Prima facie such argument seems convincing

Fort martialement, Michèle Alliot-Marie, last Wednesday in the Chamber of the National Assembly, was held to proclaim that "the risk is not a legal concept. It thus intended to assert the Government's determination to defend its project against the concealment of the face in the public space.

Is remembered in effect that sought by the Prime Minister, the Council of State issued a notice for the less reserved. After a thorough analysis, it notably suggested that an "absolute and General of the port of the full veil ban" would be "exposed to strong uncertainty constitutional and conventional." The Government, the challenge was therefore to convince members of Parliament that "policy making entails taking risks", as indeed still declare the keeper of the seals in the debate.

Moreover, support of UMP deputies was acquired for months, their President constantly pounding the political decision that belongs to the elected officials, that the law should bend to their will, that it is important to listen to the people rather than rashly hide behind judges.

Prima facie, such argument seems convincing. The Council of State, for example, simply point a legal frailty and his opinion is not binding on political power. Moreover, its position on these issues is not new. In 1917, one of hers was already that "freedom is the rule, the police restriction the exception" and since our law administrative does not recognize General and absolute prohibition.

But, if the position expressed by the majority may seem to some legitimate ways, there is no guarantee that it is needed without difficulty. Indeed, as has said it repeatedly the Socialist deputies, the supremacy of Parliament is gone, the texts that it vote subject to vigilant control of judges, whether they are constitutional or ordinary. May regret it, rebel against but not ignore it. Tomorrow, a judge of Quimper may very well refuse to apply the text voted by the National Assembly if he considers that it is contrary to the provisions of the European Convention on human rights. Long here is that, in this country, the Act is more Almighty! Fundamental freedoms are fortunately protected all vagaries which indulge sometimes our rulers.

In this case, it should be most careful both the soundness of the legal basis invoked to justify the prohibition of the wearing of the veil seems questionable. That judge. To achieve its purposes, the Prime Minister knows that it cannot rely on the traditional definition of public order. It was formalized in article 97 of the Act of April 5, 1884 and is based on a triptych public order, security and safety. This is what allowed the Hauriou Dean to refer to a "material and external" order, to the extent where it is well to avoid serious disorders exceed a level corresponding to the normal inconveniences of life in society. Academics heard the burqa parliamentary information mission have, in unison, indicated that such a basis was inadequate to justify the absolute prohibition envisaged. Nobody to this day did state of violent reactions to view a fully veiled woman, the disturbance to public order cannot be mentioned.

In these circumstances, the Government has decided to use the obscure concept of "intangible public order". However this concept is today highly controversial to the point that it seems to escape any universally accepted definition. In fact, the keeper of the seals fit indistinctly reference in his remarks to a "social order" or "order public societal", which shows a minimum that this idea is also few legally stabilized in domestic law that it is unknown in the legal systems of our European neighbours. In fact, we discern evil ultimately what could distinguish the reality to which it refers to a police spirits. Who can guarantee that, tomorrow, this inherently subjective concept will not serve to justify a moral"Street", whose ambition is to regulate to the clothing of passers-by Is measured, then the danger for the liberties And the valuable role of the judge to ensure the reconciliation of fundamental rights which may sometimes be contradictory. No trace of such considerations into the debates of the Assembly. But the UMP deputies, academe this text will end up well by be overtaken by the law.