French government begins cracking down on terrorism, civil rights threatened

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by kazenatsu, Nov 27, 2020.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The article is behind a paywall
    Macron’s Rightward Tilt in France Sows Wider Alarm - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

    Apparently French President Macron has taken a harder line in response to all the terrorism in the country (Islamic terrorism that has been the result of massive amounts of immigration over the last 15 years).
    But there are many people complaining that these new hardline tactics and proposed laws coming from the government will violate civil liberties and turn the country into a police state.

    I told you this would happen.

    It's a trade-off. When you import problems from foreign countries, then the government needs to "solve" those problems. But these solutions are not without side effects and unintended consequences. More freedoms and individual liberties are chipped away at.


    Macron and the mayor of Paris have also apparently given police forces the green light to crackdown on the eruption of any possible violence, which has meant a crackdown on demonstrators.
    Public order in Human Rights Square | openDemocracy

    Note that Macron is definitely not on "The Right", he is a moderate progressive on social issues but not on economic issues, and he is a believer in Globalism. He is just acting as more of a pragmatist here. The country has an issue, which he believes to be intolerable, and he is cracking down.

    The NY Times in their article tries to make it look like Macron's clampdown is because of the ideological Right, but that's probably just an attempt to shift the blame against the Right, which the NY Times really does not like.
     
  2. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a real risk for massive violence there, maybe not civil war, even if I wouldn't exclude it, but a kind of massive violence that is just under civil war.

    Things are strange, i don't know toward what my country is heading to, but I don't like it.
     
  3. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Islamic terrorism isn't a result of immigration, it's the result of centuries of ongoing conflicts between Christian/Western and Muslim countries and the impacts those conflicts have had on the latter. If there was no immigration, there would still be terrorism, it would just be more of the terrorism targeting the kinds of people you don't care about.

    I strongly suspect there will be a political aspect, Macron having to be seen to be doing some of the things his political opponents call for to protect his position. In principle, that isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as the actual policies are well thought out and implemented rather than knee-jerk reactions to grab popularist headlines.
     
  4. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,379
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is one of those conversations that we avoided in this 2020 election, and one we really have not had since 9-11 and the Patriot Act. We are long overdue. There is a difference between talking civil rights, the disparity between how blacks and whites are treated or even about defunding police and us talking civil liberties, ie the scope and grounds for search and seizure especially with respect to computer records and access through third parties , the limits behind a 'stop', a detention, a frisk, an arrest, the state's burden when asking for a warrant, the role of FISA courts etc. And when was the last time anyone talked about funding legal aide, sufficiently so that any of this civil liberties crap mattered if you weren't independently wealthy, and were NOT on death row!

    We had done a lot of talking about the former, and not at all about the latter.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2020
    joesnagg likes this.
  5. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    6,990
    Likes Received:
    6,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @kazenatsu ...it seems to be a political move to maintain power. If he moves a bit to the right he takes the wind out of the right wingers rhetoric against him. win win for him and presumably the non-Parisian/metropolitan French?
    As to photographing and broadcasting images of law enforcement officers with the intent of causing them physical or mental harm....well....personally can kind of understand it? The interesting element of that is the legal tests applied which the article does not go into. Without context it's a stretch to sympathize with the rhetoric
     
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think it's a politically calculated move in that way.

    I think it's more of a pragmatist and knee-jerk reaction. He sees the country has an issue, views it as intolerable, and wants to forcefully do something to solve the problem.

    Not exactly a "Liberal" (in the Left progressive sense) or "Libertarian" (in the conservative Right sense) approach, but one that is still common to many of those on the progressive Left and conservative Right.
    It's an issue that does not really follow the usual Right/Left political lines.
    Some people have trouble seeing any political issue that does not fit easily into the Right/Left dichotomy framework.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2020
  7. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    6,990
    Likes Received:
    6,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't get that from the articles you posted. The move seems to be a pragmatic move in order to a) appease the Police Unions and b) to bolster his "right" credentials with the French people who are worried that there is an Islamist threat against french values. Your posted articles seem to back that up. Have you perhaps posted the wrong newspaper clippings?
    Again its difficult to reason since there is no context but if (as your articles imply) the Police Trade Union has a strong political power base and given that trade unions in France in general are very strong (as we see very often) then not moving to appease the Police Union in a time of crisis would seem to be politically suicidal! If the government are having an industrial dispute with the police at such a time of crisis then it just begs an action of opportunism from the other parties - I just see this as blatant realpolitking.
     
  8. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's because it is a heavily biased political article, coming from the NY Times.
    I wasn't able to find another article that covers this.

