Thread by @luminatus1

France: the republican reaction, the great democratic leap back

Has the defense of the republic and its values ​​become the pretext in France for a political reaction which undermines precisely these same values ​​and this same republic,

middleeasteye.net/fr/opinion-fr/…

Has the defense of the republic and its values ​​become the pretext in France for a political reaction which undermines precisely these same values ​​and this same republic, also understood as peaceful living together?

Astonishment and grief in France. The blood had hardly dried, that of Samuel Paty, like that of the victims of Nice. Tears, no. But it didn't take long for the words to come when there should have been silence and mourning first.

Radio and TV mornings on October 30. On Europe 1, the mayor of Nice, Christian Estrosi, asks to change the Constitution, to leave the laws of peace to deny the right to "enemies of the law". On CNews, the Republican deputy (right) Éric Ciotti calls for "a French Guantánamo".

A "frightened" columnist advocates "changing the rules of law which mean that you cannot accuse someone of facts they have not yet committed". Previously, he had slipped that it was necessary to "take advantage" of the tragedy of Samuel Patty's death to resume the provisions

of the Avia law censored by the Constitutional Council

Marine Le Pen is outdated on its ideological tropism. The French political class, with few exceptions, has achieved the feat of placing itself to the right of the National Rally (far right). On the verge of political abyss.

De-democratization & hyper-republicanism

Are we witnessing in France a de-democratization, or systematic dismantling of the founding laws of the Republic?

The very ones that have settled down through centuries of progressive and democratic struggles that have ensured civil society

Conversely, de-democratization, according to its theorist Wendy Brown, consists "in emptying democracy of its substance without formally suppressing it".

More precisely, it is defined by philosopher Étienne Balibar as "both rise of authoritarian & security mechanisms, the loss of legitimacy& representativeness of parliamentary institutions,& the displacement of real power centers beyond the reach of control & of citizens'

citizens' initiative".

This de-democratization seems to be done in the name of the defense of the republic. In this, it is a reactionary movement that we will call “republican reaction” or hyper-republicanism.

This de-democratization is carried by a French intellectualo-politico-media current which, in the name of the “fight against extremism” (or “Islamism”, “separatism”, “communitarianism”) and of “the defense of the republic And freedom, develops an argument precisely contrary

precisely contrary to the defended ideals.

In double thought (doublethink) theorized by Orwell, the republican laws of various freedoms are then undermined in the name of the defense of the republic. This reaction is being built in France against people assimilated

This reaction is being built in France against people assimilated to a Muslim identity, the inhabitants of working-class neighborhoods, and now spills out more widely against all those who contest this vision.

Freedom-killing legislation At the legislative level, while the "rights" to "blaspheme" or "caricature" are being demanded, other rights and public freedoms, acquired through hard struggle against the public power, are threatened.

Would it be pure cynicism to imagine that the more are agitated and brandished as fundamental these "rights" to blaspheme and caricature, the more the rights that link, counter-power and civil society, are undermined?

Because what about the freedom to demonstrate, to assemble, the protection of one's privacy, the rights of defense, the freedom of education and education?

Slip by slip, will we arrive at a strange reversal of secularism, which will make this principle not the neutrality of the state in matters of religion, but a religious sanitization of public space, a religious neutrality of citizens?

Observe the so-called “anti-separatism” bill. If the law on secularism of 1905 lays down the principle of the "neutrality" of public services, and therefore of its agents, in religious matters, the law on "separatism" intends to extend this principle to companies delegating

delegating public service such as RATP, EDF, Paris Aéroports, SNCF. In other words, their employees, although not civil servants, will be subject to the same principle of religious neutrality.

Are we moving towards a secularism that will lose the spirit of freedom that has always animated it? What should we think of the recent attacks against the Observatory of Secularism, and more precisely its general rapporteur Nicolas Cadène?

He had been given as "replaced" under the pretext of a secularism "of appeasement" and "of defense of the Muslims" which would displease at the top of the state. However, a number of associations and civil society actors have underlined the impeccable work of the Observatory,

impeccable work of the Observatory, in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the law of 1905.

Slip by slip, will we arrive at a strange inversion of secularism, which will make this principle not the neutrality of the State in matters of religion,

but a religious sanitization of the public space, a religious neutrality of citizens in this same space and a religious neutrality not only of public services but of any service to the public (therefore, private companies as well)?

Such an eventuality would make the state the arbiter and judge of the degree of religiosity acceptable or not in this public space.

Storming the great republican laws What about the 1901 law on associations?

Emmanuel Macron, during his speech against “separatism” on October 2, declared: “Associations must unite and not fracture the nation.

The leverage of money is then used since any public subsidy will be conditional on the signing of a "charter of secularism"

The leverage of money is then used since any public subsidy will be conditional on the signing of a "charter of secularism" by which the beneficiaries will undertake to implement, in a vague formulation, the "values ​​of the Republic. ".

