LONDON: Islamophobia in France is being fueled by state-backed efforts to encourage secularism, according to a new book that puts the country at the heart of a growing intolerance toward Muslims in Western societies.
In “Republic of Islamophobia: The Rise of Respectable Racism in France,” Jim Wolfreys, a British academic and author, argues that French politicians have given discrimination and racism a veneer of respectability in their response to a wave of Daesh attacks that hit French towns and cities in the last three years.
The bloodshed has left innocent Muslims facing unprecedented scrutiny of what they wear, eat and say in a society polarized by inequality, he claims.
Wolfreys, a senior lecturer in French and European Politics at King’s College London, told Arab News there is a “danger of confusing understandable fear of terrorism with fear of Muslims.”
France is home to Europe’s largest Muslim community, with estimates of its size ranging from 2.1 million to about 6 million, out of a total population of 66.9 million. Many of these Muslims can trace their roots back to the country’s colonial rule in North and sub-saharan Africa during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Secularism is one of the guiding principles of the French political and legal systems and questions around immigration and integration have long been a subject of debate in the country. But rhetoric once considered taboo has entered mainstream political discourse in recent years, according to Wolfreys.
In 2011, even before the recent wave of militant attacks, France became the first European nation to ban women from wearing full-face veils in public.
Then, as gun battles and suicide bombings rocked the country in a series of attacks claimed by Daesh, local authorities in several towns outlawed women from wearing burkini swimwear. Officials said the clothing, which covers the female head and body in keeping with conservative Islamic custom, was a security threat and flouted the nation’s secular principles.
France’s highest administrative court subsequently overturned the restriction imposed by one resort, with three judges ruling that it was “clearly illegal” and in violation of “fundamental liberties,” but the ban heightened concerns among many Muslims that they were being made scapegoats for the Daesh-inspired violence.
Islam and immigration went on to become two of the central issues in the 2017 presidential election, when Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front party, won almost 11 million votes in the second round of polling.
Le Pen campaigned on an openly Islamophobic ticket, denouncing mosques for allowing worshippers to pray in the streets and warning of the danger of living “under the yoke of the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.”
She lost convincingly to her liberal rival, Emmanuel Macron, but mainstream political concerns about Islam have not gone away.
On Sunday, President Macron told the French weekly newspaper “Le Journal du Dimanche” that he planned to reorganize the structure of Islam in France to help “preserve national cohesion.” He provided no details about how he hoped to do this.
Wolfreys’ book, “Republic of Islamophobia: The Rise of Respectable Racism in France,” looks in detail at the causes and consequences of state-fueled discrimination.
He reports the results of an opinion poll conducted by a French human rights institute that found 45 percent of National Front supporters do not consider “dirty Arab” a reprehensible phrase. In the same survey, nearly three-quarters of respondents said they do not regard Muslims as fully French.
However, Wolfreys accuses mainstream parties from both the right and left of the political spectrum of adopting increasingly intolerant interpretations of secularism.
He writes that the problem became particularly acute after two masked gunmen attacked the Paris offices of the satirical magazine “Charlie Hebdo” on Jan. 7, 2015, in retaliation for a series of cartoons defaming the Prophet Muhammad. Twelve people were killed, with Al-Qaeda in Yemen and Daesh issuing contrasting claims of responsibility for the carnage.
On Nov. 13 that year, Daesh militants also carried out a coordinated assault across the French capital, with three suicide bombers blowing themselves up outside the Stade de France and gunmen killing 89 people attending a rock concert at the Bataclan theatre.
This was followed in July 2016 by an attack in the southern city of Nice, in which a cargo truck was driven into a crowd of revelers celebrating Bastille Day, killing more than 80 people.
Wolfreys’ book warns that the French government’s response to the bloodshed has been disproportionate and risks further marginalizing innocent Muslims, pushing them into the arms of extremists.
“The renewed emphasis since the 2015 Paris attacks on inculcating respect for ‘republican values’ in schools, punishing those alleged to defy them, fast-tracking those accused of ‘apology for terrorism’ through the courts, and increasing surveillance and ‘vigilance’ is unlikely to prevent such atrocities from happening again,” he writes.
New book puts France at center of anti-Muslim backlash
New book puts France at center of anti-Muslim backlash
Ben & Jerry’s says parent Unilever silenced it over Gaza stance
The lawsuit is the latest sign of the long-simmering tensions between Ben & Jerry’s and consumer products maker Unilever, which is planning to spin out its ice cream business next year.
The spin-out would include the top-selling Vermont-based maker of Chubby Hubby, although experts on corporate governance said the brand’s board, a centerpiece of the new lawsuit, could present challenges to the deal.
