Wednesday, October 28, 2020
Macron’s clash with Islam sends jolt through France’s long debate about secularism
On 6 October, when Samuel Paty, a popular history and geography teacher in a quiet Paris suburb, presented a copy of the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad which provoked the attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine five years ago, he self-evidently had no idea of the tragic consequence for his own life, French society or France’s relations with the Islamic world. What was intended as a classroom exploration of the freedom of thought has turned into a mini-clash of civilisations.
Ten days later Paty was killed, allegedly by a Russian-born teenager of Chechen heritage, sending an electric shock into France’s long debate about secularism, or laïcité. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, responded by saying France would not “renounce the caricatures”.
Since then Macron has been described as mentally ill by the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan; his ambassador to Pakistan has been summoned to condemn incitement of Islamophobia; and from Sana’a to Riyadh he has become a one-man axis of evil. French products are the subject of a boycott. Le Train Bleu restaurant in Doha, “a quintessential Parisian dining experience” in Qatar, is for instance hurriedly re-sourcing its products.
It would be easy to think that Macron, facing record Covid infections, might look at his in-tray and back off. But he appears to have done the opposite, ringing the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, with the Chechen origins of Paty’s alleged assailant in mind, to urge him to redouble Russia’s efforts to cooperate on terrorism. Macron has long sought a reset with Moscow by joining forces against terrorism. The call in some accounts took the form of a lecture, and in others an appeal to cooperate more closely in a common cause.
Either way this is not a fight Macron is likely to abandon. Domestically he faces the first round of the French presidential elections in April 2022, and his challenge will come from the security-minded right, either the centre-right Les Républicains or the far-right Marine Le Pen, with whom he is neck and neck in the polls. His net disapproval rating as president is -24%.
His calculation will be that so long as he makes the final round, the left as before has nowhere else to go. Being tough on Islamist separatism, and paying a price globally, hardly wounds him with waverers on the right.
But to diminish his conflict with extremism into a narrow calculation of personal political advantage is to misunderstand his intellectual journey on secularism in office, and the way in which the issue is central to his foreign policy outlook including his attitude to Turkey, Russia, Nato and the Middle East.
By raising the stakes, and keeping them high, Macron is also trying to make others recognise they cannot stay neutral.
Macron after all had tackled the debate about Islamist extremism before Paty’s death in his speech on 2 October on secularism – an hour-long address in which he attempted to be nuanced on how to integrate Islam and French secularism. It contained a number of proposals to regulate imams and mosques.
In the passage has proved most provocative in Turkey he said: “Islam is a religion that is experiencing a crisis across the world,” in reference to Islamic State jihadism and also Wahhabism, the Saudi extremist ideology, and Salafism. “We don’t believe in political Islam that is not compatible with stability and peace in the world.”
Islamic separatism, which he describes as a deviation of Islam, is “a conscious, theorised, politico-religious project, which is materialised by repeated discrepancies with the values of the republic, which often results in the creation of a counter-society and whose manifestations are the dropping out of school of children, the development of sports, cultural and communal practices which are the pretext for the teaching of principles which do not conform to the laws of the republic”. There were also balancing passages about the state as guarantor of the freedom of religion, economic disenfranchisement, and the French colonial legacy.
A complex speech such as this does not take long to be distorted and become a source of grievance abroad, especially in Turkey, since as many as half of the imams in France are Turkish.
But more importantly Turkey is already in a number of disputes with France.
These disputes – over Syria, Libya, Nato, gas exploration in the eastern Mediterranean and Armenia – each have their own context and specifics, but they all stem from a French suspicion of Erdoğan’s ambitions to lead a revived Sunni Islam.
In Syria Macron objects to the Turkish attacks on the Kurdish YPG militia, France’s allies in the war against Isis. In Libya his initial objection to Islamist influence in Tripoli’s Government of National Accord has morphed into a conflict with Turkey after Ankara sprang to the GNA’s aid. He warns that the Nato alliance may become brain dead since Turkey, a fellow member, is ambivalent about the defence of western values. In the Mediterranean, he equates Greek interests with those of Europe, leaving Germany to mediate. He more and more openly sides with Armenia.
Many Europeans worry about Macron’s somewhat Gaullist, or France-first, approach. Bruno Tertrais at the French Foundation for Strategic Research argues: “France itself does not always consult its allies or seek their support before taking diplomatic initiatives. It barely did so in Libya and didn’t do so at all with regard to its Russia reset. Perhaps if Macron had nurtured ties with France’s eastern European Nato allies and EU members, he would have gained more early support for his stance against Turkey and more trust for his Russia diplomacy.”
