A strategy is a plan of action to achieve certain goals. It is used in both state policy and daily lives. For nations, strategy entails using their diplomatic, economic and informational powers, combined with their military might to secure objects of national interests (“national strategy”, 2005). An analysis of the ‘ethics of strategy’ is important as it is the “endeavor to relate ends to means” (Smith, 2011). Strategies look at political actors as central units of analysis. They aim to understand the value systems that political actors operate on and the influence of their surroundings in forming and nurturing those values. The underlying assumption is that all actors act rationally towards their goals and ‘national interest’ while making strategies. There will always be room for clashes of strategies and moral scrutiny from the opposers (Smith, 2011). Strategies constitute two main approaches – towards lives of citizens and notions of land or territory under control – and are fairly contextual in nature. Furthermore, there appears to be a selection bias in strategies. Strategies privilege certain things over others. This is due to the lack of ethical considerations while formulating strategies and International Relations in general. Empiricist or positivist explanations are biased over normative or post-positivist ones (Frost, 1998). ‘Darkest Hour’, a 2017 film, is an example of how strategy is constructed in context to life and land (Wright, 2017). The plot is based in WWII Britain when Churchill is just made the Prime Minister and had to fight against Nazi Germany’s offensive. Through Churchill’s strategy and decision-making journey about negotiating peace with Hitler, this paper nuances strategic approaches towards lives and land. It also reconnoiters dilemmas faced during strategy making and how biases operate, arguing that no global ethic of strategy can be formed and it remains biased even upon close analysis of its constituents. 

Selective Lives Matter?

The strategic approach towards the lives of the citizens and soldiers is viewed from the lens of ‘Ethics of Care’ (or Care Ethics). Care ethics is seen as a feminist philosophy that centers the interpersonal relations of care and benevolence around moral judgments. It entails moral actions being looked at from a contextual and relational perspective (Dunn & Burton, 2013). It helps in theorizing ethics by ethically evaluating state and individual actions concerning human lives. Carol Gilligan was the first to theorize it by distinguishing between “more masculine and universal notions of justice, duty and obligation” – rather traditional approaches to ethics and a “more feminine contextualized nation of care” (Fierke, 2014). This emphasizes the needs of the particular individual and the importance of human relationships. However, the nature of interpersonal relations is transformed at the international level, especially in areas of conflict. This brings forth a dilemma between judgments grounded in concrete, measurable facts versus the ‘rationally’ derived values which are subjective but might seem more relatable than universal arguments. In the movie, Churchill is also caught in such a dilemma. Joan Tronto describes four ethical qualities of care to further the conversation (Tronto, 1998). They are – attentiveness, responsibility, competency, and responsiveness. These nuance the understanding of the factors that constitute strategy towards protecting the lives of individuals.

Attentiveness provides exposure to the troubles of the needy and volatilizes traumatic memories of the past, thus shaping and influencing actions and strategies. As in the movie, being attentive towards the need of care by 300,000 soldiers stuck at Dunkirk surrounded by the Germans, rose a certain memory. It volatilized the ill memories of Gallipoli for Churchill. The violent and traumatic past of Gallipoli influenced and made Churchill completely disregard the option to negotiate peace with Hitler, and ordered 4,000 men at Calais to attack the German army, to buy more time – and avoid the ‘repetition of history’ of Gallipoli. This shows that memory and care are closely related (Fierke, 2014). Past memories impact how one cares for the other and justifies one’s actions. This draws onto the ethics of using analogies for legitimating otherwise unethical actions. Peace negotiations were unheeded because “a guarantee against invasion could have [never] been given” to the British (Wright, 2017). Analogies are also about setting the right example for the future. Churchill says “how many more dictators must be wooed, appeased … before we learn” (Wright, 2017) to set an example of not negotiating but standing up to tyranny. Hence analogies use selectively biased narratives of the past to manipulate and ethically justify present violent means in achieving the ends of care (for selective lives). 

