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.
Is the French government a known climate denier?
Or are they suppressing mass demonstrations for other reasons?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
My quick scan is that it's a crackdown on protests in general, not necessarily on any particular issue. Not that I'm condoning it.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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."
It's true. Chicago is the most beautiful shade of purple around this time of year.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Bernie Sanders says they do.
Oh really? Color me not surprised.
...that's not suspicious at all. No hidden agenda there, no sir-ee-bob...
"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).
That might be Saul Alinsky, a 1960s organizer and radical, author of "Rules for Radicals". A mentor of sorts to Emanuel and Obama.
Also related to Che Guevara, the communist revolutionary who wrote in his "Guerrilla Warfare" that when the peasants are safe and content one must create the conditions by which the government will abuse and kill them so as to bring the peasants to the side of revolution. That their previous safety and comfort is an obstacle to revolution. In other words manufacture a crisis if there is none. ISIS wants a crackdown on muslims in the west for these reasons.
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.
Turn anything you can into a tool to fix things you think are wrong with the world? Perish the thought.
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
Turn anything you can into a tool to fix things you think are wrong with the world? Perish the thought.
Like get peasants killed, sacrificed, to fulfill your dream of communist revolution as in Che's advice?
Perhaps it has more to do with getting the populace used to suppression of dissent?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Perhaps it has more to do with getting the populace used to suppression of dissent?
What dissent? The protesters and the government agree.
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!
It's protests all the way down. I'm surprised they haven't gone on strike yet.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
Well, I would be supportive of an anti-protest protest...
but then I guess I would have to be fair and support an anti-protest protest protest.
I can see right now this is not going to end well...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
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
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."
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.
ISIS pledge to kill thousands of Americans by opening gun stores across the Midwest
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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.
About 1 in 100 people in the crowd has a concealed weapon
List of mass shootings, just for the 2010s, just schools... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s. Solution is not that simple, and this is not because you want to carry a gun that you have to let a whole population, that includes a lot of irresponsible people, use a gun as well. What happened in France is exceptional, and you seize the opportunity of an exceptional event to promote your own ideas. This is typically what do extreme parties (esp. right side), and what did parties before WWII. They catch an exceptional event to sell their own narrow minded stinky politcs.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
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.
Which protesters would the French government want to suppress?
And what are France's emergency powers? Emergency surrender?
It's France, not Italy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So? The US was also one of the first representative governments in modern times, and look how that turned out.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
My mother went to a CND protest because she wanted to sleep with one of the organisers.
You are mixing countries:
In France they do blockades of motorways,blockades of factories and similar. They are thus much more active in their protests than some place like Italy where people go on strike and go home...
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?
Who here thinks it's a good idea to confuse catastrophe with non-catastrophe? That seems like an important distinction to me.
People chanting outside: "We're not going to protest! We're not going to protest!"
Climate protests have nothing to do with terrorism. But large concentrated crowds of climate protesters sure would provide a juicy target for a terrorist strike, wouldn't they?
So the French govt can try to keep the would-be protesters alive and be condemned, or risk a catastrophe for which they would be condemned. At least the former is highly unlikely to result in any deaths.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
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
Yeah, deniers are the most like terrorists.
This is what's wrong with this site and modern life in general. Idiots like you attempt to equate a group you disagree with to terrorists, when they have nothing in common. If you are going to argue, at least try not to argue by name-calling.
have to let a whole population, that includes a lot of irresponsible people, use a gun as well
you mean those people driving vehicles near you, handling flammable materials, filling your prescriptions, looking after your children, preparing your food, etc.? You're the one with an extremist caste system ideology
Means justify the ends.
You linked to schools... where firearms are outlawed. Hello, fool. If the students or teachers could carry guns then that wouldn't have been a problem.
Try again. Do some research. More public with firearms == less crime and violence. Completely outlaw guns, then knifing people becomes the norm.
-- Jack the Ripper
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."
...and you seize the opportunity of an exceptional event to promote your own ideas.
You mean like diving on the shooting at a school to promote gun bans? There are thousands of kids dead at the hands of criminals in the inner cities every year, some by guns, some by drugs. There's no campaign to figure that shit out. No, it makes a hell of a lot better media and sound bites when it's a nice white suburban family whose lost a child.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
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.
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.
This is probably designed with the Paris attack in mind, to keep large congregations of people who could conceal terrorist types to a minimum.
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.
We're not gonna protest. No, we ain't gonna protest. We're not gonna protest anymore.
Thirty four characters live here.
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
Really? Every UN climate change summit for the past 15 years has been billed as the "last chance" to save the planet.
... 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!
That's right, all they have to do is ban large gatherings and the terrorists won't be able to hide their hijinks anymore. Everyone is going to be so SAFE now!
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
It is unfair to have a war of wits with an unarmed man.
Oscar Wilde, I think
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
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.
You do what they do in places like Iraq: use suicide bombers in cars packed with explosives.
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.
The thought of being shot at and killed is not really a deterrent if you're on a suicide mission anyway.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Completely outlaw guns, then knifing people becomes the norm.
First, you can outlaw carrying knives too. Second, I'd rather be attacked by someone with a knife than a gun.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Your quips are literally retarded.
I do not think it means what you think it means...