity has been the privilege of a bunch of happy few, the downside of it being that the level of inequalities in Europe is the same in 2014 as it was one century ago, just before the break out of WWI. 

Citizens are confronted with a generation-long dissonance between the EU’s promise and the increased difficulties and insecurity they face in their daily lives. The prospect of a better and more stable future for their children has definitely faded away. In this context, trying to rearticulate a new narrative for Europe around arts and culture, as per Mr. Barroso’s method, is doomed to fail because it consists in window dressing violent neo-liberal policies behind the smokescreen of a shared culture and values. Culture is of little help if you can’t foot your electricity and heating bills, if you have to choose between feeding your children or bringing them to the doctor if they’re ill, if you can’t rent a decent flat and if having a low-paid flexible job costs you more than what you earn from it. 

Rather than developing a real narrative for Europe that would gather people around a common project benefitting everybody in an increasingly multicultural society, and drawing the inevitable political and strategic conclusions of such a narrative (i.e. reinforcing public services, reducing the extension of the “free market”, levelling up social standards across the EU, redistributing wealth and growth, reinforcing the democracy of the European institutions…), Mr. Barroso is trying to promote a “narrative of diversion”, seeking to build consensus around values, rather than around a joint mobilisation in favour of a diverse and multicultural civilisational project. What more could we expect from someone representing institutions trapped in the ideology of the unrestricted “free market” economy as the only way to properly allocate resources in our societies?

Reflecting on a narrative for Europe also highlights some of the contradictions in the evolution of nation states in Europe since WWII. Indeed, guiding societies in a particular direction, around a collective vision, had been the role of States for the past couple of centuries. However, over the last six decades, States have become the arbitrators of conflicting interests, rather than the organisers of societies, good or bad, according to a set of higher interests, often the common good. Unfortunately, looking back at how we came to the current state of play, one cannot fail to notice that the arbitration has been largely unbalanced, favouring the richest cluster of society.

It is therefore no surprise that the EU is now expected to endorse a mobilising narrative as Member States have dropped this responsibility along the way. This is also reflected in national political debates where very few political parties dare to put forward an articulated vision of society in line with their respective ideologies. Indeed, this implies making clear-cut choices about who should be the beneficiaries: the 99 or the 1%?

In the current age of globalisation, does the EU have the legitimacy to put forward a narrative? Yes, definitely. Does it have the means to implement it? Yes, definitely too. But this requires a prior re-alignment between the narrative and the policies, and it needs to be about society as a whole, not only about culture, arts and values. These are crucial elements of any narrative, but they come in support of a socially progressive vision, not in spite of or instead of it. Finally, Member States also have to re-ignite the power of their own narratives to support the European one. At this stage, we need coherence, not confidence. Confidence will come along the way, when people will feel that their lives are improving. The more they will feel it, the more they will contribute, generating the virtuous circle we’re so much in need of. 

“Full equality, solidarity and Well-being for All”. What else?

Michael Privot,

ENAR Director

Disponible ici pp. 12-14.

What if...?

Opinion publiée sur la plateforme New Europe, le jour des élections européennes, le 25 mai 2014, où je tente d'explorer quelques futurs possibles de l'UE et la façon dont les gouvernants anticipent (ou pas!) une montée de la violence envers les minorités. Les questions resteront d'actualité pendant quelques temps encore.

Good governance is essentially about risk management, where all potential scenarios are mapped out and all options are taken into account, including total disaster. But what if it was about protecting ethnic minorities from a worst-case scenario?

ENAR – The European Network Against Racism, along with many other Human Rights organisations, has been drawing attention for many years to the dangers generated by the rise of far-right and xenophobic parties and affiliated groups in Europe. Dangers for the communities we support and defend: migrants as well as ethnic and religious minorities are among their primary targets – Roma in Slovakia, Czech Republic, Romania, but also UK and France; Black Europeans in Bulgaria, Poland; Jews in Hungary and Lithuania; Muslims in Germany, France… to name but a few.

