Mohammed Bouazizi would have turned 27 today

He was 26, graduated in computer science. He couldn’t find a job, so he was fruits and vegetables seller in the streets of Sidi Bouzid, a provincial little town of Tunisia. Mohammad Bouazizi didn’t immolate to protest against poverty or unemployment, but against that system that was denying him to exist by denying him the right to survive with dignity by his own very limited means. His last known words were directed to his mother, through facebook:

I am leaving mom, forgive me, Reproach is not helpful, i am lost in my way it is not in my hand, forgive me if disobeyed words of my mom, blame our times and do not blame me, i am going and not coming back, look i did not cry and tears did not fall from my eyes, Reproach is not helpful in time of Treachery in the land of people, i am sick and not in my mind all what happened, i am leaving and i am asking who leads the travel to forgive.

We have a word in arabic, “hogra“, which sense is difficult to translate. It means, roughly, this denial of the dignity of others, this denial of their right to live and to resist to oppression, this denial of their humanity by sweeping away their last chance to have the slightest control over their destiny. It is this generalized feeling of hogra of the authorities towards the people that united the citizens of Sdi Bouzid; where you reach that point where you understand that you have nothing to lose since everything including dignity has been taken from you, you become by befinition subversive by the very fact that you still try to exist. We know the chain reaction: from Mohammed Bouazizi to Sidi Bouzid, to the whole Tunisia, to Egypt and to other arab countries including Libya, Yemen, Bahrein, Syria.

It is relevant that what united people was not a human rights activist tortured by the regime, the massive and usual frauds of the “elections” or some Intelligence Agency treachery, but the suicide of the street vendor caused by the hogra. The popular icons have generally this ability to embody the whole contestation in one attitude. So was Bouazizi, so was also Rosa Parks, so were Tien An Men students. They sound like an allegory of the whole people struggle for justice and freedom and that is why they achieve to unite them to face the same enemy. The deep wish and dream of tyrannic regimes is to be able to create this unity of people for their own purposes, to direct it towards something external: some foreign menace, one specific minority (the Jews, the Gipsies, the migrants, etc), one specific ideology (communism, etc). But History shows that whatever, propaganda, censorship, mind formatting, there is always a way mind uses to access to freedom, and the free mind leads into resistance against oppression, sooner or later. In the end, the only viable existence for a system is to be fair.

Maybe the day where Mohammed Bouazizi would have turned 27 is a day each of us should use on thinking about what oppresses them, what treats them with hogra. And resist. Let it be with thoughts, words or acts, resistance is what is most widely spread all over the world, for it defines, after all, what is to be human: to be those who where given free will.

Depressed? You won’t get a job, but you’ll be agreed for euthanasia

Le Matin, a swiss newspaper, reports on February 16th the case of a 56 years old depressed man euthanazied, helped in this task by Exit, an association specialized in such ‘mercy killings’. In Switzerland, euthanasia (or more precisely “suicide assistance”) is to some extent legal, in specific cases of an extremely painful incurable disease and a free from any external influence request of the applicant. Wether a psychatric disease such as an extremely deep depression fits into that is pretty unclear; the pain might be as strong as for a cancer for example but the evaluation of the consciousness and the awareness of the patient seems to be quite subjective.

Exit the self-called association fighting for people’s right to ‘die with dignity’ (as if being courageous enough to face pain was disgraceful) has since decades in Switzerland fought to have the right to provide death as a solution to despair and is becoming more and more popular in a country where the elders face the naked truth during their last days among the living: alone they will pass away, let it be painful or not. However, this case of a depressed patient (manic-depressive to be more accurate) assisted in his suicidal process remains quite unique. The risk exists that such an event becomes a jurisprudence and marks the beginning of numerous demands of assistance for suicides from people suffering from depression. When you know that up to one third of people experience depression during their lives and a substancial percentage of them develop morbid symptoms, the ‘market’ is potentially big for the death helpers.

Exit agreed to provide poison to this 56 years old depressive man 10 months after he made the request by letter. One letter, a couple of months waiting, and here you’re done we’re helping you to die. But would have he been agreed as easily for any other request?

In Switzerland, forth to third of the people will experience depression one day or the other.For those, hard and competitive work conditions are a major cause. But in Switzerland it is so shameful workwise to have suffered of a depression that even the unemployment office advises to hide, whatever, to recruiters that one has been through this. Literaly it is advised to reply to questions by insinuating that one “had health problems” to let people think it was a “body” disease. A persone who suffered of heavy depression will have to write hundreds of letters to have right to have a work and 99.99% of them will stay unanswered. There is no help from the unemployment office or any other governmental agency to help depressive people to find a job; on the “best case” they’d offer them to participate to programms for social reinsertion for mentally challenged people, which do not fit a depressive person.

This “shame” of being depressive goes beyond work environment. Depression is limiting in all areas of life. For example, it is reported cases where healthcare insurances and life insurances refuse to cover somebody if the medical tests reveal depression. The Swiss people always had a tendency to be distant and not so into family, and depressive persons pay the high price of a society where everybody is isolated from everybody else. As most of social life in Switzerland is focused on activities that are charged for admission (restaurants, clubs, cinemas, etc), jobless depressed people end having no occasion to meet people and keep alive a friendship or any relationship. If anyway anything would offer the occasion to meet anybody the first question is always: “What do you do for a living?”.  In our Swiss society, one is tagged with what one does for a living and being “unproductive” or more precisely costing more money than one brings is almost  a ”deadly sin”… Weakness is unallowed and on the weakness ladder depressive persons are almost cheaters, since what they suffer from is invisible, almost considered as “subjective”. No wonder we have in Switzerland one of the highest suicide rates in the world and suicide as the first cause of death for people under 45… and for those who need a little help for suicide, we have associations such as Exit and Dignitas ready to put their knowledge in service of suicide.

Looking towards death is one of the major signs of depression. But instead of trying to put everything in service of making depressive and weak people want to look into life as something “worth it”, instead of implementing real solutions against pain, isolation and social exclusion, suicide is offered as an exit door. One sometimes cannot go deep inside to help somebody to emerge out of the depression, but offering suicide assistance services is certainly no more than a dreadful symptom of a society sick with cynism and un-humanity. Unless we react against it, I see no hope to not finish under-human beings ouselves.

The irrational Fear of Islamism in Europe

One of the most common fears in Europe and US towards Islam is islamism and particularely violent islamic terrorism. This fear is used by the right-winged parties to increase their popularity and their results. The descibed senario could have been written by Hollywood storytellers: angry red-eyed bearded men, women forced to wear a burqa, human bombs, non-muslims reduced to slavery, global war… the worst of it is that it works. When a majority of people actually fear islamism and terrorism, they are not faking it: they are really scared to be one day sweeped away by a Djihadist bombing or plane hijack. When in Septerber the 11th the Twin Towers collapsed, it was the beginning of a “War on Terror”. For both sides. Here you had people from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq terrorized to be one of the “collateral” victims. There you had American too terrorized to take a plane if a brown skinned guy was in the same flight. “War on Terror” became a “Reign of Terror”. Nothing was better spread in the world than this feeling of terror, this panic growing from all sides. In Europe, seeing over streets veiled women became too scary, young suburbs offenders were not to help out of unemployment or boredom, they were to be recognized for what they were, fondamentalists sons of the muslim migrants, too angry to be grateful for what they were given in this civilized continent. Terror won. So from all sides people let the worst of them rule them to feel “protected”.

