France imposes Soviet Style Movement Restrictions on Climate Activists

France embracing Soviet Style Abuse of Due Process

France embracing Soviet Style Abuse of Due Process

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?

Advertisements

274 thoughts on “France imposes Soviet Style Movement Restrictions on Climate Activists

    • 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.

      • “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.

      • 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…

  1. “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.

      • 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

      • “We must assume that this ban applies to all demonstrations that could cause violent disorder”
        No, it applies to all gatherings, period.

      • 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?

      • 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.

  2. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  3. 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.

    then who will speak for you, when your and your friend’s rights are being trampled?

    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*

    • 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.

      • A) Rights are for all people, even the ones we dislike or disagree with.

        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.

      • 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

  4. For once I agree with Greenpeace. The people whose freedoms France has arbitrarily trampled, are not accused of a specific crime.

    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.

      • These guys aren’t islamic, but another kind of “green”:

        VIDÉO – Une poignée de militants encagoulés s’en sont pris au monument aux morts et à des vitrines à Gaillac, lors du rassemblement organisé à la mémoire de Rémi, le jeune homme décédé sur le site du barrage contesté de Sivens.

        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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      Les agents du Service de la Protection cumulent des centaines de milliers d’heures supplémentaires. Quatorze d’entre eux envisagent de porter plainte. L’un des officiers témoigne
      «On ne voit plus nos enfants, nos femmes râlent. Physiquement c’est une torture. Nous n’avons plus le temps de recevoir des formations, de faire du sport ni même de nous entraîner à tirer. Ce qui est inconcevable quand on pense au métier que l’on fait.»

      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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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?

    • The layout of the city may result from the desire to more easily quell insurrections.

      Some real-estate owners demanded large, straight avenues to help troops manoeuvre. The argument that the boulevards were designed for troop movements was repeated by 20th century critics, including the French historian, René Hérron de Villefosse, who wrote, “the larger part of the piercing of avenues had for its reason the desire to avoid popular insurrections and barricades. They were strategic from their conception.” This argument was also popularized by the American architectural critic, Lewis Mumford.
      Haussmann himself did not deny the military value of the wider streets. In his memoires, he wrote that his new boulevard Sebastopol resulted in the “gutting of old Paris, of the quarter of riots and barricades.” wiki

      • 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..

  7. 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.

  8. “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.

    • 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.

  9. 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.

      • 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).

  10. “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.

  11. 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.

    • 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.

  12. “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?

        Eco-Feminist Dr. Vandana Shiva: Farmers Who Use GMOs Are Like Rapists
        Dr. Vandana Shiva, eco-feminist – whatever that means – philosopher and environmental activist does not like that Mark Lynas has changed from being an anti-GMO crackpot, like her, to accepting science.
        On her Twitterfeed, which is chock full of lunatic rantings for the 17X as many followers of her nonsense as I have, she provided an extra-special treat for her acolytes: she said that allowing farmers to use GMOs was the same as telling rapists it is okay to rape.

        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?

  13. 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.

  14. 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)

      • “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)?

        • @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)

  15. “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.

  16. 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.

  17. “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.

    • I am feeling a disturbance too…but it might have been that dodgy Ronald Reagan concert (Airplane/Flying High movie reference).

    • Excellent videos – worth watching – thank you Jaakko.
      This senseless violence is common criminal conduct by leftists at global summits and is routinely tolerated by authorities,
      These are the same people who form the brownshirt brigade of the radical-environmental movement. I am familiar with some of their threats and assaults – they have committed very serious criminal acts.
      Questions:
      Why should shop owners have to tolerate having their businesses trashed by these thugs?
      Why should police have to tolerate being assaulted by these thugs?
      Why should citizens have to tolerate being threatened and intimidated by these thugs?
      If the average citizen did this sort of crime, they would be locked up. I say stop giving these thugs a free pass. Lock them up and make them pay for all the damage they cause.
      “Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong.”
      John Diefenbaker, March 11, 1958

      • I agree. Anyone with any knowledge of French history knows how readily the anarchist left will riot: they don’t acknowledge or respect the rule of law and have no care for the carnage they leave in their wake.
        It’s the same in London: any political event attracts these lawless thugs hell-bent on the destruction of property, and it’s the ordinary citizen who suffers.
        As you sow so shall you reap: these people have brought this on themselves by their prior lawlessness

  18. “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?”
    How quaint. How touching…BUT: It’s the other way around.
    THEY haven’t stood up for US, so why should We for THEM?!
    To Hell with the radical terrorist Eco-Nazi Left, in France and around the world.

