Religion Hub

France’s headscarf ban in the 2024 Summer Olympics reflects a narrow view of national identity

Laïcité, which historically upheld individual freedom, denies minority rights today, as seen in the ban on French athletes wearing hijabs at the 2024 Paris Olympics.

May 30, 2024

By 

Armin Langer

(The Conversation) — The 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris have sparked a discussion about whether female Muslim athletes who wear a headscarf should be allowed to compete.

In September 2023, the International Olympic Committee, upholding freedom of religious and cultural expression for all athletes, announced that athletes participating in the 2024 Paris Games can wear a hijab without any restriction.

French athletes, however, are bound by France’s strict separation of religion from the state, called laïcité. French Sports Minister Amelie Oudea-Castera said that French athletes would be barred from wearing a hijab during the Paris games to respect this commitment to the principle of laïcité.

Human rights organizations argued that such a ban infringes upon the religious freedoms of Muslim athletes, perpetuating discrimination and marginalization. The United Nations human rights office stated that “no one should impose on a woman what she needs to wear, or not wear.”

This debate highlights the conflict between laïcité and the right to express one’s religious beliefs. As a scholar of European studies, I know about laïcité’s impact on sports, politics and society in general. In my view, laïcité, which historically upheld individual rights and freedoms, increasingly denies minority rights today, as seen in the ban on French athletes wearing hijabs at the 2024 Paris Olympics.

Laïcité yesterday and today

Before the 1789 revolution, France was an absolute monarchy, where religion and the state were deeply intertwined.

The close relationship between the French monarchy and the Catholic Church began when King Charlemagne was crowned by the pope in 800 A.D. Over the centuries, the church became very powerful, owning land and controlling education and health care. It formed strong political alliances, with many nobles holding top positions within the church.

After the French Revolution succeeded and the monarchy was abolished, the revolutionaries still resented religion for its long relationship with the crown. They saw the church as a source of unfairness in society and wanted to reduce religion’s influence in public life and push their ideas of freedom, fairness and unity.

They nationalized church properties and introduced secularism to create a separation between religious and governmental affairs. Since then, France has maintained laïcité as one of the republic’s core value

The evolution of laïcité in France coincides with significant demographic shifts in the latter half of the 20th century. As France transformed into a diverse nation with various religions and ethnicities, including a significant Muslim population, the interpretation and application of laïcité faced new challenges. With millions migrating from former French colonies in northern and western Africa in search of economic opportunities, France now hosts the largest Muslim community in Europe, comprising about 10% of its population. This demographic change has sparked debates about the role of religion in public life and the extent to which laïcité should accommodate religious diversity.

While laïcité was originally introduced alongside principles such as freedom and equality, as times changed, so did its meaning. Initially, laïcité meant keeping religion separate from the state. Lately, however, it is often interpreted to mean that citizens should refrain from showing their religious identities in public.

This shift has led to bans on religious symbols in public schools and spaces, disproportionately affecting Muslim women who wear veils.

A debate about the Olympics – and beyond

Activists and scholars have argued that today’s laïcité poses a threat to both human rights and religious freedom. In their view, it promotes a narrow view of republican values and national identity, rejecting diversity and unfairly targeting Muslim women who wear headscarves.

Laïcité can be seen as discriminatory because it often treats Christian customs as just part of everyday culture, while it treats visible signs of other religions, such as the hijab worn by some Muslim women, as unacceptable. This means Christian symbols and traditions are more easily accepted, but non-Christian ones are often not allowed.

It is also important to note that Christian traditions focus mostly on beliefs, which are private, while Islamic and Jewish traditions emphasize practices, such as wearing headscarves, that are visible. This means laïcité affects people differently, often more strictly targeting visible signs of non-Christian religion

A 2023 survey showed that almost 80% of French Muslims believed that their country’s secular laws are discriminatory. Research shows that laïcité disproportionately affects Muslim girls from marginalized communities, perpetuating social inequalities. For example, the ban on headscarves in schools forces Muslim girls to choose between their education and their religious beliefs, leading to feelings of exclusion and isolation. This policy can also hinder their academic performance and personal development, limiting their future opportunities.

Banning hijab for players

French Muslim athletes have faced challenges on the field for a long time. For example, in 2023, the French Soccer Federation decided not to adjust meal and practice timings during Ramadan, even though it occurred during a break when there was no competition.

This decision effectively prevented Muslim players from fasting and led to notable departures, such as Lyon midfielder Mahamadou Diawara leaving the France under-19s camp. Other French players, too, left French professional sports. Basketball player Diaba Konate also opted to pursue her career in the United States because of the French ban on wearing the hijab.

In 2004, France prohibited religious symbols in public schools, including the hijab, Jewish yarmulkes, Sikh turbans and large Christian crosses.

The nonprofit Human Rights Watch criticized it as an unjustified restriction on religious practice. In 2010, France extended the ban to face-covering headgear in public places, including the burqa and niqab, which are garments worn by some Muslim women that cover the face and body. Last year, France banned the abaya in schools.

A ban on cultural pluralism?

The hijab debate extends beyond the realm of sports, touching upon broader issues of identity and belonging in multicultural societies. For many Muslim women, the hijab is not just clothing – it is an expression of religious identity and empowerment.

