There is something profoundly unjust about a society in which a shopkeeper can spend a lifetime building a business, only to see it wrecked in an afternoon by a mob, and then discover that the bill for putting things right falls largely on the taxpayer. The rioters who smashed the windows walk away. The innocent victim is left counting the cost.

This is precisely the injustice France must address. A proposed French law, debated by parliament this week, seeks to make those involved in rioting financially responsible for damage, with penalties potentially reaching €10,000. The legislation has provoked fierce opposition from civil liberties organisations and lawyers, who warn that it could threaten the democratic right to protest. On October 28th, the French Senate approved an expanded version of the bill, sending it on to the National Assembly for further consideration.

Those concerns deserve consideration. But they should not obscure a principle that ought to be uncontroversial: people who deliberately destroy other people’s property must be held accountable for what they do.

Democracy is not a licence for destruction

The right to demonstrate is one of the foundations of a free society. Citizens must be able to march against unpopular governments, demand better wages, protest rising living costs and challenge decisions they believe are unjust. Governments should protect that right, even when the message is uncomfortable.

But peaceful protest and criminal violence are not interchangeable. A legitimate grievance does not excuse arson. Anger about the cost of living does not justify looting a family-owned business. Nor does opposition to government policy grant anyone permission to attack police officers, intimidate residents or vandalise public buildings.

When violence erupts, the people who suffer are often those with the least power to absorb the losses. Independent retailers, restaurant owners, employees and local communities pay a price for disorder they neither organised nor encouraged.

Why should they be expected to bear that burden alone?

The taxpayer should not be the rioter’s insurance policy

France’s recent unrest has illustrated the scale of the problem. Reuters reported that businesses suffered substantial losses from looting and vandalism, while thousands of shops were damaged or forced to close amid the violence.

The consequences extend beyond broken windows. Businesses lose revenue, employees face uncertainty, insurance costs can rise and neighbourhoods acquire a reputation for instability. Public authorities must divert resources to policing and repairs instead of spending them on services citizens actually need.

Ultimately, the public pays repeatedly: first through the destruction itself, then through the cost of restoring order and rebuilding what has been damaged.

A system that makes offenders compensate their victims would help reverse that injustice. Courts should be able to order restitution, impose substantial fines and pursue offenders’ assets where the law permits. Where several people deliberately participate in a proven campaign of destruction, the law should provide effective ways of establishing their respective responsibilities.

A €10,000 ceiling may be inadequate when the damage runs into tens or hundreds of thousands of euros. Compensation should reflect the harm caused, subject to fair procedures and realistic arrangements for payment.

Make the punishment fit the crime

Financial liability alone will not deter everyone. For those who set fires, lead organised looting, inflict serious injuries or repeatedly engage in violent disorder, imprisonment must remain a genuine possibility.

The most serious offenders should face lengthy prison sentences proportionate to their crimes. A person who deliberately endangers lives by setting a building alight should not expect to receive little more than a symbolic penalty. Organisers who coordinate attacks and individuals who assault others should know that the consequences can be severe.

Swift justice matters, too. Cases should be investigated properly, evidence gathered carefully and proceedings concluded without unnecessary delay. Punishment must be certain enough to command respect, not merely spectacular enough to generate headlines.

There is, however, a crucial distinction between being present at a demonstration and participating in criminal violence. No one should be ordered to pay for damage simply because they attended a march or happened to be nearby. Prosecutors must establish the relevant conduct and culpability, and defendants must have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the evidence.

That is not softness. It is what separates the rule of law from mob justice.

Protect peaceful protest. Punish violent offenders.

Critics of France’s proposed law, including Amnesty International, argue that provisions imposing liability for damage committed by other members of a gathering risk punishing people for acts they did not personally commit. That is a serious concern that lawmakers should address rather than dismiss.

Legislation must be drafted precisely enough to distinguish genuine participation in organised violence from peaceful assembly. Collective punishment is not a substitute for effective policing, and the financial hardship of an offender’s family should not become a convenient additional penalty.

But the answer to a badly drafted law is better legislation, not resignation to the destruction of streets and businesses.

France and other European democracies need a clear message: protest is a right; violence is a choice. Those who make that choice must accept its consequences.

A society that fails to protect innocent people from deliberate destruction risks losing public confidence in its institutions. And a democracy that allows violent minorities to intimidate communities and impose enormous costs on everyone else risks surrendering its streets to those least entitled to control them.

