"Casseurs-payeurs": repairing the damage without sacrificing the RSA or the freedom to demonstrate

What was adopted on Wednesday

The bill on compensation for damage resulting from violence or vandalism in public spaces cleared the Senate law committee on Wednesday, 21 October. Tabled on 16 September under the fast-track procedure, according to the Senate's legislative file, the text was adopted behind closed doors and amended in a tougher direction, according to participants quoted by Mediapart and cited by Le Club des juristes.

The core principle is unchanged. A person who knowingly took part in a violent group, or who stayed in a gathering after the official warnings, could be held jointly liable for the damage, up to 10,000 euros, without proof that they caused it themselves. The original text already allowed certain benefits, such as family allowances and housing aid, to be seized to recover these sums.

According to Public Sénat and AFP, rapporteurs David Margueritte (LR) and Olivier Bitz secured three additions. The RSA, France's minimum income, could now be seized as well, with a "reste à vivre" (subsistence minimum) preserved for the most vulnerable. The use of drones during demonstrations would be simplified, with no cap on their number. Finally, an additional penalty banning foreigners from French territory would target those convicted of certain serious offences committed during "urban violence". The text reaches the Senate floor on Tuesday, 27 October.

The positions at stake

For the government, the urgency is obvious after the looting of 17 October. Sébastien Lecornu considers the text "absolutely indispensable", AFP reports. The interior minister, Laurent Nuñez, reportedly supports most of the Senate's additions, according to Public Sénat, and says he is considering the issue of face coverings. The president of the Senate, Gérard Larcher, believes France was "caught red-handed in a moment of weakness". Quoted by Le Figaro, he adds:

In case of default, nothing should be ruled out, including social benefits — Gérard Larcher

This argument deserves to be taken seriously. Today, LCP points out, the State compensates damage arising from a gathering without any fault on its part, under article L211-10 of the internal security code. It is therefore the taxpayer who pays, while insurers can exclude "riots" from their cover. For a looted shopkeeper or a damaged municipality, the idea that troublemakers should contribute to repairs is not shocking.

The left, for its part, denounces a text that threatens freedoms. Communist senator Fabien Gay fears that no demonstration could take place any more, the head of the LFI group in the National Assembly, Mathilde Panot, speaks of a "weapon of mass repression", and the leader of the Socialist deputies, Boris Vallaud, of "a bad law", according to AFP. Socialist senators are reserving their position for the floor debate. The Conseil national des barreaux, in a resolution of 9 October, called for the bill to be withdrawn: it sees it as undermining individual responsibility and considers the exceptions to the protection of family benefits from seizure disproportionate.

A fair response to legitimate anger?

The first problem is legal. According to L'Express, the Conseil d'État recalled, relying on article 4 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, that civil liability requires a voluntary act causing the damage. It opened only a narrow path, based on public order: it would at least have to be established that the person knew violence was being committed and stayed after a clear order to disperse. A member of the Union syndicale des magistrats, Aurélien Martini, doubts such proof would be easy to provide. A law that is fragile before the Constitutional Council or unenforceable in the courts will repair nothing.

The second problem is social, and it worsened on Wednesday. The RSA is not an income like any other: it is the last safety net of national solidarity. Seizing it, even partially, means hitting the poor demonstrator harder than the well-off one, who will pay out of savings. Seizing family allowances means making children bear the presumed fault of a parent, as the Conseil national des barreaux stresses in the name of the best interests of the child. A Republic committed to equality before the law cannot accept that the same penalty weighs so differently depending on income.

The third problem concerns the scope. Drones and the territorial ban have only a distant link with compensating victims, which was the stated purpose of the text. By broadening the law in this way, the Senate majority risks turning a compensation bill into a policing bill, adopted in the heat of emotion and six months before the presidential election.

Finally, the authority of the State is not measured by the severity it displays, but by its ability to identify the real perpetrators. Presuming liable whoever happened to be there is simpler, but it means giving up a requirement that gives a state governed by the rule of law its strength: everyone answers for their own acts, not for those of others.

Conclusion: repair quickly, punish fairly

There is a sounder path. The State could quickly compensate shopkeepers and local authorities through a dedicated fund, then firmly turn against identified perpetrators, ordering them to pay from their assets, without touching minimum social benefits or allowances intended for children. On 27 October, senators, and especially the still undecided Socialists, will have to choose: vote for a law for show, or write a law that holds up.

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.