What is hard to understand is how this terror became so overwhelming in Europe or US. How to be that scared of terrorism, to the point of letting something 100 times worse take control of their lives . One has to go back to numbers. How many people died in September 11th? 2996 victims. In London? 56 victims. In Madrid? 200 victims. So in total 3252 victims. On the other hand the 2003 Gulf war has so far caused the death of 4759 US+Allies soldiers in Iraq and 2376 in Afghanistan. Without mentionning the number of deaths in the Iraqi and Afghan people, totalizing following estimations more than 300.000 victims (at the very least). So in order to prevent islamist terrorism we make at least 100 times more civil victims and at least twice military victims. Something here is terrifically wrong. Americans at least understood something was going wrong, so they turned their back to Bush and elected Barack Obama. President Obama is NOT a solution, and the 2 first years of his mandate show it clearly, but I have to say I really pay a tribute to American people to have been able to elect a man carrying for a second name the last name of the iraki dictator that has been their worst nightmare for years (due to Bush propaganda) and whose father is from the same religion than the one claimed by the terrorist organization that has attacked them. Half of this is not even thinkable today in Europe.

If we try to go a little more deeper into it: 10 years after September 11th, who is still scared of Islam? Europe. And, to break misconceptions, not only poor workers, uneducated, uninformed Europeans. Everyday a greater part of European citizens are more and more afraid of islamism, Islam, terrorism, migration, all in one. They fear it although they don’t see in their everyday life any consequece of this “threat” they were waiting for for now 10years. They don’t see Muslims taking power on Christians or Jews. They don’t see an increasing number of bearded men and veiled women angrily looking at them in streets. They don’t see mosques teaching djihad techniques. They don’t see all this but everytime they see something as neutral as a brown-skinned man crossing a border or an arab speaking family with 3-4kids at the street corner, they assume they are seeing all this. And at the end they really see all this in simple and normal human beings, who differ from them only in being muslim.

What is puzzling is that they are able to see great threat in tiny details but are unable to see what is really threatening them in their everyday life or even more, what is already killing them. Indeed it is totally irrational when you think of it that people are afraid of islamism that cannot reach their lives whatsoever, when so many things are making their lives terrible everyday. How aren’t they that much terrified by faithless capitalism, savage work conditions causing hundreds of people to commit suicide month after month all over Europe, so cruel society that third of the people will get depressed one day or the other and almost half of the women to scared to lose their job to have kids, so weak defense of consumers that they eat everyday food full of chemicals, pollution.

It seems to me sometimes that life in an European big city consists of waking up to a glass of milk full of artificial hormones, walking or driving to office filling their lungs with dirty particulates, sitting at office and taking orders and psychological harassement, eating a full plate of garbage reconstituted as fish nuggets at the cafeteria, coming back home to their children they see so little time a day that they already know that when they’ll get old they’ll just throw them over in a retirement house, watching news and GET SCARED about those islamists/terrorists and feel so damn secure in their own routine that they have to make everything for it to continue, to have those islamists as far from them as possible. “To make everything” includes voting for the people that will reinforce all makes their life miserable: slavery at work, poisonous chemichals in food for more cancers, nuclear energy policy that kills biodiversity and pollutes the planet with nuclear waste, less money for education, unemployment or social housing, more money and less tax for banksters, more delocalization for making more jobless. How can it be so irrational?

And by having this irrational fear of islamism, people tend to elect people that work in implementing such an unfair world, where South chokes to death and North prefer to waste away half of the planet to tranform it into transient goods, strategic weapons and public debts… what a wonderful world.

Muslims in Europe: more than 4 decades of democratic experience

Europe has always seen itself as the continent of origin of democracy. Because of the historical context in France at the time of the Revolution, democracy in Europe is deeply secular and rejects any intersection of religion and politics. So when Muslims in Europe bagan to participate on the political scene, there is only one concern that was expressed everywhere by European non-muslims: is democracy and Islam two compatible set of values? Can it be that one person claims at the same time being muslim (not only in the very private sphere but also publically) and democratic? Is the acceptance of Islam in the public sphere a danger for democracy?

The current events in the Arab World is a very clear proof that Islam and democracy are compatible. But there is also another proof: in analyzing the History of the last half century of Muslim migration waves in Europe, it is extremely clear that Muslims in Europe have always been dealing with the rest of the society through democratic means.

How have been Muslims in Europe acting democratic during the last half century?

During the second half of the twentieth century, Europe faced a major social change when, after decolonization, migrants arrived from Africa and Asia in waves. To each european country its specific history, hence its specific migrations. If we try to stay limited to muslim migrants (for the purpose of this article): Indian-Pakistanese in UK, Maghrebi-West and Central African in France, Moroccan in Spain, Tunisian in Italy, Turkish in Germany, etc. We can also add Bosniac and Albanese/Kosova migrants at the end of the twentieth century; for example Switzerland alone hosts third of the entire Kosova diaspora. Of course those are only basic trends and do not account of the full migration profiles. Each european country had its own policy in dealing with migration that evolved through decades, for better or worse. One has to distinguish here between two “extreme” cases:

• the British case : the State interfers as less as possible in internal affairs of the community, providing them even the option to solve certain type of conflicts in front of a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT)
• the French case : the State wishes to merge as much as possible all communities into one unique entity, the Republic, bound by common values, summerized as follows: “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité“

Between these two extreme cases a significant number of variations are found. Anyway. What is interesting is that these migrants, that started more or less arriving in Europe in the 60′s, didn’t provide to the economy only labour vs. money: they established in Europe, got married (not necessarely with somebody from the same cultural background), raised children. If not the parents, the children, at least, acquired the citizenship of the “host” country, what enabled them, when reaching 18+, to vote and be actively part of the civil life. Having been in european schools, being introduced to european economy as workers and speaking in general the language of the host country (english, french, german, etc) much better than the language of the country of origin, it seemed to them very natural that they will build their life and career in Europe as fully Europeans.

What is interesting here is that muslim migrants children born in Europe remained quite attached to their roots and origins, although being fully conscious of being european. Many of them also kept a tight bound with Islam. Unlike the parents who felt they were whatsoever “from abroad”, their sons and daughters called for their rights to be guaranted. As the various constitutions were giving the same rights to all citizens, regardless of their religion, they asked for equality and for being given the opportunity to evolve through the civil life in a way that wouldn’t hurt their convictions. This covers topics as different as the end of discrimination in the labour market, authaurizations for building enough mosques for welcoming all the faithfuls, the availability at school restaurants of hallah meat for the children (basic “day-to-day life” rights) but also political rights through representation in classical political parties, visibility in the medias or recognition of colonial crimes (more or less: the right to be recognized as part of the identity of the country). On the other hand, the civil society/established powers asked to this European-Muslim generation to insert themselves as much as possible into the existing structures and follow as much as possible the existing laws, like for example accepting that the secularity of laws requires from them concessions on the dress code when working in public sector or sticking to the idea of the prevalence of the national laws on the Sharia. These two flows of demands meet in a point where they balance. The exact location of this balance point depends first on the integration policy the state applies (like the british case and french case seen above), but also of the socio-economical profile of the communities (number, cultral background, average education level, distribution over cities, etc). Generally the European-Muslims are represented by two main trends: those who believe only in assimilating totally in the “host” society by erasing all what makes them different and those who, although they want to be fully recognized as Europeans, do not want to be forced to let aside their religious and cultural specificity.

