The Prime Minister, Elisabeth Borne, after the Minister of the Interior, Gérald Darmanin, questioned, on Wednesday April 12, the League for Human Rights (LDH), which spoke out against police violence, in particular during the demonstration in Sainte-Soline (Deux-Sèvres). Mr. Patrick Baudouin, its president, responds point by point to the government’s accusations.
Elisabeth Borne told the Senate “no longer understanding certain positions” of the League of Human Rights. Has the LDH changed?
Absolutely not, and I am both hurt and revolted. Her remarks are very serious, because she is Prime Minister. After the declarations of Gérald Darmanin, we felt a hesitation among several ministers, or at least an embarrassment: we hoped that Elisabeth Borne would reframe her minister in a more republican direction, and more respectful of freedom of association. Today, I am somewhat ashamed for our country, which is gradually sliding towards illiberal regimes. What positions does she no longer understand? The only two clarifications she provides are “that this misunderstanding has emerged in its ambiguities in the face of radical Islamism” and in that “The LDH recently attacked an order prohibiting the transport of weapons by destination to Sainte-Soline”.
The second point, first. This is a recurring complaint. Of course, the LDH is against the carrying of weapons by demonstrators. There is an article in the penal code that prohibits the carrying of weapons, it is an offence, so there is no need for an order from the prefecture. Next, the decree not only prohibited the carrying of weapons, but also the carrying of objects which could constitute “one weapon per destination”that is to say any object likely to be thrown at the police, a helmet, a bottle of beer… However, the Constitutional Council, on January 18, 1995, considered that one cannot could not prohibit the carrying or transportation of objects that could be used as projectiles, and that it was“a general and imprecise wording which entails excessive infringements of individual liberty”. We are only relying on a decision of the Constitutional Council.
The judge in chambers dismissed the appeal, but it was done in a great rush and we intend to continue to challenge this type of order. We are often accused of exercising abusive recourse against the State; yet three-quarters of our actions are legal successes. I will simply cite one of the recent actions against orders from the Paris police prefect taken at 5.30 p.m., posted at 6 p.m. to prohibit demonstrations at 7 p.m., with no real possibility of contesting them, and which deprived the demonstrators of the exercise of the right of appeal.
You have 75.95% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.