Qualities of responsibility, competence, and responsiveness tie in with biopolitics under care ethics. Biopolitics is the governance of living bodies along with caring for and improving the quality of life (Joronen, 2016). Leaders in liberal democracies tend to make policies that are favored by the public which keeps them in power. This effectuates a dilemma around the ethic of public support for foreign policy. If the government entirely disregards the public sentiment, they can be voted out of power. Simultaneously, if policies are based only on public will, they become vulnerable and inefficient. It also puts the accountability of strategic decisions under question. At several points in the movie, public opinion can be seen as central to Churchill’s policy. Earlier Churchill was reluctant to negotiate. However, as the sentiment of the public and his colleagues inclined towards negotiating peace, a shift in his strategy is observed. Nevertheless, it shifts back to resistance, following a series of dramatic events where His Majesty shows support towards resistance, and so do the seven citizens, representative of the British public, who he talked to in The Tube. He stirs the sentiments of his colleagues by asserting that laying down for peace would make Britain a “slave state” (Wright, 2017). Britain’s responsibility and competence to care for its citizens along with the citizens’ responsiveness, influences biopolitics and results in the strategy being continuously changed, as per the public sentiment. 

Thanatopolitics operates in chorus to biopolitics. It is the management or governance of death (Joronen, 2016). It renders certain bodies killable. This happens instrumentally through the reification of targets, the act of doing the minimum evil necessary and the responsibilization of subjects. It highlights the utilitarian approach of national strategies and how certain actions are justified using the “doing the lesser evil” argument. This exposes the precariousness of human lives and shows how certain bodies are less grieve-able than others (Danewid, 2017). This strategic approach to lives is seen clearly in the movie when 300,000 men stuck at Dunkirk are privileged over 4,000 men at Calais. The troops in Calais are sent on a suicide mission of sorts just to buy time for the government to rescue those stuck at Dunkirk. Thanatopolitics worked elegantly by the reification of the target i.e. the Nazi Army as something invincible and only to be distracted. The preventable disposal of 4,000 lives was justified by a just cause (Asad, 2009). Those men were made responsible for their own death by issuing an “every man for himself” order. Hence, thanatopolitics constructs categories making selective lives matter. These categories are populated through a bias, and operate alongside biopolitics and care ethics, influencing the process of strategy making.

Toil for the Native Soil

The strategic approach towards the land and territory under the control of a nation-state is the other important feature of strategy making. States hold their sovereignty in the highest regard. It constitutes jurisdictional authority and the territorial integrity of a state (Benhabib, 2007). National strategies hinge on control over territories, and distribution of resources (read: oil). This plays an important role in making national strategies, gauging threats, and shaping the geopolitics of the world in general. The movie beautifully depicts the interrelation between land, home, and threat. At the beginning of the movie, one of Churchill’s companions says “hardly seems there’s a war on at all.” The streets of Britain appeared ‘normal’. This represents the geographical distance between the battlefield and ‘native land’. The lack of a looming ‘threat’ over the public seeds aggressive policy and no consideration for peace talks, without addressing any ethical concerns around the ‘dispensable’ lives of the soldiers. The distance between the society or home and the battlefront diminishes the seriousness of the war, making things appear normal. Churchill uses this normalcy to make the public believe a lie that everything was fine by addressing the public over the radio – “[allied forces] have advanced to rescue not only Europe but mankind”. Only after the fall of Holland, Belgium, and potentially France, does Churchill considers negotiating peace because of the imminent threat of a Nazi invasion. This shows how strategy revolves around the idea of homeland and its protection at all costs. 

Geography also plays an important role in influencing national strategies. Citizens of a nation tend to have stereotypes attached to various geographical regions. For example, the Middle East has a certain emotion attached to it, Europe has one, etcetera. The ‘us’ is glorified by such an exercise, while the ‘other’ is viewed with fear, apprehension, hostility, and disgust (Bulley, 2010). The belongingness of states to particular regions renders it a certain legitimacy and authority in implementing its own will. Someone close and homogenous to home is viewed with intimacy and hospitality, and otherwise with hostility and radial alterity (Hawle, 2002). The European region has a reputation as a civil, flourishing, and advanced region of the world. The barbarity and the lack of civil society in Nazi Germany during Hitler’s dictatorship, as shown in the movie, came to be seen as a stain on Europe’s reputation. Its actions rendered it alien, uninvited, and a threat – to the extent that it was considered non-European, despite its geographical location. Concomitantly, intimacy between Britain and France drastically increased. This was normalized into the national narrative. The Europeans were held superior to the Germans or the non-Europeans. The phrase “Europe is lost” reiterates this view of Germans as non-Europeans. Moreover, even the United States was seen as ‘European’ owing to its close ties with Britain, despite its cross-Atlantic location. Hence, regional belongingness appears to be defined by politics and international support more than geography. 