    • Kauf Buch:
      It is not a question of standing up for ‘them’.
      It is a question of standing up for the same rights and privileges we believe in.

      • – and which these anarchists do not believe in.
        Should we stand on our principles while those who care nothing for the rule of law cause mayhem in our cities?

      • Oh, Sweet, Dear, Poor ATheoK…
        enjoy the fragrant smell of those flowers in your hair as you dance to the hippie music…
        …AS IF “rights and privileges” mean ANYTHING to them.
        WHAT FOOL thinks that, must also believe the same about muzzies.
        You are a SOON-TO-BE-BEHEADED slave to your ideology.
        When it comes to survival, that’s a luxury too far.
        The rest of us will fight, so stand back and hide, coward.

      • Kauf Buch:
        It isn’t about whether these rights and privileges mean anything to them.
        It is about whether or not these rights and privileges mean anything to us.
        If it does we must grit our teeth and stand up for them.
        If not, it is meaningless blather.

      • ATheoK and bezotch-
        My principles require that I either obey and uphold the laws where I live, OR that I take legal and proper action to have them changed. My principles do not allow me to ignore those laws. They do not allow me to sit, even peacefully, in the middle of a public street, or chain myself quietly to a door I don’t own, or to invite my friends to mingle at the town square after midnight if a curfew has been put in place. Why? Because my principles do not allow me to trample on the other rights that belong to my fellow citizens just so I can express my opinion about the ones I might disagree with. For ANY reason. My right to object doesn’t supersede my neighbor’s right to drive without worrying about people in the street, or the property rights of whoever owns the door, or the rights of everyone in town to have an available and unfettered police force protect them while they sleep.
        My principles demand that I be willing to sacrifice some things, within reason and for short periods of time, for the good and safety of everyone (which includes me and my loved ones), if I want to keep my freedom. And I HOPE that the principles of my fellow citizens demand the same thing.
        You seem to believe that the government of a free society’s job is to enact certain civil laws that protect you and everything you want, while at the same time demanding that the same government allows for “civil disobedience”-which is the refusal to obey laws which one personally finds unjust or believes to be immoral. You have no “right” to expect that, nor does such a thing even make sense. And if you think it does, then I expect you to support me breaking into your house and sampling your Thanksgiving leftovers, then taking your car to run errands, and not paying my taxes this year. I personally find all laws that say I can’t to be unjust or immoral.
        It is YOU whose principles must sew-saw back and forth in order to quell the logical dissonance such thinking creates.

      • to “bezotch”
        My my my…how “THE-WORLD-ACTS-EXACTLY-AS-I-IMAGINE-IT” of you.
        That is not only DEEPLY CHILDISH, but…
        …FATAL CONCEIT. FATAL NARCISSISM.
        Go ahead, GO DIE in the name of “non-violence” you idiot.
        How “brave….and how DEAD.
        Take your “peace ‘n’ love ‘n’ ideological purity” minstrel show to islamic countries.
        Let your corpse tell us how persuasive you were.

      • Kauf Buch
        Since all I’ve seen from you on this site is taunting and name calling, I have to conclude, that it is the limit of what you can contribute to an intellectual discussion, and will in the future just ignore you.
        Gotta love guys who talk tough behind the anonymity of the internet. They have “virtual cahones”.

        • bezotch said to Kauf Buch
          “Since all I’ve seen from you on this site is taunting and name calling, I have to conclude, that it is the limit of what you can contribute to an intellectual discussion, and will in the future just ignore you.”
          “Gotta love guys who talk tough behind the anonymity of the internet. They have “virtual cahones”.
          Oh that is rich! Your contributions are illogical and irrational, and you preach a strange morality from the anonymity of the internet. And the word is “cojones”, you intellectual master you. *rolls eyes*

  19. …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….
    I’m afraid that you will find that Common Law countries, like the US and the UK, are not actually much different.
    The politicians just say they are different – but they will breach fundamental principles just as easily…

    • Do Common Law countries moral equivalents of “juges d’instruction” tap the line of former President/PM?