It is to notice that whatever the demands are, the European-Muslims, as citizens born in democratic countries and raised in the idea that their parents migrated to offer them an auspicious background for a better living, are claiming and asking for recognition of their rights following democratic procedures. They generally take form of:

• peaceful protests (for example La Marche des Beurs in France in 1983)
• intensive involvment in associations not specifically islamic (like for example SOS Racisme, Les Indigènes de la République, workers syndicates in UK, Turkish secular associations in Germany, political parties, etc)
• foundation of islamic institutions initiated by the community itself (Muslim Council of Britain, Islamic Council of Netherlands, etc) or initiated by the government (Conseil Français du Culte Musulman)
• active participation into the democratic debate through mediatic coverage (like the islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan or the antiracism activist Malek Boutih)
• petitions (against dismissal of employees for religious reasons)
• trials (asking for a space for prayer on the work place, recognition of a discrimination case, etc)
• boycott campaigns (brands not specifying clearly the use of prohibited food in some products)
• assiociative mutual help (when politics do not help): actions for homeless, youth educators to prevent violence, social integration through sports and art, etc
• providing private services in agreement with muslim values, with the agreement of european governments: hallal food providers, islamic banking, private schools, etc

There is also a unique but interesting case of a muslim political party in UK, Hizb et-Tahrir, clearly extremist in its points of view but in the same time “fairly” participating on the political scene by debating (the same way a right-winged political party is considered to be democratic because it accepts the “rules of the game”). All these democratic procedures have in common to be non-violent. Of course, there is also some rare cases of violent acts, although quite limited compared to the number of peaceful initiatives. These acts although restricted in number could be seen as the beginning of a breakdown between the European-Muslims  and the rest of the society: assassination of Theo Van Gogh in Netherlands, the Khaled Kelkal’s terrorist acts, London and Madrid bombings, french suburban areas unrest events of 2005, violent treats after the Muhammad (SWS) cartoons controversy. These violent acts are most of the time tightly entangled with the international context such as the Algerian civil war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Gulf Wars or of course the 11th of September. One has to not confuse between the violent political acts and the criminality and urban violence witnessed in poor stratum of the society and working-poor class, for the latter are not political movements; they might express loudly the despair of a community banned by the rest of the society and living difficult conditions (living in poor suburban areas, being jobless).

But whatsoever, besides those very rare examples, the European-Muslims mostly follow existing laws or fight within the democratic frame for their rights. Indeed, they are extremely present in the front line, and, it has to be pointed, if they are present through the activities listed above, they never pressured through powerful lobbies.

As a consequence, the long-debated question of the compatibility of democracy with Islam is quite non-revelant: European-Muslims have been, for now more than 4 decades, interacting with the European civil, economical, juridical and political society only through democratical means. All the rights debated, obtained or rejected have been issued by a democratic process.

Democratic European Muslims, what is their perspective?

It has to be noted also that other examples of civic causes in Europe have not always been as peaceful as the European Muslims have been: the left wing movements or the altermondialist movement for example have been into much more violent riots and acts (there is not any G8 or G20 meeting that has not been the occasion to massive vandalism), but as it is not “ethnically tagged”, it was always been much more accepted. The altermondialist leader José Bové, currently representing Europe Ecology in the European Parliament has started his political career in destroying a transgenic culture field and a McDonald’s. Such acts, labelled in Europe as “civic desobediance” seem to never be applied to European Muslims: if one of them would act like José Bové, he would be labelled as violent and retrograde; very aware of this, the huge majority of the Muslim community in Europe generally act extremely peacefully and carefully, to not harm the global cause. It is this concern of the global cause that opens the European Muslims to questions wider than their own personnal benefit in the present situation.

In some extent, the European-Muslims have influenced the generation of their parents, bringing them to the fight for their rights that have been denied to them. So is the case of the African Second World War veterans, without any official recognition nor descent wages until the young generation revealed their history on the screens and medias, or the ongoing case of the 50s-60s Moroccan railway workers underpayed and discriminated. This kind of “retroactive” democratic influence isn’t surprising: the generation of muslims born in Europe, in many aspects, acts like an interface between their parents and the host country, due to a better educational background, a better knowledge of the language and of political institutions, etc.

The current economical crisis also resulted in a rise of the right-wing parties all over Europe, achieving to reveal this growing rift between the European-Muslims, as descendants of migrants, and the non-muslim Europeans: the word islamophobia became unfortunately very common. The growing general islamophobic feeling results in a hardening in legislations: ban of minarets in Switzerland being only one example. In today’s Europe, where racist behaviours and opinions are becoming more and more normal (not only against muslims but also against other migrants, like the gipsies), the European-Muslims seem to be an isolated case of civic struggle through the decades for rights. Now, they are in a new unseen situation: they have to fight against the loss of the rights they won only years ago. For example, after making some progress in the fight against discriminations in the 80s and 90s, we see now a rise of openly discriminating behaviour. The fight for equality is never won for good; maybe it has only begun.

The North African and Middle East is living now a turn in its History: the Tunisian and Egyptian popular revolutions opened the path to democracy to the whole region. It might take years, but it is clear now that people are fighting for their rights and for the end of an unfair society. The parallel here is interesting: a Europe in loss of democracy, an Arab World in progress towards democracy. And as a link between them this generation of young European people from Arab migrant parents, and most specifically from Arab Muslim parents (as Muslims not only account for the huge majority of Arabs in Europe, especially because of the Maghrebi migration, but also they had to face much more discriminations due to their religion, giving them more expertise in the fight for justice). The Arab (Muslim) Europeans have been following with interest the events since the beginning. They felt extremely proud of the Arab youth fighting for their freedom. Amongst governments, the recent events in the Arab World were paid a high attention for geostrategic reasons, but also because of the repercussion it might have on those European Muslims: as an example, French President Sarkozy clearly avoided to welcome Ben Ali after his fall down, fearing to  ignite an unrest among the Muslim community in France.

The situation might evolve to a surprising scenario: if we reach a point where Europe offers less freedom and rights to their Muslim citizens than the Arab countries, they might massively  migrate back to Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, etc. Their parents came to Europe, they might go back to North Africa and Middle East. We are already witnessing for a couple of years now an increasing number of young European Muslims working in opening business in their country of origin, transfering their expertise into the local market, creating partnerships, bringing ideas not yet implemented in the Arab World. Many times we hear from young people, born in France, UK, Switzerland or Germany: “Why wouldn’t my arab country of origin benefit from all I can bring instead of Europe that day by day denies me the right to express my personnality, my culture, my religion?”.  The point here is to understand that they do not come back to the Arab World because they have no choice (having European citizenships protects them quite enough), but because they make the choice to give their added value to the country of origin. Moroccans, Tunisians, Algerians, Libyans, Egyptians, etc, that know the beginning will be difficult for them to adapt, but that want to make it. They know they are certainly going to earn less, but to live better, whilst they will participate in the local and global progress. Their parents were part of an economical migration wave, they are part of a ethical migration wave. Many of them, anyway, won’t migrate “physically” and will continue to live in Europe, but with a greatest concern of their civil role in Arab societies: most of this European Arabs carry european citizenships, but also arab citizenships, giving them the right to vote, to own in the country of origin or to represent it in International Organizations.

The European Arab (Muslim) youth and the Arab youth have many in common: education level, global awareness, similar values, similar goals and a great concern for democracy, human rights, civic rights. It would be interesting if they can benefit from each other’s experience and collaborate together to build a better and fair society, in Europe as well as in the Arab world. One one side they would fight corruption of the system, on the other side they would fight unethical exploitation of workers and ressources, in a situation that would guarantee a stable peaceful relation based on mutual benefit. They could meet in forums, establish partnerships, NGOs, transnational cooperations, exchange knowledge and open markets to each other, advise each other.

That would be a new nice kind of globalization.

What educated people should learn from uneducated people

Education is the key. For everything: development, peace, health, freedom, democracy, human rights, end of racism and discrimination, global awareness, etc. It is with this leitmotiv that most of parents of arab/african migrants to Europe crossed the Mediterranean Sea: to offer to their children the oppprtunity to live in a stable environment where an education of high value is given. Studies show that the difference in education level between migrants and their children is bigger than for natives. Other studies show also that the migrant parents tend to be even more pushy with their daughters than with their sons to accomplish a grade in higher education.

