LETTERS

Veiled attack

'Behind the Veil' by Chris Harman (November SR) does not address the profound differences of the British education system from the French system. The French state education is 'lay, free, and obligatory' by law. It is based on the principles that came out of the French Revolution of 1789, and is based on the equality of the sexes.
The problem of the Muslim headscarf became a national debate in France when Mr Harbi barred children from his school back in 1989. These are some of the reasons:

1) Proselytising of Islam was perceived to be a problem--pressure was being applied by these children on other Muslim children to conform to the Islamic dress code, and to cut classes not thought appropriate for Muslims.
2) The veil is a symbol of feminine submission.
3) The point of the free, lay, state school is to create a 'free space to learn' away from patriarchy and authority.
4) It was not a question of discrimination but of discipline--they were breaking the rules.
5) The reason for the insistence on 'lay schooling' is so the student can be free of the outside pressures of his/her community.
6) French schools are based on the idea that authority is based on reason and experience.
7) Schools may not accept any mark or sign that one is a member of any grouping.
8) Pupils may not skip classes on religious grounds.
9) Teachers may not be influenced in what they teach on religious grounds.
10) The veil implies that there are natural distinctions between human beings and that there is an authority above all others.
11) The school must accept all children but not the religion of the parents whatever that is.

Genetically gay

Tom Hurlock's letter in November SR touches on one of the debates common among some members of the gay movement since the announcement of the discovery of the so called 'gay gene'.
It is important to understand the issues that lie behind the gay gene, and to realise that the scientific evidence that exists for the gene in no way proves its existence. The main thrust behind the argument is based on the finding that among a very small sample of 40 pairs of gay brothers, relatives of these men were more likely to be openly gay.
All this research proves is that gay men can 'come out' more easily within a family which already has openly gay members.
It is more important for us to ask what is the thinking behind the gay gene, especially since all serious scientific studies show that there is no evidence for two distinct sexualities, either gay or straight. Rather there is a range of human sexualities, and in this society we are expected to put ourselves into one of two categories. The concepts of being gay or straight have only existed since the birth of capitalism, and with the rise of the family as the only way to raise the next generation of workers. This is reflected in the views of the right wing.
Human sexuality is much too complicated to reduce to simple biology. The claim that sexuality is hereditary can lead to the idea that homosexuality is an illness which can be eradicated.
Socialists are not opposed to all research into genetics. However the attempts to reduce human behaviour to genetics are something to which we are opposed.
To fight for equality we don't have to accept genetic arguments, which pander to the idea that being gay is an abnormality, but rather to understand that gay oppression is part and parcel of capitalism and in a classless society no one would bother with labels like gay and straight.
Martin Empson
Manchester

Prejudice can be fought

Leeds Hospital Fund, a non profit making organisation, was established more than 100 years ago to protect working people from financial hardship caused by illness or accident. It has 230,000 members. Last year it paid out benefits of more than £6 million in optical and dental grants alone.
Neil Greatorex joined the fund in perfect health in 1989, but discovered he was HIV positive three years later. He died in December 1993 of Aids related pneumonia.
The Leeds Hospital Fund pays out a funeral grant of up to £1,000 to its members. In Neil's case they refused, saying Aids was 'self inflicted'.
The American life insurance company which underwrites the Hospital Fund's policy said Aids cases were excluded from their policies to 'avoid the possibility of getting a large number of people joining the scheme who suffer from Aids'. A total of 19 people with Aids live in Leeds.
A storm of protest broke out. Leeds Trades Council, MPs, councillors and health groups condemned the decision and urged the Leeds Hospital Fund to rethink its policy.
Protesters staged a sit down occupation of the Hospital Fund's offices.
Leeds Unison began looking at alternative schemes. They approached Leeds city council which promotes the scheme through a check off system to ask it to change its policy.
The council's health subcommittee considered the possibility of distributing information about a proposed boycott of the scheme to all its 32,000 council employees. A full council meeting also planned to discuss the matter.
The Lord Mayor of Leeds, councillor Christiana Myers, also president of the Leeds Hospital Fund and a member of Unison, took the unusual step of making a public statement on an issue of current controversy. She said the principle of everyone being treated equally had been breached and resigned her presidency of the fund.
Last week the Leeds Hospital Fund reversed its policy. From January 1995 funeral grants will be available to Aids sufferers.
It was Neil Greatorex's dying wish to challenge the prejudice and ignorance surrounding the disease which claimed his life. The victory shows that discrimination and prejudice can be fought against successfully.
John Appleyard
Leeds

We welcome letters and contributions on all issues raised in Socialist Review. Please keep your contributions as short as possible, typed, double spaced if you can, and on one side of paper only.
Send to: Socialist Review, PO Box 82, London E3 3LH