Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Archive for the ‘Multi-Culturalism’ Category

Political Police Infiltration: From Women Activists, Blacklisting to Bob Lambert.

with 12 comments

Police Spy Lambert in Happier Days.

More fall-out from the Lawrence Cases.

Scotland Yard in new undercover police row.

Observer today.

Force accused over attempts to block claims by women allegedly deceived into sexual relationships.

Scotland Yard stands accused of covering up “institutionalised sexism” within the police in trying to block civil claims launched by women allegedly deceived into sexual relationships with undercover officers.

Police lawyers are applying to strike out, on secrecy grounds, the claims of five women who say they were duped into intimate long-term relationships with four undercover police officers working within the special demonstration squad (SDS), a Metropolitan police unit set up to infiltrate protest groups.

The legal bid, funded by the taxpayer, is being fought despite widespread outrage and promises of future transparency by Scotland Yard, following official confirmation last week that an undercover officer was deployed 21 years ago to spy on the grieving family of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.

The Observer understands that police lawyers are asking the high court to reject claims against the Metropolitan police on the grounds that the force cannot deviate from its policy of neither confirming nor denying issues regarding undercover policing.

It is understood that Scotland Yard will say in a hearing, scheduled to be held on 18 March, that it is not in a position to respond to claims and therefore cannot defend it.

Last week an independent inquiry revealed that an officer identified only as N81 was deployed in a group “positioned close to the Lawrence family campaign”. The spy gathered “some personal details relating to” the murdered teenager’s parents. It was also disclosed that undercover officers had given false evidence in the courts and acted as if they were exempt from the normal rules of evidence disclosure.

Blacklist campaigners have called for the Public Inquiry into undercover police spying on the the Lawrence family to be given a wide enough remit to investigate police collusion with blacklisting. Despite documentary evidence proving beyond doubt that undercover police officers were linked to blacklisting there was no mention of this in the statement made by Theresa May to MPs.

On the very same day that the Home Secretary announced a public inquiry into the activity of Special Demonstration Squad officers spying on the Lawrence family, Operation Herne has published its 2nd report into the actions of undercover police officers.  Blacklist victims condemned as a whitewash the non-findings of the police report into police collusion in the blacklist conspiracy, which describes police discussions with blacklisting organisations as driven by “civic duty”

Blacklist Support Group statement:

“The Operation Herne report demonstrates exactly why victims of undercover police surveillance have no faith in the police investigating themselves.  There is already irrefutable evidence in the public domain that officers from undercover police units actually attended secret Consulting Association blacklist meetings, yet this is not even mentioned by Herne. Undercover Special Demonstration Squad officers are known to have posed as construction workers and infiltrated picket lines and union meetings. Information on some blacklist files could only have come from the police or the security services.  In relation to police collusion in blacklisting, the Operation Herne 2nd Report is a complete whitewash.

Only a fully independent public inquiry into the full extent of police links with corporate spying will expose the undemocratic shady practices. Any public inquiry should not be narrowly focused on the Lawrence case but should encompass the sexual relationships with female activists, Hillsborough, environmental and anti-racist campaigners, blacklisting and police collusion with big business.

There are secret political police in the UK – they are called Special Branch, MI5 and GCHQ. They spy on their own citizens who are involved in perfectly lawful political campaigning. We will continue to fight until we achieve justice”.

www.derbyshire.police.uk/Documents/About-Us/Herne/Operation-Herne—Report-2—Allegations-of-Peter-Francis.pdf

Blacklist Support Group Facebook.

We are also interested in the career on one Bob Lambert.

Latest news.

Lawyers for the two campaigners announced on Friday that they were seeking to overturn their convictions, alleging that the role of the undercover spy Bob Lambert was hidden from their original trial.

The pair, Andrew Clarke and Geoff Sheppard, were convicted of setting fire to three Debenhams stores in the 1980s to protest against the sale of fur and jailed for three and four years respectively.

They only discovered more than two decades later that the long-haired protester they knew as “Bob Robinson” was actually Lambert, an SDS spy.

After he was exposed in 2011, Lambert admitted he had worked undercover in the 1980s to “identify and prosecute members of the Animal Liberation Front who were then engaged in widespread incendiary and explosive device campaigns against vivisectors, the meat and fur trades.” He said he succeeded in getting Clarke and Sheppard arrested and imprisoned.