Dangers for other minority communities such as LGBTQI, notably in Lithuania, but also for over half of our population: women. Beyond elusive discourses, many far-right parties support regressive measures with regard to women’s rights, such as bans on abortion, as is the case in France.

Dangers for the whole society: their toxic rhetoric has been adopted to various degrees by mainstream political parties, both on the right and left, trivializing their ideas and their approach, while the far-right has shamelessly plundered key leftist concepts. This has led to increasingly restrictive policies on migration, family reunification, citizenship acquisition; to delays in the implementation of anti-discrimination policies and rejection of any new legislation in the field; and to systemic resistance to even starting to make full equality a reality for communities facing discrimination such as the Roma.

Worryingly, far-right representation in the new European Parliament is set to increase. In particular if they become smart enough to go beyond their bigoted nationalism to constitute a political group that would be entitled to receive public money and to chair decision making committees. What if a far-right or neo-populist rightist advocate was to chair the civil liberties committee, in charge of all fundamental rights issues? Although s/he would probably face a majority opposition which would not let him/her go wild, this would considerably slow down any decision making process.

We are asking democratic political parties: what is your plan B if this scenario happens? We have many reasons to be concerned by the lack of reaction to far-right based toxic ideologies that we have noticed over the last 13 years. Can we still expect a European uproar similar to that which followed the election of Austrian far-right Jörg Haider in 2000 and led to the adoption of EU anti-discrimination legislation? The weak reactions to Jobbik’s recent strong performance in the national Hungarian elections are not particularly encouraging in this regard.

But much grimmer scenarios could be in store. Despite European institutions’ ecstatic state at the view of a few bleeps on the radar of growth, serious analysts that dare go beyond narrow ideological approaches keep ringing the alarm bells. The financial and economic crisis is not yet over – on the contrary, the worst might still lie ahead of us. What if there was an implosion of the Eurozone and a return to national currencies? What if there was massive social unrest due to the increasing impact of austerity measures over time – the break up point will be reached in Greece sooner or later? What if, following a Eurozone crash, there was a disorganised dismantlement of the EU under the pressure of Member States keen to quit the drowning boat – many Member States would have good reasons to do so, starting with Germany? In UK, the conversation has already started with Mr. Cameron’s promise to hold a referendum on the issue in 2015, should his party be re-elected. 

These scenarios are no longer mere fantasies. Anti-racists also have a tradition of looking into the past to draw lessons and inspirations for the future. Let’s be very blunt: European States have never been able to manage such a large scale crisis in the past. Last time something similar happened, millions of Jews, Roma, homosexuals and other so-called “Untermenschen” were massively exterminated. Scary perspective.

Lessons, indeed, have been drawn from this tragedy: a Human Rights framework, the European Union, social democracies. But this was a posteriori, when the damage had irreversibly been done. Twenty years ago, the genocide of Bosniacs barely triggered a consistent response from the EU. It happened not in an exotic place, but 2 hours flight away from Brussels, in what might turn out to become an EU Member State in a matter of years. 

What was the EU institutions’ response to the widespread racism faced by former Italian Minister Cécile Kyenge? It took months and 18 Ministers of the Interior to give birth to a shallow “European Pact against racism” without means nor teeth. Pure political and declaratory “blabla” without any intention of being implemented, the Pact will be buried under the dust of the European election campaign.

This leaves us little optimism on the protection that migrants and minority communities would receive from the EU and Member States in case of a system breakdown, a return to nation states and national currencies, in the midst of all the troubled political waters that this entails. Therefore, in this election period where minorities might hold the casting vote in many constituencies, we want to hear from EP candidates, but also their governments: How are you going to protect us in case things turn bad? We represent 12% of the people living in the EU, we are a key part of the social fabric and one of the driving forces of the European economy. We want to hear from you how you are going to protect us from sectarian, bigoted racist violence when everything breaks loose!

Disponible ici.