Good news? Yes awesome news, but one little bad point, though. I started to notice a long ago that in general (of course this is not a general statement) that if I look around me for people like me, sons and daughters of migrant arab parents, that the higher the education level of parents is, especially the mother, the lower is the ability of their children to speak in arabic. To be more accurate, I came to the statement that this was particularely true for two categories of migrants: those coming from maghrebi coutries (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) and from Lebanon. One big exception though: it is false mainly for Syrians, for every Syrian born in Europe I’ve met, they were all speaking perfectly arabic. To illustrate my point, I remember this video I’ve seen long ago of the son of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri talking in front of the Lebanese Parliament, reading from a paper his speech written in arabic, with such a hesitant, with so many mistakes that the video was widely spread among Arabs. It seemed so incredible to see the son of such a famous businessman and politician, long depicted as a figure of success in the Arab world, owning even arabic speaking medias, having difficulty and making mistakes.

So the question is: why among the Arab diaspora in Europe the more (in general) moroccan/algerian/tunisian/lebanese parents are educated, the less children are able to speak arabic (not even mentionning writing)? For those who don’t live the diaspora from inside, it has to be pointed out that arabic inside arab communities in Europe is almost exclusively transmitted to children by parents, the small number of arabic courses for children being far from having the capacity of welcoming everybody (and do not even exist in every city). Anyway arabic courses do not help children to really speak arabic, I mean the arabic they would be able to speak with their family and friends, since fus’ha (classical standard arabic) is mostly used for writing; the speaking requires knowledge of local dialectical arabic (including berber languages even if of course strictly saying they are different from arabic) that can’t be transmitted by any other mean than listening and speaking on a regular basis.

It seems to be a total contradiction to imagine that a less educated father and/or a less educated mother are more likely to teach their children arabic. Actually, if you carefully analyze the situation it is not: the four country I mentionned, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Lebanon, have in common a very high tendency to value french culture. In these countries, intellectual elites tend to speak french, even when they are not together with a foreigner not speaking arabic. When you think of it, it is very absurd to be arabic native speaker born in an arabic country, going to school and losing a little bit touch with arabic (for example sciences are tought in french in high schools in Tunisia, lebanese authors like Khalil Gibran or Andrée Cheddid wrote in english or french instead of arabic), meeting your significant other and getting married, migrating to Europe and having kids (not necesseraly in that order) and… forget to speak arabic with them.On the contrary, so many of us, sons and daughters of migrant parents with lower schooling level remember speaking one language at school (english, french, german) and coming back home switching instantly to arabic. (For my case,  for example, my father being egyptian and my mother tunisian, I was trained to switch instantly not only between french and arabic but also between dialectal egyptian and tunisian.)

Is it because they have been themselves to school that they are more keen to rely on school to ensure fully the linguistic education? Or maybe because education paradigms in their native countries have succeeded in implementing the idea that arabic was not so useful after all compared to something as prestigious and succesful as english or french, and that it is not a big loss that their children didn’t learn it? Or because less educated parents are less fluent in other languages than arabic, “forcing” children to keep talking in arabic with them if they want to communicate? Or because less graduated parents equals to less takening careers or a more “traditionnal type” family, then more free time dedicated to children? Certainly a mix of all these different reasons.

Anyway, this appeals to an interesting conlusion: there is certainly something educated people should learn from less educated people. They should give a bigger attention to what they transmit to their child. Parents transmit education, values, but when they are migrants they transmit also culture and language. They are the essential and sometimes the unique link for their children with their country of origin. If they want their children to “feel at home” back there, there is no other option: they cannot chose the easy path. It is twice as difficult, but worth it.

To veil or not to veil, that is the (only) question

On the right side of this blog you certainly noted the presence of a tag cloud, i.e. a widget provided by my blog host, WordPress, that lists the most common tags used to describe the content of my articles. The bigger the font size, the more I am obsessed with the related topic. Quite accurate and relevant I have to admit. But you see – try to imagine I am using a soft slow voice and looking at you straight in the eyes like I would do one day with my children when I’ll have to explain to them all those disappointing facts about life – blogs are not the only one to carry tag clouds, people do too. You do, I do, everybody does. We are all categorized following preconceptions, misconceptions and even sometimes inceptions. If you are lucky enough, one or two of the tags would not relate only to your aspect and/or your ethnicity but on the person you are inside – but that’s maybe one case in a thousand.

As for me and more generally for any arab or muslim woman – as people tend to confuse the fact of being arab and muslim – the tag cloud has to list the followings, in font size 72: veil, Arabian Nights, couscous (or baklawa), forced marriage, polygamy, submission, belly dance, virginity, honour killings. Seems long ago we were labelled, and whatever we did or said since, it never changed. The fact is, many arab/muslim women writers, feminists, etc, have fought against these preconceptions that tend to depict us as no more than fully covered under beings with no voice and no will.

But in my opinion, what all of these feminists have failed at is to show that our lives do not evolve only around these topics. For example,  I have so far never read anything written by a feminist that doesn’t imply explicitely or implicitely the question of the veil. Either they would consider it as the symbol of submission of women to men, either they feel the need to object that western women have their own way to be even more submitted by being treated like sexual objects. Some also try to convince that veil is not stipulated as mandatory  in the Holy Quran and finally, some do stress on the fact that wether muslim women wear the hijab or not, it doesn’t matter since you would find strong-minded muhajabat (women wearing hijab) and not-so-strong western-like-dressed women, and, as long as the decision to wear veil or not was freely taken by the woman herself, it is her own business. Anyway, the fact that all those feminists sooner or later discusses the veil issue proves that:

1. whatever is their opinion, they consider it essential in a women’s rights discussion instead of seing it as part of a global discussion on confessionnal freedom (for example, peer pressure isn’t less strong in the case of somebody not wishing to fast Ramadan than in the case of a woman not wishing to wear veil)
2. feminism looks at muslim/arab women essentially “through the tag cloud”, i.e. by confronting the topic of women’s rights only through the few limited topics muslim/arab women are tagged with
3. they assume that arab/muslim populations are accustomed enough to western standards to not consider anymore the option of not wearing the hijab as something “coming from abroad” but really as a choice relevant only about women’s situation

I do not wish at all give any comment about the “veil issue” itself, what interests me here is how the way it is discussed reveals us something about feminism in arab/muslim countries. Actually, feminism in arab or muslim countries is mostly just a not-so-well adjusted version of western feminism, unable to go deeper than the surface. It is understandable that veil generates that much question marks in western world where it appeared only with migration and seems so opposite to western standards. It is on the contrary much less understandable that it goes into so much questions in countries where it is not a “foreign” phenomenon but exists for centuries. As if indians where having a nevertlasting debate over what does wearing a saree means; in such an hypothetic case it would be inaccurate to treat the “saree issue” only as part of the question of women’s rights. It appears then that because of the very limited view feminists have on arab/muslim women, it never really succeeds in defining what is relevant in their situation. My very personnal opinion is that what would help arab/muslim women would be to open the doors out of the clichés and focus on something else than the same 3-4 topics discussed again and again and again. If those were essential to women’s rights in the arab/muslim countries, it would have solved the situation since decades, given the hundreds of NGOs, think tanks, books and talks dedicated to the issue. Meaning we need to rethink totally the basis on which we consider women’s condition in the arab world. Are we gathering the right data? Are we analyzing the right facts? Aren’t we looking in the wrong direction?