    I don't automatically believe the perspective of all articles. I try to look at the facts. Let news stories make me aware that something is going on, but I don't always trust their perspective or take on it.

    I heavily doubt that. This is just a heavily Progressive Leftist perspective trying to make sense of what is happening.
    Right now there is a blame-police narrative going on in the US, so they are seeing things in France through that lens.

    In other words, it's a heavily biased, editorialized, and imaginative article, not a very good one, but it's the only English-language one I could find.

    It seems virtually all of these articles on this come from the extremely progressive Left and are pretty biased.
    (I don't say that to mean that all articles from Left media are biased, but these ones are. I get more of the feeling like they are trying to defend their own here, or avert blame, since the Left in France threw their support to Macron to get him elected president in a coalition)
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2020
  9. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another article:

    Emmanuel Macron Is Creating a Liberalism Without Civil Liberties

    On Tuesday, France's National Assembly passed a bill effectively banning citizens from posting videos of police officers. Emmanuel Macron is trampling on historic press freedoms in order to prove himself as a "law-and-order" president - an authoritarian turn which makes a mockery of his claimed defense of liberal values.

    It reads like the sort of blunt attack on civil liberties you'd expect from the ruling party in Hong Kong or Turkey - certainly not anything that would pass muster in a country where politicians regularly invoke the Republic and its unrelenting commitment to liberal values. And yet, this is the reality of France’s sweeping new national security bill, approved by pro-Macron legislators in the National Assembly on Tuesday, and set to head to the Senate in January.​

    Emmanuel Macron Is Creating a Liberalism Without Civil Liberties (jacobinmag.com)


    Paris, France – Journalists and activists have raised concerns over a new bill by the French government, aimed at ushering in the so-called “global security” law, saying civil liberties and press freedom could ultimately be compromised.

    Under the law, tabled by members of Parliament from President Emmanuel Macron’s governing La République En Marche (LREM) party, sharing images of on-duty police “with the aim or harming their physical or psychological integrity” will be punishable with up to a year in prison and a maximum 45,000-euro ($53,360) fine.

    Other proposed measures include allowing police to use camera-equipped drones and easier access to CCTV footage.

    The aim of the bill, which is being debated in the National Assembly this week, is to “protect those who protect us”, according to Gérald Darmanin, the interior minister, in reference to recent attacks on French police; last month for instance about 40 people tried to storm a police station in the Parisian suburb of Champigny-sur-Marne.

    But a broad coalition of critics in France has warned the measures could undermine the freedom of the press, the public’s right to be informed, and growing efforts to stamp out police-led violence.

    In January, for example, witness video was used as key evidence in the case of Cédric Chouviat, a 42-year-old delivery driver of Algerian origin who died in January after officers continued pinning him to the ground despite saying “I’m suffocating” seven times; three officers were later charged with manslaughter.

    Thomas Hochmann, professor of public law at the University of Paris Nanterre, told Al Jazeera: “It constitutes a serious infringement of freedom of expression. There will be great reluctance [for the public and journalists] to disseminate images or even to film.”

    Chris Myant, chair of the National Union of Journalists’ branch in France, said: “This is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation in respect of press freedom ever offered in a major democracy.”

    Clashes broke out in Paris on Tuesday as police fired tear gas and deployed water cannon when thousands took to the streets in protest against the bill, with demonstrations also reported in Rennes, Lyon, Toulouse, Bordeaux and Grenoble.

    The scenes were marred by further reports of police violence and aggression towards journalists.
    “A police officer grabbed me by my hood, pulled me off my feet, and dragged me … causing me to choke because my collar was tight around my neck. I couldn’t breathe at all,” said Hannah Nelson, a photojournalist, who was arrested and released without charge the following day.
    “I believe they used excessive force and acted disproportionately, as I was in no way antagonising the situation.”
    Clément Lanot, a freelance video journalist who covered the protests, said a policeman “threatened to arrest him if he didn’t leave the area”, despite visibly carrying a press card, armband and camera.
    Press freedom, civil liberties concerns over French security bill | France | Al Jazeera
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2020
  10. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    6,990
    Likes Received:
    6,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ...but they need to provide the legal tests in order to validate this statement otherwise its meaningless. Look I understand the point you're trying to make but I still think its just a bunch of semi-informed people letting off steam without knowing the facts. Do you think that the courts would uphold arbitrary laws based on the types of cases that the rhetoric suggest?

    ...again from my reading of the issue that's not the issue, the point is that the dissemination of such material has to be done with the intent to cause harm to that person.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2020
  11. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think it's a fair statement, looking at the face of it.

    These type of laws would be open to plenty of vague and stretched interpretation, giving police and prosecutors cover to arrest and prosecute.

