Jump to content

Liberté, égalité, fraternité


Recommended Posts

Tema za dešavanja u zemlji Gala i Franaka. 


We in France must face terrorism without losing our soul
Nathalie Goulet
After the massacre in Nice, if the republic is ever to bring its lost children back into the fold it must resist any further suspension of civil liberties
In France we are sad and angry. The Charlie Hebdo spirit is gone for ever, and with it any kind of national solidarity.
Politically we face a presidential election next year, a contest whose outcome will be determined by which candidate can demonstrate their determination to bring in new security powers and measures to our already overloaded statute books.
We were already under a state of emergency when the Nice attack took place. In fact, President François Hollande delivered the traditional Bastille Day speech to the nation declaring that he would lift the draconian measures imposed after the Paris atrocities last November.
But the Nice attacker was not on a watchlist, and the truck attack could not have been foreseen. The killer wasn’t known as an individual who had been radicalised. The intelligence services had no trace of him because he had apparently lived an ordinary life. This is the scariest part of the aftermath of Nice: how do we prevent such attacks coming from any ordinary neighbourhood?
I am afraid the answer is, we cannot.
Nice is a very secure city with a lot of CCTV cameras in the streets and a strong local police presence, in addition to national policing. The mayor of Nice is very involved in this situation.
Presidential and parliamentary elections are planned for 2017, and after this event security will dominate all the election manifestos even more than it already would have done.
After Nice we feel blindsided by violence. French society, like many others, is sick. We now have more than 10,000 young French people under surveillance who are believed to be on the verge of radicalisation, including 40% who are converts to Islam. But we need a reality check: no amount of new anti-terror legislation will bring them back from the fringes of extremism to where they belong in French society.
These people have in fact lost any link to their citizenship. For those lost children of France, we have to restore trust in the French Republic. And that means more education and less discrimination. We don’t need any further suspension of civil liberties; we need to apply the existing law with zero tolerance for any crime committed in France whether by a national or by a non-national. But we also have to avoid Islamophobia.
France, along with many other countries, is facing the most challenging time of its history. How do you fight against terrorism when you live in a democracy? It is possible – and it has to be done without losing your soul.


Link to comment

"Je propose qu'on déclare le salafisme hors-la-loi", dit Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet



LR se postavljaju oštro, prvo Sarki, sad i Natali. 

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Sarko će da popizdi:


France's highest court suspends burkini ban in test case

Suspension concerns single ban in southern town but is likely to set precedent for other places that prohibited full-body swimwear 

France’s highest administrative court has suspended a ban on the burkini in a Riviera coastal town after a challenge by rights groups.

The ruling from the state council suspends a single decree against full-body swimsuits issued by the mayor in the southern resort of Villeneuve-Loubet, near Nice. But it is likely to set a precedent for other towns that have banned the swimwear on their beaches.


The state council ruled that the mayor did not have the right to issue a burkini ban – stating that local authorities could only restrict individual liberties if there was a “proven risk” to public order. It believed that proven risk had not been demonstrated.
The bans – made in the form of short-term mayoral decrees – began to be issued in a series of beach spots following the Bastille Day attack in Nice and the murder of a priest in Normandy.

They do not explicitly use the word burkini but ban “beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation”, citing reasons such as the need to protect public order, hygiene or French laws on secularism.
At a hearing before the state council on Thursday, lawyers for the rights groups in the Villeneuve-Loubet case argued that the bans were feeding fear and infringe on basic freedom.

A lower court had ruled on Monday that the Villeneuve-Loubet ban was necessary to prevent public disorder. But the state council found that this did not hold up under French law.

The row over burkinis had intensified after a woman in a headscarf was photographed on a beach in Nice removing a long-sleeved top while surrounded by armed police.

Link to comment

Islam on the Beach – The Burkini Ban in France
Thomas Hochmann

Fr 19 Aug 2016
Thomas Hochmann ist Professor für Öffentliches Recht an der Universität Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Frankreich.



In 1964, a young woman wearing a monokini played table tennis on the Croisette, the famous road along the shore in the city of Cannes. She was sentenced for outraging public decency. Half a century later, the mayor of Cannes just banned on his beaches the burkini, a full-body swimsuit weared by some Muslim women. Some other coastal cities followed, one administrative tribunal confirmed, and a new controversy around the keyword “laïcité” was born. It seems to me that the burkini-ban is a legal error and a political mistake.

