Jacques Toubon: “I have to tell you”

RFI: You were a deputy, mayor, Minister of Culture and then of Justice in the 90s, you chaired the Orientation Council of the Cité nationale de l’histoire de l’immigration and were the defender of rights in 2014 to 2020. You publish an essay titled I have to tell you. What is this message that you could not keep to yourself?

Jacques Toubon: I think that the experiences I was able to make in the public service, but especially in the political world, of a very diverse nature, attached me to what is called with a term that is not at all technical , which should be known by everyone, which is the rule of law. That is to say, this set of principles with which we have lived historically for 200 years, that is to say since the end of the 18th century, the great principles which were fixed by the French Revolution and which are contained in our Constitution, but which are, for example, also included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, so this is not a Franco-French affair. And I asked myself the question of an evolution which seems dangerous to me today.

I have a conviction, which is the superiority of these universal values ​​based on humanity, in the fact that the 7 or 8 billion men and women who live on Earth are all the same, all equal and have all the same rights and the same dignity. And that this conviction which is permanent, and which I have carried around throughout my existence and my action, and of a political context today in France and everywhere else which in some way upsets these convictions today, which shows that in many circumstances, the fight against terrorism (there is a legitimacy), the fight against the pandemic (there is a legitimacy), but also quite simply political regimes which want to be authoritarian and which want to put in implement a number of measures in an authoritarian manner, we see the rule of law dwindle, we see undemocratic elements develop.

And I try in this book to explain on the one hand this evolution in Europe and elsewhere, and on the other hand to propose a certain number of measures. But first, because this book, that’s why it has this title, I have to tell you, it is an awareness. I think that today, and when I say today I mean for twenty years, since the twin towers affair, since the Americans realized that even on their territory, they could be affected, and they therefore took actions that undermined fundamental freedoms in the United States in favor of greater security. It was called the Patriot Act at the time and everyone copied the Patriot Act more or less.

And so I said to myself that it had to be said, because what seems to me the worst thing is that we are gradually moving towards non-liberal systems, non-democratic systems, towards systems where the identity takes over humanity, in indifference. And that is what is characteristic of a country, even like France. Today we see a lot of clashes. We saw it in the last electoral debates, we will see it again for the legislative elections. But these confrontations today often relate to purely political questions and they forget the essence of things, that is to say this decline in the rule of law that I characterize, and on the other hand, this battle of a desire for identity that seeks to supplant the universal character of the principles that (once again) we have been applying for 200 years in a country like France. It is a topic that is both topical because I see the future, in a certain way, in a pessimistic way, and, at the same time, it is a subject that has taken hold of us since we established at the beginning of the 19th century the elements of democracy in a country like ours.

► Read also: Defender of rights: Jacques Toubon, the unexpected slayer of inequalities

These identity claims that you mention, this is what divides us. Can we go back ?

I think we can surely go back. I appeal in my book to something that may seem a bit old-fashioned term, I appeal to reason, because I think that there are in many of these positions, in those who defend communities, nationalities, in those who lead the struggle of the sexes or genders, in those who think that we must exclude those who are not the same. Of course, this concerns foreigners, but it can concern people with disabilities or the elderly. In all of this, we must try to realize that we have ideologies, statements that are gaining ground and how to straighten things out: reason! Because reason tells us that we are all brothers and sisters, that we are equal…

You appeal to reason, but you say it yourself, social networks, anonymity, the violence of the time…

And that’s why I propose a great work of education. In developed countries like ours, but a great work of education everywhere. I take an example that may seem distant: when we see a country like Brazil. The influence that the Evangelical Churches have had for years in the northeast first and now in all of Brazil. How they shape opinion. And how today Bolsonaro relies on them. They have created in the minds of millions of Brazilians an absolutely mythical vision of asking God to solve the problems of the economy or society. And that divine revelation replaces political ideology, institutions.

We are there in something where the absence of reason, the absence of rationality, risks leading (in this case it is the case) to a certain number of authoritarian measures, to measures of deprivation of liberty. Because, whether we like it or not, our great principles of freedom and equality are based on an approach which was taken in the 18th century and which consists in saying: we know by reason, we know objectively because it is that what humanity is, that our contemporaries are like us, that we have no superiority, that they have no inferiority, that for example the foreigners who come to us, we must not treat as if there were them and us. Nope ! We are all us!

And you remember it in your book : “ Entering France is not an offence, and settling in France is not immediately a matter for the police »…

Of course. We have both international texts (including European) and our laws that make free movement and in a way, the principle of the world, it is the legal principle. If you have normal papers, you leave your country, you can go to another country. Afterwards it is a question of knowing if we can work there, we can settle there, etc. There are a whole series of regulations. But the fact of moving around the world – today there are almost permanently 2.5% of the world’s population on the move. And more often than not, contrary to popular belief, they move from country in the South to country in the South. And no country of the South to country of the North. It is the negation of the famous great replacement.

So there are two and a half million people on the move and this movement is normal and legal. From there, apprehending migration first as a question of security or insecurity, and getting the police to work first, is a mistake. This is why, as you have seen, I propose that all these questions should not come under the Ministry of the Interior, but under an interministerial policy. There are aspects that come under the Interior, it’s true. The border police is the Ministry of the Interior. But there are plenty of measures that relate to social issues: everything related to work, everything related to social protection.

This is also why for a very long time, until 2008 (a still very recent period), it was the Ministry of Social Affairs that was mainly responsible for the issue of foreigners. With the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which deals with relations between States on this subject. So the complexity is that there are at least three ministries that are concerned: the Interior, Foreign Affairs and Social Affairs. And I would like to find it in a major migration policy that is conducted at the level of Matignon, with the Prime Minister.

You talk about what you have done, as a defender of rights, to defend the freedom to demonstrate, so that migrants have a minimum of rights (to be fed and cared for) or so that spanking is prohibited by law. What are you most proud of ?

Probably, it is the fact of having, after years, been able to allow a certain number of rights for women. That women can do everything they have to do as free, equal, dignified individuals… Without having any authorization, without having any particular procedure. We have there for women and for children too, because very often the two questions are linked, because in our minds, there is something that has to do with the rights of children, the rights of mothers and maternity. I think that’s what I’ve evolved the most through women’s rights and children’s rights. Even recently, in 2017 and 2018, measures have been taken in this direction and which quite simply make equality a reality. Instead of talking about it, we do it!