France: Thousands of protesters wrongly punished under draconian laws

You may risk arrest if you "come prepared", or don't follow police orders to move on or back off.

During the Yellow Vests protests some people showed up with helmets, gas masks, and home-made shields, then complained that the police were infringing on their right to 'peaceful' protest when they were prevented from joining the demonstration or arrested...

Dress like if you were out for a walk, which you are, and behave in the same way, and the police won't do anything to you.

In general, I just find the issue of "sedition" interesting. On the one hand, it makes sense that a minority not take it upon themselves to override a democratically elected government. On the other, people plotting an uprising, often use the rationale that the government is only democratic in name.

This is quite a dishonest interpretation of the facts. They were arrested because they participated to an unregistered (therefore forbidden) protest, there was proper communication from the police that such event was not authorized because of the expected violence issues, and the goggles / masks were proof of participation.

It's pretty easy to start a protest rally or march in france, you just have to declare it to the prefecture. Sometimes they are not accepted, for instance when a protest with violence history wants to pass in certain parts of the city with a lot of shop (they are regularly attacked). It happens that violent protestors such as the yellow vest types declare a march passing for instance the Champs Elysee avanue (famous locally for its numerous shops), knowing it will be rejected, then calling it a dictature when it happens, and doing it anyway, and there the violence begins. The Amesty report says nothing of this context, I have no idea why (I can guess it probably is because they support the yellow vest movement).

Is there any evidence that supports in any way that one-sided and deeply biased personal assertion of what really happened during the protest?

Because it's unbelievable that a man, who just happens to be directly involved in a violent riot with a long track record of destruction of property and assault on passer-bys and even law enforcement just so happens to be there in the thick of it just minding his own business and doing absolutely nothing to no one at all until he just so happened to find a moral argument that led him to just blurb a mild curse word directed at a bad police man, and only that, at the wrong time.

Incidentally, cases like these are the real motivators of these slippery slope legislation hikes. We have been seeing semi-professional activist organizations exploiting and abusing any conceivable loophole to avoid any legal consequence of their violent actions, under the guise of democracy and free speech, that they are single-handedly screwing up everyone out of their rights.

Certainly threats are not free speech. Insults may indeed be considered free speech, but it's hard to argue that insults used in the way described in the law being discussed (which is about serious insults and threats to people while they're working) can serve any useful purpose including in terms of expressing one's opinion.

Note that in France this applies to anyone performing a "public service" so you would also in principle be committing an offence by insulting a bus driver.

I don't think this is unwarranted or excessive. Free speech is very important but, at least in Europe, people think that this does not give you the right to insult the police, bus drivers, firemen, teachers, etc. to their face while they're working.

I note further than in the US "fighting words, "threatening the President", "obscenities", and "true threats" are not protected under free speech.

(wikipedia.fr)

You are correct and I was wrong. I learnt something today, thanks.

I feel the level of violence of gilets jaunes has been overreported by international medias, or maybe misattributed. I believe the large majority of protesters have been angry, determined people but overall pacific ones. And the reported violence came from a small minority, who abused the opportunity. And the same thing happened in the US months ago when there were reports of looting and degradation. Maybe I am naive and manipulated by medias, who knows.

But you are probably right, in the sense that gilets jaunes organized blockade of infrastructure, and were generally very active, trying to be heard. Much more than in recent US protests. But I would not call that "violence".

I remember when I turned 18 and I received a letter from the Ministry of Defence 'ordering'* me to report to the local barracks for an initial physical. That's how it was. After that either you tried to get out of it for medical reasons or delayed it because of University studies (at which point you could indeed apply to do it in a technical/civilian position).

I was lucky that they abolished it while I was at University so there was nothing left for me to do after I graduated. I say 'lucky' but I was actually disappointed as I had planned to apply for the "cooperation" i.e. to be sent abroad for 1.5 years in a technical capacity.

* I added quotes but it was really a legal order and they used to send the gendarmes knock on your door at some point if they didn't hear from you.

The US last had conscription during the Vietnam War and has never had a general-purpose mandatory peacetime "National Service" equivalent. Our draft had deferments of various kinds as well, in addition to alternative service for conscientious objectors.