“We must outsource the procedures” and set “rules known to all”, pleads Laurence Rossignol

Although different, the facts alleged against the deputies of La France insoumise (LFI), Adrien Quatennens, and from Europe Ecologie-Les Verts (EELV), Julien Bayou, have one thing in common: they are disturbing the ability of political parties to deal fairly and effectively with cases of gender-based and sexual violence (VSS ). With franceinfo, Laurence Rossignol believes that “the procedures put in place were not operational”.

The socialist vice-president of the Senate therefore proposes a “code of ethics” which would allow the parties to better take up these questions, in particular for “identify problematic behaviors by precisely designating them”. The former Minister of Families, Children and Women’s Rights finally invites the left to work together to better fight against this scourge.

Franceinfo: how do you analyze the management of the Quatennens and Bayou affairs by La France insoumise and Europe Ecologie-Les Verts?

Laurence Rossignol: It’s not the same thing. In the Adrien Quatennens affair, there is no commission but information which has been made public and which challenges the political leadership of the LFI movement. The Julien Bayou affair is different, if I correctly understood the elements made public. It reveals a procedure peripheral to the cell for the fight against sexist and sexual violence. The operation would not have allowed the respondent to be heard.

We have known since #MeToo, almost since the Denis Baupin affair, that there is a need for political organizations involved in the fight against SGBV to deal with these cases in a political, serious and fair way, so that the voice of the victims is heard. taken into account, to enable the elimination of violence against women in activism and so that the perpetrators of violence are not in a position to continue to commit it.

What do you mean by “dealing with these matters politically”?

Before the sanctions, the question of nominations arises. Political parties are free to invest whoever they want. You can invest and divest candidates. For some years now, parties have been asked to verify at the time of nominations that the persons invested are not implicated in VSS or financial affairs.

“Thus, in the Socialist Party (PS), there have already been nominations refused to municipal candidates.”

Laurence Rossignol, PS senator

at franceinfo

Then there are the cases that come during the term of office or during the course of responsibility. Recent cases reveal that the procedures put in place have not been effective and operational. If we admit that there is a need to have our own procedures, with our ethics, not necessarily modeled on legal procedures, we need rules known to all. However, we observe a lot of confusion, which can be detrimental to the complainants and the respondents.

You defend a “code of ethics” to deal with these issues in political parties. What would change in the handling of these cases?

It would make it possible to identify what is acceptable and incompatible with the exercise of representative functions. Violations cannot be decided by events. Everyone needs to know what is allowed and what is not. Concretely, it is necessary to identify the problematic behaviors by designating them precisely. Then it is necessary to determine a procedure for dealing with them. Listening to complainants is only one aspect. The aim is not only to provide psychological support to the victims: this taking into account of their word can also lead to a political decision, such as asking for the withdrawal or the resignation of an elected official.

Let’s not be naive: in parties, people have ties and stories and we are not always able to act with distance. It is therefore necessary to determine the rules in the procedures to be carried out: there must be a defence, adversarial proceedings, collegiality of decisions and confidentiality of the elements of the file. In the same way, it is essential that we know who can speak publicly, or not, and when. It would be very protective for all of us. Basically, it’s about figuring out what’s not acceptable and what needs to be done to deal with those cases.

Does this mean that the people who deal with these cases must be independent of the party leadership?

Over the past fortnight, my thinking has evolved. From now on, I am practically convinced that it is necessary to outsource the procedures, to listen to witnesses, to instruct, to know if the plaintiff spoke about the facts at the time when they arrived or after… In short, it is quite an investigation to be done.

“We cannot, on the pretext that we are a committed activist, proclaim ourselves an expert.”

Laurence Rossignol, PS senator

at franceinfo

Skills and experience are needed to handle these cases. It is possible to turn to associative structures, lawyers. There is a reflection to lead to determine how these structures are entered and what decisions are made. Today, I am struck by an impression of amateurism in the handling of these cases. It doesn’t just take good feelings. This is serious, it is about the honor of the complainants as well as the respondents.

Moreover, what should be the links between the parties and the justice system in these cases?

These bodies, organizations or external structures could transmit their conclusions to their client, and therefore to the parties. But legal proceedings must continue to be mobilised. All of this already exists in companies, which have criminal liability, unlike political parties. This led them to develop procedures to avoid being sanctioned. We can therefore look at how companies are doing in this area and get closer to the structures that work with them.

In your opinion, the parties must talk to each other in order to develop this code of political ethics together. Can they do it when they are currently in the storm?

They better do it! This concerns feminist parties, where there are feminist activists and where women speak. These parties, which all have in common to make it a cause and a political subject, are credible because they are coherent. Otherwise, what appears to people is “do as I say, not as I do”.

Is this the case today, within the Nupes parties?

For now, there is a problem. All this does not encourage women to talk. When you are a victim and you see what is happening, it is not reassuring. The first subject is above all to reduce these behaviors that destabilize women. I would add that the feminist militants of these parties are systematically summoned to explain and answer for the behavior of their party, whereas most often they do not lead it.

Having defined rules would be protective for everyone: for the victims, for the defendants and for the citizens. It would also be useful to specify the contours of the nebula of psychological violence: it can be harassment, humiliation, threats… We cannot be satisfied with a fluctuating definition.