French Senate backs 'make rioters pay' bill despite rights concerns

The French Senate approved a bill making some protesters financially responsible for damage caused during public demonstrations. It matters because the measure could shift repair costs from the public to people linked to unrest. Rights groups fear it could weaken the fundamental right to protest.

The bill creates joint financial liability for people who knowingly join a group formed to commit vandalism. It could also cover people who voluntarily remain at a gathering likely to disrupt public order after two police dispersal warnings. Welfare and housing assistance could help pay damages.

The Senate passed an expanded version by 229 votes to 105. The bill now goes to the National Assembly. Its final form and survival depend on debate and voting in that politically divided chamber, while critics continue warning about collective punishment.

The proposed law allows protesters to be ordered to pay as much as €10,000 for damage caused during public demonstrations. This is designed to make individuals, rather than the wider public, bear more of the financial cost of unrest. Critics say the approach could punish people who were not vandals.

The bill would allow welfare benefits and housing assistance to be seized to cover damages. During its second reading, senators expanded the measure to include the family supplement, back-to-school allowance, and employment bonus. The article also refers to the active solidarity income.

That enforcement power is central to the controversy. Amnesty International warned that taking family allowances, housing assistance, or the active solidarity income could push vulnerable families further into poverty. The measure still requires consideration by the National Assembly before it can proceed.

The bill was drafted after riots followed Paris Saint-Germain's victory over Arsenal in the UEFA Champions League final in May. It sought to respond to damage linked to public disorder by making people financially accountable. The proposal gained wider importance as unrest continued across France.

Weeks of protests over inequality and soaring prices culminated in some of the worst violence France had seen in years on October 17. Thousands of businesses across the country were damaged and looted. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez cited the damage and scenes of chaos when arguing that action was urgent.

The Senate passed the expanded bill by 229 votes to 105. The right-wing and centrist alliance that supports it holds a majority in the Senate. The proposal now moves to the National Assembly, where its politically divided membership will debate and vote on it.

Senate approval is not the final step. The legislation has been sent to the National Assembly, France's other parliamentary chamber, for debate and voting. The Assembly must consider the text before the proposal can move forward. The article does not state the final outcome or timing.

The Assembly is split between France's political factions. That division could make passage more difficult or lead to changes in the Senate's expanded version. The Senate vote itself was backed by a right-wing and centrist alliance holding a majority there, but that balance does not automatically apply in the Assembly.

The next stage will therefore test support for the bill beyond the Senate. Marine Le Pen supports it, while left-wing lawmakers and rights groups oppose it. The outcome could determine whether financial liability, benefit seizures, and related measures become part of French law.

The main concern is that liability could extend beyond people who personally damaged property. Critics say people associated with those responsible might be held jointly responsible. That could expose peaceful protesters or nearby participants to financial penalties, threatening the practical ability to demonstrate.

The bill covers anyone found to have knowingly joined a group formed to carry out vandalism. It also targets people who voluntarily remain at a gathering likely to disrupt public order after two police dispersal warnings. Welfare benefits and housing assistance could then be seized to help pay for damage.

Left-wing lawmakers called the approach an authoritarian drift and collective punishment. Amnesty International warned that losing family allowances, housing assistance, or the active solidarity income could push marginalised families further into poverty. The National Assembly will decide whether these provisions remain.

The proposed law draws lines based on conduct and knowledge. A peaceful protester, as supporters describe the category, should not be criminalised merely for attending a demonstration. The article says the bill instead focuses on people connected to planned vandalism or those who ignore official dispersal warnings.

A person could face joint financial liability if they knowingly joined a group formed with the intent to commit vandalism. Someone who voluntarily stayed in a gathering likely to disrupt public order after two police dispersal warnings could also fall within the measure. The article separately refers to acts of vandalism themselves.

The distinction remains disputed. Olivier Bitz said the bill should not appear to criminalise a passer-by or peaceful protester. Critics argue its wording could still conflate protesters and rioters, especially when authorities decide who knowingly participated or continued attending after warnings.

The freedom to demonstrate is considered fundamental because it allows people to express political and social demands collectively in public. It gives citizens a way to challenge authorities and draw attention to inequality or rising prices. The article treats this freedom as a right that legislation must not unnecessarily undermine.

Governments can still place limits when demonstrations create serious risks to public order, such as violence, vandalism, or calls for insurrection. In this case, the proposed rules target knowing participation in vandalism groups and people who remain after two police dispersal warnings. The article also describes proposed protest bans for the most violent individuals.

The central dispute is where lawful protection ends and excessive restriction begins. Supporters say the public should not pay for a minority of vandals. Critics warn that broad liability, benefit seizures, and possible arbitrary police action could deter peaceful protest. The National Assembly will debate that balance next.