[HN Gopher] French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc...
___________________________________________________________________
French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential
terrorists
Author : Bright_Machine
Score : 687 points
Date : 2023-06-22 04:36 UTC (18 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.laquadrature.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.laquadrature.net)
| hknmtt wrote:
| "radioactive materials can be used to make bombs, let's ban them
| altogether"
|
| "knifes can be used to stab people, let's ban them altogether"
|
| "cleaning supplies can be used to poison people, let's ban them
| altogether"
|
| #logik
|
| also, potential = guilty until proven innocent
| jjgreen wrote:
| The British Medical Journal beat you to it:
|
| _The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime. We
| suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a
| sensible and practical measure that would have this effect._
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC558080/
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| Wait until French figures out that bananas are radioactive.
| Every supermarket selling them will by raided by GIGN for
| selling nuclear weapons.
| [deleted]
| ptsneves wrote:
| [flagged]
| junon wrote:
| What an incredible display of stereotyping, racism and sheer
| nonsense, even for HN.
| ptsneves wrote:
| Fair enough, care to reject the statements? It is a comment
| and opinion given in good faith. I am a citizen of a country
| mentioned there and live in another of the countries. I try
| to ground my thoughts on the Clash of Civilization[1] by
| Samuel Huntington an American political scientist that was in
| Yale and Harvard. I do not claim that theory is right, I can
| see it being considered racist stereotyped and non-sense but
| please do engage with the text instead of putting it in a box
| full of very negative adjectives.
|
| As your comment stands for such a high ground one-liner you
| offer no single counterpoint. Even the community HN gets flak
| for something it definitely does not avow.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations
| classified wrote:
| Duh. _Everyone_ is a _potential_ terrorist.
| Avlin67 wrote:
| I have great respect for Quadrature du Net but bear in mind they
| are almost extrem left and whatever govt say they will be
| against...
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| True, but they are very serious and diligent in their actions.
|
| They have been nothing but rational and respectful in
| everything they have done so far.
|
| You can see it in the writing of the article, it's methodical,
| logical, and rely strongly on facts through quoting documents.
|
| This have been consistent for years, something I give them a
| lot of credits for.
|
| Besides, no matter the political orientation of the govt, I
| think it's safe to say no group at the top was not worth of
| opposition during the last decades. So it's nice to have
| movements like La Quadrature that keep them in check.
| ElMocambo_x4 wrote:
| No, their bias is grotesque. They make it sound like the DGSI
| bothered monitoring some dudes because they are using uBlock
| origins, lmfao.
|
| For the US guys here, the equivalent would be the FBI
| tracking down a few guys back from Afghanistan, monitoring
| who they talk to, see that they are curious about how to make
| bombs, how to encrypt your communications, etc, and write an
| article saying "oh look, the FBI thinkgs that buying sugar at
| the supermarket is suspicious", because among 1000 other
| evidence, the FBI at some point noted that "individual bought
| ingredients to a make a bomb and bought 25kg of sugar".
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| That would be true if prosecution have shown evidences of
| criminal activities on the side of protecting their
| privacy.
|
| But they didn't.
|
| That's the red flag.
| elkos wrote:
| Many officials use these daily on their personal devices
| p0nce wrote:
| French government seems to think you can avoid an far-right
| upheaval by becoming the far-right themselves.
| lucasRW wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| Url changed from https://www.laquadrature.net/2023/06/05/affaire-
| du-8-decembr..., which points to this.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Only terrorists block ads.
| INTPenis wrote:
| Most people want a simple answer to complex questions, the truth
| is that the French government is hundreds of people. Some sponsor
| e2ee projects to protect the people, while others consider use of
| such projects to be indicators of terrorism. Not the only
| indicators of course, but definitely something investigators
| might react to.
| ElMocambo_x4 wrote:
| [flagged]
| junon wrote:
| I'm pretty center compared to many of my left friends, but I've
| anecdotally never heard nor seen anyone say "they shouldn't
| have privacy because they're far right" or anything close to
| that sentiment.
| antoniojtorres wrote:
| What are you talking about? When has "the left" been in favor
| of eroding the access to, or quality of private and secure
| communication in a comparable context?
| ElMocambo_x4 wrote:
| When it calls for their equivalent groups on the right
| ("Generation Identitaire") to be banned ? When it attacks
| hotels where Zemmour is having a book-signing event ?
| orwin wrote:
| For context: dissolution of far-right groups in France under
| center-left government, or generally before Macron were rare
| since the 90s. The reasons :
|
| - trying to kill the president (under a right-wing president,
| when right-wing didn't actually meant authoritarian), -
| actually killing someone, - terrorism (found bombs and shit).
|
| Dissolution of right wing groups under macron:
|
| - massacring gays around the pride parade (OK, that one is
| deserved), - fighting, - training, - pretending/performative
| art (it was quite funny actually, I don't think it was on
| purpose but we laughed a lot)
|
| ----
|
| Now, the reality about the 'left up in arms' having no problem
| with authoritarian government and calling the police:
|
| A left-wing media was dissolved in Nantes for giving
| informations about when the next protestation will happen
| (basically). Also they explained how to transform a fire
| extinguisher into a paint bomb, which isn't nice, but I mean,
| they weren't militia at all.
|
| 'funny to see the left up in arms'...
|
| Left-wing people in France called out macron authoritarian
| drift way before regular conservatives, way before that
|
| I think the facts are a bit against you. Your idea seems
| pleasant at first glance, but fail to meet reality. I thought
| it was a new trend, but I read a bit recently about political
| theory, and one fascinating things was that some political
| ideologies are declined from example and experience, from
| material conditions, and from that is drafted an ideal. Other
| are declined from an idea, then try to explain why the reality
| doesn't work like that (it's often because of the francs-macons
| or the jew, but sometimes it's internal traitors).
|
| I will let the reader guess which ideology is which.
| ElMocambo_x4 wrote:
| Do you have sources for the "right-wing groups" dissoluted
| for "masscring gays around the pride parade" ? Thanks.
|
| I know of Generation Identitaire banned after it protested
| the construction of a Mosque, i didn't hear the lefties
| defend right to protest at that time. :)
| littlestymaar wrote:
| And now, the parliament is currently discussing a bill about
| forcing hardware manufacturers to include a remote switch in
| their products so that the mic and camera could be activated at
| distance by the authorities, so that the police can listen on
| potential terrorists[1].
|
| This is fine...
|
| [1]: https://www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/justice/le-senat-
| donne-s...
| fransje26 wrote:
| Incredible that they are dumb enough to believe that this can
| be enforced. We live in the EU, with free movement of goods and
| people, meaning that we can easily order our next electronic
| device from any other EU country that will not enforce this
| nonsense.
|
| Of course, the next step will be you are shopping abroad == you
| are suspiciously close to being a terrorist.
|
| On the other hand, I can see enough countries willing to
| support such a requirement, forcing an enforcement on a larger
| scale.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Moreover, I wonder how they can even force the manufacturers
| into making a custom solution for their hubris. Unless the
| idea of adding such a remote switch seduces Xi and now
| there's a big enough market for this feature to be
| developed...
| orlondow wrote:
| The law does not force manufacturers to do anything, this
| is just pure fabrication from OP.
| [deleted]
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| Terrorists are saying thank you as they are gluing their mics
| and putting electric tape on their cameras.
| Krisjohn wrote:
| My French is basically inexistant, but are they saying that
| attempting to protect your privacy is an indication that you
| might be a terrorist?
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| DeepL works great FR-EN.
| Woshiwuja wrote:
| Basically yes
| croes wrote:
| So I guess the French government doesn't use encryption,
| otherwise ...
|
| What about HTTPS? Suspicious.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| Isn't HTTPS required by GDPR?
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Nothing an EU mandated root cert won't fix.
| raxxorraxor wrote:
| They certainly try to do just that. I am ready to purge
| that cert and hope browsers would get forked quickly.
| waffleiron wrote:
| Not explicitly, and even then it would only cover the
| transfer of personal data.
| lionkor wrote:
| [flagged]
| anhner wrote:
| yes, because obviously France = EU, big brain time
| TurboHaskal wrote:
| Correct, it's just 1/2 EU.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| So union mandated terrorism?
| moffkalast wrote:
| Clearly the EU is a terrorist organization /s
| asddubs wrote:
| I guess technically everyone is a potential terrorist
| hkt wrote:
| 10/10, laughed my head off
|
| Maybe this is like a logic bomb but for authoritarians. Try to
| convince Macron or random police officers that they too are
| _potential_ terrorists and watch them go cross eyed.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| not the real terrorists!
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Someone who doesn't have a smartphone should be shot on sight -
| he must be a terrorist for sure.
| wott wrote:
| A French judge managed to sentence some guy for not giving to
| the police the access codes to his phone.
|
| He had no phone...
| dudul wrote:
| Do you have a link for this story? Not calling you a liar,
| just very curious to read the details.
| [deleted]
| throfghtft56987 wrote:
| [flagged]
| ilyt wrote:
| French government needs to be re-acquainted with guillotine
| jug wrote:
| These guys are up to no good and intentionally misuse the loaded
| language. Because it's loaded.
|
| -----
|
| terrorism
|
| noun
|
| the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against
| civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
|
| "the fight against terrorism"
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| When half of internet users are potential terrorists, no one is.
| dathos wrote:
| Or, in the eyes of the government, we all are
| dang wrote:
| We changed the URL from
| https://www.laquadrature.net/2023/06/05/affaire-du-8-decembr...
| to the translation, which was suggested by a reader. Thanks!
| pndy wrote:
| English version of the article doesn't mention uBlock Origin at
| all
|
| https://www.laquadrature.net/en/2023/06/05/criminalization-o...
| midoridensha wrote:
| The French version (readable with a translation extension)
| does, but it's just one of a long list of things including
| GrapheneOS, LineageOS, Jitsi, FDroid, Tor, RiseupVPN, etc.
| Krisjohn wrote:
| I must say I spluttered a bit at F-Droid.
| pndy wrote:
| uBlock Origin itself gave me _oh what the fuck_ reaction
| but seems its gone now; text has been fixed already. No
| information on time of the edit was provided.
| nottorp wrote:
| The french text has uBlock Origin still for me.
| derkades wrote:
| I still see it
| pndy wrote:
| Perhaps they reverted article back because an hour ago I
| was checking French text (thus my comment) in a new
| private window and uBlock wasn't mentioned and now
| indeed, it's there
| mewmew07 wrote:
| This is accurate, I just came from our local monthly terrorist
| meet-up and everyone was talking about how France is so
| unfriendly to us.
| smeagull wrote:
| Sounds like you might need uBlock Origin to protect yourself from
| the French government.
| lannisterstark wrote:
| [flagged]
| bestouff wrote:
| This is an offensive comment.
| lannisterstark wrote:
| [flagged]
| Woshiwuja wrote:
| [flagged]
| blank1729 wrote:
| Yeah sure, why not
|
| - people with knives are potential killers
|
| - people with money are potential thieves
|
| .
|
| .
|
| This feels kinda like racism based on technology
| agilob wrote:
| Under UK law rape can only be committed using a penis, so all
| men are potential rapists.
| [deleted]
| defrost wrote:
| To clarify this; women in the UK can commit this offence as
| an accomplice, and anyone can potentially be convicted of the
| equivalent offence _Assault by penetration_ ie. 'rape' with
| not a penis objects.
|
| https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-
| offenc...
| junon wrote:
| That's still an absurd definition of rape.
| defrost wrote:
| If you detach and consider "the Law" as a standards
| document it makes more sense to read the two as "old
| school rape" definition being grandfathered and replaced
| by the newer _Assault by penetration_ and realising that
| there 's still a whole other spectrum of sexual assault
| behaviours that can be considered under law that don't
| involve penetration.
|
| Like mathematics, engineering, and any number of other
| technical domains, Law is riddled with precise domain
| definitions of words that don't always align with common
| non technical understandings and casual usage.
| fransje26 wrote:
| Well, in fact, people with knives are considered potential
| killers in France, to the discretion of the police officer
| searching you/your car/etc.
|
| You have a small opinel knife at the bottom of your backpack to
| cut your saucisson and the police is in a bad mood? Straight to
| jail.
| lucasRW wrote:
| does that work with "people with guns are potential killers" in
| the US ?
| hi5eyes wrote:
| glad to know that every reddtor and gamer is a terrorist to the
| fr*nch
| GuB-42 wrote:
| An important detail is that the state has been condemned for
| that.
|
| This goes to show that France is _not_ a totalitarian regime. The
| government fucked up, justice, as an independent power punished
| it and the illegally detained suspect is now free. The whole
| story is freely reported by French media.
|
| So is it bad: yes. Is it tolerated and are dissenters being
| silenced: no.
|
| For the rest, we will have to wait until the trial, but if the
| accusers don't have anything better than the use of Signal and
| uBlock, it probably won't end well for them, even if they
| represent the government.
| WhereIsTheTruth wrote:
| People who track and profile me online are potential terrorists
| HeartStrings wrote:
| uBlock especially
| olliej wrote:
| I mean yes, in the same sense that people who use computers are
| potential terrorists. Seriously these BS claims should be shut
| down.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Everyone is a _potential_ terrorist. Precriminals guilty of
| precrime.
| shlip wrote:
| What is really appaling and frightening here is the level of
| ignorance, incompetence and technical illiteracy shown by the
| various magistrates, and how they can be manipulated by the
| storytelling. Unfortunately, I think it's fair to say that it's
| representative of the general level of expertise in the french
| judicial system. Want some laughs ? Look for "Olivier Laurelli",
| "Altice vs reflet.info"...
| sofixa wrote:
| As others have mentioned, context matters a lot. The arrested
| group came back from Syria (where they fought alongside YPG
| against ISIS) radicalised, and were monitored ever since then.
| Their alleged crime isn't using Signal, it's just that a French
| anti-terrorism law allows to be arrested for "organisation with
| the intent to commit terrorist acts", which the DGSI(internal
| intelligence services) claims a radicalised group of people
| calling for a revolution, using encrypted communications, having
| a bunch of hunting weapons and ammunition, and materials for
| explosives is. A big stretch on the surface, but they were
| monitoring them for years, so who the hell knows what else they
| have.
|
| The real problem is the unlawful detention of one of the men, for
| which a court finally intervened and he has been freed under
| surveillance.
| franciscop wrote:
| It should be very clear IMHO; they have nothing, if they caught
| the group with "a bunch of hunting weapons and ammunition" then
| they can arrest them for that and that'd be a lot more serious
| ground for the argument of "intent to commit terrorist acts".
|
| Since it seems they don't have anything, they are criminalizing
| normal tools and dev tools because your average reader/citizen
| doesn't know the difference between a hacker and a cracker, let
| alone the right of privacy vs conspiring. The only nice thing
| IMHO is that everyone uses Whatsapp and no one considers it
| "criminal", so by bundling Signal etc together with Whatsapp
| they are making themselves look like they are exaggerating for
| the average person.
| willis936 wrote:
| At least in the US it is illegal to stockpile materials for
| making explosives without explicit licensing.
| martin8412 wrote:
| Depending on when it occurred, traveling into Syria could be
| a crime in itself. France and other EU countries banned the
| travel to Syria unless you were associated with a limited
| number of groups(humanitarian, journalism, diplomatic mission
| etc.). Joining any warring party was explicitly prohibited.
| lannisterstark wrote:
| >context matters a lot
|
| Not in this current context. You can't detain someone willy
| nilly for 'intentions' without such intentions being explicitly
| stated as proof in letters, emails, messages, threats etc.
|
| This is authoritarian pandering 101.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| >You can't detain someone willy nilly for 'intentions'
|
| AIUI that's lawful in the UK, you can detain people under the
| terrorism act with only suspicion of intent. It does make
| some sense, it weighs the level of evidence inversely with
| the potentially large-scale of awful outcomes. (My
| understanding hear may be flawed/wrong.)
|
| In order for that not to slip into fascism you need a
| forthright government that is honourable and believes in the
| rule of law ... both things the current UK government has
| proven they do not have.
| pif wrote:
| > This is authoritarian pandering 101.
|
| No, this is matter-of-fact anti-terrorism.
| pnt12 wrote:
| Anti-terrorism and authoritarianism go hand in hand, that's
| been clear since 9/11.
|
| The problem is that government us terrorism scaremongering
| to justify erasing citizens rights. It's completely valid
| to be anti-terrorist and prefer alternative choices to
| fight it.
