Sarah El Haïry: "The republican contract of engagement is a shield for their freedoms and not a weapon against associations"
Michel LulekRelated topics:
Associative lawNumerous councils (High Council for Community Life (HCVA), Defender of Rights, National Consultative Commission on Human Rights, group of experts at the Council of Europe) have issued opinions emphasizing the risks represented by the “republican engagement contract” for the exercise of freedoms of association. How to explain the choice of the Government to set up such a contract, which, to reach a tiny minority of deviant practices, casts suspicion on the associative fabric?
Sarah El Haïry, Secretary of State for Youth and Engagement
I would first like to say that since my arrival at the National Assembly, I have never ceased to work with the associative world and that it is essential for me to continue to build together, with the associative movement, with the national federations, but also with the non-federated associations and the local elected representatives. When I hear representatives of associations speak of the Government's "suspicion", "mistrust" or "doubts" vis-à-vis associations, it upsets me and touches me. These words are out of place in our relations with associations. The republican contract of engagement, as provided for in article 6 of the law aimed at reinforcing republican principles, is in no way intended to cast suspicion. On the contrary: its purpose is to protect the freedom of associations against the excesses of some structures and I will never stop convincing the associations that this contract is not a weapon against them but on the contrary a shield for their freedoms.
But do these associations really exist that you believe pervert the 1901 law?
There aren't many of them, but yes, they do exist. We have, moreover, had to dissolve several in recent months, such as Generation Identity, the Collective against Islamophobia in France or the NGO BarakaCity. Is this an attack on freedom of association? I do not think so. And with this in mind, the republican commitment contract, carried out with my colleague Marlène Schiappa, is a tool of balance and wisdom that allows associations to display the defense of the principles of freedom, equality and fraternity, of equality between men and women or respect for human dignity and public order. Who is against? Person. We will only achieve this goal if the associations use the contract to affirm this.
However, you did not need either the Republican contract of engagement or this law to dissolve the associations you cite... The lawyers or the HCVA say it: the existing legal arsenal is largely sufficient for that. Do you disagree with them?
It's true, we didn't need the law. Nevertheless, when I see communities implementing secularism charters, when I hear elected officials consider themselves powerless to recover unduly paid subsidies (which is not provided for by article L.1611-4 of the general code of local authorities), I think that there is a lack of a legal framework to act. This republican commitment contract also aims to harmonize all these charters. In this sense, it is the heir to the charter of reciprocal commitments of 2014 by giving it greater scope and greater requirements.
Why are only associations concerned and not, for example, companies which nevertheless also receive state aid?
Being in charge of associative life, it's not up to me to give you answer for business. What I mean behind this question is that if the Republican contract of engagement is a shield, it must be a shield for all. But once again, I ask the associations not to look at this contract as a constraint, but rather as an opportunity to defend living together as most of them already practice it.
The Observatory of Associative Freedoms speaks in its October 2020 report of "restriction of associative freedoms" and "repressed citizenship". What do you think?
I have not read the details of the elements of this report and therefore do not want to react to the examples it cites. However, I would like to point out that the right to demonstrate is recognized in France and that militant associations and whistleblowers, even when their criticisms and actions may go against State policies, are not concerned. by the measures provided for in the law confirming the republican principles. If there are violations of freedom of association, I will be the first to act to remedy them. all types of meetings which exclude anyone who wants to participate and which, therefore, legitimize discrimination. However, the Government did not defend this amendment voted by the Senate because, for constitutional reasons, it seems to us that it is not admissible. The dissolution of an association must be reserved for the most serious cases and remain an exceptional measure.
What about the laws on associative commitment and on associative treasuries filed in 2018 and which have since stalled?
I have good news for you on this announce. They will be submitted to the Senate on May 12, 2021. I know that they are eagerly awaited by the associations and I hope that, unlike the one we have just discussed, they will be the occasion for a real moment of unity for associations !
Welcome!
You are subscribed to the weekly news of Associations Mode d'emploi
Subscription offer
I subscribe
I'm a subscriber
My Digital Review
I consultMANAGE YOURASSOCIATION
Questions and answers Thematic files Key figures Practical kitsWe recommend
The secondment of a municipal agent
Under certain conditions, a municipality can make one or more agents available to an association that carries out a public service mission. A provision is strictly supervised and subject to compliance with[…]
01/25/2022| Local authorities,Town hall,Employee
