Latest news with #Muslims'
Newsroom
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- Newsroom
Jacinda, glossed over
There are gaps, big gaps, in the new memoir by Jacinda Ardern. It is not a book which gives the full political context of her rise and fall, or at least her rise and exit. There's not as much as might be expected on the Covid years. No mention at all of her 2020 election opponent Judith Collins, with very little on other Nats. Bare references to the Covid-era economic borrowing and spending, or of the suite of second-term political quicksands like Three Waters that dragged her government and Ardern personally down. It is a global book, not local. New Zealand politics in the abstract. Yet she opens up in many areas, and avoids the traps of political autobiographies in which the great and good name drop, show off, reinvent history and attack their opponents. There's minimal retailing of conversations with world leaders. She shares observations about Prince William from close quarters, warms to Angela Merkel, reveals her message on the phone to Donald Trump after the mosque terror attacks – for the US (and by implication the President) to show sympathy and love to 'all Muslims' – and recalls Malcolm Turnbull helping her at an Apec security check. No indulgences with Trudeau or Xi or Boris, no Bolger-style 'As I was telling the President'. For someone so studied, prepared and self-aware, it's remarkable how often Ardern just blurted out her most famous lines. 'Let's Do This', the election slogan that helped Labour win power in 2017, was at first a throwaway line on one of her Instagram posts. 'Kindness' came out as the essence of what she wanted her Government to exhibit, in a conversation with John Campbell as she drove to Government House to be sworn in as Prime Minister in 2017. 'They Are Us', the nation's unifying cry after the Christchurch mosque massacres in 2019, was something she said as she downloaded to her friend Grant Robertson in a moment of dread and despair, when about to address the nation. He told her, 'Just say that.' The origins of the phrases are gently revealed among the scores of anecdotes and insights in A Different Kind of Power. In each instance she appears surprised at herself, a 'chronic overthinker' who has realtime discoveries of the mot juste, of the historic. 'Kindness,' she muses after recalling the Campbell conversation. 'It is a child's word, in a way. Simple. And yet it encompassed everything that had left an imprint on me.' The book also peels back the deeper origins of her ability, on the spot, to capture a mood, to distil her purpose and look to inspire – and the origins of her senses of compassion and social justice. It leans heavily on Ardern's personal formation and challenges. It is a different kind of memoir. And that will make it stand out among the reminiscences and revelations of New Zealand political leaders. She writes at some length about growing up in Te Aroha, Murupara and Morrinsville, about her family, and about her life in the Mormon church. The family memories are powerful: The primary school-aged Jacinda coming across her father Ross, the police sergeant in Murupara, surrounded by menacing men 'in leather pants and jackets' outside his station, and being told 'Keep walking Jacinda', unable to help. Her mother Laurel's mental breakdown in the same forestry town. Murupara was tough. Poverty, struggle, gangs, unfairness. Ardern writes that years later, when asked when she first became political, she realised it was there in that central North Island community. 'I became political because I lived in Murupara.' Then in an ordered, chronological way A Different Kind of Power traverses high school, knocking on doors for the church, university, initial political awakenings, OE and the pull of national politics. In every phase there is a building of the picture of a woman who is at once sensitive to a fault, image-conscious, self-conscious, media-conscious and trying to live by her own conscience. Open and closed Ardern can write. No surprises there, with the talent for communicating, messaging and indentifying with her audiences that she showed us over 14 years in politics. She professes herself, in the acknowledgements, to have been a 'speechwriter' since the age of 13, and implies the book benefited hugely from Ali Benjamin who she credits with being 'teacher, editor and coach all rolled into one'. Yet a ghost didn't write this; Ardern's voice is obvious from the opening dedication 'to the criers, worriers and huggers' to the final words. Memoir writing is thinking, lived experience, revelation and anticipation of what the reader might want answered. There was always going to be a mountain of material to sift through. Ardern's answer is to be relentlessly open, personally, and largely subdued and non-controversial politically. In the opening scene as she awaits a pregnancy test result in a friend's bathroom she wonders about the day's coalition talks and her feeling the equivalent of imposter syndrome. 