In its editorial on December 20 The Times wrote: "President Jacques Chirac made the wrong decision on Wednesday when he announced his support for a legal ban in state-run schools on what he called "conspicuous" religious symbols. He offered Muslim scarves, Jewish skullcaps, and large crucifixes as examples, but the dispute into which he stepped is about the scarves worn by devout Muslim women and girls. Mr. Chirac cast his decision as a reaffirmation of France's commitment to rigorous separation of church and state. But it is not that at all. Banning believers from following the discipline of their religions would amount to imposing the view of the state upon them. One fallacy stems from the fact that a Christian wearing a cross is not analogous to a Sikh wearing a turban, a Muslim wearing a scarf or a Jew wearing a skullcap. To hang a crucifix around your neck is a personal display of faith. To observant Muslims, Jews and Sikhs, however, head coverings are obligations. Their observance therefore falls under the rubric of freedom of expression and conscience, not, as Mr. Chirac would have it, proselytism.

"Mr. Chirac depicted France as a land in which diverse people were joined in a common identity that would be endangered by the release of the religious centrifugal forces, by the celebration of distinctions that served to separate and not unite. The danger, he declared, was division, discrimination and confrontation. But the French understand full well that the discussion is essentially about Muslims, so any law is certain to be perceived by the Muslims precisely as divisive, discriminatory and confrontational. The streets of France are richly festooned these days with Christmas decorations, and major Catholic holidays are official state holidays in France. In his speech the president also came out against adding a Muslim (Eid-ul-Adha) and a Jewish (Yom Kippur) holiday, a decision that is also an error in our view." If the French feels intimidated by a few Muslim women wearing the headscarf that does not speak highly of French manhood! Of course the real reason is different. Mr. Chirac was trying not to surrender all the racist, xenophobic votes to the racist and xenophobic Le Pen, who finished second to Mr. Chirac in the last French Presidential election.

One does not know whether to feel sorry or contempt for Mr. Tony Blair. This much is certain: he will eventually support to the hilt all of President Bush's policies. Either Mr. Blair feels exactly the same way as Mr. Bush does on all issues on earth, or he has no choice but to toe the American line. That "special relationship," rings so hollow here. Actually it does not ring here at all, because it is never mentioned in the American media! "Special relationship" with the US for Mr. Blair is strictly for home consumption. Clearly, Mr. Blair is not as foresighted a leader as the late Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Mr. Wilson was the only British Prime Minister since World War II to go against the wishes of the United States and refused to send British troops to Vietnam.

President Bush's shifting of the goal post in Iraq continues. The first rationale for the preemptive war was because Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, and then came regime change, then WMD and then Iraq's link with Al Qaeda. Although none of these have been proven to be true, President Bush and the White House has been masterful in couching their words in such a way that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that ALL of the above are true! How President Bush, self-proclaimed man of God reconciles obvious lies with his faith, only he can answer. Listening to the President after Saddam's capture, one gets the impression that the capture of Saddam was the main reason for the invasion of Iraq! Every sane man must rejoice at the capture of the tyrant. But it should be the Iraqis, the recipient of his brutality, who should try and punish him, not Americans or anyone else. After all, Saddam had not invaded America.

Yet, according to The Washington Post's Richard Cohen: "President Bush has already endorsed the death penalty for Saddam. "I think he ought to get the ultimate penalty," he told ABC's Diane Sawyer. But Bush, a primitive in such matters, was somehow not the first to call for Saddam's death. That honour might belong to (Connecticut Senator and Al Gore's Vice Presidential and currently a Presidential candidate) Joe Lieberman who, in the manner of John Ashcroft with Washington snipers said the United States ought to shop for a jurisdiction that permits the death penalty. For some reason -- probably an oversight -- he did not suggest Virginia or Texas. Instead, Lieberman merely ruled out the International Criminal Court in The Hague because it is not empowered to impose the death penalty. "So my first question about where he's going to be tried will be answered by whether the tribunal can execute him," Lieberman said in response to a question from Tim Russert on "Meet The Press." Calling Saddam evil, the Connecticut Senator said, "This man...has to face the death penalty." It turns out that for Lieberman, the single most important legal and moral issue is whether Saddam can be executed."

Everyone knows by now that the stated reasons for attacking Iraq were not the real reasons. In another manifestation of hypocrisy the real reasons were hidden from the public. Whenever America makes a paradigm shift in foreign policy, it is usually announced by that ultimate establishment figure, Dr. Henry Kissinger. In July of 2002, Henry Kissinger announced the paradigm shift in an article in The Washington Post. The new strategy, as enunciated by Kissinger, called for an attack on Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein!

Few questions for Reporters Sans Frontiers

I have no reason to doubt the Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF) claim that more than110 journalists were physically attacked, 130 threatened and 25 arrested in Bangladesh in 2002. Fortunately, no one seems to have been killed. I also understand that Reporters Sans Frontiers representatives met with our Prime Minister Khaleda Zia to voice their concern. Anyone who truly knows Bangladesh also knows of the passion of Bangladeshis for writing. There are literally thousands of daily, weekly and monthly publications in cities and towns all across Bangladesh. The overwhelming majority of the writers are part-time journalists and full-time something else. Do the RSF figures refer to full-time journalists, or the part-time ones? Also, were the journalists persecuted for what they wrote, or for crimes committed unrelated to journalism? Do the RSF believe that if, for instance, a Bangladeshi is caught spying for Israel or for any other nation, the fact that he claims to be journalist should be sufficient to exonerate him? Why did RSF representative meet with our highest executive the Prime Minister, and not, more appropriately, with Bangladesh's Information Minister? (Colonial arrogance?)

It is gratifying to learn that RSF is "a vocal critic of Israel's suppression of the press in the Palestinian territories." Did the RSF take the matter up with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon? Somehow I doubt it! (Colonial arrogance?) It is reassuring to hear that RSF, " a non-partisan international organisation committed to promoting press freedom" do not succumb to "Zionist stranglehold" in the media. Although I have not seen RSF's constitution, I hope they not only demand a guarantee of the physical safety of journalists worldwide, but also are vigorous in their condemnation of countries where certain opinions, such as anti-Israeli views in America, are generally suppressed. Former Speaker of the Israeli Knesset Avraham Burg said recently:

"Israel is a thunderously failed reality that rests on a scaffolding of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice." Why are such truths not kosher in the American media? If Mr. Burg can stand up to Sharon, why can't Mr. Bush? Has the RSF taken this up with President Bush? Somehow I doubt it! (Colonial arrogance?)

As an organization with a French name, one must assume that Reporters Sans Frontiers not only cares about how Bangladesh government treats its own citizens; it cares equally about how the French government treats its own citizens. As the first part of this piece vividly illustrates, according to The New York Times, no less, the new anti-headscarf law announced by French President Jacques Chirac is meant to discriminate against France's 5 million (8 per cent of French population) citizens of Islamic faith. Has the RSF protested the unjust law in a face-to-face meeting with President Jacques Chirac? Somehow I doubt it! (Colonial arrogance?)