Even as tonnes of bombs are dropped on the civilian population in Aleppo and elsewhere in the region — in an exercise that is nothing short of war crime — the French media is busy discussing the issue of forbidding Muslim women from wearing the ‘burkini’ on the beaches of the French Riviera. The fight against ‘fundamentalist terrorism’ is now following two directions in France.
First, there is an attempt to make an inaccurate comparison between Islam and Christianity. This despite the fact that Despite several Imams are reiterating that terrorists are “not true Muslims”. Despite Pope Francis recently asserting that there is “no war of religion”, French authorities still insist on trying to “organise a French Islam”, which would be respectful of French laws — as if that is not the case with French Muslims. Such a path is not only impractical, but quite hazardous as well.
It is indeed impractical because, for instance, as opposed to Catholicism, Islam is a religion characterised by several nuances with no unified head. Therefore, speaking on behalf of “the French Muslim population” is a bet that few Imams are prepared to make. The creation of a “French Muslim Foundation” — that would notably ensure proper training of the Imams, or looking into the source of funding behind mosques in France — may be seen as a positive step, provided such measures have the support of all Muslims.
The question of relationship between religions is a cumbersome issue that just cannot be left in the hands of rookie politicians. It requires serenity, depth and time, whereas the present situation is just the opposite: 45 per cent of the French population now considers Islam a threat (compared to 35 per cent a year ago), which is exactly what the followers of Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) are driving at.
The second wrong direction that is being pursued is to try and transform France into a miniature Guantanamo: Everybody will be jailed as soon as there is suspicion that someone could be involved in a terrorist attack. Some of the proposals put forward by the candidates for the next presidential election in France are amazing in that respect: Former president Nicolas Sarkozy has launched his campaign under the sign of ‘French Identity’, though his record with security issues in the past is anything but encouraging.
Actually, in a democratic society, fighting ‘fundamentalist terrorism’ should only mean fighting ‘terrorism’. Here lies the traditional debate between ‘freedom’ and ‘security’, which is not a new issue for democracies. However, mixing up this debate with matters of religious concern will only increase the confusion without offering any solution. This is particularly true when one comes to the concept of ‘radicalisation’. An interesting case in point could be the Leftist organisations that had spilt blood and spread terror in Europe in the 1960s. Many of those who were involved with those organisations were ‘extremists’, but they only turned ‘terrorist’ the day they felt they were ready to take a quantum leap and that was when the state was required to act against them.
The state in France already has many tools in its hands to fight the current threat of terrorism, but it could also show a little bit more common sense.
When a clueless, unemployed suburbanite turns ‘radicalised’, goes to Syria and comes back to France, does it make sense to put him in a cell occupied by other delinquents? When a family realises that one of its members is turning ‘radicalised’, is it not its duty to inform the police? And shouldn’t the state sue such a family for failing to act?
One of the assailants behind the killing of a Catholic priest last month in Normandy had an electronic bracelet at the time of committing the crime. How come there was no reaction from the police when it appeared that the delinquent was in breach of a statute and the bracelet just proved useless? One is also reminded about the number of video cameras that are installed in the streets of Nice. And yet, the ‘death-truck’ could run amok.
Terrorism has several roots, including social and economic failures, and one can only hope these will finally be tackled efficiently. That can be ensured through better education, proper vocational training, better social integration, decent housing ... France has a long road ahead.
Meanwhile, what is required urgently are better intelligence, improved control of the internet, more efficient prison management, organisation of a social system in which a potential terrorist should not get isolated without having someone to lean on, etc.
In other words, fighting terrorism may imply new procedures and better tools, even though making a more efficient use of the existing ones would be a step forward. For instance, consider the number of attempted terrorist strikes that have been foiled by the police and security agencies — acting within the framework of existing laws. But imposing additional restrictive measures or worse, mixing up the issue with matters of religious concern and the notion of ‘freedom’ may simply lead to additional chaos. And that is what Daesh is looking to capitalise on.
Luc Debieuvre is a French essayist and a lecturer at IRIS (Institut de Relations Internationales et Strategiques) and the “FACO” Law University of Paris.
