Rape "impossible" in marriage

In his last week's presentation, pascal commented an article from the independant which raises the issue of rape within marriage.

Indeed, this delicate problem made recently headlines when the president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain, Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed stepped up and said that rape in marriage is "impossible" because "sex is part of the marriage" thereby "so long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as a rape".

Pascal began by recalling us some important cultural and historical point to understand the issue at stake : in England, a large part of the immigration is constituted of muslims. Those above, in order to maintain their cultural specificities, (here in a legal perspective), created the sharia courts. These courts based on the Sharia, defined as the muslim or islamic law, permit to muslims to apply their own judicial proceedings in England. The spread of these courts have been astonishing in the country with more than 80 courts in operation. It must be precised here that non-muslims can also be judged by these courts. The judgements laid down can be approved, or not, by national courts to give these a full legal status.

This debate about rape in marriage seems to highlight the tensions between the english perception of the issue and the muslim perception crystalized in these sharia courts. More over, it stresses the more general tensions between national court system of justice and muslim courts system.

Indeed, the comments of Sheikh Sayeed aroused many reactions from english police officers, notably Dave Whatton, spokesman on rape for the association of chief police officers, who claims that these kind of comments "undermine everything we are trying to do" and he also rebelled against the growing influence of these sharia courts saying that "sharia law should not replace the laws of the UK".

Nevertheless, Sheikh Sayeed seems to acknowledge the fact that this kind of rapes exist and that this is "no good" and "not desirable" so offenders should be "disciplined and be made to ask forgiveness". However, despite the fact that he seems to qualify his remarks, he still thinks that the majority of these women report rape from their husband only to get a divorce. that's why he thinks rape in marriage does not exist and only do when women want to get a divorce, therefore, when women lie.

About the way this issue has to be handled, Sayeed exhorts victims of rape to name and shame their attackers online rather than reporting it to the police.

Evidently, the police does not share this point of view : Mr Whatton thinks that this kind of settlement does not make the women get the "medical and counselling support they need to overcome this traumatic experience" and it doesn't put the police in a position "to effectively prosecute offenders".

My opinion is rather similar than Inayat Bunglawala's. Indeed, he thinks comments of Sayeed are "inappropriate" and "misguided" and that rape is awful and against the law, within or without the marriage. I think these sharia courts block on certain issues the national court by making encounter two different perceptions. As far as I am concerned, the existence of such courts can only lead to division in the english society, english society known to be a multicultural, respectful of his immigration country.

Ilan Sarfati

midterm elections

Last week, Marine commented an article, posted on the website of the NewYorker.

This article deals with the midterm election, which will happen the third of November in the United States of America.

At first she reminded what midterm elections are: they take place two years after the election of the new president (quadrennial elections) and members of the Congress are elected: 435 seats in the House of Representative and 33 seats in the Senate.

Secondly she pointed out what is at stake in this election: This election could be a u-turn in its history if Republicans win because democrats have a majority for forty years.

More over the fallouts of this election would be important: A republican majority could be a burden for Mr Obama to go at lengths of his policy and his pledges. American policy would be an eternal battle of wills between Republicans and Democrats.

She also underlined that this midterm election gives rise to another struggle between two candidates (to win a seat in the Congress): Mr Kirk, a republican, has to ride out Mr Giannoulias a Democrat. Both have a history soiled by scandals: the first one because he lied about his military curriculum vitae and the other one because he was involved in a financial scandal and has close relationships with the former governor of Illinois who was accused of corruption.

All these elements undermine the image of the American policy and politicians, which enhance the weight of the Tea party movement led by Glenn Beck which can have a say in this election.

Then, Marine questioned students about the aftermaths of the election if Republicans win the majority.

The answer was clear: it would be a burden for Mr Obama to achieve his policy and his promises. To some extent the example of the health care reform is interesting: We all have seen Mr Obama’s difficulties to pass his bill despite a democrat majority. So we can imagine his future difficulties to pass other bills, but this time, without his majority. Furthermore I believe that a Republican victory would foreshadow grim outlooks for the next presidential election for democrats. Indeed at this time of his presidency Mr Obama has not achieved all his promises and all the hopes he gave rise to. So a second part of his presidency with a republican majority can’t be better and the next election could be a huge failure for democrats.

The second question deals with the debate about the mosque in New York, on the ground zero site.