|
| For example, in my country, both polices and tribunals are
| severely under provisioned. I'd start with imroofijg those
| budgets before passing surveillance laws.
| sofixa wrote:
| > It's completely valid to be anti-terrorist and prefer
| alternative choices to fight it.
|
| What alternative choices? France suffered multiple highly
| deadly attacks on it's soil, including two with 100+
| _graphic and violent_ dead. What alternative choices are
| there to prevent them outside of mass surveillance,
| infiltrating potentially radicalising religious
| institutions and shutting them down, arresting members of
| outwardly radical groups stockpiling weapons and
| materials for explosives (all things the French
| government is doing).
| hkt wrote:
| > freed under surveillance
|
| One of many problems with western societies at the moment is
| the idea that we can be free while under surveillance.
| csomar wrote:
| > As others have mentioned, context matters a lot.
|
| No, it does not. While this group is indeed suspicious,
| detaining them without a proof (and using whatsapp as your
| proof) opens a serious precedent. Now anyone can be detain for
| that. And it'll be used for serious suspicious cases later but
| also will be used against someone like you because someone in
| the police didn't like how you walk.
| lloeki wrote:
| > opens a serious precedent
|
| Of note for US readers, France legal system is not a
| jurisprudential system as in the US. That is, a judge's
| ruling does not become law - i.e must be followed as law by
| another judge -, only parliament can make law.
|
| The only instance having a form of jurisprudence power is
| Cour de Cassation, but that's only indirect: being the
| ultimate instance of recourse CCass rulings for similar cases
| have high chances of having similar outcomes. They may (or
| may not) influence other court rulings but a) they are not
| law and b) reaching to CCass is not guaranteed, so other
| courts judges are completely free to rule differently (as
| long as they abide by law)
|
| That said, holistically these precedents matter as they may
| give broad strokes on mindset trends from the powers at play.
| junon wrote:
| That's interesting. So even if the judge knows their ruling
| could be the worst of several options, they're boxed into
| doing so because it's the law?
| lloeki wrote:
| Yes. In such cases a reasonable judge ultimately aim to
| bring justice but can only do so within the confines of
| law. I recall talking to a few who had to rule in
| terrible ways (e.g remove a child from one's parent
| custody because of known but obsolete and largely
| unrelated past records and granting exclusive rights to
| the other who was known abusive but had only hearsay to
| back it up) and took every possible course of action to
| mitigate and make it less unjust but had their hands
| tied. They were all experiencing unfathomable
| psychological distress.
| Arkhaine_kupo wrote:
| What do you mean the worst of several options?
|
| The law is the law, if it's unfair it gets changed.
|
| Having the judge "making it up" as he goes, and then
| another judge using that sentence 120 years later as
| precedent like in american courts sounds insane
| denton-scratch wrote:
| The law, as it's written down, often fails to match
| closely the particular circumstances of a specific case.
| Maybe it never gives an exact match. So judges and juries
| have to interpret the law. That's the reality, whatever
| legal system you have.
|
| "Precedent" is a way of saving the time of courts and
| lawyers, by not having to argue the same details every
| time they come up. And it's not as if every court
| judgement becomes a precedent; only higher courts can set
| precedents, and they can only be overturned by higher
| courts still.
|
| I think this is a reasonable way of approaching justice.
| Arkhaine_kupo wrote:
| All of that is easy to contemplate. You have extenuating
| and aggravating circumstances (things that make the
| situation worse or better for the defendant)
|
| And on top of that you have a window for sentencing. So
| if murder is lets say 4-20 years in jail. And you were
| drunk, that makes it worse, but it was not premeditated,
| and this and that it all adds up and you might 6 years or
| you might get 18 depending on the circumstances.
|
| This also allows the law to be rewritten from scratch
| instead of being based on whatever higher court thought
| in the 1800s.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > You have extenuating and aggravating circumstances
|
| You do; but that's not actually what I was thinking
| about. That's just about sentencing, and here (the UK)
| sentencing doesn't fall within the purview of precedent;
| there are sentencing guidelines set by senior members of
| the judiciary.
|
| I was thinking of actual points of law, such as what
| constitutes unreasonable behaviour, or whether possession
| of some quantity X of illegal drugs is conclusive
| evidence of intent to supply.
|
| > whatever higher court thought in the 1800s
|
| It's open to higher courts to overturn precedents, if
| they've become outdated to the extent they no longer make
| sense. The very old precedents are presumably precedents
| that make so much sense that nobody has successfully
| challenged them. If someone runs into an adverse
| judgement based on an ancient precedent that is
| unsupportable, no doubt there's some barrister that would
| like to make their case (and their reputation) at appeal,
| by overturning it.
| junon wrote:
| What you describe does not match reality.
| Arkhaine_kupo wrote:
| Townshend v Townshend is a ruling from 1848 still being
| quoted.
|
| Citing Slavery Project did an analysis and found 18% of
| all current cases in courts either quote slavery rulings
| or are less than 2 steps removed (quote a ruling that
| quotes the slavery ruling).
| junon wrote:
| Not sure how that's relevant.
|
| > The law is the law, if it's unfair it gets changed.
|
| That's the part that doesn't match reality.
| Arkhaine_kupo wrote:
| > That's the part that doesn't match reality.
|
| I mean Spain recently had a big case related to a group
| sexual assault. Society was up in arms about the ruling
| (minimum sentence was 1 year, max was like 6)
|
| So the law was amended and now sexual violence has a
| maximum sentence of 15 years which is more in line with
| other european countries.
| reddit_refugee3 wrote:
| [flagged]
| JW_00000 wrote:
| Isn't that always the case when you have rule of law and
| separation of powers? The legislative body comes up with
| the law; judges just apply it.
|
| E.g. if the law says "murder carries a penalty of minimum
| 5 years and maximum 30 years imprisonment", then a judge
| cannot give a sentence of 4 year or of 40 years, even if
| they personally believe this to be a "better" sentence.
| lloeki wrote:
| My understanding of the US system design is that the law
| as defined by the legislative body is in a way
| "minimalistic" (and even more so at the federal level),
| and jurisprudence augments it with the details.
|
| Taking your example, what constitutes murder and minimum
| and maximum penalty are defined in "broad strokes", and
| the judge gets to define "in this specific case that
| person is guilty in a way where they should be sentenced
| to X years", and _that_ becomes law (IIUC scoped to their
| jurisdiction), progressively refining and tuning the
| whole system, because the next judge faced with a similar
| enough case would be bound by it. The lawyer game is then
| to argue whether the current case is close enough to a
| previous one for the previous ruling to match (and thus
| tying the judge 's hands). A thoughtful US judge would
| consider both the case at hand and the implications of
| being law-generating when issuing a ruling.
| civilitty wrote:
| IANAL but no, the US claim to minimalism is just
| branding.
|
| The largest jurisdiction like the Federal judiciary, for
| example, have the Federal Sentencing Guidelines which
| have a strict point system for criminal sentencing where
| judges have little discretion due to a Federal "tough on
| crime" wave.
|
| It really depends on the subfield of law and the
| vagueness of past legislation.
| sofixa wrote:
| > My understanding of the US system design is that the
| law as defined by the legislative body is in a way
| "minimalistic" (and even more so at the federal level),
| and jurisprudence augments it with the details.
|
| Which really makes me wonder, how the hell to even
| professionals keep track of that? For regular stuff you
| literally can have thousands of relevant cases going back
| centuries as "precedent" to build on.
| ayewo wrote:
| There are tools like LexisNexis and FindLaw --
| professional search engines to help with finding relevant
| case law.
| progbits wrote:
| Judges are not there to come up with the law, only to
| execute it.
| junon wrote:
| That's not what I asked, nor is it what I implied.
| umanwizard wrote:
| It's not clear what exactly you were asking or how it
| relates to the post you were replying to.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Fighting for a foreign nation and/or mercenaries is illegal
| in itself
| wott wrote:
| > Fighting for a foreign nation and/or mercenaries is
| illegal in itself
|
| Nope. It depends on countries (and mood of the year).
|
| Some countries allow to become mercenaries and forbid
| voluntary fighting for a foreign nation. Some countries
| allow to voluntary fight for a foreign nation and forbid to
| become mercenaries. And so on.
|
| France even has the French Foreign Legion...
| lm28469 wrote:
| > France even has the French Foreign Legion...
|
| Which is... the complete opposite of fighting for a
| foreign nation since it's part of the French army. You
| can allow foreigners in your army while at the same time
| making it illegal for your own citizen to join foreign
| mercenaries
| kachnuv_ocasek wrote:
| Some countries made an exception for Ukraine...
| relativ575 wrote:
| Such as?
|
| It is legal for Americans to fight for another country,
| unless it's against the US. In fact the US government
| said they can't intervene if one is forced to do
| compulsory military service abroad. It gets complicated
| fast:
|
| https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-
| lega...
| nestorD wrote:
| > they were monitoring them for years, so who the hell knows
| what else they have
|
| Given the weakness of the elements assembled, why would the
| DGSI decide to withhold any decisive proof from the eyes of the
| justice system?
| anyoneamous wrote:
| I mean, everyone is a _potential_ terrorist - so since putting
| everyone in prison is obviously not practical, maybe the
| politicians should put themselves in prison then hold a committee
| meeting on redefining the terms "inside" and "outside" to make
| themselves feel better.
| paganel wrote:
| Leaving aside the supposedly technical ineptitude of the French
| authorities (even though I think they're quite competent and that
| they full know what those apps do and how they work), cases like
| this one make me think that, going forward, one of the best
| strategies for "defeating" the powers that be will consist in
| avoiding the use of encrypted communications via special apps and
| the like and trying to blend in with how the general population,
| i.e. the normies, communicates.
|
| Of course that the message will still need to be encrypted in a
| way, but that won't happen by using Telegram or Signal or
| WhatsApp or by encrypting your hard-drive using dedicated
| software, but the new "encryption" should work in a sort of "out
| in the open for anyone to see way", like in the famous E. A. Poe
| _The Purloined Letter_ [1] short-story, with the stolen letter
| that was "hidden" in plain view for everyone to see.
|
| Again, I realise that this new strategy isn't ideal, that it will
| most likely make it harder to keep constant the rate of encrypted
| communication that is now carried out using dedicated apps, but
| the reality on the ground is that by using Telegram or Signal or
| any other dedicated app that focuses on technical encryption one
| just manages to paint a target on his/her back.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Purloined_Letter
| tjpnz wrote:
| The US isn't immune either.
|
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/boston-college-prompt-...
| agilob wrote:
| Terrorists in France from a few years ago used text messages and
| PSP groups to communicate. Game over grandmas and gamers.
| divergencefree wrote:
| I mean... the list of things is ridiculous: simply using VPN,
| having technical documentation? So any type of technical
| literacy...
| franky47 wrote:
| In the mean time, the French government is also sending out a
| call for projects [1] that increase cybersecurity, digital
| sovereignty and promote encryption of data. Just not for the
| common folk, but for startups.
|
| I find it funny (/s) that my current project is funded by the
| French government to develop end-to-end encryption in web
| applications [2]. Am I a terrorist too?
|
| [1] https://www.bpifrance.fr/nos-appels-a-projets-
| concours/appel...
|
| [2] https://github.com/SocialGouv/e2esdk/
| INTPenis wrote:
| Not you but your users might be.
| ur-whale wrote:
| > Am I a terrorist too?
|
| Not yet, but give it time.
| chopin wrote:
| It's a good way to make everybody suspicious.
| maitredusoi wrote:
| [dead]
| meindnoch wrote:
| Technically they're correct. The same way as users of toilets are
| potential terrorists.
| xcombelle wrote:
| this article miss a whole part of the story. among other things,
| these person came back from a warzone. looks at
| https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_du_8_decembre_2020
| midoridensha wrote:
| Very interesting; it looks like these people went to Syria to
| fight ISIS, and got this ill treatment when they returned.
|
| Why does it seem like the French government is always
| supporting the worst actors in any conflict? ISIS is (was) so
| evil and barbaric, they make Putin seem like a great guy. Why
| would volunteering to fight them ever be seen in a bad light?
| csomar wrote:
| Someone taking weapons somewhere (regardless of the cause) is
| always a dangerous person. Regular soldiers included and the
| government treat them as such. It's an unfortunate position
| (of course) if that person is fighting on "your" side.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Yes, but the problem here is not that, it's the arguments
| used to build the case.
|
| They have not been any evidence of criminal activities by
| those people. So far, all what they have against them is
| "they are protective about their privacy".
|
| That's a terrible reason to arrest and maintain people in
| jail.
| martin8412 wrote:
| The act of going to Syria to fight on either side is a
| crime in itself.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Not according to the French law.
|
| A crime is not something you evaluate morally. It has a
| very narrow definition that is codified by each society
| it is been judged in.
| martin8412 wrote:
| It's grounds for having your citizenship revoked unless
| it will render you stateless. People suspected of being
| on the way to Syria would get their passports
| confiscated.
|
| Nine EU countries made similar rules, though I don't know
| how many still have it in effect. Any citizen/resident of
| Denmark is still prohibited from going to the conflict
| zones of Syria and Iraq.
| Draiken wrote:
| Then why weren't they arrested for that instead?
|
| I am not familiar with French law. Is that literally a
| crime or are you saying it as an expression?
| martin8412 wrote:
| Because it can be difficult to prove. There are/were no
| direct flights to Syria. So people would travel to Turkey
| and cross the land border to Syria.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| >Why would volunteering to fight them ever be seen in a bad
| light?
|
| In part, because the YPG is seen by the french state as a
| terrorist group, for various political reasons, and also
| because having leftists trained in handling weapons is
| seemingly more terrifying to the government than having
| neonazis trained in handling weapons. Make of that what you
| will.
| getrealal wrote:
| The French government disbanded various far-right groups
| that were not "neonazis trained in handling weapons" (last
| in date was the Identitaires).
| ElMocambo_x4 wrote:
| [flagged]
| diordiderot wrote:
| [flagged]
| SettembreNero wrote:
| [flagged]
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| [flagged]
| diordiderot wrote:
| > the YPG is seen by the french state as a terrorist group
|
| To appease the Turks I assume?
| umanwizard wrote:
| Viewing with suspicion someone who volunteers to fight in a
| foreign war does not imply support for any party in that war.
| We can criticize the French government but it's an extreme
| exaggeration to suggest that they support ISIS.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Do you really think France supports ISIS ? Did you live in a
| cave in 2015 ?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2015_Ile-de-
| France_att...
|
| Fighting for a foreign nation or mercenaries is illegal, no
| matter if you're fighting the "bad guys"
| gbear605 wrote:
| Hmm, let me check in again with France... Oh, what, they
| have a thing called the Foreign Legion, where they want
| foreigners to fight for them? It seems like actually France
| wants people to fight for nations that aren't their own.
| lm28469 wrote:
| I'm French, I know the foreign legion, we accept
| foreigners in our army, it doesn't mean we accept our own
| citizen to fight for foreign parties, especially non
| state armies, they're not mutually exclusive, there is no
| logical connection between your two statements
| gbear605 wrote:
| From a moral viewpoint, letting someone of your country
| join another country's foreign legion is identical to
| letting someone of another country join your foreign
| legion. If you say that joining a different group to
| fight ISIS is not okay while joining France to fight
| France's enemies is okay, then you're saying that ISIS is
| a better group in the world than France's enemies.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > If you say that joining a different group to fight ISIS
|
| Like joining the Taliban ?
| sofixa wrote:
| Or course the French government doesn't support ISIS, they
| also monitored everyone who fought for them. The problem is
| that these people are (supposedly) radicalised, and with
| active military experience (and probable related PTSD), not
| who they fought against.
| midoridensha wrote:
| How is someone who fights _against_ ISIS radicalized? A
| bunch of American vets went over there to fight ISIS too as
| volunteers, and they didn 't get this treatment.
|
| And what exactly has France done to fight ISIS anyway?
| Nothing. I guess that's a little better than what they did
| in Rwanda to support the genocide there... Edit: nevermind
| this paragraph
| franciscop wrote:
| In "pacific" Europe (specially in those countries where
| conscription is not mandatory) voluntarily taking weapons
| and going to a different country to kill people, no
| matter the reason, IS definitely considered radicalized,
| in the sense that it's very, very rare and "anti-social"
| behavior.
| zirgs wrote:
| In my country it's legal to go to Ukraine and fight on
| the Ukrainian side.
|
| But fighting on the Russian side is illegal and is
| punishable by long prison terms even if you didn't commit
| any war crimes there.
|
| That applies to all residents of the country - including
| Russian citizens.
