Clément Viktorovitch returns each week to the debates and political issues. Sunday, May 14: the difficulties of the authorities to control and manage the increasingly visible actions of ultra-right groups.
One of the best recent examples of these difficulties is the ultra-right demonstration that took place in Paris on May 6th. The prefect of police, Laurent Nuñez, had explained that there was no reason to ban it, before the Minister of the Interior Gérald Darmanin finally announced that he was asking for a ban on all ultranationalist demonstrations. But these two positions are equally problematic.
500 individuals dressed in black, masked, hooded, tattooed with Nazi symbols, displaying flags adorned with the Celtic cross: this is the spectacle we witnessed in the streets of Paris. 500 neo-Nazis parading serenely, supervised by the police, to which only the silence of the government responded, since it took three days for a reaction from the Prime Minister. She said she was shocked, while adding that it was necessary to respect the right to demonstrate: we find the line of defense of the prefect Nuñez.
This defense is not entirely convincing. The right to demonstrate is of course, and this is fortunate, protected in France. But in compliance with certain rules. However, it seems that several factual elements would have allowed the prefecture to intervene. The first: an event must be declared no earlier than 15 days in advance. However, as the newspaper notes The world, it was declared on March 7: well before the legal deadline, therefore. This is already a purely formal argument that would have justified the ban. But in addition, this event takes place every year. Every year, Nazi salutes are observed there, documented by testimonies from local residents and press photos. I remind you that the Nazi salute falls under the offense of apologizing for crimes against humanity, as confirmed by the conviction of a Nice supporter in October 2021. Moreover, each year, we see in this gathering, emblems from Hitlerian iconography, thereby falling under the scope of article R. 645-1 of the penal code. It seems to me that there were solid arguments there to at least try to have this demonstration banned.
But that’s not all. It will have escaped no one that these individuals had carefully masked their faces. It seemed to me, however, that Parliament had passed, in October 2010, a law prohibiting the concealment of the face in public space. It is true that the objective of this text, at the time, was above all to prohibit the wearing of the full veil. But the laws of the Republic, once passed, apply to everyone, not just veiled women! How to explain that these fully masked individuals were able to parade without being controlled or verbalized?
This event takes place every year, but the context is particular
For weeks now, the prefectures have been issuing anti-pan orders, on fragile legal grounds, in fine, often suspended by administrative justice. And there, the police headquarters does not even take the step of trying to ban a neo-Nazi demonstration? During the mobilization against the pension reform, hundreds of innocent demonstrators were arrested in groups, to the point that the general controller of places of deprivation of liberty denounces “an instrumentalization of police custody for repressive purposes”. And there, ultra-right activists can march in hoods a few meters from the police without being worried?
The government castigates “ecoterrorism” of a few dozen activists who came to destroy pipes, but remain silent in the face of an ultranationalist ideology whose terrorism, let us remember, killed three people in Paris on December 23, not to mention the murder of rugby player Federico Aramburu a year ago , nor of the eight attack projects foiled by the security services since 2017, according to the terrorism analysis center? What is the message being sent?
>>> Policing: how associations and unions respond to a “runaway” and a “worrying gear” of the State
There is certainly the reaction of Gérald Darmanin, who calls for the prohibition of all ultra-right demonstrations, but the only problem is that it is not a strong reaction: it is a political reaction. As confirmed by many law professors – Olivier Cahn, Serge Slama, Guillaume Drago – in France, the freedom to demonstrate is the rule, prohibition is the exception. Prohibiting a demonstration should only be done on a case-by-case basis, for specific reasons. Gérald Darmanin’s announcement is therefore not only unconstitutional: it constitutes an anti-democratic shift. Because he didn’t just talk about banning “ultra-right” protests. He also spoke of the “extreme right”. But these are very vague political categories: where does the extreme right begin? Is it not represented in Parliament? What will happen if, tomorrow, there is talk of also banning gatherings considered “eco-terrorist” or “extreme left”? Do you see the slope on which all this could lead us?
Neither complacency nor bluster, but firm application of the laws of the Republic: this, in my opinion, should be our reaction to ultranationalism.