A rift first erupted between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever in 2021 after the ice cream maker said it would stop selling its products in the Israeli-occupied West Bank because it was inconsistent with its values, a move that led some investors to divest Unilever shares.
The ice cream maker then sued Unilever for selling its business in Israel to its licensee there, which allowed marketing in the West Bank and Israel to continue. That lawsuit was settled in 2022.
In its new lawsuit, Ben & Jerry’s says that Unilever has breached the terms of the 2022 settlement, which has remained confidential. As part of the agreement, however, Unilever is required to “respect and acknowledge the Ben & Jerry’s independent board’s primary responsibility over Ben & Jerry’s social mission,” according to the lawsuit.
But, according to the lawsuit, “Ben & Jerry’s has on four occasions attempted to publicly speak out in support of peace and human rights. Unilever has silenced each of these efforts.”
In response to Reuters’ story, Unilever said in an emailed statement: “Our heart goes out to all victims of the tragic events in the Middle East. We reject the claims made by B&J’s social mission board, and we will defend our case very strongly.”
“We would not comment further on this legal matter,” it added.
Ben & Jerry’s said in an email: “We are confident that these issues will ultimately be resolved. Due to the ongoing nature of the litigation, we are unable to comment on the specifics.”
The lawsuit was filed in New York federal court.
Minor Myers, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, said the tension between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever would be top of mind in a deal, particularly if Unilever’s ice cream brands are acquired by a private equity firm or competitor company.
“The Ben & Jerry’s situation would be front of mind of any possible buyer,” Myers said. “To the extent that Ben & Jerry’s or a subsidiary wants to be liberated to say (what they want, it) may impact the sales of the flagship ice cream brand.”
That would result in a lower valuation for Unilever’s ice cream brands, Myers said.
There are fewer concerns if the ice cream brands become a separate publicly traded company, Myers said.
Ben & Jerry’s said in the lawsuit it has tried to call for a ceasefire, support the safe passage of Palestinian refugees to Britain, back students protesting at US colleges against civilian deaths in Gaza, and advocate for a halt in US military aid to Israel, but has been blocked by Unilever.
The independent board separately spoke out on some of those topics, but the company was muzzled, the lawsuit says.
Ben & Jerry’s said that Peter ter Kulve, Unilever’s head of ice cream, said he was concerned about the “continued perception of anti-Semitism” regarding the ice cream brand voicing its opinions on Gazan refugees, according to the lawsuit.
Unilever was also required under the settlement agreement to make a total of $5 million in payments to Ben & Jerry’s for the brand to make donations to human rights groups of its choosing, according to the lawsuit.
Ben & Jerry’s selected the left-leaning Jewish Voice for Peace and the San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, among others, the filing says.
Unilever in August objected to the selections, saying that Jewish Voice for Peace was “too critical of the Israeli government,” according to the lawsuit.
Ben & Jerry’s has positioned itself as socially conscious since Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield founded the company in a renovated gas station in 1978. It kept that mission after Unilever acquired it in 2000.
Unilever’s dozens of products include Dove soap, Hellmann’s mayonnaise, Knorr bouillon cubes, Surf detergent and Vaseline petroleum jelly.
US urges vigilance on Chinese investment as Xi opens Peru port
- The $3.5-billion complexis a symbol of the Asian superpower’s growing influence on the continent as it prepares to face off with a new Donald Trump administration
- China's President Xi vowed in his speech to “promote connectivity” between China and South America.
LIMA: As China and Peru launched South America’s first Beijing-funded port in Chancay, Peru, on Thursday, the United States called on Latin American nations to be vigilant.
The $3.5-billion complex, located 80 kilometers north of Lima, is meant to serve as a major hub for Chinese trade at a time the Asian giant is under threat of major tariff hikes after Trump reenters the White House for a second term.
The port was officially opened in a ceremony attended virtually by China's President Xi Jinping and Peruvian counterpart Dina Boluarte from Lima, where they will attend an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit on Friday and Saturday.
Xi vowed in his speech to “promote connectivity” between China and South America.
Peru — one of Latin America’s fastest-growing economies over the past decade — is China’s fourth-largest Latin American trading partner, with bilateral flows of nearly $36 billion in 2023.
Amid the celebration, Brian Nichols, the top US diplomat for Latin America, spoke out. “We believe it is essential that countries across the hemisphere ensure that PRC economic activities respect local laws as well as safeguard human rights and environmental protections,” he said, referring to the People’s Republic of China.
Pointing to the long US relationship with Peru, Nichols said: “We’ll be focused on building those relations and making sure that Peruvians understand the complexities of dealing with some of their other investors going forward.”