Banning it from the Olympics could be seen as limiting their freedom of expression and denying their right to fully engage in society while staying true to their religious and cultural backgrounds.

France’s ban on religious symbols in official sports activities highlights the struggle to balance religious freedom with national values. This becomes especially complicated in the Olympics, where athletes’ individual expressions clash with their roles as representatives of their countries.

(Armin Langer, Assistant Professor of European Studies, University of Florida. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

 

How a legendary Knights Templar symbol has puzzled and fascinated since the Middle Ages

Warrior-monks crusaded for Christianity throughout medieval Europe. Adding to the ongoing mystery surrounding the military order is their enigmatic seal.

May 30, 2024

By 

Andrew Latham

(The Conversation) — The Knights Templar, a legendary monastic military order forged in the fires of the Crusades, continue to enthrall 21st-century audiences.

From the time of their founding in 1119 C.E. to their dissolution in 1312 C.E., the Templars’ mission was to defend Christian kingdoms in the Holy Land against the various Muslim powers that sought to return the region to Islamic rule. In service of this mission, the order fused two defining institutions of the early Middle Ages: the mounted knight and the pious monk.

At the time, this made the Templars something of a puzzle. How could someone be both a pious monk and a ferocious warrior? The Templars themselves tried to address this question in their symbology, which proved as puzzling as the order itselfre

The Knights Templar were a military order of monks.
From the archive of the British Library via Flickr, CC BY

One of the Templars’ more enigmatic symbols was their wax seal – two knights riding a single horse. In the Middle Ages, people used seals to protect important communications from forgery, acting like a signature. Everyone from individuals to organizations had their own unique seal.

While the images on seals could be relatively simple and straightforward, they sometimes conveyed more subtle messages. The message of the Templars’ seal has always been open to interpretation.

Interpreting the Templar seal

While researching medieval geopolitics and the Third Crusade, I came across several interpretations of the Templar seal.

The most popular ties the shared steed to the Templars’ vow of poverty. While the Order was not literally financially constrained, the symbol likely was meant to demonstrate that the Templars took the vow seriously.

Another draws a connection to the Gospel of Matthew, where one figure represents a knight and the other Jesus Christ. This interpretation stems from a Bible passage where Christ says, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I with them.” The idea is that the two knights on a single horse embody the ever-present companionship of Christ with the Templars who had gathered in his na

As part of a campaign to discredit the Templars, some suggested the two knights symbolized the homosexuality said to be rampant within the order.

Some propose that the two knights represent a duality within the order itself. The single horse could signify the unification of their seemingly contrasting roles as warrior-monk.

The seal’s inscription adds another layer of intrigue. Originally, the inscription read “Sigillum Militum Christi” – Latin for “Seal of the Soldiers of Christ.” In the mid-13th century, the order’s 19th grand master changed the inscription to “Sigillum Militum Xpisti,” replacing the Latin word for Christ with the Greek. Some scholars argue that using the Greek letters “XP” instead of the Latin “CHR” was intended to invoke Emperor Constantine’s vision at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 C.E. His victory allowed him to end the official persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire.

Constantine is said to have had a divine vision while preparing for battle.
School of Raphael/Wikimedia Commons

Multiple meanings

While the exact meaning of the seal remains a riddle, there is little doubt it served as a powerful symbol of the knights’ commitment to their ideals.

The seal’s many interpretations resonate with different audiences. For some, it represents Christian soldiery and unwavering brotherhood. For others, it evokes the enigmatic nature of the Templars. And for others, it suggests corruption and sexual misconduct.

The seal serves as a window into the Knights Templar’s identity and impact on medieval Christian history. It is a symbol likely to continue to spark curiosity for centuries to come.

(Andrew Latham, Professor of Political Science, Macalester College. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

LATER DURING THE TEMPLARS INQUISITION THEY WOULD BE ACCUSSED OF HOMOSEXUALITY WITH REFERENCE TO THE IMAGE OF THE TWO POOR BROTHERS

The EU Parliament's Strengths, Weaknesses, and Unrealized Potential


ON MAY 30, 2024
By Guest Contributor - Opinion

Dick Roche 


In the 45 years since the 1st direct elections, the European Parliament has been transformed from an appointed multilingual talking shop to a directly elected assembly. It is also a significantly larger assembly. The Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, and most significantly the Lisbon Treaty all enhanced its role. But ahead of the 10th election next month, former Irish Minister for Europe Dick Roche spoke at an EU Reporter event at the Brussels Press Club, warning that having significant legislative and executive oversight powers is one thing how it harnesses those powers is, however, another matter. Concerns that arise in both areas need to be addressed by the 10th Parliament

.
Dick Roche speaking at the Brussels Press Club


The Bureaucratization of the Parliament: More Powerful, Less Legitimate

In May 2009 the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) published a working document with the provocative title “The European Parliament - More powerful, less legitimate?”

The study reviewed the position of the parliament going into its 7th mandate. It concluded that the European Parliament had handled the increase in its membership very well.

It took the view that the disruption that some feared from the rapid expansion of the Parliament did not happen that EU expansion and the various treaty changes made the work of the Parliament “more intricate”, that the Parliament had “gained within the institutional triangle of EU institutions” and that “if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified this trend will be considerably reinforced.”



