The NPA
conference and the "Muslim headscarf question"
Mid-February, the New Anticapitalist
Party in France held its first
national conference since its founding conference two years ago.
Two
questions dominated the event and the regional conferences preceding
it.
Firstly, what alliances are possible or desirable with other parties to
the
Left of the Socialist Party and secondly whether or not Muslim
women who
wear a headscarf for religious reasons should be banned from being NPA
candidates at elections. This article is to look at the second of
these
two questions. (1)
It was already very bad news that, in a country where islamophobia is
very much
on the rise, the only question debated at conference should be the
question of having
veiled NPA candidates for elections. In France today, mosques are
tagged and
attacked (occasionally with guns), discrimination against practising
Muslims
applying for jobs has been thoroughly documented, the Far right
concentrates
its fire on the Muslim threat, and the government has passed a law
banning
women who wear the niqab from walking in the streets. This wave of
islamophobia
has been met with staggering indifference at best from practically the
entire
Left. Many Left parties are worse than the NPA and supported the law
against
the niqab, a law which was the brainchild of a Communist party MP.
The
law against the niqab
The
NPA opposed the anti-niqab law in principle, but did nothing to act
against it,
because the issue divided the party very deeply, and because action
would
involve working with Muslim groups, which all but a small minority of
the party
do not want to do. (“Didn’t you know that religion was the opium of the
people,
comrade? It was Karl Marx who said that, you know... bla bla bla”)
Worse, the leader article in the NPA newspaper, which expressed
our opposition
to the anti-niqab law, and was written by an experienced woman comrade,
made
sure it insulted the women who wear the niqab, calling them “birds of
death”!!
The article concluded that the party should make sure it did not lend
the
slightest support to the campaign for a law against the niqab. Not the
slightest support, but not the slightest active opposition either, as
it turned
out. Practically nothing in the way of leaflets, articles,
demonstrations or meetings.
Because the NPA is a very democratic party, the weekly paper did carry
opinion
columns by those who saw the Muslim veil as purely and simply a sign of
submission to patriarchal values or a standard for the Jihad, and also
staggeringly patient articles by those who felt islamophobia needed
more active
opposition.
The leadership was very much divided on the issue. On one side a small
minority
who wanted to actively fight against islamophobia, on the other a
minority who
insisted that islamophobia did not exist or should not be combated, and
in the
middle quite a lot who saw no way forward except to avoid the issue. In
September, when a rally of a few dozen was organized by other groups in
front
of the Senate as they debated the anti-niqab law, the NPA leadership
announced
its support for the demonstration - six hours before it took place, in
a
classic tactic of planned passivity.
Who
can be candidate?
Meanwhile, accidentally, the question of veiled candidates came up in
the NPA.
The NPA is very much a federal organization and the decision was made
in one
region to name fourth on their slate of candidates a young Muslim
woman, Ilhem
Moussaïd, who wore a headscarf. A dynamic young anticapitalist
activist, well
known in local campaigns, Ilhem was immediately reduced, in the media
and even
in sections of the party, to her headscarf, although the national NPA
spokesman
Olivier Besancenot defended her. The leader of the Left reformist Parti
de
Gauche denounced her candidacy, representatives of the Socialist Party
and the
Communist party criticized the choice, almost everybody pandering to
islamophobia. One young Muslim woman, out of 400 candidates of the NPA
in the
regional elections, had become a threat to the French republic and
everything
it stood for! The media and other parties accused the NPA of
deciding to
stand a veiled candidate in order to court popularity with Muslim
voters. The
reality is that the decision was a local one which an embarrassed
national
leadership was forced to defend against a barrage of hostile criticism.
Instead
of openly defending the right of veiled Muslim women to participate
fully in
the party's activities on an equal basis with other comrades, the
leadership
constantly fudged the issue. NPA spokespersons even insisted on the
fact that
Ilhem only wore a "light" veil!
Ironically, the media coverage has been very useful in
that, on the
Left, many thousands of people have been obliged to recognize
that it
is possible to defend workers’ struggles and women’s rights and also
wear a Muslim
headscarf, so perhaps the clash of civilizations stuff was all
nonsense.
However many thousands more remained entrenched in their views that
covering
your hair for religious reasons meant you were championing patriarchal
domination, and any other consideration was secondary. The majority of
activists in established feminist networks were aggressively anti-veil
(with
some impressive exceptions such as historic feminist writer Christine
Delphy).