However, is it up to the government to say what the associations must do, at the risk of calling into question this freedom which remains the basis of civil society? And isn't freedom of association precisely one of those republican "values"?

Also in this speech, and still under the pretext of fighting against "separatism", the French president announced that except for medical dispensation, family education would henceforth be prohibited.

Here again, it is one of the great republican laws, that of 1882 which founded public education in France, which is abused.

This law provides for the possibility of private and parental education. Presidential silence, however, regarding the Debré law, which subsidizes private, often denominational, education.

Also within the framework of this bill, the Minister of the Interior Gerald Darmanin announced that the offense of separatism would punish with five years in prison those and those who refuse to be treated by a doctor of the other sex.

The free choice of doctor by his patient is however enshrined in the code of medical ethics (art. 6).

Another question is that the Minister of Justice could consider amending the 1881 law on freedom of the press to get rid of hate speech offenses.

This would make it possible to prosecute citizens for speech offenses, since the 1881 law in fact offers a special protection regime for freedom of expression.

In addition, the "new national plan for maintaining order", published on September 16, now states that "the offense of staying in a crowd after summons does not include any exception, including for the benefit of journalists. or members of associations ”.

This text, intended for gendarmes and police, is already contested by a large number of journalists, who are worried about their freedom to cover the demonstrations. Freedom of the press, the right to information and the freedom to demonstrate are simply undermined.

A strengthening of the security architecture Another text that greatly worries associations and officials of civil society, the proposed law on global security. According to the careful study carried out by La Quadrature du Net,

"its article 21 seeks to deregulate the use of mobile cameras carried by law enforcement agencies. Its article 22 wants to legalize drone surveillance. Its article 24 wants to prohibit the public from diffusing the image of police officers "

Ten years after riots in the suburbs, police violence continues Read La Quadrature du Net denounces in particular the "confrontational" approach of this bill, which "aims above all to dissuade the population from participating in demonstrations

whether by psychological exhaustion of the participants (practice of the trap, blocking or filtering entering and exiting the course, gassing, body searches, abusive behavior) or by physical violence (LBD, grenades, charges) ”.

Article 21 of this proposal will allow the use of mobile cameras by security forces with the possibility of transmission "in real time to the command post". There is bound to be the question of real-time analysis of images by facial recognition software.

So easy identification of the demonstrators, who may subsequently be prevented from attending other demonstrations. Finally, article 24 proposes to prohibit the public from disseminating "the facial image

disseminating "the facial image or any other element of identification of an official of the national police". However, without these images broadcast in France, no Benalla affair, no debates around police violence (Burger King, trippy to Geneviève Legay, crippled and crippled).

Here again, these measures directly threaten the freedoms to demonstrate, to assemble, to move, the rights to safety, security and physical integrity. With the use of drones, it is also a vision in human management and engineering that is being promoted

human management and engineering that is being promoted - what would previously have been called counterinsurgency methods, plus "drone" technology and advanced logistics.

Academic freedom in question and subject to question

On the university side, in an interview with the far-right magazine Valeurs nouvelles, Emmanuel Macron claimed: “The university world was to blame. He encouraged the ethnicization of the social question, believing it to be

believing it to be a good vein.

However, the outlet can only be secessionist. " Immediately after the Nice attack, an adviser to the executive set the tone:

This will be the question of the 2022 presidential campaign: what place is society prepared to give to arbitrariness to protect itself from an even more arbitrary danger.

»We are warned ...

The Minister of Education, Jean-Michel Banquer, has since castigated in his turn an

has since castigated in his turn an "Islamogauchism" which "wreaks havoc on the university" and whose followers are "the intellectual accomplices of terrorism".

Should a link be made between these official releases and the research programming law for which the Senate has just adopted an amendment to its first article: "Academic freedoms are exercised with respect for the values ​​of the Republic", “Foremost among which is secularism”?

A possible stab at academic freedom relating to research, teaching and what is expressed without being pressured or threatened by academics, teachers and students.

Immediately after the Nice attack, an adviser to the executive set the tone: "This will be the question of the 2022 presidential campaign: what place is society prepared to give to arbitrariness to protect itself from an even more arbitrary danger. »We are warned ...

Republican reaction, Marranism and McCarthyism

By what tremendous sleight of hand do we come to defend freedom in France by explicitly calling for the end of the rule of law? To claim to defend secularism by transforming the religious neutrality of the state

by transforming the religious neutrality of the state into the neutrality of public space if not of individuals in this same public space?

To condemn all "communitarianism" while maintaining a community vision of individuals, Muslims in France being summoned with each attack

Muslims in France being summoned with each attack not to "be" and to condemn in a community way acts that they condemn as citizens?

Murder of Samuel Paty: when the right to offend Muslims is exploited

Read

Astonishing France where the open security parenthesis with the state of emergency continues in the planing of the rule of law.

The preamble to the 1958 Constitution states from its article 1 paragraph 1 that France is "an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic". The order of Republican attributes is interesting in itself. This is perhaps one of the dividing lines that cut France.

