Ce forum est animé et modéré par des militants et des sympathisants de Lutte Ouvrière.
Les opinions qui y sont exprimées le sont à titre personnel.
Elles n'engagent que leurs auteurs, et en aucune manière cette organisation.
Visitez le site officiel de Lutte Ouvrière • Consultez la charte du forum
Les opinions qui y sont exprimées le sont à titre personnel.
Elles n'engagent que leurs auteurs, et en aucune manière cette organisation.
Visitez le site officiel de Lutte Ouvrière • Consultez la charte du forum
Assises de l’anticolonialisme post-colonial
par michelangela » 25 Avr 2005, 14:23
Pour en revenir au sujet de ce fil , vous devriez lire la position officielle de la ligue sur les Assisses.
pour répondre aux deux autres questions ( particpation à un gouvernment et voile ) les décisions de la LCR sont -elles mêmes très claires sur ce point .
Donc de quoi parlons-nous ?
Le fil est clos semble-til .
pour répondre aux deux autres questions ( particpation à un gouvernment et voile ) les décisions de la LCR sont -elles mêmes très claires sur ce point .
Donc de quoi parlons-nous ?
Le fil est clos semble-til .
- michelangela
- Message(s) : 0
- Inscription : 20 Nov 2004, 21:16
par Nestor Cerpa » 25 Avr 2005, 14:47
Bah je crois que le ménage a déjà été fait avec certain...
pour le reste voici
sinon la résolution d'ISG qui date mais bon après il est dommage que la revo russe c'est faite avec des bourgeois musulmans...
Pour le pro-islamistes c'est assez drole... Etre contre les exclusion c'est être pour l'islam et le voile?
ISG Resolution on the French Government’s proposed ban on religious symbols
The French Government's decision to ban religious symbols in schools, is primarily directed against the increasing number of young Muslim women wearing the hijab (headscarf), a form of religious dress, in schools. It is also directed at other selective religious insignia and, significantly, secular political symbols. Chirac has described the wearing of the hijab as ‘aggressive’, a statement that can only add to the racist demonising of Muslims as the ‘other’ in the context a ‘clash of cultures’ which has been a dangerous feature of the post 9/11 political scenario. Bush and Blair’s ‘war on terrorism’ has been little more than a cover for imperialist wars of intervention into the oil rich Muslim world, and provides the international context for the French government’s ban.
Thus the ban must be seen in the political context of a growing Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred in Western countries, including within British and French governments and their institutions. It is this racism, and a feeling of social exclusion, which has led many young Muslims to reassert their cultural and religious identity as it is increasingly denied or demonised in the West. It is part and parcel of a radicalisation that supports the struggle of the Palestinians for their homeland, and opposes the Imperialist wars and the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and which is increasingly anti-imperialist. Among these young people many women have chosen, sometimes against the wishes of their parents, to don the hijab.
In this political context, Marxists and socialists, first and foremost, must reject these violations of human rights – the right of the individual to practice his or her religious beliefs, as long as they do not trample on the rights of others. On this, we would support the standards set in the European Convention on Human Rights. If the individual rights of minorities are suppressed, then their feeling of becoming marginal is increased.
In France, the issue has centred on wearing the hijab in schools, with a majority in the main French teachers union (FSU) taking a reactionary stand, in the name of secularism, on the wearing of headscarves by young women pupils. There have already been controversial exclusions from schools.
As atheists, Marxists reject all religious and mystical beliefs, support the separation of church and state, and the creation of a secular state and secular education system. We oppose religious schools, of which there are many of all confessions in Britain, we object to state subsidies for them, but do not propose to ban them by legal means. But our support for secular institutions does not mean the undemocratic imposition of secular values onto the individual. We reject the imposition of bans by governments and public institutions (e.g., trade unions) on religious practice and forms of dress, even while we think the hijab is a symbol of oppression. In our view it symbolises woman as object of possession (of the man) and in particular the chador/burka, are designed to physically restrict her capacity for free and independent social intercourse and activity (which of course they fail to achieve completely). But this makes little sense to those many young Muslim women in France and Britain today who are saying they choose to wear it because it expresses their identity and they feel liberated. Forcing them to remove it will be an act of violence against them, and violates their right to free religious expression, education and work.
We also support the rights of all those who do not wish to wear religious symbols and extend support to indigenous campaigns against them, but we do not support its imposition by law. Also, we support women in Iran and Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who campaign against religious laws which impose the hijab on nine year old girls (which, like the hijab itself, finds no support in the Koran). But neither do we support the ban in Turkey (a secular state) on women wearing the hijab or chador in public buildings. The authoritarian secularism of the Turkish state has resulted today in campaigns against the laws that ban the hijab, which is now worn by 60% of Turkish women. This figure is growing – in a country, which has been through one of the most thorough bourgeois revolutions in the Muslim World.
