Guest essay by Eric Worrall
France has arbitrarily imposed Soviet style movement restrictions on a number of climate activists. French Authorities claim this measure is necessary, to reduce the risk of public disorder during the COP21 conference.
According to the Australian ABC;
French climate change activists have been placed under house arrest ahead of the opening of the UN climate change conference in Paris.
Public demonstrations are banned in France under the state of emergency that was declared after the Paris terrorist attacks two week ago, in which 130 people were killed.
Green groups have described the move as “an abuse of power” but the French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said the activists were suspected of planning violent protests.
“These 24 people have been placed under house arrest because they have been violent during demonstrations in the past and because they have said they would not respect the state of emergency,” he said.
They must remain in their home towns, report to the local police three times a day and abide by a nightly curfew until December 12, when the climate change conference winds up.
A delegation of environmental organisations met with French president Francois Hollande to appeal against the measures.
Greenpeace International’s executive Director Kumi Naidoo said he was “disappointed” that France’s political leadership would “choose to enable sporting events, trade exhibitions and other arts and culture events to go ahead, but with such a clamp down on the space for the biggest issue humanity faces”.
Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-29/climate-protesters-banned-in-paris-security-crackdown/6983870
For once I agree with Greenpeace. The people whose freedoms France has arbitrarily trampled, are not accused of a specific crime. But France, a country which President Obama openly admires, and frequently describes as America’s staunchest ally, does not recognise Western norms of jurisprudence.
Under the French Code Napoleon, the state has almost unconstrained power to trample the rights of citizens, especially once a state of emergency has been declared, as has been the case since the Paris terror attack. While the French legal system pays lip service to the rights of the accused, in practice French authorities have arbitrary power to treat accused people as if they were guilty of a crime, without first having to establish their guilt in a court of law.
The possibility for justice to endorse lengthy remand periods was one reason why the Napoleonic Code was criticized for de facto presumption of guilt, particularly in common law countries. Another reason was the combination of magistrate and prosecutor in one position.[7] However, the legal proceedings did not have de jure presumption of guilt; for instance, the juror’s oath explicitly recommended that the jury did not betray the interests of the defendants, and paid attention to the means of defence.
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code
I’m no fan of green activists with a history of violence. France may even be right, about the intentions of the people they arbitrarily restrained. But France has not provided formal evidence that the people affected by this state curfew on their movements are guilty of a crime, or were conspiring to commit a crime – they justified this action on the basis of an official suspicion.
If you don’t stand against injustice, even when the victims of that injustice are people you detest, then who will speak for you, when your and your friend’s rights are being trampled?
I case you had not noticed, Hollande has declared the state of emergency. So no mass gatherings.
The affected parties gave notice they plan to violate the law relating to the state of emergency. That constitutes civil disobedience. They convicted themselves by planning it.
Planning to commit a terrorist act is also an offence. Having a history of engaging in violent acts and announcing a priori that they are going to do it again cannot go unanswered by the State. House arrest seems mild compared with what happens to others who announce they plan to engage in violent, illegal activities.
They could have just kept quiet and been arrested later. It was their choice to tell the cops in advance. Do they think they are above the law?
French law has many interesting facets. One is that a verdict may be ‘not proven’ instead of ‘not guilty’ when guilt is not established.
Terrorism?
The ban is on public demonstrations, and they have announced that they would not obey the ban. There was no threat of violence (although with extreme green it is often implicit), it is merely civil disobedience. Sorry, but it is one thing to be arrested for refusing to obey an unjust law, it is quite another to be arrested for merely saying that the law is unjust and should not be obeyed. Conflating a criticism about abusing civil liberties with a conspiracy to commit terrorism shows that France is going down the same road after the Paris attacks as America did after 9/11. No violation of liberty is to great and no pretext to small, all in the name of security. The advocates of the police state will run amok.
Just had a peep at the BBC news website. Apparently the violent protests have already begun. A bunch of schmucks demanding that something must be done to prevent our planet warming up, really pathetic.
Crispin, if that is the case, then I see a problem you do not: that the plan to protest is itself a crime.
That sort of ban on demonstration and assembly is anathema to the Americans in the crowd. While the French don’t give all of the same rights we do, there is a matter of principle. Political speech is sacrosanct, and must never be curtailed EVER so long as they do not actively harm people in the act of speech itself.
TO “bezotch”
Your excuses for murderous “protestors” is laughable.
You probably believe that
adherents to a fascist “religion”/governance which cry
“Death To The West” and “Freedom Can go To Hell”
will MAGICALLY BACOME CIVILIZED by living in our countries.
GO TO A muzzie country and try spreading your delusional and
cosmetically-childish-but-FATAL beliefs.
LET YOUR CORPSE SHOW US THE RESULTS.
Kauf Buch:
My comment, as well as the article, were in reference to the climate protesters.
Not sure what your psychotic rant was about.
Correction, Hollande has extended the state of emergency to conveniently last the duration of the COP 21.
“Hollande has extended the state of emergency to conveniently last the duration of the COP 21”
No. The 19th of November, the état d’urgence has been extended for 3 months.
The law has been modified:
– Control of the press has been suppressed.
– Pro-terrorism websites can be “blocked” whatever it means.
– People can appeal decisions (administrative justice).
France has dual juridictions: a convoluted system where issues between people have one justice system and laws, and issues between people and the State have others, with different protections and remedies, with the goal of obtaining the same effective results at the end.
And three months will include the duration of the COP 21…
TomRude,
That time frame also includes Christmas, New Years and St. Stephen’s Da, so according to your logic, it’s obvious to everyone that Hollande extended it to conveniently last through the duration of the holidays. He hates shoppers. And celebrations.