      • The only country I know that upholds “common law” is the UK. I do not know of any other that does. And that “right” in the UK is being eroded…day by day. Ramblers, greenies etc…all want “us” to stop doing what “we” have been doing for thousands of years in England. Ancient roads and paths, the greens (Ramblers, horse riders association etc) want to ban most other users from access.

      • Some juges d’instruction say that prison for the people being investigated “soften the meat”.
        Now at least there is the “chambre de l’instruction” for judicial overview of the juges d’instruction, but it doesn’t seem very effective.

      • “1saveenergy
        November 29, 2015 at 8:05 am”
        Nope! I just said the only country I know that upholds “common law” is the UK. I used to live in the UK and many pressure groups (Ramblers, horse riders etc) wanted to remove access to byways, roads used as public paths (RUPPs) and white/unclassified roads to other users. For instance, there are thousands and thousands of footpaths and bridleways in England. Ancient paths, thousands of years old. Some actually cross private property. In common law, everyone in the UK has the right to use these paths. And if they do cross private property, in common law, you have the right to cross without asking. Most people are polite and ask to cross and are usually granted access.

  20. In a sense the optics of street chaos in Paris would be an enlightening moment for the world video audience. Watermelons on full display while the carnage of the last attack is still being repaired.
    Greenpeace is a reprehensible organization. The more they are seen the better.

  21. There are two distinct modes of behavior and we are either in one or the other. The first is political correctness where we try to accommodate every mewling complaint from those who don the mantle of victimhood. The second is when the first results in massive disorder and we recognize the need for extraordinary measures.

    • pochas…Agree 100%.
      One thing that really gets me is how the MSM jump all over and extensively cover riots and civil disobedience which causes further and more intense disorder, spreading it to more cities, etc… The rioters want the attention and display more & more outrageous acts, attracting more idiot rioters and spreading the ‘fun’.
      The MSM claim that the public needs to know and point to the right of ‘freedom of the press’, but it is mostly for ratings, money, and some field reporters need for “claims to fame’ for future resumes. A person watching the news coverage of riots by the news anchors can almost see their drooling and excitement with each burning building or injured person. Sickening.

      • Agreed. Years ago in Tuscany I was impressed by Italian TV and the Sienese, when there was the start of a riot the night before the Palio in the main square. The TV cameras were immediately switched off and hooded, and the locals politely asked all those of us with cameras to put them away.
        The riot which could have got nasty fizzled out very fast.

    • False dichotomy. There are more than “two distinct modes of behavior”, and we are currently not yet in the second one you list. The French are trying to prevent massive disorder on top of recovering from a terrorist attack. These are not ordinary times, so of course they call for extraordinary measures. But those measures shouldn’t come as a shock or offense to anyone intelligent. Such measures have long been in place for a reason. It’s called history.

  22. France responded to an act of war by imposing martial law on its subjects. We’re there to be a similar attack in the US, one can only imagine who would be locked up if Obama declared martial law. Global warming skeptics for certain.

    • “France responded to an act of war by imposing martial law on its subjects.”
      This is new.
      When did this non event happened?

      • Ok simple-touriste, some non French here do not distinguish Martial Law from the restrictions France placed upon its citizens. So, please explain the restrictions that France has imposed.

      • The “état d’urgence” means many things:
        the government could take control of the press, which would be quite meaningless when the press is hyping the government and the COP21, and critics are sacked (*)
        – home searches before 6:00 AM
        home search without juge control
        – curfews can be decided by the “préfet” (delegate of the state in a “département”)
        – selling bottles of alcohol, carrying and drinking alcohol in public and transporting drinks in glass bottles after 8:00 PM has been forbidden in Nord (region of Lille): decided the 14th of November, cancelled the 21th

        (*) recently sacked in the French medias:
        – TV: Philippe Verdier on France Television (criticism of COP21 related hysteria)
        – radio: Thomas Guénolé on RMC: criticism of the disorganisation and inefficiency of the police during the killing of Bataclan (specialised security forces arrived late and the first police arrived had only weak armor)
        Discussing either climate alarmism or police inefficiency are strong taboos in France.