He said that the United States has also recently provided support to Peru, including train donations to the city of Lima, space cooperation led by NASA and the donation of nine Black Hawk helicopters to help police battle transnational crime.
Dan Kritenbrink, the top US diplomat for East Asia, said that the United States came with an “affirmative agenda” and was not seeking to force countries to choose between rival powers.
“We do want to make sure that countries have choices and they were able to make them freely without coercion,” Kritenbrink told reporters.
The United States for two centuries has considered Latin America its sphere of interest, but it has faced increasing competition around the world, especially in the economic sphere, from China.
US policymakers often highlight debt associated by Chinese projects and China’s use of its own workers in mega-projects.
The port will allow South American nations to skirt ports in Mexico and the United States as they trade with Asia.
Xi is set to meet on Saturday in Lima with outgoing US President Biden in their likely final encounter before Donald Trump returns to the White House.
Sri Lankan president’s coalition heads for landslide: early results
COLOMBO: New Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s party was headed for a landslide win at snap legislative elections, initial results showed Friday.
With over half of the ballots in Thursday’s parliamentary elections counted, Dissanayake’s National People’s Power (NPP) coalition party had taken an unassailable lead with 63 percent of the vote, Election Commission results showed.
UK unveils finance reforms, ups risk-taking to drive growth
- Finance minister announced plans to “modernize” the Financial Ombudsman Service, which deals with complaints between consumers and firms
- Called for “free and open trade” with partners such as the United States under its incoming president Donald Trump
LONDON: Britain’s Labour government on Thursday announced reforms to its financial sector in a bid to grow the economy, including a plan to allow greater risk-taking.
Finance Minister Rachel Reeves outlined the plans in her first Mansion House speech — an annual address by the chancellor of the exchequer to business leaders.
Late Wednesday she announced plans to create mega pension funds, potentially boosting investment in the country by around £80 billion ($104 billion) in a move that mirrored schemes in Australia and Canada.
Reeves used her Mansion House address to say that measures brought in since the 2008 global financial crisis to “eliminate risk” have had “unintended consequences” in holding back growth.
“While it was right that successive governments made regulatory changes after the global financial crisis to ensure that regulation kept pace with the global economy of the time, it is important that we learn the lessons of the past,” she said.
“These changes have resulted in a system which sought to eliminate risk-taking. That has gone too far and, in places, it has had unintended consequences which we must now address.”
Reeves announced plans to “modernize” the Financial Ombudsman Service, which deals with complaints between consumers and firms.
A pilot scheme will meanwhile be launched to deliver digital bonds, embracing technology used by the cryptocurrency sector.
She called for “free and open trade” with partners such as the United States under its incoming president Donald Trump.
“There is so much potential for us to deepen our economic relationship on areas such as emerging technologies,” she said.
“I look forward to working closely with president-elect Trump and his team to strengthen our relationship in the years ahead.”
She added that Britain must “reset our relationship” with the European Union after Brexit.
The “megafunds” pensions plan could unlock vast sums “for infrastructure projects and businesses of the future,” the Treasury said.
Labour aims to pool assets of 86 local government pension schemes in England and Wales.
The Treasury added that together the schemes were on course to manage £500 billion in assets by 2030.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s new government also plans to consolidate workers’ defined contribution schemes, a common form of pension.
“These megafunds mirror set-ups in Australia and Canada, where pension funds take advantage of size to invest in assets that have higher growth potential,” the Treasury said.
Reeves hiked business taxes and government borrowing in her maiden budget at the end of October.
“Last month’s budget fixed the foundations to restore economic stability and put our public services on a firmer footing,” Reeves said in comments alongside the pensions announcement.
“Now, we’re going for growth. That starts with the biggest set of reforms to the pensions market in decades to unlock tens of billions of pounds of investment in business and infrastructure.”
She added that the reforms would also “boost people’s savings in retirement and drive economic growth.”
Some analysts urged caution over the pensions shakeup.
“The government’s hope will be... economies of scale,” noted Tom Selby, director of public policy at investment platform AJ Bell.
He added that “conflating a government goal of driving investment in the UK and people’s retirement outcomes brings a danger.”
“If it goes well, everyone can celebrate. But it’s clearly possible that it will go the other way, so there needs to be some caution in this push to use other people’s money to drive economic growth.”
Spy world vexed by Trump choice of Gabbard as US intelligence chief
- Intelligence officials worry about Gabbard’s views on Syria, Russia
- Western security source warns of slower intelligence sharing
WASHINGTON: President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Tulsi Gabbard as US intelligence chief has sent shockwaves through the national security establishment, adding to concerns that the sprawling intelligence community will become increasingly politicized.