Hollande cannot extend anything on his own. The lower house of Parliament (elected by the citizens) voted overwhelmingly to extend the state of emergency AND to add additional security measures. How “convenient” of them all!
The lower house of Parliament would vote ANYTHING when asked politely.
French democracy is a big joke.
Simple-touriste
And just like any other country that has allowed it’s freedoms to be eroded, the French are the only ones who can fix France.
Simple Tourist, indeed especially since the socialists have a majority…
Aphan, Looks like he does given France’s absurd taxation level…
The program is marxism and the Object is to save the Western World by destroying it.
“If you don’t stand against injustice, even when the victims of that injustice are people you detest, then who will speak for you, when your and your friend’s rights are being trampled?”
Totally agree.
As the “victim of injustice” cuts your throat.
We must assume that this ban applies to all demonstrations that could cause violent disorder and that this is not just aimed at green activists.
In that context, it is this latter group likely to be most active over the next week or so and accordingly this ban will hit them hardest.
I am surprised this conference is going ahead at all. I think the consequences of violence is high from those much more lethally dangerous than the green activists, but who may take the opportunity to use their activities as a smoke screen.
I am sure no one here would want to see the type of mass killings happen to the 40000 delegates to the conference as happened to the citizens of Paris going about their business a couple of weeks ago.
It therefore seems a sensible precaution at this unique time but hopefully it won’t need to be repeated
tonyb
Due process doesn’t mean barbarians get the out of jail card.
“We must assume that this ban applies to all demonstrations that could cause violent disorder”
No, it applies to all gatherings, period.
-> it applies to all PUBLIC gatherings, period
(sorry)
Michael Lewis
November 29, 2015 at 3:58 am
Your remark indicates a “precautionary principle” approach to life that is logically identical to the arguments advanced by CAGW believers for why “we” must do something about climate. When you apply that thinking to people, sooner or later you find yourself seriously considering precautions against your neighbors. The failure of the precautionary principle is that it will not protect anyone from their own “precautionary” actions, yet at the same time it supports active measures against imaginary threats and their imaginary “sources.” Those actions that will sooner or later remove the “imaginary” from the equation. You will have created your enemy, regardless of their wishes, solely through your actions, dictated by your fearfulness, They will begin taking “precautions” against you. That is how terrorism works.
An unjust action is an “assault,’ regardless of whether it is shooting someone, jailing someone, requiring someone to stay in their house as a “precaution,” merely because you are afraid they might do something violent, or simply because they might say something embarrassing. The end result is always an increased enmity direct at you and your fears. That is a positive feedback loop and it ends in riots, revolution, and civil war.
Duster said:
“An unjust action is an “assault,’ regardless of whether it is shooting someone, jailing someone, requiring someone to stay in their house as a “precaution,” merely because you are afraid they might do something violent, or simply because they might say something embarrassing. The end result is always an increased enmity direct at you and your fears. That is a positive feedback loop and it ends in riots, revolution, and civil war.”
Not so fast with the emotional appeals and flawed logical insinuations skippy. The word “justice”, from which we get the word “just” is defined using terms about what is based in fact or reason, acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good, actions that are merited or legally correct. Being UNjust is the opposite of all those things.
The word “assault” is defined using terms like a violent physical or verbal attacks, combat against enemies, threats or attempts to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm.
Clearly, by definition, putting someone on house arrest WITHOUT it being merited, for no logical reason, when doing so is against the law would be UNJUST. But France put 24 people on house arrest because-
1-France viewed the attack on Nov 13th as an act of War on the French people, and in return declared it was at war with ISIS
2-France declared a State of Emergency (SoE) for the French people on Nov 13th, and extended that state for three months on Nov 19th.
3-French representatives elected by the people of France amended their former SoE laws, which have always been designed to PROTECT the physical security of the French people, in ways that authorize police (only during an SoE) to place individuals who pose a threat to social order on house arrest for 12 hours a day as well as banning public demonstrations and declaring that groups inciting acts that could seriously affect public order can be dissolved.
4-Those 24 people have been known to disrupt public order previously, and repeatedly, and/or declared that they intended to do so again. (You can get arrested and thrown in jail in the US merely for stating vocally or in print that you plan to shoot someone, or cause public disorder or unrest, or break the laws-even when the US is NOT under a SoE! )
Neither the French government or the police physically or verbally attacked any French citizen, did not declare French citizens to be their enemies, nor did they do anything that can reasonably and logically be defined as an “assault” to French citizens. France’s history alone indicates that France couldn’t care less about whether or not it’s citizens say something embarrassing. France’s SoE laws are temporary, were invoked due to the heightened terrorist threat happening right now in Paris, and APPLY UNIVERSALLY TO EVERY CITIZEN, no matter what political party they belong to, or what their environmental, or religious, or ethnic ideologies are. ANYONE, or ANYTHING that disturbs public order during a SoE is DANGEROUS for the PHYSICAL SAFETY of all other French citizens.
Let me apply some basic logic here for you. Large public gatherings (no matter who hosts them or for what purpose) with or without planned acts of “civil disobedience”, create an environment where actual terrorists can reach more targets with far less effort. They allow things odd behavior that would normally get noticed, to become un-noticable (especially if said demonstrators are known for acting odd already) They create exponentially more opportunities to hide-both weapons and terrorists. And they create a situation which French police would very likely engage in tactical behavior that is universally known to result in MORE casualties, not less. It’s called “hesitation”. It’s that moment when a police officer might pause to determine whether or not the person acting strangely or violently is a terrorist, or a tourist. A unruly activist, or an extremist (of ANY sort). A police officer who hesitates when it really counts allows a killer to mow down, or blow up, or stab or shoot more victims. And NO ONE with a fair and just mind thinks that forcing French officers into that position right now is a GOOD or JUST thing to do.