| lucubratory wrote:
| That's insane, what country is that?
| nottorp wrote:
| Bet it's a country that was in or close to the USSR and
| would really like to not go back in there...
| zirgs wrote:
| Yup. Soon after the war started our parliament passed a
| law that specifically legalised this.
| vxNsr wrote:
| You don't appear to arguing in good faith you appear very
| emotionally invested and are refusing to acknowledge that
| you're in a discussion with intelligent people, consider
| reframing your argument with the assumption that the
| person you're responding to has a legitimate point. Also
| consider removing the overtly emotional tone. In this way
| you can contribute to a more pleasant and engaging
| conversation here.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > How is someone who fights against ISIS radicalized?
|
| The Taliban are fighting ISIS... do you consider the
| Taliban to be radical ?
|
| Some people in the thread should open a book or two,
| we're not in "bad guys vs good guys" world
| sofixa wrote:
| There are different directions in which one can be
| radicalised, not just ISIS style radical Islam. The group
| don't hide they were calling for revolution, which is
| pretty radical.
|
| > And what exactly has France done to fight ISIS anyway?
|
| https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_internationale_en
| _Ir... (curiously the English language article doesn't
| mention French forces in the outline, but does in the
| text)
|
| Just sent an aircraft carrier, some ships and planes, and
| special forces. And intelligence. Contributed more than
| anyone outside of the US and local forces like YPG. Led
| one of the first coalitions that were extremely wide
| (including everyone from Bahrain through Belgium and
| Japan to Russia and China). But sure, you haven't heard
| about it, so they didn't do anything
|
| > I guess that's a little better than what they did in
| Rwanda to support the genocide there
|
| Wait, is France bad when it intervenes or when it doesn't
| intervene? In Rwanda they didn't "support" the genocide
| of course, just didn't do much to stop it after
| supporting the faction that commited it before.
| getrealal wrote:
| They are far-left activists who went to fight alongside
| Kurdish militias of the YPG, a group affiliated with the
| PKK, considered a terrorist organisation by the European
| Union.
|
| That is why they were put under surveillance when they
| came back to France.
|
| Here is a reference in French: https://fr.wikipedia.org/w
| iki/Affaire_du_8_d%C3%A9cembre_202...
|
| Ultimately it's a bit more complicated than good people
| fighting versus evil people (and as far as I'm concerned,
| they were effectively fighting for a US proxy against
| another US proxy).
| justinclift wrote:
| Because government's _really_ don 't like their citizenry
| knowing how to apply violence, unless it's done through
| government controlled activities (ie military, police).
|
| A cynical person would say it's because corrupt leaders are
| afraid of potential consequences for their actions. But
| there's likely other, more mundane reasons too. :)
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| The monopoly on violence is the central component of the
| power of the state. This case undermines that power as much
| as violence used in self defence does, and is being
| prosecuted as passionately as self defence killings often
| are.
| midoridensha wrote:
| Well this isn't the first time in recent history the French
| government was a supporter of genocide:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_the_Rwandan_genoci
| d...
| realusername wrote:
| France did not support the genocide, they just didn't do
| much at all apart from accepting refugies, also confirmed
| by more recent declassified papers.
| sofixa wrote:
| > and is being prosecuted as passionately as self defence
| killings often are.
|
| Citation needed of self-defence killings im France being
| prosecuted passionately and unfairly.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/interview/vanessa-
| codaccioni...
|
| 90% of self defense cases end in the tribunal, meaning
| that the judges saw it as not-self-defense. The biggest
| factor in all this is proportionality: if you killed
| someone in self defense but were not yourself having your
| life threatened, you will go to court.
| zirgs wrote:
| Any physical assault is potentially life threatening. One
| unlucky fall on the pavement and that's it - you can
| easily die or become permanently disabled. Yet another
| reason why it's better to deescalate and/or run away if
| possible.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| Yep, and this is the logic that is followed by judges:
| self defense is pretty much only valid if you had no
| other option. Run away. Always run away.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| > self defense is pretty much only valid if you had no
| other option.
|
| Running away is a good idea for many reasons, but very
| few US states or foreign jurisdictions have a duty to
| retreat as you're describing here.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| Good thing this was in the context of France, then.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| And France is among the overwhelming majority of legal
| jurisdictions around the world that do not have a duty to
| retreat.
|
| https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0
| 000...
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| Macron recently said he was opposed to the entire concept
| of self defence, after a farmer shot a burglar in his
| home and was subsequently charged with murder.
|
| After that remark became massively controversial he
| attempted to walk his statement back and claim that he
| just meant that he said he was against the presumption of
| self defence (which seems to imply he supports a
| presumption of guilt in self defence cases).
|
| https://www.europe1.fr/politique/oppose-a-la-legitime-
| defens...
|
| Basically every country in the world that has somewhat
| stable law and order has a history of prosecuting dubious
| self defence cases. The requirement for the state to have
| a monopoly on violence might sound edgy, but it's not a
| controversial idea, it's a requirement for being able to
| enforce the law. Self defence is an almost universally
| justifiable reason for a person to violate the monopoly,
| and it's not hard to understand why government agencies
| can end up viewing it as an existential threat, not to
| the country or its people, but to their own institutions.
| zogrodea wrote:
| I can corroborate (for any lurkers and onlookers) that
| the modern state having a monopoly on violence is an
| often-accepted idea.
|
| For example, this is professor Wael Hallaq of Columbia
| University describing some defining characteristics of
| the modern state:
|
| "there are five form-properties possessed by the modern
| state without which it cannot, at this point in history,
| be properly conceived. These are:
|
| (1) its constitution as a historical experience that is
| fairly specific and local;
|
| (2) its sovereignty and the metaphysics to which it has
| given rise;
|
| (3) its legislative monopoly and the related feature of
| monopoly over so-called legitimate violence;
|
| (4) its bureaucratic machinery; and
|
| (5) its cultural- hegemonic engagement in the social
| order, including its production of the national subject"
| alkonaut wrote:
| There are basically two sides to this conflict: ISIS on one
| hand, and the Syrian/Kurdish PYD/YPG side on the other. The
| latter has ties to the PKK, which is an internationally
| recognized terror org just like ISIS.
|
| Now, depending on who you ask, the PYD/YPG is "good, because
| they fight ISIS" (e.g. the official stance of the US) or
| "Terrorists, because they are basically just extensions of
| the PKK" (what Turkey says).
|
| This leads to a lot of inconsistency in foreign policy within
| NATO. For example Sweden is pressured to crack down on
| PYD/YPG to be admitted into NATO. The US, like many others,
| have supported the YPG/PYD in the fight against ISIS. So I
| imagine Turkey is also pressuring other NATO countries like
| France in this case, to go after PKK collaborators including
| the adjacent syrian orgs.
|
| So basically: why are the people volunteering to fight ISIS
| seen as terrorists within NATO? I'd guess these days to a
| large extent because Turkey says so.
| myk9001 wrote:
| OK, I can see where they're coming from with things like Signal.
| Not that I agree, but at least I can understand the reasoning
| behind it.
|
| But what is uBlock Origin's sin? A law-abiding citizen is
| supposed to be OK with seeing ads, or something?
|
| Can someone who reads French please elaborate on what the linked
| piece is saying about it?
| nmc wrote:
| The investigation partly relies on notes seized from the
| defendants which mention various privacy tools: GrapheneOS,
| LineageOS, Signal, Silence, Jitsi, OnionShare, F-Droid, Tor,
| RiseupVPN, Orbot, uBlock Origin...
|
| According to investigators: "these elements confirm they were
| willing to live clandestinely".
|
| According to the prosecution: "these notes consituted a real
| playbook allowing anonymous use of a phone, showing the person
| was willing to live in secrecy and hide their activities".
| rekoil wrote:
| > showing the person was willing to live in secrecy and hide
| their activities
|
| Wait, is it illegal to *checks notes* _have personal
| privacy_?
| escape-big-tech wrote:
| absolutely disgusting, you're telling me that you don't
| want to be stalked 24/7? that you don't want the whole
| world to know everything you're doing? how dare you imply
| that you're a human being and that privacy is one of the
| most important rights you have? now dance monkey, dance /s
|
| to quote professor farnsworth: I don't want to live on this
| planet anymore
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Perhaps it's that mistrusting FAANG (advertisers and snoopers)
| is one of their grounds for suspicion.
| timellis-smith wrote:
| I seem to remember I was on the FBI watch list for subscribing to
| Linux Journal back in the day.
| lewtds wrote:
| And how did you find out about that?
| susanthenerd wrote:
| https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-
| extre...
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| That does not contain the words "FBI" or "watch"
| susanthenerd wrote:
| [flagged]
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| This does not add any information. The article doesn't
| say anything about an FBI watch list, it says NSA flagged
| people for extra surveillance.
| niij wrote:
| Hi, I see you have a relatively new account and
| previously used reddit. Make sure to read the guidelines:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't
| cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
|
| > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead
| of calling names.
| hakube wrote:
| so using uBlock is much worse than being a politician?
| znt wrote:
| Regardless of which digital tools they use, everyone is a
| potential terrorist if the government is tyrannical enough.
| nestorD wrote:
| The key is that, while there is suspicion (the people arrested
| have a far left ideology, have been to Syria to fight against the
| Islamic state, own weapons and encrypt all of their
| communications), there is _no crime nor proof of an intent to
| commit a crime_.
|
| These people have been sent to prison because they are
| suspicious, not because of an action they have done (something
| made possible as a special case of an older antiterrorism law).
| And, amongst other things, using Signal and Linux with the
| encryption-on settings are _explicitly_ listed as some of the
| things making them suspicious in the eyes of the law.
|
| That is a slippery slope.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| Slippery slope?
|
| No, no, we're already down the slope and going fast, we are now
| at "dissolve informal ecologist organizations and raid their
| homes and families with antiterrorist groups and gear for the
| crimes of blocking some construction", "get friendly with
| neonazi groups and let them parade in Paris, let them attack
| prides and leftist bars".
| getrealal wrote:
| [flagged]
| maeln wrote:
| > There was no neonazi group parading in Paris; the GUD did
| their annual march to honour the memory of one of theirs
| killed by the police 20 years ago.
|
| So there was no neonazi group parading, but there was a
| neonazi group parading.
|
| > Comparatively, the far left is arrested for actual
| violent actions.
|
| There was none in this case. On the other hand, the far
| right is responsible for several assault in Bordeaux and
| Lyon, was prosecuted in Nantes for beating up nearly to
| death two far left teenager, murdered Federico Martin
| Aramburu, burned the house of the Saint Brevin mayor,
| attacked and firebombed a LGBT center in Tour, ...
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| [flagged]
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > That is a slippery slope.
|
| It's par for the course in a country that bans paternity
| testing (to "protect the 'unity' of families"! ) [0]
|
| [0] https://idtodna.com/paternity-test-in-france/
| psychphysic wrote:
| > That is a slippery slope.
|
| you mean as opposed to the people who went to Gitmo for wearing
| casio F-91W watchs back in the early 2000s[0].
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F-91W
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seton_Hall_reports#Detainees...
| x-desire wrote:
| Both situations are unacceptable, and one cannot be used to
| justify the other.
| h0l0cube wrote:
| > the people arrested have a far left ideology, have been to
| Syria to fight against the Islamic state, own weapons and
| encrypt all of their communications
|
| Is there a place where we can read more about this? The article
| seems to explain none of that context, it only purports that
| people are suspicious and can be arrested for simply having
| good 'digital hygiene'.
|
| Edit: Some relevant passages from TFA
|
| > Likewise, the critical attitude towards technologies, and in
| particular to Big Tech (Google, Amazon, Facebook Apple and
| Microsoft, GAFAM), is considered as a sign of radicalisation.
| Among the questions asked to the defendants, one can read: Are
| you anti-GAFA?", "What do you think of GAFA?" or "Do you feel a
| certain reserve towards communication technologies?".
|
| > These questions are to be read in light of one report from
| the DGSI titled "The ultra-left movement", which states that
| "members" of this movement are alledgedly showing "a great
| culture of secrecy [...] and a certain reserve towards
| technology".
|
| Don't see any mention of Syria or weapons.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > Likewise, the critical attitude towards technologies, and
| in particular to Big Tech (Google, Amazon, Facebook Apple and
| Microsoft, GAFAM)
|
| Like more than half of HackerNews :/
| nestorD wrote:
| I believe the French Wikipedia page[0] is the most
| comprehensive place to get information on the subject. There
| is also a, much shorter, English page[1].
|
| [0]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_du_8_d%C3%A9cembre
| _202... [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_December_2020_incident
| alpaca128 wrote:
| > "members" of this movement are alledgedly showing "a great
| culture of secrecy [...] and a certain reserve towards
| technology".
|
| So caring about one's human right to privacy is a "culture of
| secrecy" now
| swayvil wrote:
| The desire to be alone has been scientifically proven to be
| a disease of the mind and a sure sign of antisocial
| tendencies. (s,lr,d)
| DreadY2K wrote:
| Ah yes, because Signal is famously the app you use to be
| alone and not interact with anyone else
| swayvil wrote:
| Well the intelligence community certainly is feeling
| snubbed.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| I don't know how you jumped from "privacy" to "desire to
| be alone", those two things are barely related. Locking
| the toilet door isn't antisocial and talking to someone
| in private isn't either.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| I don't know about this concrete case (and my french is not
| good enough to find out with ease) - but the context is
| likely, that they joined the YPG at some point.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Defense_Units
|
| It was/is a weird situation. They are very anticapitalist and
| marxist with some anarchist elements, but they got western
| support when they were fighting ISIS (and to some extent
| Assad/Putin) in Syria.
|
| So in Syria communist rebells got US weapons and I believe US
| troops are still on the ground helping them. But back home in
| the west, those activists get prosecuted, because the PKK
| (the mother organisation of YPG) is considered a terrorist
| organisation (and likely they still _are_ doing terrorism,
| even though it is of course a "separate" organisation
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Freedom_Hawks)
| asddubs wrote:
| It's not really a slippery slope, we've already arrived at the
| bad thing
| jona-f wrote:
| yes, here is an article about "preventive detention of a
| climate activist" in Germany.
| https://newsrnd.com/news/2023-06-13-before-action-in-
| regensb...
|
| The issue here is that they seemed to have used the encrypted
| communications to proof criminal behavior.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| This is why we can not, under any circumstances, budge on
| encryption and privacy. It is a fundamental right and I am
| willing to die on this hill.
| hughesjj wrote:
| There's no freedom more fundamental than freedom of
| thought, but anti-encryption violates that imo. At least,
| it prevents the sharing or workshopping of thoughts.
| Yeah, I'd literally die on that hill.
|
| No one deserves to be subject to my raw, unrefined
| thoughts. It's hell enough for me
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| It really is such a hill, I know it may sound absurd to
| some people, but invasion of privacy and communications
| is, by all means, thought policing, and living in such a
| world is, in my opinion, torture.
| tux3 wrote:
| Ah, but you see, there's plenty of slope left to slide!
| nroets wrote:
| Agreed! Next they will arrest anyone critical of the
| government and lock them up for using end to end encryption
| on WhatsApp.
| conradfr wrote:
| Yesterday the French government dissolved an environmental
| movement (which I don't like btw), amongst the reasons
| stated[0] are that they leave their phones at home or switch
| them off, refuse to talk to the police when arrested, or even
| that they organize their protest over the internet.
|
| When accused of authoritarian tendencies the government usually
| answers "go to China or North Korea to see what a dictatorship
| is like".
|
| [0] https://twitter.com/mart1oeil/status/1671467485931921408
| bambax wrote:
| The situation in France is dire and crazy. This will not end
| well.
| marvin wrote:
| I have had well-educated French acquaintences telling me
| for a decade that France is ripe for a new system of
| government; the 6th in its history.
|
| Many current problems stem from the fact that post-war
| mechanisms written into the governmental system are abused
| by the president and elected leaders. E.g. presidential
| overruling of parlamental votes.
| conradfr wrote:
| We celebrate the revolution and throwing out the king
| while basically electing a new one every five years that
| will magically solve all of our problems.
| nolok wrote:
| We celebrate the revolution while ignoring it went
| terribly, being in terms of rights, economy or basically
| anything else, and we happily put an emperor on the
| throne less than a decade later
| reddit_refugee3 wrote:
| I wouldn't say it went terribly in terms of rights,
| necessarily. The French Revolution was a massive
| influence on every other post-enlightenment democracy
| that came after it. Without the French Revolution (and
| yes, that includes its failures), we very well could all
| still be living in different versions of feudalism.
|
| The French Revolution paved the way for just about every
| pro-worker reform in the modern world.
| baud147258 wrote:
| > we happily put an emperor on the throne less than a
| decade later
|
| to be fair, the emperor climbed on the throne pretty much
| on his own; I think he had support across broad parts of
| the population, but it's not as if he was elected (and he
| didn't even start as an emperor, that came a few years
| after his coup)
| nolok wrote:
| To quote him ;
|
| > I did not steal the crown. I found it lying in the
| gutter, and I picked it up with the sword. But it was the
| people who placed it on my head.
|
| The man was massively popular with the populace [1] [2]
| and he got elected emperor with a referendum [3] to which
| 7 million people were called. By modern standard that
| barely qualifies, but for an emperor in 1804 ...
|
| A common misconception was that the revolution was to
| remove the all powerful head of state. It wasn't, the
| people just wanted a competent one and improved living
| conditions.
|
| [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/277eu
| 3/why_i...
|
| [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gli6n
| n/consi...
