Video emerges of Macron bodyguard beating protester

ELAINE GANLEY
Paris, France | July 19

A video showing one of French President Emmanuel Macron’s security chiefs beating a student demonstrator, until now cloaked in secrecy, drew fierce public backlash Thursday over what is seen as mild punishment and a possible cover-up.

The video of the May 1 event in Paris, revealed by Le Monde on Wednesday evening, shows Alexandre Benalla in a helmet with police markings, and surrounded by riot police, brutally dragging off a woman from a demonstration and then repeatedly beating a young man on the ground. The man is heard begging him to stop. Another man in civilian clothing pulled the young man to the ground.

Police, who had hauled the man from the crowd before Benalla took over, didn’t intervene. Benalla then left the scene. The second man was apparently a gendarme in the reserves who Le Monde said had worked with Benalla in the past.

The uproar over Benalla’s punish ment — a two-week suspension and a change in responsibilities — upended regular business in parliament with lawmakers aghast that the security official still has an office in the presidential palace two-and-a-half months after the incident, and that he was not immediately reported to judicial authorities.

A preliminary investigation was hastily opened Thursday as the tempo of outrage swelled.

“I’m surprise he hasn’t resigned,” said conservative lawmaker Jean-Christophe Lagarde, adding that if Benalla doesn’t do so himself, the president should remove him or the drama will jump to “an affair of state.”

But Macron has remained silent about a man he knows well. Benalla, who hasn’t commented on the matter, handled Macron’s security during the presidential campaign.

Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, responding to questions in the Senate, called the video images “shocking,” but stumbled to respond to questions, notably whether all French are equal before the law.

Interior Minister Gerard Collomb said that the two men tackling the young protester “obviously had no legitimate (reason) to intervene.”