Women’s situation in arab world is so difficult in so many ways that the constant focus on the “tag cloud” without noticing how inaccurate this description is ends being almost ridiculous. We need a feminism that gives to women effective solutions to reach visibility in all aspects of civil society, not to focus on the same speeches since decades. For example in many countries women, wearing a hijab or not is not really an issue in day to day life while being sexually harrassed constantly, however she is dressed, is a real problem. A focus has to be done on law: correcting the flaws but also understanding what makes the existing laws uneffective. Inaccecibility to basic education and to higher education for women in rural areas, lack of women in managing positions, under-representativity in politics, lack of means for mothers raising children alone, unavailability of social, cultural and artistic activities outside big towns, etc, all those are topics that need to be at the focal point of our generation’s feminism. The day “to veil or not to veil” will be for real the only question, it’ll mean we made a big step forward.

Japan, a trendy cause

The Japan earthquake and tsunami’s news and videos shook all of us. I still cannot understand where do the Japanese people take all that courage to face this apocalyptic situation; I really admire them for looking at all this and… don’t give up. I think we all had this feeling looking at them endlessely trying to find their relatives walking through the gigantic fields of wood, steel and concrete in piles, where there previously was a village, made of pretty houses and beautiful streets.

The empathy with the strong and proud men and women is certainly one of the reasons that explains partly the worldwide  generosity towards the japanese victims. I always see positively international solidarity, that remains among the last things where one can watch its neighbour concerned about some natural disaster and say: “thank you for allowing me, sometimes, to keep faith in human beings.”. But this time, I cannot help to be somewhat irritated by something going wrong. It all started with reading something about Lady Gaga selling on her websites bracelets for Japan; then Sandra Bullock offered 1 million dollars while the Black Eyed Peas try to promote the cause. Britney Spears, Justin Bieber and Katy Perry will issue shortly a song. Why do these artists need to show themselves that much when they aren’t doing anything else than what others are doing? When a star earning millions of dollars gives half a million or so, it is not more remarkable than when a student who earns only a few hundreds send 30 dollars to the victims. So why do they need that their donations are given publicity in the media?

Let’s face the ugly truth: these artists know that the Japanese are good customers for their songs, movies, concerts, CDs, DVDs, etc. Given the high purchasing power in Japan and the high sum per inhabitant they dedicate to purchasing cultural goods, the marketing of international artists has always been careful to never forget to target the Land of the Rising Sun. A natural disaster affecting the Japanese economy equals to a decrease in the income of the Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, Britney Spears and others. So how to remedy the situation? Easy! By increasing their visbility and popularity in Japan, as well as in other parts of the wrld: for the Japanese, these donations confort them in the feeling those artists care about them, and for American, Europeans and others, itt gives them a positive image.

If it was business, we would call this a win-win situation, but since it’s not business but charity isn’t this but an unclean way to take advantage of a the suffering of hundreds of thousands of victims just to boost their approval ratings? One might object that I am judging them on mere intent… do I? I had the feeling for example that I haven’t seen that much compassion from the entertainment industry during the terrific floods in Pakistan in 2010. The number of victims were much greater (21 millions people directly affected). Pakistan as an emergent country couldn’t offer the technicalities and help the japanese government is able to help its citizen with. In almost one week, the Japanese disaster cause gathered almost as much donation than the Pakistani disaster in more than 6 months. It is not a matter here to compare between the two catastrophes, but just to face the truth: Japan is a trendy cause, Pakistan was not. Lady Gaga & friends try to increase their popularity among their most lucrative fans; states and companies want to save the business; and people… well I don’t know exactly what is their feeling about all this, why they don’t feel a Pakistani man, woman or child deserves help the same way a Japanese man, woman or child. As human beings, we all have to make our share for Japan, the same way they would do for us if we lived something that much tragic (or even if they wouldn’t), but as human beings we should also try to “train” ourselves to not treat differently the suffering, the pain, the anguish of the different victims. When confronted to disasters like this, my dream would be that the world stops to see the Japanese as no more than consumers to attract (for their money and not for the sincere concern about all the suffering they are currently going through), and the Pakistani like no more than “under human beings” that don’t deserve any compassion.

Egypt: tweeting a constitution

So much has been said and written about the use of social medias in the Egyptian uprising. I won’t tell you anything you don’t already know if I tell you that the censorship and the official media propaganda made Facebook and Twitter the favored source of information for a young, urban and educated youth. You’d certainly know too that bloggers among other activists were phished by the Mukhabarat (Egyptian Intelligence) for their strong influence and that the strong political conscience of young Arabs surprised at the same time the old cast of autocrats AND the Western World. You certainly know all of this.

But since the stepdown of Mubarak, does the new democratic state still need so much activism on the social medias, or the newly free traditionnal medias (television, radio, newspapers) are enough? Now that everybody can openly speak their minds, will the social medias go back to what they were originally used for, socializing and entertainment, aren’t they? After all, in a democratic US and Europe, teenagers and young adults mainly tweet and facebook about their moods, party pictures or congregate into groups of interests for artistic activities or social events. As far as we can witness today in Egypt, no, the political role of social media information is not over, but the use has slightly changed: it went from an information channel when under repression, to an open debate scene since revolution.

The young egyptian bloggers do not have to hide anymore, they are even invited on TV broadcasts, their faces are known and their columns are published in newspapers. But even if this bit of “prestige” made to the political numerical scene on the traditionnal media scene is quite honouring, the #jan25 youth  (if you are familiar with the twitter popular hashtag for the egyptian contestation movement) do not seem to fall into line. Yes they read the news, yes they watch TV speeches, youtube video’s and Al Jazeera (Arabic or English), but they build away from any influence their own opinion – and they share it. The referendum for the new Constitution of the Republic of Egypt (dostoor in arabic) has been the occasion of a vaste, multipolar open debate. Twitter is used as a giant web 2.0 agora where thousands of voices can express at the same time without one shouting louder than others. Display pictures are replaced by “No” written in white on a red background or “Yes” on a green background (and all the derivatives and parodies), a simple way for every twitterer to declare what they intend to vote. Arguments and critics on amendments go back and forth, with or without # or @. Relevant civil actions are relayed, when they are too small to interest a traditionnal media (a newspaper will not “use the time” of the journalist it employs for a flyers distribution on the Tahrir square) or brainstorming sessions are improvised (like the #EgyptHas one a few days ago aiming in listing everything that would encourage tourists to come). And inbetween, some breaknews from other arab revolutions, the Egyptian feeling very supportive of Libya, Bahrein or Yemen, and some entertainment with songs or a funny video.

This large online agora is one of a new kind: it is not a sum of persecuted voices that cannot express elsewhere, it has become a normal way of political expression besides all the other means. The Twitter and Facebook do not make a revolution and a democracy, it is the sum of all the interactions in a civil society that do, and the social medias have been now as normal as anything like a text message, e-mail service or as complementary as an organized meeting: what matters is how they are used, if they are used to transmit the free opinions of people and their true minds, or if they are used and misused to spread propagands.  The main difference I see with the american/european social media scene is that the Egyptian couterpart is much less hierachized and specialized: the western world political content tweets and retweets go more into public figures or institutions with thousands of followers, witty bloggers and their fans, supporters of one or the other political parties (the young green party, etc) or activists among specific networks of similar interests, while the Egyptians seem to be in a more generalist perspective: very few are part of any institution of a kind, official stakeolders (like political parties) have a very limited social media activity (even for example somebody like the former Atomic Agency General Secretary, Nobel Prize winner and candidate for Egyptian presidency Mohammad Al Baradei have not that much impact on the social medias). Just speak your mind in 140 characters, use the appropriate tag to be accessible to the rest of the users who are discussing the same thing than you, and Marhaba!