'We were never meant to win. And I was never meant to be leader.' The book's title A Different Kind of Power might betray a hint of a self-help text, a motivational Ted talk or a 'how to win elections and influence history' lecture. It's much more than that. It offers up Jacinda Ardern as a lifelong doubter who through conviction, talent, political accidents and then empathy, rose to international acclaim. What's missing from this book is almost as interesting as what it covers. For example, she doesn't indulge the haters, giving a complete swerve to that daft, ubiquitous, corrosive series of online and social media rumours about her husband Clarke. Her story is not a platform to even scores – not many of them, anyway. The book is clearly for an audience extending beyond these shores, so the detail of domestic politics is relatively sparse. Don Brash, on the other side of politics, is harshly dismissed, and David Cunliffe, on her own, qualifies for the strongest and most detailed dressing down. Ardern plainly has no time for the man who famously declared he was sorry for being a man. There's a tantalising window into Labour's caucus room after Cunliffe's historic defeat in 2014. 'By convention what is said in a caucus room stays in the caucus room, and it's a convention I will always follow,' she writes, nobly but disappointingly limiting herself to describing and paraphrasing tears and anger, fury and despair. Ardern the party leader won two elections from two. In A Different Kind of Power, it's not exactly 'losers get off the stage', but her book describes John Key, the Prime Minister for the first eight years of her time in Parliament in a perfunctory paragraph. It gives his successor Bill English part of one line and a mention about the campaign debates, and ignores her 2020 opponent Judith Collins entirely. The yawning question That year, 2020, and the epoch-defining Covid deaths and lockdowns that followed into 2021, are peculiarly consigned to very late in the book, taking their chronological place from 280 pages in. For the haters who will want to pore over her justifications for the pandemic policies and their grievances, the book will disappoint. Ardern threads accounts of Level 3 crisis decisions at the Beehive alongside home bubble experiences with husband Clarke, daughter Neve and mum Laurel. These brief, fascinating two chapters on the Covid years give a glancing view into a Beehive in the time of crisis. 'It's rare that you can draw a direct line between a politician's decision and whether someone lived or died,' Ardern writes. 'But this seemed to be one of them.' Fitting the minimalist recounting of the Covid days, Sir Ashley Bloomfield rates a one-sentence cameo. Ardern reflects on the later parliamentary protest not so much as a personal or political condemnation as being a systemic lesson: 'Whatever had brought the protesters to Parliament, by the end, it was clear that is was a place and institution they didn't believe in anymore.' Years on, the ex-PM who is now a world away at Harvard, asks herself the yawning question. Does she have regrets about the Covid decisions and years? 'Yes, I think about regret,' she writes, but 'that word regret contains so much certainty. Regret says you know precisely what you would have done differently … We don't get to see the counterfactual, the outcome of the decisions we didn't make. The lives that might have been lost. One thing I am certain of is that I would want things to have been different. I would want a world where we saved lives and we brought everyone with us. Perhaps that is the difference between regret and remorse.' Or the difference between the perfect and the optimal. Resignation and new life If the book's Covid-era brevity seems a little short-changing, it is likely deliberate. After all, A Different Kind of Power is about being able to rise, in spite of your doubts or fears, to the occasion of running the country or handling a crisis – not about the detail of actually running the country or the crisis itself. Its difference is in viewing empathy and kindness, hugs, tears and compassion as political virtues in a world that judges them vices. Ardern is astonished when a social media poster at the time of the Whakaari White island disaster claimed she went to Whakatāne just so she could be photographed hugging people. And that makes her even more determined. 'The post bothered me more than I wanted to admit,' she writes, and then tells of meeting a female ambulance officer who'd helped on the day, the woman hugging her, with the cameras clicking. 'I knew this would only feed my critics, the ones who were cynical about empathy, who thought that everything was somehow a show. That's fine, I thought as I hugged her tight in return. I would rather be criticised than stop being human.' She outlines in the final brief chapters how that criticism, the cynicism, the always-on-alert responsibility of her job, helped convince her to resign. There's the story of a mystery woman sidling up to her at an airport bathroom, pressing in and hissing 'Thank you for ruining the country'. There's Ardern's fear upon being told she needed a scan for a lump in her breast and wondering 'perhaps I could leave' office, a feeling that didn't leave her despite the risk of cancer being ruled out. There are two instances of snapping at or about people – calling David Seymour an arrogant prick and pushing hard against a journalist for asking a sexist question at a press conference with the Finnish PM. And there's Ardern suggesting to her chief of staff that she worried, in 2023 at the start of an election year, she might have become a lightning rod for attack, and could damage Labour's chances of winning and of its policies enduring. And, in that most ordinary of family occurrences, young Neve asks why her mum needs to Work. So. Much. As the book rushes to a close, the announcement of her resignation, the political and public reaction and the accession of Chris Hipkins as Prime Minister to lead Labour forward are largely glossed over. That's a fail, maybe resulting from an American editor scrawling 'who, what, who cares?' in the margins and deleting. There's nothing on The Wedding, and just a mention of moving to Boston, with nothing of the new life. More importantly, also absent are all the issues of political (mis)management beyond Covid – Three Waters, ministerial conduct, law and order failures, stubborn child poverty and emergency housing – that rose up inexorably in Ardern's second term. Remember, Labour burned more political capital in that term – from an outright MMP majority to 27 percent and defeat – than probably any government other than the Fourth Labour Government of 1987-90. But A Different Kind of Power doesn't dwell on the negative or even acknowledge it. Right at the end, Ardern summarises her role-model message to any young woman doubting her right to be in a position or place. Embrace your sensitivity and empathy. 'In fact, all of the traits that you believe are your flaws will come to be your strengths.' That might well be true for Ardern, or for an individual. It's not so for a government. A Different Kind of Power: A Memoir by Jacinda Ardern (Penguin, $59.99) is available in bookstores nationwide. ReadingRoom has devoted all week to coverage of the book. Monday: experts in the book trade predict it will fly off the shelves. Tuesday: a review by Steve Braunias. Wednesday: a review by Janet Wilson.
The Wire
31-05-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
Their Shrines Demolished, Muslims in Gujarat's Gir Somnath Have Nowhere to Look for Hope
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Top Stories Their Shrines Demolished, Muslims in Gujarat's Gir Somnath Have Nowhere to Look for Hope Tarushi Aswani 35 minutes ago Eight months after large-scale demolitions in the area, local Muslims said their existence has been entirely destabilised and their lives reduced to both literal and metaphorical rubble. The site of the demolished shrines in Veraval. Photo: Tarushi Aswani Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now Gir Somnath (Gujarat): Javed Hussain Banva, a 12th-generation caretaker at Gir Somnath's Pir Silar Shah Dargah, recently lost his eyesight. Banva has lost partial vision without any genetic or medical predispositions that could have led to the condition. 'After I witnessed the bulldozing of the shrine of our saint, our Sufi, nothing made sense to me. The doctors told me I lost my vision because of my anxiety and stress,' said Banva, recalling the bulldozing of the Pir Silar Shah Dargah and eight other structures of Islamic significance in September 2024. Banva's home, life and memories of childhood lie under the rubble that neighbours the rubble of the Pir Silar Shah Dargah. Seven months ago, at four in the morning, when Muslims begin waking up for dawn prayers, Muslims in Gir Somnath district were jolted out of their sleep by hundreds of policemen who made way for bulldozers. The day when the police orchestrated the demolition is deeply etched in the minds of Gir Somnath's Muslims. That day, over 200 Muslims saw the state crush their lives and livelihoods using hydraulic cranes, at least 60 excavators, 50 tractor trailers, five dumpers and about 1,400 policemen. On September 28, 2024, the Dargah, along with eight other religious structures associated with Muslims and 47 mostly Muslim-owned houses in the Veraval area of Gir Somnath district in Gujarat, were demolished by authorities in a six-hour drive. As many as 200 locals were affected, said Banva. While the demolitions took place, police detained around 150 locals, it is alleged. Legal battle for faith For the last eight months, Ismailbhai Chhel, a