    When you criminalize a thing that should be legal and a right, but base the criminal aspect of it all on "intent", that can easily be interpreted in ways that don't have to do with what the action itself actually was.
    I agree this is concerning.

    Laws can easily be abused in ways that don't seem immediately obvious on the surface.

    For example, someone could do something that's theoretically otherwise perfectly legal, but then prosecutors can use other unrelated actions which are legal as evidence of a mental state of intent, to turn something into a crime that is otherwise legal. And then convince the jury of that legal logic, and tell them that under the law it's their duty to convict.
    Persons could be punished based on an alleged "state of mind". We've already seen that happen in the legal system. Under these conditions, it's incredibly easy for individuals in these situations to be convicted of laws, even though they may not technically have done anything that is actually against the law.

    And we also have to think about how judges, law enforcement, and prosecutors won't be punished for their misconduct, because they can claim they were just following the law, which would be technically true.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2020
  12. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rather than asking whether sharing images "with intent" should be illegal, try this: How about instead ask if you'd be okay with making "having the aim to harm or harming physical or psychological integrity of law enforcement" be something that is illegal. Where that alone could be considered a crime without any images being taken.

    Can you see then why that might be so concerning?

    Do you see how that could be incredibly vague? And such a law prone to misuse.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2020
  13. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    6,990
    Likes Received:
    6,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I disagree to the extent that laws cannot be abused if you have a viable judiciary - its the court interpretation of the law that is the over-riding aspect of the applicable test (which we don't know) - the appeals court or whatever you have in France will also have to be considered and presumably also the European Courts.

    Sorry, I'm not sure what you're getting at - is this a hypothetical?
     
  14. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think you really understand how the judiciary typically works. It usually acts as a conveyor belt, or a rubber stamp, and judges act with indifference and relative apathy, so long as what the prosecutor wants to do seems half-reasonable on the surface. That's the usual rule.

    Relying on the judiciary to be the ones to temper the potential misuse of these laws would be a mistake. I have posted countless threads about abuses that were allowed to be carried on due to the totally apathetic attitude of judges, in the Law & Justice section of this forum.

    The truth is that the vast majority of day-to-day decisions are left up to the prosecutor. The judge is just there to intervene in extreme circumstances. They have too many cases to carefully examine each one.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2020
  15. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, in a way, it was a hypothetical thought experiment, attempting to get you to look at this from another angle.

    Your mistake is thinking that such a law would only end up criminalizing taking images of law enforcement in certain situations.
    The reality is that such a law would end up criminalize taking images of law enforcement in what are legal situations, because they will use evidence unrelated to the alleged act to try to prove that there was malintent. And the wording of the law can allow that to be used as evidence of guilt, rather than defining exactly what was illegal.

    Such a law will basically turn into a situational "thought crime", and invite assumptions to be made about the suspect's subjective "state of mind", when deciding whether what they did constitutes a crime or not.

    My point was for you to try examine this from the hypothetical angle of only looking at the "intent" part of the law.
    Because anyone taking any type of pictures of law enforcement could potentially be subject to this "intent" part.

    And you seem to be relying all on the good nature of police and prosecutors, assuming they would never use this law in a bad way.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2020
  16. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How about here: Anybody who voted for that sick-sick-sick person should have their own head examined. And that makes for one helluva-lotta people!

    He was diagnosed with serious psychological problems by its professionals (in Psychology Today) before the election. It is understandable that the mention had little impact on the result. Donald Dork lost the election and had is sorry-arse saved by the Electoral College.

    Which is a voting device that is NOT EMPLOYED by any other major country on earth ...

    PS: Countries that employ an Electoral College other than the US: Burundi, Estonia, India, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad, Tobago and Vanuatu. Great company, huh ... ?
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  17. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hogwash!

    I happen to know of several police men and women who have been personally attacked because they were known to police. They were jostled and beaten as civilians when off-duty by "people who had been arrested by the police". Particularly from the poorer parts of Paris.

    It is known that Paris particularly is a difficult place for the police to live in as just-ordinary-citizens. Nobody is rushing to become a policeman or woman in France.

    And yet, given the "French persona" that will go out and demonstrate with incurred public-damage without the police to beat crowds back parts of Paris would be in ruins.

    Many of these people are poor-and-desperate because they cannot work - and all are illegal-migrants. (Not immigrants!) Who obviously thought that once illegally in France that the economy should employ them. In fact, they are estimated to be around 90000 in all of France ...
     
