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?

In a post on the X channel, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei wrote:

In January 2026, France spoke of the need to respect Iran's "peaceful convergence without fear of punishment" and the government's "self-restraint" regarding the convergence. The French authorities speak of a "peaceful uprising" even though they are aware of the incitement to riots and violence from outside Iran's borders, and there are reports of armed militant attacks on law enforcement centers in Iran.

Today in France, the interception of students is called "urban violence"; the Interior Minister does not agree with restraint and speaks of rapid and decisive intervention by security forces and the use of force to restore order, and the government also identifies "political manipulation" and the role of far-left movements as a factor in the unrest. It is clear that violence against the police, arson, and destruction of public property cannot be defended, and the government is committed to establishing security and public order. But the contradiction lies elsewhere: Why are the same behaviors and criteria interpreted one way when the protester is in Iran and 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.