This “non-organization” specifity of the Egyptian agora makes the work of those who want to influence opinions through mass numerical media difficult, if not impossible: for every single info shared, for every argument expressed, there are 10 people objecting and analyzing on the live, and the “non-organization” of the crowds makes it almost impossible to categorize people into “pro-” or “anti-” something. Meaning it is their clustering into categorizable group of ideas that make people be possibly analyzed and inflirtated by strategic media specialists who look for subtle yet efficient ways to influence. So that’s something that we should maybe learn from this for anywhere in the world: if you want to be targetable as less as possible to political communication campaigns and to opinion formating, do not stick your presence on social medias on the clusters around opinion leaders, affiliated groups or currents; you should rather follow people like you and me, normal citizen that share their views, don’t exclude other currents of thoughts than yours, use your critical mind for everything that you read from others without hesitating in criticizing an illogical opinion. Because, if we are agree that dictatorship restricts citizen freedom of speech and act in ways we know, we should also be aware that the opinion formatting and mind manipulation the advertising and political communication specialists trying to implement to increase the number of their devotees,is not exactly what we could call democraty.

Egyptians are this morning on their way to vote for the constitution. Thanks to smartphones, the Constitution referendum was not only debated fow weeks, it is now too precisely observed and reported over regularities and irregularities: still need external observers?  We read messages like: “At voting station in school in Helwan. Looks clean and well organized. Judges in every booth, teachers running process.Ok” or  “people reporting ballots not stamped in Heliopolis #dostor2011” or “I voted in AlManial ElE3dadeya things are very positive, police officers are helpful & all papers are stamped. Things are great.“.

Whatever the result of the referendum is, this morning we can say that the new democratic Egypt is here and intends to stay: the voices of the young and the less young are heard in polling stations, but also on the virtual public scene. Whether the result will be a “YES” or a “NO” for the Constitution amendments, the Egyptians have already won their first electoral battle: they went massively to vote and they freely chose. Sounds very promising: a poitical sciencce empirical theorem states that anything significant that happens in Egypt, tends to spread and happen afterwards in the rest of the Arab World.

Partir dans la dignité: l’euthanasie est une fausse solution

Parce qu’il touche à ce qu’il y a de plus intime, le rapport qu’on entretient avec la mort, le débat sur l’euthanasie est rarement objectif. En tant que musulmane ma position personnelle sur la question va dans le sens du respect du don sacré de la vie. Or, ce qui m’intéresse ici, ce n’est pas de justifier mes convictions personnelles, mais d’inscrire le refus de l’euthanasie hors du champ religieux, sur le plan purement humain, le plus objectivement possible. N’étant ni une spécialiste de l’éthique ni une juriste ni une professionnelle de la santé, le développement qui suit n’a pas pour vocation de résoudre les nombreux dilemmes juridiques spécifiques qui se posent à propos de l’euthanasie, mais uniquement de présenter un raisonnement qui pourrait participer, à son échelle, au débat entre citoyens. Je tiens également à préciser, pour devancer les objections à ce sujet, que oui, j’ai déjà été concernée de très près par la mort et la souffrance d’un proche; loin de faire vaciller mes convictions à ce sujet, l’épreuve les a renforcées.

Selon une dépêche publiée hier reprenant un sondage de 2010, 94% des Français se prononcent en faveur de l’euthanasie. En Suisse l’assistance au suicide est même légale; ici, les associations Exit et Dignitas sont en effet devenues des éléments banals du paysage. Au vu des statistiques et des législations en vigueur (ou en cours d’élaboration), nous verrons donc probablement, dans un avenir plus ou moins proche, une banalisation de l’acte du suicide assisté, déjà socialement largement accepté, à tel point que l’expression “le droit de mourir dans la dignité” est devenue courante dans les médias et les discussions.

Les deux interrogations principales qui découlent de ce constat sont selon moi:

1. Quelles raisons profondes poussent les gens à se prononcer à la quasi-unanimité pour l’euthanasie?
2. Quelles seraient les conséquences concrètes de la banalisation de l’euthanasie?

C’est, je pense, les deux questions que nous devons nous poser aujourd’hui en tant que citoyens lambda (c’est-à-dire en tant que non-spécialistes et non-professionnels de la santé ou de la loi) de pays majoritairement acquis à la cause de la légalisation de l’euthanasie pour entretenir une certaine objectivité avec l’euthanasie.

Quelles raisons profondes poussent les gens à se prononcer à la quasi-unanimité pour l’euthanasie?

En effet, plus de 90% d’adhésion au concept en France et des résultats similaires dans la plupart des pays européens, c’est loin d’être anodin. On peut même se demander quelle autre question de société d’actualité remporte autant d’approbation au sein de la population. C’est vite vu: aucune. Les raisons évoquées pour les partisans sont: le droit de disposer de son propre corps, l’arrêt des souffrances qui se prolongent, la peur de la déchéance physique et de la solitude, le lourd poids “imposé” aux proches. C’est l’ensemble de ces raisons que beaucoup résument par cette fameuse formule sur le droit de “mourir dans la dignité“, ce qui sous-entend que finalement il y a quelque chose d’indigne dans la condition du malade/souffrant. Il est intéressant de noter que les homes pour personnes âgées  sont pleins d’individus qui justifient leur décision où la décision de leurs proches de les y installer par cette même notion de “dignité” (“je ne veux pas devenir une charge pour mes enfants”, etc). L’euthanasie et les homes sont donc deux remèdes au même mal: l’indignité de l’homme en position de faiblesse. Une vieille personne souffrante et dépendante, c’est une sorte de miroir tendu à chacun de ce qu’il deviendra un jour, et dans notre société où on a réussi à atténuer par tout un tas de moyens la nature animale et organique essentielle de notre corps, que quoi qu’on fasse, les contingences naturelles finiront toujours par l’emporter sur nous, c’est effrayant, c’est inacceptable; on s’ “indigne”, on décide alors de “cacher la poussière sous le tapis”.

D’ailleurs, cette logique de l’ “obscénité” de la vieillesse et de la maladie est si bien ancrée dans notre société actuelle que souvent les vieilles personnes prennent la décision de la cessation de cette “indignité” en invoquant des motifs liés à l’évaluation (supposée ou pas) des membres de leur famille sur leur situation avant  de considérer leur propre ressenti. Il ressort souvent de la demande des patients de se faire euthanasier qu’ils ne la considéreraient pas comme une option s’ils n’avaient pas pleinement conscience d’avoir perdu un certain statut auprès des leurs; beaucoup de souffrants tiennent à la vie quand la douleur est en quelque sorte contrebalancée par un apport positif dans leur quotidien notamment en terme de liens affectifs avec les êtres aimés. Les souffrances physiques peuvent plonger le patient dans une détresse psychologique insoutenable si rien n’en allège le poids dans cette phase difficile: l’association du milieu familial et des croyances religieuses ont été les principaux soutiens pendant longtemps, mais la configuration nouvelle des  sociétés a changé la donne.  La demande d’euthanasie du patient dans de tels cas relèveraient donc plus de l’appel à l’aide (médicale, psychologique, sociale) que de la réelle volonté de mourir, et donner la mort pourrait être vu dans ce cadre comme la mauvaise réponse à la question, celle qui consiste à supprimer l’être au lieu de créer autour de lui les conditions favorables à améliorer son quotidien. Il est intéressant de noter que dans les sociétés (comme par exemple en Afrique où en Inde) où la personne âgée n’est pas mise au ban de la société mais est au contraire valorisée et considérée avec un respect accru, la fin de vie est vécue plus sereinement. Cette fin de vie est d’ailleurs généralement largement moins “médicalisée” (et contrairement à ce qu’on pourrait supposer pas spécifiquement par manque de moyens; par exemple les visites à domicile du médecin de famille sont pratiquement la norme par rapport à l’hospitalisation, plus marginale), et finir ses jours dans un cadre familier et entouré est une transition plus douce pour le mourant.  N’ayons pas peur de le suggérer, les sociétés occidentales pourraient s’inspirer de cette philosophie des rapports privilégiés de la personne âgée avec son environnement pour tenter de répondre de façon plus adéquate à la question de la souffrance, plutôt que de considérer des solutions définitives et extrêmes telles que l’euthanasie.