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_French_constitutio
| nal_ref...
| derelicta wrote:
| yup. thats why some folks love to call the current
| political system a "presidential monarchy", due to the
| overreaching executive powers granted to the president of
| the republic.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| The fifth republic is the result of a coup by a military
| leader (De Gaulle) that was in talks with commanders of
| tank divisions to drive to Paris should he not be
| instated president and allowed to write his own
| constitution (written by Pierre Debre, a friend of his).
|
| It was ripe to burn since 1958.
| nolok wrote:
| Calling it a coup is highly debatable and debated. It
| happened outside of the scope of what the 4th happened,
| and it happened because the 4th had broken down and was
| not working anymore.
|
| It should be noted that some of the main people who
| called to view it as a coup were people from other parts
| of the political spectrum who had other ideas of how it
| should happen and who should end up in power, including
| Mitterand (who ended up president of the 5th in 1986).
| These people however were also for the end of the 4th.
| paganel wrote:
| The military guys from Algeria had already put their
| hands on Corsica, plus, the iminent threat of the landing
| on the shores of Southern France (or via an aerial
| operation, can't remember exactly) of said military
| forces was heavily used by de Gaulle during the
| negotiations that got him into power.
| Animats wrote:
| "The iron was hot. I struck it." - De Gaulle
| paganel wrote:
| For those who can read French and who would want to learn
| more about this I heartily recommend the recently
| published _Gouverner la France_ [1] (Governing France), a
| collection of books written by Michel Winock as part of
| the prestigious Quarto Gallimard series.
|
| It includes titles like _L 'Agonie de la IVeme
| Republique_ (Agony of the Fourth Republic), _La fievre
| hexagonale : les grandes crises politiques de 1871 a
| 1968_ (Hexagon Fever: Major Political Crises from 1871 to
| 1968) and a pretty good biography of de Gaulle. It 's
| from that book that I learned of all the craziness of
| 1958, the one that involved general Salan (who would be
| sentenced to death a few years after that for trying a
| coup against de Gaulle) and all.
|
| [1] https://www.amazon.fr/Gouverner-France-Michel-
| Winock/dp/2072...
| umanwizard wrote:
| > the 6th in its history.
|
| I assume they were alluding to the fact that the current
| French state is called the "Fifth Republic" but there
| were various non-Republic regimes as well so it would
| actually be more than the 6th "system of government".
| nolok wrote:
| > I have had well-educated French acquaintences telling
| me for a decade that France is ripe for a new system of
| government
|
| First, this is not "well-educated French acquaintences"
| so much as it is supporters of Melanchon's LFI political
| party, who explicitely campaign on the idea of ending the
| 5th republic to start a 6th where all problem would be
| magically solved.
|
| Second, the reason I hate his proposal, is because he
| explicitely refuses to give any specific detail on what
| the 6th republic would be. He claims it would be "decided
| by the public" but there is no reason why a pre work
| couldn't be done BEFORE. In effect, he pretends to be
| saying "we will end the 5th for a better 6th", but what
| he's actually saying is "let's end the one we have now
| instead of fixing it, and replace it with something I
| will have the power to decide, you must accept to throw
| it away without knowing what you will get in exchange or
| how it will be made but trust me it will totally be
| better and I will totally let the people decide".
|
| Our 5th republic might be flawed, but I'm not putting it
| in the trash without any idea of what we will get in
| return, that's brexit referendum level of flawed.
|
| And I will always be weary of someone who claims to have
| a simple solution to a complex problem, on the condition
| that I give him power over me, especially if another
| condition is that I cannot know what said solution is
| before making my decision.
|
| Third,
|
| > the 6th in its history
|
| Would be the 6th republic sure, but absolutely not the
| 6th "system of government", it would be like our 25th or
| something ?
| yohannparis wrote:
| Not everybody that want a 6th republic are supporters of
| Melanchon's party. We have to be careful about this kind
| of amalgamation.
| nolok wrote:
| Given that out of the dozen or so "main political
| parties" he is the only one who wants that, and that when
| asked about their priorities for the change of France no
| group of frenchmen put that in their top 5 besides voters
| of LFI ...
|
| You're absolutely right that there are definitely some
| people who want a 6th republic but do not vote or agree
| with LFI, but for the sake of generalized conversation
| like we're having now they're mostly irrelevant. If it
| were to happen, it would be through him and his "vision",
| and as such I maintain my critics.
|
| Beware of what you want for you might just get it.
| prmoustache wrote:
| I was thinking that we needed a 6th republic well decades
| before Melenchon was known and I think he is a dangerous
| person.
|
| I am probably not the only one.
| rndmio wrote:
| Not everyone who supported Brexit in the UK was a right
| wing xenophobe but look where they ended up.
| Bayart wrote:
| People have been slow-boiled and don't quite seem to
| realize the closest regime in Europe in terms of
| concentration of powers is Russia.
| getrealal wrote:
| Yep. But this is not exactly new. The Macron government is
| now using "anti-terror" legislation that was passed by both
| left and right-wing governments over the past 20 years or
| so.
| lannisterstark wrote:
| I'm really curious as to why Macron govt is looked up to
| by a lot of Americans. American citizens, with all of the
| country's flaws, tends to have a lot more inherent civil
| rights than most of these governments.
| bluescrn wrote:
| Fear leads to support for authoritarianism. Covid,
| climate, nuclear war, economic uncertainty, etc.
| rightbyte wrote:
| I think it is more about fear silences sane people. Not
| that support for shady things increase. E.g. at work like
| 2 or 3 out of 20 are phsycotic war mongers to different
| degrees. There is always this implied "we will shoot you
| as a traitor if you disagree" if things turn to shit when
| you deal with that kind of people.
| [deleted]
| explorer83 wrote:
| I think France is generally perceived here to have more
| progressive social policies regarding labor, education,
| healthcare and the environment. The limited media
| coverage I've seen about French elections seemed to paint
| Macron as the candidate more representative of those
| values.
| bambax wrote:
| Macron, as so many French leaders before him, is in fact
| obsessed by transforming France into the US.
|
| Sarkozy, his most alike predecessor, used to wear a
| t-shirt that said "NYPD" while jogging, as he was
| president of France; and later renamed his party "Les
| Republicains" as an hommage to US Republicans (!!?!)
|
| This was 9 years ago, so right before Trump happened. At
| the time, 53% of party members thought it was "too
| American" but they accepted the change nonetheless.
|
| Macron pushes through "liberal" reforms (liberal in
| Europe means the opposite as in the US: liberals here are
| free-market proponents) because he thinks it will make
| France great again, I guess.
| Kuinox wrote:
| Macron is not a fan of theses social policies, he is
| right leaning. His governement reduced labor protections,
| butchered educations, worsened public healthcare, and do
| nothing for the environment.
| lucasRW wrote:
| Economically right-leaning but culturally left-leaning,
| he's let in tens of thousands of migrants, does not expel
| them (cf. the "OQTF" stories pretty much every day), and
| on top of that, uses taxpayers money to fund them
| throughout the country.
| Kuinox wrote:
| You are mixing up stuff to fit your scenario. OQTF
| stories are up to police incompetence, not lax imposed by
| the governement. Culturally left-leaning if very bold
| given the recent pension reform debacle, bypassing any
| democratic recourse. Also very bold statement given the
| police repression of mosts of the protests.
|
| There is nothing Macron that is left leaning, relative to
| France politic spectrum.
| lucasRW wrote:
| "not lax imposed by the governement."
|
| >> Interesting. Right-leaning governement (if not "far-
| right" according to some), but has no control over
| illegal migrants routinely roaming around committing
| crimes. I thought a key marker of "the right" was being
| (too) strict on order and ruthless implementation of the
| law.
| Kuinox wrote:
| A governement doing badly it's job is a marker of
| corruption or incompetence, not political alignement.
| TurboHaskal wrote:
| > Economically right-leaning but culturally left-leaning.
|
| Ah yes, the current political Trojan horse.
| explorer83 wrote:
| Im not arguing the point. It's a sad state of affairs.
| But Le Pen was painted here as a female version of Trump.
| So that's why Macron was perceived as representative of
| French progressiveness.
| Kuinox wrote:
| Macron's minister of the interior, Gerald Darmanin,
| described Le Pen as "too soft". France is not a bi-party
| system, Macron is not progressive.
| ilyt wrote:
| The answer is same as with western commies, coz the
| ideals speak to them but they never lived by it and are
| aware of the bad stuff
| wott wrote:
| You always get only a really tiny window of information,
| selected by your medias, about foreign countries. (It
| doesn't matter which receiving country you are in, it is
| a general principle, not just about the USA).
|
| In France, we almost only hear about other countries
| politics when there is a chance for a far right party to
| gain something. As far as all other domains are
| concerned, we may from time to time get a funny/shocking
| miscellaneous news item, and that's it.
|
| Also, images/stereotypes about a country last a long
| time, long after they have stopped being true.
|
| Ironically, perhaps the only _emitting_ country that
| differs a bit is... the USA, for probably most countries
| over the planet are flooded with information and
| contemporary culture from the USA.
|
| For example, to get back a bit to the original subject,
| people may know the American police and justice system
| better than their own. Like, French people when they are
| arrested would believe that they have enforceable rights
| and that rigorous processes are respected. Ah!
|
| Once, in custody, I even had the impudence of requesting
| a lawyer as I was allowed to. LOL, no way. And it is not
| simply a problem of a rotten police: the prosecutor, the
| judges, they are all covering this up, it is the whole
| police+justice system which 'works' like this.
| h0nd wrote:
| What is really disturbing for me is that authorities go after
| such rather well behaving protesters instead of terrorists in
| disguise as protesters.
| senttoschool wrote:
| >When accused of authoritarian tendencies the government
| usually answers "go to China or North Korea to see what a
| dictatorship is like".
|
| China and North Korea exist on completely separate spectrums.
| conradfr wrote:
| I guess the day they only name North Korea we will know
| we're done.
| bad_login wrote:
| Ah ah like when we used to say : Russia, China and North
| Korea exist on completely separate spectrums.
| pokepim wrote:
| Honestly the west wanted for China to be more like us but
| in the end our power hungry politicians made us more like
| China. And we are on track to be even worse because there
| are some morons who are actually in favor of police state
| and "democratically" vote to be policed by the goverment
| and their cronies.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I was thinking about an uber or courier service that takes
| your phone for a walk
|
| Pretty much relying on the assumption that investigators will
| find stationary phones suspicious when they spy on you
|
| Could put them in those charging lockboxes seen as airports
| and festivals, the infrastructure is already there
|
| Guess I'll market it to climate activists in europe lol
|
| edit: maybe those delivery robots are even better couriers,
| since it fits the idea of getting a courier to come back to
| you better than an uber on the other side of town. risky but
| the fun kind.
| tempestn wrote:
| If a stationary phone is suspicious, imagine how suspicious
| it'll look when prosecutors show someone was using that
| service.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| strength in numbers
| zirgs wrote:
| Can you fake it with an app somehow instead?
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Antenas can ping your location and track your movements.
| There's nothing you can fake here.
| lugu wrote:
| Put your device in front of a vertical metallic plan and
| have it vertically rotating slowly. You are now walking
| around your house. Wouldn't this work?
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Walking around your house isn't evading anyone or
| anything, and it'd be too periodic.
|
| You need wider range, more chaos, but mainly consistent
| spoofed behaviour.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| A bunch of radios confusing thousands of gps devices seems
| better.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| Given most activists are at university or are associates
| with university attendees, you should target it to
| students. One downside would be that it would only work
| within term time.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Just leave the phone on a bus, somewhere hidden. Then
| "find" it later, or call the bus service if need be.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I want to charge people a subscription service
| cm2187 wrote:
| They have not been dissolved because they left their phone at
| home, they have been dissolved because it was a violent
| organisation that was systematically attacking the police and
| destroying property.
|
| And given the sort of stuff they brought to their protests:
| swords, machettes, baseball bats, jerrycan, bricks,
| fireworks, petanque balls, Molotov cocktails, fire bombs,
| etc, it is particularly disingenuous to pretend they have
| been dissolved for not talking to the police when arrested.
|
| You can read the actual decret in French:
| https://twitter.com/GDarmanin/status/1671450289298198528
| reddit_refugee3 wrote:
| [flagged]
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| Impressive mix of lies.
|
| The total value of items destroyed has been estimated to be
| about 8 million by the French state. While not a small
| number, I haven't seen the antiterrorist police be sent to
| the FNSEA's headquarters for their history of violence and
| destruction ever since 1960. It is part of their methods
| ever since their inception, but greasing some palms high up
| in the government certainly helps.
|
| >And given the sort of stuff they brought to their
| protests: swords, machettes, baseball bats, jerrycan,
| bricks, fireworks, petanque balls, Molotov cocktails, fire
| bombs, etc, it is particularly disingenuous to pretend they
| have been dissolved for not talking to the police when
| arrested.
|
| Violence. Is. Caused. By. The. Police. None of these, not a
| single one of these items were used until the police
| started indiscriminately tear gassing thousands of
| protesters, the vast majority of them peaceful. Five
| thousand grenades and weapons classified as war weapons
| used on protesters. Half of the items you mention were
| taken by the police with roadblocks more than twenty
| kilometers away. Sorry for driving with petanque balls in
| my trunk, I guess.
|
| >You can read the actual decret in French:
| https://twitter.com/GDarmanin/status/1671450289298198528
|
| Sure, let's read the sexual abuser, the national-socialist-
| journal-writing sack of shit's declaration. One part in
| particular is very interesting:
|
| Considerant d'autre part que le groupement SLT diffuse a
| ses membres et sympathisants, via ses reseaux sociaux, des
| modes operatoires directement inspires de ceux des <<Black
| Blocks>>; que parmi ces preconisations figurent le port de
| tenues interdisant leur identification par les forces de
| l'ordre, en contradiction avec les habitudes des militants
| ecologistes de manifester a visage decouvert, le fair de
| laisser son telephone mobile allume a son domicile ou de le
| mettre en <<mode avtion>> en arrivant sur les lieux de la
| manifestation pour eviter le bornage, le fait de ne pas
| communiquer les codes deverrouillage de l'appareil ou de ne
| pas repondre aux forces de l'ordre en cas d'interpellation;
| qu'y figurent egalement des consignes d'ordre medical <<en
| cas de necessite d'hospitalisation, dans la mesure du
| possible, se rendre dans un hopital eloigne de l'action,
| rester flou, ne pas donner son identite, prevoir de
| l'argent liquide>>; que par ailleurs est preconise le port
| du masque FFP3; de lunettes de protection contre les gaz;
| ...
|
| For the HNers that to not have the privilege to read the
| beautiful language of the country of Human Rights, where
| protesters get arbitrarily arrested in the hospital and in
| their homes, this is a translation of how they justify
| being a single step below "declaring ecologist protestors
| an actual terrorist group":
|
| Considering that the SLT group spreads to its members and
| sympathizers through social networks, operative modes
| directly inspired from those of <<Black Blocks>>; that
| amongst those suggestions include wearing outfits
| preventing their identification by the police forces; in
| contradiction with the habit of protesting with their face
| out usually had by ecologist protestors; the fact of
| leaving their mobile phones turned on in their homes or to
| put them in airplane mode when arriving at the protest to
| avoid triangulation; to refuse to communicate their
| passwords or to refuse to respond to the police when being
| arrested; that also contains medical related orders: <<in
| case of hospitalization, as much as possible, go to a
| hospital far away from the action, stay quiet, do not give
| your identity, have some cash>>; that wearing FFP3 masks
| and gas protection glasses is recommended...
