>> Literal thought crimes.
> These are explicit acts, not thoughts, and not new offences.
> "Contempt of public official", I think they mean "outrage a agent" in French, does not mean the feeling but the act of showing 'contempt' as in insulting or threatening.
As the expression is usually used, "thought crimes" can refer to speech acts.
This may reflect a difference between American ideas of free speech and those more common in Europe. (I don't understand the variety of European views very well.) Most Americans are going to view anything that smacks of lèse majesté as a thought crime and react accordingly. And I don't think we're wrong to do so.
Certainly threats are not free speech. Insults may indeed be considered free speech, but it's hard to argue that insults used in the way described in the law being discussed (which is about serious insults and threats to people while they're working) can serve any useful purpose including in terms of expressing one's opinion.
Note that in France this applies to anyone performing a "public service" so you would also in principle be committing an offence by insulting a bus driver.
I don't think this is unwarranted or excessive. Free speech is very important but, at least in Europe, people think that this does not give you the right to insult the police, bus drivers, firemen, teachers, etc. to their face while they're working.
I note further than in the US "fighting words, "threatening the President", "obscenities", and "true threats" are not protected under free speech.
These are explicit acts, not thoughts, and not new offences.
"Contempt of public official", I think they mean "outrage a agent" in French, does not mean the feeling but the act of showing 'contempt' as in insulting or threatening.
For example, if you take part in a demonstration and you insult a police officer for whatever reason they can arrest you for "contempt of public official".
"Participation in a group with a view to committing violent acts", which is not an offence specific to France, allows the police to arrest and charge people before they commit violent acts when it is clear through their actions that this is what they are planning. In relation to public demonstrations this may mean a group of people showing up with helmet, shield, or legal 'weapons' (e.g. slingshot and steel beads, or what not).
Likewise for the ban on face coverings, it is primarily to deal with people showing up with bike helmets, gas masks, etc. in order to (a) protect themselves against tear gas, and (b) not be identified (usually while they commit violence against police and property).
> "“It is ironic that a country with such a long and proud tradition of collective action for social change is criminalizing protest in this way"
On the contrary, it's because France has a long tradition of 'collective action' (i.e. really riots and revolutions) that a body of laws to counter violence has come about.
> The French authorities must stop criminalizing people and amend all the laws that hamper the right to peaceful assembly.
The offences mentioned above are not related to peaceful assembly.
Amnesty International is being rather disingenuous in this article.