In a period when attacks on women’s rights are common, a number of
activists
have seized on fighting the veil as the symbolic issue for defending
women’s
interests. Inside the NPA a minority campaigned against the idea of
ever again
allowing a veiled candidate to stand for the party.
This mistaken position absolutely did not come from the fact that the
French
Left is full of racists. You can easily find people who have been
active
against racism for decades who have a horrific position on the veil. It
came
from a mix of a century old tendency to equate being Left wing with
mocking or
hating all practising believers, and from the influence of stereotypes
of Muslim
culture in a post 9/11 world.
The
conference debate
So a motion was put to regional conferences which proposed that
women with
headscarves could never again be NPA candidates. This was thoroughly
discussed
in pre-conference bulletins, and we found a surprisingly high level of
support
for treating headscarf wearers the same as everyone else (we had been
so used
to being in a small minority). Support for actively fighting
islamophobia is
something else though - more on that in a moment.
A second group of comrades suggested a compromise - there could be
veiled
candidates as long as a committee checked that they weren’t putting
religion
before the party programme. The debate was lively and not always
completely
honest - some not hesitating to quote three words out of a fifteen word
poster
to “prove” that Ilhem had been putting religion first. Other comrades
showed a
certain lack of revolutionary backbone, by complaining that we couldn’t
have
veiled candidates because it lost us votes. Some people left the NPA in
protest
over Ilhem’s candidacy. Ilhem and a group of friends eventually left
themselves
under the pressure and have set up a local campaigning organization.
When the results came in from the regional conferences, the proposal to
ban
headscarf wearers as candidates got 1297 votes, 1044 members refused
the ban
and 521 abstained. On the different compromise motions the situation
was
unclear, but it was pretty much fifty fifty to allow veiled candidates
as long
as the national committee checked on each case.
Surprisingly, at the national conference a slightly rewritten motion to
ban
headscarf-wearing candidates lost by two votes. That is to say, the
national
conference was somewhat less anti-veil than the membership, although
the
millions of Muslims making a revolution in Egypt may have swayed some
of our
delegates to allow veiled candidates.
At this point, the atmosphere at conference was extremely tense and
noisy.
A second motion from the anti-veil members proposing that a
two-thirds
majority on the national committee be necessary to approve such a
candidacy was
defeated, and a simple majority will be enough.
Conference proceedings were interrupted, and after the break one more
motion
was presented. Given that the regional conferences and national
conference did
not agree, it was proposed that a specific national delegate conference
be
organized on this issue in a few months’ time. This was partly a
manoeuvre by
anti-veil delegates, and partly a pragmatic move to
enable conference
proceedings to continue.
But the decision is probably a good thing. We who think that
fighting
islamophobia is crucial do not want to “win” by two votes at
conference. We
want to continue to explain, argue and convince comrades of the danger
of
islamophobia and the need to fight it actively (even if it can be
wearing).
The motion about veiled candidates was very much an abstract one. After
the
pressure that Ilhem was subject to, and the fact that the NPA does not
actively
fight islamophobia, or even talk about it much, it is hard to imagine a
practising Muslim woman even wanting to be an NPA candidate. But
defeating the
ban on headscarf-wearing candidates could be the first step towards
getting the
NPA to launch an active fight against islamophobia in society. At a
time when
the rest of the Left, and in particular the Left reformist “Parti de
Gauche”
are even more strongly influenced by islamophobia, the way the NPA
attacks this
question in coming years will be crucial.
The
situation is a little like the situation thirty odd years ago with the
Left and
gay rights – it was a long struggle to get the Left, even the
anticapitalist
Left, to take gay rights seriously; many gave up first, but it was done
in the
end.
John
Mullen February 2011
NOTE
(1)
To answer a common question, there is no connection between the debate
on
strategy and alliances and the question of the veil. In other words,
all three
major platforms within the NPA are divided on the subject of religion,
feminism
and secularism.
John
Mullen is a member of the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste in the Paris
region.
His website is at http://www.johncmullen.net
For
more background
The
NPA in France and the fight against islamophobia (December 2010)
http://www.jcmullen.fr/1210npaandislamophobia.html
Translation
of a contribution to the conference debate:
“The NPA must actively fight
islamophobia” (November 2010)
http://www.jcmullen.fr/1210npainterne.html
Anticapitalism,
elections and the “Muslim headscarf” (2009)
http://www.jcmullen.fr/2009ilham.html
Home
Accueil