Detective Inspector Robert Lambert receiving award by the Islamic Human Rights Commission

“The Islamic Human Rights Commission is proud to present this award to Inspector Robert Lambert (Head of Muslim contact Unit), upon his retirement from the Metropolitan Police Service. In appreciation for his integrity and commitment to promoting a fair, just and secure society for all, which, is a rarity and will be greatly missed.”

 Inspector Robert Lambert receiving an award from the Islamic Human Rights Commission in 2007.

At this event, there was a panel, “Challenging Islamophobia”.

Its first speakers was Dr Saied Ameli. He spoke on islamophobia from a sociological perspective and commended IHRCs role in combating it. Imam Al-Asi talked of the zionist factor in islamophobia, something which is often overlooked.

Imam Muhammad Al-Asi the elected Imam of Washington DC Islamic Center, “spoke about zionist influence on university campuses.

Sister Yvonne Ridley and  George Galloway spoke.

Dr Abdul Wahid the leader of the National Executive Committee of Hizb ut Tahrir Britain,  criticized western countries selective talk of human rights, and praised the IHRC.

More on Bob Lambert, “During the IHRC’s dealing with the Metropolitan Police, in all the lies, insincerity and deception there was one person the IHRC encountered who genuinely “fought the cause of justice within the police force to try and not demonize the Muslim community” – that was Detective Inspector Robert Lambert. Detective Inspector Robert Lambert is the head of the Muslim Contact Unit at New Scotland Yard. On his retirement from the police force the Islamic Human Rights Commission invited him to join them in the struggle for justice.”

By contrast this what happened in October 2011 when Lambert was a star speaker at the Celebrate Diversity, Defend Multiculturalism, Oppose Islamophobia and Racism conference.

Campaigners today outed the most-senior-yet police spy responsible for infiltrating environmental and social justice campaigns.

Former Detective Inspector Bob Lambert MBE had just spoken at a “One Society, Many Cultures” anti-racist conference attended by 300 delegates at the Trades Union Congress HQ in Central London. He was then challenged by 5 members of London Greenpeace who called on him to apologise for the undercover police infiltration of London Greenpeace, Reclaim The Streets and other campaign groups – an operation he took part in or supervised over two decades, whilst rising to the rank of Detective Inspector.

At present apparently this is what he is doing,

Robert Lambert 

Senior Lecturer (PT) – John Grieve Policing Centre

Dr. Lambert divides his time between two part-time teaching posts: here at the John Grieve Policing Centre and at the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (CSTPV) at the University of St. Andrews. At both centres he teaches postgraduate and undergraduate modules based on his research and published work on terrorism, counter-terrorism, far right political violence and anti-Muslim hate crimes.

 

Lenin’s Tomb Indulges Dieudonné’s ‘Mates’ and anti-Semites.

with 6 comments

Lenin’s Tomb writes,” I have been given permission to publish this excellent paper from the Penser l’émancipation, closing plenary, Nanterre, on February 22, 2014.  It was written and delivered by the excellent Houria Bouteldja, a member of Le Parti des indigènes de la République.”

On anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

It also designates an enemy: the Jew as a Jew, and the Jew as a Zionist, as an embodiment of imperialism, but also because of the Jew’s privileged position. The one who occupies the best seat in the hearts of the White, a place for which many indigènes are fighting.

Because they dream of becoming the Prince’s favourites, but without questioning that Prince’s legitimacy: the legitimacy of the White Man. As we, in the PIR, often say: “The spontaneous ideology of the indigènes is integrationism.” And in the end, if Soral’s strategy is working, it is also because he revalidates arabo-muslim virility that was the target of racism and colonialism — I will not detail here another episode, the one with Ni Putes Ni Soumises and Femen.

Must we condemn this youth? Are they fascists?

My reply is No!

Now, the trouble is that we are not integrationists. And integration through anti-semitism horrifies us just as much as integration though White universalism and national-chauvinism. We abhor anything that seeks to integrate us into whiteness; anti-semitism being a pure product of Europe and the West. As a decolonial movement, it is self-evident that we cannot support Dieudonné.

