The police services delivered a letter from Prefect Lamy to Philippe Vardon late today.
In it, the State representative indicates:
“I inform you that, notably due to the gathering location, in the immediate vicinity
of a Muslim prayer hall, and the nature of your demonstration, likely to cause significant
risks of public disorder, I am considering prohibiting this demonstration.”
Many are wondering why the prefecture has delayed for three days now to make a definitive
decision. Clearly, the State services are attempting to ensure both the solidity of
their decision and to buy time. In either case, their fear is that an administrative court
might overturn their potential prohibition. It is certain that if the decision comes at
the very last moment, it will be more difficult…
In the same letter, the Prefect invites the organizers of the gathering to present their
possible observations. Below is the letter from Philippe Vardon to Prefect Lamy,
reproduced in full.
Mr. Prefect,
I hereby acknowledge receipt of your letter, as the main organizer
of the gathering “apéro-porchetta rue de Suisse – quartier halal ça suffit”.
In accordance with your invitation, I would like to express through this
letter several remarks regarding your apparent intent to prohibit our gathering.
You cite as the first reason the location of the gathering, “in the immediate vicinity
of a Muslim prayer hall”.
Are we to understand that you believe a demonstration cannot
take place in front of a Muslim prayer hall? Do prayer halls or
mosques benefit from special rights? Indeed, numerous gatherings are
regularly held in front of the nearby Notre-Dame church, without, I believe, you ever finding
it necessary to prohibit any of them.
You might argue the controversial nature of our
gathering with respect to Muslim beliefs? Indeed, several
left-wing elected officials who requested you to ban our
“apéro” argued that the consumption of pork was a provocation
against Muslims. This argument seems particularly twisted,
unless one wishes to impose the prohibitions of a
religion on all citizens, or within a certain zone
around a place of worship? This seems far removed
from the principle of secularism guiding our institutions.
We could mention, as a parallel example or perhaps case law,
the “kiss-ins”, public displays of affection organized by homosexual
associations in front of Catholic churches to protest
against the Vatican’s positions. These gatherings may
clearly offend Catholic believers, yet it has never occurred
to a Prefect to prohibit them on this basis.
You then suggest that “the object of our demonstration” would be “likely
to cause significant risks of public disorder”.
I fear that in reality, it is not the nature of our
gathering, but indeed the location where we wish to hold it,
that poses a problem. Your services informed us that if we
were to move the gathering elsewhere, it would be authorized. Of course,
for us this would no longer make any sense. But we still want
to understand why what would be possible at Place Garibaldi or
rue Arson would not be possible at rue de Suisse? Republican equality
establishes, notably, that the law applies equally across
the entire territory.
Yesterday, the Agence France Presse, in a dispatch dedicated to our
gathering, referred in its headline to “a Muslim neighborhood” to
describe rue de Suisse and its surroundings, echoing our slogan
“Quartier-halal ça suffit!”. I cannot believe that a State
representative could acknowledge the fact that an entire neighborhood
of our city has turned into a community ghetto, ultimately prohibiting
a gathering aimed precisely at denouncing this situation.
Finally, Mr. Prefect, like most of the residents of Nice, I would
find it very difficult to understand this severity towards us, as for months,
or even years, you have tolerated without any intervention the regular
and repeated blocking of rue de Suisse by
Muslim prayers.
NISSA REBELA
