François Hollande suspends family law reform - an electoral strategy or a U-turn?

The French president, François Hollande, has decided to put on the back burner  (for the moment but also maybe the forseeable future) plans to introduce reforms to the family law which, among other things, would have given female same-sex couples access to procréation médicalement assistée ("medically assisted procreation", PMA)  and in vitro fertilisation as well as changing the law on surrogate mothers.

But why the apparent back pedalling?

After all, this was a man who - half-heartedly perhaps - had included his support for the reform (to PMA) in his presidential election campaign in 2012.

First up, of course, those half a million (according to organisers) or 100,000 (if you believe the police) reactionaries of "La Manif pour tous" who took to the streets of Paris on Sunday to "uphold traditional family values" (what???) and who are now congratulating themselves for having persuaded Hollande to change his mind.

Screenshot from YouTube video of "La Manif pour tous" demonstration, Paris February 2, 2014

Screenshot from YouTube video of "La Manif pour tous" demonstration, Paris February 2, 2014

"It's a victory," said Ludovine de la Rochère, the president of "La Manif pour tous".

"It's a victory because what was outlined in the bill clearly wasn't in keeping with what is in the best interests of the child and the family," she continued.

"I'm delighted the government has decided not to try to introduce the reforms. It has obviously realised that those who demonstrated on Sunday were respectable people."

That's one way of looking at the decision, although Rochère seemed to forget that the reform also dealt with the status of step parents (presumably not an acceptable part of her "traditional family values"), the right of adopted children to know the names of their birth parents and making single-parent adoption easier.

Ludovine de la Rochère (screenshot from YouTube video of "La Manif pour tous" demonstration, Paris February 2, 2014)

The other main reason is provided by the opposition centre-right Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, (Union for a Popular Movement, UMP) who clearly believe Hollande is playing a political game ahead of the local elections in March.

"The strategy is to say that every potential controversial law will be put on the backburner until after the local elections," said the president of the UMP, Jean-François Copé.

"It's very serious. It's a way of lying to the French and it's completely outrageous."

Dominique Bertinotti (screenshot BFM TV interview)

Probably the reason for Hollande's decision - badly timed though it might be - lies somewhere between the two with, as usual, his inability to show some cajones when it counts.

Hollande certainly didn't and doesn't want to encourage the mobilisation of opposition in the run-up to the local elections.

But his last-minute change of heart also threatens to throw his own party into some disarray.

He doesn't want to give his opponents political ammunition and these sort of social reforms - no matter how much they might be needed - are highly contested and divisive.

Equally striking perhaps was the way in which the decision was taken.

Hollande, in his usual style, ummed and ahed and in the process allowed an opposition - albeit apparently apolitical - to seize the agenda and later claim its victory.

And it contradicts not only the idea that this government is one truly committed to social reform but also counters positions it had previously held.

Just a year ago, the minister for family, Dominique Bertinotti, who had been charged with responsibility for drafting propositions, assured parliament that PMA would be "addressed in the context of the family bill" and that it was "a strong commitment from a government that has a clear position on this issue."

She also had the backing (at the time) of the prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, who said that, "PMA deserved a (parliamentary) debate and would be included in the bill."

So it has been left up to the government's spokesperson, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, to put the usual spin on what is surely another failure of Hollande to show he has any courage in his (lack of) convictions.

Vallaud-Belkacem insisted that the bill had not been shelved as a reaction to recent "events" but rather because "it simply wasn't ready to be presented to parliament."

But at the same time she outlined that the government's priorities lay elsewhere, namely to fight unemployment (Hollande has already failed to live up to his promise to stop the monthly rise by the end of 2013) and the so-called "Responsibility Pact", giving companies tax breaks to take on new employees.

And Bertinotti? Good trooper that she is, she's remaining silent...for the moment.

But what's the betting she's one of the ministers looking for a new job when Hollande eventually gets around to reshuffling his government.

Daniel Schick interviews Fleur Pellerin - racist and misogynistic or simply provocative?

Fleur Pellerin isn't exactly a household name in France - well not yet.

But that could be about to change especially after she was named to the government in June, taking over the portfolio as junior minister for small and medium enterprises, innovation, and the digital economy.

