No. The "rioters" thus referred to are merely expressing anger that is admittedly too violent, but proportionate to the lack of action by our politicians against the abuses still committed by many states.

Our world provokes extreme reactions because we do not know how to act in the face of the inherent violence of our society. Often the most deprived, the youngest, the least heard or the weakest cannot defend themselves without support. Abandoned and discontented, the only way they can conceive of expressing their disappointment is reduced to abnormal outbursts.

To this is added the fact that understandable demonstrations (e.g. for peace and recognition of Palestine) but which destabilise states guilty of inertia or indifference attract opponents who take advantage of the excesses of "excusable individuals" to try to transform a legitimate gathering into condemnable disorder.

Let us be fair in our judgements: "rioters" are a noisy minority to be controlled with restraint.

This discussion comes in reaction to what happened in Geneva and Bern.
In Bern the demonstration was not authorised. Would someone have requested authorisation, and would it have been refused? I don't know.
Were there identified leaders directing the demonstration? It would seem not.

Despite this, the police left Federal Square available, thus respecting the constitutional right to demonstrate.

At the head of the march, troublemakers, hooded and helmeted, who came with the intention of vandalising.
Did those who called for the demonstration ask these people to leave, or did they distance themselves from them? I don't think so.

On the news the following day there was an interview with a peaceful demonstrator who thought the police had gone too far.
Every time, in these situations, journalists take the opinion of peaceful people criticising the police.

This concerns me and I think that those who call for demonstrations must take responsibility for the consequences that follow.