While the National Assembly is examining the bill banning “religious signs” in state schools, the French press is busily analysing the lively debate aroused in France and elsewhere in Europe and the world by the question of the Islamic headscarf. The issue has recently given rise to various protests. “Headscarf and sexual control”, is the title of an article signed by Francis Fukuyama in Le Monde (4/2), in which the author comments: “Some demonstrations have taken place in Europe and in the Middle East to protest against the bill of the French government which would ban young Moslem women from wearing the Islamic headscarf in state schools. This conflict forms part of a wider conflict which is taking place throughout Europe and whose object is the cultural identity of the continent”. In the same paper Bruno Mattei argues that “the question we need to pose collectively, as a matter of urgency, if we are to avoid more serious repercussions, is that of the crisis of the common values that had provided the foundation of the republican pact and its school system and that was supposed to enrich the original sense of the separation between Church and State”. The question of the lay state is also addressed by La Croix (3/2), which carried the headline, with reference to the debate in the National Assembly: “Lay state: deputies and their soul and conscience”. According to the paper, a debate like that on the Islamic headscarf touches “the profound convictions of each person” and “goes well beyond the usual political spheres”. The “change of strategy” in the White House, in setting up an inquiry on the presence or not of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, is analysed, in turn, in an editorial by Andrea Lavazza, in the Italian Catholic daily Avvenire (31/1); he comments : “Probably it is too little for those who criticised the intervention, whereas it is more than enough for those who backed it”. An “intelligent inquiry”, it is called by the Herald Tribune (4/2), which notes “the strong pressure” being brought to bear on the White House in this regard and emphasises that “the first and most urgent duty of the new commission should be that of furnishing a public report on Iraq”. Writing about international policy in La Vanguardia (1/2), Mario Soares comments: “ after 11 September the policy of Bush divided the coalition and fomented unrest throughout the Islamic world”. According to Soares, former Portuguese premier, “the unilateralism of Bush’s policy and his doctrine of preventive war have provided further ammunition to the growing violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One thing is certain: the confusion of words on Iraq is deteriorating every day and heading towards a war of interests”. The enlargement of Europe is commented on by the French Socialist MEP Sami Nair, who writes in El Periodico (31/1) that “the integration of the new members in the EU may create a crisis of identity, because the countries of Eastern Europe want the European market and financial aid but refuse the political, social and strategic union”. One has the impression continues Nair – that “enlargement was perhaps a little too precipitous and obeys more the interests of the multinationals than a genuine European strategic vision”. The comments of the German press are dedicated in large part to the gruesome case of Armin Meiwes, the “cannibal of Rotenburg” (who killed and then ate his partner). The court established that he is of sound mind, cannot be interned in a suitable psychiatric structure, and sentenced him to a relatively lenient term of imprisonment, due to the presumed consent of his victim. “ The case highlights the natural limitations of penal law and those of the court“, writes Mü (31/1) in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Faz). “ Not only the defence, which argued that the case was a ‘homicide on request’, but also the president of the court spoke of a pact between perpetrator of the crime and his victim, of ‘service and counter-service’“. If the appeal court does not overturn the sentence, he adds, “ the cannibal who collaborated with investigators, will be free in a few years’ time“. A further comment signed Gey underlines a further aspect of the case: “ For many commentators” it is clear “ that the reasons adduced to justify this sentence could also be applied to euthanasia, given that there was allegedly no victim at Rotenburg but collusion between two persons, who both wanted something’, as declared by the judge who rejected the charge of homicide“. The weekly Der Spiegel (2/2) also devotes coverage to the question, with an article by Gisela Friedrichsen in which she poses the rhetorical question: “ So is any criterion to distinguish normality from abnormality, what is right from what is wrong, ethics and morality, lost for ever?”. ———————————————————————————————————– Sir Europa (English) N.ro assoluto : 1269 N.ro relativo : 9 Data pubblicazione : 06/02/04