Obama agreed with this proposition, but what can we think about it? Is it a strategy or clumsiness?

On my opinion i believe it was clumsiness: The president shouldn’t answer this question or has to blur it because this question is a deadlock: if he agrees the majority of Americans (who is strongly patriotic, and who hasn’t forgot the dramatic event yet) will be discontent; and if he disagrees, Muslim international community will be chocked whereas the president try to stop the war between Israel and the Arabic world, it seems complicated. That’s why I believe Mr Obama should have been more skilful with his answer.

--------> A terror plot to attack European cities?

Last week, Charlotte brilliantly told us about a terror plot which would aim to launch Mumbai style attacks on Western powers, and more particularly on Britain, Germany and… France (Did you say « France »??? Yes, I did!! « OH MY GOD » !!!).

On the one hand, according to the article chosen by our classmate on the website of Sky News, the terrifying news was intercepted by intelligence agencies. So, last week, the threat of a terror attack was real, but the article, Charlotte, and I, want to reassure you: the plan would be in an advanced but not imminent stage and the plotters would have been tracked by spy agencies for several weeks! On the other hand, Charlotte spoke about the common European counterterrorism policy. Indeed, according to Sky News, the plot was discovered thanks to collaboration between the countries which were concerned by. However, french sources, including an intelligence source and another government source linked to the intelligence officials, said they did not have knowledge of such a plot miscarried. Therefore, Charlotte mentioned the problem of coordination on the security policy within the European Union. Finally, these events resulted in a controversy debate. Indeed, Charlotte told us that some media would have qualified the French government’s attitude of opportunist: it would use the threat of a terror plot to divert attention from a wave of scandals and protests.

So, after his summary, Charlotte asked two questions: “Are the French government’s warning of a heightened terrorism risk in response to a real escalation in the threat level, or are they simply a device to divert attention from a wave of scandals and protests?” and “Do you think we can really develop an effective common European counterterrorism policy?”. For the first question nobody answered but Charlotte said that the truth was surely in the middle because the social and political context was certainly a good reason of the over-communication of the government on the subject, but she added that it could discredit the government’s actions and the terrorist threat. Moreover, she gave us results of a poll released the day before his presentation which showed that 65 % of French people were skeptical and believed that the risk of attack was not reinforced and that 59% thought the government was doing too much about it. For the second question a student answered that it could pose a problem of national sovereignty for the states.

In my opinion the threat of a terrorist attack is real for Western powers, but to date, we could think that politicians (and especially French politicians) use it to frighten citizens: and we know that the more they are frightened, the more they are subjugated. So, the news about the plot could be seen as a device to divert national fundamental problems. Indeed, surely we know and everybody knows that the threat exists, but instead of insisting on it, politicians should insist on explaining us that there are competent professionals to protect us. Then, the question about the development of a common European counterterrorism is really interesting. For my part, I think it is a good idea. Indeed, maybe countries could be stronger than before if they were together to attack the terrorist threat. The problem about national sovereignty is not important. A state should always try to protect its citizens before it should try to protect its sovereignty. The idea of a common European counterterrorism is developed to reinforce protection, which is the essential. Therefore, it can be seen as a great initiative.

I would like to finish my essay telling you : "DON'T WORRY... BE HAPPY!" :) (and sorry for my bad english!).

Can the Pope be arraigned for crime against humanity ?

On September 24^th, Lucas talked about an article of the Sunday Times, dealing with quite an unusual issue. Indeed, through Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens’s point of view –they’re like the spokesman of the atheist community- we were led to wonder if Pope Benedict XVI could be brought to justice: the two collegues denounced “his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.” The main issue of this article is to know if the Pope should be considered as a head of state or not, giving that Vatican isn’t a member of the UN.

This article is quite polemical because if Pope Benedict XVI is not a head of state, then no immunity can be required. But as the leader of the Catholic Church, a Pope detains so much influence and sending him to justice – or even in jail – would have such huge consequences. Nevertheless, in what name a man, whatever is his status, could be exempted of any form of justice? More than an issue surrounding Pope Benedict XVI, it’s a universal question. Are there men like above any type of justice? Hitchens answers: “This man is not above or outside the law […] child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies […] but justice and punishment."

Besides, this case is led by two atheists, which makes the proceedings less credible, notally in the eyes of Catholic church’s defenders. These last may undertake an action so that Dawkins and Hitchens are discredited. But is that enough to deny Pope’s role in the defense of sexual abuses? Should he avoid those issues just because of being at the head of Catholic Church ?

