Article source: "L'urgence, c'est de mettre fin au projet de révision constitutionnelle". Jean-Marc Gabouty, Michel Canevet, Joël Guerriau, Sophie Joissains. Huffington Post (15/03/2016)
For several months, the bill to amend the French constitution, especially section 2 which seeks to extend the deprivation of citizenship, has been at the centre of public debate.
This debate concerns our Constitution, and therefore affects the most intimate aspect of what makes France and its institutions, that is to say the charter of our fundamental rights and of our “pacte républicain”. It is appalling to want to manipulate it hastily, apparently more as a PR stunt than a measure to protect the nation.
While the plan to write the state of emergency into the French Constitution does not seem necessary – it has been in effect for four months now without any difficulty related to the Constitution - enshrining the deprivation of citizenship in the French Constitution would be both useless and dangerous.
It would be useless because the ability to deprive a citizen of nationality already exists in the French Civil Code for naturalised people or for those who behave as a citizen of a foreign country. In the fight against terrorism, this extension of the deprivation of citizenship will not be effective, whether preventive or dissuasive.
It could even backfire and have an unintended effect on many young people on the verge of radicalisation, triggering not indifference but a kind of pride in their mistrust of our society and our institutions. Let us not push young people into the clutches of jihadist recruiters.
Finally, on an operational level, if other countries go down the same path, will we end up “passing the buck”, handing jihadists on from one country to another? This makes no sense.
Deprivation of citizenship is dangerous because it sends negative signals of suspicion, of division and of withdrawal.
Suspicion is cast on people with dual nationality, who are the only ones who could be deprived of their citizenship since it is untenable to make people stateless. This bill sanctions the division of the French people into two groups – those with dual nationality and those without. This distinction would go against the very spirit of the French Constitution which ensures an indivisible Republic based on the equality of all citizens before the law.
It represents a division of the French people, who are supposed to believe this measure can help to protect the Nation while its outcomes and its enforcement could only create disillusionment.
It would be a withdrawal into a theoretical approach to the fight against terrorism when we need to be reinforcing our intelligence capabilities and operational resources as well as the array of effective sanctions that already exist, such as life sentences without parole. The aim of such a sentence is to punish, not to please the person imposing it.
In a strong Republic, we must take responsibility for all the French people, even those committing the most horrible crimes, by punishing them severely and by making sure that they are controlled.
This debate has gone on long enough and it is time to stop assuaging our guilty consciences by trying to mislead or pander to public opinion on our responses to terrorism. The French people are expecting concrete and effective measures, for action to be taken on security but also on employment and reforms.
A useless and dangerous constitutional amendment can only damage the Republic and weaken national cohesion. There is an urgent need to put an end to this superfluous debate, so we will be fighting this bill by suggesting, among other things, the removal of section 2 on the deprivation of citizenship.
Translated by Mélanie Geffroy and Marie Luquet (with other members of MéLexTra JET)
Editing by Sam Trainor