The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Paris: an agent disembarked after the attack on the police headquarters lodges a complaint for "discrimination"

2021-10-17T14:51:47.393Z


The man, a Muslim, had been suspended for four months in the wake of the attack on October 3, 2019, then reinstated in another service. In question, suspicions of unfounded radicalization according to him.


A Paris police officer filed a complaint against X for "

slanderous denunciation

" and "

discrimination

", reveals FranceInter this Sunday, October 17.

The man, suspended after the attack on the police headquarters on October 3, 2019 on suspicion of Islamist radicalization, believes he has suffered an injustice.

Read alsoThe attack at the Paris police headquarters, two years later

In the wake of the attack, the prefect of police Didier Lallement thus decides to suspend seven officials, corresponding to certain reports and suspicions.

An officer, named Hervé C. according to France Inter, and of Muslim faith, is relieved of his anti-terrorist mission.

Disarmed, he also no longer has access to the intelligence files he is accustomed to consulting and enriching.

At the end of four months, the maximum possible duration, he is reinstated in another service, responsible for the fight against VAT fraud.

Two contradictory reports

In search of justice, this officer would have discovered this summer a report of 2020 of the General Inspectorate of the National Police (IGPN) concerning him. Inside, 17 testimonies from colleagues, in particular female police officers ... With the conclusion of a "

total absence, including weak signals of a possible Islamist radicalization."

"It was the event of the attack, as well as a first investigation in 2011, which would have created confusion, as the report quotes:"

The feelings and concerns of the agents appear to be linked to the administrative investigation carried out in 2011, the lack of communication of its conclusions and the context linked to the attack on October 3, 2019 at the police headquarters,and not to factual and concrete elements as to a possible radicalization of this agent.

"

However, on the side of the direction of the prefecture, no gesture was made, in particular the decision hoped for by Hervé C., namely to return to an anti-terrorist service.

The reason ?

A new report, dated June 11, 2021, and more suspicious than the previous one.

And for good reason, it takes the survey of 2011 rather than that of the previous year.

He quotes: “

Mr. C. was already, in 2011, the subject of a report and an internal investigation at the initiative of his superiors following criticisms from colleagues resulting from his notorious and manifest ignorance, including during his service, principles of secularism and neutrality as well as for suspicion of radicalization.

"

“Discrimination”?

This new report, much less favorable, constitutes an injustice according to Anass Khafif, the agent's lawyer. "

We could have understood with the weight of emotion, we could have understood with the weight of responsibility, that, at the time of the commission of this terrible attack, that the Ministry of the Interior could move, act, monitor . Very well. But two years later, he is called a terrorist! Without trial, without evidence, without material facts, you are assigned a suspicion of terrorism, a suspicion of radicalization; but where are we going? This whole attitude shows that there was discrimination.

For the officer's other lawyer, Hélène Jouny, the police hierarchy "

did not want to withdraw from the vexatious and infamous treatment which was reserved for our client

".

Its supporters say they are ready to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, if necessary.

Source: lefigaro

All news articles on 2021-10-17

You may like

News/Politics 2024-02-28T11:25:13.958Z

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-27T16:45:54.081Z

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.