Paul from Paris

Christine Boutin

Christine Boutin, a conservative politician best known for opposition to gay marriage and interest in prisons, lost her job as minister for housing and urban affairs; she had previously lost her seat in parliament.

Despite inactivity, Boutin suffered no hardship. Boutin remained a county representative (conseiller général), paid € 2,605 per month. A pension from the national assembly brought her an additional € 6,000 per month.

Boutin made the news last week when it was reported that president Sarkozy had entrusted her with a mission: to formulate proposals on the social consequences of globalization, in time for the G20 meeting later this year.

To carry out this mission, Boutin benefits from a chauffeured car; offices in Paris; secretarial assistance; the services of four staffers (all of whom, judging from salary, are quite senior, as they earn between € 4,740.67 and € 6,000 per month); and a monthly remuneration of € 9,500 (reportedly net of social security and related payroll taxes). This seems to be a very generous pay package for very easy work, so Boutin’s package made the news.

Unfortunately, Boutin seems not to have an advocate –a friend, an ally, a confederate– who could answer the media by rhetorically asking, “Since when do we debate the merits of what people earn?” or by stating impetuously, “Good work, if you can get it.”

Boutin instead spoke out on her own behalf. She made a few missteps:

• First, she clarified that her mission was real, as opposed to a no-show job.
• Second, she claimed that she had no say or choice in the remuneration, that the €9,500 monthly emolument resulted from a bureaucratic calculus that took account of seniority and what other highly qualified people would be paid.
• Third, she spoke down to the people she serves, claiming, “I’ve heard French people who have little wages who, today, cannot understand that there’d be a political leader who has a cash inflow of about 18,000 euros.” (emphasis added)
• Finally, Boutin declared that she would waive “my 9,500 euros”. (emphasis added)

France enjoys a long and honorable tradition of civil service. One would think that (semi-) retired elected officials would accept sine pecunia the leadership of a mission to advise the president.

French president Nicolas Sarkozy opined last week that it would be advisable to legislate against wearing the burka in public.

Sarkozy refers to a loose-fitting garment, generally black, that covers the whole body, head, and face; and that is worn by some women who are Muslim. In France, sometimes it’s called a “burka” or “niqab”.

Late last week, the media gave attention to a case from the town of Nantes, in western France. A motorcycle policeman pulled over and fined a motorist who was wearing a burka. What was her offense?  Violating an article of the French traffic code that requires drivers to have freedom of movement, and unobstructed visibility. It’s the same article that would prohibit me from driving in a Star Wars costume or from over-packing parcels on the back seat of my car. The violation carries a 22 euro fine; it’s no big deal.

For the motorist, however, it was a big deal. She retained counsel and met with the press. For the motorist, her case was clearly discriminatory.

No one seems to have suggested that the ticketing officer was acting on anyone’s orders. Whether to ticket this offense falls within the discretion that police on traffic duty exercise –well or poorly– every day.

So it was surprising that the policeman’s ultimate boss, interior minister Brice Hortefeux, made public late last week a letter he wrote to his colleague, immigration minister Eric Besson. Both men are no stranger to controversy, so it should surprise no one that the letter’s contents were incendiary: Hortefeux suggested that Besson look into stripping the burka-wearer’s husband of his French nationality.

More than a routine traffic offense motivated Hortefeux’s suggestion. The motorist’s husband, born in Algeria, reportedly is a polygamist, with at least four wives, and many children. Each of the wives receives an assistance payment for single mothers, a fraud reportedly orchestrated by the husband.

Is it possible, in France, to strip someone of his nationality? For recently naturalized citizens, yes, under a narrow set of circumstances (such as bearing arms against France in wartime). This happens rarely, and it’s not clear whether the husband’s case would qualify. For conservative party spokesman Frédéric Lefebvre, nationality-stripping “expresses the necessary firmness that our society has to demonstrate against those who despise our rules, deviate our procedures, and profit unspeakably from French hospitality.”

What worries me here is the emergence of a rabid clique among certain French conservatives, whose patriotism too often is expressed through extremism, over-the-top hysterics.

