During the meetings held by the OCL and OLS summer in Ariege, three evenings were devoted
to a debate on antir?pression. Those who attended are for the most collectives in France
faced repression against activists and others being invested in the struggles of the
prison in general through radio or written (1). We use here three themes of this
discussion - rebuilt as questions were made early response - because it seems urgent to be
more aggressive in the field of law enforcement, in order to build rapport forces for a
wider solidarity and stronger. ---- Today there is an increase in France both prosecutions
against the activists, the number of people confined in the prison (35 000 in the early
1980s to 65 000) and the number of sentences distributed by the judiciary.
Far from being a chance this is related to today's society: the repression is a tool for
managing certain populations, so it must be analyzed from the company, and not the
reverse. Repression is political and social, dozens of anti-terrorism laws passed by the
left and right correspond to an increase of conflicts of class: for it is the power to
criminalize political activity clapping activists, but this is especially for classes that
the situation has worsened. Punishment is also more of preventive against militants in
early social movements (with immediate appearance arrests, detention, judicial controls
...), where the State seeks above all to stop these movements.
Pitfalls and handicaps antir?pression
Who and how do we support? It is argued in general, through collective people with whom
there is a close political - by inability to expand our work to others, but also by
refusing to play or social workers and Maoists cathos of yesteryear. This approach is the
opposite of humanism, often based on the assistantship and victimization leads to defend
all causes occurring, including asking people do not or will not support. It is a
political will. Thus, at its inception, the Committee Poitevin against the repression of
social movements said he did not support the people for which they are charged, thereby
distinguishing between guilty and not guilty, but that the state "justice" makes them.
In France there are a number of committees antir?pression or solidarity funds (2), and
these small structures based on solidarity and sustainable grassroots party to maintain
the relationship between them (3), but no overall structure of the pools are
antir?pression experiences, then it would help to look at in terms of political strategy
the issue of punishment. In addition, positioning theory and practice of collective or
different differ - if they do not oppose, for ideological reasons but also and perhaps
especially the local history and situation. Environments antir?pression not immune to
competition between their chapels or tribes, many activists do not think much repression
before conducting action collective defenses are very rare in the trial ... In such a
context, the texts published on repression are generally individual, and they never
present balance of practice.
However, if the court cases are all different, we run across the same logic coercive. So
better prepare action antir?pressive posing as a time of struggle, as well as the extent
of solidarity is based on the dynamics of movement in which people are prosecuted. For
example, if someone is caught in a Rennes antinuclear demonstration, it is important that
the antinuclear outside the city are immediately informed and make the fuss about. On
Notre-Dame-des-Landes, it is important that the expression of solidarity against
repression is expressed elsewhere - we see that this is what is happening more and more.
The experience of the Legal Team, which was set up in Strasbourg on the occasion of
cons-NATO summit is interesting because, knowing there would be the opportunity repression
vis-?-vis the street people have drawn a year before the demonstrations in emphasizing the
idea that the social movement was to provide the means to defend themselves. All legal
work was done in advance, and research firm in which it was stated that they would not
choose their clients, and they should remain available and present at the police station
on days when it was necessary.
But what is meant by "solidarity"? Can be attached to people without knowing them, because
they are in a movement where one might be led to the cross-e. In this expression of our
solidarity, we say things against the company that produces and repression that we fight.
However, the pitfalls to avoid when repression is directed against a movement is that the
activity gradually invade antir?pressive space and time devoted to the claim brought by
the movement.
We must also always keep in mind that police practices in neighborhoods, particularly
cities such as terrorism or security laws, quickly exceed their part to target other
environments - see cops intervention methods in demonstrations. This is why it is
essential to open up repression - understand issues such trials involving young cities and
the importance of support. Unfortunately, we hear more and more: "We're undocumented - and
activists - not criminals" ... and this disconnect between the political and the social is
damaging to the understanding of what should be our political struggle. Because repression
against activists for their work as that of young people who for economic reasons dealent
show the same social reality.
How to be the policy at the time of trial to assert the legitimacy of an action? You have
to put this action in its social and political context. For example, people who ransacked
Montpellier in 1999 to a plot of transgenic rice had a good choice here since the anti-GMO
movement is amplified after trial. They did a little prison, but the mobilization against
the repression was offensive, the act collectively being claimed, no one to say "innocent"
and support committees have emerged around (4).