I don’t think so. There is no way religion might question justice! In our modern societies, I can’t stand the fact that religion is still so linked both with politics and justice. I’m not a believer but in my humble opinion, Pope Benedict can’t clear himself of his responsibility : no punishment would mean real pain for the young victims ; and letting a man, whoever he is, jeopardizes international justice because of his status is a big mistake. Moreover, even if these accusations are put forward by atheists, a fact’s a fact: sexual abuses and all what’s surrounding it can’t be tolerated, whatever the way it occurred and whoever committed it.

Justice has always been a topic of strong debates ; so the international justice is, undoubtedly going to be. It’s a long row to hoe that universal fairness. People are going at it hammer and tongs, but let’s say it’s for everyone’s well-being.

Facebook: take it or leave it !

Last Wednesday can be considered as THE « social media controversy » day: Facebook and Twitter were on the limelight.

Indeed, two students decided to put this subject out and to share their feelings, above all their fears, with us. Emma was one of them. She decided to share with us a BBC article by Tim Weber about social media notably Facebook and Twitter.

The main issue of the article was the connection between social media and firms. In other words, how do these social medias change the way of doing business.

Social medias are a new phenomenon, which has a huge impact on the way of doing business. To a larger extent it can be said that it encompasses the whole society. It is now part and parcel of our everyday lives.

Facebook or twitter can really be good psychological weapons at the disposal of the companies or against them: Emma explained that to us with the example of the campaign against British Airlines, showing that a single blog post can damage a firm picture. And this is major in our societies, in which reputation and image are essential . The business of a firm is more than ever based on its image, in doing so social medias are more than ever dangerous weapons.

All the more so as that some compagnies are used to use them to spy on their employees.

As a result, such a behaviour leads to discrimination and violation of privacy: employers encroach on their employees' private lives.

All the more so as facebook is in cahoot with some compagnies and sells them our informations.

It is now obvious that social medias work in firms' favour.

But these words can be qualified: these new instruments have also a part in the success of many firms. They are tools and precious measuring and observation instruments: For instance, a movie compagny has the opportunity to see if a movie will be successful by counting how many times it is mentioned on twitter. It is a great opportunity to access to people's mind for the first time. Of course, compagnies have to be careful because these data are not definite.

So all these informations lead to a single question: Who get the most advantages on line: customers or firms?

This was one of the main questions that was raised but the class focused on a more global question: Is all this paranoia and debate about social medias really relevant?

Indeed, only one person in our group uses twitter and nobody have a blog. So are the debate that rage on concerning facebook privacy and twitter really consistent?

And do we really need to take to the streets and to criticize so harshly facebook?

It could sound a bit contradictory and hypocritical because we definitely know nowadays what we are signing for when we sign up for Facebook.

I think that these social medias are very alluring and they create a real infatuation. If they can be tools for firms or politicians, these situations are a diversion of social medias' main goal : « connecting and sharing with the people in your life » as the motto of facebook points up.

To me, we should not give in paranoia and inconsistent fear concerning these social medias. Sure we are mired in it but it doesn't mean that we should put all of our lives on line: summer pictures, family picture,party pictures visible by anyone ,and to hasten to put every single moment of our life on line (Cécile is eating pasta, Cécile took a shower, Cécile is really pissed by all these people saying everything they are doing on line!) . I don't think that we are in the pay of facebook or twitter, it is quite the contrary and it is our responsability to strike a compromise between the advantages of these new medias and their drawbacks.

Amaury presented last week a quite uncommon and particular event which occurred in Ecuador. Before dealing with the content of his article I would like to underline the fact that Amaury's presentation was really different from what we have heard until now, and when I say different I mean in the good sense of the word: he introduced some humour, what was really pleasant and managed to relate us that fact as if it was a story delivered to children. Of course this might be related to the nature of this particular event but it was also achieved thanks to the way he described us what happened and how did the situation evolve.

Moreover I think it was a good idea to shed light on that country which is a quite unknown one for a main part of us. So let's talk about Ecuador !