Yet we could not condemn him in the manner of the white Left, because there is a certain dimension that has escaped the Left, but one that is clear to any indigène with a modicum of dignity. It is what I have recalled in an interview in 2012: “For me Dieudonné is not Soral, because he is a social indigène. I cannot treat him as I treat Soral. I thoroughly disagree with his political choices: the fact that he has been seduced by Soral’s nationalistic views, that he knows nothing about Palestine and Zionism, and his alliance with the far-right.

At the same time, I feel ambivalent. I would start by saying that I love Dieudonné; that I love him as the indigènes love him; that I understand why the indigènes love him. I love him because he has done an important action in terms of dignity, of indigène pride, of Black pride: he refused to be a domestic negro. Even if he doesn’t have the right political program in his head, his attitude is one of resistance

This “excellent Houria Bouteldja” has other views of note,

“Pour Houria Bouteldja, porte parole du mouvement], sans être une tare  « le mode de vie homosexuel n’existe pas dans les quartiers populaires ». Dans un droit de réponse à l’article la mettant en cause, elle rappelle notamment ses propos exacts sur le sujet, tenus le 6 novembre 2012 dans l’émission télévisée Ce soir (ou jamais !) de Frédéric Taddéï: « Je ne crois pas à l’universalité de l’identité politique homosexuelle. Je fais la distinction entre le fait qu’il peut y avoir des pratiques homosexuelles effectivement dans les quartiers ou ailleurs mais que ça ne se manifeste pas par une revendication identitaire politique.”

So gay life does not exist in the working class housing estates, which the ‘indigènes (self-appointed) claim to represent.

They certainly do their bit to make sure this happens.

In 2012 they shouted down and attacked gay writer Caroline Fourest.

She was attacked in September that year at the annual Fête d’Huma by the Indigènes de la République  and the Indivisibles. They prevented her from talking about her latest book against the Front National.

As a kind of ‘autonomous rights’ movement (indigènes is taken from the time of French colonialisation) for the civic status – lack of – of the ‘natives’ in the French empire one thing sticks out about this groupuscule (apart from his willingness to use thuggery against opponents).

It is its American-UK  defence of ‘multiculturalism’.

This explains perhaps the following (distastefully  phrased),

So what has happened between these two generations: the potentially pork-eating immigrants who were tied to the Left and the non-pork-eating immigrants drifting towards the Right?

The bully continues,

On the front of the radical Left, we have witnessed: complicity of parts of the radical Left with moralistic anti-racism; hostility towards autonomous immigration movements; collusion and active complicity with islamophobia; focusing on fascism at the expense of structural racism and a critique of white supremacy that cuts across the radical Left itself; the centrality of the Holocaust at the expense of the history of colonialism and slavery; clientelism in the neighbourhoods (in particular in Communist Party municipalities); white anti-Zionism, that is an anti-Zionism that is supportive of resistance movements that resemble the left (the PFLP for example) and that is contemptuous of those who do not resemble it (such as Hamas at the time of the attacks against Gaza).

It would be interesting to hear how his group which also backed Hezbollah not considers them.

On Syria – motus!

One heartily agrees, however  with this statement,

For this to be possible, we must be accepted as we are: a group that is racially and socially dominated, not necessarily clear-cut on several issues: not clear-cut on capitalism, not clear-cut on class struggle, not clear-cut on women, not clear-cut on homosexuality, not clear-cut on Jews.

Parti des Indigènes de la République

That is “”la reconnaissance par l’Etat de ces différentes langues, cultures et spiritualités comme autant de besoins sociaux et comme des composantes à part entière de la communauté politique et culturelle et des institutions qui la constituent.”

State recognition of the different languages, cultures and spiritualities as social needs and integral parts in themselves of the political, cultural and institutional framework.”

Update.

This is Seymour’s Twitter Reply to someone who tweeted him about this,

leninology ‏@leninology  19h

@Pabloite @JamesHeartfield fuck Caroline Fourest, she’s a weirdo Islamophobe conspiracy theorist. (Lot of that about.)

Haitham Al-Haddad, Who Supports FGM, Speaks At SOAS University.

with 10 comments

Haitham al-Haddad

……only hates Jews who are descendants of apes and pigs.

