As the 2024 Paris Olympics concluded on August 11, the city’s approach to managing vulnerable populations in the lead-up to the Games remains under scrutiny. Antoine de Clerck, coordinator of Le Revers de la Médaille (The Other Side of the Medal), had warned of the risk of social cleansing before the Olympics; now, he asserts, it is a reality. Humanitarian associations have reported that in the months leading up to the Games, Paris targeted groups living or working in public spaces, including the homeless, drug addicts, sex workers, and food aid recipients.

In its report, “1 an de Nettoyage Social avant les JOP 2024,” Le Revers de la Médaille defined social cleansing as the harassment, expulsion, and invisibilization of populations deemed undesirable by public authorities near Olympic venues. Paul Alauzy, a spokesperson for the organization, claimed that these individuals had been relocated outside the capital to beautify public spaces for the global audience expected in Paris. Officials, however, continued to deny these allegations.

How Paris relocated the homeless

Alauzy stated that France had implemented a system to relocate some homeless individuals to other regions in preparation for the Olympics. *Le Revers de la Médaille* criticized the mass evictions of homeless people from Île-de-France and the forced removal from occupied places and slums. Humanitarian associations observed a systematic nature in these operations, with more occupied spaces being evacuated by the police.

Weekly, one or more buses carrying 50 homeless individuals left Paris, relocating them outside the region. In France, Article L345-2-2 mandates state responsibility for emergency housing. While relocation was not new, the current method was unprecedented. Homeless people were directed to temporary reception centers (SAS), which operated from March 2023 to the end of 2024 in ten cities outside Île-de-France. The government denied that these centers were created for the Olympics.

De Clerck noted a significant acceleration in these relocations, which lacked alternative solutions. Previously, minors were not moved, but now they were included. Associations criticized the temporary nature of this system, which did not provide stable housing. Each SAS could host a homeless person for a maximum of three weeks. Afterward, 40% were directed to longer-term solutions, while 60% were sent to other emergency shelters, which were often already full. De Clerck explained that individuals were removed from the streets of Paris only to end up back on the streets in another city. Alauzy called for dignified, lasting, and unconditional solutions.

Targeting sex workers

De Clerck observed that the social cleansing efforts targeted all individuals in public spaces, including the homeless, sex workers, drug addicts, and food aid recipients. *Le Revers de la Médaille* reported increased administrative controls and police intimidation of sex workers.

At Bois de Vincennes, a public park in eastern Paris, undocumented immigrant sex workers, mostly Nigerian, faced violent police harassment. Aurelia Huot from the “Barreau de Paris Solidarité” association reported a significant increase in administrative checks on sex workers. Since June, police patrols had been notably violent towards Nigerian women, who were victims of trafficking.

In contrast, at Bois de Boulogne, a park in western Paris, sex workers who were mostly in regular situations experienced different police tactics. De Clerck mentioned that fines or prohibitions to practice were common, despite the repeal of the solicitation crime in 2016. Huot added that women were adapting their work methods, increasingly moving online, which made it more difficult for associations to distribute safety materials.

Challenges in Collaboration

Le Revers de la Médaille struggled to collaborate with the Prefecture of the Region and the Prefecture of Police. Police actions against drug addicts intensified, with permanent interventions in La Villette aimed at dispersing people. De Clerck believed these actions had a clear connection to the upcoming Olympics.

Despite this, the city of Paris remained cooperative. Alauzy noted that the municipality had always maintained an open door for the collective. Paris managed food distribution and collaborated with associations. Although there was initial resistance, food distribution was eventually coordinated to ensure aid during the Olympics. De Clerck concluded that cooperation continued to guarantee food aid even as the Games unfolded.

Now that the Paris Olympics have concluded, the impact of these social policies and their implications for vulnerable populations continue to be subjects of significant debate.

(Shreya Verma edited this piece)

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.