Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The French regime again showing its ugly authoritarian and statist face with these draconian bills. It wasn't enough for them to put environmentalists under house arrest and subject innocent people to humiliating mandatory reporting to different police stations 3 times a day or obligatory curfew for certain people or neighborhoods without any judicial oversight. [0]

I knew it from the beginning that they would abuse the State of Emergency decree and turn the lives of people esp minorities into a living hell.

[0]: https://wiki.laquadrature.net/%C3%89tat_urgence/Recensement# ((FR))




I'm getting really afraid of these authoritarian opportunists. Seems much more likely to have an impact on my life than terrorist attacks at least...


I'm genuinely more afraid of the people who are afraid right now than I am of the people who they think I should be afraid of. The anti-Muslim rhetoric (e.g. yelling "All Muslims are terrorists" at town meetings) scares the hell out of me. How easily could that attitude be shifted towards any arbitrary group with just one or two tragic events?


On one hand, it's unquestionable that radical Islam is an aggressor that is funding and directing terror attacks.

On the other hand, Muslims are people too, and it is extremely unjust to punish all Muslims for the actions of a radical sect. I think that Europe is in danger of lurching rightward and tempting the return of ethno-religious cleansing. Fascism is not pretty, and the danger for Europeans is real.


it's unquestionable that radical Islam is an aggressor

Sure, but why stop there instead of going just a tiny bit deeper and identifying the money layer? You'll find it has a lot less to do with religion and a lot more to do with efforts by the House of Saud to maintain an increasingly dubious hold on worldly power. You'll also find a rat's nest of illiberal interests from nominally liberal countries with an interest in their survival. Thus, the broader desire to deflect attention from the very dark and concentrated heart of this to a much more diffuse and amorphous target like "radical islam".

Every time you're tempted to say "radical Islam" try saying "Saudi Arabia" instead. More often than not, you'll find you've hit on the more accurate term.


Make no mistake Iran is a dangerous state too and Shiite Islam can be weaponized too and could prove much more lethal than Sunni Islam given that religious Shiites usually follow their "Pope" or Supreme Leader blindly.

Just imagine an army of 500 mln or so that can be mobilized with a single fiery speech or declaration. Actually, that kind of empire or army is the wildest wet dream that Sunni radicals could have.


That's a hypothetical with a significant number of non-trivial barriers to realization, not an actual situation with a long a well-documented history. You've also missed the larger point, which has to do with the deeply cynical and reckless policies of Western elites with regard to the KSA.

Finally, your numbers are absurd. 500 million? Shia? In round numbers, you're off by...a lot. ~180 million is closer to the mark, and the idea that this entire population, very young and old included, is one speech away from becoming a ferocious army is beyond insane.

I'm sorry, but the way you combined deep ignorance and wild speculation with plain bad information was ugly enough. Finishing your remarks with a needless bit of vulgarity puts them way over the top.

Seriously, this is the kind of garbage you expect to find at Trump rallies, not HN.


Yes, this is my perspective as well, but for ease of conversation I didn't mention it here-- people get very upset.

But take it a step further. Who funds Saudi Arabia, and why? Who backs radical Sunnis, and why? Who backs the radical Shia? Geopolitical problems have many causes and symptoms which can grow into entire pathologies in their own right when they get really out of control, as the West's idiotic power struggle with Russia in the Middle East has.


Who funds Saudi Arabia? Nobody "funds" Saudi Arabia. It's a sovereign nation with massive reserves of oil and independent wealth, not some Silicon Valley start up. To the extent that the money comes from somewhere, it comes from all of us, because we need to get to work and gas costs money.

The point is that the US has its own set of deeply vested interests in these markets, and they're more than willing to tolerate what the Saudis are doing to underwrite jihadi terrorism and the Wahhabi strain of Islam that animates it if the alternative involves seriously consideration of changes to the way the developed world produces and consumes the energy it depends on.