In 2001, Haitham al-Haddad allegedly said “I will tell you the truth about the fight between us and Jews who are the enemies of God and the descendants of apes and pigs”.[8] He later said that “this is the translation of what has been attributed to me” and that it had been incorrectly translated from Arabic to English.[8]

A journalist for Radio Netherlands Worldwide wrote, “Strikingly, the cleric omits the definite article “the” before “Jews.” In the Arabic language, this omission could be taken to mean he was not speaking about Jews in general but only about those Jews who are enemies of God and descendants of apes and pigs.

Wikipedia.

Continues,

In a homophobic article called ‘Standing up against Homosexuality and LGBTs’, Haddad has written of “the scourge of homosexuality”, which he calls a “criminal act” [10]

His attitudes towards women are highlighted by a comment he made in which he declared that “a man should not be questioned why he hit his wife, because this is something between them”.[11]

In addition to this he has also claimed that “the most honourable and worthy role for a woman is striving to be a fine wife…this role does not only secure the best for a woman in the hereafter, but also fits perfectly with her natural disposition”[12]

The Huffington Post reports,

A London university’s student union has come under criticism for allowing a pro-female genital mutilation supporter to speak at a debate on campus.

Haitham al-Haddad spoke at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) on Monday, despite having previously publicly advocated his support for FGM.

In a video posted on YouTube, he lectures on the importance of knowing female circumcision in the UK is illegal and says there is a “proper” way of carrying out FGM.

“In some countries.. they do [circumcision] a way that cause harm for the female,” he says. “There are some statistics it can cause 25% death of females.. This is called the Pharaonic circumcision.. We are not talking about that. They cut extensively. That is harmful, definitely. But it is consensus of all the scholars that female circumcision is sunnah [proper].

students

His views on Homosexuality, “Standing up against Homosexuality and LGBTs.”

In order to combat the scourge of homosexuality Allah has ordained us to speak out, and that we should co-operate with others in righteousness and God-consciousness.

Written by Andrew Coates

February 19, 2014 at 4:57 pm

The Legacy of Stuart Hall (Dies aged 82).

with 5 comments

http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/page/stuart-hall-project-2013-bfi-poster-001-1000x750.jpg

Stuart Hall: 3 February 1932 – 10 February 2014.

“One of Britain’s leading intellectuals, the sociologist and cultural theorist Stuart Hall, has died age 82.

Known as the “godfather of multiculturalism”, Hall had a huge influence on academic, political and cultural debates for over six decades.” Guardian.

More Obituaries (from the left)  Here  and Robin Blackburn (with links and background) Here and commentary on Shiraz Socialist.

Stuart Hall’s legacy is significant and enduring. In the field of cultural studies, he played a big role in creating, in work on race, gender, ideology, post-colonialist studies, and sub-cultures. The opening up the Anglophone academy to Continental theorists, such as Althusser, Gramsci and Foucault, owes a debt to the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, which Hall directed from 1968 to 1979. More controversially his analysis of the Great Right Moving Right period and Thatcherism ended in Marxism Today’s Manifesto for New Times (1989).

Stuart Hall, in 1956, was a founding figure in the ‘First’ British New Left. Formed in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the Anglo-French  attack on Suez this was an attempt to create a democratic left opposed to both Stalinism and imperialism. It was determined not to repeat the dogmatic slogans of the post-war left. Hall’s A Sense of Classlessness (1958) addressed the new “consumer society” and its effects on working class communities.

As Editor of the original New Left Review (1960 1962) Hall introduced cultural topics into the journal, “to meet people as they are.” It challenged the traditional definitions of politics. The CCCS journal, Cultural Studies, described in the early 70s  a “major historical realignment in the ‘fifties and ‘sixties. In these conditions, cultural studies were based on the “recognition of cultural domination as a special area of politics.”

Hall’s work is perhaps best understood within this context. It was political and not limited to academic ambitions, still less was it an effort to import theoretical novelties in order to make an impression in the university world.

In this vein Hall and his colleagues paid special attention to Gramsci’s work on hegemony, politics and Althusser’s theory of ideology (On Ideology. Cultural Studies. 1977). Hall’s Marxism, which he interpreted in an open-minded fashion, inspired by the analysis of shifting classes and parties in 19th century Europe, drew on the spirit of the method outlined 1857 Introduction to the Grundrisse and not every sentence in Capital.