Conversely, some militant actions are explained or claimed, which creates a total blur
relative to the bases of support. In many trials of activists, it seems has lost the
desire to win by making the policy around, as if you do not see the interest. Thus, some
do-es not go to trial, or do not want to claim the political content of what they are
accused or - not always on the basis innocentistes - confront justice, and the level of
support, Such an attitude leaves distraught-e. It encourages both say we will not fight
for them ... and if you do not it will impact much wider than their simple case, because
repression has actually against all of us: the trials are not a personal matter, but
affect everyone. That is why it is mobilizing against repression to strengthen a movement,
a strike ... or at least not weaken us. In addition, defense is also important at the
individual level: even if you do not necessarily win the trial, at least it has not
remained passive-e-ve (5). Acceptance in a lot of activists of repression as a reality
that must be made is in common with the young cities, convinced that it is "normal" when
you go to trial is taking and just wait it out of jail in order to start because there is
no other solution. In cities, the repression suffered daily by much of the population is
seen as an individual matter of business, not as a social phenomenon, and the idea of ??
collective defense does not cross the minds of - except when it are riots. It is therefore
the existence of a collective framework that makes the difference between some trials of
activists and those involving young cities.
What position have in relation to persons charged with violent or well qualified by the
police and "justice" (as "outrages rebellion" for people invested in a movement or charges
after suburban riots)? In a movement, its participants are rarely're deciding the level of
violence - and more cops (see es serious injuries resulting from police in charge of the
weekend of resistance against EHV line Cotentin-Maine organized last June). Violence is
not a criterion for supporting or not the choice of fart showcases during demonstrations,
for example, must rather be analyzed in terms of power relations that may or may not
create a movement to strengthen. The protest against airport Notre-Dame-des-Landes, on
March 24 in Nantes, is a good example: given the importance it represented the radical
elements of the opposition at the airport reached a consensus on how the procession was to
take place in order to bounce the fight. One of the problems of our communities is that it
almost always only reason in terms of face-to-face with the state, while a social movement
to reduce conflict with it presents the risk of forgetting the objective of this
mobilization. Anyway, if we assume the antir?pression various levels of conflict, it is
important to be clear entry-e on the limits of our support and the objectives we set as it
makes it easier to resist any pressure then - otherwise there may be a "hostage", or at
least the process of guilt on the part of those who are the most "radical" to those who
are fearful of even " traitors. "
How to avoid falling into the fight antir?pression "democratic"? While in a business, we
can fight for better wages without printing defend the wages there, in terms of
antir?pression, es some feel that venturing in this field, they they will defend the idea
of ??a possible "good" justice. However, prevent people go to jail and fight to preserve
and expand our areas of struggle, this is not to defend the "rule of law" is to defend
human rights by trying to reduce the ability of cops to act against us, creating a balance
of forces in solidarity to confront repression.
For a collective antir?pression not reduced over time to a social service or a specialist
law requires that its members have a vested interest in their struggle against society, to
be placed on that ground. So this group has autonomy in its efforts to support, to be able
to say that more people prosecuted (an extension of their speech and with their consent),
denouncing the repression against individual on the basis of a own political thinking. We
can denounce the role of the BAC, the use of rubber bullets, the removal of DNA. Around
the charges for broken panels Decaux, you can fight against advertising, or against urban
renewal, its meaning and its social consequences. In theory, antir?pression environments,
there is no distinction between "political" prisoners and "social", that is it in reality?
Found in environments antir?pression this distinction commonly made in society - prisoners
social support is a function of acts for which they are pursued. Thus, a revolutionary
militant support more easily dealer shit a murderer, a thief, a pedophile. And other
cleavages are ...
During the 1970s, the distinction between "political" and "common law" was challenged
because a groundswell questioning the whole society and power structures. In the fight
against high security (QHS), conducted mainly by "right co" in the 1980s, this separation
was not made, the status of political prisoner had been discussed within the detention and
people involved in solidarity were not mired in this issue. But struggles anticarc?rales
conducted in the 1990s when the benefits are-era prisoner-s who were invested gathered in
solitary confinement (IQ) for very long periods, with beatings, etc.. And in today's
society the separation between "political" and "right co" is no longer disputed.
It is now difficult to forge links between struggles or sectors of society. The failure of
Interluttes which have been made here and there a few years ago shows: they quickly
aborted while growing need to defend the young-are pursued for having participated in
protests in successive education. And if, at the outset, in the battle of the "Conti" and
their refusal DNA sample, there was something interesting on the political level, they
unfortunately do not have defended a political class, and "left" took the opportunity to
ask not only DNA-play union activists.
