The issue of sexist and sexual violence is currently shaking up several political movements. This is of course the case for La France insoumise and Europe Ecologie-Les Verts, with the Quatennens and Bayou cases in particular, but they are not the only ones: Renaissance too, with the Peyrat and Darmanin cases, Les Républicains, with the Abad case, and the list does not stop there. We are obviously facing a systemic problem.
However, this should not make us forget that these cases are all unique, and cannot be treated in the same way. This is particularly the case for the Bayou affair, which is based on a unique testimony, revealed live by one of its competitors, Sandrine Rousseau, who evokes psychological violence but concedes, off the air, that the facts do not fall under criminal. Reaction of Minister of Justice Eric Dupond-Moretti, Wednesday September 28 on France 2: “It is the law that protects us from arbitrariness. For me, there is no question of a code of ethics when there is a criminal code and a code of criminal procedure. Ms. Rousseau is not the Attorney General of the nation! “
Eric Dupond Moretti recalls something important: it is the law that protects us from arbitrariness. It’s true. In our societies, it is the law that governs our social relations. It is he who sets the limit of collective prohibitions. Not morals, not religions, not personal sensitivities. The law, and its principles. The fact that Sandrine Rousseau reports directly, in the public debate, facts which she herself recognizes – deputy, legislator – that they do not fall under the scope of the law, this can only raise questions for us. Especially since there is not even, here, the filter of a serious journalistic investigation, which would guarantee that the information is verified, the testimonies cross-checked, and the contradictory heard. There is indeed, it seems to me, a clear and deleterious shift.
Note: this does not mean, however, that the law is necessarily well done. Anything that is not prohibited is not necessarily acceptable. In this case, should the penal code better take into account psychological violence within the couple? It’s a legitimate – and perhaps even necessary – political debate. But it cannot take place on a corner of the table, around a TV set, and through the prism of a particular case.
Eric Dupond-Moretti does not content himself with recalling the rule of law. He relies on this to castigate the cells dedicated to gender-based and sexual violence within political parties: “These kinds of cells, it’s a real drift that we are witnessing. If everyone does their little grub, their little private justice in their corner, we will arrive at a society of denunciation which will become unbearable .”
Here, Eric Dupond-Moretti does not content himself with recalling the centrality of the law. It affirms the exclusivity of justice over any other instance of collective regulation. If charges cannot be dealt with in court, they should be dropped altogether.
And that seems questionable to me. Because political activity is not like any other. It imposes a duty of exemplarity, which justice, in fact, struggles to enforce. For reasons which are, moreover, well known: the temporality of the procedures, on the one hand, the question of prescription, on the other hand, which both confront us with difficult situations. Can we accept that a leader, who would be accused of serious facts, by a plurality of concordant testimonies, remains in office and continues to represent his fellow citizens? This seems to me, from an ethical point of view, relatively difficult.
Moreover, beyond ethics, there are the practical realities, which have been recalled many times. In France, less than 1% of rapes declared by adults are the subject of a condemnation by the courts – these are the figures given by the ministry responsible for equality between women and men. This does mean that there is, in fact, a problem of legal support. And this is probably even more true in spheres of power, and in particular the political sphere.
It is clear, from an ethical and practical point of view, that it is not wise to rely exclusively on justice to deal with these questions. And, at the same time, we must also be able to guarantee that gender-based and sexual violence does not end up being exploited for political ends.
I believe that, on this question, we must try to hold a line of crest, clearly distinguishing between law and justice. On the one hand, to recall the rule of law, which must remain our collective compass to determine what are the facts that can be reproached. But at the same time, note the insufficiency of justice on these issues, and recognize that this insufficiency is intolerable when it concerns representatives of the people.
From my point of view, this pleads in favor of a solution that already exists, for other professions: the drafting of a real code of ethics, the application of which would be entrusted to an independent body, autonomous from the movements and gone.