A few weeks ago, the Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa was the target of what he called a tentative of “coup d'etat” from some policemen who were demonstrated for their rights, as we know that the President wanted to create a civil service. The demonstration went wrong and the president had to fly, because the policemen attempted to kill him, as he said. Actually it was true that a shooting brook up and Correa was taken away to hospital, where he declared the state of emergency and asked the population for being rescue. It was at this moment that Amaury made a judicious comparison with France, what made the all class laughed.

After his summary, Amaury linked what he read to a more specific subject which was the question of Democracy. Indeed Ecuador was the victim of a succession of military dictatorships in its recent past and Correa was the only President who has managed, until this event, to escape from a putsch, maybe because he promised a new Constitution. What lead us to Amaury's questions: is a certain level of development necessary to guarantee democracy ? Is it possible to reach stability through democracy ?

For a few seconds I was afraid that this question may have disconcerted the students as nobody seemed impatient to answer. Meanwhile the debate which followed the presentation was really interesting. The first reaction was a short debate around the notion of democracy, what is a democracy, from which facts are we able to say that a country is a democracy... Someone claimed What is democracy? and once again the all class laughed and then everybody was silent because that notion of democracy is certainly one of the most difficult to explain, as there are a lot of different vision concerning what the term of democracy can represent. Examples were given such as the case of Venezuela or North Korea and quickly someone mentioned the proves of the existence of a democracy. Is the fact that a country have elections enough to pretend that this is a democratic country ?

To stick with the initial question, Marthe said that a good economy and a certain level of development are necessary to achieve democracy but these conditions are not enough to guarantee stability in the country. An other student mentioned China in order to express the fact that sometimes development can go against democracy even thought it is obvious that the development of China enabled the population to get more freedom. We concluded by saying that a good economy must help a little in the research of democracy and stability but we thought that it was also necessary that mentalities evolve.

To my mind, maybe I'm someone too naïve and utopian, but I think democracy is an ideology, a moral goal that every politician can have the will to reach and so find the way to achieve. Of course it is easier to set up a efficient democracy in a country where it is a well shared ideology and where traditionally the state is a democracy, nevertheless we must take into account the fact that some less developed countries are trying to promote democracy and that is a good thing. Maybe democracy will bring development and will increase the economy.

I think these two aspects are linked and one cannot go without the other but I don't know which is the one who causes the other, and this must be a question nobody can answer because it really depends on the country.

Can you really control Facebook?

The BBC article Clement has chosen is about measures settled by Facebook, the world biggest social network, to allow users to control their personal data.

People will be allowed to download all the data they uploaded onto the website.

Moreover, thanks to the “groups” feature, users will be able to share particular information with a specific circle of friends. But you cannot prevent other people to enter the group you have created, for instance if your friends invite their own friends into it.

Facebook brings also an answer about problems linked with phone connections to the website. Phone numbers privacy would be insured: “All of this information is private and is not shared with any friends or any third party”.

Facebook users are often unaware of the risks implied by the broadcasting of personal data.

You have no guarantee that these information won’t be sold to firms for example. Clement added that social networks were an efficient political weapon. Let us think to Obama’s campaign on Facebook: his page gathered more than three million people, which probably increased his popularity.

A student reacted to agree with the dangerousness of social networks. He said he was used to select the information he posts on the Internet, regardless to what the Facebook engineers claim about privacy.

Larry Magid, co-director of ConnectSafely.org, evokes “a sense of false security”. To my mind, the “groups” feature contributes to that. Actually, knowing that the information is shared with a restricted group of users, people feel reassured. Nevertheless, it hides the fact that data is preserved by Facebook and no one can surely know to what purpose it keeps them. You can easily imagine that they could be sold to industrialists, advertising executives, the police, governments or even religious leaders…

In my opinion, on the Web, confidentiality doesn’t exist. Facebook can look like Big Brother. Let us think about this young American banker who asked his boss for leaving work because of “family problems”. One of his colleagues denounced him with an irrefutable proof: a photo taken from Facebook showing the banker enjoying a Halloween Fest. He was dismissed.

Another problem deals with the possibility to withdraw from the system. Indeed, deciding to live Facebook doesn’t imply the suppression of your data…

So the best means to protect your private life seems not to join Facebook.

But if like me you want to go along with the crowd without worrying, you still can making easy choices such as allowing the access to your Facebook to your friends only; creating subcategories (family, colleagues and friends for instance); avoiding to post compromising photos that a recruiter is likely to see…

To conclude, you should be neither artless nor paranoid. After all, Facebook is above all an entertainment.