[flagged]


> the ugly truth is that communal punishment is the only form of punishment that truly works

I appreciate from your other comments that your views are nuanced, but posting something this glib about something this horrific crosses the line here.


> I appreciate from your other comments that your views are nuanced, but posting something this glib about something this horrific crosses the line here.

Here's the thing. Eventually, Islamic extremism WILL disappear. Today, tomorrow, or in 100 years. The only question is how that happens.

My wife is Muslim (and dark-skinned). I married her in an Islamic ceremony (meaning I became Muslim, at least in the eyes of some Islamic authority). Her family all have Muslim names. Our children will be visibly non-white.

We're also secular, and like to do secular things. I'd love to go to Europe with her, we both have family there, and I'd love for the world to be a place where she isn't discriminated against (and she HAS experienced racism here, in Canada), either by the state, by ignorant red-necks, or by other Muslims.

The fact is, every time terrorist attacks happen, she feels it. The looks at work, the comments on Facebook. I don't remember people talking about 'deporting all the Muslims' in Canada until very recently. We (as in myself, my wife and family) have a stake in this. She didn't choose to be Muslim, but she does suffer consequences today. And she knows it can get worse. Some of her family have converted to another religion and changed their names - she's considered it as well. It would be nice if abandoning your birth identity wasn't something you even had to consider.

Anyhow, either extremism is rooted out now, or it'll be rooted out later. It'll likely be more painful later...


I appreciate all of that, but calling for communal punishment with a bogus claim that it's the only thing that will work (something you can't possibly know) still crosses the line here.

It shouldn't be hard to see why. Imagine reading HN and hearing your fellow users call for you to be punished for crimes you are at least as aghast at, and personally more likely to suffer from, than the rest of the HN population is.


Well today Trump called for all Muslim travel to the US to halt. My wife and I travel to the US every year. If Trump gets elected, we won't be able to.

So 'collective punishment' is already happening.

All this bullshit is already affecting our lives. We're not part of any Muslim community, but my wife has a Muslim name, and public photos exist of my Muslim wedding. My wife's been told to leave the country by a red-neck. I've seen confederate flags flying here (in Canada...). Up until recent events, Canada's been pretty tolerant. Now it's anything but. It's getting harder to play down terrorist attacks as simply an 'aberration' or an 'isolated incident'.

I'm being real, talking about real things. France woke up to the FN leading the elections. Hollande closing down a few Mosques and banning religious symbols is small potatoes compared to could happen in the not to distant future... Maybe I'm sensationalist and too controversial. I prefer the socialist dream to the conservative dream. But right now we're headed towards a bleak future...


Eh, could you hold that thought for a moment? We're busy with our collective punishment programme of Christians, they should've stopped Breivik because hey, all Christians exchange terrorist plans and knew it was coming but they didn't warn the police! The only way we can convince them to warn the police next time is to punish them collectively this time, these Christians just don't care otherwise...

Can you see how silly your reasoning is or do you want more jokes?

Collective punishment is a stupid, barbaric, medieval idea we've fortunately gotten rid of. You're suggesting guilt by association, it's on the level of ridiculous ideas you'd expect from groups like IS.


First of all, Breivik himself stated he's not a Christian, claiming allegiance to Odin.

Second, if someone knew of his plans and didn't turn him in, they're guilty of complicity under current laws in most western countries.

Third, far-right groups are regularly 'punished' (ie. Prosecuted under various laws) for the actions of their members, even if it doesn't comprise all their members. As are gang members, etc...

Harboring, aiding and abetting criminals is punished in our society as a crime. Why not aiding and abetting extremism?


Laws exist to prosecute those that help support, aide and abet terrorists and they are frequently used against people in the aftermath of an attack. You seem to either think that all Muslims are guilty of aiding and abetting so should all be prosecuted or that these laws are not being used against Muslims who had prior knowledge of these attacks.


> First of all, Breivik himself stated he's not a Christian, claiming allegiance to Odin.

