Young LFI activist in Montélimar subject to French anti-terrorism administrative control measure, Digi Mart USA News (Montélimar, Drôme, France): In Montélimar, in the Drôme department, a young activist of La France insoumise is the subject of an individual administrative control and surveillance measure (MICAS) issued by the Ministry of the Interior. She is contesting the decision in court and denounces it as an attempt to intimidate her political engagement.
On Friday, October 30, at 11:30 a.m., about ten police officers arrived at the home of the young activist to serve her with a ministerial order imposing the MICAS. She said she was very surprised to see how her profile had been compiled and linked to terrorist activities.
Among the obligations are a ban on leaving a geographic perimeter corresponding to the town of Montélimar and an obligation to report at a set time to the Donzère police station, about thirty minutes away.
A videographer and photographer in her twenties, she co-hosts the Jeunes d’Action group of La France insoumise in Montélimar and serves as vice president of the Comité de luttes, a gathering of left-wing organizations in the area. The order describes her as an “ultra-left militant who takes advantage of mobilizations to urge participation in civil disobedience and to carry out blocking actions before and on the fringes of demonstrations,” and says she regularly adopts black bloc codes, dressed in black with Rangers boots, helmet and gloves.
The order also cites her participation in several gatherings, including a counter-demonstration during a visit by Rassemblement national president Jordan Bardella, where she reportedly joined a security detail, and a September 17 demonstration in Montélimar described in the order as an “anarchist and violent procession.” She does not dispute all of the accusations in principle but rejects their interpretation. She acknowledges her activism and presence at these events, saying the gatherings were peaceful, and that the security detail at the Bardella event aimed to protect demonstrators from provocation and threats.
She also contests allegations of blocking high schools with pallets and wire. She says the facts are not established: “Of the three days I am accused of, there is one day I was not in Montélimar, and for the others there is no evidence we placed pallets, since we did not place any pallets.” She insists that the measure is not linked to terrorist activity, while asserting her political militancy and the defense of demands she considers legitimate.
The young woman says she has never been arrested, questioned or convicted, and that her criminal record is clean. She notes, however, that she is regularly subjected to police checks near demonstrations.
She says she is the only person in her activist circle targeted, although several comrades share, in her view, the same profile and took part in the same mobilizations. She sees an effort to target “the youngest, the most precarious, the most isolated” militant in order to pressure her and curb her engagement.
The measure allows restrictions on leaving a defined geographic area and periodic reporting to police or gendarmerie services. It is issued for a limited period (initially three months maximum, renewable) and may be challenged before the administrative court.
The order also restricts her presence at sites subject to prefectoral demonstration bans and on routes and around declared demonstrations in Montélimar. Article 8 of the order states that failure to comply is punishable by three years in prison and a 45,000-euro fine.
She says she will respect the obligations imposed, “even if it is unjust,” while continuing to denounce them. Administrative measures against activists have multiplied in recent weeks, with about sixty reportedly issued by the Interior Ministry; they were originally aimed at terrorists, but their scope has been widened since the events of October 17.
With her lawyer, she has filed a substantive appeal before the administrative court to contest the ministerial decision and its reasoning.
She says she did not have sufficient time after notification of the order to bring an urgent liberty application (référé-liberté), and mentions difficulties faced by others subject to similar measures, some of whose appeals were reportedly not examined within deadlines. Asked whether she would take part in the November 5 mobilization, she said she would, if she can, to voice her ideas in Montélimar.
Her lawyer acknowledges that disorder on the fringes of some demonstrations may explain the executive’s recourse to administrative control measures, citing violence in Limoges, where the town hall was set on fire, and attacks on several state symbols. He warns, however, of possible abuses: “The fact that he uses them does not give him a blank check to carry out excessive infringements of freedoms.”
