A new security bill in France has sparked major criticism from human rights defenders and beyond. On 24 November 2020, the French National Assembly approved the government’s draft “global security law,”which raised major concerns over the protection of the right to privacy, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, and press freedom. Measures in the government’s bill include, but are not limited to, mass ground surveillance, air ground surveillance, and restrictions on people’s ability to document police action. Organisations such as Reporters Without Borders, Amnesty International France, journalists’ unions, the Human Rights League, and other groups, all staunchly oppose the government’s new security bill.
GLOBAL SECURITY LAW: SECURITY VS FREEDOM
One article in particular of the new security bill has caught the attention of the French population as well as civil society organisations and journalists. Article 24 makes it a criminal offence to publish images of on-duty officers with the intent to harm “their physical or psychological integrity”. According to Nathalie Tehio, criminal lawyer and member of the Human Rights League, it will enable police to act with impunity and remain shielded from justice and accountability.
Although officially illegal, prior to the security bill, restricting people’s ability to film police action was already deeply entrenched in daily law enforcement. Tehio experienced it first-hand when, after she filmed a police search on the street as a civilian, police officers attempted to intimidate her, asked for her ID papers, and threatened to take her into custody. As stipulated by the 2008 ministerial circular [in French], which allows for the recording and broadcasting of images of on-duty police officers, the conduct of the officers was unlawful. Similarly, during a protest against the security bill on 17 November 2020, two observers of the Human Rights League (LDH) were beaten by police officers. Despite the LDH members’ recognisable helmets and chasubles—which indicate their roles as sole observers and not participants—they were targeted after they started filming the protest to document their observation. Hence, article 24 could legitimise and provide legal ground for pre-existing violations of the people’s right to document police activity and, by extension, potential brutality.
According to Tehio, there can be no such thing as “global security” without severe infringement on people’s freedoms and civil liberties, if not their complete withdrawal. “During lockdown, we see a decrease in crime such as stealing and burglary, but a significant increase in domestic and parental violence. If we truly want to ensure total security, we would have to lock up everyone on their own, which is absurd.” Seeing the impossibility to ensure complete security for all, one should find the right balance between guaranteeing public security and individuals’ rights and freedom, including press freedom and freedom of expression—especially in a country that is said to be democratic.
The application of the principle of proportionality was also stressed by Christian Wigand, spokesman for the European Commission, in a reaction to the French government’s security draft bill. “As always, the Commission reserves the right to examine the final legislation in order to verify its conformity with the law of the European Union,” he added.
PUBLIC PROTESTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRITICISM
Amid concerns over the protection of freedom and civil liberties, the government’s new security bill sparked nationwide protests. These often turned into violent clashes between the police and the protesters. Indignation over police brutality further increased after the broadcasting of videos showing French police violently breaking up a migrant camp in the middle of Paris, as well as beating Black music producer Michel Zecler, which was caught on security camera footage. In addition to various protests across France despite lockdown restrictions, the government’s new bill has also been received with concern by a wide range of national and international organisations. As stated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the French government needs to “rethink the purpose of the bill as a whole,” which could imply severe consequences on the right to privacy, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, and freedom of press. Likewise, the Human Rights League, the Journalist National Unions, Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, as well as a collective of 187 organisations, have all expressed their concerns over the pending legislation.
In light of these controversies, the French government has mostly opted for a strategy of denial. As Minister of the Interior, Gerald Darmanin, declared: “When I hear the word police violence, I suffocate.” His statement was met with severe criticism as it echoed the last words of George Floyd, Adama Traoré, Cédric Chouviat, Mohammed Gabsi, and many other victims of police violence before they died of asphyxiation during or following their arrest. Likewise, during the Yellow Vest Protests earlier in March 2019, Emmanuel Macron declared that it was unacceptable to speak of repression or police violence under the rule of law. Reacting to Loopsider’s recent broadcast concerning police officers beating Michel Zecler in his Paris studio, Emmanuel Macron somewhat nuanced his earlier declaration: “Some police officers are violent, they are. On this issue, we have to prevent, train, and most importantly sanction.” However, the president still refused to use the word “police violence”. According to him, this term remains highly politicised. “The black blocs and part of the far left that want the dissolution of the state have installed the idea that there is consubstantial violence in the police,” he said. Ironically, it is worth noting that the president had used the term himself during his electoral campaign, stating that there would be “zero tolerance for police violence”.
In addition to demonstrators, police violence has disproportionately targeted specific segments of the population. In recent years, evidence shows that the police have multiplied arrests, often violent, based on race and ethnicity rather than reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing or actual behaviour. As shown in the 2017 - Report of the Defenders of Rights, a constitutional institution independent from the government, Arab and Black people are twenty times as likely to get checked by police than any other demographic. A year prior to that report, the French Court of Cassation condemned the French government for racial profiling. However, since then, no substantial measures have been implemented to prevent such practice from continuing to take place. More recently, the president refused to acknowledge the presence of institutional racism within the police. “The police does not side with one specific camp, it protects the rule of the Republic.”
Overall, the French government seems more concerned about how police violence is being labelled, rather than the actual violence it carries out. Similarly, the security bill does not address police violence and discrimination, but aims to regulate the way it is represented.
NEOLIBERAL AUTHORITARIANISM: TOWARDS THE ESCALATION OF VIOLENCE
Far from occurring in a vacuum, the French government’s proposal of a new security bill lies in the continuity of France's neoliberal agenda—characterised by a disengagement of the state in the public sector and an increasing privatisation of security. In recent years, the importance placed on the police has diminished and, following drastic neoliberal reforms, law enforcement has had to adjust and optimize its performance. Due to public budget cuts, police training has been shortened and many police stations have shut down. Amid the COVID-pandemic, such disengagement could also be seen in the health care sector, which has suffered from severe budget restrictions over the past years.
The government’s neoliberal agenda is also reflected in the global security bill, which aims to establish a “continuum of security”. More specifically, municipal agents would endorse similar responsibilities to police officers, meaning their mission will no longer only be one of prevention and surveillance, but also one of repression and securitisation. Unlike national police officers that receive their salaries from the state, municipal agents are paid by local authorities. In other words, municipalities with better financial resources would have access to “better security,” which could create significant territorial disparities. In addition, the draft bill plans to expand the missions of private security agents, including security patrol operations and surveillance.
In light of the adverse effects of neoliberalism and growing social discontent, the police have been deployed as means of repression. As the Human Rights League explains: “The state has adopted an increasingly confrontational approach to the handling of demonstrations. Police officers that lack training for these situations carry out charges and often go into the crowd to arrest protesters for no apparent reason, which immediately leads to an escalation of violence.” As demonstrated by Media Part’s investigation on the protests of 12 December 2020 against the security bill, unlawful police charges, arbitrary arrests, and beatings of demonstrators are often conducted. That same day, Gerald Darmanin congratulated police officers on the arrest of 142 individuals, some of them being “ultra-violent,” he tweeted. However, only two protesters were eventually convicted of actual violence against the authorities. Due to a lack of evidence, 113 individuals were released. For 23 protesters, procedures are still ongoing. Hence, Darmanin’s communication about the protests rested on misleading and false information aimed at legitimising police brutality.
The government’s confrontational approach is also characterised by other means of dissuasion, namely the practice of kettling, filtering the entries and exit of the march route, tear gassing, body searches, and physical violence (through the use of LBD guns and grenades). Under the new security bill, the disproportionate use of state violence could be more difficult to report—if not forbidden—and hence, harder to prosecute and punish.
The draft bill is under examination and will be put to vote in March 2021 by the Senate, controlled by the conservative opposition. Although the Senate expressed its commitment to amending the law and rewriting the controversial article 24, it is unclear whether the final bill will favour the safety and freedom of all citizens. Besides, the draft bill is far from being the only security measure recently undertaken by the government. The draft law on separatism, which is currently being discussed, as well as the recent extension of police intelligence files (which could include political opinions, religious affiliations, union membership, and health data) all represent severe dangers for individuals’ civil liberties and freedoms. In a country that claims to be the land of freedom and human rights, such a thing remains to be seen in practice.
Valentine holds a Bachelor’s degree in International Relations from Amsterdam University College and wrote her dissertation on the French government’s securitisation of Islam through counterterrorism and secularism. She is currently pursuing her Masters in Middle Eastern Politics at SOAS University of London. Her fields of interests include state violence and terrorism, human rights, and intersectional feminism.