Demonstrators are demanding an end to overcrowded classrooms, shorter school hours and increased funding for education.

On Monday, a 15-year-old boy lost his left hand after picking up a police grenade fired at children in Lens, northern France.

The police officer who launched the grenade has since been suspended, Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said.

Speaking to the RTL news channel on Wednesday morning, Mr Nuñez announced the suspension of stun grenade use “in the context of the high school student protests.”

He said 18 police officers were under investigation for excessive use of force, while another officer had been charged with “violence resulting in mutilation or permanent disability”.

The unnamed officer was pictured launching an attack on a 14-year-old identified as Eden in the Paris suburb of Saint-Ouen-l’Aumône.

The teenager suffered a broken jaw and had all of his upper teeth smashed in during the baton attack.

As the crisis continued with riots across more than 30 towns and cities, President Emmanuel Macron convened a meeting with senior ministers yesterday evening.

One senior minister who attended said: “The President branded the police response too harsh and lacking empathy.”

Mr Macron is said to be particularly angry because, over the summer, he said he wanted the final years of his presidency to be “all about youth”.

The President is due to leave office next May after serving the maximum 10 years in power permitted under the French constitution.

Mr Macron has also accused left-wing politicians of encouraging the protests in an effort to boost their electoral support.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the France Unbowed (LFI) presidential candidate, joined demonstrations yesterday, accusing the government of “steadily dismantling public services”.

A Toluna Harris poll last week suggested that Mr Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen of the National Rally would advance to the presidential run-off, with the poll putting Ms Le Pen ahead.

University students and parents joining the movement by blockading their own faculties reached a peak yesterday, even receiving support from some trade unions.

Sophie Binet, of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), France’s biggest trade union, said the protests represented “a red alert warning” to the current administration.

Ms Binet said: “This anger is not going away. The government must look again at the budget.”

France’s interior ministry estimated some 86,000 people had joined protests across more than 30 towns and cities yesterday, with tens of thousands marching in Marseille, Nice, Nantes, Lyon and Paris.

The Union Syndicale Lycéenne (USL), one of the groups organising the protests, said 1,800 high schools were either blockaded or closed by the Education Ministry, and claimed that 90 per cent of universities were blockaded.

At least 215 people have been injured and more than 5,000 arrested over the week, and on Friday it was reported that more than 30 universities and more than 600 high schools had been blocked.

In Strasbourg yesterday, police and protesters were involved in scuffles, with reports that firecrackers were thrown at officers.

Meanwhile in Lyon, protesters and riot police confronted one another, while a barricade was set alight. Bins were also burned in Lille.

In Rennes, images showed riot police using water cannon during clashes, with some protesters attempting to shield themselves with umbrellas.

The USL is demanding the creation of 150,000 additional higher-education places, €10 billion (£8.4 billion) in emergency funding to rebuild schools and “mass hiring” of teachers.

French Riots: Police Forced to Stop Using Stun Grenades as Emmanuel Macron Admits Response Was ‘Too Harsh’

France has once again found itself at the centre of a fierce debate over policing, civil liberties and the government’s response to public unrest after reports that police were required to stop using certain stun grenades during demonstrations. The controversy has renewed scrutiny of Emmanuel Macron’s approach to maintaining public order and raised difficult questions about how far authorities should go when protests turn violent.

The issue reflects a wider struggle facing the French government: how to protect public safety without undermining the rights of people who take to the streets to express political grievances. For critics of the police response, restrictions on stun grenades represent a necessary safeguard against excessive force. For those concerned about violence against officers and damage to property, limits on crowd-control equipment can create additional challenges during volatile confrontations.

Macron’s reported acknowledgement that the response had been too harsh has added another dimension to the debate. Such an admission, if applied to particular policing operations, raises questions about whether the government’s approach needs to change and what accountability should follow when force is used in circumstances later judged excessive.

However, the circumstances of any particular incident matter. The use of stun grenades, the legal restrictions placed on police and the president’s comments must be considered in their proper context rather than treated as evidence that every officer acted unlawfully or that all demonstrations involved violence.

At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental question about the relationship between the state and its citizens: how can a democratic government maintain order while ensuring that the people it governs retain the right to protest?

France’s Long History of Street Protest

Street demonstrations have played a central role in French political life for generations. From student uprisings and workers’ strikes to protests over pension reform and the cost of living, the streets have often become a stage on which disagreements between the government and the public are played out.

France’s political culture places considerable importance on public demonstrations as a means of expressing opposition. Trade unions, political movements, students and local campaign groups regularly organise marches and rallies to challenge government decisions.

Yet the scale and intensity of some demonstrations have also produced difficult encounters between protesters and police. When peaceful marches are followed by vandalism, clashes or attacks on officers, authorities face pressure to restore order quickly.

The use of crowd-control equipment has consequently become a recurring source of controversy. Supporters argue that officers need appropriate tools to protect themselves, disperse violent groups and prevent damage. Critics counter that weapons capable of causing serious injury can transform an already tense demonstration into a more dangerous confrontation.

The challenge is particularly acute when large crowds contain both peaceful demonstrators and a smaller number of people engaging in violence. Police must distinguish between individuals who pose an immediate threat and those who are exercising their right to assemble.

A response that fails to make that distinction risks injuring innocent people and undermining public confidence. On the other hand, officers who lack effective protection may be placed in danger when confrontations escalate.

This tension has shaped the debate over French policing for years, and the latest controversy has brought it back into focus.

Why Stun Grenades Have Become Controversial

Stun grenades and other explosive crowd-control devices are intended to create a sudden sensory effect that can disorient people or help officers respond to dangerous situations. Depending on the type of device, they may produce a loud bang, a bright flash or a combination of effects.

Their use during demonstrations is controversial because the consequences can extend beyond the person whom officers intend to target. In crowded streets, explosions may cause panic, while fragments, pressure effects or close-range exposure can result in injuries.

The risks depend on the device, the distance involved, the surrounding environment and the way it is deployed. It is therefore important not to treat all grenades or crowd-control weapons as identical.

French police have faced sustained criticism over the use of certain explosive devices during protests. Human rights advocates and medical professionals have raised concerns about injuries sustained by demonstrators, including injuries to the head, eyes and limbs.

Critics argue that the risks become especially serious when such devices are used in dense crowds or against people who are not posing an immediate threat. They also question whether the use of explosive devices can sometimes escalate confrontations instead of calming them.

Police representatives, meanwhile, have argued that officers need the ability to respond when demonstrations become violent and that decisions must be made rapidly in unpredictable situations.

Any assessment must therefore consider the operational circumstances, the type of device used, the applicable rules and whether officers had less harmful alternatives available.

If authorities suspend or prohibit a particular device, that does not necessarily mean every previous use was unlawful. It may reflect a revised assessment of safety, a legal ruling, new operational guidance or concerns about the proportionality of the weapon’s effects.

Macron’s Dilemma Over Public Order

For Macron, the debate presents a political and institutional challenge. The French president has repeatedly faced demonstrations against government policies, with some protests developing into prolonged confrontations between police and sections of the public.

His government must balance demands for firm action against violence with criticism that aggressive policing can damage democratic freedoms.

An acknowledgement that a response was too harsh would represent an important distinction between defending the principle of public order and accepting that particular methods may have gone too far. It would not, by itself, establish individual criminal liability, but it could strengthen calls for an independent examination of the incidents concerned.

For demonstrators who suffered injuries, an apology or admission may be only the beginning. They may seek explanations about how force was authorised, whether officers followed operational rules and whether the authorities took appropriate steps to investigate complaints.

Police officers also need clear guidance. If equipment is restricted, commanders must understand what alternatives are permitted and how to protect personnel without exposing demonstrators to unnecessary harm.

The government must consequently address both the immediate controversy and the wider question of how crowd-control operations should be conducted in a democratic society.

The Risks of Escalation

One of the central arguments in debates over riot policing is whether the use of force prevents disorder or contributes to it.

Supporters of tougher tactics argue that failing to respond decisively to violent behaviour can embolden people who attack officers, destroy property or attempt to disrupt public services. They contend that the state has a duty to protect the public and cannot allow demonstrations to become a justification for violence.

Critics argue that excessive force can have the opposite effect. When peaceful protesters or bystanders are injured, anger can spread beyond those initially involved in a confrontation. Images of injuries may circulate widely, intensifying distrust and drawing additional people into demonstrations.

Neither outcome is inevitable. The dynamics of a protest depend on many factors, including the original grievance, the behaviour of organisers, the actions of individuals within the crowd and the decisions taken by police commanders.