resident of Veraval, has been waging a war against what he calls the arbitrary razing of Muslims' sentiments – the demolition of the nine shrines. In Prabhas Patan, after several historic shrines such as the Haji Mangrol Dargah, Shah Silar Dargah, Garib Shah Dargah, Mayapuri Dargah and Jafar Muzaffar Dargah were bulldozed, Chhel, as the president of the Auliya-E-Deen Committee – a committee founded for the shrines' maintenance in Gir Somnath – vowed to avenge the desecration of the shrines legally. The matter was heard at the Supreme Court as a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the Auliya-E-Deen Committee against a Gujarat high court order of October 3, 2024, that refused to order status quo on the demolition. Pir Shah Silar Dargah before demolition. Photo: Special arrangement Appearing for the Committee, senior advocate Kapil Sibal had questioned the demolition, arguing that the shrine being labelled 'illegal' dated back to 1903 and was previously registered in the Committee's name. Sibal also argued that the demolitions were carried out without respect for the legal, religious and historical status of the land. He said that the land was registered under the Waqf Act and questioned how the government could proceed with demolition without resolving ownership. The case was last heard on January 17, 2025 and was adjourned for the respondents to file their documents. The respondents are the State of Gujarat, the District Collector (Gir Somnath), the Deputy Collector (Gir Somnath), City Survey Superintendent, Prabhas Patan, Mamlatdar (Veraval City), Gujarat State Waqf Board and the Somnath Trust. The case will be next heard on July 15. 'Better to be under the rubble' Khatuna Abdul Qadir always knew she had a special spiritual connection with the Pir Haji Mangroli Shah Dargah. After she lost her husband a decade ago, Khatuna, 60, frequented the shrine in search of peace and patience. This year, when she could not attend the Urs at the shrine, her whole life flashed in front of her eyes – especially September 28, 2024 when the shrine was desecrated by State authorities. Followers of the shrine had even appealed to the Supreme Court seeking permission to conduct the Urs at the Pir Haji Mangroli Shah Dargah, among the alleged encroachments removed from government land in Gujarat's Gir Somnath district. But on January 31, the court turned down the plea, disappointing Gir Somnath's Muslims who have been fighting for their faith. Khatuna could not see the Urs take place, for the first time in her life. 'They attacked our shrines, mosques and homes. I ask them, why didn't they crush us too? It would be better to have been under the rubble of our homes and shrines,' she lamented. Several Muslim families ousted from the shrines which were demolished now live in makeshift tents. Photo: Tarushi Aswani Khatuna is not alone in her anger with the life she lives. Her former neighbour, Safina Bano, is with her – as are 200 other locals who say their lives have lost meaning. Bano remembers her world falling apart when she was made to evacuate her house, clutching her then three-month-old daughter to her chest. 'They told us to move out or get crushed under the bulldozer. They didn't even give us time to take food items for my child. It was raining and my child was shivering in my arms when I tried to keep her covered with my own soaking wet headscarf,' Bano told The Wire. Affected locals say they were left out of their rubbished homes with all their belongings, even food trapped under the rubble. Many of them had to borrow money from their relatives to feed their family. Bano and mother's like her did not have answers when their kids questioned them about their lost homes and why their stomachs would constantly growl under tenements. Even after eight long months of homelessness and hunger, several victims of demolition that The Wire met with claimed that while the authorities have maintained in court that they had informed all residents in the area about the demolition, there was no such notice issued. Muslim-free Gir Somnath? During its visit to the district, The Wire noticed that all the nine demolished structures now constitute of mountains of rubble guarded by Gujarat Police. Every mountain of rubble has a police tenement in front of it, with at least one police personnel guarding it. Demolitions are becoming a regular occurrence in the Gir Somnath district. Despite the Supreme Court's September 17 interim order which stayed demolitions across the country without its permission till October 1, Gujarat authorities demolished not one but nine Islamic structures. Issa Patel, a local, believes that this is a calculated move across the country to reduce Muslims to homeless beggars. 