Emmanuel Macron has called his cabinet together for the second crisis meeting in two days to decide what to do in the face of the third day of rioting across France. Cities affected by the violence include Paris, Lille, Toulouse, Marseille, Pau, and Lyon. Nanterre, the neighbourhood of Paris in which the death that set the riots off occurred, has been subject to particularly intense clashes. Both U.S. and UK authorities have issued warnings to their citizens in France, urging caution.
The French President, who flew back from a European summit in Brussels to meet with his officials, is facing a situation of generalised civil discord, which has so far resulted in hundreds of arrests and hundreds of injured police officers (reportedly numbering 249).
The deployment of 40,000 police has so far failed to stem the violence. Property damage is also extensive, including the looting of businesses and the torching of private vehicles and public buses. Indeed, Clement Beaune, the French Transport Minister, has even suggested closing down Parisian public transport.
The government has now said that “all options” are on the table, although Macron has held off on declaring a state of emergency, which would entail using the military to restore order. Back in 2005, President Jacques Chirac declared a state of emergency when confronted with similar riots lasting three weeks. There is a long-standing sense that the fabric of French society is frayed to the point that open conflict is possible.
Under French law, the army can take on police powers if an imminent danger, posed by war or armed rebellion, exists. Mobilising the military, therefore, would be tantamount to admitting the riots are a rebellion against the state or a precursor thereof.
Against this background, and recognizing the danger to French stability posed by the wave of unrest, Marion Maréchal, vice president of Reconquête, declared that “our duty as politicians is to do everything to prevent civil war.” From a different part of the political spectrum, former Minister of Interior Gérard Colomb said, “today, we live side by side. I fear that tomorrow, we will live face to face.”
For its part, the United Nations Human Rights Office sees the riots as an opportunity to advance its social-engineering agenda, endorsing the narrative that violence is a consequence of genuine racism on the part of law enforcement, and ignoring the pathologies brought about by mass migration and the cultural vices latent in certain immigrant-origin communities. Said UN spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani: “This is a moment for the country to seriously address the deep issues of racism and racial discrimination in law enforcement.” Shamdasani also discussed the importance of continuing to allow peaceful assembly during this period of violence, arguing against a state of exception. Apparently, “addressing deep issues of racism” is the prime concern, above saving lives and stopping a possible escalation—for the UN, at least.
Regarding the spectre of racism (seemingly invoked to prevent peaceful French citizens from too clearly articulating a desire to stop the criminal destruction of their cities), it is perhaps worth recalling that the present eruption of indiscriminate property destruction and rioting comes less than a month after the stabbing of several infants by a Syrian refugee in France. This act of attempted murder set off no riots and no vehement protests of any sort.
The present riots began after the death of Nahel M., a young man of 17 in a Parisian suburb. Nahel was stopped at a traffic light, after which the situation escalated dramatically. The officer who shot him is presently being investigated for voluntary homicide. According to his lawyer, however, the officer was aiming at Nahel’s leg but was pushed, causing him to shoot the young man in the chest.
Given Nahel’s North African background, the riots are largely ethnically charged, feeding the accusation that the French police are racially biased.
It remains to be seen whether the unrest will be reined in soon, and, beyond this, whether France’s profound social fissures will be addressed going forward.
A clear-sighted review of the destructive impact of sustained mass migration is long overdue for France, as it is for the rest of Europe.
