Bulgaria has begun parliamentary proceedings for staging a referendum on whether public broadcaster Bulgarian National Television (BNT) should continue a special daily news bulletin in Turkish.

In a move which resembles the recent ban on Minarets in Switzerland, the Bulgarian Prime Minister, Boiko Borissov, and his ruling party GERB have publicly endorsed the campaign launched by the ultra-nationalist party, Ataka, which states:

Bulgarian is the official language of Bulgaria and there is no place for news in Turkish on the public broadcaster.

The subtext behind all of this really comes down to the role of state broadcasting, and the suppression of the Turkish (that is to say Muslim) minority. It is a standard act of aggression against an ethnic minority, misguided and twisted into a regressive stand against Islam and immigration.

Ethnic Turks make up 15% of Bulgaria’s population.

It is the responsibility of the state broadcaster to promote and encourage diversity, it is the channel not for a minority, or a majority, but the entire nation. Compare the situation with the state broadcaster in Britain, and the relationship between Wales and the United Kingdom. The BBC has several broadcasts in the Welsh language for cultural and linguistic purposes, which are not restricted to factual programs, despite the general decline in native Welsh speakers. However, the Turks are not demanding that their language is compulsory in schools or that sign posts are bilingual, the issue pertains to one news program.

Here, we see that language is the key barrier to society and it is typically reactionary to suggest that these news broadcasts entrench segregation. In fact, I would suggest that the newscasts improve cultural cohesion. The Turkish population will better understand Bulgarian news which enables them to appreciate and participate in community activities, helping them to integrate with the majority. In addition, it is also useful for native Bulgarians to familiarise themselves with Turks and the Turkish language.

Thus this proposed ban on a single 15 minute long newscast is purely symbolic. The state broadcaster’s schedule is not packed with Turkish-language programs any more than the Swiss cityscape was infested by the five minarets.

The timing is also entirely cynical. Though the campaign was started five years ago, it has only gained real traction thanks to the fear of globalisation and migration exacerbated by the financial crisis. Politically, the cause has gained credibility and profited from the result of the Swiss referendum.

This referendum, like most referenda, will not be democratic. It will bring out the tyranny of the Majority designed to enforce conformity. The only consequence will of the ban will be to strike a blow against the Turkish (again, Muslim) population and make them less welcome in their own country, which in turn makes them less inclined to participate, which strengthens segregation and fragments society.

This post was written on the request of a Bulgarian associate of mine who asked me to investigate the issue. If you have any ‘requests’ or issues you would like me to turn my attention to, please send me a message via the contact page and I’ll be happy to oblige.

The phrase National Identity has become increasingly familiar in current political discourse, despite the fact that nationalism and nationhood are far from being new ideas in Europe.

Typically, it is the Right and Far-Right which profits from and occupies itself with concerns over identity. Excluding Gordon Brown’s occasional remarks on possibly considering planning a “British Day” and citizenship classes, British National identity tends to be restricted to the hard-line Eurosceptic Tories and UKIPpers as a means to denounce the European Union and the core campaign front of the British National Party.

In France, by contrast, National Identity has been a strong recurring theme since President de Gaulle in the 1960s. Even now, Nicolas Sarkozy has launched a campaign for a ‘great debate on National Identity’ in events organised across the country.

However, though I am well known for clear opinions and a willingness to discuss contentious issues in free, pluralistic and useful debate, Sarkozy’s campaign has none of these three traits. It is not free because it is his government which sets the agenda, asks the questions and controls the answers. It is not pluralistic because it tries to hammer diversity into a single rigid identity. It is not useful because it is nothing but a divisive tool designed to stigmatise foreigners.

National Identity, as opposed to regional identity, is an artificial Napoleonic concept. As such, it is driven by the state as a means to define a citizen’s place in order to encourage and pressure people into conformity and submission.

Identity is not assigned, fixed and then closed; it is based on a set of political and social principles which are open and organic. This is why the EU struggles time after time to create a European Identity. The French Republic, above all else, is founded on its liberty of expression, its equality of rights and its fraternity of people. Equally, Britain is based on values of justice, tolerance and respect.

Thus the Far Right can only profit from National Identity using an outdated and narrow definition. As part of Sarkozy’s debate, Jean Marie Le Pen, leader of the Front National, held a rally in Marseilles (he is standing in the PACA Regional Election) claiming the debate swung in his party’s favour. This announcement was backed up by the polls; the FN has now hit 10% in the region; up four points since October. He promised a “cruel surprise” for Nicolas Sarkozy in March.

In my summer by-election, there was a party known as Nissa Rebelda, which is also known as Nissa Identiaire; which is a good example of fascist “identity politics” though fairly new they did equally well as the FN.