Breaking through the rising tide of conservatism in Europe

Opinion publiée le 5 mai 2014, sur la plateforme Euractiv, en collaboration avec ma collègue Evelyne Paradis, directrice de ILGA-Europe, dans le cadre des élections européennes du 25 mai 2014. Nous soulignons comment la vague conservatrice actuelle frappe tant les minorités ethniques & religieuses que les minorités en matière d'orientation sexuelle.

Looking at the state of public discourses and political debates in European countries today, there are indeed many reasons to be concerned with candidates feeding on fears and frustrations to win votes, write Evelyne Paradis and Michael Privot, whose organisations joined forces to push an all-out equality agenda through the EU election campaign.

Evelyne Paradis (ILGA-Europe) and Michael Privot (ENAR)

 Evelyne Paradis is Executive Director of the European LGBTI association (ILGA-Europe), and Michael Privot is Director of the European Network Against Racism (ENAR).

What does a migrant worker in Greece have in common with a gay man in Lithuania today? What does a woman wearing a veil in Belgium have in common with a woman advocating for reproductive rights in Spain? And what do these four people have in common? The answer is a lot.

For they all find themselves at the crossfire in political battles between politicians feeding on fears, frustrations and disillusionment in the population to win votes, and elected officials desperate to hold on to old simplistic ways as they grapple with the complexities of our modern democratic societies. This is why it is more important than ever for citizens to engage to make sure political leaders stand up for the fundamental principles of equality, freedom and dignity.

Looking at the state of public discourses and political debates in European countries today, there are indeed many reasons to be concerned. Human rights organisations like ours are seeing how the progress achieved by the anti-racist and LGBTI equality movements has been capped by a conservative tide in a very short time period.  And this is not limited to the traditional extreme-right corners, but widely shared throughout the political spectrum.

Over the past decade, a specific cultural racism made its way into societal debates under the guise of human rights, in particular a claim for unrestricted freedom of speech and gender equality, with the barely hidden subtitle “Islam”, implying that Muslims are against freedom of speech and gender equality. But this wild drive for unrestricted freedom of speech has extended much beyond the mere criticism of religion: anti-Roma speech and violence have been steadily on the rise. The same goes for Afrophobia, anti-Semitism and anti-migrant discourses, actions and sometimes policies. Obviously, a growing breach occurred in the post-WWII consensus that racist speech and violence have no place in truly democratic societies. 

When it comes to human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex people, it is easy to think that it is just a matter of time before all European countries fully recognise equality for LGBTI people across society. But the fierce opposition to the French marriage equality bill or the positive result of the Croatian referendum on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage in 2013 challenged this assumption that the road to LGBTI equality is a linear one. Especially as we witness the emergence of a constellation of groups who, under the guise of protecting values, family and traditions, directly oppose equality for LGBTI people and for women, and in essence, equality in its various forms. In short, all movements that have been crucial to the progress of equality in all walks of life, for all individuals in Europe, are facing a thickening wall of defiance and rejection, which is strong enough to consider our demands as “political correctness gone mad” and is not ashamed of promoting discrimination as making good business sense.

So is it possible that the presumed “progressiveness” of our Western societies infused by values of human rights and dignity for all is just a thin varnish? Have we been complacent in assuming that the tenants of democratic life are well enshrined in our societies? Or have we been too naïve in failing to recognise that those who have been holding power for so long feel threatened by our complex and heterogeneous European societies? The answer is not simple. But what is clear is that we are now paying for the failure of progressive decision makers, over the past decades, to articulate a vision of how we can live in dignity together in democratic and diverse societies. 

Overcoming 30 years of reluctance or resignation from progressives will not happen overnight. But we have to start from somewhere. At a time of growing social and political polarisation of European societies, it is more important than ever to place social justice, dignity and equality at the core of political debates and agenda.

This is why we, at ILGA-Europe and ENAR, are joining forces to push an all-out equality agenda through the EP election campaign. The main democratic European parties have endorsed our pledge to not use homophobic and xenophobic language during the campaign and many candidates are supporting our respective demands for stronger EU action on equality over the next five years. It is the politics of the small steps, with at its core direct engagement of people living in Europe and solidarity with each other. For we firmly believe that the tide will only be reversed by greater civic engagement, and by groups like ours uniting to stand up for an alternative vision of society, a vision of a Europe of justice, equality and dignity for all.

