Slashdot Mirror
France Using Emergency Powers To Prevent Climate Change Protests (theguardian.com)
Bruce66423 writes: Following the Paris massacre, the French government declared a state of emergency. One of the regulations this introduced was control of large scale gatherings, and one of the events that is being caught up in this is planned protests to do with the Climate Change conference in Paris next month. This has resulted in some activists being put under house arrest — yet other gathering, such as commercial street markets — are being allowed to go ahead. Funny that; anyone would think that the government is using the opportunity to suppress dissent.
Are people protesting taking action on climate change, or not taking enough action? Which protesters would the French government want to suppress?
https://youtu.be/SjbPi00k_ME
Is the French government a known climate denier?
Or are they suppressing mass demonstrations for other reasons?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Because the terrorist attacks have anything to do with climate change.
"Never let a crisis go to waste" -- Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago (which is the most violet and corrupt city in the United States of America).
They are just joining in on the fun, America, UK, Australia have all been abusing legislature regarding terrorists for many many years now. France will not be denied their piece of the totalitarian pie.
...
'French authorities did not respond to requests for comment but lawyers said that the warrants were issued under state of emergency laws, imposed after the terror attacks that killed 130 people earlier this month. The author and climate change campaigner, Naomi Klein, accused French authorities of “a gross abuse of power that risks turning the summit into a farce”.'
Find a suitable reason to declare a state of emergency. Use the state of emergency to suppress legitimate protests. An event that outrages people used to remove civil liberties and the opportunity for dissent.
Where have we seen this before? In every country that became a dictatorship.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
//// Football matches: "Yes: Life must go on" ///// Climate change protests: "No - It's a security risk"
Eco-terrorists threatened to blow up a cloud !
could be a humor or spell check failure...
This is my opinion based on what little I know and understand of the rumors and lies Thanks, Randal
I think they're just trying to stop protests in general at the moment. Protests create unrest and anger, and I'm guessing the government's deemed the situation unstable enough that they want to minimize any potential chance of more violence.
That being said though, I don't agree with that choice at all. I don't think climate change would destabilize the country further, and there's a great risk of abuse with it.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Oh really? Color me not surprised.
...that's not suspicious at all. No hidden agenda there, no sir-ee-bob...
Find a suitable reason to declare a state of emergency. Use the state of emergency to suppress legitimate protests. An event that outrages people used to remove civil liberties and the opportunity for dissent. Where have we seen this before? In every country that became a dictatorship.
Right, so the French government that recognizes climate change and agrees it is a major issue to be dealt with is afraid of protesters who recognize climate change and believe it is a major issue to be dealt with?
A protest needs to be organized to protest the crackdown against protests.
Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
French people seems to have reacted quite well to the killings, but french political leaders seems to be drowning in panic. They even suspended France's application of European Convention on Human Rights. From this link's France section:
Some of [the measures], prescribed by the decrees of 14 November 2015 and 18 November 2015 and by the Law of 20 November 2015, may involve a derogation from the obligations under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Perhaps it has more to do with getting the populace used to suppression of dissent?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Says Smokey the Liberal Whackjob
Perhaps it has more to do with getting the populace used to suppression of dissent?
What dissent? The protesters and the government agree.
It's probably more like: We're busy hunting terrorrist, we don't have time to babysit you. Throw your tantrum another time.
Isn't this ironic? I thought France came up with the concept of Freedom of Speech to begin with.
They were going to protest, were they not? How is that not dissent? Just because they may not have been about to protest against the French government does not stop it from being dissent.
You are being obtuse. The story title is "France Using Emergency Powers To Prevent Climate Change Protests". The story is about the suppression of protests. Protests are about dissent.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Does it really agree, or is it just throwing around two-faced platitudes it has no intention of honoring? Like Obama when he vowed to renegotiate NAFTA, or Hillary now being against the TPP after she spent years drafting it as SOS.
The conference itself is a large gathering. True, the conference attendees are probably screened.
Table-ized A.I.
The Guardian is not a rational newspaper. Front page News. Big international conference - 3 weeks after massive military attack be Islamic guerilla agents have killed hundred all through Paris. Police prevent demonstrations but allow grocery store shopping.
Maybe you are right, and Paris should close their economy down. The conference will be a joke anyway. It is just cover for China's increasing tide of industrial waste.
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
I have an idea. Handle it the way some of the smarter states in the USA do it. About 1 in 100 people in the crowd has a concealed weapon. Try attacking that. Return fire assurance is infinitely more effective as a defense and a deterrent than some ridiculous laws and metal detectors and bomb sniffing dogs and all that predictable, bypassable nonsense.
