|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2009 11:04:08 GMT
Close to 60 legislators signed a proposal Wednesday, June 17, calling for a parliamentary commission to look into the spread of the burka, a garment that they said amounted "to a breach of individual freedoms on our national territory." "Today, in many city neighborhoods, we see several Muslim women wearing the burka, which covers and fully envelops the body and the head, like a moving prison, or the nijab which allows only the eyes to be shown," said Communist MP Andre Gerin, a legislator and one of the leaders of the drive for the parliamentary commission. "We find it intolerable to see images of these imprisoned women when they come from Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. They are totally unacceptable on the territory of the French republic," Gerin wrote in a text outlining his proposal. He said a growing number of Muslim women in France, not only in big cities but also in rural areas, were wearing burkas. While no official figures for women wearing burkas were quoted, anecdotal evidence suggests there has been a rise. Gerin's proposal is backed by 58 MPs, many of whom are from President Nicolas Sarkozy's right-wing UMP party, and is expected to come up for a vote in the National Assembly. If the lower house agrees to set up the commission, it would draft a report to be released no later than Nov. 30, said Gerin. Contentious issue in French societyFrance is home to Europe's largest Muslim minority and is strongly attached to its secular values and to gender equality. Many French people see the burka as an infringement of women's rights which is increasingly being imposed on women by fundamentalists. The country has been divided by fierce debates about how best to reconcile those principles with religious freedom. France passed a law in 2004 forbidding students from wearing veils and other religious symbols in state schools as part of the government's drive to defend secularism. Critics say the law stigmatized Muslims at a time when the country should be fighting discrimination in the job and housing markets that has caused a rift between mainstream society youths from immigrant backgrounds. Last year, the top administrative court, the State Council, refused to grant French citizenship to a Moroccan woman on the grounds that her Muslim practices were incompatible with French laws on secularism and gender equality. The 32-year-old woman, who had been living in France since 2000, wore a burka. Calls for national debate"We have to be able to open a loyal and frank dialogue with all Muslims about the question of the place of Islam in this country ... taking into account the slide towards fundamentalism (of some Muslims)," said Gerin. A prominent women's rights group came out in favor of the proposal, saying the burka was "a symbol of women's oppression" and that there should be a national debate on whether it should be allowed in public places. "We shouldn't be afraid to talk about it," said Sihem Habchi, head of Ni Putes, Ni Soumises (Neither Whores or Submissive), a group created to help women living in France's rundown, largely Muslim suburbs. Paris Mosque rector Dalil Boubakeur also supported the proposal for a commission of deputies "on the condition that they listen to what the experts on Islam have to say" on the issue. "Islam in France should be an open, liberal, convivial Islam that allows people to live side by side," he told Le Parisien newspaper. Boubakeur, a former head of France's government-approved Muslim council, also said the increasing use of burkas in France was linked to "an excess, a radicalization" among some Muslims and that "some fundamentalist trends are gaining ground." AFP/Reuters
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jun 18, 2009 16:37:26 GMT
Have you seen many burkhas or niqabs (face veils) in Paris or elsewhere? I never noticed many, though it is true that these practices can grow. Oddly, there are very few French Muslims from countries where the burkha or the Saudi type of veiling is common; it is not a garment traditional either in the Maghreb or in West African countries. But imported and invented tradition can become a part of political-religious fundamentalist movements.
It is really a can of worms; I strongly support the secular French model, but at the same time am not a fan of state-imposed dress codes. However the burkha can actually be a security problem.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 18, 2009 16:53:07 GMT
Whereas I strongly applaud efforts by any government to exclude religion from government, I still find the ruling against wearing head scarves and other religious symbols in schools repressive and slightly indicative of persecution. There may be girls insisting on the hijab in order to make a statement -- just as other teens sport certain items of dress as part of their identity -- but how can you separate those girls from the ones who need the veil to feel modest? And little crosses or Stars of David on chains around the neck have been used forever. Again, they're either statements of individual religious belief or possibly a bit of sentimentality because they were gifts.