The study closed with a concern regarding the Parliament’s capacity to capture the public’s interest and a warning that failing to do so would put its “institutional raison d’étre as the democratic pillar of the European Union” – in jeopardy.”

The Lisbon Treaty was ratified and came into effect on 1 December 2009 enhancing the role of the Parliament, changing the balance between consultation and co-decision, extending co-decision to agriculture, fisheries, energy, immigration, structural funds, and intellectual property, areas where Parliament previously had to be consulted, and created new areas where co-decision would apply.

Bureaucratization

CEPS noted that as the work of the Parliament extended and became more intricate the Parliament became more dependent on its committees, increasingly decisions were taken within the Parliament’s committees rather than in Plenary debates, with many decisions taken after only one reading in the Parliament. Post the Lisbon Treaty changes that process accelerated.

In today’s EU Parliament, the primary scrutinization of the legislative proposals received from the Commission takes place in committees. When a legislative proposal is passed to a committee a rapporteur - selected by a complicated ‘points system’ that reflects the size of the political groups in the Parliament - drafts a response that ultimately goes to the Parliament for approval. The political groups appoint ‘shadow rapporteurs’ to ensure their views are represented. The results of the Committee's deliberations in, the form of a resolution and amendments, move to plenary sessions where they are debated and voted on.

In addition to the work done in the Parliamentary Committees, interinstitutional discussions between the Parliament, the Council, and the Commission play a key role in the process. Meetings known as trilogues seek to establish a provisional agreement between the Council and the Parliament with the Commission “mediating” between the co-legislators to help ‘iron out differences. The Parliament is represented by the chair, rapporteur, and shadow rapporteurs of the Committee handling the draft legislation.

In purely administrative terms these arrangements make sense. They allow a diverse range of legislative work to be processed at any one time. They allow differences to be ironed out and compromises to be reached. This enables the Parliament to effectively pass proposals ‘on the nod’. The work has already been done before the plenary votes.

Administrative efficiency however comes with a series of downsides. While the debates of the Parliament and of its Committees are in public much of the detailed work of hammering out agreement is conducted away from the public view. Only a handful of MEPs are involved to any significant degree. Much of the process is opaque.

CEPS cautioned that the ‘bureaucratization’ of the legislative process undermines the Parliament’s role as a public forum and centre for debate and highlighted two potential problems.

First, as the composition of an individual committee may not be representative of the full Parliament, the decisions that come out of a committee will not always reflect the range of opinions and concerns in the parliament as a whole on any particular issue.

Second, when the plenary adopts a set of legislative proposals based on a compromise pre-negotiated in committee there is little chance of a real debate.

Truncating the level of open debate limits the chance of capturing public attention for the work in which the Parliament is engaged. What the public cannot see it does not appreciate.

The arrangements also mean that there is less chance of reflecting the full range of experience of MEPs and incorporating the concerns, aspirations, and wishes of the millions of EU citizens they represent in the legislation that passes the parliament’s scrutiny.

The opaqueness of the process also feeds into cynicism and suspicion about the Parliament.

All of this supports the CEPS concern that “in times of skepticism about further EU integration and growing voter apathy about European elections” the bureaucratization of the legislative “could be detrimental to the parliament and to European integration in the long run.”

Those observations made in May 2009 still apply in May 2024.

Relinquishing Control.

In addition to its role as a co-legislator, the EU Parliament is charged with the task of supervising the work of the Commission and other EU bodies.

The treaties provide that Parliament approves the appointment of the Commission President, approves and the European Commission, can censure the Commission and ultimately dismiss it.

The Commission is required to submit reports to the Parliament including an annual report on EU activities and the EU budget. The Commission President gives an annual State of the Union address to the Parliament.

The Commission can also be requested by the Parliament to initiate new policies; whether it chooses to do so is a matter for the Commission.

While this looks impressive on paper the amount of day-to-day control exercised by the Parliament over the Commission is limited. That control is further diminished by striking passivity towards the Commission. This point is demonstrated by the Parliament’s curious approach to Parliamentary Questions (PQs).

PQs are widely regarded as a device to hold governments and executive agencies to account on day-to-day issues. While other Parliaments robustly defend their PQ systems that is not the case with the EU Parliament.

Over the last decade, there has been an active attempt to suppress the PQ system in the EU parliament.

Three categories of parliamentary questions are taken in the EU Parliament: questions for oral answer with debate, oral questions taken in Question Time, and questions for written answer.

Questions for ‘oral answer with debate’ are dealt with in the Parliament’s plenary sessions. These questions must be submitted by a Parliament Committee, a political group, or by 40 MEPs.

Question time, so often the focus of public attention in national Parliaments is, in the case of the EU Parliament, a very constrained affair. A maximum of 90 minutes during Parliament plenary sessions is allocated to question time. During each question time PQs on “one or more specific horizontal themes” are taken. The themes on which questions will be taken are determined one month in advance of the part-session by the Parliament’s Conference of Presidents.

The text of oral questions that are cleared to go on the agenda must be given to the Commission at least one week before the sitting of the Parliament on which they are to be taken. For questions to the Council, the notice period is three weeks.

MEPs who are selected to participate in oral question time, have one minute to put their questions and are given 30 seconds for a supplementary question arising on the Commission’s response. The Commission has two minutes to reply to the question and a further two minutes to respond to any supplementary question.