The idea of sovereignty takes an interesting shape when viewed through the lens of Imperialism and Cosmopolitanism marking the recent centuries. With state borders transcending the lines drawn on maps, the very features of state sovereignty – jurisdictional authority and territorial integrity seem to disintegrate (Benhabib, 2007). The movie is tied well to the colonial ideas of the 1930-40s. In preparation for defending against the potential German invasion, Churchill makes a speech in the house:

“… and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire from beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle. Until in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old!” (Wright, 2017)

Interestingly, the Empire that Churchill talks about is an extrajudicial territory of the British around the world where jus publicum europaeum didn’t apply. Calling upon this Empire to carry forward the British struggle and protect its sovereignty creates a sense of self-superiority for Britain by letting their dehumanized colonial subjects be a part of this ‘noble’ struggle. It obliterates and effaces the imperial histories of brutality and violence that they afflicted upon their now-Empire (Danewid, 2017). It romanticizes the British struggle, demeaning the internal skirmishes and revolt of the colonial subjects against the Empire. Interestingly, they are not even entrusted to complete fighting for the British but are used to resist the attacks and buy time until the “New” (read: Western) world rescues and liberates the old. This exposes the hypocrisy of sovereignty of the British Empire and questions the ethics of colonization and the justifications provided for using the Empire or the slave state, to protect Britain from becoming one under the Germans.

The Bias by ‘us’

A Bias is a prejudice for or against an individual or group. They exist in strategies and international policies as well. Biases are functions of power and are highly contextual. They aren’t just a military or political concern, but the public may also demonstrate biases for an action (Frewen, 2018). The public holds biases based on visual modes of embodiment (such as race and gender) and ‘affect’ (Wilcox, 2016). Affect creates emotions of hatred and fear towards the uninvited stranger, who is away from home. It creates killable bodies just as thanatopolitical governmentalities. Consequently, because public opinions are revered in liberal democracies, these biases flow into national strategies. The elaborate analysis in this paper points several biases out. A strategy seems biased towards selective lives and seems to be justified by care ethics, analogies, and the biopolitics-thanatopolitics discourse. The toil is biased towards protecting only the native soil. In the movie, the British Island’s knell rung upon the defeat of France and placing the need for peace at the top priority. This is juxtaposed with the remote feeling of war when the soldiers were dying away from home. Bias towards the need of France for help, over Holland, Belgium, and others, was clear from the lack of their mention. Furthermore, placing the lives of the Islanders over the rest of the Empire exhibits a clear bias. The bias in strategies acts in favor of the ‘us’ – the Britishers. Though the bias cannot be abstracted from strategies, its identification provides a tool for deeper analysis and a step towards making them more ethical and fairer. 

Conclusion

‘Darkest Hour’ is a starting point to think about the ethics of strategy. The life-land interplay is central to strategies. A nation always forms strategies to secure the lives and land which defines it. They are made to deal with the ‘other’. However, strategies themselves create and endorse this very ‘us-them’ segregation by stimulating the cohesion of those close-to-home and abstracting the stranger. The ethics of strategy asks the question of how must this ‘other’ be dealt with (Bulley, 2010). Owing to the contextual nature of the ‘other’ and the ways to deal with it, a global ethical strategy can never exist. Ethical dilemmas are also evaluated from certain vantage points. Nevertheless, identification and consequent elimination of the biases in strategies would bring states one step closer to the ethic of strategy. This broad approach to the ethics of strategy is an integral part of the normative theory which is gaining relevance in explaining major events of world politics. Hence, it is imperative to keep the ethics of strategy in mind when navigating a nation through its darkest hours.

Asad, T. (2009). Thinking about terrorism and just war. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 23(1), 3-24. doi:10.1080/09557570902956580

Benhabib, S. (2007). Twilight of Sovereignty or the Emergence of Cosmopolitan Norms? Rethinking Citizenship in Volatile Times. Citizenship Studies, 11(1), 19-36. doi:10.1080/13621020601099807

Bulley, D. (2010). Home is Where the Human is? Ethics, Intervention and Hospitality in Kosovo. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39(1), 43-63. doi:10.1177/0305829810372474

Danewid, I. (2017). White innocence in the Black Mediterranean: Hospitality and the erasure of history. Third World Quarterly, 38(7), 1674-1689. doi:10.1080/01436597.2017.1331123

Dunn, C., & Burton, B. (2013, October 01). Ethics of care. Retrieved July 26, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-of-care 

Fierke, K. (2014). Who is my neighbour? Memories of the Holocaust/al Nakba and a global ethic of care. European Journal of International Relations, 20(3), 787-809. doi:10.1177/1354066113497490

Frewen, J. (2018). A bias for action?: The military as an element of national power. In GLENN R. (Ed.), New Directions in Strategic Thinking 2.0: ANU Strategic & Defence Studies Centre’s Golden Anniversary Conference Proceedings (pp. 37-50). Acton ACT, Australia: ANU Press. Retrieved July 26, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv47wfph.10

Frost, M. (1998). A turn not taken: Ethics in IR at the Millennium. British International Studies Association, 119-132.

Hawle, T. (2002). The Ethics of Accounting: The Search for American Soldiers Missing in Vietnam. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31(2), 271-295. doi:10.1177/03058298020310020301

Joronen, M. (2016). “Death comes knocking on the roof”: Thanatopolitics of Ethical Killing During Operation Protective Edge in Gaza. Antipode, 48(2), 336-354.

“national strategy”. (n.d.) Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. (2005). Retrieved July 26, 2020 from  https://www.thefreedictionary.com/national+strategy.

Smith, M. (2011, September 05). Strategic Theory: What it is…and just as importantly, what it isn’t. Retrieved July 26, 2020, from https://www.e-ir.info/2011/04/28/strategic-theory-what-it-is%E2%80%A6and-just-as-importantly-what-it-isn%E2%80%99t/

Tronto, J. (1998). An Ethic of Care. Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging, 22(3), 15-20. Retrieved July 26, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/44875693

Wilcox, L. (2016). Embodying algorithmic war: Gender, race, and the posthuman in drone warfare. Security Dialogue, 48(1), 11-28. doi:10.1177/0967010616657947

Wright, J. (Director). (2017). Darkest Hour [Video file]. United States: Universal Pictures. Retrieved 2020.

The Brexit referendum in 2016 has sparked new hopes in the matter of Scotland’s independence. Unsatisfied with the UK leaving the European Union, Scottish nationalists represented by the Scottish National Party (SNP) have been promoting Scottish “right to choose” and supporting the notion of another independence referendum for Scotland known as the indyref2. After the SNP’s victory in the Scottish parliamentary election held in May 2021, the first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, aspires to bring indyref2 by the end of 2023. Nevertheless, the path to a second referendum is unclear, due to the necessary consent from the UK Government in London and the reluctant stance of the British current prime minister Boris Johnson. However, it is the personality of Nicola Sturgeon that seems to contribute to ongoing nationalist sentiments in Scotland greatly and is likely to decide the future of the indyref2.

Scottish National Party

Since the 1970s, the Scottish National Party has been advocating Scottish independence from the rest of the UK. Due to devolution in the late 1990s, Scotland was able to create its own parliament and gained control over some aspects, including healthcare and education. National politics, however, still depends on Westminster. Nevertheless, it can be said that devolution had put the SNP in the spotlight and created a platform for its transformation.[1] The party celebrated great success in the Scottish election in 2007 creating its first minority government and putting an end to fifty years of the Labour Party dominance in Scotland. With a proactive attitude, the SNP succeeded in encouraging Scottish self-confidence, focusing less on maintaining the pro-independence mood among Scots during that time. Instead, the party had proven that the devolution was working well.[2] 

After receiving 69 seats in the Scottish Parliament and creating its first majority government in 2011, the SNP was ready to push the independence referendum. With the consent of the UK Government in Westminster and the conservative prime minister David Cameron, the referendum took place in 2014, although the outcomes did not turn out in favor of the Scottish independence. The settled question was awakened by the Brexit referendum in 2016 in which Scots voted 62 percent to remain in the EU. Brexit results played into the hands of Scottish nationalists who are now demanding another independence referendum for Scotland, accenting the Scottish right to choose.

Nicola Sturgeon

The leader of the SNP and the first minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon pledged to ensure indyref2 by the end of 2023. Her hopes increased after the May election in Scotland last year when the SNP confirmed its dominance and formed a pro-independence coalition government with the Green Party. Sturgeon appears to be one of the most favored political figures in Scotland.[3] Despite the strong will of the SNP to push the adoption of the indyref2, there are several problems Sturgeon must face. Firstly, she committed to prioritize the COVID-19 pandemic and carry out the indyref2 as soon as it is safe to do so. Secondly, there are questions concerning the character of independent Scotland. The Scottish Government should be able to present a solution to various aspects, such as questions on border and currency.[4] The legality of the referendum might be seen as another unresolved issue. Sturgeon demands it to be fully legal and internationally recognized which is now uncertain without the UK Government’s consent. According to Nicola Sturgeon, the indyref2 is: “a matter of when – not if”.[5] 

Boris Johnson and his impact on indyref2

Boris Johnson plays an essential role in the process of the indyref2 since his approval is required. Johnson’s objections to this matter have not changed, he argues that the independence referendum is supposed to happen only once in a generation and Scots already got their chance in 2014. With the constant rejection, he might be buying time for the Union (the UK).[6]

Support for independence in Scotland increased not only because of Brexit, but also because of the pandemic. Both reasons appear to be connected to Boris Johnson. Healthcare is in the hands of the Scottish Government. According to Ipsos MORI poll from November 2020, Nicola Sturgeon won over Johnson in the matter of dealing with the COVID-19, and Scots are contented that their leader is responsible for the decision-making. In general, Boris Johnson seems to be rather unpopular in Scotland, even some Scottish Unionists consider him a liability and an existential threat.[7] On the other hand, his unpopularity brings benefits for the SNP and the pro-independence campaign at the same time.[8] According to Tom McTague, with the recent sensation over prime minister’s parties during the lockdown, he is becoming less approved in other parts of the UK and even among his own party, as well. The antagonism and apathy come rather from his personality, moral issues, and lack of seriousness than from his policy which means he could probably be easily replaced.[9]

Boris Johnson could be among the key factors for the adoption of the indyref2, as his controversial personality and offensive behavior help maintain the views of Scottish nationalists, and perhaps of yet undecided Scots, on the necessity of independence. Therefore, I believe that possible scenarios for the adoption of the indyref2 are likely to be closely connected to the current UK prime minister. Whether Johnson stays in office would probably be an important factor. The chances that he resigns appear to be high nowadays due to his scandals during the hard COVID-19 lockdown in the UK. Some of the PM’s aides have already resigned and according to the BBC, “17 Tory MPs have submitted letters of no confidence in the prime minister – 54 are needed to trigger a leadership contest.”[10] With Boris Johnson’s resignation, the Conservative Party could still have high chances to win the next UK general election in 2024. Simultaneously, with the disappearance of such controversial and scandalous political figures, Scottish people might create a warmer attitude towards the Union and the central government which could lead to a loss of support for independence in Scotland. Even if Johnson did not resign, with the Conservative Party in power, Nicola Sturgeon might have to take the subject of the indyref2 to the Supreme Court. Johnson’s retention as prime minister could pose a serious threat to Tories in the next general election, increasing chances for the Labour Party. For the SNP, this scenario does not look a hundred percent favorable since it could mean calming the situation regarding the desire for independence in Scotland. On the other hand, I would say that the center-left Labour Party tends to be more liberal, and it might not necessarily take as firmly disapproving attitude towards the indyref2 as the Conservatives. In general, Boris Johnson is likely to have a great impact on the future of the indyref2 and the Scottish path to becoming independent.

[1] Gerry Hassan, The Modern SNP: From Protest to Power. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), 79–80.

[2] Eberhard Bort, “On The Threshold of Independence? Scotland One Year After The SNP Election Victory,” Romanian Journal of European Affairs 8, č. 2 (2008), 41–52.

[3] Martin Kettle, “Sturgeon Is Being Forced To Play The Long Game On A Second Referendum,” The Guardian, 2 December, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/02/nicola-sturgeon-second-referendum-uk-scottish-independence.

[4] Nick Eardley, “Indyref2: Why Has The Campaign For Another Vote Gone Quiet?” BBC, 4 August, 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-58079551.

[5] Francesca Gillett, “Indyref2: Scottish Independence Referendum Unlikely Before 2024 – Gove,” BBC, 23 June, 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-57575862.

[6] Tom McTague, “The Tears of a Clown,” The Atlantic, 24 January, 2022. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/01/boris-johnson-party-pressure/621325/.

[7] Nick Eardley, “Indyref2: Is Boris Johnson An Asset Or A Liability For Unionism?” BBC, 28 January, 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-55835153.

[8] Alasdair Soussi, “Scottish Nationalists See Chances And Pitfalls In Johnson’s Woes,” Aljazeera, 25 January, 2022, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/25/scottish-independence-boris-johnson-crisis-uk.  

[9] McTague, “The Tears of a Clown.”

[10] “Boris Johnson rocked by wave of No 10 resignations.” BBC, 5 February, 2022, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60253231.

The French word, ‘laïcité’, represents the constitutional principle of secularism in France. The model of separating religion from public life has long been a contentious issue in the country, stemming back to the 1905 law codifying the Separation of Churches and the State. Founded on the principle of establishing a distinctly French culture, France historically attempted to free itself from the principles of the Catholic Church. [1] However, now that France has become a country populated by millions of Muslim immigrants, the efforts have shifted towards the suppression of Islamic practices.

In late March, French President Emmanuel Macron introduced an ‘anti-separatism bill’ to the French Senate. The bill contains a number of discriminatory amendments, including a ban of hijabs in public places for anyone under 18 years old, a call for Islamic institutions to pledge their allegiance to the French state, a ban on statements that condemn the French state as racist, and the criminalization of parents wearing religious symbols at school events with their children. The amendment to ban the wearing of hijabs by anyone under 18 in public spaces has been passed by the Senate, but the bill has yet to be approved by France’s lower governing house, the National Assembly, a step necessary to its passage into law. The severe consequences of the bill’s consummation through the lens of France’s contentious and longstanding relationship with religious silencing have sparked backlash throughout France and abroad. These efforts are thinly veiled attempts to suppress France’s 5.4 million Muslims in the name of secularism.

In 2010, the Sarkozy government successfully banned the niqab and any face coverings in public, successfully take advantage of the threat of growing radicalism. Seventy-three mosques and Islamic private schools have been closed since January 2021 on the grounds of “extremism.” Recent terror attacks, such as the Charlie Hebdo shooting in 2015 and the beheading of schoolteacher Samuel Paty in 2020, have enabled conservative parliament members to target Muslims under the guise of counterterrorism. While the ‘anti-separatism’ bill does not explicitly mention hijabs, it directly targets Muslims because of the more common outward display of Islamic piety, specifically the veil. Additionally, it is not coincidental that the strengthening of French secular law has grown at the same rate as the Muslim population in France. This pattern suggests a rejection of French Muslims by the predominantly white and Christian French government. Leaders such as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan have spoken about the divisive legislation, calling for President Macron to stop the association between Islam and terrorism, decrying it as harmful and false. [2] Millions of Muslim women around the world have flocked to social media to express their contempt, utilizing #HandsOffMyHijab. Twitter user @RockThrowA wrote: “Age to consent to sex in France: 15 Age to consent to hijab: 18 Let that sink in. It isn’t a law against the hijab. It’s a law against Islam. #Handsoffmyhijab #FranceHijabBan.” [3]