A noter également que dans l’immense majorité des cas (qui aboutissent ou non), les demandes de suicide assisté  ne sont pas initiées par le malade, mais par son entourage qui, de façon directe ou indirecte, s’en font le porte-voix. En y mêlant au passage inconsciemment un peu de leur voix. Les médecins ne considèrent cette éventualité que lorsque la volonté du patient a pu être exprimée, dans un passé plus ou moins proche. Or, la nature humaine est telle qu’une chose exprimée il y a peut-être quelques années voire quelques mois ou quelques semaines n’est plus d’actualité. A 18 ans, on ne s’imagine pas survivre aux premiers cheveux blancs ou aux rides; à 30 ans, on ne s’imagine pas supporter des chimiothérapies pendant plusieurs années; à 50 ans, on ne s’imagine pas porter des couches ou se déplacer avec un déambulateur, etc. Dans la possession de certains “avantages”, on n’imagine pas leur perte, tout comme le riche qui ne peut que refuser en bloc l’idée qu’un jour peut-être il pourrait perdre sa fortune, tout comme un(e) jeune marié(e) considérerait le veuvage comme la fin de son Univers. Mais une fois confronté à la situation, l’humain a une capacité d’adaptation insoupçonnée, et les volontés exprimées à un moment différent de leur état de maladie par le patient ne sont peut-être plus valables. L’acte d’euthanasie, quand il est demandé par la famille supposée porteuse de la volonté du mourant, auquel elle offrirait le repos, est réputé pour être un acte altruiste. Mais l’est-il vraiment? Comment croire à l’altruisme dans un acte irréversible et définitif, alors qu’autour de nous les actes simples, gratuits, réversibles accomplis de manière altruiste sont déjà très rares? Par ailleurs, le don d’organes serait-il dans une aussi grande pénurie si l’altruisme était une valeur aussi répandue? Le nombre de personnes en totale rupture sociale serait-il si grand si le bien-être des personnes en situation de faiblesse (passagère ou permanente) était le principal motif du suicide assisté? Au final euthanasie-t-on pour soulager le malade, ou pour ménager les familles, mettre un terme à cette insoutenable attente, se permettre de “rompre la mobilisation”?

Quelles seraient les conséquences concrètes de la banalisation de l’euthanasie?

Commençons par rappeler que de nos jours, en Europe, près de 3/4 des personnes finissent leurs jours dans un hôpital, donc au terme d’une maladie. Le cancer est devenu la première cause de mortalité dans les pays industrialisés, et cette tendance ne cesse d’augmenter. Techniquement, cela veut dire que de plus en plus, les “euthanasiables” (ceux qui souffrent de maux physiques importants sans espoir de guérison) seront nombreux et donc les “euthanasiés” aussi. L’euthanasie, si elle est de plus en plus admise, pourrait devenir un acte de moins en moins marginal et de plus en plus usuel d’une fin de vie.  La légalisation de l’euthanasie et, à terme, la banalisation de la pratique pourraient avoir un impact considérable sur l’ensemble de la société. Parce que si objectivement la demande vient dans la majorité des cas de la part des proches, la réalisation du suicide assisté laissera forcément des traces sur les personnes qui survivent au défunt… et l’époque qui lui survit.

Sans parler du vague sentiment de culpabilité qui est extrêmement relatif d’une personne à l’autre et qui pourrait même complètement disparaître au fur et à mesure que le geste deviendrait répandu, ce qui est en jeu réellement ici c’est le rapport que l’homme entretient à la mort. La civilisation est “née”, d’après les anthropologues, au moment où l’homme s’est mis à enterrer et offrir l’hommage au mort. Les activités humaines  sont profondément influencées par la conception que nous nous faisons de l’après-vie. Les arts en sont le parfait exemple. C’est le caractère à la fois irréversible, implacable, inconnu, mais aussi non-programmable de la mort qui lui confère cette influence. La mort non-programmable, c’est peut-être le dernier rempart, nécessaire, contre le sentiment de toute-puissance qui emporte si souvent l’homme loin de son humanité.

La mort est une expérience humaine spirituelle majeure et en tant que telle, aussi bizarre que cela puisse paraître à première vue, la “vivre” est un droit fondamental d’un point de vue philosophique tant au niveau individuel que collectif. L’euthanasie dans cette perspective serait en quelque sorte une troncature artificielle de la dernière phase de la vie humaine dans le “le conscient et l’inconscient collectif” (je ne sais pas comment appeler ça autrement), dont les effets sociaux ne sont pas prévisibles. Tout comme si, par exemple, nous privions systématiquement les mères d’accouchement (qu’on les endorme et qu’elles se réveillent deux heures plus tard avec un bébé à leur côté), des changements profonds s’opéreraient dans la collectivité, priver les mourants de leur mort ne pourrait pas rester sans effet global. Pouvoir programmer la mort dépassé un certain stade de souffrance et se donner le droit de la dispenser, c’est établir, à long terme, la norme de l’inacceptabilité de la faiblesse et de la victoire inéluctable du temps sur l’homme (en tentant simplement de le devancer, “tuer” avant que le temps ne tue), et donc de rendre encore plus “obscène” le spectacle de la personne âgée dépendante. La société tendrait alors à vouloir confiner de plus en plus les affaiblis et à leur conférer de plus en plus un statut d’ “indignes” et d’”indésirables”. A force de ne pas vouloir voir la fatalité en face, on finirait par éliminer ceux qui nous la rappellent que trop. La mort perdrait sa dimension humaine pour ne devenir qu’une “boîte noire”. Et du coup on se retrouverait totalement démuni et soi-même totalement seul le jour où vient notre tour de vivre cette phase naturelle de la vie. Les personnes  mourantes et souffrantes, isolées, n’ayons pas peur de le dire dans une société matérialiste qui tend déjà à culpabiliser les chômeurs et les autres “non-rentables”, risquent de se sentir de plus en plus poussés vers la porte de sortie: comment échapper à l’envie de “partir dans la dignité” quand on ne se sent pas le bienvenu? Pourquoi s’étonner du souhait d’en finir des personnes à qui on ne laisse plus rien, surtout pas le sentiment de leur propre humanité et de leur propre appartenance à la société? Comment pourraient-ils encore avoir envie de la vie s’ils sont témoins de l’adhésion si preste et unanime de leur propre famille à l’idée de leur donner la mort pour enfin pouvoir passer à autre chose?

