Ban on public assembly hurts legitimacy of Paris climate talks

The French police announced on Friday that it has put under house arrest at least 24 environmental activists who had openly flouted the ban on protesting put in place for the duration of this week's COP21 climate summit in Paris, according to a Nov. 27 article in The Guardian. The warrants for the protestors' arrests were granted under France's state of emergency laws, which have been in effect since the Nov. 13 terror attacks that killed 130 people. Police have also raided the apartments of a number of these activists for their personal effects including computers, journals and other documents.

Security is of course a pressing concern in Paris right now, especially with so many world leaders converging on the city. One can not fault the French government for wanting to keep its capital city safe as it recovers from the horrors that occurred earlier this month. In fact, it is important to acknowledge the courage the French government has shown by continuing to host the summit. French officials could easily have postponed COP21 or even canceled it in the wake of the attacks. Instead, they've chosen to go forward, an act of defiance and bravery in and of itself.

This does not mean, however, that it is necessary for civilians to surrender their civil liberties. The French people have a right to voice their concerns publicly, to congregate peacefully, to protest. The right to free assembly, to publicly gather to express dissent, is a hallmark of democracy. Indeed, denying this right weakens the legitimacy of the summit itself. “Given the stakes of the climate crisis, they are by their nature highly contested," climate change activist and author Naomi Klein told The Guardian. "That is democracy, messy as it may be. The French government, under cover of anti-terrorism laws, seems to be trying to avoid this.” Democratic governments are coming together in Paris to find a democratic solution to a pressing global problem. How democratic can this process truly be if the voices of the public are silenced? If the French government has agreed to host this summit, it must be aware of -- and willing to accommodate -- the public discussion that comes with such a high-profile, much-discussed meeting.

Furthermore, we must remember change led by the powers that be without active pressure from the people is often incremental at best and unwilling to accommodate progress at worst. Indeed, the voices of the public are often crucial in enacting change. The work by thousands of climate change activists, for example, was likely key to President Barack Obama's decision earlier this month to veto the Keystone XL pipeline. Preventing protestors from gathering is not only an assault on civil liberties but also has the potential to affect the outcome of the summit itself. It is the voices of these activists themselves that can push politicians to further their commitment to preventing climate change.

Protestors, despite the ban on large gatherings, have found ways to make their presence known without demonstrating. "One group lined up thousands of pairs of shoes at Place de la République," according to a Nov. 29 NPR article. These unconventional methods of protest are certainly admirable, but they should not be mistaken as adequate substitutes for assembly itself. Nothing can take the place of public demonstrations. The French government, reeling as it may be from the recent terror attacks, should permit protests instead of shying away from public dissent.