The vast majority of questions handled in the EU Parliament are questions for written response.

Written questions may be placed by an individual or a group of MEPs. Questions are subject to screening within the Parliament itself before being submitted to the Commission for processing. MEPs may not raise issues on which “the Commission has already informed Parliament” on the subject matter of the question.

Members of the European Parliament are allowed to submit a maximum of 20 parliamentary questions, written or oral, over a “rolling three-month period”. One PQ per month may be designated for ‘priority’ answer Priority questions are supposed to be answered within three weeks. Non-priority questions are supposed to be answered in six weeks.

Slow and Slipshod Responses

While the submission of PQs is subject to a series of limitations, arrangements governing how the Commission deals with PQs are lax to the point of being virtually non-existent.

Replies to “priority questions” are supposed to be given within three weeks. This deadline is honoured in the breach than the observance, particularly where the subject matter is ‘embarrassing’ for the Commission.

A priority question submitted by four MEPs in July 2022 on the sensitive issue of text messages between Commission President von der Leyen Commission and the CEO of Pfizer was not answered until March 2023.

A priority question about suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement submitted by two Irish MEPs in November 2023 did not receive a response for almost six months.

Non-priority written questions are supposed to be answered in six weeks. It was recently calculated that as many as ninety percent of all such PQs are answered late.

In addition to a casual approach to meeting the deadlines for delivering responses to PQs, the Commission adopts a laissez-faire response to the content of replies. PQ responses are criticized as dodging the issues raised, as perfunctory, incomplete, misleading, dismissive, not infrequently bordering on disrespectful, and occasionally simply false.

All of these points were demonstrated in the Commission’s responses to a series of PQs lodged by MEPs from across the political spectrum concerning a report produced in March 2023 by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, EIOPA discussed recently in an article in EU Reporter 

[ https://www.eureporter.co/world/romania/2024/01/25/keeping-the-european-parliament-in-the-dark-about-eiopa/

Between March 2023 and February 2024, the Commission answered twelve questions related to EIOPA. Other questions are understood to have been discouraged during the ‘vetting process’ on the basis that the issue had already been dealt with.

Virtually all the replies given on the issue failed to meet the six-week deadline. All the responses given could be described as inadequate. Links cited by the Commission in some of the PQ replies led to documents that were either ‘access denied’ or had key paragraphs redacted. Access to the EIOPA report itself was denied. The replies given were defensive, evasive, or both.

There can be little doubt that the tenor and content of the PQ responses given would not be tolerated in any national parliament.

Having fielded questions for months, the Commission confessed that it had not seen the EIOPA report. Replying to a question as to how it referenced concerns expressed in a report, that it had not seen, the Commission suggested that “it could be inferred that EIOPA” had concerns in the case. The details of those concerns or their basis were not communicated in any of the answers.

It is hard to imagine members of any national parliament having been stonewalled for months on questions about an executive agency accepting a response that a key report had not seen without some pushback.

A complaint was made to the Ombudsman about the Commission’s handling of PQs in this case. This got nowhere. The Ombudsman took the view that the way the Commission handles PQs is a political rather than an administrative matter and, therefore, not be the subject of an examination by the Ombudsman's office. In short, the Commission could prevaricate, mislead, or even lie in responding to a Parliamentary question and the Ombudsman could not examine the case.

The Decline of PQs

There has been a marked decline in the number of PQs in the EU Parliament over the last decade. That decline has been particularly steep during the mandate of the outgoing Parliament.

The number of PQs dealt with in the EU Parliament peaked at just under 15,500 in 2015. Through the mandates of the 8th and 9th Parliaments, the number of questions dealt with dropped precipitously. In 2023 only 3,703 questions were answered in the European Parliament.

In the four years 2020 to 2023, just under 20,500 Parliamentary Questions were dealt with in by the European Parliament. By way of comparison, between February 2020 and November 2023 over 200,000 parliamentary questions were dealt with in the Dail Eireann, the Irish Parliament.

Remarkably, the dramatic decline in PQs in the EU Parliament has attracted little public attention. More remarkably still it has not been the subject of any pushback in the EU Parliament itself.

While the extraordinary passivity within the EU Parliament to the decline of the PQ as a device for assuring executive answerability is striking, even more remarkable is the fact that part of the driving force for ‘killing off’ parliamentary questions has come from within the EU Parliament itself.

The Draft Rules of Procedure circulated in 2014 contained a reference to maintaining the overall volume of questions within “reasonable limits.”

An internal memo produced in the Parliament at the same time by a highly respected senior staff member of the parliament stressed the need to “reduce access” in some MEP activities, submitting written questions amongst them.

In April 2015 a parliamentary question tabled by a S&D Member who served as a shadow rapporteur on the 2016 EU budget referenced the fact that “the number of written questions submitted by MEPs to the Commission is constantly on the rise” and suggested that “the flood of written questions must be a huge burden on the Commission”. Rather bizarrely, the MEP recorded that he had “managed to persuade the main political groups to reach a consensus on the matter” of reducing the number of parliamentary questions. [ https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-8-2015-006180_EN.html].

Responding to the PQ Commissioner Timmermans referenced the “great importance” that the Commission attached to “the Parliament’s right of democratic scrutiny”. The Commissioner also referred to the “ever-increasing number of questions (some 13,100 in 2013, 10,800 in 2014, an election year and 6,000 in the first four months of 2015) does entail considerable costs for the Commission.”