I was mostly using Breivik as a joke, I don't care for his beliefs as they have no root in reality. But for the record, Breivik has said a lot of things, indeed that he was not a religious man, indeed allegiance to Odin, but also statements like 'I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian.' He contradicted himself on many different occasions, but it'd be myopic to say he has never identified himself as a Christian. Again though, I don't care and certainly don't see him as a Christian terrorist, I was just using it for material for my joke to show how silly your reasoning is.

Anyway, on to more important things. You bring up aiding and abetting multiple times and then end your post. I don't see your point. Well I do but it's so wrong that I'm left wondering if you were trying to make another point.

The point you're making is 'sometimes people who indirectly are responsible for a crime, get convinced'. And that's true, and that's good. If you drive a getaway car for a bank robber or murderer, you're responsible.

Now, how that in any way reflects on the responsibility of say my father, who stays awake at night because he can't sleep, saddened about the loss of innocent life due to the recent terrorist attacks (I'm not making up a sob story here, take it how you want it), a man who happens to be a muslim, is beyond me. He has zero connection with these attacks, never condoned it, never supported it, never saw any indication it happened. He's simply a decent muslim, in no way different from any other, who let his own son grow up an atheist without ever making a fuss. Your idea to punish him by mere association on the basis of his religious beliefs, is again, something you'd expect from the terrorists you're so against. Further, it strengthens the very strategy that IS has, which is to recruit a billion muslims by scaring the world into resorting to medieval instruments like collective punishment of muslims you suggest, creating systems of apartheid based on religious beliefs, and pitting people like my dad against people like myself.

Collective punishment is a very distinct idea. It's not punishing the crime of aiding and abetting which is a normal and useful part of virtually every justice system on earth. Collective punishment is specifically punishing those with innocent associations. How you can not see the difference is beyond me. Next when a man does something, all men must be punished. When a black person does something, all blacks must be punished. When a computer engineer does something, all engineers must be punished. It's like I'm talking to a child with all due respect, defending collective punishment is an idea silly beyond reason. Some of the worst atrocities have happened under the guise of collective punishment and the world has created laws against it for this very reason.

Lastly I'll finish with this, and I hope you'll be convinced then. Because you must see the irony... to punish innocent people, merely because they're associated under an umbrella (a very wide umbrella, amongst which one may find many differences) of islamic faith, is to do exactly what some terrorists have done in the past... Terrorists have attacked and punished innocent people in the west, merely for their association with the west, whose governments have been responsible for various atrocities in the world. They have collectively punished and murdered innocent people on the basis of this association, including ordinary folks who resisted these atrocities, voted and marched against them, as well as punished kids who had no say in the matter. That's collective punishment, it's insane, it's immoral, and you're a supporter. I hate to throw a terrorist-supporter card on the table, but you're asking for one.


I'll link you to one of my other posts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10692855 I'm not without a stake in this either...

> You bring up aiding and abetting multiple times and then end your post. I don't see your point.

When the authorities recently raided various domiciles and Mosques in France, they found a bunch of weapons. Including some stashed in a Mosque. They found extremist propaganda. Some of the Paris attackers were known to police ("fiche S").

Up until now, they let these people be. Maybe they assumed they wouldn't actually carry out their radical desires. It's hard to believe no one in their community knew about their radicalism. They were given a chance to sort it out themselves. The west has been tolerant enough of those with divergent beliefs, assuming that they'll eventually assimilate.

> Now, how that in any way reflects on the responsibility of say my father, who stays awake at night because he can't sleep, saddened about the loss of innocent life due to the recent terrorist attacks (I'm not making up a sob story here, take it how you want it), a man who happens to be a muslim, is beyond me.

Is his son a terrorist? Is his brother? To be honest, I have no doubt he'd be even more upset if you were.

