Civil liberties / The “rioters pay” bill

Editorial question

Does the government protect the economy and finance more readily than actual human beings?

Two kinds of damage. Unequal kinds of repair.

A window can be replaced. A lost eye or amputated hand cannot. Both are serious harms; the losses are not equivalent units in a ledger. The opening question is why protection of property and prevention of permanent bodily injury appear to command different political urgency.

During the current school protests, a 15-year-old lost a hand in Lens in an incident involving a police grenade. A 16-year-old suffered partial blinding in Tours. In Saint-Ouen-l’Aumône, a 14-year-old’s jaw and teeth were shattered. These are documented cases, not an exhaustive casualty census. Investigative allegations must remain distinct from final findings.

The government says its bill compensates victims of violence, theft and vandalism. Critics warn that collective financial responsibility can also discourage peaceful participation. Asking about that asymmetry does not excuse looting or erase the people whose shops and livelihoods were damaged.

A bill—not an enacted law.

Its official name is Projet de loi relatif à la réparation des dommages résultant de violences ou de dégradations commises dans l’espace public et au recouvrement des dommages et intérêts. In English: Bill on Compensation for Damage Resulting from Violence or Vandalism in Public Spaces and the Recovery of Damages.

Introduced on September 16, it predates the October 17 unrest. The Senate approved an expanded version during the October 27 sitting, reported in the early hours of October 28; it was transmitted to the National Assembly on October 28. As checked on October 29, it has not become an enacted law.

The reported special joint-liability ceiling is €10,000 per person. This is civil compensation, not an automatic €10,000 criminal fine. It is not a universal ceiling on the actual perpetrator’s liability under other legal rules.

Proximity is the fear. Knowledge is in the wording.

The commission text sets out two routes: knowingly participating in a group formed to prepare violence or damage; or voluntarily remaining after dispersal warnings while knowing that members are committing violence, theft or property damage. Mere accidental presence is not the statutory test.

The second route relates to acts after the warnings and the relevant time and place. The commission text also protects people with a legitimate reason to remain. The interaction is explicitly based on that dated version, not an assurance that amendments cannot change it.

A person need not have personally broken the window to face a civil claim. That is different from automatic liability without judicial findings. In a noisy, contained or rapidly moving crowd, proof of knowledge, voluntary presence, group membership and the practical ability to leave is precisely where a chilling effect may arise.

The same debt is not the same burden.

The proposal would permit seizure of family allowances and personal housing assistance to recover certain damages fixed by a final judgment. Parental civil responsibility can bring a child’s conduct into the household’s financial exposure.

A €10,000 debt does not weigh equally on a low-paid household and a wealthy one. The calculator divides the ceiling by a user-selected monthly income. It does not model a seizure rate, repayment order or the result of an actual case.

Other democracies: test the link to the wrong.

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982), the US Supreme Court rejected damages based merely on membership in a group whose other members committed violence. Nonviolent political activity remained protected; responsibility for a person’s own unlawful acts did not disappear.

In England and Wales, common-design accessory liability involves assistance pursuant to a common design, not mere proximity. Germany’s Civil Code sections 830 and 840 recognize joint responsibility for joint tortfeasors and participants, including specified causal uncertainty; they do not make every bystander a participant.

These are different doctrines, not interchangeable protest codes. The useful comparison concerns intent, participation, assistance, causality, judicial review, proportionality and subsistence protection. Calling a law “third-world” obscures rather than establishes those differences.

Not “nothing happened.” Not “problem solved.”

A November 2019 account citing Mediapart’s verified tally reported 24 people losing an eye and five losing a hand in the protest period. This is a dated, attributed tally—not an official final total and not proof of identical circumstances in every case.

There were protective responses: the GLI-F4 grenade was withdrawn in January 2020. The October 2026 school injuries prompted investigations, an officer’s preliminary charge and restrictions on grenade use against high-schoolers. A charge is not a conviction; an equipment restriction is not a comprehensive remedy.

The Constitutional Council struck down the 2019 anti-casseurs law’s individual administrative protest-ban provision as disproportionate. In 2026 the democratic question is whether a civil-liability route shifts deterrence from being banned from the street to fearing the price of staying there.

Sources

All cahiers · visual essays · High-school protests