Violence in the demonstrations: the tracks of the government to fight against the thugs

The mobilization against pension reform is such that the subject of the management of violence during demonstrations returned to the first. The Minister of Justice, Éric Dupond-Moretti and the Minister of the Interior, Gérald Darmanin, are to meet this Friday to work on maintaining order. Together, they are going to think about a new anti-breaker law. “If the Republicans file a law, I will propose to vote on it”, has already indicated Gérald Darmanin, this Thursday morning on RMC.

Several avenues are already being considered, but they will have to take into account the fact that in 2019, a law aimed at preventing violence during demonstrations and punishing their perpetrators had in part been rejected by the Constitutional Council.

Chemical marking

As early as 2019, during the Yellow Vests sequence, the government had already drawn key products coded (PMC) to fight against thugs. They made their comeback recently, during the clashes in Sainte-Soline (Deux-Sèvres), where people were arrested “following the discovery of a coding marking product”, according to the Niort prosecutor’s office.

For Driss Ait Youssef, doctor of public law and specialist in security issues, this technique has its limits, in particular because carrying traces does not in itself constitute proof of participation in a crime.

Administrative prohibitions

In 2019, the Constitutional Council had censured the provision allowing prefects to pronounce administrative bans on demonstrations against persons “constituting a threat to public order”. The government could think about a way to take up this track by making it constitutional.

This Thursday, on RMC, Gérald Darmanin rightly let it be known that he wanted to “apply to demonstrations what is applied to football matches”, when violent supporters are banned from the stadium.

For Driss Ait Youssef, the Minister of the Interior is on the wrong track in relying on this comparison, because the two situations are very different. “The freedom to demonstrate is the subject of constitutional protection, in particular via the freedom to come and go or the right to collective expression of ideas and opinions”, he recalls.

In addition, it is currently possible that a ban on demonstrations may be pronounced, but only by a judicial authority, in the case of an additional penalty for example. On the other hand, it seems difficult to the specialist for such a decision to be taken preventively by an administrative authority – such as the prefects.

The offense of building barricades

According to our colleagues from France Info, one of the avenues considered by the government would be to set up a crime of building barricades. Here again, its implementation seems particularly complicated for Driss Ait Youssef. A possible law on the subject would require defining in detail the very notion of barricade. “Then will come the question of the ***istance provided. Will moving a plank be considered as participating in the construction of a barricade? asks the doctor of public law.

Existing measures?

If the government seems to want to rely on new legislative instruments, this is not necessarily the opinion of everyone. “We have a lot of laws. (…) The problem is not to make laws, it is to apply them”, judged for example the former LREM deputy, Jean-Michel Fauvergue, on Sud Radio this Thursday, citing for example article 6 of the 2019 law, which provides for the punishment of one year’s imprisonment and a fine for concealing one’s face “in the immediate vicinity of a demonstration (…) during or at the end of which disturbances to public order have been committed or are likely to be committed”.

In the eyes of Driss Ait Youssef, making a new law could even be counterproductive. “Showing that we are proactive with laws that are inapplicable or difficult to implement, it just gives a feeling of powerlessness and state bankruptcy,” he judges. Wednesday, after the Council of Ministers, government spokesman Olivier Vérandid not seem certain of the turn of events, ***uring that there was “no response at this stage” on the need for a new law.