Editorial. In dealing with bigotry, legal weapons are a duty

A difficult ordeal for a democratic state is the repatriation of its soil citizens who have betrayed the core of the republic, its foundations and values, at the stage of taking up arms against their own country. It is, of course, a duty. In fact, all citizens are equal before the law. The return of 35 French minors, as well as 16 women who were detained in Syria because the latter supported the cause of Islamic State, marks a major political turning point for the French government. However, this is only a first step, necessary and legitimate, to ensure the return to France of all citizens detained in Syria in horrific circumstances. No matter the place or the work, every French person has the right to consular protection and fair and equitable treatment.

Clearly, once the people concerned return to national soil, their fate differs depending on whether the French returning from Syria are minors or adults. Establishing each other’s criminal liability depends on the court, not on the administration’s discretion. Let us not forget that children, from the moment the criminal majority is not involved, are the first victims who must be protected. They will always be better in our country than in the camp where they lived in solitude without education or care … A nation must protect its children, no matter what their parents do. The surest way is to be able to verify that they are not following the deviant path of their parents.

In the case of adults, it is also up to the court to describe the law and establish liability for their past actions and their potential current dangers. It goes for the 16 women who returned this week as well as those who will follow ৷ The case is politically explosive, as there is a risk of recurrence. It is up to the state to take all measures to prevent this from happening. It is always better to face potential dangers than to ignore them.


Photo Ebra / XF

What drives the collective after this repatriation?

“Unless repatriation is effective, we don’t really believe it. We had a lot of disappointment from 2017 and Emanuel Macron’s first term. We are happy with the repatriation, but we are still worried about leaving many children behind. A

Why this “unblocking” now?

“When Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark or Sweden were doing it, it was becoming difficult for France to lag behind in the repatriation of its own citizens. Although we are a country of human rights, as well as a perpetrator of crime (International Convention on the Rights of the Child, Editor’s comment) France’s position was in stark contrast to its past promises. This created a problem for the influence of France, it became heard all over the world and even became ridiculous. Lawyers, like Mr. Marie Dos, have worked tirelessly to warn these mothers of the difficult situation they are going through, some of whom have very serious health problems. On the other hand, children live in violence, where they see their lives getting worse every day, including 50 degrees Celsius in summer and 10 degrees Celsius in winter. The president said his second order would be child protection ান্স France, the queen of human rights, could not go on like this and leave these children in an absolutely tragic situation. A

Political agenda, reluctance of public opinion according to Elysee, have they slowed down this repatriation?

“I am very confused in this situation. It was believed that some people in the government did not want the repatriation, they said, due to unfavorable public opinion. But does the government want public opinion while limiting the pace for our tax calculations? We are committed to the policy question and we welcome this first step. But those who will be there will feel it is unfair when they want only one thing: to go back to France, to go to school, to play like any other child. Why did you only send 35 back when a plane could hold 250? Why postpone what you can do today until tomorrow? There is an inconsistency. A

Leave a Comment