The French calculation is that Erdoğan will succumb to pressure. The Turkish lira is at a new low, and there are only so many fronts on which an autocratic leader can fight. But Erdoğan will draw his own strength from the condemnations of Macron across the Arab world. On Monday he explicitly joined the call for a boycott of French goods, and claimed: “It becomes more and more difficult to be a Muslim and live an Islamic lifestyle in Western countries.” This has a long way to run.
The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google for unlawful monopolisation
The department says Google's conduct harms competition and consumers, and reduces the ability of new innovative companies to develop and compete.
It's the most important monopolisation case in the US since 1998, when the DoJ brought proceedings against Microsoft.
It's possible the current proceedings, given their timing, are politically motivated. US President Donald Trump and other Republicans have repeatedly voiced the view that Google is prejudiced against conservative beliefs.
But even if Democratic candidate Joe Biden is elected president, this action against Google is unlikely to go away.
The ramifications for Google, if the court rules against it, could ultimately be dramatic. The DoJ's associate deputy attorney general, Ryan Shores, has refused to rule out seeking orders to break up the tech giant, saying "nothing is off the table".
Google's monopoly power
People walk in front of a black Google logo.
the DoJ claims Google is illegally monopolising the markets for online search and search advertising.(Getty Images: Mario Tama)
Google's economic power is no secret. Regulators around the world, including in the European Union, are investigating the company’s conduct and bringing actions under competition, consumer and privacy laws.
US Attorney General William Barr said the new DoJ action:
[…] strikes at the heart of Google's grip over the internet for millions of American consumers, advertisers, small businesses and entrepreneurs beholden to an unlawful monopolist.
Specifically, the DoJ claims Google is illegally monopolising the markets for online search and search advertising (the advertising that appears alongside search results).
According to the DoJ, Google's US market share is roughly:
88 per cent in the market for general search services
70 per cent in the search advertising market.
However, holding a dominant position isn't against the law. A company is allowed to enjoy a dominant position or even a complete monopoly, as long as it doesn't do so by unlawful means.
So what has Google allegedly done wrong?
The DoJ's main complaint is Google has entered into several "exclusionary agreements" that preserve its monopoly power by hindering competition from rivals (and potential rivals). Exclusionary agreements are deals that restrict the ability of at least one party to deal with other players.
The DoJ says Google spends billions of dollars each year on:
long-term agreements with Apple that require Google to be the default search engine on Apple's Safari browser
exclusivity agreements that forbid pre-installation of competing search services by certain mobile device manufacturers and distributors
arrangements that force certain mobile device manufacturers and distributors to pre-install Google search applications in prime locations on mobile devices and make them undeletable, regardless of consumer preference
using monopoly profits to buy preferential treatment for its search engine on devices, web browsers and other search access points.
The DoJ claims these agreements have created a "continuous and self-reinforcing cycle of monopolisation" in the market for online search and search advertising (which relies on Google's dominance in online search).
Google has responded by describing the court action as "deeply flawed". In a blog post it said: […] people don't use Google because they have to, they use it because they choose to.
It also said users are free to switch to other search engines.
But even if that's technically true, Google's agreements for pre-installation, default settings and preferential treatment give it a substantial advantage over its rivals.
Does any of this matter when Google is 'free'?
Google provides services that are hugely valued the world over — and with no direct financial cost to the user. That said, "free" services can still cause harm.
According to the DoJ, by restricting competition Google has harmed search users, in part "by reducing the quality of search (including on dimensions such as privacy, data protection, and use of consumer data)". This is an important recognition that price is not all that matters.
The logic behind this claim is that other search engines with better track records on privacy, such as DuckDuckGo, might otherwise be more successful than they are.
Or, to frame that another way, Google might actually have to compete vigorously on privacy, instead of allegedly imposing privacy-degrading terms on its users.
What might happen if the action succeeds?
If Google is found to have contravened the prohibition against monopolisation under the US Sherman Act, it could face substantial fines and damages claims.
But perhaps more concerning for Google would be the prospect of the DoJ seeking to break up Google's various businesses.
Google owns a range of highly successful services, including Google search, Google Chrome, the Android operating system, and numerous ad tech ("advertising technology") services. Google's position and access to data in one business arguably give it advantages in its other businesses.
Eleven Republican attorneys-general from various US states have joined the proceedings and could individually seek remedies.