“The end result is always an increased enmity direct at you and your fears.”
False statement, black and white thinking, absolute fallacy, false dichotomy. The vast majority of French citizens have NOT responded with increased enmity directed at anyone.
“That is a positive feedback loop and it ends in riots, revolution, and civil war.”
People can act with increased enmity towards another for ANY NUMBER of reasons, all of them by choice, and often without any justifiable cause or provocation. Sadly there are millions of people like you, who like to spew illogical, emotionally driven propaganda that almost always results in increasing anger, intolerance, and a feeling of victimization. People who use words like “assault” and “injustice” either recklessly or with malicious intent.
That quote is pretty speech and all, provided I agree with how you are defining words like “injustice” and “trampling”.
Civil justice requires laws, rules, and a clear understanding of what is allowed and what is not by a given society. If a given society creates laws that temporarily inhibit certain civil rights in the case of emergency or heightened threat, in order to protect the over all safety of that society, then when that government does exactly that, their actions ARE JUST. Injustice in such a circumstance means to act unlawfully, to disregard established laws.
By definition, the French government isn’t “trampling” anything. They are not “crushing or destroying, especially contemptuously or ruthlessly” the rights of anyone. They are acting according to the laws deemed to be “just” by the parliment of France decades ago pertaining to a “state of emergency”.
So, logically and rationally, as a just and honest person, I can discard the quote as irrational and filled with emotional manipulation without the least hesitation. Words matter.
Thought experiment:
How many of the groups and individuals screaming that the French government is abusing the rights of its citizens right now would be reacting in the exact same manner (writing the exact same articles, blogging the same words of indignation, making the exact same statements to the press etc.) if COP21 was being held somewhere else, anywhere else, in the world instead?
They should learn from their mistakes and not vote them again.
France ? The biggest importer of Italian wine, which says it all !
And why not? Contrary to the opinions of some, not all wine tastes the same – good Italian wines have a different flavour that you just don’t get in French wines and vice-versa.
Hey, protesters: what goes and comes around.
All events leading up to France’s martial law, including the drill followed by the planned attack, was because of the upcoming Climate Summit. We in America have already experienced the same thing, several times. However, the next one will have to cause greater carnage as an excuse for martial law here. But they are planning it, with very large places and spaces to put us into. And America’s government of today WILL do it. The President acts like Caesar and wants us to give unto him what he believes is his – which is everything and all of it. KEEP YOUR GUNS and stock up on ammo – not for a revolution we could not win (entire countries are afraid of our military power) but for the zombies left on the streets who will come for the spoils and from whom we will need to protect ourselves and our families.
That doesn’t make sense, even if the bad events didn’t occurred do you really think there would be a single person protesting against the Climate Summit?
Absolutely guaranteed there would be protesters upset that the measures did not go far enough. Anything that did not reduce us to a pre-industrial society would be unacceptable, if it did not reduce us to a stone age society it would be insufficient.
What martial law???
Your assumption that the soldiers in the ranks would support such a move is not necessarily the truth. There are millions of well-trained veterans and many currently serving who would refuse to carry out an unconstitutional order. They are sworn to uphold the Constitution and most take that oath seriously.
IMO a lot of Active component officers and enlisted would fire on civilians, having forgotten their oaths as soon as said. A smaller number of those serving in the Guard and Reserves would obey illegal orders.
IMO federal law enforcement is a greater threat than the armed forces, however.
I am quite puzzled by this posting. This ruling applies to all gatherings, not just COP21 related events.
The established protocols allow the government to forbid mass assemblies in public spaces, but because the government has allowed some sporting and other “controllable” events to continue ( which most people know occur on private properties not public spaces) the greenies are screaming unfair! They literally believe that the French government is using an act of terror as an excuse to curtail what they call their “free expression” and others call their disruptive, violent, and often criminal behavior.
There is a huge difference between a venue that can be screened and protected by security planned in advance, and large numbers of unscreened, unpredictable people pouring into an open, unsecured area. But that doesn’t matter to those who want to find fault with this. What they don’t understand is that the government and parliment established these protocols decades ago and they could have been changed at any point. The same laws that “protect” their right to express themselves ALSO contain the means to restrict the venues in which they can express themselves in order to protect their right to continue living. The government’s state of emergency recognizes that some civil rights must be put on hold in order to assure the most basic rights…protection of life and general freedom from harm.
+1 – Well Said!
The Left has vigorously and continuously advocated statist, and if necessary, authoritarian solutions to all their perceived problems, especially CAGW. A handful of them have just been given just what they have been wanting.
Most surely not these people. In fact, these are the ones who do seem to encourage this sort of thing. RICO charges against skeptics, anyone?
One might hope that a taste of their advocated policy outcomes might be a “teachable moment” and give them cause to reconsider their disregard for the rights of others.
One might also know better. *sigh*
+1
We’re talking about ecoloons, here.
They like to ignore other people’s rights.
A) Rights are for all people, even the ones we dislike or disagree with.
B) “Teachable moment”? Do you honestly believe they will learn anything? What are the odds of that? If you want a million to one, I’ll book that bet. The probability that extreme green will say “You know what, we were wrong, we should respect the rights of others” is precisely 0%. By justifying their arrests as a “teachable moment”, you may as well have justified it by saying that it will prevent UFO abductions. Neither are the least bit plausible.