Why don't YOU throw a tantrum another time????
Obamas a crook and Hilary's a mafioso.
Protests are about dissent.
More than one protester has gone to protest just because protesting is very fun.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The French govt probably doesn't want events that provoke large crowds with angry people that might have zealots with conflicting views. Imagine: Angry CAGW zealots meet climate realists/"deniers" with normal angry puke and threats. Islamic terrorists decide the cover and distraction is perfect for a bigger score, sending more infidels to burn before police even realize the attack.
Wouldn't it be a protest against climate change regulations? Would make sense since the whole climate change is a hoax and is about the government controlling our lives.
Should be called "man-made climate change" because just calling it climate change is stupid, since the climate is always changing up or down depending on the cycle and we are always in a panic, we panicked a few decades ago about global cooling, now it is global warming, and a few decades from now we will panic about global cooling again.
Obamas a crook and Hilary's a mafioso.
And Noah Haders is a reactionary derptard.
Not that I fully support either of those politicians.
But most everyone can agree with the characterization of the 3rd person mentioned above.
Just because they may not have been about to protest against the French government does not stop it from being dissent.
However protesters and government being in agreement does squash your silly suggestion that its part of some government conspiracy heading towards dictatorship.
I'm living in Belgium so I can give a bit of context. Commercial street markets are routine here; they happen every week, and often aren't that well attended especially in winter. The climate protests in Paris were/are going to be massive, with many people traveling internationally to take part.
Scenario 1; Ban protesting and be labelled a oppressive government.
Scenario 2; Do not ban protests and a terrorist attack occurs during the protest. The Government is blamed for the attack as they allowed the protest.
In a large protest it is impossible to differentiate between lawful protesters in masks and terrorists getting ready to attack.
Just because your memory is limited to headlines doesn't mean either concern was or is illegitimate. Particulates can and do block the entry of solar energy. Warming can and is caused by increasing the IR reflective layer in the atmosphere. Both can occur at the same time and do make measurements difficult.
So, logically, there must be one common trigger. And in this case, climate change is clearly to blame.
Bow before the will of the Ruling Elite, you have-not peons!
Which protesters would the French government want to suppress?
And what are France's emergency powers? Emergency surrender?
Global climate change denial = Holocaust denial
The regrettable thing is, many jewish people, who are very rich and greedy business men, are GCC deniers because of their financial interests, environment be damned. These maddofs should be persecuted just like the neo-nazis who deny Auschwitz.
It was officially called a "March for the climate," and the French would otherwise call it a "manifestation". Marching in manifestation of their opinion is part of French culture and does not necessarily imply "protesting" authorities.
My mother went to a CND protest because she wanted to sleep with one of the organisers.
The only place you'll hear "CAGW" or even "catastrophe" (other than "if this continues, it could" sense) is with deniers. You keep bangning on and on about "CAGW!" and get really REALLY irate and, like the ISIS Jihadists, see a world-spanning conspiracy of all the governments of the world to steal from you.
Yeah, deniers are the most like terrorists.
Markets are not known for being mobile forces, nor for requiring police action if they get out of hand. Markets don't make a good cover for terrorist attacks on political events, protests do.
They're still slowly de-escalating their alert level. Nothing to see here, move along.
Right, so the French government that recognizes climate change and agrees it is a major issue to be dealt with is afraid of protesters who recognize climate change and believe it is a major issue to be dealt with?
Yes, the French government recognizes climate change, just like every well-informed, sane human being on this planet. But that doesn't mean they are taking the necessary actions to prevent it. Their goals are not nearly ambitious enough. One quick, shallow example: their list of sponsors. (Just let me know if you want a more complete overview of what is wrong with the climate policies of France and Europe in general.)
Being a part of the Belgian green movement, I can tell you that the events of the last week have been a big blow for the motivation of many climate activists. Cancelling these demonstrations - for which preparations have been ongoing for the last year - has been very unhealthy for the green movement in general. This is at least the case in Belgium, and I suspect in France as well.
By shutting down these demonstrations, the French government has damaged the green movement, a vocal criticizer of their policies. I am no fan of conspiracies, and I am not saying this was their primary motive. But it sure as hell hasn't been disadvantageous to them. The christmas market, with a expected total visitor count of 15 million, is apparently no serious security hazard. Can you tell me with a straight face that you don't find this the least bit conspicious?
French government agrees that climate change is a problem and caused by humans.
