We live in a reality that is totally schizophrenic. On one hand, a climate of ideological increasingly weighing strives to want to make us believe that we are victims of power, of the dominated, evidence mobile a injustice of any kind, no matter which. Obviously, for that there are the oppressed, it must be the " bad guys ", the executioners, oppressors. Activists of all kinds – in the proper sense, sometimes in a figurative sense permanently – canardent therefore, the State, the government and the security forces in pushing the loud screams when the public authorities do their job : maintain the public order, basic requirement of the democratic system.

on the other, the alarming situation, every day more obvious, a going wild everyday. The evidence is provided, once again by two of the dramas tearing the banality of ordinary existence. A bus driver in Bayonne, Philippe Monguillot, lost his life because he wanted to enforce the law, because he has expressed his choice of a responsible citizenship. Shortly before, a young policeman of 25 years, Melanie Lemée, dies on a roadblock in Port-Sainte-Marie, broke and fatally wounded by a motorist wanting to escape control. Obviously because he was carrying drugs and that he was riding without a licence. In summary, small offenders decided in both cases to walk on the laws of the Republic.

Read also Delbecque : "to Disarm the forces of law and order, it is to disarm the Republic,"

we will explain once again that criminals are not really criminals, and that the "company" or the institutions that should occupy the place of the accused. We know the song of the " yes but "... This practice is used because it proves to be terribly dishonest intellectually. The reason for this ? The goal of all those who are trying to minimize the individual responsibilities is to negotiate the law : it is the extension of the domain of the jungle, to the detriment of the rule of law. The justice has the necessary instruments to exercise discretion and ensure proportionate sentences. In particular, it may assess mitigating circumstances (or, at least, aggravating). The chain criminal knows how to show nuance. What we are experiencing since years must be read in a completely different pattern of explanation than that, now absurd, a " blind repression ". Among the defenders of the anti-social behaviour, offences and crimes endeuillant the social a regular basis, it is get a law to " soft ", an application to variable geometry, as a function of this or that dogma, this or that street activism, or media, of such or such a theory improperly biased at that moment (the "privileged white" or the legitimacy of the violent anti-capitalist).

Utopia

At the bottom of these tragedies, the real question that arises is that of the relation to the rule shared, to the design of what must be the res publica, the common thing. For the most coherent with themselves, the utopia, therefore, would be a world where one would look crime as a function of its author, that any sanction would be moot in light of the potential nuisance that it represents. The act ageless of the horde, in sum. Read Pierre Clastres would be illuminating, no doubt (and René Girard also, in particular, what it has taught us about the " violence mimetic ") : Archaeology of violence in mind. He describes fort luminously small communities closed, aggressive, brought to make war on something that doesn't look like. All of communalism (or ethnic nationalist, ideological or religious, corporate or criminal) door in its side was a brutality without limits. It is that which devours the civility, which weakens in each moment the democracy.

The "monopoly of physical violence legitimate" held by public authorities does not regress to the state of nature.

What to do ? Before you even ask the question of how to implement, first bring forward again the idea that the act protects individual freedoms and the safety of the body, the life of human beings... But also that it implies that one does not rebel against the forces of law and order in a democratic regime (albeit imperfect, as well as constituting, however, a chance for its citizens) and that the "monopoly of physical violence legitimate" held by public authorities does not regress to the state of nature. Bullies are bullies, not victims.

also Read How the hatred of the police soda the ultraleft

any woman, any man, has the right to challenge, discuss, fight for his beliefs or even his interests. On the other hand, as soon as an individual chooses violence to impose itself on decisions born of the vote, as soon as he tries to exonerate minimum standards of life in society, he deserves the rigorous, rational and non-vindictive, of the penal Code. Reject this line of reasoning, this is not to choose freedom is to argue for barbarism.

*Eric Delbecque is an expert in internal security, the author of the Uncontrollable (Grasset)