Yes, France has a stronger rule of law than China, Russia or North Korea [1].
That doesn't mean their laws are inherently better. But their legal system is objectively superior when it comes to something like weighing a warrant.
[1] https://elsevier-ssrn-document-store-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/1...
There were similar questions with Tor exit nodes:
https://lafibre.info/attaques/hebergement-dun-noeud-de-sorti...
It's legal, but you will get police interrogation.
If we cannot reach this (imho very low) bar of understanding, we have no chance of a fruitful conversation. If we would continue pretending that this is an earnest stance, we would normalize, justify and enhance autocracies, which we don´t need here.
One might be better of to try furthering these kind of view points in China or any other dictatorship of choice.
Consider a law banning the eating of meat, vs one dictating that meat should be eaten at least once per week. One of these laws must be enacted. Which one is superior? Obviously (I think), the vegetarian would consider the former superior, and the meat lover the latter.
But we can also look further into environmental differences. Given an hypothetical area where animals are abundant and plants aren't, the latter law would generally be considered superior. In an area where this is reversed, the former would be. Ultimately these will be subjective values based on the actual situation.
And there's always the power dynamic that "trumps" situations. A vegetarian gaining the power to make laws in a vegetatively poor area will obviously not - necessarily - lead to the latter law being enacted. Even if the majority of the population is made of meat lovers. And in a world dominated by vegetarians, the many will applaud and say the ban on meat is the "right thing" for those in said vegetatively poor area.
All that is just an elaborate illustration to say that yes, equality, personal sovereignty, etc really are - subjective - human constructs. And any laws surrounding them will be considered superior/inferior based on how these constructs are valued.