'They don't want Muslims in this holy district. From our position of helplessness, we can see how the law is different for Muslims and different for Hindus,' he said. In March 2025 as well, Gujarat government authorities demolished another Islamic shrine in Junagadh amid an operation that was carried out late in the night amid heavy police deployment. Amid this repetitive and rigorous pattern geared towards toppling the sites of worship belonging to one particular religion, an RTI filed by the editor of a Gujarat newspaper has exposed the biases that manifest in the form of demolitions orchestrated at the behest of the BJP government. View of the Somnath Temple from the site of the razed shrines. Photo: Tarushi Aswani After the demolitions that disturbed the Muslims of Gir Somnath district, Mir Khan Makrani, the founding editor of Lekhmala News, filed a RTI (Right to Information) application questioning the Gujarat Directorate of Archaeology on its standpoint regarding the demolitions. In its RTI reply, the Directorate responses made it sound plainly 'Hindu', Makrani said. The Wire accessed the RTI responses filed by the Directorate to Makrani's application – but the responses give rise to even more questions. Upon Makrani seeking a response as to why the Haji Mangrol Dargah was demolished, the Directorate claimed that the said Dargah was in a residential area and had recently been renovated, with tiling work and cement flooring. Despite the Dargah being registered under the Waqf Act in 1964, the Directorate called it a new construction, suitable for being demolished. In the same manner, when asked about the demolition of Mayapuri Dargah and Pir Silar Shah Dargah, registered under the Waqf Act in 1965, the Directorate stated that both of them appeared to be newly constructed buildings and lacked any marker of historicity. While all three shrines had been registered with Gujarat Waqf Board at least four decades ago, the Directorate used their renovation to declare them unfit as sites of historical and religious significance. Meanwhile, the Directorate itself has called for the renovation of Rudreshwar Mahadev Mandir, Prachin Jain Mandir, Veneshwar Mahadev Mandir and Veraval Darwaza in Gir Somnath district. The office has also shown concern for their historicity and decaying structure, calling for renovation and preservation of damaged portions as it feels their historicity is visible despite certain portions being newly cemented and renovated. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News The Gujarat Evictions and the Weaponisation of National Security Leaders' Silence Questioned After Gujarat Dalit Man Allegedly Killed Over Addressing Teen as 'Beta' 8,000 Homes Demolished in Gujarat's Siasat Nagar, Government Cites 'National Security 'Gujarat Samachar' Co-Owner Bahubali Shah's Arrest and Bail: Here's What Happened Gujarat Samachar Owner Held by ED, Congress Says Critical Writing Against Modi Govt Led to Arrest Cops Arrest Gujarat Minister's Second Son in Alleged MGNREGS Funds Scam Raj Rachakonda's '23' Takes a Hard Look At Caste and Social Justice Police Arrest Gujarat Minister's Son in Rs 71-Crore MGNREGS Funds Scam Manipur: 'Ready to Form Government,' NDA MLAs Meet Governor, Claim Support of 44 View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
The Hindu
28-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Defamation suit: BJP challenges Karnataka CM to participate in public debate on its ‘chargesheet'
BJP national general secretary and State in charge Radha Mohan Das Agarwal has challenged Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to participate in a public debate with the BJP on the performance of his government on the occasion of its second anniversary. Taking exception to the Congress government deciding to file a defamation suit against the BJP for its media advertisements listing the 'failures' of the government as a 'chargesheet' on the occasion of its second anniversary, Mr. Agarwal maintained that if there were any mistakes in the BJP's list of 'failures' then the Chief Minister should participate in a public debate to highlight them. Maintaining that it was nothing unusual for any Opposition party in a democratic setup to highlight the failures of the government, Mr. Agarawal said perhaps this was the first time in the world that the government had tried to suppress the Opposition through legal methods. Alleging that corruption and 'appeasement of Muslims' had reached the peak in the Congress dispensation, Mr. Agarwal said people were fed up with the governance of the Congress. 'In fact, a survey has shown that the BJP will win 150 to 155 seats of the total 224 in the Assembly if the elections are held now,' he said. Govt. may collapse Alleging that the Congress government was gripped by infighting, Mr. Agarwal claimed that the government was likely to collapse anytime due to internal tussle. 'People are keen to know whether Mr. Siddaramaiah will continue as the Chief Minister or if he quits, who will succeed him. Will it be G. Parameshwara, D.K. Shivakumar, or Priyank Kharge?' he said.
