In April 2002, Têtu’s cover announced exclusive interviews with President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, both candidates in the presidential election. Leading the broad left bloc that voted for the Pacs in 1999, the socialist, by contrast, opposes extending marriage to homosexual couples.
Article published in April 2002 in issue 66 of the magazine.
Interview: Thomas Doustaly
Lionel Jospin leaves his office, located on the top floor of his campaign “workshop”, with his press chief, Marie-France Lavarini. We are Monday, March 11, it is 4:00 p.m., and the Prime Ministerial candidate appears uneasy. A few minutes earlier, we had glimpsed him, extremely focused, rereading his notes (his evening intervention on the France Info station that same night?). One must say that the weekend had been “hot” for him, the temperature rising a few more degrees in the plane bringing him back from La Réunion. With the journalists who accompanied him on this exotic journey, he had mentioned the captain’s age, that of Jacques Chirac. Was it an admitted attack or a little off-the-record remark intended to set the mood during such a long trip? In short, the candidate Jospin is preoccupied, but “very happy to learn” that he is the first sitting Prime Minister to grant an interview to “a gay outlet.” Is it, in his view, because the Pacs was voted that the major presidential candidates all responded to Têtu? “Probably,” he concedes modestly. “In any case, some, in the opposition, regret – they say so today – their excesses of the time against the Pacs.”
What is your personal approach to homosexuality? At what age and under what circumstances did you discover its existence, and how did you react?
Lionel Jospin: The first homosexual person I met was a relation of my parents. I was about 16 years old. My reaction was curiosity, discretion, and acceptance of this difference.
In the Sofres poll for Têtu in February, the French people see you as the presidential candidate most favorable (70%) to greater equality of rights between homosexuals and heterosexuals. At the same time, 68% of those polled believe there are still reforms to be made so that homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. How do you interpret these figures?
The Pacs has been a very important reform for equality of rights between homosexuals and heterosexuals. We must continue, and we propose new reforms that we will have the opportunity to discuss with you later.
In his book, Matignon rive gauche, your collaborator Olivier Schrameck writes about the Pacs: “Lionel Jospin was not particularly sensitive to this demand from homosexual circles.” This distance, which many observers have noted, was it linked to your personal culture or to the strategic choice not to expose yourself on a text you deemed too “sensitive”?
At no moment did I think that it was a subject too sensitive for me to expose myself. I heard the demands of homosexuals. For me, it was a question of society, first highlighted by those who had to suffer more particularly from AIDS. Many have lived a direct personal drama, amplified by family rejection and material issues such as losing their housing. A genuine reflection was required, and I took the time to choose between the opportunity to create a new legal instrument or to legislate on a status of concubinage. There are, and have long been, enough homosexuals among my friends and close ones for me not to have a problem of “personal culture.”
Two years after the adoption of the law, 43,520 Pacs have been signed. In Lunéville, on March 5, you stated that the Pacs has “solved the problem of particular attractions”. Isn’t that phrasing awkward?
I obviously wanted to speak about the different sexual orientations.
In 1998 and 1999, your government defended itself against legislating “in favor” of homosexuals. Do you now consider the Pacs as a recognition, by the state and society, of homosexual couples?
The Pacs is a legal status that applies to two people, regardless of their sex. It concerns not only homosexual couples, but all those who want to organize their life together and who do not wish or cannot marry. By allowing the establishment of the official bases of an active solidarity through the opening of rights and duties, the Pacs contributes to the proper integration into society of all these couples seeking recognition. That said, in fact, the Pacs has inscribed in the Civil Code the recognition of homosexual couples. Mentalities have evolved a lot, and quickly. I rejoice in that.
In the Socialist Party program, it is written that “it appears necessary to modify the Pacs law to remove, possibly in stages, the three-year period currently required for joint taxation. The signing of a Pacs currently ends, immediately, a number of rights (RMI, disabled adult allowance, etc.), whereas the tax advantages are acquired only after three years”. Do you, as a candidate, adopt this proposal? Why again mention possible “steps”?
The Socialist Party’s program indeed proposes to modify the Pacs law to remove these transitional financial inequalities. The three-year delay was necessary in the Pacs’ implementation phase, in order to assess potential risks of misuse of the device for tax purposes. I do not think it is necessary any longer. As for the modalities, it will be up to the future government to define them, depending, in particular, on the major fiscal choices that will be made.
