Skip to content skip to sidebar Skip to footer

For the rebellious MP France, “an adjustment of immunity can quite be discussed but not on the sly”

Wednesday morning, the office of the National Assembly lifted the parliamentary immunity of the related FN deputy, Gilbert Collard who, in December 2015, posted photos of Daesh victims on Twitter. The vote was pronounced unanimously by the 22 deputies less one vote, that of Clémentine Autain. The member of the rebellious France explains her choice.

Why didn't you vote to lift Collard's immunity?

The Bureau of the National Assembly does not have to rule on the merits of the incriminated case. If it were simply necessary to express a condemnation of the attitude of Gilbert Collard, we would have done so: we are in total disagreement with the publication by this far-right deputy of images of Daesh, we know the shock that this has constituted for the families of victims and we fight the ideology of the National Front without any ambiguity. But the subject of the office's vote related to an issue of principles affecting the fundamentals of our democratic functioning. As Montesquieu said in The Spirit of Laws, the separation of powers is fundamental to protect against arbitrariness. Enshrined in Article 26 of the Constitution, parliamentary immunity aims to protect the independence of parliamentarians against possible interference by the power of the State and the executive. There is also a form of immunity for journalists. It is not a privilege but a condition of the balance of powers, independence and freedom of expression in the exercise of the mandate of deputy. This is why since 1958, only 17 out of 47 requests for waiver of immunity have been accepted by the National Assembly, which alone can grant this waiver. Not appearing before a judge when a corruption case is at stake is shocking, and I understand that. Serge Dassault has long taken shelter behind his parliamentary immunity! A development of immunity can quite be discussed but not on the sly during an office of the National Assembly, at the turn of a case which can federate because it is about the FN.

How did the voting go?

The conditions were unacceptable. A bureau meeting was convened exceptionally, in a curious coincidence of the calendar, the week of the examination of the bill on the state of emergency about which the experts of the UN are concerned for the freedoms in France. It was only the evening before, at 19 p.m., that I received an email telling me that we were going to study the lifting of Gilbert Collard's immunity and that a file would be available for consultation on site at 44 a.m. for the meeting. at 9 o 'clock. See how everything is well organized to avoid a substantive debate, time for reflection and consultation with our group! Our refusal to vote for this lifting is no stranger to this method which is taking hold in the Assembly, in a climate where the power of Parliament is trampled on a little more each day. Above all, the day before, I had been invited to the first meeting of the working groups launched by Mr. De Rugy on the status of MPs, including the question of a possible reform of immunity. What is the point of holding think tanks if the office neutralizes article 30 in a meeting, on the most fundamental point of freedom of expression, whatever its excesses, its horrors? All this is not serious and looks like a simple political operation. If the Assembly intends to become the branch of the imperatives of a republican monarch or of the communications operations of the government, it will not be to our applause. We hold our thread. If we have to question our institutional system, let's do it openly and coherently, during a process involving citizens for a VIe République, and not piecemeal, on the sly at the Hôtel de Lassay.

Often, some observers make the link between the FN and rebellious France, your vote will add grain to grind...

Lucid and benevolent observers, aren't they? Frankly, the grain is no longer ground but worm-eaten. All this is agitated by a political power which, in a few months, is already at bay. For our part, we are betting on intelligence and consistency. Our project is light years away from racism, identity withdrawal and the authoritarianism of the National Front. But it is also at the antipodes of a government policy that tears the French social fabric and organizes inequalities. When we think that the reform of the ISF will save Bernard Arnault the equivalent of one and a half times the amount of savings made thanks to the reduction of 5 euros in APL, we say to ourselves that impunity for the most rich, it is not about to be lifted.

Rachid Laireche

Source:©  Why Clémentine Autain did not vote to lift Gilbert Collard's immunity – Liberation


  • Ren
    Posted October 1, 2017 10h43 0Likes

    Political trial aimed at silencing an opponent.
    It is unacceptable. The presentation of an image is heavily condemned: does it remind you of anything? Nope? and Wolinsky, Niuz…. Charlie Hebdo,
    Same behavior as the Islamists, do not take the risk of hurting, contempt for the truth to hide it better.
    There is nothing worse than lying.

Leave a comment

CJFAI © 2023. All Rights Reserved.