Despite criticism from activists, parliament voted in favor of the bill, saying it threatened to condemn police misconduct.
Despite criticism from civil rights activists, the French parliament on Thursday passed a protection bill to raise a police bill that fears it threatens to try to condemn police torture.
The bill was approved by the National Assembly by a margin of 755 votes, with the majority of French President Emmanuel Macron’s party proposing the move. The Senate has already adopted the bill.
“The police and the genders are the children of the republic and they must be protected because they protect us every day,” said French Interior Minister Gerald Dermanin after the vote.
In an attempt to defuse the criticism, the legislators reconstructed the most controversial article in the text. It now says it would be punishable by up to five years in prison and a 75,000-euro fine (89 89,800) for helping to identify duty police officers with “obvious” malicious intent.
In November, thousands of protesters marched on Paris Condemn the initial provision Which made it illegal to publish images of police officers with malicious intent.
Opponents still say the new draft is vague and in line with the interpretation of police officials. They also fear that it will intimidate people trying to fight police torture and discrimination by taking pictures and videos and publishing them.
“This bill casts doubt on the role of the police. It gives the impression that this essential public service cannot be subjected to any criticism from citizens, “said Alexis Corbier, a Member of Parliament for the far-left La France Insomiz party who opposed the bill.
The Macron government said the law was needed to further protect police from threats and attacks by violent frontiers and growing harassment on social media. The bill gives local police more autonomy and increases the use of surveillance drones.
The French branch of Amnesty International warned on Twitter of the “dangers” posed to civil liberties and condemned its “generalized surveillance practice”.
The law states that the text contains “vague provisions that may allow abusive and unjust legal proceedings”,