|
| Want to add some more ? Sure. They arrested an EELV member
| that was not present at any of the protests. Why ? Because
| he left his phone at home and used it in airplane mode. htt
| ps://twitter.com/marinetondelier/status/16714362394494935..
| .?
| Namari wrote:
| > Violence. Is. Caused. By. The. Police. None of these,
| not a single one of these items were used until the
| police started indiscriminately tear gassing thousands of
| protesters, the vast majority of them peaceful. Five
| thousand grenades and weapons classified as war weapons
| used on protesters.
|
| It's obvious violence must have existed from both side.
| It's a bit obvious you're from the far left, just be
| neutral.
| [deleted]
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Thanks for the traduction; I haven't seen an account of
| this yet in UK media.
| 93po wrote:
| Okay, so if the government ever wants to shut anything down
| for any reason, get a few dozen goon squad members to show
| up as fellow protestors with weapons and cause property
| damage and smack cops around a little bit?
| skitout wrote:
| They indeed sometimes destroyed some properties
|
| But you cannot blame them for the violence in the protest
| they co-organized. People are free to attend the protest,
| and they cannot control them. They never called for
| violence against police. And most protest now in France
| have some people fighting with the police.
|
| The same way you can see firefighters throwing stuff
| (including petanque ball) to police during firefighers
| protest. But you cannot blame the firefigheter union for
| this.
| newsclues wrote:
| If some Neo-nazis co-organize a protest, and it becomes
| violent, do you blame the neo-nazis?
|
| Just wondering if your reasoning is based on logic or
| political sides.
| skitout wrote:
| Depend which kind of Neo-Nazi organization (they are
| illegal in France and most of them in France do like to
| punch people and say it), and co-organized with whom, and
| depend on what is saying these Neo-Nazi
|
| But for sure I do blame Neo-Nazi for being Neo-Nazi !
| newsclues wrote:
| What about just regular fascists then? Do you blame
| fascists for violence, perhaps caused by communists?
| JustBreath wrote:
| [flagged]
| kbelder wrote:
| Have to call you out to give you credit, that was an
| elegant riposte.
| ilyt wrote:
| If it happens once it's accident, if it happens
| constantly, its their responsibility if not starting a
| protest at all would prevent the violence
|
| And if they put their label on it it's their
| responsibility.
| mistermann wrote:
| Just because someone is a catalyst, I don't see how it
| logically and necessarily follows that 100% of the causal
| responsibility falls on them.
|
| This seems objectively reductive and represents
| ideological beliefs as objective facts.
|
| Maybe the masses are upset and this is a sign of things
| to come, that should be listened to.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| > ..., petanque balls, ...
|
| While I won't argue with the fact that these are indeed
| formidable missiles, it does make for a unique French
| touch.
| yohannparis wrote:
| > "Eh Roger, tu tire ou tu pointe sur le CRS !?"
| sofixa wrote:
| The law doesn't say being suspicious is criminal, but that
| organising with the intent to commit terrorism is, and that's
| what the prosecutor's will have to prove.
|
| The real, actual problem is the unlawful detention.
|
| > And, amongst other things, using Signal and Linux with the
| encryption-on settings are explicitly listed as some of the
| things making them suspicious in the eyes of the law.
|
| In combination with other things, and in this article there are
| quotes from interrogations which explicitly ask "have you
| organised illegal activities through encrypted chat
| communications".
| heywhatupboys wrote:
| > The real, actual problem is the unlawful detention.
|
| how is this defined?
| Aeolun wrote:
| > have you organised illegal activities through encrypted
| chat communications
|
| _If_ I did, why in hells name would I tell you?
|
| Why would you ask that in the first place? To catch out the
| incredibly dumb terrorists?
| martin8412 wrote:
| If you lie, they can either put you in prison or deport you
| if you are not a citizen.
| icefo wrote:
| To put you in prison if they find by some mean you did.
|
| The mean could be a 5$ wrench, hacking into your devices or
| plain old surveillance
| raverbashing wrote:
| Yeah, as much as saying 'using encrypted communications' is a
| very cheap shot by the prosecution, this seems to be the gist
| of it, the combination and the organization
| [deleted]
| derelicta wrote:
| It's understandable yet sad that actively fighting against
| reactionnary movements puts you on a watchlist. Freedom
| fighters being equated to terrorists once again...
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| I use linux, signal and ublock, I listen to political
| debates, and I'm seldom a freedom fighter.
|
| They are basically saying "if you close the door of the
| toilets when you poop, you are suspicious".
| mantas wrote:
| [flagged]
| lannisterstark wrote:
| >That's a very subjective view.
|
| I don't think fighting for your civil rights is a 'very
| subjective view.'
|
| If you don't think people should have their civil rights,
| the questionable position isn't the activists'.
| mantas wrote:
| Historically far left loves to take away civil rights
| just like any other extremists.
| lannisterstark wrote:
| Problem is not that fighting for your civil right makes
| you a far left, problem is the potential definition you
| may have of the far left.
|
| If the people were advocating for a state-incorporated
| everything ala Soviet style communism, I'd agree with
| you. They aren't.
| mantas wrote:
| Another problem is how people define civil rights. We're
| past the point when ,,civil rights" or ,,human rights"
| had an universal meaning.
|
| You want democracy? Good. You want to limit corporations
| to make sure small businesses stand a fair chance? Ok.
| You want to touch personal property, cancel opponents or
| abolish borders/police/military/etc? Russian boat that
| way.
| logicprog wrote:
| > abolish borders/police/military/etc? Russian boat that
| way.
|
| Ah yes, Soviet Russia, known for... Uh... Not having
| borders, police, or military.
|
| Come on man. Not all far left ideologies are
| authoritarian, there's a whole authoritarian-libertarian
| axis. Many far leftists hate authoritarians, including
| left wing authoritarians like state socialists, as much
| as you do.
| mantas wrote:
| Soviet Russia did abolish many borders, police forces and
| militaries... To enforce their own :)
|
| So far I've met two types of far-left. Flat-out
| authoritarians. Or ,,non-authoritarians" who stay silent
| on implementation of their ideas. Probably because their
| ideas can be implemented (and, more importantly, kept in
| place) either authoritarian methods. Or full support in
| society, which is unrealistic.
| hkt wrote:
| It is worth remembering that France got its current constitution
| in a bloodless coup:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1958_crisis_in_France
|
| It amazes me that the constitution that was put in place then is
| largely unchanged today, insofar as the French president is still
| incredibly powerful, parliament is subservient, and the electoral
| system is deeply majoritarian.
|
| I don't know exactly _what_ it says about a society that it keeps
| a constitution that was imposed this way, but it isn 't anything
| good. The frank craziness in this article (F-Droid, lol) is in
| keeping with that.
| wott wrote:
| No, the President in France has little power.
|
| 1. He can call for new elections of the Assembly (not of the
| Senate) ;
|
| 2. He names the Prime Minister and chooses to accept or not the
| government the Prime Minister then proposes ;
|
| 3. He's got minor powers regarding foreign policy.
|
| And that's it.
|
| Now what goes against the President:
|
| a. Regarding [2.] which may seem a major power: the Prime
| Minister and his government can be kicked out basically at any
| moment by a vote of the Assembly. So there is no way the
| President could pick a Prime Minister and a government that
| doesn't suit the Assembly. Basically, the Assembly has the last
| word on it, and keeps this power all along the legislature.
|
| b. The government decides and leads the policy (politics?) of
| the nation (article 20: <<Le Gouvernement determine et conduit
| la politique de la nation.>>): the President is not supposed to
| have a say about it.
|
| c. Once the President has named the Prime Minister, he cannot
| remove him. Nor can he remove any other minister. Only the
| Assembly can do it.
|
| The problem is not the constitution. The problem is that the
| constitution hasn't got a sacred role as in the USA, and
| everyone in the various positions of power wipes his ass with
| it.
|
| So, all what gradually happened more and more in the last few
| years, is Members of the Parliament voluntarily de facto
| abdicating their powers to the Government, and members of the
| Government voluntarily de facto abdicating their powers to the
| President. In the end they mostly take orders from above and
| act and vote as they are told to. Just because they enjoy their
| seat...
| boricj wrote:
| As a French, we tend to change political regimes every so
| often. Since 1789 we've had five republics, two empires and a
| couple of other things. I would bet that I'll outlive the fifth
| republic because of that.
|
| If anything, keeping the same constitution for more than 230
| years is a horrifying thought to me.
| lucasRW wrote:
| The president who set up this constitution is the only
| president who stepped down on his own after losing a vote at
| the Senate. I think you are a bit weak on the intricacies of
| the French political system/history, not even mentioning the
| fact that if you want to play that game, pretty much any
| political system was never self-generated and was by definition
| kickstarted by another system previously...
| JimWestergren wrote:
| Related: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when
| searching the web https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/fbi-recommends-
| ad-blocker-on...
| jacknews wrote:
| Oh dear, they used to be able to monitor everything through
| alcatel backdoors.
|
| I guess they lost that ability now, and are trying to criminalize
| private communication.
| lloeki wrote:
| This article should be taken with care: La Quadrature Du Net is a
| stark defender of liberties (which is good, we need those more
| than ever), but I found they have a tendency to cherry-pick what
| aligns with their views to dramatic effect.
|
| I'm not saying there is no cause for concern - there usually is -
| but more often than not they have this tendency to overlook some
| elements and overblow some others to serve their narrative.
|
| My recommendation would be to carefully read the source material
| and cross-read other reports to form one's opinion.
| Qiu_Zhanxuan wrote:
| There is a big cause for concern; our secret service deems
| anybody using encryption tools as a quasi-terrorist.
| lloeki wrote:
| I agree there is cause for concern, I just find the narrative
| style to be of disservice and detracts from the issue, as it
| appears to me that the use of a catastrophist, panic-
| inducing, anger-laden tone and structure is a mechanism to
| buy people into their view through fear instead of reason,
| which in turn drives the wrong response for addressing the
| issue.
|
| IOW the good part is that they're fact driven, the bad part
| is that they cherry-pick and use doomsday FUD-like tactics to
| drive their point home.
| mbgerring wrote:
| I mean, isn't everybody?
| someweirdperson wrote:
| Wasn't there a time when French FidoNet could not exchange zipped
| mail, because that would be considered encryption? Maybe my
| memory is inventing things though.
| hkt wrote:
| I'm not sure, but encryption was outlawed entirely in France
| until 1999 or so:
| https://www.theregister.com/1999/01/15/france_to_end_severe_...
| getrealal wrote:
| I laughed at this part:
|
| >French minister for the economy and finance, Domenica
| Strauss-Khan, has said she wishes to liberalise
|
| Dominique Strauss-Kahn (they also butchered his last name) is
| definitely not a woman (but it's a "mixed" name indeed, that
| both men and women can have).
|
| Back in those days it was also illegal to share radio
| frequencies used by the military (since comms were not always
| encrypted; details about frequency and modulation were
| secret), and a guy got prosecuted for doing just that.
| nologic01 wrote:
| The constitute project [1] (which I just discovered and seems
| like a fantastic initiative) offers a way to compare what
| different countries' constitutions say about citizen's right to
| privacy. Apparently 174 countries have some provision that is in
| force. France does not appear at all on this topic. Not sure if
| its some technical / linguistic reason.
|
| [1]
| https://www.constituteproject.org/constitutions?lang=en&key=...
| exabrial wrote:
| le haha! I just re-installed! Now go away or I shall taunt you a
| second time!
| fghorow wrote:
| "I fart in your general direction."
| </ObMontyPythonOutrageousFrenchAccent>
| dorianmariefr wrote:
| lol I use uBlock Origin
| hunglee2 wrote:
| We should ask Signal users to prove the negative, or less be
| deemed guilty and subject to sanctioning.
| ggm wrote:
| Users of the telephone, the postal system are potentially
| terrorists. Users of speech in groups of two or more people are
| potentially conspirators. Simply to think is to be a potential
| terrorist.
| beremaki wrote:
| Situation in France will not end well.
|
| Both rule of law and liberal democracy are increasingly damaged.
| Our institutions are so weak that we are one election away from a
| complete disaster.
|
| Our constitution always concentrated a lot of power in the hand
| of the president but there is no effective counter-power left.
| The government set multiple precedent that violate freedom of
| assembly and association and parliamentary rights. I skipped a
| lot of authoritarian practice that happened and are still
| happening but the situation is egregiously bad
|
| I don't say that because I am a political opponent. I voted for
| this government in 2017, I am a founder, I am pro business. But
| also I am a father of two and I would rather raise my children in
| a democracy.
|
| I am seriously pessimistic about this situation. EU knows and
| complains about Poland & Hungary but France is going to be a
| shitshow of a far worse magnitude. We should NOT get a pass
| because Macron knows how to play the game
| tokai wrote:
| This sounds like the normal mode for french politics. How many
| times has your government collapsed over the last 200 years?
| You're on the 5th republic or something right?
| gorjusborg wrote:
| Better to have governments collapse than allow society to
| collapse.
|
| I can't claim to be an expert in French politics, but harmful
| government should not be allowed to be stable.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| To be fair, a bunch of these happened because of wars, we
| didn't really control these ones.
|
| The other bunch happened because they were precariously
| unstable governments.
| barrysteve wrote:
| Yep and compared to European history this is tame.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| France kinda has a history of things going bad, their rulers
| overreaching, and people then taking matters into their own
| heads,...
|
| I somehow hope this time it can end less violently, but with
| how much (a lot of french) people hate macron, you never
| know...
|
| The larger problem is, that it is spreading to other countries
| and EU itself (just think of how many times EU tried to
| stop/backdoor/outlaw encryption). Add a new upcoming crisis,
| recession in germany and the long-term problems brought with eu
| expansion, and things are about to get even worse.
| raxxorraxor wrote:
| I think the situation in France is quite similar to other EU
| countries, even the formerly holy nordic ones.
|
| > [...] l'utilisation de messageries chiffrees grand public,
| sont instrumentalisees comme autant de << preuves >> d'une soi-
| disant << clandestinite >> qui ne peut s'expliquer que par
| l'existence d'un projet terroriste.
|
| Sure, using encryption must mean I have terroistic ambitions...
| they say public officials lack creativity, but... but at least
| the government got convicted for their attempts at prosecution.
| Means the justice system is still functioning.
| kome wrote:
| very very well said
| nunja wrote:
| Frenchman, pro business too. Completely share your analysis.
| This is slowly turning into a shit democrature.
| flashfaffe2 wrote:
| Short debate on the same topic on french TV:
|
| https://youtu.be/5Sf6hdnSqS4
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Classic French answer confusing the fairly good situation in
| the country for a disaster.
|
| France has been for the past sixty years and remains an
| extremely technocratic country. Counter-powers are still
| everywhere in the administration. The judiciary system is fully
| independent and works well. The balance between the parliament
| and the executive is extremely in favour of the president
| (which is still elected every five years during free elections)
| but counter-powers exist. They can't be used by the opposition
| because despite spending all their time crying wolf and
| explaining this is the end of the world, they remain a minority
| and have nothing to propose anyway.
|
| The issue in France remains the same it has always been. The
| population is old, largely apathetic and would much rather be
| on the dole than produce anything of value. Meanwhile the
| unions are extremely unrepresentative of the population as a
| whole and remain stuck in the Trotskyist heydays of the past.
| Guthur wrote:
| Oh yeah everyone must work harder, for some reason we have
| more technology than ever before and more people than ever
| before, but we all must work harder.
|
| There's enough food and energy if we so choose but no;
| artificial crisis from coughs to barbarian hordes on the
| horizon mean you must be poorer and work harder.
|
| We could all just actually wake up and realise they are lying
| they are always lying. They dare not tell the truth for you'd
| realise how much they lie when truth would shine so bright.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| You are confused. The issue is not about working harder.
| The issue is with producing value.
|
| I have yet to met a protester who can explain to me how
| burning cars and picketing is going to magically move down
| the median age of the population which is slowly but surely
| drifting towards 50. Considering most French also don't
| want to rely on immigration (not that the country is
| attractive anyway), I guess they are either planning to
| force people to make kids at gunpoint or are strongly in
| denial.
|
| Don't hesitate to explain who is this mysterious "they" who
| are apparently responsible of everything wrong in the
| country.
| FreelanceX wrote:
| > EU knows and complains about Poland & Hungary but France is
| going to be a shitshow of a far worse magnitude.