Disrespecting the rights of rational, thoughtful people doesn’t cause them to gain respect for others, with extremists, it merely adds fuel to the fire.
I do agree with you, but my patience has it’s limits.
I agree for free speech for all, but I expect the opposition to respect my free speech as well.
People of a totalitarian bent have learned to use our best principles and highest ideals against us. They have weaponized our principles.
Example 1: A group insists on being given a platform to speak and be heard advocating for speech codes and the censorship of competing ideas. They demand their free speech rights to deny others free speech. I have no patience for that. If they will not respect my principles, I feel free to use their tactics.
Example 2: A group in the minority agitates endlessly, claiming minority rights. Whenever this group achieves a majority, there are no minority rights, only their dictates.
It is foolish to allow yourself to be played for a chump.
Extremists will use any excuse to add fuel to their fire. It’s virtually the definition of extremist behavior. Be it someone else’s actions, or the day of the week it happens to be. Extremists not only disrespect the rights of rational, thoughtful people-they openly disregard and seek to destroy them.
Rational, thoughtful people understand that civil rights become moot if you’re dead. They understand that if it was easy for terrorists to kill 130 people in small, packed venues, it would be even easier to kill more people in open, packed venues. Rational, thoughtful people grant their government the power to keep them alive first, and worry about their freedom to protest that government afterwards.
Not being played for a chump. If you only hold your principles when expedient, they aren’t really principles. They have the same right to advocate things I abhor as I have to advocate things I like (which I am sure they abhor). The proper response to objectionable speech is more free speech, not less. They may advocate restricting my rights, but the solution is for the state to respect my rights, not to curtail theirs. I have no wish to engage in a race to see who can violate the others rights more, it is a race that nobody wins.
Unfortunately, it is common to not object to the violation of the rights of people we don’t like.
When this happens, debate ceases to be about ideas, it becomes an ad hominem attack competition. It is easier to demonize your opponent and then steam roll them than to change hearts and minds. Claim your opponents are on the payroll of big oil, Monsanto, Wall Street, big pharma or whatever bogeyman you want to discredit and silence them. When the opposing views can not be heard, the intellectually vacuous argument will win.
Your examples both have the same flaw. The bigger problem is not those that advocate speech codes and race or religion based rights (the polar opposite of free speech and individual rights), it is with the institutions that yield to it. Apparently, they too get tired of listening to them, so they restrict your rights or theirs, whichever is the path of least resistance. In neither instance (nor in the CAGW debate) have they won the hearts and minds of the public with their free speech, which is precisely why they demonize their opponents, restrict their right to free speech and seek to silence their critics. As I stated earlier, it is the only way the intellectually vacuous can win. It is foolish to legitimize their tactics.
You present a false dichotomy. A zealot on the corner demands that all must attend his church. The choice is not that the state must silence the zealot, or force me to attend his church. The correct option is that he has the right to continue to speak (as annoying as he may be), and I have the right to continue to not attend his church. A free society requires no less.
bezotch,
Your arguments seem oblivious to the fact that most of your arguments are only relevant to normal situations, or the governance of France in times of peace.
“A zealot on the corner demands that all must attend his church. The choice is not that the state must silence the zealot, or force me to attend his church. The correct option is that he has the right to continue to speak (as annoying as he may be), and I have the right to continue to not attend his church. A free society requires no less.”
A false dichotomy or false dilemma “occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.”
Your example only presents two options…thus is a false dichotomy, and neither one actually applies to this discussion unless you consider what France is experiencing right now to somehow rationally and logically equate with your zealot scenario. But that would be very chump-like.
You see, if a terrorist group attacks the neighborhood in which the zealot’s church stands, AND the government responsible for that neighborhood, through duly elected individuals has created laws that curtail certain “civil” rights for all citizens (be they annoying or not, zealots or not, polka dotted or striped or not) out of concern for the physical wellbeing and safety of all citizens during times of war or states of emergency, then the proper option during times of war, or states of emergency, is to enact and enforce those laws. Especially if the “free society” that created and sustained those laws would like to remain alive, and thus capable of being free in the first place.
Your rights as well as mine END the moment they infringe upon the rights of anyone else. That zealot can stand on the corner and demand anything he wants right now in Paris…all night and all day long. He still has that right. He just cannot assemble a group of zealots in the street right now. Is that a difficult concept for you to understand?
The right to be protected from physical harm by a terrorist, or the nervous gunfire of an exhausted cop, or even accidentally by a massive crowd in a public place that is normally uncrowded supersedes the right to “freely express” anything right now, because the situation calls for it.
“bezotch” is the noble idiot spreading his WHAT HE IMAGINES AS his “morally superior” drivel…
…no different than what Tokyo Rose did in WWII.
Cliched Leftist “morality” is NO LESS CORRUPT OR FATAL.
Kauf Buch:
Leftist???
You may be the most imperceptive individual I’ve ever come across.
Aphan:
The article is about the 24 people placed under house arrest.
They broke no laws.
None.
They were arrested because it was convenient to do so.
You may agree with the French governments assumption that they were going to break the law, and I would agree that that is a reasonable assumption.
But…
I disagree with the notion that someone should be arrested based on nothing more than an assumption that they will break the law….in the future.
I may not like these people, I may disagree with what they say, and I am disgusted by their tactics.
But…
Until you actually have broken the law, you haven’t broken the law and should not be arrested.
i wish to point out a simple fact that others may be overlooking. It concerns “available resources”. If you can prevent some gatherings then you don’t have to police them. French police assets are stretched thin right now. A few less demonstrations to police would provide better coverage for others. I believe that point was a part of the equation.