And I don't think he should be punished. What is 'fair' and 'just' in life is different than reality. Is it fair that innocent French people died in the Bataclan? Is it fair that Muslims died in the Bataclan (because there WERE Muslim names on the list of the dead). Is it fair that most of ISIS' victims are Muslims? Is it fair that Saudi Arabia is beheading and dropping bombs on Shias?

Today, just now, Donald Trump called for no Muslims to be allowed into the US. Is that fair? Yesterday, the Front National had a very strong result in France, and they propose much of the same (if not worse).

I'm calling for some sort of responsibility on the part of Muslims for people who become radicalised within their communities. Maybe some of my posts are controversial and maybe I use too much hyperbole. Maybe I'm too cynical about the world.

But the rise of the FN, and other extreme-right parties does have a precedent in history. It is history repeating itself. What comes after is worse...


Call it a conspiracy theory or what not but the rise of the far right looks manufactured to me. There are some really important people want RW stooges in positions of power for their future plans and they know very well how to make them appealing to the electorate by making their opponents look soft on issues of security and law & order. All it would take just to turn a blind eye to ISIS till the threat gets out of hand and then let one or two attacks pass through for the maximum impact on the unwary public.


Not only the Muslims are targeted, if you are an Atheist Arab and it happens that you have an Arabic name you will receive the same treatment.


Which is why many of my wife's family have changed their names, and given their children non-Muslim names.

On the flip side, my wife has also had other Muslims judge her for being too secular...

BTW, Arab-Christians are a thing, they're not named Mohammed, Ali or Abu Bakr... 'Muslim' names are distinct from 'Arab' names (ie. Are names of Islamic saints).


Do you really think that the bigots, angry mob or lowlifes would be capable of telling a secular Arabic name from an Islamic or Christian one?

Good luck with that! Try convince them first that "Syed" the first name of the Muslim terrorist who carried out the San Bernandino attack is a secular name and not Islamic one then we can talk about your "Final Solution" for the Muslims.


Well Saeed (or Said, Syed, etc...) WAS one of Mohamed's companions...

And I'm well aware of the bigots, who attack Sikhs for what Muslims do, and attack Jews because, well, Jews...

I don't know if you follow politics, but the far right is rising in Europe. Those bigots and idiots are raising their voice. Every time there's an attack by Muslims, those idiots gain more votes... A decade ago the FN was a joke. Today there's a real chance the next French President comes from the FN.


سيد or سعيد are not religious names.

The former means "Lord" or "Master" and the latter means "Happy" or "Gay". They're perfectly secular names.

The religious names are Mohammad's aliases plus the Big Four figures in Sunni Islam and the other big figures in Shiite Islam.

Other than these, the rest are non Islamic names. If some low level Mohammad's companion was called سعيد, this doesn't change the fact that it's a secular name.

To be honest with you, the whole thing looks so ridiculous because ( عمر Omar, فاطمة Fatima ) are considered religious but some Latinos are called Omar or Fatima. Maybe we should drop the whole thing.

> Today there's a real chance the next French President comes from the FN.

Let them have this experiment. If they're so bigoted and extreme to their own detriment, I wouldn't stop them. Let them learn by experience not to be guided by fear or populist demagoguery.


> Let them have this experiment. If they're so bigoted and extreme to their own detriment, I wouldn't stop them.

Said someone in Europe, circa 1931.

Fact is, extremism generally hurts more people than the extremists...


> Right now, Muslims won't turn in their neighbors and children to the authorities if they're radicalized.

In Turkey, we've seen on TV or heard of many families turning in their children many many times. In fact, the suicide-bomber-brothers who killed upwards of a hundred victims in Ankara were reported to be islamic state militants multiple times by their parents. They've reported them many times to different authorities.

Death of a hundred people may be alien to French, but it is not alien to us. It's middle east, both killers and the victims are often muslims. And muslims themselves are the ones that suffer the most from this radicalism.

