We must take Gérald Darmanin with the words, numerous, that they pronounce. Including when they contradict each other. Latest example, Wednesday, November 18.
Asked about the journalists placed in police custody or threatened while they were covering the mobilization against the proposed law on “global security”, the Minister of the Interior replied in a press conference in the morning: “If journalists cover demonstrations, they must approach the authorities, in this case the prefect of the department, to report themselves, to be protected by the police. “ An accreditation obligation that does not appear in any law.
The same minister corrected – “Specified”, according to his entourage – his thought that very evening in a series of tweets: “The national law enforcement plan (SNMO) that I presented in September provides that journalists can, without having to do so, contact the prefectures before demonstrations. “ Possibility of accreditation, without “obligation” therefore, but with a strong incentive, that of having access to the information channel of the authorities and incidentally that of not being threatened with arrest.
Gérald Darmanin is familiar with these double-trigger communications: a harsh version that is all over the media; a toned down version on social networks, mixed with explanations from those “around”.
A trial run with the “wildness” of society
On November 2, he spoke on article 24 of the draft law on comprehensive security, providing for the ban on the dissemination of images of the face of a member of the security forces. “With the aim of harming his physical or mental integrity”. On BFMTV, the Minister of the Interior gives a completely different version of the text: “I had made a promise, that of no longer being able to broadcast the image of the police and gendarmes on social networks. This promise will be kept, since the law provides for a ban on the distribution of these images. ” With this extreme interpretation of the text, exit the images on social networks thanks to which many cases of police violence have been documented. An old demand from some police unions.
On his Twitter account, a few days later, he gave a version more in line with the reality of the legislative text: “Will journalists and citizens be able to continue filming a police intervention? Yes. But will we be able to make calls for murder, rape and throw our police in the pasture on social networks? No. “ Nevertheless, the message has passed to the police already inclined to prevent image capture in the field.
You have 60.36% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.