FIGAROVOX / TRIBUNE - According to Philippe Bilger, having voted in the law of moralization the principle of ineligibility for offenses under the freedom of expression represents a danger for the Republic.
Honorary magistrate, president of the Institute of the speech, Philippe Bilger was more than twenty years general advocate at the Court of Assises of Paris. Author of many books, he holds the blog Justice in the singular and just published The word, nothing she (Cerf ed, 2017).
Who can be stupid enough, cynical enough or suicidal enough to oppose a project of moralisation of public life even if he is not the first and probably will not be the last?
We can not decently oppose the fact that there is good will, sincerity and genuine concern for ethics in the government's intentions. That they are not completely pure, I admit it but the inspiration is positive.
The presentation of this law under discussion in the National Assembly was clumsy. As if to incriminate the entire political class by putting everyone in the same bag. The majority of the elected officials who is impeccable and exerts a beautiful and difficult job at the service of the community and the few who misled it. The consequence is that this requirement of moral correctness which should be obvious is disputed not because it would be shocking in itself but because of the confusion that it risks to operate between the mass of the best and the rare few. .
Moreover, the government quickly realized to its detriment that purity is difficult to find and is sometimes a desperate search. There are past shadows and present issues. This banality becomes prejudicial only from the moment when the power that pretends to be a paragon of virtue in all registers is itself caught in contradictions that show that it has no more lessons to give than his opponents.
There is, moreover, between the abstraction of a text even the most honorable and the best written and parliamentary debate that will enrich or degrade, in any case show all the details and pitfalls that a convenient generality had necessarily been evaded. From the moment the project was put on the parliamentary table without the slightest bad faith being blamed on senators and deputies, naturally there were obstacles, inconsistencies and even impossibilities that made the text less and less operational. and which in practice would have prevented elected officials from properly performing their mission. It is too easy to charge them with corporatism and an abusive defense of their privileges when, for example, for the reimbursement of expenses or the parliamentary reserve (which will be suppressed as the ministerial reserve), the law had not been able to examine in its initial drafting, the infinite number of elements that could be objected to. Realism is not shameful when it puts ideology or naivety in their place.
The debate in the National Assembly did not deserve, either, for provisions whose public interest does not dispute, to be so badly directed and presided over. At the risk of making them fall into a ridicule that would make them lose any credit before the time. The freshness of LREM, when it is transformed, by ignorance, into amateurism and refers to an erratic process, no longer represents a gift for democracy. But a charge. Paraphrasing Chamfort: it's a great advantage to have done nothing but do not abuse it!
The deplorable consequence of a parliamentary group that is both dominant and never intelligently critical, with a Keeper of the Seals that validates everything in the name of a conformist progressivism, is that we end up with aberrations or dangers even in the light of original spirit of the project.
Having repudiated the obligation of a criminal record: nothing, maintain the "lock" fiscal Bercy - Bruno Marlins explanations embroiled on France Info will not change anything to this blockage harmful - constitute serious errors.
On the other hand, having adopted the principle of inequality not only for economic and financial offenses but also for offenses under the freedom of expression represents a danger for the Republic. If a power enslaves his justice and wants to get rid of embarrassers, he will have at his disposal, with this amendment, enough to feed his evil.
However, despite the excesses that affect the image of a quinquennium that obviously aspired to better on the parliamentary level, continue to support this desire to moralize public life. The core, the essentials are needed. Provided we cease to constitute a democratic advance acceptable and accepted by almost all in a sword of Damocles that would have the ambition to scare and caporaliser indistinctly.
It is not enough to invoke ethics to make a good law. It is the light that illuminates but the substance does not depend on it.
In walking has the right to stop and think. To vote.