> Since extremist sects recruit from within moderate sects, the moderates need to be more diligent in truly eliminating the extremist element. That means more consequences to the community. Which is unfair, but it's either that or the rise of the 'Sixth Reich' in a generation because right now, we're just kicking the can down the road.

It's not easy for the moderate muslim to avoid extremism. And I speak as an irreligious agnostic. Fact is that if they are not in Turkey, they are either in direct contact with war, or a subject of a kingdom. And then there's Iran. And Turkey is not the most serene place either. Here, the west is to blame. They drew these borders in the middle east after WWI, they spoiled them in the 20th century. Now if this "Sixth Reich", if I understand you correctly, is a threaten of genocide, I will not be shocked. That is the best possible fruit of the western canon, which is built on the extermination of the other and national pride, with the motto "it's not sin if we do it".

A hundred people died in Paris, and all EU now wants to taste muslim blood. That's mundane here in middle east. The most serene of the countries has at least two wars at the border. Isis bombs mosques, kills people for being of a different sect of islam; and it rapes children, enslaves women, steals immigrants' goods here, in the middle east. Before it was Saddam, etc. But the fact is that since WWI there has been a power that killed innocent people here. Neither France nor any other europeans are in real danger. All that happened was a side effect of what they did, how they messed up the life here, always for imperial affairs.

I may go on, but I'll finish here. You're not the europe that built the Roman Empires, you're the europe that made them suffer and die. You're no more good than islamist terrorists. The world is a bad place because of your empire building games.


> In Turkey, we've seen on TV or heard of many families turning in their children many many times.

And that's why there's still hope for Turkey.

> In fact, the suicide-bomber-brothers who killed upwards of a hundred victims in Ankara were reported to be islamic state militants multiple times by their parents. They've reported them many times to different authorities.

Well, plenty of people do think that Erdogan is strongly sympathetic to ISIS...

> Here, the west is to blame.

Can blame all you want, but what's done is done. Canada (or rather British territories in North America) was once at war with the Americans. We were at war with the Germans (twice). We got over it.

> The world is a bad place because of your empire building games.

Don't pretend the Islamic world didn't participate in the same. How many cultures were destroyed by Islamic conquests? Remember, Turkey wasn't always Turkish. Istanbul wasn't always Istanbul.

If the West is so vengeful, why IS Istanbul still Istanbul?


> Well, plenty of people do think that Erdogan is strongly sympathetic to ISIS.

I do not believe that he has emotions. It's all money and power, IMO. And he is as representative of his people as Hitler is of today's Germans. And it's not that Europe is enemies with him.

> Can blame all you want, but what's done is done.

Then you should have the same approach to terrorist attacks too. See, ideas have the bad side effect of applying to a wider spectrum than you intend.

> Canada (or rather British territories in North America) was once at war with the Americans. We were at war with the Germans (twice). We got over it.

You got over it helping each other. You didn't exterminate Germans for the bad they did. Revenge will not bring peace. It'll bring more revenge.

> Don't pretend the Islamic world didn't participate in the [empire building games.]

I'm not a muslim, and I do not have any sympathy for any religion or empire. The world progresses, and what I do not like is the pride that people try to hold on to. My words should boil down to "we are different faces of the same evil". In the end, West has had more chance to mess it up than the muslims, and they've never ceased to do so. Where are the native americans?

> If the West is so vengeful, why IS Istanbul still Istanbul?

It is Istanbul now. Who knows what'll happen tomorrow?


> I do not believe that he has emotions. It's all money and power, IMO.

If it's all money and power, he's throwing his lot in with the wrong players IMO.

> Then you should have the same approach to terrorist attacks too.

I would be glad to think the same of terrorist attacks. Unfortunately they're an almost daily occurrence.

> You didn't exterminate Germans for the bad they did. Revenge will not bring peace. It'll bring more revenge.

Yes it will. And if we did nothing today, Islamists would still be seeking revenge tomorrow.

> It is Istanbul now. Who knows what'll happen tomorrow?