In 2010, French parliament passed a law prohibiting “the concealment of the face in public space.” This act was passed to ban the burqa, but it does not provide any support to the ban of the burkini, which leaves the face visible. The European Court of Human Rights found no violation of the Convention, but its decision was entirely based on the adverse effect that the concealment of the face can have on the interaction between individuals. Furthermore, it insisted on the fact that “the ban (was) not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it conceals the face.” (Id., § 151.) Dealing with the same law, the French Constitutional Council also mentioned this idea of a “minimum requirement of life in society.” It added the necessity of being able to identify individuals, and found that the parliament could consider that the integral veil placed women in a “situation of exclusion and inferiority.” Each of these arguments loses a lot of its relevance when it is applied to a swimsuit that does not cover the face.

Some justifications for the burkini-ban are patently pure pretexts, and do not deserve an analysis. It was for instance suggested that this decision was taken for purposes of hygiene, or because this swimsuit would make harder the intervention of the rescue services in case of drowning. Of course, nobody really believes that the issue lies there. Three arguments are seriously advanced for the burkini-ban, and none of them seems persuasive.

First, the ordinance of Cannes’ mayor target the clothes that do not respect the laïcité. But this is a distortion of the laïcité principle. This constitutional principle is directly aimed at the public authorities only. It imposes a religious neutrality to them. The public lifeguard watching the bathers cannot wear an Islamic veil, but this interdiction does not apply to the bathers. Except in some specific areas where a specific law was adopted (this is the case of the public schools), private individuals are not compelled to observe a religious neutrality. Religious freedom does not cease where the beach begins, despite the observation of the administrative tribunal of Nice that beaches are not “an appropriate place” to exercise one’s freedom of religion.

Second, the principal argument of Cannes’ public authorities consists in viewing the burkini as an allegiance to the Islamic terroristic organizations. Should this the be the case, the burkini should indeed be banned, the apology of terrorism being a criminal offense. One can understand that, a month after July 14th drama in his city, the judge of Nice’s tribunal lent weight to this interpretation. However, the burkini seems to be nothing more than a water-proof Islamic veil. The assimilation of any manifestation of Islamic beliefs to the support of terrorism is a terribly dangerous mistake that could be fatal to the peaceful coexistence, the “vivre ensemble” that the French parliament said it was willing to protect when it banned the integral veil.

Third, a liberty can be limited in order to protect the “material public order”, i.e. to prevent violence. The tribunal of Nice’s decision is also based on this argument. It raises a very important question in the context of increasing islamophobia, and poses the problem that American law professor Harry Kalven designated as the “heckler’s veto.” When opponents threaten to attack physically one who exercises his liberty, should the government restrict this liberty in order to protect the individual? In France, the higher administrative court, the Conseil d’État, answered as soon as 1933 in the famous Benjamin case. The first objective of public authorities shall be to guarantee the liberty, if necessary with a reinforcement of the police staff. When Islamic extremists lash out at a topless woman, the woman shall be protected rather than toplessness forbidden. And the same is true when Islam-haters attack a woman in burkini. The restriction of liberty is tolerated only as ultima ratio, when the keeping of order seems impossible. One can hope that France is not in such a situation, and that the only answer to islamophobia is not to hide the Muslims. One thing, though, is certain: the burkini-ban is one of this public measures that accelerate the movement towards an incontrollable fear and hate of Islam. The warning issued by European Court of Human Rights about the burqa ban should be remembered: “a State which enters into a legislative process of this kind takes the risk of contributing to the consolidation of the stereotypes which affect certain categories of the population and of encouraging the expression of intolerance, when it has a duty, on the contrary, to promote tolerance.”

Link to comment

Možda nije dobro preneta vest?



Emmanuel Macron vient d’annoncer en direct sur France 2 son intention de participer à la primaire du parti Les Républicains qui aura lieu à la fin de l’année.


Otkud sad LR?




ok, vest nije tačna, sa nekog je satiričnog sajta. ali jeste podneo ostavku i najavio kandidaturu za predsednika.

Edited by Dr Arslanagić
Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Create New...