Read more about the campaigns at: www.ilga-europe.org  and www.enar-eu.org

Disponible ici.

The “equality economy”: tackling labour-market insecurity in Europe

Article publié le 1 mai 2014 sur OpenSecurity (sous OpenDemocracy) proposant une "économie de l'égalité" comme secteur de l'économie dans lequel il faudrait investir massivement pour créer une redéploiement durable de l'économie européenne, en créant du bien-être pour tous, des emplois stables et de haute qualité, tout en ayant un impact global. Ce secteur de l'économie pourrait être aussi important - voire plus - que l'économie verte telle que proposée actuellement par la Commission Européenne dans le cadre de la stratégie 2020.

While since “9/11” a militarised conception of security has dominated the world, the global economic crisis has seen insecurity in the labour market mushroom. Marking international workers' day, could Europe lead the way to a more secure “equality economy”?

'Work, wages and pensions, not profit and greed': a May Day march in Zurich. Flickr / Michal Jaskolski. Some rights reserved.

Equality and non-discrimination tend to be perceived as a pinnacle of civilisation—yet thus also as the utmost luxury which only well-off economies, which can over-fulfil the basic needs of their customer-citizens, could afford. No wonder the post-“9/11” security agenda and the unending crisis plaguing western economies have given a severe blow to all attempts to reduce inequalities in European societies: equality would be antipathetic to economic recovery, it is said. Nor does it come as a surprise that the decline of the equality agenda in Europe since 2001 has seen collateral damage in a massive dismantlement of social services and the welfare state.

Those who would soft-pedal on addressing inequality recurrently invoke two main arguments:

a) cost:

• Measuring (in)equality generates too much red tape for employers, diverting resources from investment in research and production while inflating costs, to the detriment of European companies’ competitiveness on global markets.

• Implementing equality measures—ensuring accessibility for disabled persons, for instance—itself imposes a heavy cost on companies, reducing their profit margins and so impeding their capacities for investment and resilience.

b) ideology:

• Equality and anti-discrimination contradict the ‘freedom’ of the enterprise, as executives would not be free to hire and do business with whomsoever they wish, as best fits their company profile. This would threaten to bring the economy to a standstill, as entrepreneurs and holders of capital left Europe for other regions.

• Inequality is not systemic but is anyway the result of the failure of individuals to be resilient, to succeed and to make their dreams come true in a Brave New World of opportunity for all. In this equality-blind, social Darwinist race, may the best white, middle-aged man win!

Although the supporters of such arguments are still very powerful and vocal—to the extent of blocking since 2008 any improvement to equality legislation at European and national levels—a few voices, within and without the business community, have been raising interesting alternative perspectives:

1)      Diversity (as a prelude to equality) is good for business: a diverse company is more resilient and amenable to change than a homogenous one. Studies from Europe, north America and Australia demonstrate that companies committed to diversity produce happier, more productive and more loyal workers. Diversity stimulates attraction and retention of staff. When employees feel they are working in a diverse and inclusive environment, their work attendance and innovativeness improve. Moreover, diversity enhances company reputation and customer satisfaction.

2)      Excluding able individuals signifies a huge loss of talent and skill when the economy needs to harness all potential creativity to get out of the rut. A2012 talent shortage survey found that around one in three employers around the world found it difficult to fill vacancies. Talent is all over the place yet is often wasted due to discrimination on grounds of ethnicity, migration background and nationality, and associated non-recognition of qualifications.

Despite these voices, major business federations and most companies persist in using the ‘red tape’ argument to press governments not to take any measure that might impede their capacity to discriminate, more or less smartly. Even in the very few discrimination cases that manage to make their way to the courtrooms, penalties remain ridiculously low, without any deterrent effect on (potential) perpetrators.