Mr Timmermans put the cost per question in 2015 at €490 per PQ. He explained that because the Commission operated “on the basis of the principle of collegiality” the reply to each written question had to go “through a process of attribution, drafting, validation, inter-service coordination, collegiate endorsement, and finally translation.”

Based on each question costing €490 to answer the 15,489 questions tabled that year, would cost over €7.5 million a not inconsiderable figure but a small fraction of the cost of running the Commission.

The Democratic Cost.

The 2009 CEPS paper concluded that if the Treaty of Lisbon was ratified the Parliament would gain further ground within “the institutional triangle of EU institutions”.

Thanks to the Irish Referendum of 2 October 2009 the Treaty of Lisbon was ratified. It came into effect in December 2009.

As mentioned at the outset, the CEPS paper cautioned that if the Parliament - having gained ground with the ratification of the Lisbon - failed to capture the public’s interest at the same time its institutional raison d’être as the democratic pillar of the European Union would be in jeopardy.

Almost fifteen years after the Lisbon Treaty came into effect the dynamic between the Commission and the Parliament remains firmly tilted towards the former.

The process of bureaucratization within the Parliament has continued apace as has the evisceration of the Parliament’s capacity to call the Commission to account.

A neutered Parliament comes with a significant cost. All seven EU Parliament elections between 1984 and 2014 saw a decline in voter turnout.

When the first direct elections were held in 1979 the turnout of voters was 63%. Turnout dropped in each of the following seven elections bottoming out at under 43% in 2014. In 2019 that rose to almost 51%. While significant, the 2019 increase in turnout still meant that over 49% of voters did not cast their vote.

The Spring 2023 Eurobarometer recorded voters’ interest in European elections as limited. Only half of those polled believed that voting in EU parliament elections mattered, two-thirds believed that voting in national elections mattered. The Spring 2024 Eurobarometer provided more optimistic figures reporting that 71% of voters across the EU said that they are likely to vote in this June’s elections. If anythingapproaching that number turns out it will be a truly remarkable turnaround. We will know in just two weeks.

Europe faces a series of challenges over the next five years, the mandate of the incoming Parliament. If the EU is to preach about democracy it should be seen to practice it. A strong and vibrant European Parliament representing the diversity that is Europe will be an important message for European citizens and for the wider world.

Dick Roche is a former Irish Minister for European Affairs. In that role, he played a decisive role in the Irish referendum that ratified the Lisbon Treaty.

Changing Global News Coverage of Africa Is About Acknowledging the Continent’s Rightful Place in the World

REPORTING ON AFRICA
MAY 30, 2024
BY RUTH OMONDI

A newsstand displays national and international newspapers in New York City on January 23, 2024. © Ahmed Gaber/NYTimes/Redux


A new Global Media Index for Africa—recently launched by Africa No Filter, an Open Society Foundations grantee, the Africa Center, and the University of Cape Town—sheds light on the global news media reporting on Africa. The index assessed and ranked online news stories by a range of outlets—European, American, Chinese, and Russian—which revealed much of the global media continues with a stereotypical portrayal of Africa. The findings suggested that the global media maintained the centuries-long colonial representation of Africa as a crisis-laden continent, despite recent positive developments. The media coverage is often shaped by limited knowledge of African geopolitical factors and journalistic norms that favor certain news values.

The index reviewed the performance of more than 1,000 news articles across the online news content from 20 media outlets. The review, collected over a six-month period, categorized the overall performance as medium, implying that there is still a need to significantly improve coverage on Africa in terms of more progressive narratives. The ranking of the news outlets was based on indicators such as the diversity of topics covered, sources interviewed and quoted, the number of African countries covered, and the depth of coverage—including balance, context, and stereotype avoidance.

The Guardian took first place for its overall coverage of the continent, followed by France’s Agence France-Presse and Al-Jazeera. The United States’ news giants—the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal— ranked lowest in the bottom three positions. China’s CGTN and Xinhua had mixed results, despite Beijing’s drive to expand access to its news services in Africa since the opening of its CGTN news hub in Nairobi in 2012.

The findings of this index are crucial to igniting a much-needed larger conversation on how the global news media perpetuates negative stereotypes about Africa, their negative impacts, and how to fix them. Moky Makura, executive director at Africa No Filter, whose mission is to shift these stereotypical narratives about Africa, notes that “Africans can’t ignore the outsized influence these global media outlets have on how the world sees Africa and how Africa sees itself. It’s in our interests as concerned Africans to track and monitor what and how they write about us.”

Africa has predominantly been portrayed as a “dark continent” characterized by wars, famine, poverty, disease, and corruption—painting a picture of a continent perpetually in crisis. This negative portrayal of Africa in the global media ignores the social, political, and economic success stories as well as the innovation and overall progress that has been happening over the decades.

While it is true that Africa faces significant challenges, so do other continents. Yet, compared to Africa, where the reporting is dominated by crises, the coverage of other regions does not usually define them solely by their challenges. This skewed portrayal of Africa as a continent perpetually in crisis not only misrepresents the continent but also reinforces harmful stereotypes that hinder Africa’s perception on the global stage.