Similarly, in Britain, Nick Griffin was attacked on Question Time for hijacking Churchill’s image by declaring that he would have been a BNP member. He stole an important symbol of National Identity to use for his own political gain, suggesting that he would protect Britain from a perceived threat using Churchill standing up to the Nazis as an ironic metaphor.

The threat has traditionally been on racial and religious grounds, well before nations were founded. Now, as academics (and myself) discuss the nature of globalisation, national identity is attached to immigration and sovereignty despite, or as a consequence of the fact that national borders are becoming more porous and nations more co-dependent.

As sovereignty is increasingly shared and people are increasingly mobile, National Identity as a political construct can no longer exist as a single, rigid image. Identity is a perception. If someone feels that their identity is threatened it is often the case that their identity is at odds with the identity of another.

Though concerns about immigration and citizenship should not be dismissed, it is not acceptable to suggest that, in the name of National Identity; someone is “less” British or has “less” right to be in the country than someone else.

This is the politics of fear; bitterness and aggression. The discussion on National Identity is not framed around who you are; it is about who you are not.

Between longer and more abstract blog posts, this evening I decided to conduct a little experiment. I decided to look at the Political Views of the people I went to High School with.

My secondary school was independent. It was hardly Eton, but it still qualifies as private. My method was to go through my Facebook friends list and pick out all of the people I knew from the school in order to look at their Political Views. See the graph:

You’ll notice a few things about the sample, the first being that it’s quite small. The reason for this is that I had 38 profiles that had not listed anything in the field. The assumption can thus be made that an overwhelming majority are either totally apathetic (highly likely) or embarrassed of their real political views (also likely). I thus had to remove them from the graph to level it out.

The graph also shows an “Aren’t I funny!” column, this is for the profiles that had something inane listed as an attempt at a joke. It’s safe to say these are similar to the Not Listed column.

The one person listed under “Labour Party” is me.

Of the people listed under “Liberal” (Not Liberal Democrat), two of the three were teachers.

So, unsurprisingly the graph shows that most of my classmates were Tories. Does private school make your right wing, or is it just that right-wing people tend to go to private school?

As with anything vaguely scientific, it’s probably some of both.

Disclaimer: Obviously this doesn’t prove anything or have any scientific basis.

Christian Estrosi, Mayor of Nice (UMP), has imposed a curfew on children aged 13 and under.

The curfew forbids children from going out on the streets without an adult after 11pm on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays.
In principle, there is no reason for a minor to be out on the streets alone at night. However, this curfew is nothing but an ineffective and impractical publicity stunt.

Estrosi: “I said go to your room.”

Estrosi is showing a deeply authoritarian side to his personality, as was shown when he decided to ban street performers that had not passed his quality exam. (See my piece on that.)

In addition, this stunt has been designed to help Estrosi and his right-wing UMP party to make a few headlines on security issues just a few months before the regional elections. (More on them here and here).

The curfew is also impossible to administer and totally irresponsible. There are at most a little more than a dozen police patrols at night for 360,000 inhabitants. Children on the streets is not only a tiny problem, the police have much more frequent and serious crime incidents to deal with. The fact that Estrosi himself has closed 17 préfectures (police stations) makes matters worse.

In a typical fashion, Estrosi will be using the right hand to punish “offenders” by cutting and removing benefits instead of investigating why parents are letting their children out at night.

This is another trademark Estrosi policy; mad, worrying, dangerous and completely impossible. It’s Sarkozyism applied on a local level.

Three months after David Cameron held a public meeting in Bath, Nick Clegg, better known as leader of the Shadow Conservative Party, has managed to find time in his busy, busy, schedule to do likewise.

When Cameron came to visit, the Lib Dems criticised the Tories over the amount of information participants were asked to give, claiming that the meeting would be rigged or filled with Tory apparatchiks. They smarmily added that their meetings are open and honest.

Now, even by their own criteria, the Lib Dems have failed. They are now under fire for asking that residents sign up online and receive an e-ticket.

“Nobody wants to come to my party.”

It could be suggested that the Lib Dems are getting scared. With a majority of 4,638 and a certain sentimental element to it, Bath could be in danger of falling to the Tories, despite being Lib Dem since 1992 when Tory Party Chairman Chris Patten helped win the General Election despite losing his seat.

In principle, I see nothing wrong with the fact that people are asked to register because it helps organisers get a good idea of the numbers. On top of that, they can prioritise local residents.

If only there was some easy and simple way of proving identity, without the awkwardness of a passport or the need to know how to drive. Some sort of card, for your identity, like all other nations have. That’d be a radical idea, though just the sort of thing the Lib Dems oppose.

When Cameron came, he was warned that residents would ask questions regarding the Bath Transportation Package, which directly contradicts Conservative policy on Green Belts. He avoided and refused to answer the question for fear of embarrassing his Tory Council.

This time, with Clegg, I have no doubt that seagulls will be top of the agenda.