Protests, continued: Macron sorts the marches, the judge restates the rule

On Thursday 22 October, after a security council meeting at the Élysée, Emmanuel Macron set a clear line for the weekend. According to AFP, only demonstrations organised by trade unions should be authorised on Saturday 24 October, a new day of mobilisation. Two days after Laurent Nuñez's telegram to the prefects, which we discussed on Wednesday, the doctrine has changed in scale: it is no longer only about local risks, but about the standing of those calling people onto the streets.

The facts

According to the Élysée statement, the security council brought together the Prime Minister, the ministers concerned and all the intelligence services. It reviewed the measures planned for the coming weeks and the failures that preceded the violence of 17 October. The text announces no specific decision.

The announcements came from the head of state himself. As reported by LCP, he said:

The general recommendation is that there should be no demonstrations in the coming days. — Emmanuel Macron

He specified that requests from people who, in his view, have "no legitimacy to do so" would be banned by the prefects. Union marches, for their part, would be examined case by case, with modified routes to protect town centres, shops and public buildings. According to AFP, the president also called for the greatest firmness against perpetrators of violence and ultra-left groups, and the Interior Ministry announces staffing levels 20% higher than last week.

On the ground, restrictions are multiplying. AFP reports that the prefecture has banned all demonstrations on Saturday in Lyon, and the HuffPost reports bans in Toulon, Grenoble and Nice. In Paris, only one march would be authorised, between Bastille and Nation.

That same Thursday, the courts entered the debate. According to a dispatch carried by La Libre Belgique, the urgent-applications judge of the Paris administrative court suspended the order banning the student march of the Interfac Île-de-France, planned between the Pitié-Salpêtrière and Bastille. Mediapart recounts what followed: a new prefectoral order turned the march into a static gathering, and the procession was never able to move.

The positions

The government stands by its choice. Its spokesperson, Maud Bregeon, quoted by LCP, recalls that prefects may ban a demonstration likely to cause serious disturbances to public order, that decisions will be taken case by case and that recourse to the courts remains open. According to AFP, she considers it unthinkable that the violence of the previous Saturday should happen again. The argument deserves a hearing: around 3,000 shops were hit on 17 October according to the government, and Limoges town hall was the target of an arson attack, as reported by Mediapart. Part of the right accuses the executive of laxity, and the RN expects the security of its Orléans congress to be guaranteed.

On the left, the reaction is strong. LFI deputies denounce a measure that kills freedoms, as LCP notes. Mediapart, in an article by Romaric Godin and Ellen Salvi, sees these announcements as a massive attack on the right to protest. More measured, Manon Lefebvre, of the Syndicat de la magistrature, reminds the HuffPost that this fundamental freedom does not require any union membership.

The analysis

The legal point is simple. The Internal Security Code, as the HuffPost recalls, requires a demonstration to be declared by identified persons who sign their declaration. It does not require them to be affiliated with a trade union or an organisation with statutes. What allows a ban is the risk of disturbance to public order, assessed case by case and under the supervision of the courts. The "legitimacy" of the organiser is not part of it.

It must be said with respect for the presidential office: the authority of the State does not consist in choosing who has the right to speak in the street. It consists in guaranteeing that everyone can do so without breaking things or being broken. A Gaullist tradition that made the people the ultimate arbiter cannot entrust this sorting to the prefects.

The risk is also practical. The current movement is largely driven by non-unionised secondary school and university students, according to the Interfac. Shutting them out of declared marches means pushing them towards improvised gatherings, with no stewards and no point of contact, which the police will find harder to manage. Éric Coquerel (LFI) raised this point on LCP. The goal of restoring calm could suffer as a result.

Finally, the Paris administrative court's decision shows that judges do not rely on political statements. If prefects apply the presidential instruction to the letter, suspensions in urgent proceedings are likely to multiply, and with them the feeling of a State backing down before its own judges.

Conclusion

Public order is a duty, the freedom to protest a constitutional guarantee: one cannot be used to extinguish the other. The State would be stronger if it banned only where a specific danger is established, publishing its reasons, and if it offered student collectives supervised routes rather than refusals. The meeting that Sébastien Lecornu is due to hold on Monday with secondary school and student organisations, according to AFP, will be the real test. Will the government manage to talk there about grants, university places and the cost of living, and not only about routes?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.