Like other regions, Africa, too, should have the same nuanced and comprehensive media coverage that acknowledges its diversity, complexity, progress, and potential.

In essence, the index echoes decades-long findings of several research studies on perpetual negative reporting on Africa and the calls for global news media to provide more balanced and accurate reporting.

One way to achieve this is by amplifying African voices to tell Africa’s story and partnering with organizations like the African News Agency and platforms like the African News and AllAfrica to provide Africa-centric perspectives. Fostering partnerships with African outlets and investing in more correspondents on the ground to report on a wide range of issues and offer deeper insights and contextual nuances is important.

Ultimately, changing Africa’s global news coverage is not just about balance and fairness; it’s about acknowledging Africa’s rightful place in the world. It’s about recognizing that Africa is not just a sum total of its problems but a continent of immense opportunities and diversity, with many stories of triumph, progress, and innovation that deserve to be told alongside its struggles.

In the end, it’s about telling Africa’s full story—the story of a vibrant, dynamic, and evolving continent.


Ruth Omondi

Ruth Omondi is an associate director for Communications at the Open Society Foundations.

 

A nurse honored for compassion is fired after referring to Gaza ‘genocide’ in speech

The nurse, who is Palestinian American, was being honored for her compassion in caring for mothers who had lost babies when she drew a link between her work and the suffering of mothers in Gaza.

Health care workers walk in and out of the entrance at NYU-Langone Hospital on Monday, Dec. 14, 2020, in New York. A nurse was fired by the hospital after she referred to Israel’s war in Gaza as “genocide” during a speech accepting an award. Labor and delivery nurse Hesen Jabr, who is Palestinian American, was being honored by NYU Langone Health for her compassion in caring for mothers who had lost babies when she drew a link between her work and the suffering of mothers in Gaza. (AP Photo/Kevin Hagen, File)

May 30, 2024

By 

Karen Matthews

NEW YORK (AP) — A nurse was fired by a New York City hospital after she referred to Israel’s war in Gaza as a “genocide” during a speech accepting an award.

Labor and delivery nurse Hesen Jabr, who is Palestinian American, was being honored by NYU Langone Health for her compassion in caring for mothers who had lost babies when she drew a link between her work and the suffering of mothers in Gaza.

“It pains me to see the women from my country going through unimaginable losses themselves during the current genocide in Gaza,” Jabr said, according to a video of the May 7 speech that she posted on social media. “This award is deeply personal to me for those reasons

Jabr wrote on Instagram that she arrived at work on May 22 for her first shift back after receiving the award when she was summoned to a meeting with the hospital’s president and vice president of nursing “to discuss how I ‘put others at risk’ and ‘ruined the ceremony’ and ‘offended people’ because a small part of my speech was a tribute towards the grieving mothers in my country.”

She wrote that after working most of her shift she was “dragged once again to an office” where she was read her termination letter and then escorted out of the building.

A spokesperson for NYU Langone, Steve Ritea, confirmed that Jabr was fired following her speech and said there had been “a previous incident as well.”

“Hesen Jabr was warned in December, following a previous incident, not to bring her views on this divisive and charged issue into the workplace,” Mr. Ritea said in a statement. “She instead chose not to heed that at a recent employee recognition event that was widely attended by her colleagues, some of whom were upset after her comments. As a result, Jabr is no longer an NYU Langone employee.”

Ritea did not provide any details of the previous incident.

Jabr defended her speech in an interview with The New York Times and said talking about the war “was so relevant” given the nature of the award she had won.

“It was an award for bereavement; it was for grieving mothers,” she said.

Gaza’s Ministry of Health says that more than 36,000 people have been killed in the territory during the war that started with the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel. Around 80% of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million has been displaced and U.N. officials say parts of the territory are experiencing famine.

Critics say Israel’s military campaign amounts to genocide, and the government of South Africa formally accused the country of genocide in January when it asked the United Nations’ top court to order a halt to Israeli military operations in Gaza.

Israel has denied the genocide charge and told the International Court of Justice it is doing everything it can to protect Gaza’s civilian population.

Jabr is not the first employee at the hospital, which was renamed from NYU Medical Center after a major donation from Republican Party donor and billionaire Kenneth Langone, to be fired over comments about the Mideast conflict.

A prominent researcher who directed the hospital’s cancer center was fired after he posted anti-Hamas political cartoons including caricatures of Arab people. That researcher, biologist Benjamin Neel, has since filed suit against the hospital.

Jabr’s firing also was not her first time in the spotlight. When she was an 11-year-old in Louisiana, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on her behalf after she was forced to accept a Bible from the principal of her public school.

“This is not my first rodeo,” she told the Times.

SPACE

Pakistan PM congratulates nation on launch of second satellite for fastest internet connectivity

A view of the rocket carrying the PakSat-MM1 satellite at China’s Xichang Satellite Launch Centre on Thursday. X photo

Gulf Today Report

Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif on Thursday congratulated the nation on the launch of its second communication satellite, Paksat-MM1, hoping that it would help provide the fastest Internet facility throughout the country.

“I am delighted to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the entire nation on the momentous occasion of the launch of Pakistan's second communication satellite, Paksat MM1. This remarkable achievement marks a significant advancement in our space and communication capabilities, and I am immensely proud of our national accomplishment,” Shahbaz said in a statement on Thursday.

