The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

"Roland-Garros, Euro ... is the curfew still a health measure or the simple act of the prince?"

2021-06-18T04:36:09.194Z


FIGAROVOX / TRIBUNE - The spectators of Roland-Garros were able to benefit from an exemption from the curfew and the police should be "tolerant" on the evening of the France-Germany match. For Mathieu Slama, these arbitrary decisions show the unfounded nature of maintaining this measure.


Consultant and political analyst, Mathieu Slama works for several media, notably Le Figaro and Le Huffington Post.

He has published

The War of the Worlds, Reflections on Putin's Crusade Against the West

(ed. De Fallois, 2016).

To discover

  • Michel Houellebecq: "A civilization which legalizes euthanasia loses all rights to respect"

Health policy continues in a very strange way. This Monday, we learned that the government would not grant any curfew exemption for the Euro France-Germany match, thus preventing the French from celebrating in the streets a possible victory, the match ending just before 11 p.m. But a few days earlier, the government granted an exemption to spectators of the semi-final of Roland Garros between Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal so that they could attend the end of the match, while the other matches did not. benefited. A week earlier, same exemption granted to spectators of the preparatory match for Euro France-Bulgaria. And finally, this morning, the Minister of Sport declared that there would be a "tolerance" to go home after the France-Germany match,but few fan zones. Let's be honest, we got a bit confused.

We get lost all the more because at the same time as the end of the semi-final at Roland Garros, the police forcefully dislodged hundreds of young people gathered at the Invalides to celebrate.

Because for them, there was no exemption.

There are several things to say about this cacophony which, in many ways, is indicative of the inconsistencies and absurdity of health policy.

We must first say a word about the way in which the decision to waive Roland-Garros was taken. If we are to believe the director of Roland-Garros Guy Forget interviewed on

RMC Sport

, it is the general director of the French Tennis Federation, Amélie Oudéa-Castera, who obtained "

at the last minute

" the authorization from of the Élysée and of Matignon. We will not have more details on the decision-making, which raises questions from a democratic point of view. A fact of the prince which is undoubtedly explained mainly by the fear of the

bad buzz

and the media impact that a non-derogation decision would have caused, which would have made headlines in France and abroad. Because the stake for Emmanuel Macron is not small. The Head of State is currently leading an aggressive communication campaign around sport, in particular with the start of the Euro football during which he gave an interview to two sports journalists. In his frantic quest for depoliticization, Macron knows that sport is an essential asset to restore his image, and that the image of spectators leaving the center court of Roland-Garros to respect the curfew would have been catastrophic from the point of view of the image. This is an important point because with sport, Macron knows he is coming out ofpolitical space and can pursue its depoliticized communication strategy, which consists of speaking to the French by targets and without political contradiction. Yesterday was the entertainment video with McFly and Carlito, today the sport, tomorrow something else. Macron's strategy in this crisis has been opportunistic from the start: it follows the ups and downs of public opinion and takes every opportunity to do communication and marketing. It is no different with this funny sporting sequence.she follows the ups and downs of public opinion and takes every opportunity to do communication and marketing. It is no different with this funny sporting sequence.she follows the ups and downs of public opinion and takes every opportunity to do communication and marketing. It is no different with this funny sporting sequence.

The breach of equality before the law caused by the exemption from Roland-Garros has no legal basis and can only be explained by the action of the Prince.

Mathieu slama

But beyond this obvious communication strategy, this waiver decision perfectly illustrates the way in which health policy has been carried out so far, that is to say in a completely opaque, undemocratic and discretionary way. From the outset, health decisions have been taken by a single man, surrounded by his scientific advisers, according to difficult to understand and constantly changing criteria. Why grant an exemption for a tennis match and not a festive outdoor activity, for which we know that the risk of contamination is low? What are the criteria for all these decisions? The government gave an explanation. According to Matignon, interviewed by

LCI

, the exemption from Roland-Garros was justified by the fact that a strict health protocol had been put in place, conditioning access to the stands on the presentation of a health pass, the wearing of a mask and the respect of barrier gestures. Which, moreover, was not noted by anyone: we had here, before our eyes, a blatant example of the inequality caused by the implementation of this health pass, the matches of Roland-Garros being reserved for only vaccinated or to those who could provide proof that they were not positive for Covid. But let's come back to the government's argument: the text of the law authorizing the state of health emergency and the implementation of the curfew absolutely does not provide for such a derogation, whatever the reason! In other words, the breaking ofequality before the law caused by the exemption from Roland-Garros has no legal basis and can only be explained by the action of the Prince. Because if we follow the logic of the government, then the curfew should be lifted for all holders of the health pass, which is obviously not the case. This legal opacity has been the norm since the beginning of the health crisis: why such a ban and why such an authorization, why the curfew at such a time rather than another, etc. The government has never ceased to make extremely serious decisions, then to change them, without any clear legal criteria being presented to the French.we follow the logic of the government, then the curfew should be lifted for all holders of the health pass, which is obviously not the case. This legal opacity has been the norm since the beginning of the health crisis: why such a ban and why such an authorization, why the curfew at such a time rather than another, etc. The government has never ceased to make extremely serious decisions, then to change them, without any clear legal criteria being presented to the French.we follow the logic of the government, then the curfew should be lifted for all holders of the health pass, which is obviously not the case. This legal opacity has been the norm since the beginning of the health crisis: why such a ban and why such an authorization, why the curfew at such a time rather than another, etc. The government has never ceased to make extremely serious decisions, then to change them, without any clear legal criteria being presented to the French.why the curfew at one hour rather than another, etc. The government has never ceased to make extremely serious decisions, then to change them, without any clear legal criteria being presented to the French.why the curfew at one hour rather than another, etc. The government has never ceased to make extremely serious decisions, then to change them, without any clear legal criteria being presented to the French.

