“It’s very hard in criminal law to define such a vague notion,” explains former anti-terrorism judge Marc Trévidic

In an interview with Le Figaro, the former Minister of Justice, Rachida Dati, declared that it was “urgent to legally and criminally define radicalization” as “endangering others based on a religious ideology”. “It’s very, very hard in criminal law to define such a vague concept”explains on franceinfo, Marc Trévidic, former anti-terrorism judge, president of the Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles.

But Marc Trévidic reminds us that “criminal law needs a strict definition”. In other words, “the citizen must know what is prohibited and be punished because he knows it”. For example, he continues, “Theft is the fraudulent subtraction of someone else’s property. It’s very clear.”

On the other hand, the former anti-terrorism judge says “Good luck” to anyone who would like “define radicalization criminally”because “it is an obligation to have a precise definition of a criminal offense”. Without this, judges would have too broad a power of interpretation. Their definition of radicalization risks evolving and varying over time, he believes.