Regarding binational Pacs couples, the Pacs is today only an “element of appreciation” for obtaining a residence permit, even though it sometimes confirms a long-standing union. Are you in favor of a change in the law that would make the Pacs a ground for obtaining a residence permit?
The Pacs and marriage do indeed not have the same status, and do not grant the same rights. I am considering whether it would be desirable for the Pacs to be a criterion for obtaining a residence permit among others – such as the length of prior life together.
Are you in favor of signing the Pacs in the town hall, which is today entered in the margin of civil status registers?
The question is one of the level of publicity and officialization to give to the event. The determination of this level must be left to the couples’ free decision. In this regard, the arrangement in place, with its flexibility, seems pertinent. On the one hand, the local courts offer the discretion to which some couples attach importance. Many Pacs couples would prefer not to go to the town hall. On the other hand, many town halls, largely left-leaning, offer Pacs ceremonies to formalize the event. It is not impossible to think that, with the rapid evolution of mentalities, this practice will become generalized in the short term. In any case, the officialization to which some are attached for family or friends is a private matter: for organizing the celebration, the town hall is not required!
Moreover, do you understand the thinking of those who advocate absolute equality of rights between citizens, who demand the right for homosexual couples to marry as heterosexuals?
The Pacs has filled the void that existed. Moreover, marriage is, by definition, an institution that concerns the mixed-sex couple wishing to found a family. It relates to the construction of relationships between generations and to filiation, which is not the object’s Pacs.
Do you think there is a difference in value (symbolic, social, or philosophical) between homosexuality and heterosexuality?
No, it is not a question of value but simply a question of sexual orientation.
In La Croix on November 20, 2001, you stated: “As far as adoption by homosexual couples is concerned, since this is a topic far from unanimity, not only among religious authorities but also among jurists, associations, political leaders or ordinary citizens, I am not in favor of a legislative approach. Humanity is mixed. It is a natural given: to have a child, you need a man and a woman. The notion of a parental couple comes from that. I therefore approach this question with a great deal of prudence.” This statement has sometimes been judged brutal, since, as with the staunchest opponents of the Pacs – some very homophobic – you use the argument of “nature” to address the question of homosexuality and parenthood. For you, is homosexuality not “natural”? For what reasons, in your view, would homosexual couples be less suited to raise a child than any other form of family (mixed-sex couple, single woman or man, etc.)?
In terms of the child, homosexual and heterosexual couples are in different situations. Non-discrimination is not non-differentiation. The right of every person to have the sexual life of their choice must not be confused with a hypothetical right to a child. A child has a right to a father and a mother.
That a homosexual person, who had a child in another relationship, raises him/her while they no longer live with the other parent, now living as a homosexual couple, seems to me to be self-evident: that person is the father of the child and the biological other parent is identified. It is thus that I find unacceptable that the parents’ sexual orientation could be taken into account to decide the custody of children in the event of separation.
But the law, when it creates artificial filiations, cannot ignore or abolish the difference of sexes. This difference is constitutive of the child’s identity and the meaning of that identity. I think that the fact, for a child, of having as legal parents two people of the same sex would not contribute to a satisfactory structuring. The principle of refusing adoption for homosexual couples is therefore based on the child’s best interests and on their rights to have a family environment where they can develop their personality. An adopted child, already deprived of their original family, needs benchmarks all the more. This is the direction of the recent laws on access to medically assisted procreation: they aim to remedy the pathological infertility of a heterosexual couple.
In his program, the Socialist Party writes that “sexual orientation should not intervene in the criteria of appreciation during the examination of an adoption request by a person over 28 years old”. This proposal clashes with the recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, which allowed France to refuse adoption to Philippe Fretté solely on the basis of his homosexuality. What is your stance on adoption by a single person? If you are elected, will you adopt the PS’s proposal?
The European judges emphasize that the European Convention on Human Rights does not guarantee the right to adoption as such. Article 8 “does not protect the simple desire to found a family”. The Court additionally notes that the law appears to be undergoing a transitional phase and that a broad margin of appreciation must be left to the authorities of each country. It thus falls to our country to initiate a necessary debate to answer this new societal question posed by the demand for adoption by homosexual individuals. For my part, the position adopted by the Socialist Party suits me, as the links of filiation are not at stake in this adoption procedure.
Several political groups in the National Assembly, on the left as well as the right, have filed bills allowing to condemn homophobic acts and statements, modeled on the Gayssot law. What is your view on this issue?