The balance of power with the law How to fight against the judiciary as an instrument to
defend a social order? Many illusions exist in the population for "justice." Even in
cities, despite slogans such as "Police everywhere, justice nowhere" often initiated, can
be seen with the truth justice committees (CVJ). Many people still believe that the court
is a place where one can escape the truth form if present witnesses and evidence - and
even if the cop or the boss is always relaxed ... (The trial, however, are also only
events which can be built around mobilizing _-and where to place a check equal, a
highlighting of contradictions because it is only there that the confrontation with the
government on these issues takes consistency. )
There is therefore a work of desecration of the judiciary to do. It should show what is
repression, and the court is not a space for truth and justice, the regulator of social
relations and the ideal tool for this goes as smoothly as possible in a "democracy ".
"Justice" claims judge by facts, but it is a class justice, the laws are political, and
the same types of people are affected everywhere. We must insist on this: according to the
social position, the penalty will not be the same, and with monitoring devices and social
control, security laws, it is a reality more marked (6). No need to have done something to
be repressed EMail: dating, readings and a range of other elements which are, at any given
time, allows the state to appoint a person as its enemy. Can be continued on e-intentions,
"conspiracy", etc.. At some point, it will be the "ultra-left" to be targeted; others,
Islamists ... according to the objectives of that time is fixed by the Government. The
hunt for undocumented immigrants implies that all es undergo many more identity checks
than others, regardless of their spontaneous attitude from the police and "justice" -
however, as are certain social categories that are repressed and youth gangs are mixed in
the cities, police checks are not limited to blacks and Arabs. The 1980s were a very
difficult period for antir?pression and have left traces: the Socialists were in power,
the movement was weakened, it was very hard to move and we were pretty isolated es - more
qu'aujourd 'Even today: there are now more collective and radio antir?pression at the
time. It is under the left that has spread the idea, against which we must fight, there is
no cause for delinquency or social activism, only individual responsibility. And this idea
is really rooted - there are more than individuals with the system, and they are
responsible for themselves at all levels, emotional, personal, etc..
How to overcome the current weakness of the antir?pression? In support, we do not
generally afford to campaign with tractages markets, press conferences and other
frequently turn our words and empty. Regarding arrests and detention, there is information
work to do - the need to remain silent, not to be tempted to denounce-e-es other accused
in the hope of s' learn best by example. People brought before the courts are often weak
(lack of self-confidence due to age, social origin, inexperience, uncertainty about
solidarity wait) over a court, c is oppressive: there are cops and cameras everywhere, and
there is a big psychological pressure in custody as at the time of the hearings. It also
faces the problem of people who refuse to speak in court ("I have nothing to prove,
nothing to say") and who seek only to do less harm - to do this because they rely their
counsel, which acts as he pleases. They ask him somewhere to get their hands dirty in
their place while they maintain their "purity" ideological - even if sometimes they
theorize this inability to express themselves by claiming on purpose, this is a
contradiction in relation to certain their criticism of "democracy". Not conquered from
e-ahead to trial is very important: some people say that if you have your head down, you
will fare better, while trials generally show the opposite. This is not to deny that the
political will necessarily lighter sentences. When protesters were arrested at the end of
demonstration and acknowledgment of're throwing cocktails at the cops, if there is no
supporting evidence, we must deny the facts, but not the why the demo, why were there -
this is the political content, and what matters in this situation of repression. Deny both
the facts and the reason for its presence in a protest returns to be criminalized without
being able or willing to express themselves politically.
Others do not go losing es to a trial and his claim political issue. And then, at the
folder level, there may be flaws, and sometimes seen relaxed or lesser sentences than
expected for cases that seemed lost in advance ... The real question to ask about the
attitude to the court is: do you use the opportunity to say something - not to try to
convince the judge, but to express themselves politically? Can sometimes really "doing
politics" from the trial (those for "terrorism" in particular) defending inside the
courthouse and making the agitation outside - with demonstrations, and even against-trial
(Movement immigration and suburbs [MIB] has organized at a time, often in response to
racist crime and security). This is called the process of breaking or "official forum"
(7). When trials come to the end of movement, they can be a way to continue the fight.
This is the time to build an argument to denounce the conditions made to es-charged. But
in this situation, it is feared the consequences that our actions can have on these people
and this situation is not easy to manage.
Defense strategies
How to build a collective strategy of defense? This type of strategy involves joint
reflection between e-accused, committee and lawyer to define the attitude of each party,
and also a reflection on the relationship with the press and "democrats", which arises
quickly when crackdown. It must set objectives for the courtroom but outside (claims,
termination ...), and the relationship between the two. How to mobilize on these contents,
expand the forces ... In Reims, the structure of solidarity with the undocumented and
working smoothly past twenty-five years with the same lawyer, because it is motivated by
these cases and always ready to discuss the defense to lead.