|
| I am French too and this sounds greatly exaggerated. Either you
| don't really know about the situation in Hungary or you have a
| very twisted view of what's happening in France (maybe induced
| by the medias). You should take a step back.
| Trencin wrote:
| "Either you don't really know about the situation in France
| or you have a very twisted view of what's happening in
| Hungary /Poland (maybe induced by the medias). You should
| take a step back"
| jle17 wrote:
| There is definitely a tendency to authoritarianism and
| confusionism from the current government, directed at
| political opposition.
|
| "Security" laws extending the powers of the police and
| creating new ways to criminalize protest have been passed at
| a constant rhythm over the years since Sarkozy's time. After
| the state of urgency of 2015, part of the dispositions where
| simply put into law permanently.
|
| Police has been increasingly violent during protests,
| bringing back old forbidden tactics and squads formerly
| dissolved for their violence (voltigeurs).
|
| While there has been no dissolution of leftist movement and
| no political violence from the left since "action directe" in
| the 80's, there have been multiple ones (or attempts) in
| recent times, like the one from yesterday of an ecological
| movement.
|
| Anti-terrorist laws are used to detain ecologists or
| protesters indefinitely, like in the case of the "8th
| november" affair from this topic, which has seen a person
| kept in solitary (hence, tortured) for 16 months without even
| being convicted.
| qsdf38100 wrote:
| [flagged]
| HourglassFR wrote:
| > You are attacking the wrong target. You are missing the
| big picture.
|
| This is rich comming from someone putting Melenchon,
| basically an old school socialist (in the werstern Europe
| sense), in the same bag as Le Pen and Zemmour who are as
| far-right as it gets in Europe.
|
| I agree that the situation is not very readable, but at
| least let's try to have a point of view consistent with
| the political history of the last few decades.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Le Pen is not "as far-right as it gets" and neither is
| Zemmour.
|
| Melenchon is very left-wing, started as a Trostkist and
| is good friend Venezuela's Maduro, against the capitalist
| system, etc. So if you think Le Pen is extreme on one
| side then Melenchon has to be equally extreme on the
| other side.
| HourglassFR wrote:
| > Melenchon [...] started as a Trostkist
|
| So did more than half of the socialist party elit
| (elephant du PS), even freaking Cambadelis, are you
| suggesting he's far left to ?
|
| > against the capitalist system
|
| Well yes, almost by definition of being on the left I
| would argue.
|
| > So if you think Le Pen is extreme on one side then
| Melenchon has to be equally extreme on the other side.
|
| No, this is a false equivalence. I mean the far-left as a
| political position does exist in France, but it is not
| represented by Melenchon who is still largely a
| socialist, although the actual socialist party has
| significantly shifted rightward in the 10's so there is a
| perception issue there.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| The socialist party effectively no longer exists because
| its right wing has been absorbed by Macron and its left
| wing by Melenchon and friends. So now we're left with a
| large effectively far left group with Melenchon,
| Communist Party, LFI, etc.
|
| My take on left-wing politics since the 1990s is that the
| fall of Communist/Solialist countries has made the old
| agenda difficult to sell so it's rehashed, repackaged,
| but at its core it's still the same. We've also seen that
| in the UK with Corbyn and McDonnell.
|
| One thing in France is that it is usually better viewed
| to be far on the left than far on the right. For
| instance, the Communist Party are almost seen as nice
| guys these days...
|
| Another point is that you do not explain why Le Pen is
| more extremist than Melenchon/LFI, etc.
| dtoma wrote:
| Who is "as far-right as it gets" if not these two? (in
| any country you want, not necessarily France)
| qsdf38100 wrote:
| Yet there are lot of striking similarities. Lying,
| distorting reality to the absurd, openly supporting
| dictators, smoke-screen tactics, obstruction, inversion
| of reality, accusing others of things they are guilty.
| "Macron is a wanabee dictator!!".
|
| In February 2022, Zemour, MLP and Melenchon were all
| supporting Putin, his stance against the "evil US",
| saying that Putin would never invade Ukraine, that it was
| all US propaganda being spoon-fed to Europe. Then the
| invasion happened. Then they blamed the invasion on US,
| of course, and questioned the reports of war crimes, and
| justified Russia aggression by saying it was defending
| against "NATO aggression". But then, when Russia started
| to loose, they became "pacifists", saying NATO was
| prolonging the war by helping Ukraine...
|
| If they were Russian assets, they wouldn't behave much
| differently...
|
| Same smell on both sides of the political spectrum. Who
| would have thought? Crazy, right? Like, imagine if far-
| right Hitler made a secret pact with the communist Soviet
| Union. Sounds familiar?
| wholinator2 wrote:
| And you are arguing with fallacies and emotion. Asking
| broad question to bring emotion without actually backing
| that up factually. Straw manning the others argument by
| reducing it to dislike of physical appearance, or simply
| directed stupidity. And then making vague assertions that
| they are "missing the big picture".
|
| Please, friend, instead of attacking the man you should
| attack the argument. Give us the why to all of these
| assertions. What is the bigger picture? What actually
| could go wrong? Argue with facts please. Let's not turn
| this into a flame war
| qsdf38100 wrote:
| I agree my tone is inappropriate. I just can't help it,
| when it's about completely missing the big picture,
| blaming the wrong persons, and falling into fascist-like
| tactics and traps.
|
| Here's a copy paste of my other comments, I hope it gives
| some elements of answer:
|
| 1. Just google Melenchon and Bolivarian alliance.
| Melenchon dreams of making France be part of an alliance
| with Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, to name a few, with Iran
| and Russia as observer members. Sounds like he loves
| "democracy". He also had some crazy outbursts, screaming
| things like, "I AM THE REPUBLIC", on camera, that would
| have ended any other politician career. But he gets a
| pass, somehow.
|
| 2. In February 2022, Zemour, MLP and Melenchon were all
| supporting Putin, his stance against the "evil US",
| saying that Putin would never invade Ukraine, that it was
| all US propaganda being spoon-fed to Europe. Then the
| invasion happened. Then they blamed the invasion on US,
| of course, and questioned the reports of war crimes, and
| justified Russia aggression by saying it was defending
| against "NATO aggression". But then, when Russia started
| to loose, they became "pacifists", saying NATO was
| prolonging the war by helping Ukraine...
|
| If they were Russian assets, they wouldn't behave much
| differently...
|
| Same smell on both sides of the political spectrum. Who
| would have thought? Crazy, right? Like, imagine if far-
| right Hitler made a secret pact with the communist Soviet
| Union. Sounds familiar?
| skitout wrote:
| Not sure what Melenchon is doing in its list as one of it
| core element of its political platform is to have a new
| constitution with less power to the president, more
| counter powers, more power "to the people"
| qsdf38100 wrote:
| Just google Melenchon and Bolivarian alliance. Melenchon
| dreams of making France be part of an alliance with Cuba,
| Venezuela, Bolivia, to name a few, with Iran and Russia
| as observer members. Sounds like he loves "democracy". He
| also had some crazy outbursts, screaming things like, "I
| AM THE REPUBLIC", on camera, that would have ended any
| other politician career. But he gets a pass, somehow.
| skitout wrote:
| I am not a fan of Melenchon. I find problematic his taste
| for the Bolivarian alliance, or his defense of Cuba. I
| find problematic the lack of democracy in his political
| party.
|
| But a new constitution with more democracy is still one
| of the center piece of his political agenda, and the
| political agenda of his party. That is not the case of
| any other major party I think. And there is no reason to
| believe his party would not act at least partially on it
| if elected.
|
| He's been mocked big time for his "support" of Venezuela
| or his outbursts... But Macron and many other French
| political figures faced bigger scandal without having
| their career ended ! Why such a focus on Melenchon ?
| rand0m4r wrote:
| Do you really think he's being honest?
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| LePen won 41% of the vote. She could easily win.
|
| The US barely survived as a democracy under Trump. It was
| literally a matter of Pence refusing to play along and the
| secret service refusing to put Trump on the Capitol so he
| could take charge of the rioters.
|
| The US has far more protections than France with a much
| weaker president. Yet, it had a coup attempt that barely
| failed.
|
| It's not unlikely that democracy in France will not survive
| LePen.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > It's not unlikely that democracy in France will not
| survive LePen.
|
| Not sure what you meant but I would say that it is not
| likely that democracy in France will survive LePen.
|
| She's just like her dad (or even worse) but much more savvy
| about the packaging.
| atlantic wrote:
| [flagged]
| wholinator2 wrote:
| Well we can't say he didn't do anything strange. Firing
| huge portions of the state department to replace them
| with loyalists, attempting to dismantle the EPA (the only
| agency keeping track of aging nuclear submarines and, you
| know, that whole climate change thing), exiting the Iran
| nuclear deal for essentially nothing. Those are just from
| the top of my head but apart from the constant social
| faux-pas being signal boosted to the entire world, there
| was a very long chain of legitimately frightening actions
| that led to fears about him being relatively justified.
| Then there's the whole "big lie" and all the actions
| leading up to it. No one could rightly say he _wasn't_
| attempting to seize continued power. I don't think it was
| like a full military coup, but there were definitely
| concerning actions
| superq wrote:
| > the only agency keeping track of aging nuclear
| submarines
|
| citation needed. Even the EPA's own page provides the
| actual agency "keeping track" of them:
|
| https://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuclear-submarines-and-
| aircraft-...
|
| (hint: it's the DOD and Navy, right at the top of "where
| to learn more")
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>The US barely survived as a democracy under Trump.
|
| what??
|
| >>It was literally a matter of Pence refusing to play along
| and the secret service refusing to put Trump on the Capitol
|
| Things that never happened for 1000 Alex....
|
| Even if Pence has "played along" the outcome would have
| been the same, this narrative that the US was on the
| "razor's edge of democratic collapse" is insanity.
|
| >>with a much weaker president.
|
| The current problem has come about because for the last
| several decades (almost 100 years), and with an accelerated
| pace we have consolidated more and more power into the
| federal government at large, and the office of president
| via the creation of a massive administrative "4th" branch
| of government that should be unconstitutional on its face.
|
| The problem is not who or what office has the power. The
| problem is power itself...
|
| The only rational way to curb the corrupting influence of
| power is to limit it, and distribute it as far and wide as
| possible
|
| Any concentration of power is bad
| gwd wrote:
| > Even if Pence has "played along" the outcome would have
| been the same, this narrative that the US was on the
| "razor's edge of democratic collapse" is insanity.
|
| All my friends in Classics, familiar with stories about
| how ancient coups worked, were terrified. You really
| think that if Pence had refused to certify the vote, and
| had instead "certified" some alternate set of electors,
| and Trump and all his faction had claimed uniform
| victory, that somehow the army & police and everyone else
| would have stood against it? At best we'd've had a civil
| war.
| indymike wrote:
| > At best we'd've had a civil war.
|
| The best part of that January was that a coup and/or
| civil war did not happen. The US got on with business. It
| could have went bad, but it did not do so.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > The best part ... was that a coup ... did not happen
|
| Strong disagree: a half-assed, incompetently executed,
| failed bank robbery is still classed as and prosecuted as
| "bank robbery", there is no separate legal category for
| "attempted bank robbery".
|
| It's the same with a failed coup. "the coup failed
| pathetically" is categorically different from "a coup did
| not happen".
| Arainach wrote:
| A coup doesn't have to be successful to be a coup.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| > _Any concentration of power is bad_
|
| Multiple failed, weak democracies that were subsequently
| replaced by dictatorships, several in France, would beg
| to differ.
|
| It's a balance between centralization (stability) and
| decentralization (individualism).
|
| Too much of either is corrosive.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| [flagged]
| Joker_vD wrote:
| During the Trump/Biden elections, I distinctly remember
| the "these elections probably are also being manipulated
| by the Russians right now" narrative being dropped the
| moment it became obvious that Biden's winning. Well, if
| the right candidate wins, the elections must have been
| fair.
| icefo wrote:
| The elections can be skewed with different kind of
| manipulation (social media, troll farms, electronic
| ballot hacks) and the popular candidate can still win.
|
| It's fair to assume Putin would try to influence the
| elections in trump's favor as he would have been
| beneficial for him.
|
| The Ukraine invasion would have been much easier if trump
| had been relelected, finished pulling out of nato and
| kept the more isolationist policy that was in effect
| during trump.
|
| IMO trump was also doing a lot of damage to the US and
| it's position on the world stage which is also beneficial
| for Putin.
| lucasRW wrote:
| [flagged]
| xinayder wrote:
| And even if democracy ends up dying in France, the French
| have the history of overthrowing governments; they did it
| several times before, they can do it again if push comes to
| shove.
| beremaki wrote:
| What I say is that IF France becomes an illiberal democracy,
| it is going to be far worse for EU than what happened in
| Hungary. Hungary and France are absolutely not on the same
| scale
| piokoch wrote:
| Wait for the next election in Germany. AfD has just climbed
| to the 2nd place with 20% of support and is still growing.
| Believe or not, one day you will miss someone like Orban.
| account42 wrote:
| And of course the response from the other parties is to
| see if they can ban the AfD instead of realizing that
| this is their own doing by continously ignoring the
| interest of the voters who are then easily swayed by a
| populist party (or just voting AfD because none of the
| other options are good either).
| skitout wrote:
| Germany power is less centralized, with more powerful
| counter-power than Hungary , reducing the risk of seeing
| an Orban like situation.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Germany tends to have 1.34 liberal-ish governments
| followed by sixteen years of conservatives.
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| The situation is a bit less dire than that thankfully.
|
| 2/3rds of AfD supporters claim to be doing it as a
| protest vote. And that they don't support the AfD. Just
| like with brexit.
|
| There's still time for an alternative before all of
| Europe goes in with fascism again.
| reddit_refugee3 wrote:
| >just like with Brexit
|
| And how did that "protest vote" go for the UK?
| jacquesm wrote:
| > 2/3rds of AfD supporters claim to be doing it as a
| protest vote.
|
| You don't vote for proto fascists as a protest vote.
| Especially not when you're German.
| hnbad wrote:
| Well, you do, but not if you don't already find their
| views palatable.
|
| There is a large undercurrent of reactionary hateful
| views in German politics that usually hides behind the
| fig leaf of "conservatism" but has become more visible
| thanks to parties like CSU openly copying AfD talking
| points and "liberal" media being unequipped to handle
| them in any other way than giving them a platform and
| hoping that the "marketplace of ideas" saves the day. Of
| course as we now know from experience, "rational debate"
| is impotent in a "post-truth" environment.
|
| It's a widespread misconception that Germany got rid of
| all the Nazis and Nazi ideology during the so-called
| "Denazification" ( _Entnazifizierung_ ).
|
| While there were formal reviews of the innumerable former
| NSDAP members to determine their ideology and behavior
| under Nazi rule, only the most blatant offenders faced
| any consequences and it was demonstrably easy to "cheat"
| (i.e. we now know based on a better understanding of
| historical records that some people were able to hide
| very incriminating evidence of their involvement in e.g.
| forced labor and Jewish persecution) and any undesirable
| rulings could be appealed to offer another opportunity to
| "correct the record" so to say. As a consequence, many
| Nazis saw no real consequences and even ended up in the
| same positions of power because their job experience made
| them the most qualified (and "innocent until proven
| guilty", right?).
|
| Additionally, many former NSDAP members went on to
| continue working in politics. Of the parties still
| relevant today, the conservative CDU/CSU received the
| lions share of them, in addition to those formerly
| associated with the likewise Christian "center party"
| which while ostensibly "politically moderate" was one of
| the driving forces in the rise of the NSDAP and the
| passing of the Enabling Act dissolving the democracy.
|
| In East Germany, likewise many former NSDAP members ended
| up in the equivalent of the CDU/CSU (known as CDU in East
| Germany at the time and CDUD or _Ost-CDU_ in West
| Germany), the NDPD and the LDPD (the East Germany
| equivalents of the market liberal West German FDP, the
| NDPD explicitly being created to target "unimpacted" ex-
| NSDAP members and siphon off conservative voters who
| would otherwise have supported the CDU or LPDP), all of
| which continued to exist as an executive organ[1] of the
| ruling unity party until 1989.
