In less than 15 days, the school and the Catholic Church were targeted by Islamist attacks. Did we go to war?
This war has been declared to us since 2012. With the three victims of the Nice attack on Thursday, we now deplore 269 of our fellow citizens who were victims of Islamism. It is a war that will only continue to escalate. We know more attacks are coming. France is one of the first targets in the world. She is the heir to the Enlightenment, the heir to a Christian civilization, and the bearer of a demanding secularism. France has always courageously expressed its fight for freedoms in the world. Even today, France is engaged in several theaters of foreign operations to fight Islamism. We are unfortunately very alone in this fight at European level. All these factors feed the hatred of Islamists against France. The fatwas of the Turkish Islamist dictator Erdogan and of several Muslim countries activate tens of thousands of human bombs which remain in our country and represent as many threats for the French. What is paradoxical is that we wage war on the outside to defend our freedoms but we refuse to wage it on national territory. To fight Islamism, we only use tools of extreme weakness and great naivety. They fall short of the threat we know and which, I repeat, will continue to grow. We have to have the courage to say that the worst is in front of us and that we must prepare for the worst.
According to you, ” stop with the defense of these pseudo-individual freedoms “. Should we break free from the rule of law?
Today we fight Islamism with bullets on our feet and hindrances that paralyze our action. I am targeting the crazy interpretation of the Constitutional Council and Laurent Fabius of our Basic Law. I am aiming for the European Convention on Human Rights which has allowed an unlimited migration policy. I am aiming for the total disconnection of a small political-administrative caste both guided by an ultraliberal vision in matters of society and a deeply left-wing vision in societal matters. For these people, security is not a dominant value. I am amazed by the Pavlovian evocation of the rule of law which they keep brandishing. Let us never forget that the rule of law is the result of the expression of the law, itself the result of the general will. The rule of law is not meant to be frozen; it is not intended to become a helpless state. Considering the maximum degree of the terrorist threat, I asked by letter to the President of the Republic to restore the state of emergency resulting from a law of 1955 as it was done after the attack of Bataclan. This state of emergency will allow real administrative searches and real house orders. The fight against Islamism must change dimension and framework. The current rule of law condemns us to impotence and to be the victims of terrorist executioners. We can clearly see those who have put the brakes since 2015, those who have refused to take radical action in the face of the threat. To remove these obstacles, there is only one way for me in the face of terrorism: giving the people a voice back through referendum.
Nicolas Sarkozy had proposed a referendum in 2016. How would he allow France to fight against the terrorist threat?
Nicolas Sarkozy proposed to introduce two measures in the Constitution: security detention for detainees released from prison and administrative detention for those who, in our country, present a threat. The idea is simple: start from the precautionary principle. It is mentioned in environmental and health matters. Why not do it in terms of security on the precautionary principle? Faced with the dangerousness of the individuals present in our territory, we must prevent them from taking action. Between 2018 and 2022, nearly 2,540 potentially dangerous Islamist detainees will be released. 2000 have already been released. These are those convicted of terrorism and those convicted of common law who became radicalized in prison. Their dangerousness is proven. But the Constitutional Council censored, last August, the Braun-Pivet law, which allowed people to be monitored somewhat since. Voted almost unanimously, it would have made it possible to adopt surveillance measures for these extremely dangerous individuals. For Jean-François Ricard, prosecutor of the national anti-terrorism prosecution, these freed individuals represent the greatest threat for France. We must therefore act immediately. As of this week, I urgently call for a new text to be presented to Parliament. If the Constitutional Council censures it, then a referendum will be needed as quickly as possible to sweep away these reluctances.
What do you propose for the individuals listed for terrorist radicalization?
I propose, as Israel is already doing, to place the most dangerous of them in detention in a sort of French Guantanamo, to place the others under surveillance with a geolocated bracelet and to expel all those who are of foreign nationality. . About 4000 individuals, including 800 in an irregular situation.
The perpetrator of the Nice attack was not on file S. Despite your suggestions, would he not have fallen through the cracks?
This situation calls for a second revolution: a radical change in migration policy. This individual, who left Tunisia, arrived in Italy where he was registered and left free to move.
You have to have the courage to say stop to immigration. I asked Emmanuel Macron on Thursday to set a moratorium on immigration to review the files of all those currently in France. We can no longer accept, as in 2019, the arrival of 500,000 foreigners whose profile, background or adherence to the values of the Republic is not controlled. Unfortunately, Emmanuel Macron did not answer me. Which worries me about his determination to tackle this problem.
Emmanuel Macron he took the measure of the threat in your opinion?
It seems that the speech of the head of state has changed in view of the gravity of the facts. We are far from the speech of Marseille during his presidential campaign, where he praised ethnic communities to the detriment of the national community. But Emmanuel Macron was elected on this community and multicultural vision, to the detriment of the Republic’s unitary approach. The law on separatism could mark a change. But the content now appears to be very modest, particularly with regard to secularism.
What are you asking for?
A demanding secularism. We must have the courage today to ban the wearing of any religious symbol for users of public services, as is already the case for public officials. The veil should therefore be prohibited for accompanying persons in schools, users at public administration counters, in universities, etc.