Japan Today
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Japan Today
A basketball player was sidelined for her headscarf. France may now ban them in all sports
Players prepare before a women's basketball tournament where players can wear a headscarf, in Aubervilliers near Paris, on April 27. By SAMUEL PETREQUIN and ALEX TURNBULL Salimata Sylla was about to lead her team onto the basketball court, as she had done many times before. On that Sunday morning, she and her teammates had completed a three-hour bus trip from the Paris suburb of Aubervilliers to a rival club in northern France. They had changed and warmed up, and Sylla, the team captain, was ready to go. But moments before tipoff, she was told she could not play. The reason? Her headscarf. More than two years later, Sylla is still barred from competing under the French basketball federation's jurisdiction. The 27-year-old former point guard is among thousands of young Muslim women in France who are sidelined from competitive sport because of bans on uniforms and other clothing that have religious or political significance. These rules, critics say, disproportionately target hijab-wearing Muslim athletes. Now, a contentious bill backed by right-wing politicians that would ban headscarves in all sporting competitions has cleared its first legislative hurdle in the Senate. If passed by the lower house, it would enshrine into law what has until now been decided by individual sporting federations. Supporters say the proposed law is a necessary step to protect secularism — a pillar of the French Republic. Opponents denounce it as discriminatory, Islamophobic, and a violation of both the rule of law and the very concept of secularism. In January 2023, she was told to remove her hajib if she wanted to play against a rival club. Sylla refused, citing personal conviction and the fact that her sports hijab was officially approved and deemed suitable for competitive use. The basketball federation bans all head coverings as inappropriate for play, contrary to the rules of the international federation. The French federation did not provide The Associated Press with an explanation for the ban on hijabs in competitions. Sylla has stopped playing with her former club. She continues hosting games outside of the federation's jurisdiction, organizing monthly tournaments in Paris and its suburbs that are open to women playing basketball with or without a hijab. Until now, sports federations have been free to decide whether to allow headscarves. A date has yet to be set for the bill to be debated in the lower house of the Parliament. But the senators' vote in favor of the bill has already reignited the ongoing debate on secularism and the separation of church and state. It's still a hot-button issue more than a century after a 1905 law established it as a principle of the French Republic. French secularism — 'la laïcité' — affirms the concept of religious freedom, while stipulating that the state does not favor any religion and remains neutral. It is, however, seen by critics as a pretext to discriminate and restrict Muslims' access to public life. A group of headscarf-wearing soccer players called 'Les Hijabeuses,' who campaign against the ban, say the new bill would unfairly force Muslim women to choose between wearing a headscarf or playing a sport. After France's highest administrative court ruled in 2023 that the soccer federation can ban headscarves in matches, the Hijabeuses have lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights against France, alleging a violation of their freedom of religion. Supporters of the bill cite growing attacks on secularism in sport, arguing that its core values are based on a principle of universality. To protect sports grounds from any nonsporting confrontation, they say, a principle of neutrality needs to be implemented to ensure that no political, religious or racial agenda can be promoted. But Nicolas Cadène, the former secretary-general of the now defunct Observatory for Laïcité, a nonpartisan institution that previously advised the French government, disagrees. He says the principles of French secularism cannot be used to justify the headscarf ban because it's not the role of a secular state to judge a religious symbol. The bill is dividing the government and pitting athletes against each other. Five-time Olympic judo champion Teddy Riner — a towering figure in French sports — argued that the bill was targeting one religion, and that French society should instead focus on promoting equality. Mahyar Monshipour, a former professional boxer born in Iran, hit back, asking Riner not to get involved in a debate he did not understand. Monshipour claimed that the headscarf is meant to conceal the bodies of women and used to legitimize inequality between men and women. The dispute has also exposed cracks within the coalition government. While some ministers have expressed doubts about the bill, it has the strong backing of hard-right heavyweights. Lawmakers have previously approved a bill to strengthen oversight of mosques, schools and sports clubs. With France bloodied by terror attacks, there is widespread sentiment that Islamic radicalization was a danger. But critics also viewed that 2021 law as a political ploy to lure the right wing to President Emmanuel Macron's centrist party ahead of the presidential election that Macron won. With the next presidential election two years away, the debate over radical Islam has resurfaced, returning to the spotlight following the release recently of a government-commissioned report that raised concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts to expand its influence in France through grassroots organizations, including sports clubs. Amnesty International said the new bill targets Muslim women and girls by excluding them from sporting competitions if they wear a headscarf or other religious clothing. Ahead of the 2024 Olympic Games, Amnesty published research looking at rules in 38 European countries and found that France was the only country to ban religious headwear in sport. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