|
| It's also worth pointing out the East Germany was even
| less rigurous in its "Denazification" (Stalin ended the
| program in 1948 insisting that it was time to stop
| distinguishing between ex-NSDAP and non-NSDAP and instead
| focus on growing democracy) and the SED was uniquely ill-
| equipped to deal with neo-Nazis when they arose,
| previously already having viewed "unimpacted" NSDAP
| members as politically confused rather than genuinely
| dangerous. For some it was literally impossible to
| imagine neo-Nazis could exist in East Germany because
| they saw the rise of the Nazis as a response to
| capitalism and East Germany was supposed to be non-
| capitalist[2]. For this reason, East Germany was however
| (like the USSR) quite successful at fighting other
| leftist currents, which were seen as misguided or even
| "capitalist" (as the only valid form of anti-capitalism
| was clearly that practiced by the government and opposing
| it therefore must be capitalist).
|
| So in essence Germany has never weaned itself off
| fascism, really. While Germany has become generally more
| progressive compared to the 1930s, in some ways it is
| also still less progressive than it was during the Weimar
| era. A lot of leftist politics also died even before the
| suppression under the Nazis, the suppression under the
| SED or the suppression under the Cold War era anti-
| communist West Germany: while many know about the in-
| fighting between the SPD and the USPD after WW1,
| culminating in a massacre at the hands of monarchist
| paramilitaries, there were also numerous other leftist
| mass deaths such as the two(!) socialist republics in
| Bavaria, which eventually also fell victim to the
| monarchists.
|
| In other words, it shouldn't be surprising that we still
| have monarchist terrorist groups ( _Reichsburger_ )
| treated with more bewilderment than horror, whereas the
| closest we have to leftist activism is moderates gluing
| themselves to public roads to demand incremental climate
| protection legislation, and two so-called leftist parties
| that hate each others guts and one of which has almost
| fully embraced neoliberalism (the SPD implemented the
| neoliberal reforms of weakening labor protections, social
| welfare and medical care some 20 years ago).
|
| The AfD is a protest vote in as much as Trump is a
| protest vote. They're not something you usually bring up
| in polite conversation but they have easy answers and
| push all the right (wing) faux-populist buttons.
|
| [1]: Point of pedantry: East Germany quickly established
| a system with a single ruling party, the SED or
| "socialist unity party". However the CDU, NDPD and LDPD
| continued to exist as "block parties" and began
| increasingly aligning themselves with the ruling SED. The
| "block parties" were infamously nepotistic and provided a
| relatively easy path to political power and privileges
| compared to the dominant SED.
|
| [2]: Point of pedantry: East Germany was not "communist"
| although it was at times framed as "Stalinist". East
| Germany instead eventually used the label "real existing
| socialism" (along with some other Eastern block
| countries) which was intended to frame anyone left of the
| ruling party as "utopian" and unserious. This "it's
| already as good as it gets" position is distinct from
| other so-called "communist" countries which often used
| the term aspirationally, claiming they would eventually
| achieve the communist ideal after reaching a tipping
| point (allowing the state to "wither away"). Both are
| distinct from anarcho-communists who would argue that if
| you try to build a state to achieve communism, "real
| existing socialism" really is the best you can hope for
| because states don't wither away voluntarily and you can
| only grow communism from the ground up (cf.
| prefigurativism).
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Police and justice in particular were largely unscathed
| by "denazification". People like the fervent nazi anti-
| semite Willi Geiger, who was among other things a Special
| Prosecutor at a Special Nazi Court (with a death toll,
| having personally pressed and seen to the public
| execution of an 18yo suspected gay among other people),
| went on to preside at the supreme court and later became
| the longest serving federal constitutional judge of
| germany and also leaked all court internals to the
| adenauer government, are just the tip of a very brown ice
| berg.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Factually correct as far as I can tell. Painful though.
| I've met some Germans of 'a certain age' in the 80's and
| none of them ever owned up to what they were up to during
| the war. Also a good number of them claimed to be Swiss
| but turned out to be Germans after all. Lots of
| whitewashing there.
| AnonCoward42 wrote:
| > 2/3rds of AfD supporters claim to be doing it as a
| protest vote. And that they don't support the AfD. Just
| like with brexit.
|
| > There's still time for an alternative before all of
| Europe goes in with fascism again.
|
| AfD => fascism. Argumentum ad Hitlerum basically. Does
| Germany really need more migration? More identity
| kamikaze? More publicly financed propaganda (ARD, ZDF,
| DW, plenty "N"GOs)? More provocation towards Russia for
| no god damn reason? More climate hysteria (and the
| unevitable destruction of enviroment for it)?
|
| Which party would you choose instead? They all stand for
| the same thing with different velocity except ... yeah,
| exactly.
| hnbad wrote:
| The AfD may not be literally a fascist party, but it does
| have a prominent right-wing extremist faction that
| includes several of its most widely known members such as
| this man:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rn_H%C3%B6cke
|
| I think arguing about the accuracy of labels like "nazi"
| or "fascist" is a bit beside the point. You and I both
| know the people calling the AfD fascist or nazi won't
| suddenly like it better if you can convince them they
| don't meet the exact definition of fascism or are
| identical to the historical National Socialist Democratic
| Workers Party. It's clearly more about a vibe, but that
| is also true for the AfD's own political ideology (and
| yours, apparently, if you think "identity kamikaze" is 1)
| a thing that is happening and 2) something to be
| seriously concerned about). Incidentally the NSDAP also
| had different factions including Strasserites, who
| imagined a more proletarian-led economy and people who
| thought having homosexuals like Rohm around was
| acceptable, at least for utilitarian purposes.
| Incidentally, most of those were murdered by the rest
| once the NSDAP actually got into power. Such is the
| reward for being progressive in the far-right.
| AnonCoward42 wrote:
| > The AfD may not be literally a fascist party, but it
| does have a prominent right-wing extremist faction that
| includes several of its most widely known members such as
| this man:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rn_H%C3%B6cke
|
| Yeah, there are a lot of allegations. Just recently his
| home was invaded by police for alleged cannabis
| possession (of his son). Kinda looks like he is a
| dissident, doesn't it?
|
| Tell me: How is Bjorn Hocke a Nazi/fascist/right-
| extremist?
|
| Btw, the Wiki article even features the bad "Bernd" joke
| in it. Wiki as a source ... lol
|
| > I think arguing about the accuracy of labels like
| "nazi" or "fascist" is a bit beside the point.
|
| It's exactly the point. If you want to say right-wing you
| should say just that. If you want to slander or dismiss a
| party, you compare them to fascists in some way.
|
| > Incidentally the NSDAP also had different factions
| including [...]
|
| And there it is and quite long even. It's guilt by
| association in a really obscure way.
|
| Not sure if you're aware of the word "Schuldkult"
| (roughly translated to "cultic guilt"). I know, I know -
| a naughty word, but it so perfectly describes some
| Germans in which their whole identity circles around the
| guilt of Nazi Germany. They try to get away from it as
| far as they can. Every aspect of Germany is automatically
| tainted for these individuals. That's not a foundation
| for a working identity (at least not a German one). It's
| only destruction.
|
| > It's clearly more about a vibe [...]
|
| Yeah, it's more a feeling than actual fact.
| Beldin wrote:
| > _There 's still time for an alternative_
|
| That is somewhat funny/punny, since that is (as you're
| probably aware) literally in AfD's name: Alternative for
| Germany (Deutschland).
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| You would think that with that pun I wouldn't get
| downvoted. Ah well :)
| hef19898 wrote:
| Well, in the last election the greens were projected to
| get the most votes. Didn't happen. Not to say that the
| AfDs popularity isn't worrisome, it is, but votes are
| counted on election days.
| xinayder wrote:
| > Believe or not, one day you will miss someone like
| Orban.
|
| I think you're sugarcoating the statement. Any type of
| authoritarianism is bad, would you mind elaborating why
| AfD would be worse than what Orban or Duda or even
| Erdogan are doing to their countries?
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| I can only assume because it's not "their" kind of
| authority taking power.
| nmlr wrote:
| Protest votes. What would one expect if the Green party
| is suddenly a warmongering party and Scholz is silent
| about Nord Stream even after the Washington Post
| essentially blames Ukraine?
|
| Also, while I don't like the people in the AfD, they are
| still mostly the former right wing of the CDU/CSU, which
| is not comparable to Orban. CDU/CSU can blame itself for
| mismanagement.
| hef19898 wrote:
| The Greens _suddenly_ supported war? The first deployment
| of German armed forces since WW2 happened under a SPD
| /Green government, over 20 years ago.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| Gp made points, how do you see them as twisted and
| exaggerated?
| qsdf38100 wrote:
| Come on, this is so exaggerated.
|
| If you care about democracy, you have much more relevant menace
| in France. People are screaming about Macron for some reason.
| Because they were told he is a DiCtAtOr!! Because he didn't
| fold to unions. Apparently unions are to be obeyed otherwise
| you are a dictator? While obeying to elected government is
| dictatorship? It's a nice inversion.
|
| The true authoritarian menace in France comes from the far
| right and far left. Melenchon is in love with authoritarian
| leaders (see bolivarian alliance), he can't help screaming at
| people that disagree with him. His political career should have
| been ended by just a few of his outbursts. But he gets a pass
| for some reason. And don't get me started on the far right,
| screaming that we are in a dictatorship while admiring Putin...
|
| Of course you can criticize Macron, he's far from perfect, but
| if you care about democracy, focusing on him being THE issue is
| outright ridiculous. We have far more serious threats. You are
| completely missing the big picture. And people being told to
| fight Macron instead of the extremes is a serious threat. I
| can't believe I have to explain that.
| skitout wrote:
| Well, democracy is not 0 or 1, there are shades... So for
| sure Macron is not a dictator, but French democracy "grade"
| was not super high and it did went down.
|
| French 5th republic is sometimes nicknamed "presidential
| monarchy"... Electing the parliament quite at the same time
| as the president did reinforced the power of the president.
| The rise of the far right basically made that the one in the
| best position against far right at the first round of
| presidential election (with less than 20% of French people
| voting for him) be sure of being a Presidential Monarch for 5
| years. (Notes that the leftist like Melanchon support a new
| constitution with more democracy, more counter power, less
| power for the president...)
|
| Note also that in France people working do democratically
| vote for unions (even if you are not unionized), and quite
| 100% of those votes went to union that are strongly against
| las Pension Law. According to polls more than 90% of the
| workers were against this law. And Macron could not pass this
| law in the elected parliament, and had to twist the
| constitution to pass it... This can be seen as problematic
| for many.
|
| When it come to protest, a lot of NGO and international
| bodies criticized the way France handle it. Many people are
| afraid to prostest in France now. Even the journalist of the
| righ wing newspaper le Figaro protest several time against
| police brutality against journalist in protest. NOte that
| France is the only country in EUrope to use many kind of
| weapon against protestors, weapon that can kill .
|
| When it comes to journalists. Aside of being target by police
| during the protest, we've seen also a growing Judicial
| pressure against them. And now the government is talking
| about law where they could be spied...
|
| "Because" of terrorism we've seen different law reducing the
| privacy of people... and many exceptional law that are
| hijacked to target people who are political opponent but not
| terrorist (like a police raid without judge OK against
| peaceful ecologists, or using antiterrorist law to forbid
| some peacefull protest)
|
| Even the normal law are "twisted" is a problematic way. Like
| arresting random protesters and keeping them for the night.
| Or arresting the leader of a group for a fake reason and then
| searshing his phone flat computer for intel...
|
| FOr sure France is not a dictature, but things are not good
| and are not going in a good way
| martin8412 wrote:
| Of course most of the workers are against working for two
| more years with benefit for themselves.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| I think we should not go over the top.
|
| The case reported in this article started when French people
| who went to fight in Syria among Kurdish militants came back to
| France and were put under surveillance.
|
| Even if the prosecution is using unconvincing evidence, which I
| don't know, this is hardly a sign of impending doom.
| pif wrote:
| I live in France as well, and personally do not feel the same
| negativity as you.
|
| What I don't appreciate at all is our share of idiots that
| think that blocking the country is a proper way of protesting
| (see "gilets jaunes"). That is not democratic, when a minority
| imposes their will to the silent majority.
| [deleted]
| skitout wrote:
| Polls showed that a large majority of French supported the
| Gilets Jaunes or supported the recent strikes. Foolowing your
| reasonning, the minority imposing their will to the silent
| majority is the government.
|
| Furthermore, independently to our opinion about the Gilets
| Jaunes, the way this government use the police on the protest
| can be questioning for a democracy. Even the journalist of
| the right Figaro newspaper protested several times against
| police brutality against journalists.
|
| Furthermore, independently to our opinion about the recent
| strikes (supported by 100% of the democratically elected
| trade unions), the fact that the government twisted the
| constitution to avoid a democratic vote of the democratically
| elected parliament on the legislative text is "puzzling"
| barrkel wrote:
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/945415/gilets-jaunes-
| app...
|
| Those in favour went from 70 to 50% over the course of 5
| months, opposition tripled, strong support went from 50% to
| 20%.
| skitout wrote:
| Few months after the start of the Gilet Jaune, they were
| not "blocking the country" anymore (I was answering a
| comment about this)...
|
| And while not supporting the Gilet Jaune mode of action
| anymore, people still strongly supported and support the
| main ideas they pushed, like Citizens' initiative
| referendum, or the Solidarity tax on wealth
| barrkel wrote:
| To be fair, wealth taxes are a pretty unworkable idea in
| the large.
| pif wrote:
| > while not supporting the Gilet Jaune mode of action
| anymore, people still strongly supported and support the
| main ideas they pushed
|
| Imagine how successful they could have been if they had
| behaved as civilised people from the beginning! I
| personally like some of those ideas, but I'll never trust
| people who think that violence is justifiable.
| skitout wrote:
| Seriously ?
|
| In France the only way firefighter got heard the last few
| times, after month of peaceful protestation, is by doing
| violent protest, including throwing heavy thing on the
| policeman. Then the government accepted to negociate with
| them. If you don't use violence in France, in many case
| you don't get heard at all.
|
| Gilets Jaunes, aslo because of their violence did manage
| to get the government to made some concession.
|
| Millions of French people (more than Gilets Jaunes at
| their peak) marched several times peacefully against the
| recent Pension Law, supported by all the trade union
| democratically elected, supported by more than 70% of the
| population and more than 90% of the workers. Nothing
| happen. No concession. Not even a vote in the parliament.
|
| For sure sometimes violence is efficient, sometimes
| violence in counter-productive. Justifiable ? that is
| something else...
| dtoma wrote:
| I don't understand this point, and it's one we see very
| often. What would have happened if they'd been civilised?
|
| 1. We had a convention citoyenne pour le climat. Macron
| then mostly ignored it.
|
| 2. We have elected representatives who can vote on the
| laws for us. Macron then used article 49.3 to mostly
| ignore them.
|
| 3. Vote? For which candidate? None of them would cover
| all of the GJs' demands.
|
| If you disqualify protests as a valid form of democratic
| expression, you also disqualify our famous revolution,
| the feminist protests that earned women the right to
| vote, the union strikes that earned us many worker
| rights, etc.
|
| > I'll never trust people who think that violence is
| justifiable
|
| Ah, that explains it. You only see violence in protesters
| who break windows, not in governments who enact laws on
| their people. Am I correct in assuming that you're ok
| with making people work 20 hours/week for the RSA as
| well?
| pif wrote:
| > 1. We had a convention citoyenne pour le climat. Macron
| then mostly ignored it.
|
| The reality is: talking about CO2 emissions is talking
| about economy. That is the main job of the government.
|
| > 2. We have elected representatives who can vote on the
| laws for us. Macron then used article 49.3 to mostly
| ignore them.
|
| Macron did not ignore them. 49.3 means: "I'm ready to go
| on this point; are you ready, too?". And, by the way, you
| do remember that Macron was elected, too, do you?
|
| > 3. Vote? For which candidate? None of them would cover
| all of the GJs' demands.
|
| So what? This is democracy! If you can't, or don't want
| to, found your political movement, then you have to
| choose among the available candidates. Do you think
| Macron's program matched exactly my desires?
|
| The revolution, the feminism and the union strikes were
| expressions of people who were oppressed and on the
| receiving side of violence. Gilets Jaunes was none of
| this.
| pif wrote:
| > You only see violence in protesters who break windows,
| not in governments who enact laws on their people.
|
| A government trying to manage a country has a ton of
| compromises to make every day; I do not expect to be
| happy with every one of their choices, but I think the
| current government is doing OK.
|
| On the other side, I fail to see how breaking a window
| can solve the problem of the protester.
|
| > If you disqualify protests as a valid form of
| democratic expression
|
| I'm afraid you confuse protest with violence. The ability
| to protest is fundamental for a democracy to stay a
| democracy, but protest must not imply violence and,
| especially, expressing your point does not make it
| automatically right.
| pif wrote:
| > Polls showed that
|
| The only polls that matter are elections. Apart from
| elections, people have the right to avoid any poll without
| risking any policy change.
| skitout wrote:
| 1) I was responding to someone talking about silent
| majority... polls is then relevant
|
| 2) Democracy is not just voting every 5 year for a
| president and a parliament
| HourglassFR wrote:
| Elections are not, and should not, be the be-all end-all
| of a functionning democraty. Otherwise you just have an
| elective aristocracy.
|
| And to be clear, I'm not saying pure polling driven
| policy is the solution, but saying politician should
| outright ignore them because not legally binding is a
| very weird stance.
| dtoma wrote:
| If anything, the origin of the 5th republic under its
| founding president used referendums to validate the
| president's actions. He literally resigned after losing a
| referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaull
| e#Retirement.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| When they came for the protesters you did not speak out
| because you was not a protester... Beware when they come for
| you there will be no one left to speak out.
| (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_)
| batch12 wrote:
| I hope they come for the cliches and razors first...
