Sébastien Delogu Exposes France’s Selective Political Liberty
Sébastien Delogu, a member of the French Parliament with La France Insoumise (LFI), was banned from Parliament for two weeks and had his parliamentary allowance halved for two months after holding up the Palestinian flag in a parliamentary session. This act of protest led to accusations of professional misconduct, and lawmakers voted to suspend him, sparking a heated debate.
For the past 8 months, we have witnessed the ongoing genocide of Palestine, which has not only deepened the world’s divisiveness but also clearly highlighted those who stand on the right side of humanity against those who lack a moral compass. This crisis has divided politicians, with many being brave enough to speak out, including the LFI known as a left-wing political party that advocates for the rights of oppressed peoples, including Palestinians.
Delogu later attended a pro-Palestine rally in Paris to further demonstrate his solidarity with the Palestinian people. He stated that his actions aimed to bring more visibility to the Palestinian cause and the ongoing violence, including the beheading of children and mass killings, which continue despite the International Court of Justice (ICJ) calling for an end to the massacres.
In response to Delogu’s actions, other French MPs wore clothing in the colours of the Palestinian flag, reaffirming their support for Gaza and standing with their colleague, Delogu. Despite this support, another attempt to raise the Palestinian flag in Parliament was swiftly rebuked.
This incident reflects a larger issue in French politics, showing the ongoing struggle to balance freedom of expression with the need for professional behaviour among public officials.
This incident reflects a larger issue in French politics, showing the ongoing struggle to balance freedom of expression with the need for professional behaviour among public officials. This controversy has prompted various political parties to weigh in, with supporters arguing that Delogu was exercising his fundamental democratic right to freedom of expression. Critics, on the other hand, believe he overstepped his professional boundaries condemning his actions as irresponsible.
Despite condemning the Israeli offensive on Rafah and acknowledging the associated crimes, France continues to supply ammunition to the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) while expressing solidarity with Israel. Raising the Palestinian flag in Parliament directly challenges this stance, risking the political careers of figures like Delogu. Support for Palestine is perceived as a direct challenge to government policies and its relationship with Israeli leadership.
[France’s] position is contradicted by [its] continued arming of the IOF, enabling actions it has acknowledged as criminal.
France has established a strong relationship with Israel, marked by a consistent commitment to its existence and security, since establishing diplomatic relations on May 11, 1949. Over the decades, France has supported Israel’s security concerns while also advocating for Palestinian rights. Although France reaffirms its commitment to Israel’s security and right to exist, it simultaneously expresses concerns about Israeli settlements in occupied territories and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. However, this position is contradicted by France’s continued arming of the IOF, enabling actions it has acknowledged as criminal.
The incident with Delogu raises pertinent questions about the boundaries of activism for public officials and the potential impact on their duties. The fear of facing personal and professional repercussions weighs heavily on many officials, creating a reluctance to voice their convictions. Moreover, the threat of backlash from political opponents and the public looms large, posing a danger to their reputations and future career prospects. These concerns are creating a barrier to speaking out, even for those who personally support the cause, as they contend with the daunting risks to their professional careers and personal stability.
France’s national motto, “Liberté, egalité, fraternité,” — “liberty, equality, fraternity” — seems to be upheld for appearances only, as there appears to be little genuine belief in these principles when it comes to Palestine.
France’s national motto, “Liberté, egalité, fraternité,” — “liberty, equality, fraternity” — seems to be upheld for appearances only, as there appears to be little genuine belief in these principles when it comes to Palestine. The term “liberty” itself means the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behaviour, or political views. Why, then, is it so hard to accept this principle for Palestine, and why are voices speaking out for this cause being silenced and reprimanded? This contradicts the very essence of the motto.
Regardless of our professional duties and status, we all hold a moral responsibility. Delogu has demonstrated this by upholding his views in a country that “prides” itself on liberty.
As debates continue, it remains to be seen how this incident will shape future policies and the extent to which public officials can engage in political activism without facing severe repercussions. More importantly, these discussions ensure that the genocide happening in Palestine is at the forefront of all our discussions and that there are still people advocating for justice despite efforts to silence them.
Delogu’s actions have shown us the importance of maintaining moral responsibility in the face of professional challenges. These conversations need to be happening. The sheer importance of advocating for human rights and justice should never warrant such extreme reprimand.