PoliticalRepoPoliticalRepo

France · Question · Question écrite

14581

Question 14581 — audiovisual and communication

openFrance· National Assembly· FR

Introduced

30 January 2024

Last action

Status

posée

Sponsors

Subjects

Discovery layer

Source updated

30 January 2024

Summary

Ms. Sophie Taillé-Polian questions the Minister of the Interior and Overseas Territories on the decision of the Finistère prefecture to remove a public subsidy from Breton community television Canal Ti Z for political reasons. Canal Ti Z has been producing reports, training, media education workshops and film screenings since 2001. Its work is recognized by its listeners and by many local communities. THE refusal of the renewal of its public subsidy intended for the organization of media education workshops under the Fund for the Development of Associative Life (FDVA) by the prefecture of Finistère on the vague pretext that "a certain amount of information communicated by the services demonstrated that certain aspects of the operation of the association were incompatible with the signed republican engagement contract" seems unjustified to the deputy. She recalls that respect for pluralism is vital for the functioning of democracy, that this decision is likely to undermine citizens' confidence in the neutrality of the State and illustrates the reasons which pushed her to oppose this provision of the "separatism" law. She asks him to explain the reality of the reason behind the refusal to award this subsidy, which is similar to a arbitrary censorship and an attack on freedom of association.

Machine translation from French. The official text remains authoritative.

Timeline

No timeline events have been ingested for this record yet.

Votes

No vote records are attached yet.

Versions

No version snapshots stored. Document URLs remain at the source.

Documents

No documents linked.

Sponsors

No sponsors or actors listed by the source.

Related records

No cross-record relationships stored yet.

Sources

PoliticalRepo is an index and interpretation layer, not the authoritative legal source.