1. Firstly, I would like to react to an important point raised by Yap Swee Seng: there is state terrorism, and it has to be condemned and fought. As a French citizen, I am very sensitive to this important issue, because the French state may be on that matter one of the worst in the European Union (together with the British ?). Just to recall, France generalized the use of torture to terrorise entire populations, especially during the Algiers Battle, while it tried to crush the Algerian liberation movement. It also planted a bomb – under the Socialist president Mitterrand– to sink in foreign waters the Rainbow Warrior, Greenpeace’s peace boat, killing a Portuguese photographer: this was really a typical terrorist act! And we could go on to the present, with the role of the French army in Africa…
The first duty of human rights defenders is to check their own state. Thus, I would like to ask a question to Xu Feibiao: Most of your contribution was to underline the danger of terrorism and justify existing anti-terrorist policies. There was nevertheless a part on how these policies could have a negative impact on human rights but, strangely, on this issue, you mentioned only the United States and Europe – never China. Is there really nothing to say on how anti-terrorist policies can threaten human rights in China and is it not your role, as a Chinese, to address this question?
2. Secondly, I would like to react to Ben Hayes’ intervention. I am not sure that every one in our workshop noticed the importance of one issue he raised. There is an ongoing radical change, in our European countries, on criminal and judiciary approaches. More and more, the whole population is treated collectively as “suspect”. This was not the case before and this has and will have far-reaching consequences.
To illustrate this point, I would like to take a very recent example from France. The government decided to build a new police database called “Edvige”. To be listed in it, one does not need to have done anything unlawful. It is sufficient that the police think that maybe you could be so in the future – which can be the case for any youngster from poor districts! Children from 13 years old can be entered into this database. As well as any social, religious and political activist, any trade unionist, anyone running for elections… All together lumped into the same criminal database! The gathering of information on their health, religion, sexual orientation was initially allowed. A dossier on members of their families, friends, colleagues could also be introduced in the data-base… which means that the proportion of the population being put on file will be huge.
The French government met with a massive democratic outcry and was forced to change the name and modify (but only marginally) the content of its new data-base –. It will try to preserve most of it.
Sharp changes in French juridical traditions are also occurring against migrants. The government decided to ask migrants who wanted to bring their children to France to pass DNA tests to prove a genetic line of descent. It meant that, according to this law, adopted children are not considered « true » ones! In French tradition (it can be otherwise in some European countries), the use of DNA tests is very restricted, and it is quite a sensitive issue. Here too, due to protests, the government was forced to modify its law, but without giving completely away on the DNA test. Most other aspects of the new law were not changed, including the requirement that migrants learn French before coming the France. I would like to see the reaction of the French MPs who voted for this law if they were obliged to learn Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Russian or Finnish before going to work or live in a foreign country!
The French population is largely aware of the social consequences of neo-liberal counter-reforms; but few only realize already how deep and grave the consequences of the new wave of restrictions will be on civil liberties, often imposed in the name of anti-terrorism and the fight against uncontrolled migration. De facto, the rule of law is more and more emptied of its content and replaced by a sort of permanent state of emergency. Anti-terrorist laws look more and more as civil war laws.
3. Thirdly, I would like to react to Xu Feibiao’s contribution. Xu stated that anti-terrorist policies were turned against “religious extremism, political extremism and splitism”. The word “extremism” is very convenient in that it has no specific content: a government can freely label a movement “extremist”. I would especially like to know what do you mean by “political extremism”. I tried to become a Marxist more than 40 years ago and always considered a Communist to be a rebel. In France, I can easily be called “extreme left” – which looks like “extremist”. Do you consider me a dangerous “extremist”?
If I ask you this question, it is because of what happened to me this morning. I must confess here that I committed a sin. Instead of participating in a workshop, I decided to birdwatch (a passion). During three hours, I was being followed in the surrounding countryside [1] by one (and even two) police cars! I am not the only one concerned. All entrances to the hotel have been blocked by the police, except the main one. Each time one of us has been out and comes back to the hotel, she or he is supposed to pass through X ray security.
We thought we were guests, but it looks like we are suspects. Does this mean that, in China, left activists are a priori considered “dangerous”?
4. A last word. To be able to check their own government and the implication for human rights and civil liberties of anti-terrorist policies, our organizations have to be truly independent from the state and governmental parties. That is a must, both in Europe and in Asia.
Post script: When he responded to the discussion, Xu Feibiao answered none of my questions.
[1] The forum took place in a hotel compound on the outskirts of Beijing’s urban zone, very far from the town center: the countryside is a few hundred meters away only.