París, 29 oct (Prensa Latina) Francia vuelve a blindarse con 70 mil efectivos de diferentes unidades de la policía y seguridad, de acuerdo con lo anunciado hoy por el ministro del Interior Laurent Nuñez, quien prometió “firmeza absoluta” para mantener el orden.
The post Dispositivo policial reforzado para movilizaciones en Francia first appeared on Noticias Prensa Latina.
Kevin T., el presunto autor del tiroteo el pasado viernes en las localidades de Trappes y La Verrière, a las afueras de París, en el que murió una persona y al menos cinco resultaron heridas, admite que seleccionó a sus víctimas por su color de piel y religión. No se arrepiente y niega que su acto sea terrorismo porque “fue legítimo”. El fiscal antiterrorista, Olivier Christen, ha dado detalles de la investigación este jueves y ha confirmado el carácter racista del atentado.
© Pedro Nunes (REUTERS)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Login