      • In an ironic twist Philippe Verdier is now free to speak courtesy of Russian Television (RT) and is reporting from COP21. Perhaps the title of the blog post needs editing, it seems the Russians value (his) free speech more than the French…

    • You either do not know what martial law is, or you don’t care. What Paris is doing is not martial law, and the current US President declaring a state of emergency would not be either.

      • bezotch, you seem to lack even the most basic social/communication skill thresholds, such as not making wildly illogical assumptions about total strangers and then appearing to be incredulous to your own make believe.

  23. If there would be groups organizing violent protests at football games etc, those groups would be banned also.
    French police want to keep as many police available to be able to respond to potential terrorist threat. Not have their officers ties to babysitting demonstrators who think they get their message through only by rioting.
    These 24 would not be grounded if they had behaved before.

  24. I don’t have enough facts on which to base an opinion about that specific action. But it does seem that in much of Europe the rights to free speech and association have already reached the level to which anti-discrimination laws and sanctions for hate speech are rapidly taking them in the U.S. : http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427693/another-reminder-free-speech-not-european-value?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5659bb2004d3011b980224b2&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

    • Last year, some people have been arrested apparently for wearing a “famille pour tous” (anti gay marriage) T-shirt.
      Some anti-gay marriage people have been put in custody, moved around, kept for hours or even days, then freed.
      This was just bullying.

  25. The Google boys and their Special Advisor Al Gore are in the game. They have a little “speak up on climate change” blurb on the home page.
    Here’s my thought Brin and Page… climate change is a known natural phenomenon. Why are you making it out to be phantom in the closet. Stop doing evil with your big bag of money little boy.

  26. Anthony, moderators etal,
    Make contact with Sheryl Attkisson the former CBS reporter who has gone independent and is now with Sinclair Broadcasting.
    She has the honesty and integrity needed to go after the facts.
    She has a new show named Full Measure.
    Get her together with Congressman Larmar Smith who is the Chairman of the House Science Committee.
    See article in Washington Times today by Smith.
    Only facts can save U S All now.

  27. And yet none one person here protested one bit at Greenpiss being banned from operating in India. I will never understand the need for these people to even protest the issue when thousands of like minded religiously driven people have all arrived in Paris to try and find a way to combat what they are protesting in the first place.That’s an even more pointless way to spend your time than try to stop something that cannot be stopped.
    I wonder how many of those protesters were there to to speak out against the massive waste of of government money when it could go towards technological investment in energy, reducing poverty, eradicating disease etc etc. No, it’ll just be the usual polar bears, 97%, big oil, capitalists corrupting the world crap and countless other clichés based on bad science and political/religious indoctrination to ‘the cause’.
    Seeing as the French will protest absolutely everything and anything at the drop of a hat, quite often having an economical knock on effect here in the UK, I just don’t care. Sorry ’bout that.

    • Anyway these would only be the Greenpeace foot-soldiers. The big people behind Greenpeace will stay behind the scenes.

  28. Current news reports of violent climate protests in Paris:
    “French riot police fired tear gas at activists protesting as part of global climate demonstrations Sunday, on the eve of the COP21 climate summit in Paris.
    About 200 protesters, some wearing masks, fought with police on a street leading to the Place de la Republique, which has become a gathering place for Parisians since the terror attacks on Nov. 13.”
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/global-climate-march-record-numbers-turn-out-climate-protests-n470836

  29. I’ll only support them in so far as governments usually over-react to terrorist attacks, restricting civil liberties in an attempt to be seen to be “doing something”.
    But, as others have pointed out, they publicly announced their intention to break the law (whether it be a good law or a bad law) and put extra demands on the police when it has been determined that demands on the police are already excessive for more important reasons.
    Their public announcement of intention to break the law is also inciting others to do the same.
    in some ways it is actually a good thing. The French policing authorities have decided that terrorism is a bigger threat than some pissant conference about global warming and its bleating disciples.

  30. This is a science based website and forum. Please keep your posts to science and not politics or religion.

      • Oh, I get it now. You can talk about other subjects that the rest of the readers like, but not when it makes them uncomfortable or exposes that logic inference has to carry not just to climate science, but other areas where the facts are pretty clear. Hint: it’s not politics.

        • Yo, ‘Leland Neraho’:
          Every comment from you is filled with whining and complaining. So I have the solution, and it will make everyone much happier:
          Go start your own blog. At your first anniversary, say ‘Hi’ for me to both your readers.