Here's 2 predictions.

Option 1: Erdogan gets voted out, and it returns to be a vibrant world capital.

Option 2: Erdogan stays the course, pisses enough people off that NATO sells him out to the Russians who, along with the Greeks, would love to 'liberate' Constantinople...


> I would be glad to think the same of terrorist attacks. Unfortunately they're an almost daily occurrence.

Not in the Europe. That's our problem.

> Yes it will. And if we did nothing today, Islamists would still be seeking revenge tomorrow.

To whom? From whom does the west want revenge. This is the question. And apparently there are some people who'd say from all muslims, or from all arabs. You, and the other guy who responded me seem to be of that ilk. There are muslims like you, who seek a revenge from the whole non-muslim. We call these fundamentalist, radicals, etc. These are identical to you, with the difference of possessing less power. I hope all the people I refer here die painful deaths, that you wish upon innocents.


> I hope all the people I refer here die painful deaths

:0

You're not making a great case here...

> that you wish upon innocents

Show me where I've wished bodily harm to people who are innocent. Hopefully what you're saying is a language misunderstanding, I do tend to use some flowery language when writing in English...


Let's not forget that the Roman Empire was not without its atrocities in the name of the Greater Good.

Bad often has to be done so that More Bad for More People won't happen.

And before we catigate Europe, let's not forget that there are a substantial number of sectarian and ethnic minority/majority tensions even inside of the Muslim governed world. No one is without blood on their hands.


> No one is without blood on their hands.

I concur. I just picked the side of the rather-under-represented. Neither am I a Rome or Ancient Greece fan.

> Bad often has to be done so that More Bad for More People won't happen.

Bad will always bring more bad with it. You can try to kill all the muslims, you'll end up with another terrorist sect, just from a different religion. Or you'll terrorise other moderate muslims, should you not be able to kill them all, and make them into terrorists. A vicious cycle of violence is only broken via virtue.


> Bad will always bring more bad with it

Eh, we'll agree to disagree there. Find me some good in this world that isn't backed by bad somewhere in history, and I'll show you a situation where pacifist lives could have been saved with a more aggressive approach.


On the gripping hand... what if ISIS is completely a western-security-state construction (yes, warning: CT ahead)?

The authorities control all the discussion, they sift through (or plant) the evidence, and it's possible that the ISIS was indirectly funded directly from large western governments.

ISIS is the perfect Emmanuel Goldstein.


>Which is unfair, but it's either that or the rise of the 'Sixth Reich' in a generation

That sounds a bit like Sam Harris advocating for genocide in his book End of Faith: Sure it would be a crime, but otherwise millions would die.


Murdering millions because millions might die? Forgive me if I can't follow you.


What the hell are you talking about? Harris doesn't advocate for genocide in End of Faith. That's insane.


I'm talking about his "if Islamists acquired nuclear weapons, a nuclear first strike against Middle East countries would be the only way to protect the Western Way Of Life."


Interesting. That's strikingly similar to the idea, held by many in the US, that the new nuclear weapons should be utilized against Soviet ASAP, before they had the chance to build their own. Even Bertrand Russell advocated for this.

That someone I hold as a model in so much could display such levels of collective madness is one of those things I use to remind myself, of how fickle we are.


Except I'm not advocating genocide. Just pointing out that, if more tolerable solutions don't work, and it does become a perceived choice of 'us' vs 'them', people will choose themselves 10/10 times.


you have reason to be concerned. see: japanese american internment. that actually happened.


> How easily could that attitude be shifted towards any arbitrary group with just one or two tragic events?

It will be much easier with more unchecked authoritarian law in place.


"Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear."

            -- Bertrand Russell
But if you think this is something, wait until Le Pen comes to power.

It's not just France either. Authoritarianism is rife in much of the rest of Europe, and the rest of the world, for that matter.

