FRENCH GLOBAL SECURITY LAW IS APPROPRIATE, ESSENTIAL AND SHOULD BE PASSED

MODERN SOCIETIES MUST PASS LAWS TO PROTECT  BOTH POLICE AS WELL AS  THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY.   

TO FAIL IS TO DESCEND INTO MOB RULE. 

France, in alignment with its long history and intellectual traditions, in the face of modern challenges— still remains a clear thinking rational state —determined to protect itself from extermination.  This is in stark contrast with the “new America” which has become unhinged, obsessed with sexual orientation, alleged racism, pampering whining “victims” of every stripe, and feminized males who claim they are “privileged ” and should be punished for it.  

The French, in their rational Gallic wisdom and witnesses to the descent of much of America  into chaos over the violent BLM riots last year, clearly understand the  existential danger posed to the modern state by the juxtaposition of the ubiquitous iPhone and broad  access to the internet.   

In modern America, a teenager with an iPhone and a internet connection could,  by abusing the right of free speech (as in  “yelling ‘fire’ in a movie theater”) could bring down a government and a nation. We have laws which control the right to free speech they must be applied to the use of the internet too. 

France, facing threats to social stability from violent demonstrations, and recent threats from Moslem extremism, has drafted  a “global security law” which attempts to balance the issues of freedom of expression  with the need for a robust and effective police force. 

Watching from across the Atlantic, French parliamentarians were witness to how quickly a city police force formerly seen  as “a premier functioning institution”  could be turned from stalwart defenders of society and it legitimate laws into passive, armed and uniformed  observers of crime and violence and “avid avoiders” of confrontation in the wink of a camera’s eye. 

TV footage of New York’s “finest” standing by and acting as passive  “observers of crime”  or “submissive targets of spittle, bottles, bricks,  Molotov cocktails and worse” as the rioters looted and destroyed  private and public property. And in more than one case the “uniforms” had to retreat like escaping convicts from their own precinct houses, which were then burned to the ground by rioters. 

In these confrontations any police officer attempting to actually control rioters, or apprehend violent perpetrators were faced with a difficult conundrum:   “If I actually subdue and arrest this person (what I am trained and paid to do) and someone photographs me, I may be charged with ‘brutality’ may be dismissed, lose my pension, be charged with a crime, and have to hire an expensive  attorney to defend myself in court. And, if I am convicted, I might even end up in prison in close quarters with the criminals I helped incarcerate.  Or I can simply turn away, ignore the rioter torching a store, or a senior citizen being beaten by bat-wielding criminals, and go about on my way as a regularly paid unconfrontational and safe “uniformed observer of crime.”  

What decision do most officers make? Yes!  Most are likely to act  just as self defensively and rationally as the French and will protect his/her family, income and life.   

What French parliamentarians had to face was the obvious pernicious  effects this new technology would have on the French police force and on the nation’s security.   If police no longer confront criminals, they no longer a function to enforce the laws which the people and the people’s  representatives enact. Such a state descends from the rule of law to a nation ruled by mobs.  

Paris would morph into Doge City of the 1850s.  

France, a nation served by rational parliamentarians made the realization that they must say NO to mob rule and support the police to insure the security of a peaceful functioning nation.  To do otherwise would be to cast the nation and its citizenry adrift into lawlessness and mob rule.  That would result in its citizens being “on their own” in any confrontation with an evildoer—as most resident of New York City now find themselves.  

In cites where mobs rule,  crime  goes up, foot traffic goes down, insurance costs goes up, taxes ruse, businesses abandon high crime cities, property values fall, residents relocate, taxes go up as populations decline and whole economies collapse.  

It’s clear that for a nation to survive, its police must be protected from malicious imagery published on the internet to create intentional harm to a police officer while that officer of the law is attempting to perform his or her professional responsibilities. 

About four weeks ago the French PM, Emanuel Macron announced a new Global Security law for France.  It  included a provision, Article 24, which would make photographing a police officer while in his/her  official capacity as a law officer an offense punishable  by a year in prison and/or a €50,000 fine.  

The far left and the  UN and misguided others have claimed (unwisely) the  law is “controversial” since it limits the rights of those who would report on police practices.  Though there is no limit on such reportage and in fact there are many avenues for complainants to make their case.  

What should be limited is the unwarranted invasion of a photographer into a situation of which the details of the the confrontation, the facts of the case, the context in which the actions are being taken etc. etc.  etc. These photographic invasions and internet dispersions are snippets of behavior which often have little to do with the actual facts of the case,  and are subject to be  misperceived and misused. But their most pernicious effect is on the chilling effect it has on the behavior of police. 

Perhaps sanity will return to America and our Congress will enacts a similar global security law that would protect the rights of police officers to freely and effectively function as those who are tasked with enforcing the laws the people’s representatives enact.  To do less is to submit to the mob!