In a statement, the PM said: "I am particularly excited about the potential impact of Paksat-MM1 on internet connectivity across Pakistan. With its state-of-the-art communication technology, this satellite promises to revolutionise our digital landscape and provide the fastest Internet facility throughout the country.”

Congratulating the nation on the ‘momentous occasion’ he said that the achievement marked a significant advancement in Pakistan’s space and communication capabilities, and he was proud of the national accomplishment.

The prime minister said that Paksat-MM1 would not only enhance the lives of Pakistani citizens but also contribute to the promotion of economic activities, e-commerce, and e-governance.

Shahbaz said that the launch of Paksat-MM1 from China’s Xichang Satellite Launch Centre was a testament to the strong collaboration and partnership between two countries. "It is through such cooperative endeavors that we can propel our nation forward and harness the power of technology for the benefit of our people.”

“Once again, my heartfelt congratulations to the team at Suparco, and the entire nation on this remarkable achievement. May the launch of Paksat MM1 be the harbinger of even greater successes in our quest for excellence in space and communication technology, the PM remarked.

Earlier, Pakistan launched its second communication satellite, PakSat-MM-1, to further improve its digital communication infrastructure, Pakistan’s space agency said.

The satellite was sent into orbit from China's Xichang Satellite Launch Center (XSLC) and will deploy at an altitude of 36,000 km above the Earth.

The five-ton satellite is equipped with the latest communication equipment. "The satellite is expected to contribute to the establishment of a sophisticated communication network and help meet the growing demands of the telecom sector,” the Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO) said.

The satellite is expected to take three to four days to stabilise in its designated orbit around the Earth, a SUPARCO official added.

The Indian women trumpeting their caste on Instagram

Divya Arya,BBC Hindi

BBC
Shivi Dikshit shoots Instagram Reels at home for her 150,000 followers


Young women in small towns and villages across India are proudly trumpeting their caste identities on Instagram, making it the latest battleground for caste politics.

The BBC tracked 100 accounts and spoke to a dozen such influencers across the caste divide to understand what's driving the trend.

The camera focuses on a woman in a black dress. She is pointing a rifle at the sky with her hand on the trigger.

"Who are you?" asks an accompanying voiceover. "We are Brahmins," a voice responds. The woman smiles, and the sound of two gunshots is heard.

This is just one of hundreds of Instagram Reels made by Shivi Dikshit, a 24-year-old from the northern state of Uttar Pradesh who shares short videos about her Brahmin caste with her 150,000 followers on Instagram.

Hinduism's deeply hierarchical caste system, which dates back at least 3,000 years, puts Brahmins or priests at the top and Dalits (formerly untouchables) at the bottom.

Caste-based discrimination has been illegal in India for decades, but the country's 200 million Dalits continue to find themselves among the most marginalised citizens. Despite reforms, caste also remains a strong marker of identity in everyday conversations in many parts of the country.Caste hatred in India - what it looks like
How the British reshaped India's caste system

In the videos, which are shot at home and have more than a million views, Ms Dikshit talks about the "superiority" of Brahmins as she pours scorn on the notion of inter-caste relations and rejects affirmative policies aimed at empowering Dalits.

"Brahmins have a cultural upbringing [unlike other caste groups]. Everyone in my family is a practising priest. I want to propagate the values we practice and dispel myths about my community," she tells me while sitting on the terrace of her family-owned temple in the northern town of Meerut.

Ms Dikshit is among the thousands of Indian women who are using Instagram to talk about their caste in new and imaginative ways.

Most of them are from small towns and villages - unusual in a country where, unlike men, very few women speak publicly about their religious and caste identities. But access to social media, they say, has given them a platform to freely express themselves and challenge patriarchal controls.

Simi Jadhav, a 22-year-old Dalit woman, says she finds Instagram empowering


A study done by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) between 2014 and 2019 notes there has been a "democratisation of the social media space" in India, especially among the "less educated and those living in rural areas".

And it's not just women from privileged castes - the strident views of those like Ms Dikshit have met a fightback from the Dalit community.

Seemi Milind Jadhav, a 22-year-old beautician, goes by the name Bhimachi Sherni on Instagram. It's a reference to Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, a Dalit icon and the architect of India's constitution, while Sherni means lioness in Urdu.

"I look upon Ambedkar as a father figure. So, I am my father's lioness," she says.

Ms Jadhav, who lives on the outskirts of India's financial capital Mumbai, says she began making Reels after coming across "myths and disinformation being spread by upper-caste handles on Instagram".In pictures: The many lives of India's Dalits
What is India's caste system?

"I started educating myself about Ambedkar's teachings and caste politics, slowly I found a whole community of like-minded Dalits online," she told me.

"We now brainstorm and come up with our own Reels in response."

Most of the women the BBC spoke to said they made their online debut on the Chinese app TikTok and moved to Instagram after India banned it in 2020.

The content they share is wide-ranging, but recurring themes include descriptions of "the ideal" Brahmin or Dalit man and a strong rejection of inter-caste marriages.

These opinions can seem contrarian to a modern image of India - but data shows it's not uncommon. A Pew Research Center survey in 2019-2020 had more than 60% of respondents say it was important to stop both men and women in their community from marrying into other castes.

Many young Indian women are using Instagram to talk about their caste identities


These influencers also highlight the fault lines in a country marked by religious and social divisions.

