Monday, July 27, 2020

Have the French finally started talking about the racism in their country?

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Inshiya Nalawala

Article Title

Have the French finally started talking about the racism in their country?

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

July 27, 2020

URL

BLM Protest in France

BLM Protest in France | Source: Thomas de LUZE via Unsplash

France, which boasts about being a color-blind nation, isn’t truly what it asserts. For a non-white citizen living in France, being subjected to bias and ethnic profiling at the hands of some insensitive police officers is a real possibility.

Structural and institutional racism is evident in France, where children as young as 10 years old have to routinely endure police stops, even without being suspicious of any illegal activity. These unlawful stops often involve humiliating body pat-downs and searches of personal belongings are   usually left unrecorded by any agency.  

A speaker at the French media coverage of the Middle East at the Alliance Française in Beverly Hills, Slimane Zeghidour, in an interview with the ‘French Morning’ agency said that, “there is a very strong prejudice of class that is translated to a stigmatization of people”, adding that these targeted people are mainly immigrants from Maghreb or Africa.

The brutal killing of George Floyd in the US kicked off huge protests against the institutionalized racism in France as well. Hundreds of people protested at the Presidential Palace in Paris while 2500 people attended a rally in Lille, 1800 in Marseille, and 1200 in Lyon displaying  placards similar to those in the US – ‘Black lives matter’ and ‘I can’t breathe’.

Alongwith protesting the death of George Floyd, people in France also drew the attention to the murder of a 24-year old black man Adama Traoré in police custody in July 2016 in their own country. The police officers involved in this incident were exonerated which triggered mass protests at that time in France.

Such blatant racism and ethnic prejudice is the result of a sense of supremacy ingrained in the collective psyche of white citizens who constitute the overwhelming majority in France. Instead of acknowledging their racial bias, a large section of whites have started blaming the minorities as the cause of their economic and cultural problems.

When a black national icon of France, Lilian Thuram, the most capped player in the history of the French national team, spoke about the racism incident in a football match in Italy, it caused a massive storm in France.

Thuram said, it is not the world of football that is racist, but "Italian, French, European and, more generally, white culture" is racist. He further stated that "Whites have decided they are superior to blacks and that they can do anything with them," and “It is something that has been going on for centuries unfortunately and to change a culture is not easy."

Thurham was highly criticized and branded ‘anti-white racists’ by the far-right extremists and their sympathetic journalists. This criticism later expanded in the mainstream media as well.

Not only the far-right extremists, even the government flatly denies the existence of extreme violence and institutional discrimination in France.

“I don’t believe we can say that France is a racist country,” says Sibeth Ndiaye, a French Government spokesperson to the journalists after a cabinet meeting, when people took to streets in June 2020, all the while justifying that France cannot be compared with the USA.

Well, with fueling protests and awareness, things are slowly changing and the taboo around race and white supremacy is losing its grip. People have gradually started to acknowledge their identity as ‘white’ or ‘black’ and the mainstream media is now talking about race.

As Mr. Fassin, a sociology professor at the University of Paris says, “My hope is we'll realize that talking about race isn't against democracy but rather about democracy”, he reflects optimism for a better tomorrow.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:57 PM

India’s Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act: Why the activists are opposing it?

On July 13, 2020 the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment of India notified the release of draft Rules for the much-disputed Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act 2019, and has given citizens 30 days to submit suggestions and objections.

The Ministry first published the draft Rules on April 18, 2020 and asked for comments by April 30, later extended to May 18. Based on the central government’s consideration of the submitted feedback, the updated Rules were once again opened to critique.

As summarised in this analysis by PRS Legislative Research, the Rules lay out the detailed process regarding issuance of Certificate of Identity, and welfare measures, medical facilities and such for transgender people. It also specifies that the National Institute of Social Defence will act as secretariat for the National Council for Transgender Persons.

