French Assembly Law Committee to debate petition against police self-defense presumption

Paris – On the evening of Tuesday, July 21, the National Assembly's Law Committee will host a final parliamentary showdown before the summer recess. At stake is the fate of a petition "against the presumption of self-defense for law enforcement," which has amassed over 700,000 signatures in just a few days.

Procedural Maneuvering

Like any parliamentary battle, this one has seen its share of twists. The rapporteur on the petition's admissibility was originally scheduled to be Philippe Gosselin (Les Républicains, Manche). However, thanks to a strong mobilization of left-wing deputies, Ugo Bernalicis (La France insoumise, Nord) was appointed instead.

If, as Bernalicis hopes, the Law Committee votes to examine the petition, two deputies with opposing views will produce a report on the issue. The Conference of Presidents would then decide whether to organize a debate in the Hemicycle—a prospect that deeply displeases the center and the right.

The bill that the petition opposes was already adopted by the Assembly on July 7, raising the question of whether a heated debate should be prolonged.

Origins of the Petition

The petition was launched by Issam El Khalfaoui, whose 19-year-old son Souheil was killed by a police officer during a check in Marseille on August 4, 2021. El Khalfaoui is president of the association Stop aux violences d'État.

"When the LR [Les Républicains] bill was re-registered for the July session, we looked for a way to oppose it and break out of defeatism and inertia," he said. "This petition was the only democratic tool at our disposal."

The speed of its success surprised both its initiator and some deputies.

A Growing Trend

This is not the first time parliamentarians have been caught off guard by citizen petitions:

• Summer 2025: A petition against the Duplomb law and neonicotinoids, launched late in the parliamentary process, exceeded 2 million signatures.
• February: A text opposing the Yadan bill on anti-Semitism surpassed 700,000 signatories, while the opposition had filed only 50 amendments.

The Right of Petition

Provided for by the regulations of both Assemblies, the right of petition is an old mechanism. According to Marthe Fatin-Rouge Stefanini, a jurist and research director at the CNRS, it dates back to the revolutionary cahiers de doléances.

"However, the right of petition was individual, with the idea of making remonstrances and suggestions," she explained. "Collective petition was then prohibited. Parliamentarians were afraid of being overwhelmed by citizen initiatives."

Until the end of the 2010s, the Assembly received about ten petitions per year, often quietly filed away. Following the "yellow vests" crisis, parliamentarians sought mechanisms for citizens to submit ideas to their representatives. The petition system was overhauled, with the creation of specific platforms and identity verification.

Digitization has facilitated mobilization: in two years, 3,000 petitions were filed on the National Assembly platform and about a hundred on the Senate's.

Political Use of Petitions

But, as often happens, the reform escaped its initiators.

"Petitions are used to oppose reforms, not to put new topics on the agenda," noted Erwan Balanant, a deputy (MoDem) from Finistère.

According to Fatin-Rouge Stefanini, this political use is logical: "For citizens, when a debate is ongoing, there is often no other way to make one's voice heard and to oppose."

Obstacles Remain

Even when a petition obtains a significant number of signatures, obstacles are numerous. Committees can bury it with a simple vote, and majority logics prevail.

For example, on July 1, the Economic Affairs Committee dismissed a petition against the Duplomb 2 law that had obtained 400,000 signatories, but deemed admissible another opposing electronic invoicing that was 17 times less popular. The committee will therefore debate the more consensual subject.

Mixed Results

The final outcome can also be disappointing. On February 11, a debate—without a vote and highly codified—was organized on the petition against the Duplomb law in a sparsely attended Hemicycle.

However, effects are to be sought elsewhere. The petition had mobilized public opinion to the point that within the majority, some deputies welcomed with relief the Constitutional Council's censure of the most contested article. On anti-Semitism, the petition was one of the causes of Caroline Yadan's withdrawal of her text.

Without being the initiator, the opposition rides on the success of these petitions.