Eugene WR Gallun
Ordinarily, I would share your view. In a democracy, people should be allowed to protest provided always that it is non violent, and does not cause injury to others. If injury is caused to others, even if this is only financial injury, then the protestors should be required to pay compensation.
However, these are extraordinary times in Paris. The police are already stretched. some would say over stretched, and the last thing they need is a further demand on limited resources by being required to police protests. At the moment that would place the citizens of Paris in danger, and the greater good requires the Police to patrol the streets, and keep an eye on known isl*mic activists and those on watch lists, not to get side tracked on attending to futile green blob demonstrations.
In this instance, a pragmatic approach is required, and for that reason I support the stance taken by the French Government.
Yep. Those “Islamic terrorist” attacks provide a really convenient excuse for supression of freedoms.
These guys aren’t islamic, but another kind of “green”:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2014/10/27/01016-20141027ARTFIG00049-barrage-de-sivens-des-affrontements-entre-manifestants-et-gendarmes-a-gaillac.php
For context about the stuck controversial Sivens dam:
Dam:
Length >300 m
Height 12 m
Reservoir: 1.5 millions m3
Disturbed populations: some agile frogs
The project is stuck because of illegal occupation of the site by activists.
For comparison: Three Gorges Dam
Dam:
Height 181 m
Length >2 km
Reservoir: 45 billions m3
Disturbed population: >1 million people
Why did you put ‘Islamic terrorists’ in speech marks? As Richard Verney remarks, surely this is a short term pragmatic solution to an extraordinary situation, not a ‘convenient excuse’
tonyb
That dam was a simple “dirt” dam, and poorly made if I recall.
Oh look the first conspiracy theorist has materialised. Get a life RoHa.
The projected Sivens dam is almost a levee; it would be made of rocks, clay, and sand:
Hans Erren,
“Oh look the first conspiracy theorist has materialised. Get a life RoHa.”
Do you really believe that no one in positions of authority ever conspires? Why would that be true? Do you believe it’s true of all people that attain positions of authority?
Has it always been true everywhere, do you theorize? If not, what makes it so assuredly true now, to your mind, and what are the geographic boundaries (if any) of this theoretical conspiracy prevention force you apparently believe exists?
Please elaborate on this belief system you feel entitles you to belittle non-believers. It appears to me to be nothing more than naive trust/faith in human authority figures who act out a very obvious ploy to minimize discussion of potential conspiracy, because much conspiring goes on routinely, and naturally the perps want as much cover as possible . . But who knows, maybe I’m missing some sort of special knowledge that you have discovered.
One may wonder if Three Gorges is a reasonable comparator. Many environmentalists have criticised the dam. And just because China displaces >1 million people doesn’t mean it’s a reasonable idea and other infrastructure shouldn’t be given a free pass because they aren’t worse in term of human or ecological impact!
And Sivens isn’t an energy device, only an hydrological device, so it’s even less comparable.
But I feel entitled to a notion of estoppel in debates with enviros who promote “renewables”: they claim “renewables” are rising in the whole world. And Three Gorges is the single largest “renewable” device in the world (big hydro may be excluded from “renewable” portfolio in some places, but it is officially “renewable” in statistics).
If they don’t want me to use this comparator, enviros can refrain from using any energy statistic that includes dams in the good stuff category. Good luck with that.
“some would say over stretched”
Oh no, “some” was everyone, and we are beyond that.
Police has been over stretched for months. Now some agents are assigned 24 hours long shifts…
We are told the army doesn’t even train anymore. (Even the air force is over stretched.)
Perhaps you should bring your troops home and stop bombing innocent men, women and children thousands of miles away.
localherog2, do you think France should abandon Mali?
Good point, localhero. ISIS would never launch terror attacks against a nation that wasn’t currently attacking them and was instead allowing muslim ‘refugees’ in by the boatload.
Do I really need to put the SARC here?
Incidently, would the ‘local hero’ be of the type who murders his neighbors for not belonging to the same race, religion and creed as himself and is so despised by everyone around him that he has to wear a black full face hood every time he makes a video about his latest crimes?
Yes ,local reports speak of twelve thousand police and military involved in the Paris lockdown.
The fringe lunatic greens epitomised by the 24 are better held on a leash.
Their ilk have been known for direct action, like boarding ships, oil and gas drilling platforms, firing small missiles at whaling ships and daubing large banners of paint over the ceramic tiles of the Sydney Opera House to gain attention.
A group broke into the CSIRO and destroyed crops in experimental plots.
For them the end is sufficient justification for their activities.
They probably had a bit of guerilla marketing lined up, like painting the Arc de Triumph with green fluoro which would have wasted the time of the security forces.
The action of the French Government is proportional to the security threat.
In the moral order then it is justified.
The question is, ‘Will they ever be able to resume normal life with open borders?’.
As for their legal system and the reversed onus of proof I agree it is a bad system.
Its what brought us in science to the CO2 hypothesis whose adherents want us to disprove, otherwise it remains true.
So they say the onus of proof lies with those who refute it,wheras it should lie with them to demonstrate it.
We live in dangerous times.
“As for their legal system and the reversed onus of proof I agree it is a bad system”
What legal system?
Stretched doesn’t begin to describe it.
Service de protection des personalité (= US Secret Service): We don’t have time to train, do sport or even firing.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2015/09/24/01016-20150924ARTFIG00215-un-corps-d-elite-de-la-police-etouffe-par-les-contraintes-de-vigipirate.php
Must. Read.
