The question of survival from Paris: If the right to interception is universal, why does the French standard change?

The question of survival from Paris: If the right to interception is universal, why does the French standard change?

Spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

In January 2026, France spoke of the need to respect Iran's "peaceful convergence without fear of punishment" and the government's "self-restraint" towards the convergence.

Today in France, the interception of students is called "urban violence"; The Minister of the Interior does not agree to restraint and speaks of a quick and decisive intervention by the security forces and the use of force to restore order, and the government also identifies "political manipulation" and the role of the extreme left movements as a cause of the unrest.

It is clear that violence against the police, arson and destruction of public property cannot be defended. But the contradiction lies elsewhere: why are the same behaviors and criteria interpreted in one way when the protester is in Iran and in another way when the protester is in France?!

The problem is not interception; the problem is the duality of standards. Human rights and the right of interception, if valid, should not change with the geography of the protester.