This approach, which could be called “eclectic” (in the sense of taking the best from theories) was very different from the “pure” Althussarians of the short-lived Theoretical Practice. It was some perplexity that the CCCS reacted to the assault on Theory in general and Althusser in particular by Hall’s comrade from the New Left, E.P. Thompson. Hall, like the author of the Making of the English Working Class had always underlined the importance of ordinary people’s experience and resistance.

Many on the left initially greeted Hall and his colleagues’ analysis of Thatcherism. It was considered, given his New Left background, and its focus on ideology, to be an attempt to break away from overly ‘economistic’ approaches to the rise of the New Right. As somebody at the CCCS during the period 1979-81 I personally found thee ideas extremely appealing. That they developed into the less accepted positions, of the magazine Marxism Today only gradually became apparent. When differences became clear there was a break up between those on the side of Marxism Today and those opposed. Some of the disagreements, on fundamentals about class, politics, and socialism, went deep. The debates were marked by strong feelings on both sides (see below).

Throughout Stuart Hall remained  greatly respected on the left, and more widely in Britain. Over the decades his reputation extended across the globe.

Those who knew him closely speak of his inspirational quality. We extend our condolences to all affected by his passing.

*********

Update: referencing to Stuart Hall’s legacy  today there is an important article by Ross Wolfe on the broader aspects of some of the theories associated with his name,

In this essay, I intend to argue that Marxism does contain the analytical tools necessary to theorize and deepen our understanding of class, gender, and race. I intend critically to examine, from the standpoint of Marxist theory, the arguments for race, gender, and class studies offered by some of their main proponents, assessing their strengths and limitations and demonstrating, in the process, that Marxism is theoretically and politically necessary if the study of class, gender, and race is to achieve more than the endless documentation of variations in their relative salience and combined effects in very specific contexts and experiences.

His conclusion,

As long as the RGC perspective reduces class to just another form of oppression, and remains theoretically eclectic, so that intersectionality and interlockings are, in a way, “up for grabs,” meaning open to any and all theoretical interpretations, the nature of those metaphors of division and connection will remain ambiguous and open to conflicting and even contradictory interpretations. Marxism is not the only macro level theory that the RGC perspective could link to in order to explore the “basic structures of domination” but it is, I would argue, the most suitable for RGC’s emancipatory political objectives.

This was posted here in June last year published by the North Star.

Stuart Hall, Thatcherism, Marxism Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow.

“What matters is some sense of continuity through transformation – of political allegiances which won’t go away, of bedrock reference points – which does allow us to say something about the present conjuncture.”

Stuart Hall. Out of Apathy. Voices of the New Left Thirty Years on. Oxford University Socialist Discussion Group. Verso. 1989.

Amongst all the debates that have come out of the latest splits on the British left perhaps some of the most important have been about looking again at the 1970s and 1980s left. Feminism and party forms have been to the fore. But more recently people, notably Jules Alford, Richard Seymour  and the International Socialist Network, have begun to think about the way the left responded to the rise, and consolidation, of Thatcherism, and economic liberalism, during the same period. Today we tend to think of free-market policies as the fixed agenda of nearly all governments across the world, and in Britain, they seem the horizon of both the liberal-Conservative Coalition and Ed Miliband’s Labour leadership. But the 1980s saw heated debates about whether the Thatcher governments introduced something new into British politics, and if liberalism was a rational strategy for the country’s economy. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Andrew Coates

February 10, 2014 at 5:51 pm

France: President Hollande Gives in to Right-wing Hysteria on Family Law.

with 14 comments

French and British Bigots Unite Last Year.

(Reuters) – France’s Socialist government dropped plans on Monday to update family law this year after huge weekend protests by conservatives against gay-friendly reforms they say harm traditional families.

The government tried on Monday to reassure the protesters, who numbered over 100,000 in Paris and Lyon on Sunday, that the new law would not legalise assisted procreation for lesbian couples or surrogate motherhood for gay men who wanted children.

But when Socialist lawmakers insisted they would amend the planned bill to include those reforms, the government announced the draft law – which would also define the legal rights of step-parents in second marriages – needed more work.

“The government will not submit a family reform bill before the end of the year,” the prime minister’s office said.

Sunday’s protesters, many of the Catholics but also some Muslims, tapped continued resentment against the legalization of gay marriage last year to pressure the government not to go further and allow ways to help gays have their own children.

