France To Extend Its State of Emergency... Again.
France has extended its state of emergency for the second time since the November terrorist attacks in Paris left 130 people dead. Now, in light of the recent terrorism that took place in Brussels, talks have begun over the possibility of extending the state of emergency for a third time. In response, many are questioning the legitimacy of the governments use of the ongoing terror threat to justify the encroachment upon civil and humanitarian rights of French citizens.
In November of 2015 France became the first European country ever to declare a state of emergency over terrorism. The decision was made as an attempt to provide French authorities with the temporary power to quickly locate potential terrorists and prevent additional attacks from taking place. Under French law, the nation can legally declare a state of emergency “in the case of imminent danger resulting from serious attacks on public order, or in the case of events presenting, by their nature and gravity, the character of public calamity.”
Image Credit: GoogleImages/BrokenSphere
A state of emergency can last a maximum of 12 days, at which point Parliament must determine whether they wish to extend it by passing legislation that sets an official duration period. Due to the growing suspicion of possible follow-up attacks, Parliament quickly voted to extend the state of emergency until February 26, 2016. Less than a month later, despite heavy public protest and widespread criticism over its threats to fundamental rights, the National Assembly voted once more to extend the state of emergency until May 26, 2016. Currently, in the wake of the recent terrorist attack in Brussels (as well as the upcoming European Championship football tournament set to be hosted in France this summer), talks have begun over the possibility of a third extension that would carry the state of emergency into June of 2016.
In light of these recent discussions, many people are beginning to wonder if the French government will ever deem the terror threat minimal enough to give up its newly increased power and control. Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, stated last month at the Munich Security Conference, "We have entered into a new era, marked by the long-term presence of hyper-terrorism." What a growing number of people now fear is that in this age of "long-term terrorism" essential human rights will be sacrificed in the name of protection.
Exactly what does the state of emergency entail?
Reminiscent of the United States after the 9/11 terror attacks, the French response to recent terrorism has been to quickly shift the balance between civil liberties and national security strongly in favor of security.
France's declaration of a state of emergency has granted the police temporary power to search suspect premises and place suspect peoples under house arrest without prior judicial warrants. Shortly after the November attacks, more than 3,000 raids had already taken place, leading to over 360 house arrests but resulting in few terror-related convictions. Additionally, a large number of measures that have been implemented have been criticized for targeting individuals of the Muslim faith. With armed guards stationed outside numerous mosques, many feel the state of emergency stands to reinforce the stigmatization and marginalization of Muslims, endangering social solidarity and peace. Further more, many accuse the measures of dangerously encroaching upon liberties guarded by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom to manifest one's religion.
Image Credit: Youtube/CBCNewsWhat has been the French response to these extraordinary measures?
When the state of emergency was first enacted it was met predominately with favor by the French people. In fact, just a few months ago it was polled that 79% of French citizens approved of extending the state of emergency. This widespread support was surprising as the French have historically been known for their sharp criticism of the measures implemented under the Patriot Act by the United States following 9/11. So much so, that last year a Pew Global Attitudes poll found that 82% of French respondents thought it was unacceptable for the U.S. to monitor its own citizens.
In light of the US Patriot Act being shorthand in the French vocabulary for limiting freedom, it now stands as ironic that many around the globe are labeling France's continued state of emergency as 'Le Patriot Act.'
However, while the state of emergency was originally greeted with approval, as it continues to be prolonged many are becoming increasingly disillusioned with it — as evidenced by the widespread public protest over its latest extension. Additionally, President Hollande's proposal to strip French-born dual citizens convicted of terrorism of their French nationality encountered national and international outrage and division.
What are possible dangers that may come with a continued extension of France's state of emergency?
While a third extension of France's state of emergency is (for now) only a possibility, one must seriously consider what effects this type of legislative action may have.
To look at the matter from a financial standpoint, since the enactment of the state of emergency, the number of tourists to visit France has plummeted drastically. This is the case especially for Japanese tourists — whose numbers declined by 66% this past December when compared to the previous year. While this decline is most certainly related to the physical attacks that took place in Paris, officials have discovered that it is also closely aligned with France's perpetuated state of emergency. In fact, a Paris official recently admitted that Japanese tourists are more worried than reassured by its elongation.
Further more, there is growing international concern over the infringement on civil and human rights by much of the legislative the French government has currently been passing.
Image Credit: Flickr/OlivierOrtelpa
One such piece is the newly passed expansive surveillance bill aimed at monitoring the phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists, which the French Parliament approved shortly after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Under this bill, a nine-person committee is set to oversee the surveillance operations in which the prime minister acts as head of. Troublesomely, while the committee has the power to advise the prime minister, they cannot overrule him — resulting in increasingly centralized surveillance power. In addition, many critics are drawing a distinct connection between the new surveillance bill and tactics used by the US National Security Agency (NSA), such as the bulk collection of internet metadata. While the French Prime Minister stated plainly that the new bill was in no way a French Patriot Act, critics remain unconvinced, arguing that the bill gives far too much power to intelligence services.
However, despite vehemently protesting the US Patriot Act's infringement on basic human rights, many question if, when faced with the threat of imminent terrorism, France is doomed to make the same mistakes. The question currently on the minds of most is how can a nation successfully fight terrorism while upholding and protecting civil liberties?
In the face of division over how best to answer this question, one thing must be remembered: Terrorists feed on fear. The only way an individual or a country can hope to beat terrorism is by refusing to let fear drive us to allow our civil and human liberties to be trampled upon.