The action won't be having a major impact any time soon, though. Google's lawyers estimate the case would only come before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in a year.
James Woods Calls Democrats 'Virulent anti-Semites' After 'Jews for Trump' Clash With Protesters
Actor and prolific Donald Trump supporter James Woods has labeled Democrats "virulent anti-Semites" after a clash between protestors in New York City.
A fight erupted in Manhattan on Sunday, as Trump supporters clashed with counterprotesters in the city amid rising political tensions ahead of the election next week.
A 'Jews For Trump' convoy of hundreds of cars covered with American flags and Trump 2020 paraphernalia paraded through Manhattan and Brooklyn and was met with counterprotesters where the skirmish escalated.
Videos shared on Twitter show cars being pelted with eggs and stones as shouted insulted are exchanged with phrases like "New York hates you" can he heard.
The New York Times reports that 11 people were arrested and all were released except for one man who threw eggs in police officers' faces.
Woods shared a link to a Fox News article about the clash, saying: "Hard to remember a time now when Democrats supported Jewish causes. Now it appears they are become virulent anti-Semites."
Per the Fox story a family of seven—including four children—were pepper-sprayed during the scuffle.
A member of the family said they were driving down Fifth Avenue with the car windows down and Trump flags displayed while the children were in the vehicle.
Videos and pictures of a woman being arrested for using pepper spray have been shared on social media.
Trump's attorney and former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani was present at the event and he later spoke about it on his radio show, where he condemned what he called the "group of foul-mouthed" counterprotesters.
"I would love to have had a campaign commercial of it and put it on in the middle of America and say, 'Who would you prefer for the next four years?" he said. "This group of foul-mouthed people who don't seem to have a vocabulary beyond three words, or these very nice Jewish people who are driving in the car and not saying anything back and not doing anything other than exercising their right to say they're for Donald Trump."
During an appearance on Fox & Friends on Monday, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and adviser, called Democratic presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, to denounce attacks on the president's Jewish supporters.
"I really hope that Joe Biden, his campaign, will come out and condemn these anti-Semitic actions that were taken against Trump supporters and be respectful again," Kushner said.
Australian cop to stand trial for murder after an Aboriginal teenager was shot dead as prosecutors allege he was right to pull the trigger once - but not three times
It's easy to miss when firing a pistol so it is normal to fire off a string of shots to ensure an effective hit. And a person who is hit often does not react immediately so may give the impression that further shots are needed to subdue him
All that is perfectly normal and unremarkable so why is this phony charge being levelled at the cop? It is just to placate black activists who are baying for blood. It reflects the huge racial sensitivities of the era. The authorities have to be seen as taking the death very seriously
The deceased was an habitual law-defying criminal so his aggressive behaviour was in keeping with his record. But because he was black there is a furore. He was released from prison in October last year after serving eight of a 16-month sentence for unlawful entry, property damage and stealing offences with the remainder suspended. But he had allegedly breached his parole by removing an electronic monitoring device, among other offences.
There was “face-to-face combat” between him and the two officers. One officer was reportedly stabbed, which allegedly led to the teen being shot.
A Northern Territory police officer who shot dead an Aboriginal teenager will stand trial for murder, with his lawyers arguing he acted in self-defence.
Constable Zachary Rolfe, 29, was charged with murder after shooting Kumanjayi Walker, 19, three times during an arrest in the remote community of Yuendumu in November last year.
The teen's death was protested at rallies around Australia in the wake of African-American man George Floyd's death in the United States in May.
Judge John Birch on Monday ordered Mr Rolfe to stand trial following a three-day preliminary hearing in the Alice Springs Local Court.
Prosecutors agree that the first shot fired at the teenager was self-defence, after the officer was stabbed and attacked with scissors.
But they claim the second and third shots, fired just 3.6 seconds later, were murder.
Mr Rolfe was part of a four-member elite Immediate Response Team that drove 290km from Alice Springs into the Tanami Desert to arrest Walker.
The preliminary hearing in September heard evidence that Mr Walker wounded Mr Rolfe and his partner Adam Eberl with a pair of scissors in a darkened room.
Mr Rolfe allegedly shot Mr Walker with a Glock pistol three times as Walker grappled with Eberl.
Prosecutors alleged the second and third shots were not justified, arguing the IRT 'disregarded' an arrest plan by Sergeant Julie Frost from the Yuendumu police station.
A criminologist said that two of the shots were 'excessive, unreasonable and unnecessary'.
The case comes amid rising tensions about the treatment of black and indigenous people by police.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment