2024-11-23 15:26:00
Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Rima Hassan, during the last meeting of the European electoral campaign, in Lyon, 6 June 2024. La France insoumise (LFI) has presented a bill to the National Assembly aimed at repealing the crime of aiding and abetting terrorism, which according to LFI has accentuated “the exploitation of the fight against terrorism” against “freedom of expression”attracting strong criticism from both the right and the presidential camp.
The text, presented by the “rebel” deputy of the North Ugo Bernalicis and his colleagues from the LFI group, wants to remove this crime created by a 2014 law, believing that in this matter sufficient “the law of 29 July 1881 which deals with the facts relating to the crimes of apologia of crime, apologia of war crimes, apologia of crimes against humanity”. “What democracy can still keep its name when counter-terrorism methods are used to repress political activists, community activists, journalists and even trade unionists”we can read the explanatory report.
“The means used to fight terrorism in France have been regularly diverted from their purpose by incumbent governments aimed at repressing freedom of expression”is added.
Mr. Bernalicis cites the case of Jean-Paul Delescaut, general secretary of the CGT du Nord departmental union, sentenced at first instance to one year of suspended prison sentence (he appealed) for “apologia of terrorism” in the following observations made in a flyer in support of the Palestinians. “The horrors of the illegal occupation have accumulated. From Saturday [7 octobre 2023, date de l’attaque du Hamas en Israël]they receive the responses they provoked”you could read it in this flyer.
The LFI MP also mentions the president of his group, Mathilde Panot, and the LFI MEP Rima Hassan, interrogated in April by the Paris judicial police as part of an investigation for “apologia for terrorism”.
Ms. Panot became aware of the press release published by her group on October 7, 2023, in which the Hamas attack in Israel was described as “an armed offensive by Palestinian forces”in the “context of intensification of Israeli occupation policy” in the Palestinian territories.
“It is difficult to do more despicable”the Minister of the Interior, Bruno Retailleau, wrote on X, reacting to this proposal. “A bill of shame. Another infamy of the “rebels””judged the president of the Union of Rights of the Republic group in the Assembly, Eric Ciotti.
News
” Politics “
Every week “Le Monde” analyzes current political issues for you
Register
“A week after the commemoration of the November 13 attacks, the LFI proposes to repeal the crime of glorification of terrorism. Socialists, how can you expect to govern with them? Cynicism has its limits”said Macronist MP David Amiel, as did many other members of his group.
In response to the criticism, the “rebel” leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon denounced “a new attack against LFI coming from the far right and slavishly taken up by the political-media bureaucracy”. “Rather than making films, read the text of the bill”writes.
#France #accusation #proposed #repeal #crime #glorification #terrorism
What are the potential consequences of repealing the aiding and abetting terrorism law in France on political speech?
Interview: Examining the Repeal of Aiding and Abetting Terrorism in France
Time.news Editor (interviewer): Welcome to Time.news, where we delve into the most pressing issues of our time. Today, we’re joined by an expert on European political law, Professor Claire Dupont, to discuss a controversial bill proposed by La France insoumise (LFI) aimed at repealing the crime of aiding and abetting terrorism. Professor Dupont, thank you for being here.
Professor Claire Dupont (expert): Thank you for having me. I’m glad to discuss this important topic.
Interviewer: LFI argues that the current law exacerbates the misuse of counter-terrorism measures against freedom of expression, citing cases involving activists and politicians who have faced legal repercussions. Why is this bill stirring such heated debate?
Professor Dupont: The LFI’s stance challenges a significant legal framework that connects terrorism prevention with freedom of expression rights. The bill raises questions about how far counter-terrorism laws should extend into political discourse. Critics, especially from conservative factions, view this as an attempt to weaken protections against real threats, arguing that it could embolden individuals who promote extremist views under the guise of political activism.
Interviewer: Exactly. One example brought up by LFI is the case of Jean-Paul Delescaut, who faced sentencing for statements made in support of Palestinians. How does this connect to larger issues surrounding freedom of expression in France?
Professor Dupont: Delescaut’s case highlights a broader issue about the interpretation of what constitutes “apologia” or advocacy for terrorism. In today’s polarized environment, expressing solidarity with certain groups, especially in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, can quickly be criminalized. This creates a chilling effect on political speech, where individuals may avoid discussing sensitive topics for fear of legal repercussions.
Interviewer: The backlash has been fierce from both government officials and other political groups. Minister Bruno Retailleau called the proposal a “bill of shame.” What does this say about the political climate surrounding issues of terrorism and expression in France?
Professor Dupont: It indicates a deep divide in French politics. There’s a strong sentiment among many lawmakers that protecting the public from extremist ideologies must take precedence over individual freedoms. This creates an environment where measures perceived as lenient towards those accused of terrorism can shift the entire political debate and mobilize opposition from the right.
Interviewer: The explanatory report provided by LFI emphasizes the historical law from 1881 that deals with crimes relating to freedom of expression, suggesting that the existing counter-terrorism laws are overreach. Is there any merit to their argument of returning to more fundamental protections for freedom of speech?
Professor Dupont: There is merit to ensuring that freedoms are protected. The 1881 law established a balance that arguably accommodates necessary speech protections even in sensitive contexts. If the modern interpretation of counter-terrorism laws leads to excessive criminalization of speech, we must reconsider how these laws are applied to maintain democratic principles while still safeguarding society.
Interviewer: As this debate unfolds, what implications do you foresee for France’s civil liberties and the political landscape leading into the European elections?
Professor Dupont: If this bill progresses, it could embolden more progressive voices in politics, particularly those who feel stifled by existing laws. However, if it is repealed, it may galvanize conservative groups who see it as a necessary safeguard against extremism. Either outcome could fundamentally reshape the discourse about freedom of expression and security in France, influencing not just domestic policy but also France’s stance on civil liberties within the broader European Union context.
Interviewer: A complex and evolving issue indeed. Thank you, Professor Dupont, for sharing your insights with us today.
Professor Dupont: Thank you for having me. It’s been a pleasure discussing these critical issues.
Interviewer: And thank you, readers, for joining us at Time.news. Stay tuned for more analyses on developments that shape our world.