To conclude: We recognise that any action on the part of the French Government, or schools, to ban religious dress will further alienate Muslims in France and world-wide, as the demonstrations across the world are beginning to show. We reject all state and institutional bans, recognising that institutional oppression of those who already feel oppressed and excluded will backfire. The imposition of what many Muslims see as Western values, in which they include secularism, can only fuel the growth of religious fundamentalism. At the same time, we recognise that the Islamic hijab and the chador/burka are symbols of the oppression and inferiority of women. But in a very different context today in Europe of Islamophobia and racism; the decision of young women to wear the hijab, shows that it can have different, or even multiple meanings. This is true of all symbols. “And to conflate the French – or more widely, European – Islamic headscarf with the Islamic headscarf in Muslim countries is yet again to see these young people first of all as foreigners.” (Christine Delphy – translation by R. Hatcher)
In the West, it is mainly women, who will be effected by reactionary laws of the type proposed by the French Government. We therefore call on all anti-racists and those who believe in equal and full rights for women and minorities, including religious minorities, to support the rights of those Muslim women who chose to wear the hijab, as we would also defend the right of Muslim women not to wear it.
pour le reste voici
sinon la résolution d'ISG qui date mais bon après il est dommage que la revo russe c'est faite avec des bourgeois musulmans...
Pour le pro-islamistes c'est assez drole... Etre contre les exclusion c'est être pour l'islam et le voile?
ISG Resolution on the French Government’s proposed ban on religious symbols
The French Government's decision to ban religious symbols in schools, is primarily directed against the increasing number of young Muslim women wearing the hijab (headscarf), a form of religious dress, in schools. It is also directed at other selective religious insignia and, significantly, secular political symbols. Chirac has described the wearing of the hijab as ‘aggressive’, a statement that can only add to the racist demonising of Muslims as the ‘other’ in the context a ‘clash of cultures’ which has been a dangerous feature of the post 9/11 political scenario. Bush and Blair’s ‘war on terrorism’ has been little more than a cover for imperialist wars of intervention into the oil rich Muslim world, and provides the international context for the French government’s ban.
Thus the ban must be seen in the political context of a growing Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred in Western countries, including within British and French governments and their institutions. It is this racism, and a feeling of social exclusion, which has led many young Muslims to reassert their cultural and religious identity as it is increasingly denied or demonised in the West. It is part and parcel of a radicalisation that supports the struggle of the Palestinians for their homeland, and opposes the Imperialist wars and the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and which is increasingly anti-imperialist. Among these young people many women have chosen, sometimes against the wishes of their parents, to don the hijab.
In this political context, Marxists and socialists, first and foremost, must reject these violations of human rights – the right of the individual to practice his or her religious beliefs, as long as they do not trample on the rights of others. On this, we would support the standards set in the European Convention on Human Rights. If the individual rights of minorities are suppressed, then their feeling of becoming marginal is increased.
In France, the issue has centred on wearing the hijab in schools, with a majority in the main French teachers union (FSU) taking a reactionary stand, in the name of secularism, on the wearing of headscarves by young women pupils. There have already been controversial exclusions from schools.
As atheists, Marxists reject all religious and mystical beliefs, support the separation of church and state, and the creation of a secular state and secular education system. We oppose religious schools, of which there are many of all confessions in Britain, we object to state subsidies for them, but do not propose to ban them by legal means. But our support for secular institutions does not mean the undemocratic imposition of secular values onto the individual. We reject the imposition of bans by governments and public institutions (e.g., trade unions) on religious practice and forms of dress, even while we think the hijab is a symbol of oppression. In our view it symbolises woman as object of possession (of the man) and in particular the chador/burka, are designed to physically restrict her capacity for free and independent social intercourse and activity (which of course they fail to achieve completely). But this makes little sense to those many young Muslim women in France and Britain today who are saying they choose to wear it because it expresses their identity and they feel liberated. Forcing them to remove it will be an act of violence against them, and violates their right to free religious expression, education and work.
We also support the rights of all those who do not wish to wear religious symbols and extend support to indigenous campaigns against them, but we do not support its imposition by law. Also, we support women in Iran and Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who campaign against religious laws which impose the hijab on nine year old girls (which, like the hijab itself, finds no support in the Koran). But neither do we support the ban in Turkey (a secular state) on women wearing the hijab or chador in public buildings. The authoritarian secularism of the Turkish state has resulted today in campaigns against the laws that ban the hijab, which is now worn by 60% of Turkish women. This figure is growing – in a country, which has been through one of the most thorough bourgeois revolutions in the Muslim World.