However, the possibility of escalation reinforces the importance of clear operational standards. Officers need to know when a weapon can be used, what warnings are required and how to respond when circumstances change.

Where the police use force, a clear record of the decision-making process can help establish whether the action was necessary and proportionate. Independent investigation may also be required when serious injuries occur or when there are credible allegations of misconduct.

Civil Liberties and the Right to Protest

The right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental democratic principle. It allows citizens to challenge public policy, demand political change and draw attention to issues that might otherwise receive little consideration.

In France, where demonstrations have frequently influenced national debate, restricting that right can have significant political consequences.

At the same time, freedom of assembly does not provide an unrestricted licence to assault others, damage property or create serious danger. Governments may impose lawful and proportionate restrictions to protect public safety and the rights of other people.

The difficulty is determining where legitimate enforcement ends and excessive interference begins.

If police use force against individuals who are not threatening anyone, the response may raise serious questions about necessity and proportionality. If officers face an immediate attack, the use of reasonable force may be justified under the applicable rules.

These situations cannot be assessed accurately through broad claims that police should always be tougher or should never use force. The facts of each incident matter.

A transparent framework should make it possible to investigate misconduct without automatically assuming that every officer acted improperly. It should also ensure that uniformed personnel cannot avoid scrutiny simply because they were operating in a difficult environment.

Pressure for Independent Oversight

The controversy has renewed calls for stronger oversight of police operations during demonstrations.

Independent scrutiny can serve several purposes. It can establish what happened during a confrontation, examine whether officers followed the rules and identify operational weaknesses that should be corrected.

It can also protect officers from unsupported accusations by providing a reliable account of the evidence.

Where a device is suspended or its use restricted, authorities should explain the legal or operational reasons for the decision. If the change follows serious injuries, the public should be told what safeguards are being introduced and how future operations will be assessed.

Clear reporting is especially important when public statements about an incident differ. Video footage may reveal part of an encounter, but it does not always show what happened before or after the recording. Witness accounts can be valuable, although they may also conflict.

A credible investigation should bring together available footage, medical evidence, operational records and witness testimony before drawing conclusions.

The objective should be to establish facts and improve policing rather than simply to assign blame according to political loyalties.

What the Controversy Means for France

The dispute over stun grenades reflects a broader crisis of confidence that can emerge when citizens believe the state is responding to dissent with excessive force.

For the government, maintaining public order is an essential responsibility. For the public, the legitimacy of that responsibility depends partly on whether enforcement is conducted fairly and within the law.

Macron’s reported admission that the response was too harsh may help acknowledge the concerns of those who believe police operations have crossed acceptable boundaries. But the lasting significance will depend on whether the authorities translate such recognition into clearer rules, effective oversight and meaningful accountability.

A restriction on one type of weapon cannot resolve every problem associated with protest policing. Authorities must also consider training, communication, crowd management, medical assistance and the procedures used to investigate serious incidents.

Likewise, demonstrators and organisers have responsibilities of their own. Peaceful protest should be protected, but violence against officers or other members of the public cannot be justified simply because a demonstration has a political cause.

The challenge is to preserve a system in which people can oppose government policy without fearing arbitrary punishment, while ensuring that those who commit violence are dealt with lawfully.

A Test of Democratic Accountability

France’s debate over crowd-control weapons raises questions that extend far beyond one president or one demonstration. Democracies must regularly confront the difficult balance between public safety and individual freedoms, particularly when political tensions are high.

Police officers need the tools and training to respond to genuine threats. Protesters need protection from unnecessary or disproportionate force. Governments need the ability to maintain order, but they must also accept scrutiny when their decisions cause harm.

If stun grenades have been restricted because their use presented unacceptable risks in particular circumstances, the next step should be to establish how those risks arose and what changes are needed to prevent similar incidents.

If individual officers are suspected of breaking the law, the allegations should be investigated on the evidence. If operational policies contributed to avoidable injuries, those policies should be reviewed.

The credibility of the response will ultimately depend on whether the same principles are applied consistently, regardless of the political views of the demonstrators or the government in power.

For Macron, the challenge is not simply to appear firm or conciliatory. It is to demonstrate that public order and democratic rights can coexist, and that acknowledging mistakes can lead to practical improvements.

The controversy over stun grenades may eventually fade from the headlines. The questions it raises about force, accountability and the right to protest will remain central to France’s democratic debate.