Reactions have not been slow in coming.

Le Parisien reports (freely  adapted),

Ludovine the Rochère, (the ultra-Catholic leader of the Manif pour tous), was glad, “”What stood out in this bill was that it was not conducive to the best interests of children and the family.”

For Yannick Moreau, UMP (main right-wing oppositon)  : “It’s a great victory for the popular mobilisation, quiet and peaceful (…) But we must remain vigilant: there are still ambiguities on the LDCs, the GPA with the circular Taubira which is still not repealed, or  the experiment with ‘gender’ (theory) in 600 of our schools with the  ABCD of equality. “

Christian Jacob, the leader of UMP deputies quipped: “In government, we went from cock up to panic. That said, the real victory will be for us when the government has abandoned its family policy.”

The left has denounced the betrayal of the government in yielding to “extremists.”

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Co-President of  the  Parti de Gauche (PG) , said that the left was “deceived, repudiated” because “with the PS, the right is cajoled, the bosses’ association, the MEDEFis  admired the church is blessed (…) Our time will come. I call for a severe punishment on the government in (this year’s) elections.

The National Secretary of Europe Ecologie-Les Verts (EELV – part of the government) Emmanuelle Cosse, said, “The day after the mobilisation of the reactionary camp this decision is of great concern. WE hope the government will go back on its decision.

For Inter-LGBT, which represents lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals, the announcement came as an unpleasant surprise. The association stated late on Monday that the Hollande government was “no longer fulfilling their commitments: this follows a row of  setbacks and betrayals over the last months.” Here.

By contrast the ruling Parti Socialiste saluted this as a “good decision”.

Reports indicate that the government considers that this dispute diverts attention from its ‘pact of responsibility’ with employers.

An Ideology of Fear and Loathing.

The Manif pour tous, the Day of Rage, have, in just two weeks, shown that the French far-right is able to get people out in the streets. They come after a year of growing extreme rightist protest.

In some respects there are similarities with the last right-wing popular movement in France, the 1950s Poujadism. In 1956 his Union de Defense Commercants et Artisans (4000,000 members)  won  51 Parliamentary seats with  11% of the vote.

He stood up for rural France, opposed “Americanisation”, stood for maintaining the French Empire (above all,  in North Africa) but above all railed without end against taxation and the malfeasance of the French state.

Poujade’s movement attracted anti-Semites and the far-right, but was not itself fascist.

The Bonnets rouges have denounced taxation, and ecological taxes in particular. The conspiracy theorists of the  followers of Dieudonné echo the “anti-politics”  the Poujadists. His racism, under the name of ‘anti-Zionism’ has attracted traditional Catholic right and some touched by Islamist ideology.

There is a widespread disaffection with politics and the “system”.

There is however little sign of the organised anti-Parliamentarianism that Ian Birchall (hat-tip Paul Flewers) describes as a mark of Poujadism.

A better comparison perhaps would be with the mouvement de l’École libre in 1984.

This was organised by the state-subsidised French Catholic schools (École libre), in defence of attempts by the education Minister Savary to bring them under some kind of public control (Projet de loi Savary). The Law envisaged the creation of ” « grand service public unifié et laïc de l’éducation nationale » – a national secular education service.

That year, after demonstrations across the country,  in June, these movement attracted between 2 million and 850,000 supporters to a Paris march.

Apart from the mainstream French right-wing the Front National was prominent in the ranks of protesters.

A key aspect of its campaign  was opposition to French secularism (laïcité).

Soon afterwards President  François Mitterrand withdrew the proposals.

The latest Manif pour Tous stems from another  religious origin: the defence of the ‘family’ against “la théorie du genre” and LGBT rights.

If anybody is in any doubt about the religious basis of the hysteria against this, and against LGBT rights they should look at this site, famille chriétienne.

It is no coincidence they also rant against the alleged  secularism of the present Education Minister,  La laïcité de combat de Vincent Peillon

An Islamic site, Islam & Info, equals the Christians in broadcasting hatred of sexual equality and gay rights.

They post a video showing little boys being educated into being “good mothers” (“a vidéo montre que les petits garçons apprennent à être de bonnes “mères”).

President Hollande’s capitulation to these forces is unlikely to go down well with one core constituency of his party, teachers.