France is a particularly interesting case, however. As on the one hand they're the land of Voltaire, of the French Revolution, of the ideals of "liberté, égalité, fraternité", and on the other of authoritarianism, colonialism, and xenophobia.


> Authoritarianism is rife in much of the rest of Europe, and the rest of the world, for that matter.

Europe's recent trend towards democracy was never really more than a trend. Democracy requires peace to flourish, without it people are going to value strongman leadership. Europe has only very recently shook off the threat of war. Nobody expects another great war, but it still takes a few hundred years before democratic institutions become robust enough to resist all the different ways the area can slide back into tyranny. Europe is not yet one polity, but they're moving in that direction.

Once people start thinking of themselves as European first, and French / German / Italian / etc. second, that's when you know Europe is really ready for democracy. It takes a while. It wasn't that long ago that United States citizens thought of themselves as citizens of their state first, then of the Union, the civil war cured us of that defect.

Perhaps Europe needs one more war to draw them together. Maybe a few of them. With luck those wars won't have to be martial in nature.


Dont make me laugh. The revolutionaries were talking about fraternity while chopping heads by the 100 000s. Study your History my friend. France has always had an authoritarian face.


There was also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961

>The Paris massacre of 1961 was a massacre in Paris on 17 October 1961, during the Algerian War (1954–62). Under orders from the head of the Parisian police, Maurice Papon, the French National Police attacked a demonstration of some 30,000 pro-National Liberation Front (FLN) Algerians.

>After 37 years of denial, in 1998 the French government acknowledged 40 deaths, although there are estimates of over 200.

>Many demonstrators died when they were violently herded by police into the River Seine, with some thrown from bridges after being beaten unconscious. Other demonstrators were killed within the courtyard of the Paris police headquarters after being arrested and delivered there in police buses.

Here's hoping history doesn't repeat itself.


The police found more than 300 illegal weapons during their searches. People that were put under house arrests have a file on them because of their links with terrorists or terrorist organizations. I don't feel the government is abusing the state of emergency, I just feel they should have done all this before the attacks.


Hey people, I have a file on GrumpyBen, can someone please lock him up as he is deemed a threat to public safety?

Joking aside, if activists committed any crime, you follow the legal procedures and challenge them in a court of law before a judge and let the defendants present their case in a free trial and see if any of the charges you brought against them sticks, otherwise shut up and leave them alone because if you start allowing police to hand out sentences without legal recourse to challenge these arbitrary punishments, you'll descend slowly into a police state and horrific society to live within.


I don't find your "joke" very funny at all, in the aftermath of almost 200 terrorist deaths (in the west) in November alone. GrumpyBen's prescription is not fun and anti-liberty, but so is living in a society being preyed upon by violent groups within it.


I don't find your comment constructive at all.

First, it wasn't a joke. Second, we were discussing putting environment activists under arbitrary house arrest not terrorists or terrorism. Your anger at the tragic death should be directed at the terrorists or the security apparatus which failed miserably to protect people in the "west" and not at me or the activists.

Try next time to read the comments first before jumping into the discussion.


your silly faux-incitement "joking" (your words) strikes the wrong tone in this literally deadly-serious subject matter, and if it potentially offends sensibilities then I'm sorry, but pointing that out to you can be constructive.


I agree with you and that's actually the case here. If these activists think their house arrest is unfair, they can complain to an administrative judge that will look into their case.


No, it should be the other way around.

You have to get a verdict first in order to detain them and not let them do the job for you and make them go through hardships for a redress and emergency laws are not just or fair to entertain them .


This is temporary, the country is in "state of emergency", that gives the government and the police special powers to reestablish order. I think that was justified after the attacks but I would oppose it if the government wants to extend it past 3 months.


But the police is taking advantage and using these powers to detain people that otherwise they don't have the right to detain, such as env activists.


> terrorist organizations

Like those pesky ecologists that endanger the state by stopping economic growth and slowing down job creation at the cost of increased pollution, right?