Brahmin women speak of uniting Brahmins and the Hindu community to contribute "to the building of the Hindu nation".

But Dalit women like Ms Jadhav oppose the idea. They say if that happens, the strides the community has made in accessing education, employment and a life of dignity will be halted, pushing Dalits back to the margins.

Hilal Ahmed, an assistant professor at CSDS, says the trend shows how women are rejecting popular assumptions that they are not interested in politics.

"Women are seen as bearers of culture and tradition that are derived from caste and religion," he explains.

"It is not surprising that now that they have a medium to express themselves, they want to own those identities and share their opinion about them."

But he adds that in the name of pride, these women are often perpetuating existing social divides.

"It's a paradox. They assert a sense of victimhood that their communities are under threat while also claiming that they don't fear anyone."

Some of the content shared is also provocative, with Reels bordering on hate speech and violence. The BBC contacted Meta about a few such videos, following which the company took them down from the platform.

A Meta spokesperson said the company's community standards prohibit content targeting a person or group of people on the basis of their caste which is "a protected characteristic".

"Any content that threatens or incites violence is also prohibited," the spokesperson added.

Women say Instagram has given them a space to speak their mind


The women, however, dismiss allegations of casteism and violence and claim they are only trying to unite their community.

Samiksha Sharma, who describes herself as Brahmin on Instagram, says she is often accused of "dividing people" and receives hostile comments

"However, I don't see it that way," the 24-year-old adds.

"I take inspiration from other Brahmin handles and promote our community."

In a country where millions of young adult women cannot even own a mobile phone without their parents' permission, Ms Jadhav says the platform allows her to navigate patriarchy through technology.

When she first began making Reels in 2019, she did not tell her parents, recording them secretly at a salon where she worked to support her family.

But she says the solidarities she built with women online gave her the courage to tell them the truth and assert her identity.

"They were shocked but proud that I was doing this for the community. So now I don't need to hide."

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for DALIT 

Israeli minister: 'We will ruin the West Bank like Gaza'

On a visit to Bat Hefer near the illegal Separation Wall today, far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich threatened Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank with total destruction if they continue to resist occupation. He said Israel needs to control the occupied West Bank in order to keep the illegal settlements within it safe.

May 30, 2024

THE REAL 'LIBERAL' AGENDA

Why Progressives Should Embrace Trade and Globalization

Progressive values shaped the postwar international economic system that has procured the benefits of globalization and trade. Will U.S. policymakers remember?

Article by Inu Manak, Author
May 30, 2024 

CFR

Bettmann / Contributor, Getty Images

In recent years, a growing bipartisan consensus against trade and globalization has put U.S. foreign economic policy into a tailspin and raised concerns over a retreat of U.S. leadership among our allies. The last two administrations have openly questioned the benefits of globalization and called for a rethink of the Washington Consensus. Through escalating trade wars, industrial policy, and hamstringing the World Trade Organization, and with it, the rules-based economic order, the United States has walked away from the very system it helped create. These actions are not only mistakes, but they go against the long-held progressive beliefs that undergirded U.S. efforts to remake the world trading system in the aftermath of World War II.

In fact, modern views on trade and globalization are a stark departure from core progressive values; mainly, that domestic and international prosperity are strongly linked, that trade institutions support the rule of law, and that globalization is an important tool for improving conditions for the world’s poorest. In an essay for the Cato Institute’s Defending Globalization project, we explore the contemporary discourse surrounding U.S. leadership in international trade and emphasize how progressive values informed and shaped the system that exists today. Importantly, the U.S. experience with the Great Depression and recognition of the costs of nationalism following World War II spurred a new approach rooted in the notions of shared prosperity, fairness, and creating opportunities for all to benefit.

In a 1934 speech requesting additional trade authority from Congress, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt expressed concern over the startling decline of world trade, which not only “meant idle hands, still machines, ships tied to their docks, despairing farm households, and hungry industrial families,” but in turn, “has made infinitely more difficult the planning for economic readjustment in which the Government is now engaged.” Roosevelt well understood the need for a vibrant international economy to help the United States prosper at home. He acknowledged that the United States should “sustain activities vital to national defense,” but that “equally clear is the fact that a full and permanent domestic recovery depends in part upon a revived and strengthened international trade and that American exports cannot be permanently increased without a corresponding increase in imports.”

While the United States faces a different economic situation today, the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical rivalry, and supply chain vulnerabilities have precipitated a change of heart on globalization. Despite ample evidence that globalization has served as an important driver of economic growth and poverty reduction worldwide, expanding global economic opportunity has not been a top priority for U.S. policymakers seeking to address these modern challenges. Instead, growing economic nationalism has obscured the merits of globalization and common-sense reforms that could help the Bretton Woods institutions keep up with a rapidly evolving world. Perhaps most importantly, in the rush to remake the world trading system yet again, many have lost sight of the core American principles that helped lift billions out of poverty, making the world richer and more equal in the process. Refocusing on the reality of our global links—that we rise and fall together, that a system that shields the weak from the most powerful is in all of our interests, and that economic openness provides a fair shot for anyone that wants to participate in the global economy—will go a long way in helping U.S. economic leadership get back on track.

Read the full essay, “The Progressive Case for Globalization.”