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&qu
| e...
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Deserves repeating. I learned of this poem first last
| month, seems relevant.
| pif wrote:
| What every programmer should know about "First they came"
| :-)
| pif wrote:
| When they came for violent people preventing other pacific
| people to move on with their life, nobody needed to speak
| because their actions were against the law.
| hbt wrote:
| Will you be celebrating the 14th of July buddy? Or will
| you be condemning the act of 633 angry French citizens
| "storming the Bastille in Paris, capturing its munitions,
| releasing its seven prisoners, lynching the governor and
| demolishing the fortress".
|
| After all, they broke the law and since it's the law then
| clearly the government had full legitimacy... right?
|
| Next, you should be defending the "Code Noir"
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir That was also the
| _law_ at some point and only affecting a minitority of
| the population. The suffering of anyone in society
| shouldn 't interrupt your daily life as any act of revolt
| is illegal and therefore illegitimate.
|
| Are you even French? "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite"
| unless it inconveniences my day-to-day.
| pif wrote:
| Your examples do not involve people living in a democracy
| with universal right to vote.
| hbt wrote:
| And your definition of democracy is nothing more than
| electing a master to rule over you for 5 years. As long
| as his actions are legal, you consider them legitimate
| despite being highly unpopular and imposed on people
| through police violence.
|
| There is more to democracy than a vote every 5 years.
|
| Consent of the governed: "Government's legitimacy and
| moral right to use state power is justified and lawful
| only when consented to by the people or society over
| which that political power is exercised."
|
| The founders of the United States believed that the
| government of Great Britain should rest on the principle
| that government depended on the consent of the governed
| and that any government not based on that consent could
| be justifiably overthrown and replaced.
|
| Pretty sure revolutionary France abides by the same
| principles.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Or defending the flattening of protesters who were
| occupying Tiananmen square...
| Qiu_Zhanxuan wrote:
| I'm always appalled by comments like these that justify their
| sympathy for authoritarian practices simply because they
| align with their interests. I'm in Paris, France, and police
| brutality has been increasing hand in hand with the corrupt
| nature of our government over the last decade, and it's
| horrifying. The apple is completely rotten; the way our
| election system works and all the dirty tricks you can do
| when you're in power mean people are not left with any other
| choice but to revolt. This does not bode well for our
| country.
| pif wrote:
| > sympathy for authoritarian practices simply because they
| align with their interests
|
| Nothing personal, I'm talking about the interests of all
| the voters who freely elected the current president and
| parliament.
|
| If you are not happy, it's our duty as a society to provide
| you a way to express your point. But the right to express
| your point does not involve the violence to get our
| attention. Most people just want to go on with their daily
| life, and putting obstacles to them will not gather any
| sympathy around you.
| beremaki wrote:
| What gilets jaunes or blocking whatever have anything to do
| with violating parliamentary rights ? Or making protests of
| disappointment (edit: disapproval) illegal everywhere the
| president go ?
|
| What can anyone do about a president that abuses its power ?
| This is a basic democratic issue and I am pessimistic because
| a lot of people like you just don't seem to get it, so we
| won't address that and when it is going to be too late it
| will be too late.
|
| You might like or trust the current government but what about
| the next one ?
| pif wrote:
| > making protests of disappointment illegal everywhere the
| president go
|
| France is big enough. Having to avoid a few square
| kilometres around the president will leave you plenty of
| space to organize your protest.
| soco wrote:
| Next law: protest as much as you want but out of sight.
| In your own cellar maybe? Ok that was sarcasm, but the
| very point of a protest is to be visible. Same with all
| Last Generation or such protests: if they had simply
| marched on some side street, nobody would talk about them
| today.
| pif wrote:
| > the very point of a protest is to be visible.
|
| And that's why the public space must be made available
| for protesters, it's part of the life of a sane
| democracy. Public space and free press are sufficient if
| you have a point that matters to other people.
|
| But if you feel the need to hijack another event in order
| to get people's attention, maybe you don't have a valid
| point to start with?
| wholinator2 wrote:
| I would argue the conclusion to that isn't that they
| don't have a valid point, but that the people cannot be
| sufficiently motivated, or that they are unsure how to
| protest effectively, or that they are unaware that
| disrupting often leaves people feeling disrupted, that
| feeling disrupted is not a positive feeling, and that
| associating Negativity with a movement too many times can
| really hurt it in the long run. Just look at the cultures
| idea of PETA in the USA.
| soco wrote:
| I argue that PETA succeeded to bring into the official
| discussion other, more moderate organizations, thus
| effectively moving "the cause" forward at the expense of
| their own organization. Probably that was not their goal,
| but from a 10.000 feet it looks like achieving that. I
| think the same goes with the "eco terrorists", they may
| get slaughtered in the process but ecology gets on
| everybody's tongues. Again not sure they are planning it
| like this or it's just a side effect.
| Beldin wrote:
| You mean like "free speech zones" - which seems to be
| defined as zones in the US where you do have freedom of
| speech. (Yes, I'm wondering "what about the rest of the
| land area" as well.)
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
| paganel wrote:
| First they came for the _Gilets Jaunes_...
|
| I know that that particular reply of mine doesn't help your
| particular case, but it was sickening to see how much of the
| supposed French people's liberties and citizens rights were
| broken back then and how most of the French _intelligentsia_
| was just cheering the government from the side.
| pif wrote:
| > First they came for the Gilets Jaunes...
|
| Actually, they came too late for the Gilets Jaunes!
|
| > it was sickening to see how much of the supposed French
| people's liberties and citizens rights were broken back then
|
| I agree with you, a bunch of idiots holding a whole country
| hostage was not at all what one would expect in a sane
| democracy.
| paganel wrote:
| That's the spirit of "he has promised us that he'll let us
| enjoy our _assignats_ in peace and bring order to the
| country by ending the revolution ", i.e. the spirit that
| helped Napoleon got hold of power. I think trying to end
| the revolution is still an ongoing thing in today's France,
| for better or for worse.
| pif wrote:
| > trying to end the revolution is still an ongoing thing
| in
|
| I don't agree. France is as wonderful as it is because
| revolution was successfully completed long ago.
| James_bread wrote:
| Pif, your messages here align mostly with authoritarianism
| and fascism. You don't seem to care about people their
| freedom, their rights or real democracy. It's not a
| minority that holds the country hostage it's a minority who
| have the balls to standup against a small elite who have
| all power. Having to pick out of two evils has nothing to
| do with democracy.
| pif wrote:
| > our messages here align mostly with authoritarianism
| and fascism
|
| If you want to call "authoritarianism" the basic rule of
| law (as in: do not block traffic, do not prevent shops
| from opening, do not prevent public offices from offering
| their services...) you are welcome.
|
| By the way, a pet peeve of mine, having always voted for
| the centre-left, I never appreciated how authoritarianism
| is generally considered an expression of the extreme
| right, while history shows that dictatorship was the evil
| of both extremes.
|
| > You don't seem to care about people their freedom
|
| I do care about the freedom of all people, and that is
| why I detest when protesters use violence (which is
| wrong) in order to gather attention for their point
| (which may be right).
|
| > minority who have the balls to standup against a small
| elite who have all power.
|
| I respect your opinion, even if I don't share it.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| So, how does that mesh with the BLM protests that took
| place across the US?
|
| Here we have "fiery but peaceful protests" but in France
| it is a fundamental breakdown of the rule of law?
| Nemrod67 wrote:
| As you can see from other replies: - the French people did not
| care that they had to sign a paper to get out to walk - that we
| closed libraries and forbade people from buying clothes in
| supermarkets - that Macron has been in charge of the country's
| finances for over a decade with horrid results (+600BEUR in
| debt) - that Macron did everything he said he would not, and
| said a lot of things that would be treason in a reasonable
| civilization
|
| We are the rooster that sings with it's feet deep in shite.
| It's gonna get ugly when it hits the fan.
| rand0m4r wrote:
| Hold your horses... First of all not all french citizens
| think or act the same way, and as for the rest Macron is not
| the first president (and certainly not the last) to screw up.
|
| I'm convinced that whatever president they elect, they'll
| complain just as much.
| napo wrote:
| "the French people did not care that they had to sign a paper
| to get out to walk"
|
| 1- Don't you think this is quite political? Like what is your
| benefit from saying this out of context? If signing this
| paper and being stricter helped the hospitals not being
| saturated and saved x thousands lives do you still think it
| was a bad thing? (I'm not even saying that's the case I'm
| just saying you don't seem to take that possibility into
| account at all)
|
| 2- From my observations French people -constently- complain
| about this. So I wouldn't say they didn't care about it.
| You're doing it right now.
| 0xParlay wrote:
| >> If signing this paper and being stricter helped the
| hospitals not being saturated and saved x thousands lives
| do you still think it was a bad thing?
|
| If banning encryption and helping police stop terrorism
| saved x thousand lives do you blah blah blah blah
|
| Do programmers hang out here? The aversion to reasoning
| from first principle is palpable.
| golergka wrote:
| > If signing this paper and being stricter helped the
| hospitals not being saturated and saved x thousands lives
| do you still think it was a bad thing?
|
| If patriot act helped US intelligence agencies prevent the
| next 9/11, do you still think it was a bad thing?
| tmdroid001 wrote:
| It certainly is political in some ways. Some people think
| that government shouldn't have such authority to lock
| people down in their homes for months on end, to spend
| public money on buying overpriced masks and preventive
| treatment that doesn't work, shouldn't pay the media to
| spread misinformation and definitely shouldn't have access
| into our lives like we're in some dystopian novel from the
| last century. But hey, maybe that's not most people
| anyway...
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| > Don't you think this is quite political?
|
| We're discussing politics.
|
| > Like what is your benefit from saying this out of
| context?
|
| What does that even mean? Are you insinuating they're being
| paid to say that? How do we know you're not paid to counter
| them?
|
| > If signing this paper and being stricter helped the
| hospitals not being saturated and saved x thousands lives
| do you still think it was a bad thing?
|
| The problem is you and no one else could prove now or then
| that giving up my human rights _would_ save lives. Because
| its all pointless lip service to take power away from the
| people under the guise of "protection". Just like with
| encryption, personal weapons, and everything else that
| governments don't want us to have.
|
| > I'm just saying you don't seem to take that possibility
| into account at all
|
| And I'm saying you haven't taken into account that you're
| an Authoritarian apologist.
| 3pt14159 wrote:
| France's Debt-to-GDP[0] went up about 17 points during the
| first year of covid, compared to Canada's 20 points. In the
| following years it's gone down about 3 points, which is about
| the same for Canada. I don't really know who else to compare
| France to, since Germany, UK, and USA all have their own
| weird complications and Italy was hit early by covid in a way
| that most countries were not.
|
| No matter who was in charge of France there was going to be a
| giant spike in debt during at the very least covid, and now
| dealing with this Ukraine mess.
|
| [0] I greatly prefer net Debt-to-GDP, which is a closer
| approximation to a country's actual balance sheet, as a
| measure, but it isn't frequently reported and most people
| tend not to care.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| I am not French but my opinion of the current government is at
| rock bottom after how Macron recently went to China to
| basically suck up to Xi Jinping, completely ignoring human
| rights violations and all. And for what?
| jle17 wrote:
| Oh it's not just Xi. He likes dictators and human rights
| abusers, even those that no one will touch with a ten foot
| pole. Most recently, he received Mohammed bin Salman at the
| Elysee.
| tut-urut-utut wrote:
| You criticise Macron for visiting a ,,dictator" but not for
| being dictator himself?
|
| Macrons pushing of retirement law change against both public
| and parliament is definitely not democratic.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| as not French I'm not very aware of his internal policies
| in France, but the news of that visit got to me. In my eyes
| it concerns EU and the world too
| ikt wrote:
| I think maybe because the rest of the world sees those
| changes he pushed through as incredibly mild
|
| he increased the pension age because people are getting
| older and the state will not be able to afford it? wow what
| a crazy dictator
| dtoma wrote:
| Other variables could have been adjusted (pensions,
| contributions...). Independent studies showed that our
| retirement system is very much affordable for our
| government and will still be 50 years from now. Just
| today it's also been revealed that the government's plan
| overestimated its savings by 4B euros...
|
| Are you just repeating a common cliche while not knowing
| much about the situation?
|
| So yes, unilaterally deciding to raise the retirement
| age, which doesn't actually fix anything, without having
| a vote, without listening to the protests, is neither
| mild nor democratic.
| derelicta wrote:
| He used emergency powers to pass the law because he knew
| such law would hardly survive the regular legisative
| process. It might not be a Putin-style dictatorships but
| its definitively heading in the wrong direction.
|
| And thats without mentionning the use of abuse of
| administration prohibitions towards anti-racist
| associations and environmental groups.
| raxxorraxor wrote:
| Probably did it because the EU needs this for political
| acceptance. It should have been made clear to people,
| that any form of social security system will need to be
| harmonized. I guess this was just the first step to
| increase pension age and in general it will always
| converge on the lowest common denominator for normal
| workers.
| martin8412 wrote:
| How would it ever pass normal legislative process? If I
| tell you that you have spend two more years working and
| there's no benefit for you at all, would you vote for it?
| derelicta wrote:
| Through parliement. Thats just how a normal democracy
| works. Or through a referendum.
|
| unless we are talking about handling a national crisis,
| or avoiding a US-style shutdown, then avoiding a vote may
| be legitimate under specific circumstances.
|
| but I doubt pension reforms fall under national
| emergencies
| Draiken wrote:
| I'm from Brazil and I'd say we've just had that disaster
| election you fear a few years ago.
|
| I used to laugh at the absurdities of the Trump government
| thinking it would never happen here and alas, it did. And it
| was even worse than most could have ever imagined.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I didn't like the previous government and
| already dislike the current one's direction, but when you take
| one person that truly doesn't give a f**, they can ruin a
| country in ways you didn't even know existed.
|
| But I don't really see a way out though. Most politicians here
| (probably everywhere if we're honest) are corrupt so you always
| choose between the lesser of many evils. The obvious solution
| is to actually use our collective power to rebel and really
| enact change - something ironically we say the French are good
| at - but it simply never happens. Looking at the French
| protests against the rise of retirement age gave me hope. But
| then you look at the outcome and it's always the same: we lose.
|
| I honestly think the system has won. Capitalism successfully
| made everyone (myself included) just comfortable enough to not
| really take action. We are the proverbial frogs in boiling
| water and slowly but surely normalizing this insane world we
| live in today giving away all our hard-fought rights to our
| capitalist overlords.
|
| We get upset and yell at the void, Twitter, HN, blog posts and
| don't actually DO anything. I truly hate myself for that.
| Meanwhile those that actually do something, have their efforts
| stifled away by governments with ease.
|
| Perhaps I am a bit too pessimistic about this, but from where I
| stand, there's no way out.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > but from where I stand, there's no way out.
|
| I know how you feel!
|
| I'm from the UK. Corbyn's Labour seemed to me to be a glimmer
| of hope; but he was pushed out by the MSM and a cabal of his
| own party's rightist officials, and replaced by a man who
| immediately on getting the leadership, repudiated _all_ his
| manifesto promises.
|
| So I no longer have anyone to vote for, and I favour
| revolution.
| RalfWausE wrote:
| Oh yeah i definitively am a POTENTIAL terrorist... and if the
| nations of the allegedly free world are keeping their trajectory
| regarding encryption and civil rights there might even come a day
| to turn form POTENTIAL to ACTUAL...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-22 23:01 UTC)