The burkha can hide identity, but so do masks. It depends on the context. Laughing people in masks at a street fair indicate one thing, ski masks on armed people bursting into a bank mean another. I assume airports have female security personnel to deal with burkha-clad passengers.
|
|
|
Post by imec on Jun 18, 2009 16:59:15 GMT
but at the same time am not a fan of state-imposed dress codes. Me neither. But nor am I in favor of dress codes imposed by religions, fundamentalist sects or the out of control male chauvinists who lead and follow them. Brainwashed and oppressed Muslim women will say "this is my choice" - I don't buy it. They typically have no choice - and in more matters than just dress code. In this case a ban may be the best option.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 18, 2009 17:08:38 GMT
I agree that the women may have no choice. But the govt dictating what they can't wear is also no choice. As these women are living in a modern country, they will gradually wish to partake of the democratic idea that they are in control of their own destinies. Certainly their children will have every opportunity to subscribe to such ideals.
As far as choice -- in the seventies, when Roman Catholic nuns were given the option to assume a more secular version of their habits, many of the older nuns understandably felt more comfortable in the traditional all-encompassing garb. I imagine many Muslim women feel the same.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jun 18, 2009 17:25:08 GMT
What are the laws in Mexico, bixa? I know that (unlike some other Latin American countries) the Muslim population is not very large; but what does the secular school system say about crosses and such?
The problem in France is not merely enforcement by fathers and husbands but also some youths on housing estates (cités) mistreating young women who are dressed in what they see as a "provocative" matter.
|
|
|
Post by imec on Jun 18, 2009 17:38:08 GMT
But the govt dictating what they can't wear is also no choice. In my view it's a better choice than their husband/father dictating what they MUST wear. As these women are living in a modern country, they will gradually wish to partake of the democratic idea that they are in control of their own destinies. Wish, being the operative word here. Actually partaking will be difficult if not impossible for many. Certainly their children will have every opportunity to subscribe to such ideals. Legally perhaps. Practically, for many of them - not a chance. First of all the brainwashing starts at birth - they don't stand a chance. Second, even if they recognize the assault to their human rights and choose an alternate lifestyle, they risk shunning by their family or even violent retribution. (plenty of documented cases of this) The suggestion in the article that the burka is a sort of prison is bang on. A ban may prevent people from "choosing" to live in a prison but that's a small price to pay for preventing the legal imprisonment of the unwilling or just plain ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2009 17:56:59 GMT
There has indeed been an upswing in the last year or so in the number of veiled women. These are almost exclusively young women, since older Muslim women in France are proudly bare headed and they are mortified by what their daughters and granddaughters are doing.
There are multiple reasons for this new fad.
1. The fear and hatred of Muslims that a lot of the political climate since 2001 has fostered among the Occidental population has indeed pushed quite a few people into the arms of the fundamentalists; if not the women themselves then the men who control them.
2. There is a factor of teenage rebellion. A lot of these girls get all veiled up just to piss off their parents, but if it gets too hot or if they want to go to the beach or show off their flashy new outfit to the boys, the veils and robes disappear. These girls lead sort of a double life, because they will go after the ethnic French boys on the other side of town where they are pretty sure that nobody who knows them will see them.
3. Teenage Arab boys absolutely love the master and servant aspect of all of this. "Women must obey" -- men don't have to be Muslim to be attracted to this sick attitude, as we all know. So they bully the girls into wearing veils and call them whores and sluts if they don't. Just to be left alone, a lot of the girls have chosen to become invisible so that they won't be harrassed. If they take a trip elsewhere, the veils and formless clothes immediately are changed into what they really want to wear.
If any of you get a chance to see "La Journée de la Jupe" starring Isabelle Adjani, I consider this movie to be absolutely indispensable in understanding the situation. Adjani plays a repressed high school teacher who goes psycho one day and takes her class hostage. One of her demands with the police and the media is the creation of a journée de la jupe (skirt day) where all of the girls will wear a skirt or dress. It is an extremely intense movie and makes the 'other' French school movie The Class look like 'The Care Bears Have a Picnic with the Bunnies.' It was a made-for-TV movie but impressed everyone so much that it was released in movie theatres after being shown on television.
And for those who might not know, Isabelle Adjani is of Algerian origin.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jun 18, 2009 21:00:07 GMT
I've never seen that film. I did know that Adjani was a strong advocate of democracy in Algeria and of the emancipation of "les beurettes".
At one point the teenaged daughter of ferociously secular Moroccan friends of mine here wanted to fast for Ramadan. Her mum said calmly "well, fast then". There would be no adapting the household to the passing piety, nor tossing the sliced ham or beer out of the fridge, or emptying out the wine.