The implicit underpinning of this argument is that the engine of the neo-liberal system that has imposed itself over the last quarter of a century is precisely widespread discrimination and generalised inequality—inequalities of class and geographical location, of education and status, of gender and ethnicity, inequalities of power… Very recently, some entrepreneurs have been cynical enough not only to admit but proudly to claim that discrimination makes perfect business sense and should be acknowledged as such. From this perspective, removing or at least substantially reducing inequalities would bring this very profitable system (for a few) to collapse. Hence the all-out battle waged for the easement or repudiation of equality measures, including through the use of such biased arguments as ‘adversity makes people stronger’ to disqualify the majority who simply can’t bear the heavy burden placed on their shoulders.

Diversity clearly benefits companies in the long run: while difficult to measure, a few companies have demonstrated returns of up to hundreds of per cent on investment in diversity policies at the workplace, as in the famous Nextel case. Yet this argument fails to embrace the full potential of equality as a catalyst for employment and wealth at the core of the smart, inclusive and sustainable growth project envisaged in the Europe 2020 strategy.

Arguably, the “equality economy”—a sector focused on making equality of outcomes a reality for all members of society—has the potential to generate even more wealth and well-being than the green economy lauded from all sides, given the evidence of the huge damage inequality wreaks in terms of a range of social pathologies. While egalitarian measures increasing the well-being of the majority inevitably imply expenditures, these should be seen as investments rather than costs. They increase output and specialisation, develop at large scale new types of jobs and expertise, meet new needs for high-quality training and learning, level up work conditions and salary scales and, overall, they contribute to economic regeneration. In that regard, the experience of Nordic countries in recognising the added value of strong social policies as an intrinsic productive factor offers precious insight on how “big state” social models can generate high competitiveness and development profitable to the whole society.

This sector is already out there but at an embryonic stage, not properly articulated and under-explored. It will require strong political commitment to grow and produce added value. It will also require investments, public and private, in:

• Implementation and monitoring of equality legislation and standards from local to national level, in all organisations (public as well as private) employing more than 50 persons (to start with).

• Development, implementation and monitoring of “equality certificates” which would accredit not only equality processes within organisations but also their specific implementation of equality principles across the board.

• Development and implementation of university curricula, training and lifelong learning in equality legislation, monitoring, assessment and management, with a view to ensconcing highly-qualified cosmopolitan teams in tertiary-economy jobs which cannot then be delocalised in some remote place.

• Inclusion of equality management in all business schools and provision for awareness-raising further down the employment hierarchy.

• Extra-territorialisation of European equality legislation and standards to be complied with by all foreign companies exporting towards the EU or seeking to do business within it. Standards should be as legally binding and enforced as food and health-and-safety regulation to avoid distortion of competitiveness. This would create further job opportunities abroad for EU and non-EU citizens, while extending the benefits of an equality economy to non-EU countries, levelling up standards for all in the world.

Such measures—which should be partly subsidised by public money, at least to the level of the well-known major European projects in transport and communications infrastructures—would give a great push to the development of training and reinsertion centres, certification and auditing consultancies, research poles of excellence and so on. Indeed, the “equality economy” does not restrict itself to the employment arena but extends to all walks of life. It encompasses the reduction of social exclusion by providing adequate, tailored and relevant training, based on non-discriminatory and non-paternalistic approaches, to all those more or less remote from employment or socialisation.

It also encompasses the contribution to growth of organisations, public or private, delivering social services—not only in alleviating the devastating effects of neo-liberal policies on the most vulnerable groups and communities within our societies, as they are too often perceived, but as catalysts or even producers of equality for all, as active transformers of the fabric of our societies. Reinforcing their capacities will have a positive impact on the well-being of all and on atrophied redistribution systems.

Much more could fit under the label of “equality economy”: high-quality and high-value-added activities producing wealth, development and, more importantly, well-being in high-technology and human-rights-based post-industrial societies, as already to an extent in northern Europe. The awareness of decision-makers needs to be raised about the huge potential for growth of an under-valued and under-resourced economic sector, at a time where progressive ideas to step out of depression fail to be heard.