While the amendments are unlikely to pass in both Houses, their mere proposal underscores the larger issue of growing Islamophobia in France. Legislators are calculated in their efforts for political gain and attempt to win back far-right voters by appealing to anti-separatist issues. [4] The consequences of such political perversion are tremendously destructive. Enabling the odious far-right rhetoric of groups such as Group Union Défense and Les Identitaires empowers and condones violence and discrimination against Muslims. [5] The proposed amendments to the ‘anti-separatism’ bill would give French police the right to interrogate and potentially arrest virtually anyone wearing clothing or accessories they deem inappropriate, qualified by the capacious language of the bill. France would likely enforce the law by expanding upon the massive policing apparatus that currently exists in Black and brown communities. This blatant attempt to target and oppress Muslims is an assault on the very values right-wing French leaders such as Marine Le Pen claim to uphold: liberty, equality, and fraternity.

While France attempts to reckon with why the nation has become a target for Islamic radicalism, it must recognize the importance of reconciliation and understanding. A country that claims civil liberty as one of its core values has a responsibility to represent all of its citizens, including its near six million Muslims. France is being hypocritical to its laws of freedom of speech, thought, and religion by actively punishing Muslims on the basis of their religious identification. The loss of freedom for Muslims is a loss for all French citizens; it is naïve to think that the French government, once enabled to commit such egregious acts of stigmatization, will stop at the Islamic faith. It is likely that other groups who do not fit into the Republic’s narrow vision of France will soon face the same subjugation.

Works Cited

[1] Micheal Barbaro and Constant Méheut, eds., French, Islam and ‘Laïcité’, February 12, 2021.

[2] Steven Erlanger, “Muslim Countries Denounce French Response to Killing of Teacher, Urge Boycott,” The New York Times (The New York Times, October 27, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/world/europe/French-Muslims-Turkey-crackdown.html.

[3] Peter Yeung, “’French Muslims Will Suffer’ under Separatism Rules, Critics Say,” Politics News | Al Jazeera (Al Jazeera, February 12, 2021), https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/11/french-muslims-will-suffer-under-separatism-bill-critics-say.

[4] Eleanor Beardsley, “French Senate Voted To Ban The Hijab For Minors In A Plea By The Conservative Right,” NPR (NPR, April 8, 2021), https://www.npr.org/2021/04/08/985475584/french-senate-voted-to-ban-the-hijab-for-minors-in-a-plea-by-the-conservative-ri.

[5] Myriam Francois and We Need To Talk About Whiteness, “What France’s Treatment of Its Muslim Citizens Reveals,” Time (Time, December 8, 2020), https://time.com/5918657/frances-muslim-citizens-republican-values/.

Bibliography

Al Jazeera. “’Law against Islam’: French Vote in Favour of Hijab Ban Condemned.” Politics News | Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera, April 9, 2021. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/9/a-law-against-islam.

Barbaro, Micheal, and Constant Méheut, eds. French, Islam and ‘Laïcité’, The New York Times, February 12, 2021.

Beardsley, Eleanor. “French Senate Voted To Ban The Hijab For Minors In A Plea By The Conservative Right.” NPR. NPR, April 8, 2021. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/08/985475584/french-senate-voted-to-ban-the-hijab-for-minors-in-a-plea-by-the-conservative-ri.

Erlanger, Steven. “Muslim Countries Denounce French Response to Killing of Teacher, Urge Boycott.” The New York Times. The New York Times, October 27, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/world/europe/French-Muslims-Turkey-crackdown.html.

Francois, Myriam, and We Need To Talk About Whiteness. “What France’s Treatment of Its Muslim Citizens Reveals.” Time. Time, December 8, 2020. https://time.com/5918657/frances-muslim-citizens-republican-values/.

“French Senate Amends Anti-Separatism Law to Ban Hijab for Youth under 18.” World Socialist Web Site. Accessed April 16, 2021. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/04/07/veil-a07.html.

Yeung, Peter. “’French Muslims Will Suffer’ under Separatism Rules, Critics Say.” Politics News | Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera, February 12, 2021. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/11/french-muslims-will-suffer-under-separatism-bill-critics-say.