    The Scotsman likes this.
  18. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You do seem to be moving to the far right with Macron in charge. The only time he appears to like freedom of speech is when it is to do with anti Islam cartoons. This article is discussing it

    Freedom of speech in France extends to Macron's critics as well | Middle East Eye

    but it isn't by any means the first I have seen. I believe I heard on the news a short while ago that French citizens are not to be allowed to take photos of the police - after the ones of the police beating the man. Indeed here is an article about the people of France protesting against this interference into their freedoms which should exist in a Democratic Society.

    Thousands protest as France reels from police violence | France | Al Jazeera

    You look to me like you are moving towards an authoritarian regime. It does look very worrying at the moment.
     
  19. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    6,990
    Likes Received:
    6,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    yeah...exactly the point I was trying to make. The last people you want to be alienating in these times are the people trying to maintain some semblance of order.

    ...that's what this threads all about...as always though the Devil's in the detail....
     
  20. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know what's ironic? Progressives are running these police. When the mobs say they hate police, what in effect they are really saying is they hate the way their own progressive leaders (whom they support) are running things.

    But it's obvious the mobs haven't really thought that far.

    Just my personal opinion, but I think in many cases the police have been thrown under the bus, and are being used as political and social pawns.

    Many of these progressives are incapable of running things. The people don't seem to be able to comprehend that that could even exist. So all the blame for problems gets dumped onto disliked groups (the traditional "oppressors").
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
  21. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wrong again!

    If you look at the TV-takes of the "mobs", you'll find that they are all young-men and if you ask them, they'll tell you they have no work.

    And the French-state is responsible for that situation? Methinks not. Covid is responsible.

    Just like elsewhere - including the US. With the sole exception that the US had elected by mistake a dork-PotUS who did not take the right COVOD-reaction at the right-time. Because he had is brain elsewhere!

    Which is why Uncle Sam has today one of the highest per-capita death rates from Covid along with several European-countries (France, Italy, Spain, Belgium) that have higher rates than the US. See infographic here: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

    Now, everyone in the US is waiting for the "magic" of an anti-Covid pill. Well, that's going to take a while and - during that "while" - more Yanks are going to die from Covid-exposure ... !

    PS: And Donald Dork can take that fact to the grave with himself. I'll bet he's had another Covid killer-shot from his "friend" - but that company has since had its problems getting approval of its formula - see here ...
     
  22. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Heard of BDS. French courts are I think the only ones which have agreed with Governments that support for BDS is a crime. English courts for instance have said we are a democracy and because of that people have the right to support BDS if they choose. Because of what they had done in France, French people brought this to the European Court. The European Court ruled much as the English that France is a Democracy and so people have the right to choose their own political position. Macron himself has said France is not going to go by the Judgement of the European Court.
     
  23. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Not sure what detail you are wanting. Four police beating up the man was filmed as it sometimes is in the US. I saw a bit of it on my tv. I think he was a black record producer or something and had gone out not wearing a mask.

    One African paper claimed he was sexually abused but I did not see that anywhere else. Basically this happened while Macron was already putting in a bill so that people would be unable to legally film police and people have been thinking their police have already been acting badly, so see this as intended to allow this to continue and get worse and they have every reason to think this. The only time dirty deeds of the police ever are dealt with wherever they are taking place is when members of the public film them.

    There is however more than one way to skin a cat and it was after finding that article soundling like censorship that I posted. People believe what they hear. If they only hear one side, as the article was suggesting they do not have enough information to come up with an informed opinion. This of course is going on all over the West but it seems to be getting strong in France at the moment and it would seem from the article I put in possibly on Macron's orders.

    And yes I agree with you that Macron is trying to make the French believe that he is further to the right to get the far right vote. I also see it in his actions. Politicians moving to the far right to get a vote are still moving to the far right and by no means all of the people in France are of the far right but Macron appears to sit with that position very well...too well That being said he is I think about the most unpopular President France has ever had so possibly Marie Le Pen will get his vote. I think last time he advertised himself as saving France from that but now he appears to be saying he is more than happy to do her job himself.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
  24. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I would take care in believing anything inappropriate you see is due to terrorism. Remember the terrorist attack in Austria?

    Austrian crackdown on Palestinian NGOs signals slide into tyranny | Middle East Eye

    Even more ironic when a Palestinian is given credit for saving a Policeman in the earlier terrorist attack.

    Austria honours Palestinian hero in Vienna attack – Middle East Monitor
     
  25. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    6,990
    Likes Received:
    6,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    yeah......that's the point I was making....a viable judiciary....so again Article 24 depends upon the legal tests within the draft proposal and whether or not it ultimately stands up to scrutiny in the courts under an appeal process...the devil is in the detail as I said.
    ...exactly what you posted about the BDS....!!??
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020

Share This Page