The European Commission and the European Council condone—or even encourage—cuts in social expenses and services, as well as in anti-discrimination and equality measures, even presenting them as preconditions of recovery. Yet they thus further squander the innumerable talents, resources and commitment that would give Europe the push forward it needs in this gloomy period. They should instead recognise and value the countless benefits and huge potential return on investment of the “equality economy”. Its roots have already been laid down and its flowers are ready to blossom.

Disponible ici.

Racism: troubling truths

Opinion publiée sur le site OpenSecurity (sous OpenDemocracy), le 22 mars 2014, dans le cadre de la journée internationale contre le racisme.

Fighting racism in Europe is not easy when Europe has two hands tied behind its back—debilitated by neo-liberal policies on the one hand and the securitisation of minorities on the other.

Fifty-four years ago, on March 21st, 69 black demonstrators were massacred in Sharpeville, South Africa. They were demonstrating for equality—they got bullets in return. The date has been declared International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in recognition of the harmful impact of racism, and the violence it legitimises, on those targeted on the basis of visible characteristics of difference. We know racism kills but how far is the insecurity of minorities taken on board?

Insecurity is multi-faceted. The quest for security, and against precariousness, can be conceived anthropologically: human survival has been a struggle to bring stability to existence. Human beings settled and started farming to escape the insecurity of hunter-gathering. They flocked into fortified cities to reduce the insecurity of nomadic or rural life. They invented laws to protect themselves from the insecurity generated by the whims of tyrants and other arbitrary power-holders. Some imagined gods and goddesses to reassure themselves about the Hereafter at least. This struggle against all forms of insecurity has of course increased in complexity, parallel to social development, but efforts at repelling insecurity have been an historical constant.

After World War II Europe was home to the last two major attempts to further public security: in Western Europe via welfare states linked to a degree of redistribution; in Eastern Europe, Russia included, through state appropriation of the means of production with significant redistribution. Both aimed to provide stability for the longer term, with linear career development, assured progress for dependants and general improvement of living conditions. Tremendous progress was made: universal access to health services, improved housing conditions, access to tertiary education for up to 35-40% of the population … Until the 70s, narratives on both sides of the Iron Curtain were highlighting the post-war leap forward by European societies.

Neo-liberal policies

By the early 80s, in Western Europe, neo-liberal policies had gained currency among decision-makers and were on their way to comprising a hegemonic narrative. Some social-democrat leaders, converging in social and economic policies with conservatives and liberals, shifted the terrain to cultural values to differentiate themselves. They thereby opened a broad avenue to far-right and other chauvinist movements, whose core focus is identity politics. (Their social and economic stands, beyond the nativism of “national preference” in employment, are deeply neo-liberal: less “state”, less solidarity and less redistribution but lots of high-octane exclusivist rhetoric.) Since this unfortunate shift in social-democrat politics, the far right and the populists have been on a rising curve and have made electoral gains.

Identity politics, which zoomed in on migration and, as a corollary, on the ethno-cultural and religious aspects of identities, meshed very well with neo-liberal ideology. Counter to the development of mankind over recent millennia, this actively promotes insecurity as a way of life. As a former chair of the French business association MEDEF put it, if life and love are precarious, why should it be otherwise in employment? She was echoing in euphemistic fashion the extreme Thatcherite assault in the UK on trade unions, which would knock down workers’ solidarity in preserving the social acquis for decades to follow.

After 30 years of such politics, with various levels of violence and ensuing popular demobilisation, the insecurity of most Europeans West and East after the fall of the Wall has soared to alarming levels which have severely affected public well-being. Yet the mainstream discourse on security does not address the primary economic, social and existential insecurity generated by neo-liberal policies: the dismantling of states’ obligations with regard to welfare and in sustaining demand, the weakening of workers’ status amid a race to the bottom within EU states and social dumping between them, extensive white collar fraud and tax evasion—estimated at two trillion euro a year in the EU—and so on. All this against the background noise of the incapacity of political decision-makers, faced with ‘the markets’, to bring any progressive paradigm to bear on the deteriorating reality Europeans experience. One in four is sunk in poverty, while the next quartile just breathes with its nose above the waterline, fingers crossed that nothing bad happens before the end of the month.

