Marc Salomone / blog: madic50 / Book: The two forms
Monday, May 24, 2021
REFLECTION ON THE SLOGAN OF THE EVENT OF 19 MAY 2021
I had the honor of participating in the citizens' rally to pay tribute to the police officers who died in office and to support the action of the police against delinquents, on May 19, 2021.
The participation of the Minister of the Interior as well as those of the delegations of the parliamentary groups, with the sole exception of La France Insoumise (LFI), gave it its full national reach.
We were few civilians in this professional and very welcoming atmosphere. Police officers agreed to take a picture of me with my camera.
I am wondering here about the slogan used to symbolize this movement: The police are paid to serve but not to die.
This slogan is certainly of definite trade union interest since it corresponds to the very purpose of this type of organization.
However, it does not correspond to the citizen character, that is to say to the public questioning, of this event.
The French support the police massively because they know that they expose their people so that "Force remains with the law".
However, it appears to them that the relationship between crime and order is evolving, blurring, or even being reversed.
What they expect from the forces of order, from you and from the government, therefore, is the reestablishment of their supremacy over crime and its corollary; the legal hierarchy between the police and the delinquent and therefore the public subordination of the second to the first.
It is within this framework that the French support the union demands of the employees of the Forces of order and the personal assumptions of their action.
This slogan, however moving it may be, does not reflect the question asked.
The policeman Masson Eric was killed because the thug no longer fit into this hierarchy and saw himself as a legal authority on the same level as that of the policeman.
This affair caused a stir because it shed a harsh light on the trivialization and massification of this thought.
We find this same questioning of the hierarchy of norms between delinquents and police officers in the Traoré affair.
Adama Traoré, not having his identity papers with him when he is preparing a family wedding, refuses to obey the gendarmerie control.
He believes that he has something else to do than respond to police orders. He has no time to waste with the preoccupations of an administration which is foreign to him.
He thinks he is not accountable to law enforcement officials for the legality of his precisely illegal actions.
The forces of order are wrong to interfere with him and he is within his rights to go about his occupations as he defines them.
It follows that for his supporters the control of his person becomes an arbitrary aggression, an abuse of rights, and that his flight is a legitimate safeguard, the exercise of Human Rights.
The whole debate that followed his tragic and regrettable end aims to establish that he was right or wrong in not submitting to the orders of the gendarme.
Notwithstanding the debates on the techniques used to submit it to this control; what the French expect is an unequivocal answer to the question of the legitimacy of the action of the police and gendarmes in the face of faults with regard to the law.
It is this question-answer game that is under discussion today.
We start by treating this legitimacy of police action as obvious without any particular significance.
Since the police are obviously justified in intervening against delinquency, it is useless to specify it, to invoke it, to think about it
On the other hand, it is advisable to discuss the advisability of this intervention, its method, the modalities of execution.
The primacy of the right to intervention becomes the priority of the statement of the facts of each particular case of intervention.
The act is certainly delinquent, but are the police justified in preventing it, in hindering it, in naming it? If so, is it justified to act certainly legally but precisely thus, like that?
Don't the police put the offender at undue risk? Doesn't she violate her right to assert her arguments or even her bursts of laughter?
Indeed, all the people raped or whose racketeering failed heard their attackers declare to the police: It's a joke. I have nothing to do with it if he or she cannot laugh.
1- It is the legitimacy and the legality of the police action vis-a-vis a situation of delinquency which is not only contested but refused in the name of its qualified practice as faulty.
2- The police should justify the legality of their action by submitting it to the acceptance of persons qualified by them as delinquents; some or possible.
3- We disqualify the method to delegitimize the right to intervention. The bad method implicitly qualifies the illegality of the intervention from which it results.
Which side is the law really on?
This debate is not mediocre and it is as old as the law and its division between real law and formal law, true justice and true justice.
What worries the French and the police at the moment is that it is no longer the victims who demand real justice, it is the criminals who want to impose their rights on the public authorities and subvert their exercise.
The truly criminal, predatory part of delinquents are not content to accuse victims of having what they do not have, or not enough.
They want to be satisfied with the person of others or their property in the name of respect for Human Rights and they demand condemnation in the name of the law of those who prevent them from doing so.
The first victory of the supporters of this shift in the sense of law is the creation of evidence of the principles of the relations of the Forces of order to the thugs which makes it possible to claim not to have to name them and therefore to be able to evade them.
We must name these principles and therefore answer the question asked by these thugs in each of their challenges.
A- The question is short:
The police facing a delinquent act or company:
1- Who is wrong, who is right?
2- Who commands, who obeys?
B- The answer is just as short:1- The police and gendarmes are right.
2- The delinquents are wrong.
3- The first command and the second obey.
It would suffice for these principles to be recalled to the rostrum of the Assembly and the Senate for them to appear in the case law of magistrates and a few others.
The voices of all parties could then be heard.
It is also possible to remedy the possible excessive consequences of legal actions without weakening the authority of law enforcement officials and therefore of the state.
Marc SALOMONE
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire