Doctor of public law, lawyer and philosopher, Ghislain Benhessa is a lecturer at the University of Strasbourg. His publications include The Totem of the Rule of Law (L'Artilleur, 2021).
During the summer, the government tried to cover up its defeat. On August 12, while the Council of State, seized in summary proceedings, had just suspended the dissolution of the Earth Uprisings (SLT), the Secretary of State Prisca Thévenot took out the oars on France Inter: "It is obviously a decision of form, not a rejection on the merits". While the argument did not hold much weight – in reality, the judges had ruled on the modus operandi of the environmental group, validating its "civil disobedience initiatives" – the executive's strategy was clear: to play it down. Presenting this decision as a mere snag. And cross our fingers that after the case has been thoroughly examined, the High Administrative Court will join the government and confirm the dissolution of the movement co-organizing the rally against the megabasins of Sainte-Soline. But on 8 November, the Council of State shattered Gérald Darmanin's dream, with the wind in his sails against the "eco-terrorists". While the judges acknowledged the violence of the group, they considered that its dissolution was not appropriate to the seriousness of the unrest. To put it plainly, SLTs are crossing the line, but not enough to be disbanded. The Minister of the Interior is on the ropes. And this time, no more safety net to drown the fish. Ecoradicals: 1. Darmanin: 0.
Beyond the slap inflicted on the boss of Place Beauvau, the Council of State looked into the conditions of use of Article L. 212-1 of the Internal Security Code (CSI). Stemming from the "Separatism" law of 24 August 2021, it allows for the dissolution of "all associations or groups of facts [...] which provoke armed demonstrations or violent acts against persons or property". In its press release, the Council of State states this in black and white: this decision "specifies today the instructions for the use of these provisions".
By what sleight of hand did the Council of State finally fish out the SLTs? As Shakespeare said, therein lies the embarrassment.
Ghislain Benhessa
But what about once applied to SLTs? The answer is two-pronged. First, the judges found that there had been no "explicit provocation to violence against persons". Admittedly, the movement has "relayed [...], with a certain complacency, images or videos of clashes between demonstrators and the security forces". But retransmission does not mean "publicly claiming, promoting or justifying such acts". And the fact that "several dozen members of the security forces were injured" by individuals who "claimed" to be part of the movement "does not constitute a provocation attributable to the group". In short, the SLTs would have had to make molotov cocktails and mortar fire official methods for violence against persons to be characterized. Rather tricky, unless you imagine the collective striking a pose like Baader's gang, a neo-rural version.
On the other hand, judges are stricter in the field of violence against property. On the one hand, they point out that the SLTs are part of "a radical environmental movement that not only promotes [...]" civil disobedience'" but also the 'disarmament' of infrastructure that harms the environment, even if it means 'destruction'. On the other hand, they agree that the SLTs have 'caused damage to certain infrastructures', put 'industrial sites deemed to be polluting out of action', 'damaged construction machinery' and 'publicly legitimised ... such deterioration'. This is why, at the end of their analysis, they recognise that such actions do fall within the scope of the CSI.
But then, why did the Council of State annul the decree of dissolution? By what sleight of hand did he finally fish out the SLT? As Shakespeare said, therein lies the embarrassment. In a short sentence, nestled at the end of their reasoning, the judges argue that "in view of the scope of these provocations, measured in particular by the real effects they may have had, the dissolution cannot be regarded [...] as a measure that is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to the seriousness of the disorder'. In other words, if there has been violence, its impact is insufficient to outlaw SLTs. Too little damage to dissolve them. And too bad if the whole of France has seen the damning images of Sainte-Soline filmed, closer to scenes of war than demonstrations in the true sense of the word.
To endorse the radicalism of the SLTs, in the name of a proportionality that is as theoretical as it is obscure, is to open a Pandora's box. Instead of a flick of a ruler on the fingers, the apostles of the insurrection feel themselves growing wings.
Ghislain Benhessa
In the end, what conclusions can be drawn from such a decision? Of course, some people are proud to see the Council of State defending freedom of association tooth and nail. The Human Rights League, which is quick to detect state violence on every street corner, is pleased to see Gérald Darmanin curbed in his "repressive ardour". Faced with the ranting of the first cop of France, our rule of law stands firm and does not break! But this vision of things, ethereal if not off the mark, obscures the danger that emerges. To endorse the radicalism of the SLTs, in the name of a proportionality that is as theoretical as it is obscure, is to open a Pandora's box. Instead of a flick of a ruler on the fingers, the apostles of the insurrection feel themselves growing wings.
By the way, what did the movement say in its press release? That "the dissolution of the Antifascist Group of Lyon and Surroundings (GALE) and the Coordination Against Racism and Islamophobia (CRI)", validated a contrario by the Council of State, "constitutes a dangerous precedent". In other words, two groups condemned for having "congratulated" the perpetrators of "abuses" against the security forces, and suggested that the public authorities would "instrumentalize anti-Semitism to harm Muslims". What does this have to do with the environment? None. At the very least, get up for the earth, why not. But this is only the false nose of the SLT, violent supporters of the intersectional struggle and unconditional supporters of the obsessed with Islamophobia. And that's what the judges, with their heads in the sand, refused to see. Even if it means offering a certificate of competency to activists whose cause goes far beyond the love of trees and wild flowers.