To conclude: We recognise that any action on the part of the French Government, or schools, to ban religious dress will further alienate Muslims in France and world-wide, as the demonstrations across the world are beginning to show. We reject all state and institutional bans, recognising that institutional oppression of those who already feel oppressed and excluded will backfire. The imposition of what many Muslims see as Western values, in which they include secularism, can only fuel the growth of religious fundamentalism. At the same time, we recognise that the Islamic hijab and the chador/burka are symbols of the oppression and inferiority of women. But in a very different context today in Europe of Islamophobia and racism; the decision of young women to wear the hijab, shows that it can have different, or even multiple meanings. This is true of all symbols. “And to conflate the French – or more widely, European – Islamic headscarf with the Islamic headscarf in Muslim countries is yet again to see these young people first of all as foreigners.” (Christine Delphy – translation by R. Hatcher)
In the West, it is mainly women, who will be effected by reactionary laws of the type proposed by the French Government. We therefore call on all anti-racists and those who believe in equal and full rights for women and minorities, including religious minorities, to support the rights of those Muslim women who chose to wear the hijab, as we would also defend the right of Muslim women not to wear it.
- Nestor Cerpa
- Message(s) : 0
- Inscription : 10 Mars 2003, 22:05
par Valiere » 25 Avr 2005, 16:12
a écrit :Pour le pro-islamistes c'est assez drole... Etre contre les exclusion c'est être pour l'islam et le voile?
Être pour les exclusion, c'est une opinion éronée...
Manifester, signer des textes avec des islamistes, c'est changer de camp!
- Valiere
- Message(s) : 0
- Inscription : 07 Mars 2004, 22:35
par michelangela » 25 Avr 2005, 17:12
Dans Rouge on aurait pu trouver le même type de texte de l'IGS laissé par Cerpa.
texte que vous ne semblez pas avoir bien lu car au fond quoi de différent avec les analyses de Engels , Lénine Trotski ( je passe le lien pour mémoire du texte de lénine De l'atitude du PO à l'égard de la Religion 1909
http://www.marxists.org/francais/lenin/wor...vil19090513.htm
la LCR par sa condamnation de la loi d'exception en France frappant les symboles religieux a souligné également combien le hijab est un symbole de l'oppression de femmes en fr comme dans le monde ;elle se place fidèlement dans la tradition des marxistes révolutionnaires et Trostkistes (la lutte contre la religion est subordonnée à la lutte des classes )
Le texte de l'IGS résume lui aussi parfaitement notre position:
We reject all state and institutional bans, recognising that institutional oppression of those who already feel oppressed and excluded will backfire. The imposition of what many Muslims see as Western values, in which they include secularism, can only fuel the growth of religious fundamentalism. At the same time, we recognise that the Islamic hijab and the chador/burka are symbols of the oppression and inferiority of women.
je ne vois pas du tout la condamnation de la LCR de loi contre les signes religieux une quelconque alliance avec les islamistes.
Quant aux signataires des Assisses tous ne peuvent avoir l'appelation d' islamistes.
Mais ,doit-on répéter qu'il ne s'agit que de 7 membres de la DN tout au plus une vingtaine de membres signataires de l'Appel ( voir sue le site oumma.com pour vérification).
Pas de quoi nous faire de vilains procès .Et ce débat ,c'es ensuite à nous de l'avoir entre nous à la LCR.
texte que vous ne semblez pas avoir bien lu car au fond quoi de différent avec les analyses de Engels , Lénine Trotski ( je passe le lien pour mémoire du texte de lénine De l'atitude du PO à l'égard de la Religion 1909
http://www.marxists.org/francais/lenin/wor...vil19090513.htm
la LCR par sa condamnation de la loi d'exception en France frappant les symboles religieux a souligné également combien le hijab est un symbole de l'oppression de femmes en fr comme dans le monde ;elle se place fidèlement dans la tradition des marxistes révolutionnaires et Trostkistes (la lutte contre la religion est subordonnée à la lutte des classes )
Le texte de l'IGS résume lui aussi parfaitement notre position:
We reject all state and institutional bans, recognising that institutional oppression of those who already feel oppressed and excluded will backfire. The imposition of what many Muslims see as Western values, in which they include secularism, can only fuel the growth of religious fundamentalism. At the same time, we recognise that the Islamic hijab and the chador/burka are symbols of the oppression and inferiority of women.
je ne vois pas du tout la condamnation de la LCR de loi contre les signes religieux une quelconque alliance avec les islamistes.
Quant aux signataires des Assisses tous ne peuvent avoir l'appelation d' islamistes.
Mais ,doit-on répéter qu'il ne s'agit que de 7 membres de la DN tout au plus une vingtaine de membres signataires de l'Appel ( voir sue le site oumma.com pour vérification).
Pas de quoi nous faire de vilains procès .Et ce débat ,c'es ensuite à nous de l'avoir entre nous à la LCR.
- michelangela
- Message(s) : 0
- Inscription : 20 Nov 2004, 21:16
Retour vers Politique française
Qui est en ligne ?
Utilisateur(s) parcourant ce forum : Aucun utilisateur inscrit et 7 invité(s)