They're not ecologists, they're anti-globalization anarchists that protested against a new airport by destroying shops in downtown Nantes. They recently threw at the police candles that people left at the memorial for the Paris attacks. I consider myself an ecologist but I have no sympathy for these people.


And yet, they're still not ISIS terrorists. The state of emergency was used to stop public discourse and dissent - both anarchists and non-anarchists were banned from attending marches during the Paris climate summit.


The police had to protect the COP21 and the visit from more than 150 head of states. They also have to protect administrations, newspaper offices, jewish organizations and others potential terrorist targets. There's just not enough police forces to handle all this, plus marches and anarchist protests


Not having proper resources isn't a reason to infringe upon the freedoms of the people. If the police can't handle their work, then they should just ignore less important crimes and focus their efforts on the stuff that matters. Otherwise the French government could use a lack of resources as an excuse to silence whoever they want. With a justification like that, they could make arrests for thought-crime.


Who's more of a threat to the public - random candle-throwing anarchists, or the heads of state of the biggest and most militarised and industrialised nations in the world?


Terrorists are terrorists regardless of affiliation. ISIS doesn't have organized operations in the west it just takes credit for lone acts.

By and large its not clear ISIS actually wants people to commit terror attacks in the west since it gets potentially useful recruits killed not fighting for territory in the middle East (note they are big on how you should definitely move to the ISIS territories).


anarchists =/= terrorists


Can you read French? https://wiki.laquadrature.net/%C3%89tat_urgence/Recensement#...

People who commit crimes should be fined or arrested. These are preventive house arrests for crimes that they might commit in the future. You really don't see the problem with this?


They also banned alcohol sales at night in some places for the same simple reason: the police has better things to do right now than dealing with drunk people or anarchists


So much for "liberté"... which precisely seems to be what gotchange was talking about.


You didn't respond to the question.


They are known violent protestors. I don't care much about the freedom of "environmentalists" that protest against capitalism by burning down stores. Especially while the country is in state of emergency.


A mere file? In the US, when a suspected terrorist is held by US state security and they are not a US citizen, every non-citizen in their social graph (family, friends, even known acquaintances) who aren't already being held are deported immediately.


I've never heard of this. Does this policy have a name I could read up on?


I learned about it reading a long article about the Boston Marathon Bombing in the New Yorker a couple of months after the incident occurred. It shocked me, but when the reporter asked the INS/ICE offices about it they said it was "standard procedure".


And this is the left in power. It's going to get worse when the right and the extreme right get their turn.


Isn't this absolutely terrifying? People being rounded up, house arrest, cities locked down, violence against immigrants. It's a very bad look, and it's especially hard to criticize the response in the wake of the attacks.

Rather than fight and complain piecemeal in response to government oversteps in their attempts to stop terror, dissenters need to formulate a concrete affirmative plan for dealing with terror while maintaining civil liberties and privacy. I'm not sure exactly what this plan would look like, but without something organized to push for, the government is going to keep getting their way and making everyone less free.


I think it has nothing to do with political side anymore. Just irrational reaction to fear from the public, and over-exploitation of that fear to gain more power from the government.

It's not pretty to watch.

[edit] Fear is irrational by definition, I'm not judging on that, and understand why people are afraid.


> I think it has nothing to do with political side anymore.

Really? I find this conclusion a little baffling, to be frank. Without saying which side of the political spectrum is more "correct", one can hardly deny that the right includes stronger reactions to perceived threats, practically by definition.

You can see it in the rhetoric, the policies, the constituents, etc of both parties. Even now, I would be surprised if policies like these were seeing equal amounts of dissent from the right and from the left (note that this is a different axis than liberal/conservative).


The mainstream left in France mainly the Socialists are as awful when it comes to individual liberties as their peers in the center right.

A good deal of French people love the nanny state and their government to meddle into their private business and run their lives but they have their differences on how to achieve that and which flavor to pick.


Sent from a computer made in China.




Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: