France’s Security Bill is an Accountability Disaster

For three weekends in a row, protests have been held in France against the proposed Comprehensive Security Bill (widely mistranslated as the ‘Global Security Bill’). Having passed through the lower chamber of the French Parliament at the end of November, it includes provisions dubbed ‘Orwellian’ by critics. Under the auspices of addressing the pressing issue of terrorism in France, the bill would empower police forces at the expense of the general population affected by police excesses and violence.

Protests immediately following the passage of the bill through the lower chamber of Parliament were widely reported on. ‘At least 46,000 people’ attended the demonstrations on November 28, according to the Associated Press. Over the following weekends, however, international media attention steadily declined. Only a handful of outlets have published reports or analyses on the recent developments, keeping only live streams on YouTube as the primary way of covering the events.

By Saturday, December 12, almost 150 people had been taken into custody amid the protests. Al Jazeera reports that the police ‘hemmed in protesters’, using a water cannon in the cold weather to make the crowd disperse at the end of the night.

The protests have been focused on the opposition to Article 24 of the French Comprehensive Security Bill. This article would make it illegal for individuals to publish photos of policemen with the ‘intent to harm their physical or psychological integrity’. The BBC reports that the punishment for disobedience could include up to a year in prison and a €45,000 fine. Although the passage of the bill included the consideration of some 1300 amendments, the language of this provision was not changed in the process. It is suspected, therefore, that such vague phrasing deliberately leaves plenty of space for abuse. 

In an interview for Euronews, Adès-Mével, the editor-in-chief of Reporters Without Borders explained that the ‘intent to harm’ provision is a ‘slippery measure’:

“How can you figure out what a journalist will do with his pictures? So if a policeman stops a journalist from filming … he won’t be able to continue his shooting, and it will have a chilling effect.”

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, also voiced her concerns against the bill:  “It’s the Article 24, the one we are really concerned about. And that’s why we are mentioning that should be reviewed and should be, I guess, withdrawn.”

In response to the protests, French President Emmanuel Macron has gone back and forth between announcing that changes will be made to Article 24 and pushing back against the protesters. As of the time of writing, Article 24 is to be reviewed and rewritten.

Questions about the real intentions behind Article 24 are also being raised because, according to the chief editor of Le Monde, Luc Bronner, “there are already laws that exist to protect … police forces when they’re targeted”. He continues: “That’s not what this is about. It’s about limiting the capacity of citizens … to document police violence when [it happens]”.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming focus on Article 24 overshadows other concerns about the Comprehensive Security Bill. While the discussion about and coverage of that single article has been widespread, other provisions in the bill have not received much attention beyond French domestic media. 

While La Quadrature also takes a stand against Article 24, it sounds an alarm regarding Articles 21 and 22. There have been restrictions on the use of body cameras by the French police. A policeman wearing a body camera does not have direct immediate access to the recording, which can only be used a posteriori as evidence. Article 21 provides for a broadening of the scope for the use of body cameras. Under the proposed legislation, the policeman will be able to legally access and manipulate the recorded footage. Furthermore, it would be possible for police headquarters to receive coverage from body cameras live in real-time. In conjunction with the use of facial recognition software, La Quadrature reports that the police could start using increasingly aggressive measures against undesirable targets in the so-called ‘confrontational approach’ to maintaining order.

Similar concerns surround Article 22 which legalizes the use of drone monitoring of demonstrations by the police. This practice has reportedly been widespread in France over recent months. So far, however, this was happening on shaky legal grounds. The proliferation of the use of drones could lead to a furthering of the rift between the police and protesters, as they incentivize an impersonal, desensitized way of ensuring order by the ‘management of dehumanized flows’ instead of attempting to deescalate the situation.

The Comprehensive Security Bill has passed the lower chamber of the French Parliament with 388 votes in favour, 104 votes against, and 66 abstentions.