The principle should be simple. If you smash it, you should pay for it. If you burn it, injure someone or organise the destruction, you should face the full weight of the law.

Freedom demands responsibility. Without it, the right to protest risks becoming an excuse for the destruction of the very society that makes peaceful protest possible.

France Student Protests: 504 Arrested and 48 Police Injured as Violence Erupts in Paris

Main Image: By JJxFile, Jorge Jaramillo, info@jjxfile.com – CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=202096512

Nearly 1,000 arrests after another weekend of demonstrations expose a government squeezed between legitimate public anger and violent disorder. France requires a conservative response that defends taxpayers, businesses and the rule of law.

France’s latest weekend of protest presents Emmanuel Macron with a question that presidential speeches cannot settle: can his government protect ordinary citizens while addressing the grievances driving them onto the streets?

Nearly 1,000 arrests were reported after Saturday’s demonstrations, with clashes in Paris and other cities. Most participants protested peacefully over education and living costs. But masked groups again turned public mobilisation into confrontation, leaving police to restore order.

From a conservative perspective, this matters enormously. Peaceful assembly belongs to the democratic inheritance France should defend. Throwing projectiles at officers, intimidating businesses and destroying property belong in the criminal courts. Economic hardship explains anger; it does not confer permission to terrorise a neighbourhood.

The Interior Ministry counted 410,000 demonstrators nationwide, while the CGT union estimated nearly 800,000. Authorities deployed 70,000 officers, supported by helicopters and armoured vehicles. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said the operation helped prevent a repetition of the previous weekend’s widespread looting.

That offers some reassurance. Yet a country requiring such an extraordinary deployment to contain weekend demonstrations has a deeper problem than crowd management. Police can clear a junction. They cannot, by themselves, rebuild confidence in a political class that many citizens believe no longer understands their lives.

The most easily overlooked people are those with the least protection: independent shopkeepers, employees losing shifts, residents trapped behind barricades and taxpayers financing the response. Their interests deserve the same attention as the demands carried on banners. Keeping a business open is also a contribution to national life.

The BBC reported that shops were boarded up, cultural institutions closed and more than 20 Paris metro stations shut. These precautions may have been necessary, but they also demonstrate how disorder imposes costs far beyond those directly involved. A disrupted capital is a warning about the erosion of everyday freedom.

The government’s responsibility therefore extends beyond announcing arrest totals. Suspected offenders should face prompt, fair proceedings, with meaningful penalties where guilt is established. Where legally appropriate, those responsible for deliberate damage should contribute towards repairs. Public confidence depends on consequences that are visible, proportionate and consistently applied.

Consistency also requires rejecting violence from every political direction. Regional authorities reported that far-right extremists fought demonstrators in Nice, where 11 people were arrested. A credible conservative position cannot excuse street intimidation because its perpetrators claim patriotic motives. The law loses authority whenever political allegiance becomes an unofficial exemption.

Nevertheless, restoring order cannot substitute for governing competently. The movement grew from complaints about school staffing and resources into broader protests over household costs. Those concerns deserve answers. Parents expecting functioning classrooms and workers struggling to afford necessities are asking whether the state delivers what it promises.

The conservative answer should begin with value for money. Before reaching automatically for additional taxation or borrowing, ministers should explain where existing resources go, which programmes deliver results and which administrative burdens consume money better spent on essential services. Public expenditure should be judged by outcomes rather than the generosity of announcements.

There is an equally strong case for policies that reward employment, investment and enterprise. A government cannot sustainably improve living standards while treating the businesses creating jobs as an inexhaustible source of revenue. Nor can it promise every constituency protection from difficult choices. Credibility requires priorities, arithmetic and candour.

Macron’s political opponents will understandably seek advantage. But opposition leaders should be judged by whether they offer workable government, including a clear rejection of intimidation. Encouraging public anger is easier than reconciling demands for better services, affordable living and sound finances. France needs politicians prepared to explain those trade-offs honestly.

The immediate task is to keep streets safe. The larger task is to make democratic government effective enough that citizens trust its decisions. France needs firm policing, accountable institutions and economic realism. Unless its leaders provide all three, each weekend of unrest risks becoming another advertisement for the failure of the governing establishment.

France’s Unrest Exposes a New Front in Russia’s Information War Against Europe