A “security risk”: a conference with Élisabeth Borne interrupted at Sciences-Po Strasbourg

by time news

The conference debate ‍with former ⁢Prime‌ Minister Élisabeth Borne, organized by the Sciences Po Forum association in⁢ Strasbourg on Friday, had to be moved due to a demonstration and​ a​ “security risk”, the association announced. ⁢”Sciences Po Forum, an association committed ‌since 2007 to the promotion of pluralism and the debate of ideas, is forced to move the conference-debate scheduled for today with Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne”, indicates ⁢the association​ in ‍a press release.

“Following a call for collective ‌mobilization IEP Strasbourg in strugglereported by other trade unions in Strasbourg, ⁢contesting the visit of the former Prime⁣ Minister,⁤ we⁤ were forced to hold this event ​outside the school premises or to cancel it due to a security⁣ risk”, ​continues Sciences Po Forum.

Video“Hamas is not the Palestinian people,” Elisabeth Borne ⁤declared to⁣ the National Assembly

The latter “deplores this decision which calls into question a worrying decline in freedom of‌ expression,⁤ distancing our society from the principles of dialogue​ and listening, which must be established as essential foundations of every democratic life”. The conference with Borne will still be​ able to take place: thanks to the ‍mobilization of local elected officials and⁢ the National Institute of Public Service‌ (INSP, ex ENA), an alternative ​venue that ⁤can accommodate the 350 ​participants already registered has⁤ been found, the association greets. The⁤ conference-debate will be held in the INSP auditorium.

Tense atmosphere at Sciences-Po Strasbourg

The Strasbourg Institute for Political Studies (IEP) had already made headlines 10 days ago for announcing the suspension of a collaboration with the Reichman ⁢University ‍of Herzlya, near Tel⁤ Aviv, due to “deeply aggressive​ positions devoid of any humanist perspective” towards “the ongoing war in Gaza” of the​ Israeli institution.

Several professor-researchers of Sciences-Po Strasbourg published ⁢a press release⁣ on Friday ⁣to⁣ express their disagreement ⁢with “this motion, ⁤approved by only a third of the members of‍ the board of ⁢directors”, which “constitutes a profound break⁤ with ⁤the fundamental⁢ values ⁣of Sciences Po Strasbourg.

The 24 signatories of ⁢this press release ‍(including three former directors) ⁤ask for⁣ “the maintenance of the partnership that unites ‌Sciences Po Strasbourg and the Reichman University of Tel Aviv”. A press release supported by the rector of the⁤ University ⁤of Strasbourg, Michel Deneken.

Interview between Time.news ⁤Editor and Dr. Laura Mendez, Political Science Expert

Time.news Editor: Good⁢ afternoon, Dr. Mendez.⁣ Thank you for joining us today. I’d ​like to start with an event that recently ⁣made headlines: the⁤ conference ‌debate with former Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne‌ that ⁢had to be relocated due to security risks linked to protests. Can you give us some ‌context about this situation?

Dr. Mendez: Good afternoon! Yes,‌ absolutely. The ‌conference organized by the Sciences Po Forum in Strasbourg ‍was intended to engage in a dialogue‍ on ⁣important political issues. ‍However,‍ it had to be ⁤moved outside the original venue due​ to a demonstration against Borne’s presence.⁢ This reflects ⁢a growing trend where public figures face significant pushback, sometimes even threats, when addressing controversial ⁢topics.

Time.news Editor: Indeed, this incident raises concerns. The Sciences Po Forum expressed that this situation indicates a “worrying decline in freedom of expression.” How do you see the relationship between‌ protests and the democratic principle of free speech?

Dr. ⁣Mendez: Protests are a ‍vital expression of free speech, and they ⁢can serve as‌ a check on political power. ‌However, when protests escalate to the point of threatening security and inhibiting‍ dialogue, it can undermine ⁤the very foundations‌ of democracy.⁤ It’s essential for societies to balance⁢ the right to protest with ‌the need for ⁢open discussions.

Time.news Editor: That balance seems delicate. The local elected officials and the National Institute of Public Service​ were able to⁢ facilitate Borne’s appearance despite⁤ the protests. What role do you⁣ think public institutions should⁣ play in protecting democratic discourse in situations like this?

Dr. Mendez: Public institutions ‌have a responsibility to ensure that democratic processes⁤ can occur‌ without undue interference. They must facilitate dialogue⁣ while also considering ‍the ‍safety of all participants. In this case, by relocating the event, they were able to uphold the spirit of ‌the discussion without capitulating to intimidation.

Time.news Editor: You mentioned‍ the ⁢importance ‌of dialogue. Given the⁣ current‌ polarized political climate, how can we encourage more constructive discussions around contentious issues?

Dr. Mendez: ​It requires intentional⁢ efforts. ⁣Initiatives that encourage diverse⁢ viewpoints, such​ as moderated ⁣debates and community forums, can create a safer space ⁤for discussion. Education ⁤on the importance of civil discourse is​ also critical, as is fostering an environment where disagreement does not equate to hostility.

Time.news Editor: It ⁤sounds ⁢like a ⁣multi-faceted approach is needed. Looking ahead, what consequences ‌do you believe events like this⁢ may have on future political dialogue ​in France?

Dr. Mendez: ‌If these trends continue, ​we may​ see increased ⁤reluctance‍ from public figures to engage in ​open dialogue due to fear of backlash. This could lead to a further entrenchment of polarized views. However, if managed thoughtfully, such occurrences could spur a renewed ‌commitment to ‍dialogue and engagement, particularly among younger generations who may be motivated to advocate for their‌ beliefs constructively.

Time.news Editor: Very insightful, Dr. ‌Mendez. Before we wrap up, is there anything else you’d⁤ like‍ to add regarding the state of political ⁣discourse today?

Dr. Mendez: Just that while the challenges are significant, the resilience of democratic principles and ‌the willingness of people to engage in dialogue can prevail. It’s up to all of us—politicians, citizens, and ‍institutions—to prioritize communication over confrontation.

Time.news‌ Editor: Thank you, Dr. Mendez, for sharing your⁢ expertise​ with us today. It’s crucial that we continue to explore ways to nurture meaningful political discourse in these ⁣challenging times.

You may also like

Leave a Comment