The word of the acknowledgment e is to be considered throughout the judicial time, but it
is often problematic because it does not always exist, or it is diverse because there are
several accused-es. If an e-e-accused refuses to speak, the trial is a foregone
conclusion, and even when a lawyer is the opposite of what is expected of him.
Relationships with lawyers are frequently difficult. When they have the personality of
someone saying: "This is a good citizen, well integrated in society, not a thug, but a
protester ..." rather than developing a defense policy, they necessarily have an impact on
conduct of the trial. Most of the time, they are obviously there to ensure that "all is
well". (Regarding the trial of the police tow in Paris, charged-es were afraid to say what
was going to end their "defenders." In previous years, they claimed they had 25,000 euros
each had contacted them back in their families to get money ... relations with them were
constantly in conflict.) As a young lawyer may of course want to make a defense policy,
but the relationship with him, as any human relations can change over time - it will no
longer be interested in this type of business, some things have displeased him over the
years, it has acquired a certain notoriety ...
Given this situation, some people put forward the idea of ??a charter with attorneys in
the network such that all Resist against police violence and security. This charter could
be a kind of roadmap for attorneys, highlighting the need for a collective work between
them they, the charged-es and support committees, and that would be recorded various
commitments and instructions (no defense of a client at the expense of co-accused, no
extra fees without prior discussion, opportunity for the accused to have control over
their defense and folder, etc..).
From what perspective builds a legal strategy? Defense can be either collusion or
breaking. At Poitiers, there is little that trial league for years: the accused-es are
often silent and beautiful flights are therefore potential lawyers. There was in this city
a lot of trial for "outrages rebellion" and also actions against uncommercial panels
Decaux, with leaflets explaining that the committee has distributed antir?p assuming their
content, while the lawyer- e always struggled to demonstrate that it could not be his or
her client who did it, that the officer could not see the offense where he stood, etc.. So
we had a side campaign support does not differentiating actions and their political
content, for solidarity with, and the other Bears argument.
In contrast, a trial was held in break Nantes last spring, five farmers were accused of
manure balanced against the front seat of Vinci. It was a small affair, and they had
lawyers zero, but all that was asked these lawyers was that they are fighting to show some
people - and they explained the gesture peasants, called it was normal swing manure that
Vinci was a bastard ... Anyway, these peasants had chosen wisely their witnesses, people
considered quite "honorable" and spoke well. Break, this is not to say: "It has nothing to
do with justice," but an act situate in context to explain why, while the state isolates
this act to make an individual case . This is to give a political process - and also to
make an issue of solidarity, otherwise it remains the single dimension of a person with
his family, and all based on individual responsibility. In the case of flash-ball last
spring, instead of seeking to demonstrate individual responsibility of the officer who
fired the goal could be to request the removal of flash-balls and address the LAC and the
cops. In one of the tow truck police, defense could be focused on counterterrorism
procedures to overcome the case of charged-es. And Villiers-le-Bel, in June, we could make
the trial ... anonymous witnesses should be considered, depending on the balance of
forces, which can be put forward so far heard. This involves seeing "justice" as a social
institution that extends control and crystallizes the power relations existing outside the
court. If you can not set a policy goal to say: "We do not defend people but is fighting
against a system," we remain in fear, the emotional, legal, all things very difficult to
collectivize. Often, we managed to defend a little and get out legally not too bad, but
the political was lost because we did not leave the judicial framework.
1. Including the issuance of newspaper Fly Away, and Christophe Souli? with his book
Freedom of speech - contribution to the history of the Action Committee of the prisoners,
Analis, 1995.
2. Parents or friends-are young suburban killed by the police or prosecuted create more
often, occasionally, support committees such as committees truth justice.
3. Thus, two years in a row, a antir?pression Forum brought together in Poitiers ten group
who subsequently organized a national day of action against police brutality.
4.When the legal risks involved are small, it is not always easy to find the right measure
of the reaction, for example, in Toulouse, people arrested for a tag in a protest have
been sticking to call charges riots and degradation. If we deny the suppression of
tagging, is it necessary on this occasion to make leaflets calling for rallies ...?
5.On From the introduction to the legal strategy published in 1968 by Jacques Verg?s, it
is said that justice must be understood as a world no less cruel than war or trade, such
as a battlefield. This implies, before trial, to stop the attitude to be based on the
elements that has the other part, of those on whom we can rely and especially the goal
that binds.
6. Thanks to the law of July 2011 that modifies the internment, the state will also be
used increasingly in psychiatry to suppress revolts individual who often have a social
dimension
7. See in this regard CA No. 220, "Justice Strategy: the face of repression, it is not
forbidden to defend themselves."
Home »
» (en) France, Organisation Communiste Libertarie CA #226 - The antir?pression in all its forms (fr)