Unlike many Anglo-American commentators, who approach the French debate as a question of freedom of religion, I’m receptive to French appeals to “liberté, égalité, fraternité“. What troubles about the burka –more than that only women wear one– is that the covering enables one to go through the public square as a phantom or shadow, without being in public, of the public. The best example of this may be offered by the couple now at the center of controversy: although both husband and wife have held press conferences, neither has been identified by name. Isn’t it odd to speak in public without saying who you are? And when you argue that you have been wrongly accused or targeted for discrimination, would you not want to say publicly who you are?

European Consumer Day 2010 fell on March 15. Did you notice?

The EESC –that’s the European Economic and Social Committee, “a bridge between Europe and organised civil society”– marked the day with an event, held in Madrid, on enforcement of consumers’ rights.

A few days later, in Brussels, the European Union hosted a two-day European Consumer Summit.

This week, the European Commission released the third edition of the Consumer Markets Scoreboard, which benchmarks and tracks national consumer behaviors and the realization of the common market.

As reported in yesterday’s Financial Times, the European Commission has decided to reconsider an initiative to make it easier for consumers to claim damages for losses suffered from anti-competitive conduct. The initiative will not become law any time soon; the Commission will instead renew consultations with stakeholders.

John Dalli, the freshly seated European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy from Malta, duly notes consumer frustration with retail banking, electric utilities, and rental cars. For good order’s sake, Dalli also talks about “urban transport” and “green energy”. At the top of Dalli’s agenda is something he calls “Web 3.0″, which seems to be crossborder sales done over the Internet.

All of this matters to consumers, but none of it is compelling. Mr. Dalli lacks conviction, political will, or legislative ambition today. An advocate for neither consumers nor business, the Commissioner seems content to preside over a formidable institutional machine left to idle. The lost opportunity is colossal.

A French press group won a favorable award against Google in connection with book digitization. (Full disclosure: I practiced law with the press group’s lead lawyer in the ’90s.) Google will likely appeal that judgment, and the appellate court may rule in its favor.

It would be a mistake to read too much into this award. Far from resisting digitization, the French state has long embraced it.

According to urban legend, president Mitterrand favored relocating the collections of the French National Library in towers –rather than underground, as most libraries do– because he was convinced that books soon would be digitized, making paper copies superfluous other than as collectible objects.

More recently, president Sarkozy has earmarked some €750 million to digitizing collections in the French National Library. Although it’s possible that this effort will become an alternative to Google, it’s also possible that French actors, public and private, will team up with Google in the future.

French young conservatives (jeunes populaires) produced and posted on their site a video that showcases their late-summer congress, with leading figures from the Sarkozy government in attendance.

I like the video. It answers the question: how can you be young and conservative without being complacent? It’s also sufficiently unpolished to be the work of real young people, not an advertising agency.

To begin with, the young don’t call themselves “conservative”; they’re “popular”, in keeping with Sarkozy’s big-tent vision of the conservative party as the leading party and the party of good government.

The young conservatives also look to the future, reprising a 1976 song by Canadian artist Luc Plamondon, “Tous ceux qui veulent changer le monde” (Everyone who wants to change the world). They’re young and fresh and hopeful; they want change.

Most of all, the young conservatives have a sense of humor. They’re a bit silly, and their friends in the Sarkozy government are comfortable being a little silly themselves. These young people get along with their elders, who actually seem to enjoy their company. The ambiance recalls, for me, a big family get-together or a church picnic (but not a company picnic: these people are confident and comfortable enough not to take themselves too seriously).

The video has sparked reactions.

Those on the left, for whom “young conservatives” are an oxymoron or heresy, have enjoyed a laugh and produced parody videos. By a casual count, there seem to be at least a hundred, possibly several hundred, parodies.

Some of those on the right are scandalized, put off by a lack of seriousness or an overabundance of fooling-around. The standard-bearer of the scandalized conservatives is former education minister Luc Ferry, who in an interview –apparently after seeing excerpts of the video for the first time– described the video as “dripping with drivel” and wondered aloud about the dangers it presented for the future of civilization.