No abstract

No abstract

A significant body of literature demonstrates that the discourse of laïcité has become steadily more politicised in recent years (Gidley, Hajjar et al. 2016, 2017). This has led to the omerta around Islamophobia in the French political sphere. Instead a series of discursive constructs have come to be coupled with the normative rulings of secularism (Kahn 2007). Based on eighteen months (October 2015-May 2017) of ethnographic research in the tense context of Parisian civil society due to austerity and insecurity, this paper shows how interfaith initiatives and faith-based social action figure into a new landscape of state-enforced values under a state of emergency, where one religion in particular is under scrutiny. The primary argument is that while interfaith education and outreach are dialogical vectors for combating discrimination they are constrained by the discourse of laïcité and the implicit targeting of Muslims in the state of emergency (état d'urgence). Seldom explicit, the approach of many of these interfaith associations 2 in terms of dialogue between religions, show a lack of critical space granted to laïcité and its epistemological correlation to anti-clericalism. By contrast, faith-based social action, and its inevitable multifaith encounter, generates more personal understandings about discrimination. Therefore second, I suggest that it is through social action that the recognition of religious identity as a factor acting in favour of a shared secular-religious common good can come about.

Current guidelines from the British Orthopaedic Association state that if fractures of the distal radius are operated on then this should take place within 3 days of injury for intra-articular fractures, 7 days for extra-articular fractures and 3 days when a trial of conservative management has failed. This retrospective cohort study aimed to assess whether there was any difference in outcome between patients receiving timely or delayed surgery, using the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score at >12 months after injury as the primary outcome measure. Data from 380 patients treated at two district general hospitals over a 5-year period were obtained using electronic databases to capture the demographics and treatment details and postal questionnaires to assess current function. The study showed no statistical or clinical differences in outcome measures between the timely or delayed cohorts in any of the three treatment groups. Level of evidence: III

No abstract