 |
  |
|
 |
             |
|
“In the Name of Prevention: Insufficient Safeguards in National Security Removals” Audio Transcript - News Release Full Report Download Emma Daly: This is Emma Daly, Press Director at Human Rights Watch. I’m speaking with Judith Sunderland, EU researcher at Human Rights Watch and author of a new report which is on forced removals of terrorism suspects from France.Since 2001, France has sent dozens of foreign terrorism suspects and individuals accused of being extremists back to their countries of nationality. Some were deported after serving prison sentences for terrorism-related offenses. Others were Muslim religious leaders known as imams, expelled for preaching ideas deemed by the authorities to foment extremism and contribute to radicalization. At a time when governments across Europe increasingly see removals as an important tool in the effort to counter radicalization and recruitment, the report argues that France has not included enough safeguards to prevent serious violations of France’s obligations under international human rights law. What’s wrong with France removing terrorists? Judith Sunderland: Well, Emma, France has a duty to protect its population from a terrorist attack, and removing people who pose a genuine threat is one way to do this, but it has to be done in a way that doesn’t trample people’s fundamental rights. The procedures have to give people a genuine chance to dispute the evidence against them, a right to stay in France until their appeal has been decided, and protection against violations of basic human rights. The problem is safeguards are now not sufficient. The appeals against removal don’t automatically suspend expulsion or deportation, and this is especially dangerous when there’s a risk of torture or ill-treatment upon return. France was recently condemned in fact for the second time in four years by the UN Committee against Torture precisely for sending someone back to a country where he faced a real risk of torture. Daly: The report describes cases of imams expelled for hate speech. Shouldn’t France crack down on religious leaders who preach extremism? Judith Sunderland: Here I want to be very very clear. We are not defending the ideas or opinions these men are accused of expressing. On the contrary, we acknowledge very very clearly that these statements are deeply offensive to many people. But the right to freedom of expression protects unpopular, shocking and even insulting ideas. Crimes like directly inciting violence should be punished through the criminal justice system. Instead, here we have the Interior Ministry basically uses immigration powers, which offer fewer guarantees, to expel imams on the basis of intelligence reports that are very difficult to contest on appeal. Daly: Judith Sunderland: Any law enforcement or intelligence officer will tell you that community cooperation is absolutely key to preventing and fighting crime. Counterterrorism measures that violate human rights and affect Muslims disproportionately are likely to alienate the very communities whose cooperation is needed to counter radicalization and extremism. Many of the Muslims I spoke with in the course of this research are very concerned that these removals send the wrong message to Muslims in France: you’re not welcome here, Islam is dangerous, your human rights don’t matter because fighting terrorism is more important. And this is especially true when those sent away are long-term residents, some of whom were even born in France, and who are married to French citizens and permanent residents and have French children.Daly: Judith Sunderland: Well, an alternative to removal already exists. It’s called compulsory residence, and it basically gives the government the authority to obligate someone to live in a certain place and report periodically to the police. We think that the system needs to be improved, but with better safeguards and conditions, compulsory residence is the appropriate alternative to a forcible removal that violates basic rights. |  |
