France Sends Extra Police Ahead Of Protests

France has put tens of thousands of officers on duty before further protests over living costs and services.

France has faced fresh demonstrations and unrest, and a large security deployment was put in place before further planned protests. Reports said tens of thousands of officers were mobilised after earlier disturbances. Other accounts described clashes, damage to property and arrests in more than one city. The demonstrations have been linked to living costs, public services, education and government policy.

The security deployment in France shows that authorities fear more disorder. It does not, by itself, measure the danger on every street. Reports of arrests and injuries have to be tied to particular incidents and checked against official information.

Why it matters

France has a long habit of the street as politics. A march can force attention onto a subject people think parliament has skipped. Unions, students, local groups and people with no organisation can share a route and not share a demand. A peaceful procession, a clash with police, and a criminal act should be reported as separate facts. Officers have to prevent violence and still not treat every participant as a suspect.

When crowd-control tools are used, including tear gas or water cannon, the legal test is whether the force was necessary and proportionate. The number of officers on a roster is not that test. Nor is it a reason to ignore a broken window.

What the deployment cannot finish

• It can lower the chance of injury if it is well run.

• It cannot answer a complaint about prices or services.

• Peaceful marchers, clashes and crimes need separate descriptions.

• Clear maps of closed areas and of transport cuts reduce panic.

• The cost to shops and to the public purse should be measured, not assumed.

Tens of thousands of officers is a number large enough to change a city and vague enough to hide what happened on a particular corner. France's government is preparing for more marches after earlier clashes. The right to assemble does not include a right to injure, and a security plan does not include a right to treat a crowd as guilty in advance. Living costs and public services remain the argument underneath the deployment. They will still be there when the extra police stand down. A roster does not retire a grievance. The marches will be judged street by street, on injuries, arrests and whether people could still assemble without being treated as suspects in advance.

What's next

The immediate priority is to stop people getting hurt: residents, demonstrators, emergency crews and businesses. After that, if the crowds are there because of the cost of living or the state of services, the government has to explain its plan and speak to the groups affected. A security operation that only contains a crowd leaves the argument where it found it.

The longer question is whether the response stays inside democratic limits while the causes of the discontent are actually examined. Containment is a night's work. A credible process for the grievance is the work that remains when the officers go home.