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.

Comments

"using the opportunity to suppress dissent."

[Nutria]

Is the French government a known climate denier?

Or are they suppressing mass demonstrations for other reasons?

Re:"using the opportunity to suppress dissent."

[thegarbz]

You don't need to be a climate denier to get sick of some of the protesting crap that is happening in the world. France is in the bottom quartile of CO2 emissions in the EU countries both in absolute terms and per capita terms. They are also on the forefront of regulating diesel use, and attempting to reduce car use in the inner city (not helped by Paris's crap air quality).

The idea that people are protesting against the French government on environmental grounds seems quite strange to me.

Re:"using the opportunity to suppress dissent."

[dfenstrate]

Is the French government a known climate denier?

Or are they suppressing mass demonstrations for other reasons?

Have you considered using the word 'heretic' instead of 'denier'?

Re:"using the opportunity to suppress dissent."

[Coolfish]

The idea that people are protesting against the French government on environmental grounds seems quite strange to me.

You probably are not aware that there will be an international meeting in Paris soon. Many governments will be represented, and the protests are an attempt to somehow sway more governments to act?

But no. Far easier to knock down strawmen. Sick of protesting crap. Yeah, democracy and free speech are so sickening, ugh! Why don't we have more countries like North Korea and China where the governments really know how to crack down on these stupid protests! /s

Re:"using the opportunity to suppress dissent."

[AchilleTalon]

And is this going to work? No. Nobody gives a fuck about protesters, but protesters themselves.

Re:"using the opportunity to suppress dissent."

[Conspicuous Coward]

No, the French government doesn't deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Nor does the US, China, or indeed virtually any major government or multinational corporation. Despite that fact, global CO2 emissions are still rising on an exponential curve. And all of these organisations are actively searching for more sources of fossil fuels at a time when science tells us we need to keep ~80% of known fossil reserves in the ground to avoid dangerous climate change

Climate denial-ism is a sideshow intended to keep you distracted. The media loudly promote a debate that doesn't really exist any more so that people can feel good they aren't a part of the evil climate deniers causing the problem. Liberals who loudly proclaim the importance of fighting climate change while doing everything they can to increase emissions have been far more of a threat to our climate than deniers for at least 20 years. When Obama gives another inspirational speech about preserving the environment for future generations everybody claps, and nobody bothers to mention the fact that the man has authorised an unprecedented increase in US domestic oil and gas production.

The COP conference in Paris will be little more than another sideshow intended to keep you distracted. We already know that there will be no legally binding agreements to reduce emissions and that the voluntary pledges countries are prepared to sign up to will likely lead to some 3-4C of warming even if implemented fully.

The reality is we live in a world that is gearing up for more, not less, fossil fuel use. Despite the loud proclamations of governments and media corporations to the contrary.

That is why protest is necessary and why the French government is actively suppressing dissent with these measures.

Re:Protests?

[ClickOnThis]

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.

Hypocrite

[Barny]

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.

Re:Hypocrite

[AHuxley]

France did this back in the day of the Minitel networking services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Different groups (university reforms in the mid 1980's) could gather protesters from all over France in the using national, easy to connect to French networking telco systems.
The main thrust for France is to quell domestic protests and stop leaking of information eg French gov staff or press background to a Rainbow Warrior like event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Been able to track the formation of protests or the press, track gov/mil whistleblowers talking to the French press before publication is interesting under new powers.
"Powers to pre-emptively detain key activists" is chilling.

Quote:

[bitchtits]

'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”.'

This is how it begins

[whoever57]

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.

Re:This is how it begins

[hcs_$reboot]

Don't underestimate the impact of the 2-weeks-ago-yet-fresh-massacre though. So, this time the protests are suppressed, and in a year from now they will be authorized again. Do you really think France, and especially the French, would accept a "state of emergency" lasting years? No. Moreover there are presidential elections in less than two years, and the party abusing the current situation more than necessary would be decimated by the voters. The French are really attached to freedom.

Re:This is how it begins

[Eunuchswear]

Do you really think France, and especially the French, would accept a "state of emergency" lasting years?

No, they will make the measures permanent like every other country that has reduced civil liberties. When?

This isn't the first time France has declared state of emergency, an the previous times it was removed when it expired.

But feel free to enjoy your ideologicaly inspired cynicism.

Re:This is how it begins

[ultranova]

We have elections because they are meaningless. Show me one country where there is a party that actually has a chance to become part of a government that would change the status quo.

Show me a single democratic country where the voters agree which way the status quo should be changed. It seems to me that status quo rarely changes a lot in a single election because it already reflects a decent compromise between the interests of various people, organizations and ideals that make up a nation.

It's not the mirror's fault that what it reveals leaves a lot to be desired.

Re:This is how it begins

[c]

Do you really think France, and especially the French, would accept a "state of emergency" lasting years?

I wouldn't have expected the average American to tolerate minimum wage thugs groping children and elderly without effective results for years, either... but apparently, the terrorists won that round.

Yes/No

[Anonymous Coward]

//// Football matches: "Yes: Life must go on" ///// Climate change protests: "No - It's a security risk"

Re:Yes/No

[Mashiki]

Considering the security measures required to get into a stadium in france vs a group of protesters and someone wandering up with a suicide vest strapped to them. Well, there does appear to be a security risk to general people. Those protests would be a splody-dopes dream.

Re:Yes/No

[Evtim]

Yhea, but football matches make money!

Re:Yes/No

[jklovanc]

Football match;
One venue;
Few, if any, in masks
Security checks including searches expected

Protests;
Occur all over town
Many protesters with masks and backpacks.
Security checks seen ass oppressive and will be fought against.

See the difference?

Re:Propaganda.

[Mister Transistor]

It's true. Chicago is the most beautiful shade of purple around this time of year.

Re:Propaganda.

[drnb]

"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.

Why does gov't care about climate change protest?

[drnb]

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?

Human right convention suspended

[manu0601]

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

Re:Why does gov't care about climate change protes

[drnb]

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?

Perhaps it has more to do with getting the populace used to suppression of dissent?

What dissent? The protesters and the government agree.

Re:Why does gov't care about climate change protes

[whoever57]

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.

Re:Why does gov't care about climate change protes

[Uberbah]

Right, so the French government that recognizes climate change and agrees it is a major issue to be dealt with

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.

Re:The American Way

[Eunuchswear]

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

zealots ^2

[harvey the nerd]

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.

Re:zealots ^2

[wisnoskij]

I have never heard of protesters forming into opposing mobs and attacking eachother being a common problem. I think what you are thinking of is sporting events.

Re:zealots ^2

[tehcyder]

I have a much harder science background than you do

But, let me guess, not actually in climatology? In fact, probably in Computer Science?

Just a guess.

Re:The American Way

[hcs_$reboot]

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.

Some context

[drewm19801927]

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.

Re:Damned if you do and damned if you don't

[feufeu]

Scenario 3: Leave the traditional world where under let's-all-agree-not-to-think-further-than-the-length-of-a-news-headline reasoning there are only scenarios 1 and 2 and go like:

Do not ban protests und tell everyone that in deciding this there is a risk but in our opinion it's worth it. Say: "Be aware of this if you take part in the protest and we encourage you to use your freedom to do so but you may want to leave the kids at home". A terrorist attack might occur, yes.

Re:Protests?

[burtosis]

People chanting outside: "We're not going to protest! We're not going to protest!"

Re:Propaganda.

[Feyshtey]

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.

Re: Protests?

[tysonedwards]

We're not gonna protest. No, we ain't gonna protest. We're not gonna protest anymore.

Read the news, CO2 emissions flat

[SuperKendall]

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...

Re:Why does gov't care about climate change protes

[whoever57]

However protesters and government being in agreement does squash your silly suggestion that its part of some government conspiracy heading towards dictatorship.

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.