San Francisco Chronicle
26-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
A basketball player was sidelined for her headscarf. France may now ban them in all sports
PARIS (AP) — Salimata Sylla was about to lead her team onto the basketball court, as she had done many times before. On that Sunday morning, she and her teammates had completed a three-hour bus trip from the Paris suburb of Aubervilliers to a rival club in northern France. They had changed and warmed up, and Sylla, the team captain, was ready to go. But moments before tipoff, she was told she could not play. The reason? Her headscarf. More than two years later, Sylla is still barred from competing under the French basketball federation's jurisdiction. The 27-year-old former point guard is among thousands of young Muslim women in France who are sidelined from competitive sport because of bans on uniforms and other clothing that have religious or political significance. These rules, critics say, disproportionately target hijab-wearing Muslim athletes. Now, a contentious bill backed by right-wing politicians that would ban headscarves in all sporting competitions has cleared its first legislative hurdle in the Senate. If passed by the lower house, it would enshrine into law what has until now been decided by individual sporting federations. Supporters say the proposed law is a necessary step to protect secularism — a pillar of the French Republic. Opponents denounce it as discriminatory, Islamophobic, and a violation of both the rule of law and the very concept of secularism. Athlete who wears hijab says it's a personal decision In January 2023, she was told to remove her hajib if she wanted to play against a rival club. Sylla refused, citing personal conviction and the fact that her sports hijab was officially approved and deemed suitable for competitive use. The basketball federation bans all head coverings as inappropriate for play, contrary to the rules of the international federation. The French federation did not provide The Associated Press with an explanation for the ban on hijabs in competitions. Sylla has stopped playing with her former club. She continues hosting games outside of the federation's jurisdiction, organizing monthly tournaments in Paris and its suburbs that are open to women playing basketball with or without a hijab. Secularism still a hot-button issue Until now, sports federations have been free to decide whether to allow headscarves. A date has yet to be set for the bill to be debated in the lower house of the Parliament. But the senators' vote in favor of the bill has already reignited the ongoing debate on secularism and the separation of church and state. It's still a hot-button issue more than a century after a 1905 law established it as a principle of the French Republic. French secularism — 'la laïcité' — affirms the concept of religious freedom, while stipulating that the state does not favor any religion and remains neutral. It is, however, seen by critics as a pretext to discriminate and restrict Muslims' access to public life. 'Les Hijabeuses' at the forefront A group of headscarf-wearing soccer players called 'Les Hijabeuses,' who campaign against the ban, say the new bill would unfairly force Muslim women to choose between wearing a headscarf or playing a sport. After France's highest administrative court ruled in 2023 that the soccer federation can ban headscarves in matches, the Hijabeuses have lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights against France, alleging a violation of their freedom of religion. Supporters of the bill cite growing attacks on secularism in sport, arguing that its core values are based on a principle of universality. To protect sports grounds from any nonsporting confrontation, they say, a principle of neutrality needs to be implemented to ensure that no political, religious or racial agenda can be promoted. But Nicolas Cadène, the former secretary-general of the now defunct Observatory for Laïcité, a nonpartisan institution that previously advised the French government, disagrees. He says the principles of French secularism cannot be used to justify the headscarf ban because it's not the role of a secular state to judge a religious symbol. A heated debate sparking divisions The bill is dividing the government and pitting athletes against each other. Five-time Olympic judo champion Teddy Riner — a towering figure in French sports — argued that the bill was targeting one religion, and that French society should instead focus on promoting equality. Mahyar Monshipour, a former professional boxer born in Iran, hit back, asking Riner not to get involved in a debate he did not understand. Monshipour claimed that the headscarf is meant to conceal the bodies of women and used to legitimize inequality between men and women. The dispute has also exposed cracks within the coalition government. While some ministers have expressed doubts about the bill, it has the strong backing of hard-right heavyweights. Lawmakers have previously approved a bill to strengthen oversight of mosques, schools and sports clubs. With France bloodied by terror attacks, there is widespread sentiment that Islamic radicalization was a danger. But critics also viewed that 2021 law as a political ploy to lure the right wing to President Emmanuel Macron's centrist party ahead of the presidential election that Macron won. With the next presidential election two years away, the debate over radical Islam has resurfaced, returning to the spotlight following the release recently of a government-commissioned report that raised concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts to expand its influence in France through grassroots organizations, including sports clubs. France stands alone with religious headwear ban Amnesty International said the new bill targets Muslim women and girls by excluding them from sporting competitions if they wear a headscarf or other religious clothing. Ahead of the 2024 Olympic Games, Amnesty published research looking at rules in 38 European countries and found that France was the only country to ban religious headwear in sport. ___