Richard verney
Good observations . A large public gathering like this will not only attract climate activists but agitators of all kind whose only object is to cause chaos . With the city already at high alert due to the terrorist actions and threats , allowing another uncontrolled level of demonstration would be unwise. I am also surprised that the Paris conference is going ahead considering the emergency of the city. It should have been postponed to a later date . There is no climate threat that significant to warrant this conference under the current situation in PARIS.
“I am also surprised that the Paris conference is going ahead considering the emergency of the city.”
You don’t seem to understand the critical importance of the gathering for the ego and well being of “Fafa”
http://www.normandie-actu.fr/files/2014/08/Image-28-630×0.png
(a guy mostly remembered for his lack of oversight when children when given blood extracts with HIV)
The cancellation of this grandiose event would make “Fafa” sad!
COP21 is not about the climate threat. It is about redistribution of American and European wealth to the rest of the world. The conference is starting out badly because the parties have been arguing about how that wealth should be “divvied up.” This is what caused the conference in Denmark to fail.
richard verney – Yours is a good analysis, but I still don’t quite come to the same conclusion. While I take pleasure at the constraint of a group which tramples on the rights of others, I feel that the French action is a step too far. In other situations, it is exactly how the greens would seek to treat others, and it would be wrong. I would prefer to see a more subtle approach, but I accept that the situation is very difficult. Islamist terrorism is the main issue, and climate pales into insignificance beside it. In that context – ie that climate is just a very minor problem – if an open approach to climate science had been taken in the first place, the French wouldn’t be in this situation now.
Great novelists understood societal pathologies.
Orwell gave us 1984, where we are today with the Climate Despots.
Victor Hugo gave us Inspector Javert in Les Miserables. That conflict of French character seems appropriate in the present case.
The French love a riot, and Parisians are always in the forefront. It doesn’t matter what the cause may be, but the fun is in building barricades, hurling stones, and baring breasts. Likewise, they make a hobby of repression, alhtough the guillotine seems to have fallen out of favour. Aux armes, Citoyens! Ou est le papier?
That?
The layout of the city may result from the desire to more easily quell insurrections.
Troop movements and clear lines of fire.
Same city planning as Salisbury … the one in Rhodesia.:)
In our American Mid West and a number of western states, the cities have wide streets. Not for troop movement, but to expedite the movement of large herds of cattle.
@ATheoK – the difference only depends on how you want to define cattle. To the delegates at COP21, we are all cattle and they are the ranchers.
Or put up fuel duty…and they will block motorways with 18 wheel trucks, let flat tyres so that even tanks cannot move them..
Yes, and that served Mugabe well.
It did? A former British colony affected by riots about fuel duty in France?
Yet another issue for them to protest about. I can imagine the complete outrage that the injustice of having to stay at home and behave will cause.
Welcome to Europe
Attrapez le merde Verte, is what I say.
“If you don’t stand against injustice, even when the victims of that injustice are people you detest, then who will speak for you, when your and your friend’s rights are being trampled?”
Basic principle. Without it we are lost.
Though we are morally bound to stand against injustice anyway, even if there is no advantage to ourselves.
@RoHa, 4.34 am +1 ( actually + many!)
I agree. Without supporting this principle we can not claim the high moral ground. Ironically the ecoloons may have been saved from shooting themselves in the foot with “terrorist style” action which would alienate the public.
When national security is at stake Political Correctness must take a back seat until order can be restored. There is a “tipping point.” As long as Democracy is intact, this need not be a problem. In France national security may indeed be at stake.
I wonder what would happen TODAY to people using a bus to break the enclosure of a nuclear plant, as greens sometimes do in France, knowing they wouldn’t be harmed.
simple-touriste
I would not like to try. A bus speeding towards a critical institution might today be stopped by shooting at the driver. You may drop the ‘at’.
It is doubtful that a speeding bus could do more than scratch up the surface of a pressure containment building. It might cause some spalling.
A bus could carry people in the wrong places.
French NP have been a playground for “green” activists for far too long (although lastly the PR stunts were on the only plant not far from Germany, Fessenheim, for logistical reasons: no enough French activists).
http://i.f1g.fr/media/ext/orig/www.lefigaro.fr/medias/2012/05/02/183d5d0e-942c-11e1-a68f-496160d54baf-493×328.jpg
http://www.la-croix.com/var/bayard/storage/images/lacroix/actualite/france/greenpeace-designe-cinq-centrales-nucleaires-a-fermer-en-priorite-_ng_-2013-03-28-926114/32618337-1-fre-FR/Greenpeace-designe-cinq-centrales-nucleaires-a-fermer-en-priorite_article_popin.jpg
Civil liberties are not “Political Correctness”, in fact, they are almost invariably the polar opposite. PC tends to assign rights to people depending on what category they are classified under, civil liberties are rights that are universal.
If there is one over arching theme in history, it is that security concerns (foreign or domestic, real or imagined) are always used as the pretext for suppressing civil liberties and the growth of the police state (just as economic security is the pretext for the nanny state). Fear of: The future, environmental concerns, terrorism, economic insecurity, foreign enemies, civil unrest, etc… is what causes free people to give up their freedoms, to those who would seek to control the people. Scare people enough, and they will accept under the precautionary principal, tyranny.
When terrorism occurs, and the state responds by ignoring civil rights, its citizens are twice victimized. It is the logic that if you were mugged, the police should respond by arresting and incarcerating you, as that would prevent you from being mugged again.