Muslim and Hindus in India : the conflict about Ayodhya

Last Friday, Stéphane Dos Antos Neto explained us the latest events of the conflict between Muslims and Hindus around the religious area of Ayodhya, a very symbolic place for the two religious communities. Indeed, Hindus believe that god Rama was born in this place whereas a mosque was built in Ayodhya in 1528. Since 1947, this place is the source of religious tensions and conflicts.

The struggle has really begun in 1992 with the demolition of the mosque by Hindus extremist. The riots between the religious groups have spawned 2 000 deaths since 1992, underlining the intensity of religious tensions in India since its partition in 1947.But September 29^th, 2010 a court of India has decided to propose a compromise to remedy situation, sharing the site between Muslims, Hindus and a minority Hindus sect.

Currently, the government is trying coping with the rising of violence by appealing for calm. However, both Muslims and Hindus denounce the ruling because they reckon it not satisfactory.

Actually, the ongoing crisis is a test of India’s secular identity: to what extent can the country succeed in persuading the two communities to live together?

After this talk, Stéphane encouraged us to wonder about the relevance of the ruling: does the decision to share this area is the best one ? This pragmatic question did not cause a significant response in ours class. But the second question, slightly philosophical, provoked a burning debate: do you think the world would be better without religion ?

I deem this ruling boils down to forget the religious nature of the area: Muslims and Hindus are not fighting for a territory but for a place of worship. That’s why I believe a partition cannot solve the conflict. I consider that a politic of education attuned to the two religions in order to learn tolerance can conducive to put a stop to the struggle. I know it is an idealist idea but I think Indian government has no alternative to stop the tensions between Muslims and Hindus. Stéphane said he preferred the government make this place a secular one, building a school or something like that. But whatever the solution may be, it cannot stop confrontations immediately and I am convinced that Ayodhya will be in the headlines for a long time.

About religions, we said that there is no denying that its spawn world tensions or wars and that several tens of millions of deaths are attributable to religions. Some people in ours class reckon that religion is the ultimate cause of wars and for this cause, world would be more peaceful, better without religion. Nevertheless, I think that humans cannot live without religion: it may be a source of hope and some people find in religious practices responses to theirs doubts and theirs fears. Admittedly, we cannot exhaust the subject and I invite you to pursue this fascinating debate.

French Education : a necessary reform ?

Lucile has presented the last week a controversial article about the French educational system. France is seen on the other side of the English channel as on old-fashioned system which is not adapted to the social reality : the results are going down, a huge percentage of students leave school without scholar basis and without job. Moreover, France is especially criticized for its meritocratic performances, whereas the technics of teaching are largely catastrophic : a lack of self-confidence among the students who are worried about each difficulty they can be confronted to, and other psychological troubles.

So, according to the author of this article, French system has to turn into a modern one, giving the "perfect example of the United States system".

Of course, this point of view aroused numerous controversies during the lesson : someone gave the example of the British education which is not a perfect one. Families have the choice between expensive public schools or state schools near to their home but less efficient. Consequently, social inequalities are still existing and reinforced between the poorests and the richests.

Moreover, according to some students, the French system is not so bad, because discipline demand encourage people to work harder. Later, discipline is a question of respect, and it prevents students from chatting and being disturbing by the others.

To my mind, it is really hard to compare two systems radically opposed, as the author of this article tries to do : while the Anglo-Saxon education is more based on empiric reality, the French one concentrates its attention on a huge amount of knowledge.

In fact, the US education is not idyllic at all : inscription fees are crazily expensive, laws have dangerously reinforced the opwer of charter schools, and the inequalities are increasing.

But it is also true that France has to reform its education : 1/5 of the 11-years old kids finish their primary school with serious difficulties of reading and writing. Moreover, we cannot forget that many students experiment grade repetition, which does not really help them to perform better. But some efforts are realized in France to improve on this subject : the first step is the government's decision to make easier the access to famous schools like Sciences Po, a great democratization of our schools of elite. Because contrary to what could be said, the majority of French schools are public, representing the strengh of our system.

French educational system is also put in question on its lack of artistic promotion at school. So, some schools experiment for the first time the US system : lessons during the morning and artistic activities on the afternoon. And if this experience is successful, it could be extended to the whole country. Therefore, the government has to fight against Conservative followers to change our traditions.

Maybe we just have to wait and see what could be proposed next.