We have made great strides in the fight against homophobia. For example, the CSA’s missions have been extended so that it can sanction homophobic remarks in audiovisual media. Recently [November 6, 2001], a bill was adopted to combat discrimination in the workplace. In the enumeration of discriminations listed are mentioned morals and sexual orientation. Moreover, this law recognizes indirect discrimination and shifts the burden of proof in favor of the employee. It represents a significant advancement. It remains indeed to complete the approach, particularly by a refinement of the texts for equal treatment of all discriminations. This framework should be reinforced by a modification of the law to place all statements with a discriminatory caractère at the same penal level. Homophobic remarks will thus be of the same penal nature as racist or sexist remarks.
Do you think that, from the start of school, it is necessary to talk about homosexuality to children? If yes, in what terms?
Today, sex education is no longer limited to its biological aspect through teaching about human reproduction. Because young people need all dimensions of sexuality to be taken into account, especially affective, romantic, and social. The National Education must allow all young people to flourish. This involves providing all the necessary information on questions concerning sexuality. That is why Ségolène Royal, when she was Minister of National Education, launched in January 2000 a true plan to modernize sex education in high schools and middle schools. Several actions were implemented on the right to sexuality, the understanding of different sexual behaviors, and the fight against homophobia: a circular addressed to rectors, inspectors, departmental directors and heads of schools, the distribution of an educational kit, a sexuality and life board in every secondary establishment, allocation of hours for sexuality education and for life education. All these actions testify to the will of my government to help young people build their identity, affirm their personal life choices, and reject exclusion based on sexual orientation. We must continue in this spirit.
Têtu published in October last year a survey showing that gay people were six times more likely than heterosexuals to attempt to take their own lives. Do you think it is necessary to implement a specific suicide prevention policy for young gay people?
It is tragic to note that suicide among young people is the second leading cause of death for ages 15-24 and the first for 25-34. Anglo-Saxon studies highlight a higher prevalence among young homosexuals. It is therefore essential to carry out similar studies in France to know the exact situation and to be able to implement an appropriate and energetic prevention policy. But it is certain that the more society’s view toward homosexuality is tolerant (the Pacs has already done a lot in this area), the less anxiety and suicides there will be among young people who discover they are gay and learn to assume it better. I also want to commend the enormous work done by associations, some of which help parents to “handle” the announcement of their child’s homosexuality more easily, allowing them to approach difficult periods with less anxiety.
Your government should have been the one to implement an obligatory declaration of seropositivity as of 1999, a vital tool to understand the dynamics of the epidemic. According to Bernard Kouchner, administrative delays prevented it. If we are to believe most AIDS advocacy groups, it’s more precisely a lack of real political will. Will this issue be a real priority if you are elected president?
Bernard Kouchner pushed this file; it must be implemented. This is a public health measure, but ethically it requires a well-defined framework of ethical rules, which may have caused delays in its implementation.
On the eve of December 1, 2001, you stated: “The government intends not to ease efforts in the area of communication and prevention against AIDS.” Yet the Government Information Secretariat (SIG), which operates under your authority, censored, twice, in July 1998 and June 2001, prevention campaigns planned for television, which had been validated by the Ministry of Health and its partner associations. At a time when condom use is waning, is this very French timidity—our European partners are very direct in their prevention messages—appropriate?
Each government chooses the modalities of its communication. Some of our European partners have indeed chosen to shock to convince. That is not necessarily the best solution. But this discussion about the method should not obscure agreement on the objective: this loosening of personal prevention efforts is a major problem, I am aware of it, and it is necessary to very dynamically relaunch prevention advertising campaigns, targeting all audiences.
If you are elected, what will be your initiatives in the fight against AIDS? Could reversing the curve of the epidemic, like one might wish to reverse unemployment, be one of your priority objectives?
Of course, a priority objective is the drastic reduction of seropositive cases and declared AIDS cases. This relies on even stronger prevention, as just seen, but also on better screening and care that is more tailored. All of this is underpinned by an active research policy, both on medicines and on vaccines. Also by a policy of equal access to care (everyone’s access to antiretroviral therapy, for example) and non-discrimination. The government has already largely committed to this path.
Are you in favor of France granting asylum to homosexuals living in countries where they risk imprisonment or death solely because of their homosexuality?
France has already granted asylum to people threatened with death due to their homosexuality, something we would like to see practiced across all European Union countries. The effort should certainly be pursued at the international level, in raising awareness among international institutions of human rights and principles of tolerance.