Unequal protection

The insecurity about which we are constantly informed is rather linked to living conditions in multi-ethnic, multi-cultural neighbourhoods (subtext: “there is a white flight from this area”, “these people don’t want to integrate and live in their ghettoes”), where there is petty street crime (read: by “Roma”, “Arabs”, “Pakistanis” …) and where religious practices are visible in the public space (“Muslims are testing the boundaries of the Republic”). Such narratives about insecurity, or more precisely the feeling of insecurity,[1] address only the purported threats posed by minorities to the well-being of the “historical” majority in any given place.

Among these communities, a feeling of being besieged, without access to protection from the authorities or redress in the face of violence, has been growing steadily over the past decade.

Thus “ghettoes” do not spring from a desire by members of minorities to find themselves together—sometimes at the expense of an increased social control which they had sought to leave behind—but are the result of the failure of the majority to ensure equal protection of minority individuals. When political discourses drive only towards heavier policing, control and securitisation of minorities (for the implicit protection of the majority), they do not in any way protect minorities from violence by members of the majority—one of whose most salient aspects is violence by unaccountable police forces.[2]

Absent from such discourses, including in the mainstream media, is any recognition of the need to protect ethnic-minority individuals from violence in majority neighbourhoods, as a key security concern endangering peaceful coexistence. Such violence is recorded as discrete “racist incidents”—as if the victim were merely unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time—rather than perceived as symptomatic of a lack of protection of minorities in the context of specific discriminatory patterns.

A similar logic is at work in “counter-terrorism”: the stress is on the insecurity supposedly generated by Muslim populations towards majorities and their institutions. Little is said and done to protect members of minorities from organised violence themselves. Thus in the National Socialist Underground case in Germany obsession with the securitisation of Muslim communities diverted resources within the police, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and the judiciary from monitoring and controlling extreme-right groups and the threat they represent to ethnic and religious minorities right across Europe—in particular Roma, Muslim and Jewish communities. Since “9/11” such groups have been implicitly considered a low-security threat for the white majority, while the risk they constitute to migrants and other minority members has been completely overlooked.

Among these communities, a feeling of being besieged, without access to protection from the authorities or redress in the face of violence, has been growing steadily over the past decade. In many Eastern countries, the frequent failure of the courts to take into account the racist motivation of crimes committed against Roma has reinforced this sense of insecurity and lack of support from the state—especially when the authorities have been keen to prosecute criminal acts or misdemeanours committed by Roma themselves.

Collective well-being

The “race” factor plays at more than one level in narratives of insecurity. It provides useful diversion from the purposefully organised insecurity deployed to put pressure on workforces and avoid claims for stronger redistribution. And it legitimises systematic discrimination in security policies targeting specific minority groups while failing to protect minorities from majority violence. Racism and related discrimination will only be dealt with consistently if they are inserted in the broader social and economic conversation, applying the right policy levers to decrease their impact.

The bulk of responsibility ultimately lies with the majority when it comes to bringing change which will protect minorities. Instead of blaming minorities for their lack of integration, legitimising increased securitisation, the EU and the member states should turn the tables, recognising—including in terms of cost-effectiveness—that it would be much better to protect equally members of minorities and majorities, to play down tensions in society and move towards inclusion of all. It is about equality, solidarity and, ultimately, our collective well-being.

---

[1] Some interesting studies have been conducted which put the “feeling of insecurity” into perspective, being much higher than the actual insecurity as revealed by police reports of the incidence of crime and studies of victimisation (see, for example, research by the King Baudouin Foundation in Belgium:http://www.kbs-frb.be/publication.aspx?id=294891&langtype=2060).

[2] See among others the Open Society report on ethnic profiling in Europe (www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/ethnic-profiling-european-union-pervasive-ineffective-and-discriminatory), the work of Stopwatch (www.stop-watch.org/) and the observatory of police violence in Belgium (www.obspol.be/).

Disponible ici.