Gazer, mutiler, soumettre by Paul Rocher
« Tear gas, stun grenades, LBD 40s... From ZAD (protest camps) to university campuses, working-class neighbourhoods to trade union marches, demonstrating in France today exposes you to the violence of non-lethal weapons. The police draw their weapons at the slightest opportunity and the list of injured and maimed grows longer by the month. What does this escalation signal?Faced with what it perceives as a crisis in law enforcement, the State is fuelling police brutality by equipping them with an ever more powerful and extensive military arsenal – much to the delight of arms dealers. Dismantling the humanitarian rhetoric of its defenders, Paul Rocher shows that the massive use of non-lethal weapons is the mark of an authoritarian State that is increasingly intolerant of any dissent in a period of major social decline. Designed as “defensive” weapons, in practice they form the artillery of the ongoing neoliberal offensive, reminding anyone who dares to resist it of the need for popular self-defence. »
Are non-lethal weapons really as harmless as we are led to believe? No, so why does the police continue to use them, and uses them more and more? What exactly are these weapons? Why did they appear? What problems are they supposed to solve?
This short essay answers all these questions, first by providing an exhaustive overview of the weapons, their history, their use and their dangers, and then by reflecting on the origins of French policing doctrine and drawing some comparisons with other countries.
The first part is an excellent reference, but I am less convinced by the second part, which is interesting (the author refers to the ‘cop in the head’, Bourdieu, Gramsci and hegemony), but which, in my opinion, lacks possible solutions and alternative proposals.
In any case, it is a good read for anyone who is not up to speed on the topic.
« C’est aussi, de manière moins visible, celle de milliers de personnes préférant se taire et rester chez eux plutôt que de s’exposer au risque de blessures irréversibles. »
Translation: "It is also, in a less visible way, that of thousands of people who prefer to remain silent and stay at home rather than expose themselves to the risk of irreversible injury. "
« Toujours invoquée par les fournisseurs comme par les acheteurs, la non-létalité de ces armes n’a en fait jamais été démontrée. »
Translation: "Although suppliers and buyers alike continue to claim that these weapons are non-lethal, this has never actually been proven."
« Le mélange entre la disponibilité d’armes non létales, les présupposés des forces de l’ordre et leur pouvoir de définition du trouble à l’ordre public forme un cocktail particulièrement explosif. »
Translation: "The combination of the availability of non-lethal weapons, the prejudices of law enforcement and their power to define what constitutes a breach of public order is a particularly explosive cocktail. "
« Violenter sa propre population est la marque du tyran. La politisation des blessés constitue donc à la fois un mécanisme d’autodéfense et un levier puissant pour affirmer le rejet des politiques menées. »
Translation: "Violence against one's own population is the mark of a tyrant. The politicisation of the wounded is therefore both a mechanism of self-defence and a powerful lever for asserting rejection of the policies being pursued."