La frontière entre les souffrances méritant une euthanasie ou non est soumise à la sensibilité des individus et des époques, certainement. La hiérarchie entre les douleurs physiques et psychologiques est elle très difficile à établir. Paradoxalement, la société moderne et la médecine moderne ont dû effectuer un long parcours pour être capables de reconnaître que les maladies de l’esprit pouvaient égaler en souffrance et en détresse les maladies purement physiques, tout en tolérant de moins en moins la visibilité de la douleur. La banalisation de l’euthanasie, cela pourrait être aussi demain proposer cette solution aux maux psychiques incurables: euthanasier des schizophrènes ou des maniaco-dépressifs par exemple. Alors même que l’euthanasie n’est pas encore légalisée dans nombre de pays, se pose déjà pour une part non négligeable des personnes la question de l’extension de cette mesure au-delà des cas de souffrance insupportable dans le cadre d’une maladie incurable, pour inclure certains cas de maladie incurable tout court dont la douleur n’est pas le trait le plus caractéristique, comme par exemple les malades atteints d’Alzheimer. En effet, la perte des capacités mentales est une perspective généralement à la limite du soutenable pour l’humain. Or, si pour le patient les premières phases sont particulièrement éprouvantes du fait de la conscience de sa propre déchéance intellectuelle, dépassé un certain stade, l’état de conscience altéré s’installe et on ne peut plus parler, objectivement, de souffrance liée à la maladie. C’est alors les autres qui souffrent de voir un parent ou un grand-parent ne plus être la personne qu’ils connaissaient et sont décontenancés de cette projection vers le futur que leur offre cette présence. Mais ce “nouvel inconnu”, peut-on se donner le droit de le faire disparaître ainsi, juste parce qu’on n’en supporte pas la vue? On objectera que légaliser l’euthanasie, faire respecter un cadre très strict, ne pourra pas permettre cette dérive. Je n’en suis pas convaincue: des précédents existent déjà. Par exemple, en Belgique, où l’euthanasie est partiellement permise, le cas connu d’une malade d’Alzheimer ayant obtenu le droit d’être euthanasiée (suite à la demande qu’elle avait effectuée dans un stade moyennement avancé de sa maladie) prouve la brèche qui tente de s’ouvrir de ce côté. D’après son médecin: “Elle avait peur de devoir rester à l’hôpital et ne voulait pas aller non plus en maison de repos. Elle ne pouvait plus marcher. Au moment où elle était lucide, elle a indiqué qu’elle voulait mourir“. Ici encore, l’euthanasie apparaît comme une réponse facile et inappropriée au problème de la solitude et la mise à l’écart des “indignes”. La banalisation de l’euthanasie pourrait mener en ligne directe à l’élimination de plus en plus répandue des vieilles personnes démentes, dont la présence est dérangeante surtout pour des tiers: voulons-nous nous diriger vers une société qui refuse le droit à l’existence des moins autonomes de ses aînés?

En résumé donc, à l’examen des deux questions “Quelles raisons profondes poussent les gens à se prononcer à la quasi-unanimité pour l’euthanasie?” et “Quelles seraient les conséquences concrètes de la banalisation de l’euthanasie?“, il me semble que l’euthanasie n’a que peu de choses à voir avec la “liberté de disposer de sa propre vie”, dans l’optique où c’est une demande qui vient essentiellement des proches. L’égoïsme dans sa forme la plus extrême, qui se travestit en altruisme. L’euthanasie d’un proche est une décision faussement altruiste,; elle ne fait en vérité que consolider le principal tabou que veut instaurer notre mode de vie compétitif: le tabou du déclin de la jeunesse, de l’autonomie et de la productivité. On drape d’indignité les faibles et on leur trouve des solutions (maisons de fin de vie, euthanasie) qui n’ont comme réelle motivation que de nous soulager et nous éviter la confrontation avec nos peurs. La lutte contre la douleur, par les moyens médicaux mais aussi par les moyens humains, devrait se trouver au centre de l’engagement envers les malades. L’altruisme commanderait plutôt une réelle implication, un réel accompagnement  sur le long terme, au jour le jour; l’altruisme c’est autre chose que d’autoriser le corps médical à délivrer une dose fatale de barbituriques. Est-ce qu’on est prêt à se montrer à la hauteur de cet engagement humain?

Quand l’homme craint moins la Nature que de faire des mauvaises affaires

Le Japon compte 17 centrales nucléaires totalisant ainsi 55 réacteurs. Pendant des décennies on a entretenu le double mythe de la sécurité de l’énergie nucléaire et de l’efficacité des normes antisismiques imposées à l’industrie. Le tremblement de terre et le tsunami survenus le 11 mars au Japon a balayé d’un seul revers de main ces deux certitudes. A l’heure où la catastrophe nucléaire menace de s’abattre sur une population qui avait déjà payé un lourd tribut à la technologie la plus meurtrière de l’humanité à la fin de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, nous pouvons nous demander: comment en est-on arrivé là?

Des centrales nucléaires sur l’une des zones les plus sismiques de la planète, tout ça pour produire assez d’énergie pour alimenter les industries de masse qui arrosent le monde de technologie, de voitures, d’électronique, de je-ne-sais-quoi, un monde qui en redemande et qui au fond pousse le Japon, la Chine, les Etats-Unis ou la France à donner de plus en plus dans le démesuré et l’extravagance. Parce que perdre l’occasion de faire des bonnes affaires, c’est au fond beaucoup plus effrayant pour les gouvernements que de jouer la pérennité de l’espèce à la roulette russe. Au point d’avoir perdu le sens des réalités: aucune technologie au monde ne peut protéger l’homme de la force incommensurable de la Nature. Les technologies antisismiques permettent de limiter les dégâts mais quand un tremblement de Terre ébranle l’axe de rotation de la planète entière, sont-ce les frêles constructions humaines qui vont réussir à tenir le choc? Quand les phénomènes géologiques bougent des continents entiers, sont-ce ces quelques bâtiments de fer et de béton qui vont rester debout?

La sécurité d’une infrastructure c’est l’assurance de son bon fonctionnement lors de conditions normales d’utilisation, mais aussi de sa non-nocivité lors des situations extrêmes. Et le nucléaire, dans les conditions normales, c’est des déchets ingérables, et dans les conditions extraordinaires comme celle du Japon actuellement c’est la menace fort plausible d’un holocauste nucléaire. Sans parler du fait que pour faire de l’énergie atomique il faut de la matière radioactive, extraite en quasi totalité d’Afrique par la firme française Areva, dans des régions géostratégiquement maintenues en état de guerre permanente par la France notamment.

Ah mais oui, comme on va me dire, ah mais oui, mais sait-on par quoi remplacer le nucléaire? Parce que paraît-il nous ne connaissons aucune autre énergie, dans l’état actuel des technologies, qui puisse subvenir mieux que le nucléaire aux besoins de l’humanité. Mais les besoins de l’humanité c’est quoi? 10% d’utile et 90% de superflu? Et c’est pour ça qu’on se met en danger? Les gouvernements, certainement, savent quelque part que stopper la fuite en avant du nucléaire, ne peut passer que par l’imposition de limites restrictives en matière de politique énergétique. Mais c’est impopulaire pour un élu, de combattre les bons chiffres des milieux économiques et le confort de tout un chacun, c’est un coup à vous faire perdre des élections vous voyez, alors qu’agiter la menace des immigrés qui se massent aux frontières et qu’il faut repousser à tout prix,  sous peine de se faire bouffer tout cru, ça par contre, c’est assez porteur pour se faire élire. D’ailleurs, pour pousser l’absurde encore plus loin, au moment même où des images inquiétantes nous viennent du Japon, au lieu de profiter de la catastrophe pour remettre en cause l’ensemble du système énergétique mondial et tenter de réparer les erreurs du passé, les gouvernements défendent publiquement le nucléaire et écartent avec énergie la possibilité des scénarios à la Tchernobyl: comment croire ces gouvernements aujourd’hui alors qu’hier ils nous mentaient pour nous persuader que le nucléaire c’était la sécurité? Quant à l’entité – en théorie – la plus compétente en matière de risques nucléaires, à savoir l’Agence Internationale de l’Energie Atomique, c’est avec un certain effarement que nous nous rappelons qu’elle a passé la dernière décennie totalement obsédée par les quelques missiles que l’Iran aurait éventuellement pu produire, alors que des centrales nucléaires  en équilibre précaire sur des failles sismiques, elle les présentait comme sûres.