Trump’s nomination of Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman who lacks deep intelligence experience and is seen as soft on Russia and Syria, is among several high-level picks that suggest he may be prioritizing personal allegiance over competence as he assembles his second-term team.
Among the risks, say current and former intelligence officials and independent experts, are that top advisers could feed the incoming Republican president a distorted view of global threats based on what they believe will please him and that foreign allies may be reluctant to share vital information.
Randal Phillips, a former CIA operations directorate official who worked as the agency’s top representative in China, said that with Trump loyalists in top government posts, “this could become the avenue of choice for some really questionable actions” by the leadership of the intelligence community.
A Western security source said there could be an initial slowdown in intelligence sharing when Trump takes office in January that could potentially impact the “Five Eyes,” an intelligence alliance comprising the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
The worry from US allies is that Trump’s appointments all lean in the “wrong direction”, the source said.
Trump’s presidential transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Inside and outside the US intelligence network, much of the anxiety focuses on Trump’s choice of Gabbard, 43, as director of national intelligence, especially given her views seen as sympathetic to Russia in its war against Ukraine.
While Trump has made some conventional personnel decisions such as that of Senator Marco Rubio for secretary of state, Wednesday’s announcement of Gabbard, an officer in the US Army Reserves, surprised even some Republican insiders. She is likely to face tough questioning in her Senate confirmation hearings.
Gabbard, who left the Democratic Party in 2022, has stirred controversy over her criticism of President Joe Biden’s support for Ukraine, which has prompted some critics to accuse her of parroting Kremlin propaganda.
She also spoke out against US military intervention in the civil war in Syria under former President Barack Obama and met in 2017 with Moscow-backed Syrian President Bashar Assad, with whom Washington severed all diplomatic ties in 2012.
The selection of Gabbard has raised alarm in the ranks of intelligence officers unsure of how tightly she holds some of her geopolitical views, whether she is misinformed or simply echoing Trump’s “Make America Great Again” followers, one intelligence official said on condition of anonymity.
“Of course there’s going to be resistance to change from the ‘swamp’ in Washington,” Gabbard said in a Fox News interview on Wednesday night. She said voters had given Trump “an incredible mandate” to move away from Biden’s agenda but offered no policy specifics.
Allies attentive
A senior European intelligence official said agencies in European Union countries “will be pragmatic and ready to adapt to the changes.” “No panic in the air for now,” the official added.
A European defense official described Gabbard as “firmly” in the Russia camp.
“But we have to deal with what we have. We will be attentive,” the official said.
Some analysts said concerns about Gabbard could be tempered by Trump’s choice to head the CIA: John Ratcliffe, a former congressman who served as director of national intelligence at the end of Trump’s first term.
Though close to Trump and expected to offer little pushback against his policies, Ratcliffe is not seen as an incendiary figure and could act as a counterbalance to Gabbard in his post atop the No. 1 spy agency among the 18 that she would oversee.
But some analysts said that by attempting to install Gabbard with other controversial loyalists, including congressman Matt Gaetz for attorney general and Fox commentator and military veteran Pete Hegseth for defense secretary, Trump is showing he wants no guardrails to his efforts to remake federal institutions.
Democratic critics were quick to pounce not only on Gabbard’s views but what they see as her lack of qualifications and the potential the new administration could deploy intelligence for political ends.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created after the Sept 11, 2001 attacks to fix what was seen as a lack of coordination between those organizations.
“She isn’t being put in this job to do the job or to be good at it. She’s being put there to serve Donald Trump’s interests,” US Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told CNN on Thursday.
Support for isolationist policies
After leaving the Democratic Party, Gabbard became increasingly critical of Biden and grew popular among conservatives, often appearing on far-right TV and radio shows, where she became known for supporting isolationist policies and showing disdain for “wokeness.”
Shortly after Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Gabbard wrote in a social media post: “This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO.”
Rubio, a former Trump rival turned supporter, defended Gabbard’s nomination, describing her as a “revolutionary pick that has a chance to really make a positive change.”
But some other Republicans were more non-committal.
Asked about Gabbard’s qualifications, Senator John Cornyn, a member of the Intelligence Committee, said: “We’re going to do our job, vet the nominees and make a decision. That’s a constitutional responsibility of the Senate.”
To become director of national intelligence, Gabbard must first be confirmed by a majority of the 100-member US Senate, where she could face headwinds.
Trump’s fellow Republicans will have at least a 52-48 seat majority in the chamber starting in January, and have in the past been eager to back the party leader, increasing the likelihood that she will secure the post.
“Our friends are watching as closely as our foes, and they are asking what this all means for the pre-eminent player in global intelligence collection and analysis,” said one former US intelligence officer who worked in some of the world’s hotspots.