But they are far from being ecologists. In fact the divorce with the green party is almost complete.
Many planned green reforms have been abandoned (increase on diesel fuel tax, km-based tax on truck transport...)
As for COP21 protests, here is another example.
In the past years, green activists have developed the concept of ZAD = "Zone à défendre" = area to be defended (where Nature has to be defended). The most known are :
- "Notre-Dame des Landes", in the vicinity of Nantes in the west, where a new (unnecessary ?) airport is planned to be built on a wet nature-rich zone
- "Sivens" in the south-west where a small dam (for maize irrigation) was to be built, flooding a nature-rich valley. Where a protester was killed by police last year.
- "Bure" in the east, where a long-term (100 000 years) nuclear waste burial site is planned
In these ZADs, (dozens to hundreds of) nature defenders (called ZADists) usually settle in tent-camps or abandoned houses, sometimes during months, and try to block the bulldozers.
These zadists are regularly depicted by police as ultra-left-infiltrated ultra-violent extremists to justify over-large deployment of police force.
During COP21 conference, zadists from these three ZADs had planned to march on Paris. Well, they should have come by bike and farm tractors to the south of Paris, at 50km of COP21 site, to the lesser known ZAD of Saclay, where the "Université Paris-Saclay" is being built, pouring concrete on large areas of premium quality farm land.
With that, the government strongly didn't agreed.
So they intercepted the convoys and, using state of emergency, they started a blockade of a large zone around Saclay. As of today dozens of assault-rifle armed police force are to check each vehicle and individual wanting to enter the zone. Which, after the week-end, should represent thousands of students and researchers.
And there have been messages to students and university employees to immediately call the police to denounce any spotted zadist...
Well, in the end, I don"t think that a few dozen bike riders camping in a wet field would have hoped to create such a mess and block activity in such a large area.
So maybe after all the French government is supporting their protest ?
Knowing that these protesters are allies of the French govt on this topic, knowing that the terrorists wish to hurt the French govt AND it's people as deeply as it can, knowing that this is a major international event which will be highly covered in news world-wide, and knowing that this is a predictable predetermined time and location where massive causalities might be inflicted, it's almost too good an opportunity for terrorists to pass up.
Maybe, just maybe, you could look at the big picture and give consideration that the govt you try sdo hard to vilify is trying to keep your allies alive.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
And that reveals a far more dubious conclusion
I'd have let it go ahead. Maybe it would tempt them into acting, and if you lose a few crusties in the process who cares?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Wrong. French gov knows but has to play ball with the big kids because they have all the money. Population knows and wants change.
Are they arresting people who are pointing out that not enough is being done, or those who are worried about the bottome lines of the big polluters?
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Are you really going to compare a farmer's market to protesters?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
If you shut down commercial business people loose their jobs and businesses, if you shut down a protest people are not harmed. False equivalence.
Seems most comments are focusing on the 'banning protests' angle since it is what the title focuses on. If you RTFA or RTFS, you'll notice that the French government is placing a select group of activists under house arrest for "flouting a ban on organising protests."
1. As most comments bring up, the 'state of emergency' is a questionable justification for banning protests.
2. In this particular case, their government is banning "organizing protests."
3. These activists are being placed under house arrest without justification or due process.
4. The French government apparently hasn't heard of cell phones or social media.
So not only is the French government violating civil liberties and incarcerating people without due process, the are being monumentally obtuse in thinking that house arrest could stop people from "organizing protests."
This is the "heckler's veto" writ large.
The hecklers's veto is when government claims the power to silence you because other people might get violent over your speech. (This is separate from "them's fighting words", as they are not statements directed to provoke a particular person.)
In the US these inevitably get tossed as unconstitutional. As should something like this. We, The People, choose to take the risk of gathering. Your permitted job, government, is to secure that right.
That is the only power we have granted you.
Other countries without serious constitutions, that follow vox populi vox dei, YMMV.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I think it's fair to concentrate our police forces against ISIS than those random protesters. Also they are protecting them from being used as a target by some suicide bombers. We have more important stuff to deal with right now.
I can tell you that the events of the last week have been a big blow for the motivation of many climate activists. Cancelling these demonstrations - for which preparations have been ongoing for the last year - has been very unhealthy for the green movement in general. ... Can you tell me with a straight face that you don't find this the least bit conspicious?
No I don't find it suspicious because I reject the notion that the movement has been harmed. If your members so lack motivation and commitment that having to delay/reschedule a protest has seriously harmed the movement then you did not have a serious movement that any government would be concerned about.
