The Fight Against Subversive Contestations
Phenomena of violence , whether political or of the urban violence type , are present and very visible on the national territory . However , these are epiphenomena that cannot succeed in destabilizing the state , with the reservation made for the Yellow Vests movement , which for the moment cannot undergo any serious analysis , so much is this movement due to spontaneity and the lack of structure , making the strength and weakness of this protest movement .
Over the last fifty years , the public security forces have improved in the management of demonstrations and riots . Moreover , intelligence services are totally assigned to the collection of information , which , whatever one may think , is quite considerable . Finally , in addition to the public security forces and the intelligence services , the state has also adapted its response through judicial retaliation tools .
II . The Judicial Response to Attempts to Destabilize The State
In addition to administrative responses such as bans on leaving the public highway or the dissolution of associations , the legislator has provided in the Penal
Code for responses adapted to the scale of violence , firstly collective violence in the context of demonstrations ( A ) and then collective violence when it is detrimental to the fundamental interests of the nation ( B ).
A . Punishment of Collective Violence Committed During Demonstrations
Among the various judicial tools that repress violent collective movements is the “ gathering ” defined in article 431-3 of the Penal Code as “ any gathering of persons on the public highway or in a public place likely to disturb public order .” Article 431-3 paragraph 2 of the Penal Code refers to Article L . 211-9 of the Internal Security Code to dispel any gathering “ by the police force after two summons to disperse have remained without effect .” These two articles were introduced by the order of March 12 , 2012 . In practice , police officers or mobile gendarmes carry out these dispersions if the demonstrations disturb public order . However , in the context of violent demonstrations against the labor law , these measures were not carried out immediately or not at all on the instructions of the police prefecture , even though the surrounding property was ransacked , even if the dispersal was partly carried out by the organizers of the demonstration ( in this case the CGT ’ s security service ).
With the so-called “ Perben II ” law of March 9 , 2004 , the legislators wished to act against gangs by introducing the aggravating circumstance of organized gangs into the penal code in Article 132-71 , the organized gang being “ within the meaning of the law , any group formed or any agreement established with a view to the preparation , characterized by one or more material facts , of one or more offences .” By the law of March 5 , 2007 relating to the prevention of delinquency , the legislators wished to repress new forms of collective violence . Article 222-14-1 of
103