Last year in December France’s parliament has voted to extend a national state of emergency until 15 July so till after this year’s elections. The vote in the National Assembly last year passed by 288 to 32, only a few left and right against, all the centre pro globalist parties are in favour of the national state of emergency rule. Should an open, democratic society indefinitely grant exceptional powers to its police and security services?
Unaccustomed to such violence, its politicians proclaim the nation is “at war” with terrorists. This report found that the state of emergency appears, at best, of questionable efficacy in combating terrorism. At worst, it may compound the problems France faces.
Due to my work I hear very often from French police officials and magistrates in interviews that what they lacked is not expansive new powers but the means and personnel to do their jobs under the laws in place before the state of emergency.
So, is it mean to suspect an 'terrorist' attack from e.g. 'moderate' Syrian rebells before, or on, 14. July out of convenience? Why? The emergency law gives the government the authority to order house arrests, police raids and bans on public assemblies and nongovernmental organisations, including the closure of mosques. These measures may be meted out without warrants or other forms of judicial approval; for those affected, any recourse after the fact is often limited and inadequate.
Also, when the French government targets French “suspicious” people, like muslims, with its emergency measures, it reinforces the sense of persecution of this minority. In simple words: the state of emergency has become a public relations exercise rather than a genuine security policy. Through its repressive, over-broad methods, the government is sending a message both to French Muslims, indiscriminately, and about French Muslims to the rest of French society, reinforcing negative stereotypes and hostility.
Since November 2015, police and security forces have carried out about 3,600 raids on homes. These raids, almost always accompanied by searches and seizures, resulted in only six terrorism-related inquiries, only one of which, according to the Ministry of the Interior, led to a prosecution. In fact, as we heard from police union and magistrates’ representatives, most of these home raids were conducted by narcotics units that used these new powers against suspects with no ties to terrorism. There was evidence of similar misuse in the house arrests imposed on 404 people as of May 2016: At least 24 of those were environmental activists detained in the run-up to last year’s Paris climate conference.
If the new President, Macron, has to sort out an accident caused by “terrorists”, some of those manipulated rebels, his entire presidency will be in jeopardy. With 39 years, little practical political experience and half of his parliament and government will be dependent on “advices” from outsiders. Who these outsiders are we know from the security services in the USA. Once these shady security monks are getting involved, this is then when France’s democracy will suffer. I do not have illusions. Macron is certainly not the person governing France. And the worrying conclusion is, if he's driving the FN to win the 2022 election.