Analysis

  1. The Act is infamous for claiming to confer the right to self-perceived gender identity, which is also enshrined in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs. Union of India judgement, but continuously neglecting this right thereby going against both a Supreme Court judgement and its own statement.
  2. This manifested once again in Rule 4 of the first draft of Rules which required a psychologist’s report— while paradoxically insisting that it requires “no medical examination”— as part of the application process. This requirement was removed from the recent draft of the Rules after backlash.
  3. Also, as stated in the Act, it is the District Magistrate who will determine the final “correctness” of the application, essentially stripping transgender people of any supposed right to self determination. It is worth noting that this places the District Magistrate, an executive figure, in a judicial position, one of ‘judging’ the ‘authenticity’ of a person’s gender identity.
  4. The above mentioned application will only provide a Certificate of Identity that states a person’s gender identity as transgender. To be able to apply for a revised Certificate of Identity to change one’s gender to male/female as per Rule 6, a person must undergo gender reassignment surgery and on top of that provide a certificate stating this from the Medical Superintendent or Chief Medical Officer from the medical institution which facilitates the surgery.
  5. This is problematic for a large multitude of reasons, including but not limited to: many transgender people not feeling the need for medical or surgical intervention, the policing of transgender people’s identity as only being ‘valid’ if they undergo surgery, and the sky-high costs of surgery contrasted with large numbers of transgender people living in unsupportive environments and/or being unable to finance their surgery.
  6. The right to self-identification continues to be blatantly violated in Rule 8, under which a District Magistrate can reject an application, following which the applicant has a right to appeal the rejection only within 60 days of intimation of the same, as stated in Rule 9.
  7. The right to self-determination was also thrown out the window when the first draft Rules imposed a penalty on “false” applications, once again referring to the arbitrary power of the District Magistrate. This has also been removed following strongly negative reactions.

It is important to compare the two versions of the Rules despite the second one being arguably better and cognizant of some of the demands made by the citizens and other stakeholders.

The first version of the Rules quite clearly depicted the narrowly cisnormative perspective through which transgender lives are seen by the people in power. Despite the many changes as a result of relentless protests, the Act is nowhere near to truly respecting and empowering transgender people.

The decision to give the final say to the District Magistrate- which some argue made the process harder than it used to be before the Act- and the refusal to provide affirmative action or reservations to ensure representation in positions of authority that transgender people have historically been denied access to.

It also does little to counter discrimination, as is seen most clearly in the punishment of sexual assault and rape being much less than for the rape of a cisgender woman. It advocates for plenty of measures but does pitifully little to ensure or enable these changes.  

History of the Act

The history of the Act is a turbulent one. The 2016 Transgender (Protection of Rights) Bill, was almost immediately slammed by activists, NGOs, other human rights organisations, and citizens, for multiple reasons.

The most derided was the provision to set up a ‘District Screening Committee’ which included the District Magistrate, a chief medical officer and a psychiatrist among others, for the sole purpose of scrutinising a transgender person’s body and identity. It also criminalised organised begging, an activity specifically common among the Hijra community.

The Lower House of the Parliament, the Lok Sabha, rejected all the proposed changes by the parliamentary standing committee along with the demands of the transgender community, and passed the bill with some amendments in 2018. A short-lived victory came in the form of the lapse of the bill due to the 2019 general elections.

However, as soon as the NDA government was re-elected, the bill was reintroduced in the Parliament with some more changes, particularly the removal of the section on District Screening Committees, but was still unsatisfactory.

The full text of this bill was not released when it was approved by the Union Cabinet on July 10, 2019, but on the morning that it was tabled in the Lok Sabha, garnering another consecutive year of protest since it was first introduced.

This is the bill as it exists today, having been passed by the Lok Sabha on August 5, 2019. When the motion to refer it to a select committee failed in the Rajya Sabha, it was passed on November 26, 2019, and received presidential assent on December 5, 2019. Recent developments include a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Act.

Despite it becoming the law of the land, transgender citizens and activists such as Esvi Anbu Kothazam and Kanmani Ray continue to criticse it and the insidious transphobic thinking that has always guided it.

Read More