Fleur Pellerin (screenshot Europe 1 interview)

By way of a bit of background, Pellerin is 38 years old, was born in South Korea and abandoned on the streets of the capital Seoul when she was just three or four days old.

At the age of six months she was adopted by a French couple.

She's bright, very bright even - Pellerin passed her baccalaureate aged just 16 - and has the profile typical of a high flier; a graduate from the prestigious École supérieure des sciences économiques et commerciales (ESSEC business school), Institut d'études politiques de Paris and, of course, the École nationale d'administration.

She has worked at the Cour des comptes (the French court of auditors) and during François Hollande's presidential campaign was his digital economy advisor.

Oh yes - and even though she has never been back since she left, Pellerin is something of a national heroine in South Korea.

Why the potted history?

Well, so that you have a clue as to how talented she is and are able to put into context what was arguably one of the most impertinent beginnings to an interview when she appeared on Europe 1 national radio on Monday.

Just look how journalist Daniel Schick - in an attempt to tease out of Pellerin the reasons behind her appointment - started the interview.

"Do you really know why you were chosen," he asked rhetorically before launching into a number of factors that might or might not have played their part in Hollande's decision.

"Is it because you're an attractive woman from a minority background that's not particularly well represented?" asked Schick

"Is it because you're an example of a successful adoption process or perhaps a strong signal being given to Asian markets," he continued.

"Or is it because you're good at what you do?"

Yes that really was the opening gambit to what, let's face it, could only get better.

Pellerin replied with aplomb that Schick hadn't exactly started the interview off well, in fact quite the opposite.

"You've begun badly," she laughed.

"I would like to think that the president and the prime minister appointed me for my abilities and commitment," she said, before continuing comfortably with the rest of Schick's interview, part of a series which allows listeners to get to know more about an invited guest - and not necessarily along the most conventional of lines.

(Take a listen - it's well worth it)

Schick's rather inelegant start wasn't to the liking of all though, and in particular Laurence Rossignol, a Socialist party senator, who said his questions had been insulting and bordering on racist.

"The misogynist who interviewed Fleur this morning was offensive," she Tweeted.

"Europe 1 should fire him."

And Rossignol wasn't alone in not appreciating the manner in which Schick had begun the interview.

Other reactions on the Internet included "rude", "stupid" and "shamefully macho".

The only person who didn't seem to take any real offence at what had been said was Pellerin herself - both during and afterwards.

She has made no comment.

Schick is known for being provocative - posing the sorts of questions that are bound to displease in a manner which won't always be appreciated - either by the guest or the listeners.

For example early on in an interview with Jean-François Copé, the leader of the centre-right Union pour un mouvement populaire (Union for a Popular Movement, UMP) a couple of weeks ago Schick "asked" him whether it was really possible to be a political leader without being either paranoid of manipulative - thereby implying that Copé was both.

But did he go just a little too far with Pellerin?

Or is it all right for a journalist - in this case Schick - to ask whatever he or she wants in any manner deemed acceptable or not just to see how capable the interviewee is of handling the situation?


Extrait de l'interview misogyne de Fleur... par LeNouvelObservateur

Where the main candidates in the French presidential elections stand on same-sex marriage

It's French presidential election year - just in case you hadn't noticed.

That of course means a chance for each of the candidates to outline where they stand on certain issues and that includes a whole raft of social policies.

They have their differences of course. That's only to be expected.

And one area where those divergences are perhaps most marked is when it comes to the subject of same-sex marriage and parents of the same sex being allowed to adopt.

Neither are currently allowed in France, but that could all change. It depends on who wins the presidential elections.

Broadly speaking, the main candidates fall into three camps.

First of all there are those who are against same-sex marriage (Nicolas Sarkozy and Marine Le Pen) or would perhaps be willing to consider modification to the existing civil partnership law (in the case of Sarkozy) and are opposed to same-sex couples being able to adopt (both Sarkozy and Le Pen).

Then there are those who are in favour of equal rights on both issues - François Hollande, Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Eva Joly.

And finally there's François Bayrou, who of course manages his own particular mix of being against same-sex marriage but for a change in the civil partnership laws and in favour of same-sex couples being able to adopt.

