Home > LDH comments on the London ESF, preparing the Athens ESF

LDH comments on the London ESF, preparing the Athens ESF

by Open-Publishing - Friday 29 October 2004

Social Forum Europe UK

By LDH

Both European and World social forums aim to be spaces of open and pluralist democracy. They intend to bring together people who share the idea of possible alternatives to the neo-liberal model, as well as to facilitate the broader convergences through meetings and debates.

Keeping that in mind, we are forced to state that some events occurred during the London ESF want comments from Ligue des Droits de l’Homme - French Human Rights League.

Each ESF or WSF takes place in a given country; thus, it would be meaningless to argue that the contingencies peculiar to the welcoming country could have no impact. Besides, one of the benefits of an ESF is to take into account the diversity of the social movement - from a political as well as a cultural point of view .

Nevertheless, the interruption of the Iraq plenary, the organisation and progress of the seminar on “the veil: a right to choose” (and the press release in answer to an AFP release), the impossibility for the Mayor of London to express himself during the plenary on “the fight against fascism and the far right”, and the events during the Sunday demonstration express a deep political discontent as well as a real lack of democratic debate, both in the ESF preparation phase and in its realisation.

LDH doesn’t intend to put the responsibility for all these events on the organisations which constitute the UK organising committee for the ESF. Beyond justified critics concerning organisation matters (the premises proved to be ill-adapted, soundproofing being totally inadequate), what happened has to be considered far beyond the UK organising committee’s responsibility.

The first impression is that there has been three ESF in one. The first, gathering together a large majority of events, covering topics (Social Europe, economic globalisation, European institutions, sustainable development,...) which involved trade unions, environment NGOs, European networks, alter-globalisation, development, Human rights NGOs and all their partners. There, rich and fruitful debates took place, with no clashes. The second one, which unfortunately was the most covered by the media, focussed on burning, highly emotional questions. There, we faced either “consensus shows ” (as for the Palestine plenary) or incidents occurred. Thirdly and lastly, the “off” ESF has really been an “off” one, on the contrary to Paris-Saint-Denis and Florence, the UK organising committee having proved to be unable to aggregate it to the main event, thus enhancing a “radical opposition” between both events.

The massive and burdensome presence of political parties’ activists, in particular from the SWP, has not made things easier. These political activists addressed all along pre-formatted speeches regardless of the ongoing exchanges. It was for instance patently obvious after the four invited speakers, two Israelis and two Palestinians, had expressed the dramatic need of help from the NGOs and EU States. “Answering” their demands and proposals we had to listen all over again to repetitive speeches about the harmfulness (an understatement indeed) of Sharon’s and Bush’s policies.

As for the seminar about “the veil: a right to choose”, it revealed a democracy deficit and a refusal for a real, in deep debate.

Let us recall, even if it is not of direct relevance for the ESF, that LDH have been invited to take part in a public meeting organised in July by the Mayor of London together with most organisations involved in the preparation of the ESF seminar in question. Our organisation indicated at the time that, if participating, it would say how much it rejects this French legislation, reaffirm its attachment to the freedom of conscience and therefore to the right to wear the veil or not to, but also its negative judgement about what is included in this religious and cultural symbol (such as the fact that a number of women are experiencing persecution because they don’t wear it). We were told that, all considered, we would be invited at another occasion...

LDH, which expressed clearly its rejection of the law on the wearing of religious items in public schools, also refused to participate in the ESF seminar as it was designed. We proposed instead that the debate should deal with freedom of conscience in Europe and not be restricted to this particular law. It was not accepted.

The excesses which resulted during the seminar induced a wave of exasperation, including for activists opposed to the law.

The press release in response to an AFP release which pretends to justify what happened, in particular the homogeneity of approaches of the speakers, made the situation only worse. To argue it was normal the seminar should be non contradictory means to lock oneself in a sectarian position. Now, this debate is alive inside the social movement and not merely outside, at least in France. The seminar organisers definitely knew it, and it was enough in order to let diverse opinions expressed within the seminar. Presenting the opponents to the law as the antiracists and its supporters as racists (or, scarcely better, unconscious ones), the organisers showed their deep ignorance of the French situation and of the meaning of secularity as developed in France. In fact, they refused to deal with the issue from a point of view other than the one they wanted to impose, also denying the European dimension of the question (the debate exists in Belgium and in Italy at least). Doing so, they left the door opened to all excesses and didn’t allow for a real debate about the discrimination suffered by Muslims in Europe (and in France, in particular). May be even more serious, they refused to examine the core, imprescriptible values, upon which Human rights are built (in particular gender equality) and how to keep them alive. The speeches we heard during the seminar, which started with the “sob of the White” (the so-called impossibility for the European feminists to understand the issue just because they are Europeans) and ended with an absolute relativism (I have the right just because I want it, and that reason is enough), strike us with “granted truths” but don’t allow for the necessary political thinking.

It is obvious that this refusal for debating on essential questions limits the real political impact of the stand taken and this weakness can’t be hidden by anathemas and invectives.

Be that as it may, the clear result of what has been considered by a lot of people as a manoeuvre has been to weaken those who, in France, reject that law and its consequences. It has allowed dishonest attacks from Sos-racisme and sheer madness about “Islamic-leftists”.

The problems revealed by the disruption of the Iraq plenary, the denial to let an Iraqi trade unionist speak (censorship which involved French activist), the violent break off of the plenary on “fighting fascism and the far right” are not of a different nature and lead to the same questions. They are not “accidents” but the outcome of an unsatisfactory way of preparing and organising the ESF, as of some political will. Going on that way would condemn the ESF to become a closed battlefield for political activists looking after their particular interests.

If some people think that beyond “their” truth, nothing is worth, even inside our movement, they behave outside of the Social Forums approach and of the “Porto Alegre” process. Doing so, they would stand at the opposite extreme to most organisations involved, including LDH.

Finally, we have to brainstorm collectively and calmly about what should be the next ESF and its preparation, which should include all our concerns. LDH doesn’t pretend to have all solutions in hands, and is even less sure of their accuracy. These solutions are to come from the common work we are ready to undertake. Things can’t stay as they are if we are to build an ESF able to tackle the challenges to be faced in order to build another Europe.