Author: Aurelien Breeden And Jeffrey Marcus
Publication: The New York Times
Date: February 16, 2016
URL:   http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/16/world/europe/france-constitution-new-laws.html

The government in France wants to change the Constitution and pass a new law that would give the authorities greater powers to combat terrorism. This has prompted a debate over civil liberties. Here is a breakdown of the proposed changes and how they compare with the policies in place in other countries.

The government in France wants to change the Constitution and pass a new law that would give the authorities greater powers to combat terrorism. This has prompted a debate over civil liberties.

Here is a breakdown of the proposed changes and how they compare with the policies in place in other countries.

EMERGENCY POWERS
Under the current law, the president can declare a 12-day state of emergency, which Parliament can extend.

France

The National Assembly voted Tuesday to extend the current state of emergency for another three months, until May 26.

It has been in place since Nov. 14 – the day after Paris was struck by terrorist attacks – enabling French authorities to conduct police raids without warrants and put suspects under house arrest without prior judicial authorization. They can also ban public demonstrations, shut down websites and disband groups deemed a threat to public order by the government.

The government is pushing to make the power to declare a state of emergency part of the French Constitution, which would make it more difficult for successive governments to change how that power is wielded.

The state of emergency has received broad approval in France, where recent polls show that more than two-thirds of the public support it.

Human rights groups have protested, and some Muslims believe that they are being unfairly singled out by the expanded police measures.

Elsewhere

Most governments have some legal mechanism for declaring an emergency in the event of war, insurrection or natural disaster. But many countries have laws that restrict the movement of citizens even in the absence of an emergency.

Turkey used a state of emergency to quell an insurgency by Kurdish groups in the southeastern part of the country, and Egypt maintains a state of emergency in the northern parts of the Sinai Peninsula, where security forces have been battling Islamic militants.

In China, martial law is rarely declared because the government already holds broad powers to detain, control or restrict the movement of people. The national legislature passed a counterterrorism law and a national security law in 2015 authorizing restrictions in response to a terrorist attack or major threat.

POLICE AUTHORITY
Provisions would allow for detentions, searches and the expanded use of deadly force by the police.

France

The police can detain terrorism suspects for up to 144 days without charges. The government is seeking new powers, including the ability to hold someone for up to four hours to check his identification and the authority to search bags and vehicles near “sensitive” sites by order of a prosecutor.

The proposed law would also allow the government to put someone returning from a “terrorist theater of operation,” like Syria or Iraq, under house arrest for up to a month.

The bill has already riled some judges and human rights groups, which say the government is trying to institutionalize exceptional measures after the state of emergency ends.

Elsewhere

There are legal provisions in many countries for the police to arrest and hold suspects without charge for a limited time.

In Russia, the police may hold a suspect for 48 hours before a court must issue formal charges, lest the suspect go free.

In China, the police can detain citizens for up to 30 days with the approval of a prosecutor’s office before making a formal arrest. House arrest can last six months, and can easily be extended.

In Israel, the authorities can hold suspects in administrative detention without charges or a trial, and typically withhold evidence from the accused and their lawyers. Suspects are often held for renewable periods of six months, which can sometimes stretch into years.

SURVEILLANCE
Intelligence agencies were given new powers to monitor communications after terrorist attacks in January 2015. Now, police agencies and prosecutors are seeking similar investigative powers.

France

A provision in the policing bill would let prosecutors eavesdrop on cellphone communications with a judge’s authorization, using technology currently available only to intelligence agencies, which were granted enhanced capabilities after the attacks in January 2015 at the Paris offices of a satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, and a kosher supermarket.

The new bill would also give prosecutors powers similar to those of investigative judges, including the ability to tap phones, use hidden cameras and analyze electronic communications.

Critics worry that these surveillance powers go well beyond fighting terrorism, and that extraordinary measures undertaken during the state of emergency are slipping into common practice.

Elsewhere

In the United States, the National Security Agency has carried out complex electronic surveillance domestically and abroad since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The agency’s monitoring of international calls and emails without warrants, and its secret collection of metadata, have raised serious privacy concerns.

In 2007, President George W. Bush signed a law broadly expanding the government’s authority to eavesdrop on international calls and email without warrants.

When it was revealed in 2013 by Edward J. Snowden, a former government contractor, that the N.S.A. had been secretly collecting and storing Americans’ phone records, the government again reviewed its surveillance practices.

In 2015, President Obama signed a law that allowed the government to conduct surveillance operations, but with new limits.

CITIZENSHIP
No government proposal since the terrorist attacks in November has raised as much alarm among civil libertarians as one that would strip French citizenship from people with dual citizenship who have been convicted of terrorism-related crimes.

France

France can strip a person of citizenship if he or she is convicted of crimes that violate the “fundamental interests of the nation,” including terrorism, only if the person is a naturalized French citizen who is also a citizen of another country.

President François Hollande has proposed a new measure that would make it possible to strip the citizenship of dual citizens born in France who were convicted of terrorism.

Polls have suggested there is wide public support, but opponents on the left say the proposal unfairly targets French people with immigrant backgrounds.

A revised bill would make it possible for a judge to strip the citizenship or civic rights of anyone convicted of terrorism, whether or not the person holds another passport.

Elsewhere

In Britain, the government has used its power to revoke citizenship to keep terrorism suspects from re-entering the country.

The protections of citizenship are arguably more valuable in the European Union than they are elsewhere in the world. In European countries, foreigners are sometimes afforded greater consideration from prosecutors than citizens are.

In Egypt, foreigners — especially Westerners — are often deported rather than imprisoned. And in China, foreigners who are detained can sometimes receive stronger protections, because their governments can demand consular access.