Yeah all my (boomer-aged) Maghrebi girlfriends can't abide the veil, even those who are religious believers. Moroccan friend's quip: La mosquée au-dessus, le cabaret en-dessous...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2009 21:22:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2009 21:42:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 18, 2009 22:10:15 GMT
Excuse me, Imec, but I AM a woman -- no need to go overboard convincing me that men have been making decisions for women's "own good" pretty much forever.
YOU think it's okay for a government to dictate how a woman should dress because in YOUR "....view it's a better choice than their husband/father dictating what they MUST wear."? A woman can at some point tell the oppressive males in her life to go to hell, but she is not only compelled to obey the law, but must endure the humiliation of a law existing that tells her how to dress.
LaGatta, officially Mexico has very strict laws governing separation of church and state. Since around 1940, the ban on priests and nuns wearing clerical garb in public has been lifted. Still, you never see priests (around here, anyway) dressed like priests outside of church. Nuns in the full, old-fashioned habits are still seen. The letter of the law is observed in some things: a marriage is only legal if performed and recorded at the Registro Civil, for instance. The last time John Paul II visited Mexico, the first lady was sent to greet him as it would have been incorrect for the president of the republic to acknowledge this head of the Vatican.
Other than that, it's pretty vague and sloppy. Masses are held for pretty much everything, there are huge, traffic-blocking pilgrimages and religious processions, crosses are displayed for anything you can think of.
There is one tiny, confused congregation of people here in Oaxaca who identify themselves as Jews. As far as I know, there are no Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by imec on Jun 18, 2009 22:37:29 GMT
YOU think it's okay for a government to dictate how a woman should dress because in YOUR "....view it's a better choice than their husband/father dictating what they MUST wear."? A woman can at some point tell the oppressive males in her life to go to hell, but she is not only compelled to obey the law, but must endure the humiliation of a law existing that tells her how to dress. Not okay, but the best of 2 bad choices. You're right, a woman can legally tell them to go to hell. But having lived in the Kingdom for 3 years, my observation has been that effectively, they can't. Even in North America or Europe, they're often uneducated (or barely educated) and lack the basic life skills required to independently make a decision - and more practically, the resources to act on it. I don't like the idea of the government telling anybody what to do, one bit. I just don't know of many other viable options to even begin to stop this cruel treatment - the wearing of the burka of which is simply the most visible of a variety of "privileges".
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 18, 2009 23:08:39 GMT
The viable options are not only government programs and laws to protect women who flee abusive situations, but aggressive campaigns to make the public aware of such programs. Further, education is needed to convince women and girls of their worth. I'm sure France already has such programs, laws, and publicity.
Tacitly censuring an entire segment of the population by banning the burkha hardly depicts the government and its agencies as a possible refuge for repressed women.
There was (maybe still is) a Mexican half-hour tv show aimed specifically at women. It has a hostess who introduces each episode and comes on again at the end to drive home the lesson. Each episode is a mini-play depicting common situations in which women might be trapped, and how they decided not to take it any more. Yes, it's broad and unsophisticated, but I suspect each episode does more good than a thousand pamphlets.
|
|
|
Post by imec on Jun 18, 2009 23:24:57 GMT
There was (maybe still is) a Mexican half-hour tv show aimed specifically at women. It has a hostess who introduces each episode and comes on again at the end to drive home the lesson. Each episode is a mini-play depicting common situations in which women might be trapped, and how they decided not to take it any more. Yes, it's broad and unsophisticated, but I suspect each episode does more good than a thousand pamphlets. Agreed. Setting an example is a better way. In the case of the oppressed Muslim women though, It's very likely that they would be forbidden from watching such a program. It's a complex situation, as kerouac has pointed out. Having lived so closely to it, it pains me more than you know. Neither you nor I will solve it. Your suggestions are rooted in common sense and a deep respect for human rights. Mine are born of utter frustration with the futility of trying to apply these values to people (the males and females) who can no longer think for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 19, 2009 2:21:39 GMT
The program to which I refer is on at a real "housewifey" time of day. I get so vociferous about this because of the previously cited fact of being female and also because I come from a country that takes it upon itself to meddle in or invade other countries in order to shove our brand of democracy down their throats. The proposed willy-nilly removal of the burkha smacks of the same thing. "I can't get accustomed to taking off my traditional clothes. I can't adjust to putting on other clothes. I can only wear other clothes for an hour or two. I can't leave my dress, it's part of me. Without my dress I don't feel calm inside, I feel like I'm missing something, something from me..." unidentified Guatemalan Mayan woman, 1980s, www.womeninworldhistory.com/sample-07.html I don't doubt that there are women who wear the hijab or burkha against their wills, but as the above quote brings out, tradition and cultural identification could play a big part in women opting for such dress. Asking a woman who'd worn such clothes all her life to exchange them for modern dress might be tantamount to demanding that a modern western woman shed all her clothes -- a terrible infringement on her sense of modesty.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 8:35:55 GMT
Naturally, there have been a lot of interviews of the concerned parties in the past two days.