Time and time again it has been shown that many American citizen are perfectly fine with curtailing some freedoms. From guns to travel to drugs to alcohol and many others. Compare to france when people have no fear to go out in the street and oust a government that only happens in vastly smaller scales in the US. So yeah i am not sure why you are so surprised.
2014 saw no rise in CO2 emissions.
Of course, since years of rapid CO2 rise with no corresponding temperature increases (including historical records as far back as we can look) have shown clearly CO2 is not a factor in climate change, that doesn't matter much...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... this has nothing to do with the fact that France just experienced its worst terror attack ever, may be a bit shell shocked, and feels underprepared in ensuring the safety of such mass protests.
What dissent? The protesters and the government agree.
The french so-called socialist government betrayed left-wing voters so much that there are very few french people that still trust them (right-wing voters distrust the government anyway because it is labeled as left-wing).
Alert ... logic FAIL!!!!!
It doesn't matter why these people tried to demonstrate. They wanted to be on the streets making their political views known and the government suppressed their rights to political speech. Suppressing demonstrations, protests, whatever you want to call them is a path that every dictatorship has gone down.
Frankly, I cannot believe how naive and childish you are in thinking that just because the protesters may have agreed in some small way with government policy means that suppressing the protest was the action of a government that is interested in freedom of speech.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Alert ... logic FAIL!!!!!
It doesn't matter why these people tried to demonstrate. They wanted to be on the streets making their political views known and the government suppressed their rights to political speech. Suppressing demonstrations, protests, whatever you want to call them is a path that every dictatorship has gone down.
Frankly, I cannot believe how naive and childish you are in thinking that just because the protesters may have agreed in some small way with government policy means that suppressing the protest was the action of a government that is interested in freedom of speech.
Wow, you are delusional. There is a ban on mass gatherings due to the current state of emergency, which is temporary. Individuals still have free speech. The press still has free speech. This protest simply got caught up in the mass gatherings ban, nothing more. The French government is not on the path to dictatorship.
Why is your/the government intelligence agencies so bad that they can't stop terrorists from a known juicy target?
I hear Gomer Pyle for some reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5VZjT0JE70
So you thought the fascist rules were only for the climate sceptics? Ha ha ha. Good one. Look this is nonsense "pre-crime" type bullshit. If someone (or 24 people) say they are going to do something you put a tail on them and then arrest them when they try to do it. Anything else is just "Sieg Heil" government behaviour.
Oh by the way here is my standard question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
Both of the satellite datasets (RSS, UAH) show no warming for over 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
Why do I use the 2 satellite measurements?
First they have the greatest coverage. RSS goes from 82.5N to 82.5 S and UAH, 85N to 85S.
Second they are the least adjusted. Unlike NOAA which makes completely unjustified adjustments by raising good data (ocean bouy temps) to match what they themselves admit is bad, corrupted data (ship engine intake temps).
Lastly they are run by 2 scientists with good credentials (Dr Mears & Dr Spencer respectively) and despite looking at what is almost the same data come to different conclusions. Dr Mears thinks CO2 does control the climate and Dr Spencer does not. I like that. Not only does it keep them honest it makes me think and read both sides to see why they are so different in their conclusions despite almost identical data. So far I side with the position of Dr Spencer.
Ha ha ha ha! (Choke, splutter) Ha ha ha ha!
What a crazy jokester!
And? There's no shortage of corrupt right-wing politicians to choose from, no matter what side of the partisan aisle they happen to fall down on. You could change the subject to Republicans and abortion....they would never actually ban it, as it would mean the rubes wouldn't turn out to vote for them.
That's hurtful. Why would you say something like that?
Find a suitable reason to declare a state of emergency. Use the state of emergency to suppress legitimate protests. An event that outrages people used to remove civil liberties and the opportunity for dissent. Where have we seen this before? In every country that became a dictatorship.
Right, so the French government that recognizes climate change and agrees it is a major issue to be dealt with is afraid of protesters who recognize climate change and believe it is a major issue to be dealt with?
Isn't it as simple as the fact that you can't declare a state of emergency and say that further terrorist attacks are imminent, then allow everything to go on as normal with large crowds distracting the police and presenting easy targets?
Obviously, if they try to extend the ban on demonstrations for very long then there are going to be, um, mass demonstrations against the government.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
My mother went to a CND protest because she wanted to sleep with one of the organisers.
Yeah, my dad told me about her. Banged like a shit house door in a gale.
Your quips are literally retarded.
I do not think it means what you think it means...