I would also disagree with the unstated premise that western democracy is on shaky ground or in some way endangered because it tends to have “too much” respect for the individual rights of its citizens. This is rubbish, the greatest threat to western democracy is that it has too little respect for individual rights, and the apathy of its citizens to the serial encroachments on these rights, liberty undefended is liberty lost. Respect for the rights of the individual, and the willingness of its citizens to defend the rights are foundations on which western democracy is built. In history, some see “Great Societies” disappearing in cataclysmic events, the reality is that these societies usually collapsed because the structures that underpinned them were hollowed out, merely awaiting the next black swan event.
I am stunned at how often, from the left and the right, I hear statements that can be distilled to “Democracy is endangered because the state does not violate the rights of its citizens often enough”. I could not disagree more.
bezotch-
“civil liberties are rights that are universal.”
Nope.
(“Civil rights” are different from “civil liberties.” Traditionally, the concept of “civil rights” has revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.), while “civil liberties” are more broad-based rights and freedoms that are guaranteed at the federal level by the Constitution and other federal law.” – http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-are-civil-rights.html#sthash.bo3buRt3.dpuf)
“When terrorism occurs, and the state responds by ignoring civil rights, its citizens are twice victimized. It is the logic that if you were mugged, the police should respond by arresting and incarcerating you, as that would prevent you from being mugged again.”
Wrong again. The state responded by curtailing SOME civil liberties in order to prevent it’s citizens from being twice victimized. It is the logic that if you’ve been guilty of mugging people before, and you threaten to do it again during a huge gathering in your city, the police put you on house arrest until that gathering is over.
“I am stunned at how often, from the left and the right, I hear statements that can be distilled to “Democracy is endangered because the state does not violate the rights of its citizens often enough”.
The problem is that YOU “distill” what you don’t agree with, into that. You run everything through your insane filter and if it doesn’t match your own ideology exactly, you label it poison. Very illogical and very sad.
Aphan:
“The state responded by curtailing SOME civil liberties in order to prevent it’s citizens from being twice victimized.”
Really?
Paris was attacked by Islamic radicals.
They arrested 24 green radicals.
I may not like extreme green, but there is no equivalence to Islamic extremists.
They don’t plant bombs in sporting venues.
They don’t walk into concerts and spray the audience with automatic weapons.
They don’t crash civilian airliners into buildings.
And I’ve never heard of a single instance of a green radical beheading anybody.
The French government has used measures enacted after a terrorist attack to crack down on people that have NOTHING to do with terrorism.
They weren’t “dangerous”, they were “disruptive”.
This has absolutely nothing to do with making the people of France safer.
Nothing what so ever.
What this is about, is that these radical green activists with their antics were sure to give the COP21 conference a black eye and embarrass the French government.
The French government is protecting its image by arresting the environmental activists, not its citizens.
“The state responded by curtailing SOME civil liberties in order to prevent it’s citizens from being twice victimized.”
I did NOT say ANYTHING that even remotely compared green extremists to Islamic terrorists, but again, YOU offered up a completely illogical and hysterical comparison that doesn’t even make sense. If you had exercised basic LOGIC (instead of whatever the crap motivates your thought process) you would realize that being victimized a second time refers to the idea that Islamic radicals COULD take advantage of the LARGE CROWDS generated by protests/marches to shoot even more French citizens than they did 2 weeks ago. And they wouldn’t even have to “sneak in” or attempt to hide.
REALLY.
Stop pretending that you can read minds or hearts. Even if you could, you’d be completely inept at it.
I am in agreement with you and Anthony. Even though I grit my teeth while admitting it.
We stand together.
Look at the last paragraph of the quote attributed by the ABC to the Greenpeace International Director Naidoo -a classic bit of mis-direction, referring to “sporting events”. But overlooked the fact that the declaration of the State of Emergency banned all public gatherings.
But isn’t COP21 a public gathering?
COP is not a gathering of random people.
COP21 is a gathering made to please “fafa” (Laurent Fabius, now sinistry of foreign PR and “Al Nosra is doing a good job”, remembered as famous health sinistry of the inoculation of AIDS contaminated blood to many children).
No, it’s a bureaucrat gathering – big difference 🙂
“The biggest issue humanity faces” is, in this case, a justification for violence. And yes, Greenpeace is violent. So, are there opportunities for the non-violent to make a point? This article doesn’t say.
What a pile of contradictions! Right on the heels of yet another Muslim mass murder terrorist act, Europe plans to destroy its modern civilization because it might get somewhat warmer! Europe let in a million angry Muslim males…and is bombing Muslims overseas…while at the same time, wants us to turn off the lights and cease warming our homes lest it get warmer than it is today.
This insanity will doom Europe. And then there is the irony of an army of sycophants and psychopaths flying in jets to come to this meeting to talk about how evil it is to fly jets and eat in expensive dives.
And British climate skeptics double in the last few months from 12 to 24% Sky news channel
http://news.sky.com/story/1596318/poll-growing-doubts-over-climate-change-causes
As it gets colder in England…and it is snowing there this month over and over again!…the number will rise to nearly 100% as the planet continues to go into a cooling cycle. Then we will see again the same stories we saw in the 1970’s worrying about another Ice Age.
“If you don’t stand against injustice, even when the victims of that injustice are people you detest, then who will speak for you, when your and your friend’s rights are being trampled?”
Well it sure won’t be greenpeace!!