This morning on the radio, a young fully veiled woman was interviewed about her choice. She has a master's degree in something or other but works in telemarketing because nobody will hire her where the public can see her.
The journalist interviewing her asked at one point about the elastic bands around her sleeves. "That's in case I have to lift my arm to get something, so that my wrists do not become nude." The journalist also asked what she was wearing under the burka. "Jeans and a T-shirt."
In any case, it made me feel that this lifestyle "choice" has to do more with psychiatric problems than with religious teachings.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Jun 19, 2009 16:46:15 GMT
I heard that too, Kerouac. She's obviously a nut case. I would really like to know if somewhere in the Koran it actually says that women have to cover themselves completely. Didn't she mention something about women having to be modest to prevent tempting men? In that case, it's the men who have the problem.
Personally, I figure that if it were the men preaching this stuff who had to dress like that, it would disappear in no time. I get really annoyed to see guys dressed in short sleeved shirts on a hot day, accompanied by a woman in head to toe black polyester.
|
|
|
Post by imec on Jun 19, 2009 18:34:35 GMT
guys dressed in short sleeved shirts on a hot day, accompanied by a woman in head to toe black polyester. When I lived in Saudi, it was not uncommon to see them in a black abbaya (basically a large sheet of black rayon placed over the head and reaching all the way to the ground - like a kids ghost costume but without the eyeholes cut out) IN THE WATER AT THE BEACH!!! They looked like trained seals.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 18:36:32 GMT
That should not be allowed, because the wet abayas cling to their forms.
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Jun 19, 2009 21:45:49 GMT
bjd said
"I would really like to know if somewhere in the Koran it actually says that women have to cover themselves completely."
I would like to know the answer to this as well. While I haven't researched this in depth, I don't recall a Koran citation, anywhere. Perhaps I can ask a Muslim scholar, or one of you may know.
This is complex. But in this confusing battle as to which rights take precedence---women's, men's, Islamic code or the state's...without doubt, women rights are the least valued. They appear to be 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. There always appears to be some person (husband, brother, any male) or some institution (state or Muslim) issuing edicts on they should live their lives. The dress code is the most obvious.
I think that the whether or not to wear a burka should be the choice of the individual woman. Obviously, this is my cultural upbringing. I have read of many Muslim women who want to wear it and would feel humiliated if they were forced to appear in what we would think of as 'street or western dress'. Just as I would be mortified if forced to wear a burka. Given that these women are individuals, many others do not want the burka and should be free to dress as they wish.
Does a Koran citation for this dress code exist? Kerouac, your post is a very interesting explanation of the 'new fad'. I would like to see La Journee de la Jupe.
Imec, How long did you live in Saudi? Did you live in a work compound or within the Saudi culture? How did your wife react to women wearing the burka...did she have the opportunity to come to know any of the women and to discuss this issue with them?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 21:58:46 GMT
The Koran merely says that women must remain modest. Obviously, this has been interpreted in a multitude of different ways.
May I ask why men are not required to remain modest?
|
|
|
Post by imec on Jun 19, 2009 22:31:34 GMT
I was in Saudi for 3 years. We didn't live in a compound, but in a building which had our offices on the main floor and 4 apartments upstairs in the midst of a neighborhood inhabited primarily by Saudis. My wife thought the burka (and hijab for that matter) was completely ridiculous. She worked in a hospital where the patients were primarily Saudis. She saw some pretty bizarre things there.
The people she encountered tended to fall into two categories - those that were deeply traditional and generally ignorant of western ways and those that had been educated in the west. As for the first group, well, it's pretty difficult to have a meaningful conversation with people who weren't educated, believed in witch doctors and were completely controlled by the males of their family. The second group were mainly the type that no longer covered their face, only their hair - and only when in Kingdom. When traveling these people generally eschewed arab dress and the strict rules of the Kingdom.
And then there are the paradox's... Saudis educated in the west who still turn to traditional "medicine" (including senseless cauterization) when they become ill. I met a Canadian consul who's job in large part consisted of trying to get Canadian women out of the Kingdom - typically, they had been enchanted by a wealthy Saudi (who had seemingly embraced western ways) in a North American university, convinced to return with him to the Kingdom to be married only to then find that they would be forced to embrace the traditional Saudi customs - by this time, they had surrendered their passport and could only leave with the permission of the husband (who had no intention of granting such permission).
Hypocrisy was rampant. Many of her patients in the "Royal Wing" of the hospital - Princes and Princesses (there are thousands of them in the Kingdom) - were undergoing treatment for addiction or illness precipitated by addiction. Women's jails housed many young expat nannies or household staff impregnated by males of Saudi households ("other duties as assigned") and then accused of prostitution by the same male. Saudis who uphold the strict, allegedly religious restrictions of the region could be seen completely inebriated or eating literally heaps of bacon in Bahrain were laws were not as strict. Saudi men who "believed" that women should be covered so as not to be viewed by other men were always seen outright ogling western women.
It's really hard to describe the craziness and cruelty of this culture. Suffice to say it's one of the worst examples of broad human rights abuses you will encounter.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2009 10:03:30 GMT
There are several towns in Belgium that use a very old law against masks to prevent wearing the burkha. The law says that it is illegal to wear a mask when it is not carnival season. Usually people just get a warning but some fines have been given in recent years.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 21, 2009 14:32:46 GMT
Since the Belgian constitution was revised and renewed in 1993, i.e., modern times, and since Belgium is a federal state, it's probably that such old laws as you cite will be scrutinized eventually.
The current French constitution dates from 1958, still quite modern times. The inhabitants of both countries are further protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. I imagine that the laws from 2004 mentioned in the OP and any law that may be passed prohibiting burkha wearing will be challenged on constitutional grounds at some point.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2009 14:59:37 GMT
The French consititution has been revised incessantly.
The latest revisions are:
2007 : Loi constitutionnelle n° 2007-237 du 19 février 2007 complétant l'article 77 de la Constitution : dispositions modifiées : article 77. 2007 : Loi constitutionnelle n° 2007-238 du 19 février 2007 portant modification du titre IX de la Constitution : dispositions modifiées : intitulé du Titre XI, articles 67 et 68. 2007 : Loi constitutionnelle n° 2007-239 du 19 février 2007 relative à l'interdiction de la peine de mort : dispositions ajoutées : article 66-1. 2008 : Loi constitutionnelle n° 2008-103 du 4 février 2008 modifiant le titre XV de la Constitution : dispositions modifiée : intitulé du Titre XI, articles 88-1, 88-2 et 88-5 ; dispositions modifiées : articles 88-6 et 88-7. 2008 : Loi constitutionnelle n° 2008-724 du 23 juillet 2008 de modernisation des institutions de la Ve République : dispositions modifiées : intitulés des Titres XI et XIV, articles 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 47-1, 48, 49, 56, 61, 62, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72-3, 73, 74-1, 88-4, 88-5, 88-6 et 89 ; dispositions ajoutées : Titre XI bis, articles 34-1, 47-2, 50-1, 51-1, 51-2, 61-1, 71-1, 75-1 et 87.
|
|
|
Post by traveler63 on Jun 22, 2009 14:33:18 GMT
Women traditionally have been on the bottom rung of equal rights for centuries and alas it continues today. Any society that is patriarcial has convinced women that they are second class. This has systematically been furthered by religious beliefs. I believe you will find that there is hypocricy in any religion, because of interpretation. I find it interesting that most people who are vocally religious seem to be able to compartmentalize their beliefs, i.e. one from column A, B etc. In the U. S. prolife, except when you murder a doctor for following what he/she believes. And so it goes. Burkas, habibs, etc. are just another extention. Back in the 60's and 70's we American young women fought so hard for equal rights and now the young women, who have been accorded all of the benefits, seem to think that the word "feminism" is somewhat dirty. The same K2 as you said about older Moslem women being upset that the younger women are going to burkas. The younger women have "choice" which the older women fought for. Young women have the freedom to be opressed, which is ironic. What is the answer to all of this? ? There is no definitive answer because it is not black or white. Do I like the Burka, etc, obviously not. Do I think it will change? Probably, but perhaps slowly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2009 18:00:53 GMT
VERSAILLES — President Nicolas Sarkozy of France addressed a restive parliament on Monday, laying out a vision of France that included a withering critique of burqas as an unacceptable symbol of “enslavement.”
Speaking from the royal grounds of Versailles, Mr. Sarkozy directly confronted one of the most hotly debated social issues in France, saying there was no room in the French republic for the burqas, full-body garments that envelope women and mask their faces.
“The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue, it is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity,” Mr. Sarkozy said. “The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women.”
“I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory,” he said to enthusiastic applause.
His speech, a sober, wide-ranging address during which he frequently looked at his notes, marked the first presidential appearance before Parliament since Charles Louis Napoleon Bonaparte.
Under French tradition, presidents have been barred from entering the parliament since 1875 to protect the independence of lawmakers. But with reforms instituted last summer through Mr. Sarkozy’s party, the parliament opened the way for him to speak directly to them.
For that rare visit, Mr. Sarkozy entered the parliament through rows of French guards in plumes and raised swords, then delivered an American style state of the Union address that sketched out his view of France’s future.
Though he also spoke at length about the economy, Mr. Sarkozy’s strongest comments came in reference to the wearing of burqas. France has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe, estimated at 5 million, and the wearing of traditional Islamic garments has been a divisive issue, especially since 2004 when the country passed legislation prohibiting head scarves and conspicuous religous symbols from public schools.
Mr. Sarkozy noted that "In the republic, the Muslim religion must be respected like other religions."
But he declared that "the burqa is not welcome in France. We cannot accept in our country women imprisoned behind bars, cut off from social life, deprived of identity. That is not our idea of maintaining the dignity of women."
Mr. Sarkozy gave his public support to a cross-party initiative by close to 60 legislators, who proposed a parliamentary commission to review the burqa and methods to combat its spread.
Mohammed Moussaoui, the president of France’s Representative Muslim Council, said he agreed with Mr. Sarkozy’s position on burqas, calling them “an extremely marginal phenomenon.” He said his group promotes a moderate practice of Islam. “When we meet women who wear it, we try to educate them, and explain to them that moderation is a better choice,” he said.
The Council, however, has spoken out against the need to conduct a study on burqas, saying that it risked stigmatizing Islam and Muslims in France.
The burqa issue was the most volatile of his 45-minute address, in which he pledged measures to alleviate the economic crisis, among them establishing a loan fund to finance the nation’s strategic priorities such as investments in education and training.
The “crisis is not finished,” he said. “We don’t know when it will end.” He pledged to guarantee the “stability of our banking system” and the “most fragile citizens who are suffering the most.”
He ruled out austerity measures for the nation to dig itself out of an economic crisis, pledging to give laid off workers the benefit of a year’s salary.
“I will not increase taxes because an increase in taxes would delay the end of the crisis, and because by increasing taxes, when we are at our level of taxation, we would not reduce deficits, we would increase them,” he said.
Throughout his speech, he also took up the cherished French notion of early retirements at age 60, noting that by 2010 “all options will be examined,” including raising the age for retirement.
While Mr. Sarkozy spoke, his critics were grumbling that his visit had cost more than 500,000 euros, or $692,000, to fund a lavish event designed to burnish his own image. The left leaning newspaper Libération splashed its front page with a cartoon of Mr. Sarkozy with a scepter and orb in his hand and the headline “Nicolas II.” About 50 lawmakers from the Green and Communist parties boycotted the speech, delivered at the parliament’s ornate red and gold hemicycle.
But almost a thousand lawmakers and visiting dignitaries gathered in the hemicycle to hear the speech, including members of his cabinet. Mr. Sarkozy’s wife, Carla Bruni, also attended. Because of the special occasion the chateau was closed to tourists. And officials revived an old tradition from the court of Louis XIV, placing potted orange trees outside the meeting of congress that brought together lawmakers from the Assembly and Senate.
Mr. Sarkozy’s comments were generally met with polite applause, absent whistles and jeers that some lawmakers expected because his appearance was so controversial. The Socialist party, for instance, had debated whether to boycott the event as well, but ultimately showed up to hear his speech. But then they staged another boycott, by shunning the debate that followed Mr. Sarkozy’s departure.
This subject will be continuing for some time in France. It is already pretty clear that burkas will be banned from public buildings.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Jun 22, 2009 18:26:54 GMT
And Sarkozy's quite right.
|
|
|
Post by imec on Jun 22, 2009 20:18:15 GMT
I like this man.
|
|