If you are someone like me who lives in France and does not support the yellow vest movement, you can read my rebuttals in part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4, as well as Paul Joseph Watson‘s video on the protests to find out why.
There is a large amount of foreign interest in these protests. The amount of fake news, especially with a British anti-war independent journalist claiming to have been living here for eighteen years, yet has no knowledge of French law and lying about the situation, is not only embarrassing, but rather suspicious.
Let’s examine the inconsistencies surrounding the yellow vests and the anti-war independent journalists and geopolitical commentators supporting them.
In this 2015 article by Mint Press News France Bans Pro-Palestine Demonstrations, not only do they cite from a dubious source, the Daily Mail (more on their fake news against France and the myth of no-go zones, here, and here), the entire article is taken out of context. Pay attention to what is written in bold:
“He (Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve) welcomed a legal procedure instigated by the Paris police prefecture to ban the march, despite it already being widely advertised. Anyone who turns up to an illegal demonstration now faces up to a year in prison, and a 15,000 euro fine.
If they hide their faces to avoid being identified, this sentence can be increased to three years, and a 45,000 fine. Even those who publish details of an illegal rally on social media face up to a year in prison, and a 15,000 euro fine. This can be increased to seven years and a 100,000 fine if the postings lead to violence.”
What this ‘rage inducing headline’ neglected to mention in the article, and noted by liberation: “The obstruction of an economic activity was added to the penal code in 1977, after the call for the Arab League to boycott Israel,” says Gwénaële Calvès, professor of public law at the University of Cergy-Pontoise. The aim was to protect French producers from customers who could, for example, ask them to certify that their products were not transported by Israeli companies. Canada and the United States did the same.” This is why François Dubuisson, a professor at the International Law Center of the Free University of Brussels, sees in the criminalization of the call to boycott activists opposed to the blockade of Gaza, an extensive interpretation” of the law. This was never intended to ban the call from civil society to boycott products of a state whose policy is criticized.“
The law still permits protesting against Israeli action in Palestine. The most recent being 19 May 2018, where around 300 people gathered for a protest in Clermont-Ferrand, and different cities across France.
There are two legal grounds for continuing calls for boycotts, the 1881 press law (i.e., before the creation of the State of Israel) punishes with one year’s imprisonment and a 45,000 euro fine public provocation to discrimination and the penal code (Article 225-2) which states that “to hinder the normal exercise of any economic activity” is indeed discrimination.”
The misleading article states: “anyone who turns up to an illegal demonstration now faces up to…”, this law has been in effect since 1935 and repealed in 2012, as well as it being illegal to conceal ones face in public since 2010.
According to their January 9th, 2015 article, there was a ‘recent law’ introduced on illegal demonstrations and protesters concealing their faces.
The “now” was to indicate that this law was being drawn up after the protests. That is misleading their readers unfamiliar with the French language and laws. It would have been more correct to write: “…anyone who turns up to an illegal demonstration faces up to…”, to show that this law was already in effect.
Which then contradicts MPN’s most recent 2019 article on the yellow vest movement:
The underlined draconian government polices of this excerpt directs you to a January 9, 2019 article by Zero Hedge (more on them and their propaganda against France and Muslims here), in a false, and misleading article, with more than six thousand shares, about a new law, making all unauthorised protests and wearing face masks illegal in France (indicating it has never existed in French law):
Considering that MPN mentioned these ‘new laws’ in their 2015 article on France banning all pro-Palestine protests, and these ‘new laws’ again in their 2019 article, how credible can they be as journalists when one of them claims to have been living in France for the past eighteen years?
I explained a protest may be prohibited only in case of fear of “serious disturbance of public order”, according to Article L211-3 of the penal Code. Prohibitions are therefore relatively rare. The organisers have the opportunity to challenge the prohibition orders in the administrative courts to have the order annulled.
Penalties can be aggravated for a person who willfully conceals all or part of his face so as not to be identified and/or carrying a weapon. Thus, the right to protest is a right recognised and regulated by the penal code.
The protest was illegally advertised on social media, as indicated in the article. Why is this illegal? In France, all demonstrations on a public road (processions, parades, protests, gatherings etc) must be declared at least three days, and a maximum of fifteen, before the date of the event. This declaration must be made at the town hall (the Mayor of your village, town or city) or prefecture (the State’s representative in a department or region). In Paris, the terms are slightly different. The declaration must be made at the police headquarters, two months (three in case of a large crowd) before the event. Requests made later are accepted when an unforeseen event of national or international importance justifies it.
If an event takes place without prior declaration, if this declaration is incomplete or inaccurate, or if the event is maintained despite a prohibition order, Article 431-9 of the Penal Code, there is a penalty of six months imprisonment and a €7,500 fine. Citizens travelling to a banned gathering are subject to a fine of up to 38 euro. Organisers can also be sued if they turn a protest into a parade.
These sanctions do not apply to all participants, only the organisers who have indicated themselves during the preliminary declaration and to individuals who have received an individual notification.
This well-known geopolitical commentator stated that they are “met with tear gas from Macron’s police.” and “tear gas grenades have been banned elsewhere in Europe”. Here is the official chart of the weapons used by the European police and the maintenance of order:
You can see that France and four other European countries use tear gas grenades. The purpose is to disperse crowds, and there are procedures that require the protesters to be warned first. Greek police recently fired tear gas at tens of thousands of protesters who clashed with riot police during violent protests ahead of the parliamentary vote to ratify a name deal with Macedonia.
France is the only country in Europe to use, through its gendarmes, explosive (i.e., GLI-F4) grenades, for the maintenance of order, with the objective of keeping the most violent protesters away at a distance.
According to an article by Liberation: “Police forces in many countries use tear gas grenades. France is indeed distinguished from its European neighbours by being the only country to use explosive grenades in the maintenance of order.” Here is a joint report of the IGPN (General Inspectorate of the National Police) and the IGGN (General Inspectorate of the National Gendarmerie).
Propagating the alleged banned use of tear gas grenades in all European countries except France, is intended to manipulative her followers into believing the Yellow Vest Movement must be much bigger than what it seems, “look at those brave Frenchmen! We should all rise up against our own corrupt governments too!”