To make things clearer on the subject, the weekly women's magazine Femme Actuelle interviewed six women; five of whom represent each of the main candidates and the sixth, Marine Le Pen, who is of course standing for the far-right Front National.

Here's what some of them had to say.

Speaking for the candidates (screenshot from Femme Actuelle video)

Claude Greff (for Sarkozy), the junior minister for family said that Sarkozy had proposed a change in the civil union in 2007 to create one that would be "specifically for same-sex couples" but it was ruled anti-constitutional.

As far as same-sex marriage is concerned, Sarkozy is against it because it "opens the door to sam-sex couples being able to adopt" and the existing laws which allows single people to adopt is sufficient as it also gives homosexuals the right to adopt.

Anne Hidalgo (for François Hollande) a member of the Socialist party's election campaign team says the belief that both should be made legal is a "right" that has been close to Hollande's heart for some time.

"It's time for politicians to catch up with public opinion and what actually happens in society," she says.

"The two issues have to be treated in the same parliamentary session and Hollande's pledge is to do that by the end of this year."

Civil union should be an absolute right for everyone as far as Bayrou is concerned. And on the question of adoption, "He is a humanist", says Marielle de Sarnez, the vice president of MoDem.

"These children (of same-sex couples) exist," she says. "

Of course adoption needs to have a judicial basis which protects the needs of the child."

Finally speaking for herself, Marine La Pen says quite categorically that she's against both.

"I think a child should have a mother and a father," she says.

While she doesn't intend to reverse the PACS, as far as same-sex marriage is concerned, it's a no-go.

"I think it's just the wishes of an extreme minority," she says.

"I know plenty of homosexuals and not one of them has spoken out in favour of wanting to get married.

Femme Actuelle also interviewed two other women; Clémentine Autain (for Jean-Luc Mélenchon), a member of the Front de Gauche campaign team, and Dominique Voynet, a spokeswoman for the Europe Écologie Les Verts candidate, Eva Joly.

On the subject of same-sex marriage and same-sex couples being allowed to adopt, they were, not surprisingly, both in agreement with Hollande.

Take a look at the remainder of the interviews if you can.

Apart from the issue of same-sex marriage and adoption, the six women are asked about the candidates' policies on the status of step-parents and universal child benefits

They're interesting, not too detailed or heavy but at the same time avoid becoming merely sound bites.

And sometimes the points on which they converge are as surprising as those on which they diverge.

French support gay parents' adoption rights

According to a survey carried out by BVA for the television channel Canal +, 57 per cent of those questioned think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt while 41 per cent are against.

In a similar poll carried out three years ago only 48 per cent of the French were in favour of gay couples having the right to adopt.

Coming just days after a court in the eastern French town of Besançon overruled a regional assembly's decision which had prevented a 48-year-old lesbian from adopting child, the issue on whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt now seems to be a matter of public debate.

Reaction to the latest survey from the governing centre-right Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (Union for a Popular Movement, UMP) party came swiftly as its leader, Xavier Bertrand, was the invited guest on the Canal + early morning news magazine, La Matinale.

And as far as Bertrand was concerned there would be no change in his party's opposition to allowing same-sex couples to adopt.

"There's a lot of talk today about the right to have a child, but for me the priority has to be the rights of the child," he said.

"In a society where there's constant upheaval and change a child needs to have a point of reference, and that means having a mother and a father," he added.

While Bertrand's views might reflect those of many in his party, there are others who at least want the issue debated.

Most notably the junior minister for family, Nadine Morano, who said on national radio earlier in the week that while there were no government plans to change the law, it was nonetheless something that warranted discussion.

"The debate needs to be opened," she said.

"Why not during the next presidential election in 2012?" she added.

"France needs to deal with its hypocrisy," she continued, perhaps a reference to the fact that adoption by single gay men or lesbians is allowed in France and there are currently 30,000 children living in single-parent gay families.

Another member of the government, Hervé Morin, who is leader of the centre-right Nouveau Centre (New Centre) and also the French defence minister went further saying that he was in favour of homosexual couples being allowed to adopt.