Or other warmists in general. They would welcome such measures if it would only apply to sceptics. They have no problem with the muzzling, imprisoning or sanctioning of opposing thought. GK
G. Karst…Which is precisely the point. Under the US Constitution even totalitarians are entitled to their view, and associate with each other and express it publicly and privately. The only point at which the authority of government is involved is when they commit a crime against their fellow citizens or guests of our nation. So Greenpeace is allowed to advocate all they want and “take action” all they want until they crossover to criminal activity and then they are subject to criminal charges. We can’t arrest them for what they think and say. Its what made the difference between the United States and EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD at its founding and which small d “democrats” have chiseled at ever since.
fossilsage
November 29, 2015 at 12:55 pm
“G. Karst…Which is precisely the point.”
Which is why it is important for the point to be underlined. We must not expect any protection of our free speech from their quarter. Our free speech is equated with mass murder and rape (not to mention the Holocaust). We must never let our guard down. GK
What isn’t compared to rape of “mother Earth”, these days?
http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/ecofeminist_dr_vandana_shiva_farmers_who_use_gmos_are_rapists-100234
All agriculture is based on genetics before it was called genetics, before Crick and Watson (and Franklin), before Mendel.
In any open field, you have pollen hence gene movement, that you could call contamination if you think as foreign genes as a poison (like the man with the small moustache).
Is trivialising rape OK when “eco-feminists” do it? Anyone heard vehement (as vehement as Shiva is high profile) protests from feminists and progressive liberals in general?
Its exactly the same in the UK – the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 gives the State virtually unlimited powers in the case of a (self declared) civil emergency.
Given what has just happened it is for their own good, and the good of society. Francly, I’m surprised they even allowed this charade to go forward. And yes, those who would violate the rights of others are indeed getting a taste of their own medicine.
Freudenschade anyone?
In France, someone who destroy GE crops can be elected (Joseph “José” Bové, european parliament).
Someone who encourage the destruction of crops used for PUBLIC FUNDED research (not Monsanto!) can be a member of the government.
An association whose goal is the destruction of crops (les faucheurs volontaires) can legally exist! Extreme left “Justice” does nothing!
Ironically, anti-GE luddite Joseph Bové is the son of a scientist, and not any scientist: a geneticist!
The madness needs to stop.
You need to do some research into the papers on GMOs which have NOT been funded by the industry; there are very few of them since scientists who are sceptical of the value of pesticide-laced GMOs and esp their long-term effects are routinely hounded out of their speciality. Those that do exist have of course been under sustained attack by the agribusiness PRs – but are well founded and damning.
I’ve no doubt this French scientist who is the son of a geneticist HAS done his research, and knows what he is talking about: the genetic effect of GMOs is extremely worrying. Are you aware for example that in animals fed GMOs, they become sterile as early as the 3rd generation? Homo sapiens has not yet reached the 3rd generation of eating GMOs.
We are being experimented upon by ruthless companies who care for nothing but profit, and these companies fund any politician who will take their money esp in the USA. Once this stuff is in the wind and in the ground, it’s pretty well impossible to eradicate it. The risks are enormous, and by no means justified by the gains (if any)
Gawd.
“there are very few of them”
incorrect, there are a lot of studies, but when it doesn’t bleed it doesn’t lead so the medias don’t report these studies.
No seeds have been studies more in history. No other technology except nuclear is as controlled. No other existing technology has caused no accident and no unexpected side effects.
“since scientists who are sceptical of the value of pesticide-laced GMOs and esp their long-term effects are routinely hounded out of their speciality.”
And yet, many are still doing their best to destroy the reputation of their university with phony studies.
“I’ve no doubt this French scientist who is the son of a geneticist”
Joseph Bové isn’t a scientist, he is a farmer, an ecoloon, an activist, and a politician. He is utterly clueless, ignorant, anti-science, anti-technology. He is an ultra privileged luddite.
“the genetic effect of GMOs is extremely worrying.”
What is a “genetic” effect? Do you mean transgenerational?
“Are you aware for example that in animals fed GMOs, they become sterile as early as the 3rd generation?”
100% BS
1) No animal is fed GMO, as food isn’t an “O”.
2) Millions of animals, both farm and lab, are fed GE crops with no bad side effects. Lab animals are the most observed, measured that exist. Do you think nobody would notice more diseases in lab animals in US (mostly GE crop) than in Europe (few GE crop allowed)?
Sam The First
November 29, 2015 at 8:29 am
What is a ‘pesticide-laced GMO’?
@Billy
He either means
– crops modified to produce an insecticide (usually Bt toxin)
– crops modified to tolerate a non-selective(*) herbicide (glyphosate or glufosinate)
but I wonder if he even understands the difference.
Could be entertaining…
(*) also called “strong” or “powerful” herbicide (in bozo parlance)
simple-touriste, merci!
“the combination of magistrate and prosecutor in one position”
Oh no, not juge d’instruction debate.
President Sarkozy wanted to suppress this role, and now the sport of the juges d’instruction (massively on the left and extreme left) is to tap his phone line, so that the government can follow everything the opposition says privately.
Sarkozy was even tapped on a coke affair, because he once used a plane used for smuggling.
This is just basic crisis management for the left. Any time there is an attack by some foreign enemy, of course you immediately detain all of your domestic political opponents. Maduro in Venezuela has been busy doing the same thing.
“Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects!” from Casablanca. ..
“It’s easy to do the right thing. The hard part is knowing what that is” paraphrase. This is one of those times. The right to free speech is sacrosant unless your version is not speech but physical violence.
As to loons writing that 911, Paris, or other terror attacks are government planned…
you are in a dark place. Seek professional help.
There be disturbance in the farce says Jedi Klein ( or maybe it’s Sith Klein ) (:-))!!
I am feeling a disturbance too…but it might have been that dodgy Ronald Reagan concert (Airplane/Flying High movie reference).