READ >>The collective forum signed by Marianne about the global security law
Thursday, November 26, at the morning of France culture, Guillaume Erner receives Jean-Michel Fauvergue, former head of the RAID and current deputy LREM, co-editor of the bill relating to global security. The host declares “untimely” a bill that makes“we could no longer film the police”. However, article 24 of Bill 3452 does not penalize the fact of filming the police, but that of broadcasting the image of the face or any other element making it possible to identify a police officer or a gendarme in the exercise of his functions. . This article also specifies that the aforementioned provision does not prevent these images and identification elements from being communicated to the administrative and judicial authorities, which obviously presupposes that the scenes have been filmed. One of two things: either Mr. Erner did not bother to read the article of law, however very short, to which he devotes his program, or he did. In the first case, there is professional misconduct, in the second willful lie.
Two absolute freedoms
Guillaume Erner then worries about the presence of drones: “Drones are extremely scary. You don’t want to be watched by drones.” There, we start to have trouble following: is the morning person of France Culture favorable or hostile to the demonstrations being filmed? Fortunately the following will enlighten the listener because our man specifies his thought: “We don’t want to be filmed by a police camera.” Everything is explained ! Protesters should be able to film police bludgeoning protesters, but police should not be able to film protesters beating up police. The law should be equal for all, but some are a little more equal than others. The journalists of France 2 know it well: when they broadcast the images of thugs ransacking a Parisian jewelry store, they do not lack “flouter” their faces.
It remains to justify this difference in treatment: “One can consider that the act of protesting is absolute freedom and that this freedom is hindered if I have a drone over my head.” However, do the cameras which film Mr. Erner in the supermarkets where he does his shopping obstruct his “absolute freedom” to buy his pasta and toilet paper? Or do they hinder his absolute freedom to go out without paying them?
“There are only two absolute freedoms: the freedom to demonstrate and the freedom to inform”
And what about the “absolute freedom” of police and gendarmes to accomplish their task? In fact, there are only two absolute freedoms: the freedom to demonstrate and the freedom to inform. Because the freedom to demonstrate must remain absolute, we must accept that the demonstrators, even delinquents or criminals, cannot be identified. Because the freedom to inform must also be absolute, we must accept that the faces and identities of police officers guilty of violence are not only communicated to the courts, but widely disseminated on social networks, even if it means that popular justice, whose serenity and leniency are known, does not precede, or even render unnecessary, that of the courts.
READ ALSO >>“Mr. Prime Minister, there is an urgent need to get out of this deleterious spiral for democracy”