Two societal projects emerge: a republic that is above all indivisible and secular versus a primarily democratic and social republic. But Régis Debray was already warning: “You can call yourself a republican without behaving like a democrat. "

In this climate, why has this republicanist reaction seized on the word "Islam" to make it a ram against all the values ​​it claims to defend? What is "Islam" used for as an empty signifier?

Is there a pretext for the laziness of journalists who prefer to fill the trays with vituperations & easy answers rather than work on complex files? Is it the veil of the absolute powerlessness of politicians to sustain public service when so little power is still left to them?

A way to dig an electoral trail? The pretext for strengthening a legal-security state as the country faces potentially destabilizing economic turmoil and provokes popular protest?

On the basis of a primacy to secularism and indivisibility, do we observe the appearance of a secularist and republicanist fundamentalism all the more dangerous in that it denies a reality: that of the banality of the presence of Muslims in France, whether French or not?

In sociological reality, the Muslim is also the one who heals, teaches, leads, advises, expertise, works, makes society. Under the pretext of fighting against various "isms" (Islamism, radicalism, separatism, communitarianism), these reactionary republicanists create schisms

Under the pretext of fighting against various "isms" (Islamism, radicalism, separatism, communitarianism), these reactionary republicanists create schisms within French society. Because this is again a paradox, their universalist pretensions split and fracture French society.

Such a special universalism This republicanist reaction claims to oppose communitarianism by means of "universalism". Except that this universalism can sometimes be grasped as a particularism that has succeeded.

History is riddled with "universalisms" which were basically only imperialisms. It was just as much in the name of a "universal" that the Catholic Church (a word whose Greek root means precisely universal) hunted down Jews,

It was just as much in the name of a "universal" that the Catholic Church (a word whose Greek root means precisely universal) hunted down Jews, Muslims, heretics and witches. All the figures of otherness who contradicted this uniform "great whole".

What is "Islam" used for as an empty signifier? [..] The pretext for strengthening a legal-security state as the country faces potentially destabilizing economic turbulence and provokes popular protest?

Does this republican universalism fall into the same inquisitorial drive? In a "republicano-McCarthyism", in the words of political scientist Jean-François Bayart, who emphasizes: "Whether the term likes it or not, there is indeed a state Islamophobia in France".

Before him, Emmanuel Todd saw in the Charlie protests the persistence of what he called "zombie Catholicism."

Certainly, the public thing or res publica has been extracted from religion, but not from sacredness.

A secular sacredness, with its martyrology, its ceremonies, its liturgy and its breviary.
As well as with his heretics and his blasphemies. For the Muslims of France, on the occasion of a Republican Reconquista,

will the future be a republican neo-Marranism which will force the Muslims to erase from them even the most tenuous trace of any religious practice? Until it disappears from the public space, in physical and citizen withdrawal?

Comparison is not right, but this injunction to erase religion can also be understood, for example, in this insert distributed on social networks by the Ministry of the Interior: "Violent radicalization, Islamism ...

If you have doubts about someone around you ”; A toll-free number followed and the addition: "In case of emergency, call 17! "(Exclamation mark as a bonus).
Is this a call to denunciation that leaves everyone to judge the religiosity, & therefore the dangerousness, of their ne

The bankruptcy of the clerics This Republican reaction also has its clerics. The university column published in Le Monde thus lent its support to Jean-Michel Blanquer,

who had spoken of "Islamogauchism" causing "havoc at the university". This forum calls for the creation of a "body responsible for directly tracing cases of violation of Republican principles and academic freedom".

"An intellectual," said philosopher Herbert Marcuse, "is someone who refuses to compromise with the dominant. "The French intellectual community lives in the memory of the Dreyfus affair, during which the very term" intellectual "was born. Yet this is a symbolic rent that

symbolic rent that continues to demonetize. As early as the 1920s and 1930s, Julien Benda explained in his book La Trahison des clercs how intellectuals advocated order and a strong state in the name of supposedly universal values ​​but eminently nationalist in their essence.

As early as the 1920s and 1930s, Julien Benda explained in his book La Trahison des clercs how intellectuals advocated order and a strong state in the name of supposedly universal values ​​but eminently nationalist in their essence.

The intellectual clerics had also been denounced by Paul Nizan in Les Chiens de garde. The intellectual challenged the belief that these intellectuals think for the common good, recalling that like everyone else, they are the product of a contingent social environment

product of a contingent social environment that influences their intellectual production.

Equally, they are the guardians of an order that reassures, fills and honors them. An order they have no interest in seeing contested, if not disappearing.

Here again, the "republic" has become the pretext for this "reactionary libido" that Daniel Lindenberg had analyzed in his pamphlet The Call to Order: Investigation of the New Reactionaries. The historian detailed with the scalpel of ideas these intellectuals persuaded

these intellectuals persuaded to be still "of the left", but who basically expressed a rejection of anti-racism, human rights, Islam, interbreeding, equality. Ultimately, democracy?

@threadreaderapp unroll