Wearing a mask, like the curfew, engages immense democratic questions and cannot be reduced to a simple technical and opaque question, on the basis of criteria that are themselves incomprehensible.

Mathieu slama

But can we decide on such serious measures in such a light way? Does the government consider the curfew to be a normal measure, a measure like any other that can be adjusted over time and depending on the location and the public in the same way as a tax or subsidy? If the curfew can be suspended for a reason as trivial as a football match or a tennis match, how can we justify its very existence? How to explain to the French that it was necessary? What vision of public freedoms does this convey? Health biopolitics has standardized insane measures, which violate all imaginable freedoms, and turned them into a disciplinary arsenal within the normal exercise of government. Who today can rationally, scientifically explain the usefulness ofa curfew at 9 p.m. or 11 p.m., a curfew whose initial goal, as presented by the government in October 2020, was to stop "

festive private gatherings

”?

What was considered exceptional and temporary has become normal.

Let us remember: the Council of State and the Constitutional Council justified and validated the most stringent health measures because they were "

limited in time

" and of "

maximum effectiveness

".

However, these measures will have lasted beyond anything imaginable, and their “

maximum

effectiveness

remains to be proven.

The legal tinkering around health measures has helped to trivialize them and give them a dangerous normality.

The same could be said of the decision, announced yesterday, to put an end to the wearing of masks outdoors "

if conditions allow it.

», While there is now a majority of voices who consider that outdoor contamination represents an extreme minority of cases of infection, and that the outdoor mask is therefore useless to protect against the virus. Here again, it is difficult to understand the logic of the decision: why not decide it outright today? Why add that the final decision has not yet been taken? On what criteria could it be canceled? All of this is completely opaque, even though it is again a serious measure, which involves our relationship to others in society. Wearing a mask engages, like the curfew, immense democratic questions and cannot be reduced to a simple technical and opaque question,on the basis of criteria which are themselves incomprehensible. Or we consider, once again, that these measures are pure technical measures, banal, flexible at will.

The “Thank you Macron!

»Of Roland-Garros sounded like the expression of joy of a people who have become accustomed to conditional freedom and permanent infantilization.

Mathieu slama

There remains the most fundamental meaning of this sequence, linked to our relationship to power and the way in which, since the start of the pandemic, we have given it the keys to our freedom. It seemed acceptable to the greatest number that attending a tennis match or a soccer match was conditional on a government decision. And when he grants a waiver, then we stand up to thank him for it. This is exactly what happened on Friday at Roland Garros, where the public chanted, once the exemption was announced, “

Thank you Macron!

"While the commentators of

France Televisions

exulted by shouting"

Derogation!

". This scene was as surreal as it was shameful. It revealed how the French viewed their own freedoms: as a right generously granted by power, and not as an inalienable right. Recent polls show it: the popularity of the Head of State has increased after the gradual lifting of the curfew and the reopening of social spaces. The whole sequence of communication around the “

liberation

” of the French, however crude, was particularly effective. Can a truly free people acclaim a government that enslaved them and then “

freed

” them? The “

Thank you Macron!

»Of Roland-Garros sounded like the expression of joy of a people who have become accustomed to conditional freedom and permanent infantilization. It sounded like a childish expression of gratitude from a people towards those who hold the keys to their freedom, and who can decide, alone, what they have the right to do or not. The spectators shouted “

Thank you!

In the same way a child would say thank you to his parents for granting him the right to go to a party with his friends. Instead of bitching and finding it abnormal that government clearance would be required for a tennis match to continue, they waited for the decision from above with the hope that this time the President will be magnanimous. We could not better illustrate the decline of our democratic culture and our ability to oppose, even peacefully, what clearly does not belong to democratic reason. And it's a safe bet that if France wins the Euro, then this democratic recklessness will be all the greater, the citizens taking refuge in the circus games while democracy, outside, burns.

Source: lefigaro

All news articles on 2021-06-18

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.