      • I’m still waiting for my $44k from Heartland. They said I have a college degree which prevents me from getting funded. Only high schoolers they say.

      • Besides, now that the housing market crash has run its course and there is no more profit to made off of fools who can’t spot anomalies, climate change, or not, is my favorite topic. So why would I go to the “World’s Second Most Viewed Site”? That wouldn’t make sense, would it?

      • In case you don’t have time to read the article, here is the science part of it: “In fact, federal ground-based data, which scientists said is more reliable than satellites, show that 15 of the 17 years after 1997 have been warmer than 1997, and 2015 is on track to top 2014 as the warmest year on record.”

      • Hey, Leland, here how “settled” GISS is.
        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
        http://web.archive.org/web/20120104220939/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
        Please note, for example, the difference in the January temperatures of the very first year of the surface stations records.
        Why did Hansen change them? Was that when the first “coal train of death” ran?

      • Really, Leland Neraho?
        Hmm, at this time there are Congressional investigations into the antics of these scientists you speak of. Some of them are breaking the law by refusing to turn over documentation to the oversight committee. Why should anyone accept statements from people who hide data that you and I paid for? And make no mistake the actions these so called scientists are taking has led to contempt charges and jail time for others in the past.
        By the way just how many places on the planet in the last ten days, have had record snow falls both in depth and earliest for november.
        It’s getting colder each year. More and more people are seeing it, despite what you blither about, people are sitting up and taking notice
        Go find a new shtick this one is about played out.
        michael

      • “but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets”
        I am sure it can.
        But until someone makes this case, there is nothing that can be discussed, if you insist on discussing only science.

    • Leland, I hate to tell you this, but you are completely incorrect. As Anthony’s WUWT website has stated for years and years now-
      “About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts”
      Please don’t attempt to tell either Anthony or his forum participants what is or is not appropriate to discuss here.

  31. I think it better to write that France does not recognize Anglo-American norms of jurisprudence. Civil law has no less a claim of being “Western” than does common law.

  32. Aw, c’mon folks. Hasn’t anybody ever heard of a restraining order? That’s essentially all this is. A judge will issue a restraining order if a potential victim makes a credible case that someone may pose a danger to them. No witnesses; no subpoenaes; no evidence is necessary; just a credible case for a temporary restraining order. For all practical purposes that’s all this is. This isn’t permanent. And, it involves …house arrest? … boohoo.

    • Yes.
      If city authorities in the US can legally declare curfews, why should anyone else not be allowed to do the same?

  33. “because they have been violent during demonstrations in the past ”
    There’s a word for that: rioters. And rioters are basically trying to terrorize people into going along with them – they should rightfully be shot on the spot.

  34. I fully support the French decisions: they well know that these demonstrations rapidly go violent and destructive; in these after-terrorist attacks times French security forces have a hell of a job to do just to assure the security of all the officials coming in for COP21. Just plain common-sense and a bit of patriotism should tell the eco-loons that now is not the time for disruptive action. The last hours show once more that these are not harmless demonstrations done for a noble cause, but violent actions which surely will attract more “casseurs” profiting to make generous shop-lifting.
    Eric Worrall’s post is absolutely dispensable!

    • Not at the expense of the safety or security of anyone else. Their freedom to act stupidly ends at the line where it infringes upon the rights, or protection, of anyone else.

  35. Especially since we talking about only a couple dozen or so potential (minor) terrorists, it might have been better for the authorities instead to have kept quiet while tailing the targets. Then, if they do break the law, there would be good reason to lock them up.

    • “it might have been better for the authorities instead to have kept quiet while tailing the targets”
      Brillant idea.
      Rince and repeat for every person with an “S” classification? (S for threat to the Safety of the state).
      /sarc

    • Bob Shapiro,Dave O.
      Have either of you ever been in or seen a French demonstrate in Paris? I was in Paris in the 1998 and saw “some” of one. There were signs posted tell people when and where. The police set up their barricade right below the hotel window my wife and I were staying at.
      You could hear the chanting from several streets away. Part carnival, part riot, intoxicating invigorating and frightening at the same time.
      We thought we had ring side seats But just as the mob came into sight they shifted to a cross street to flank the police. Now we watched police grab all their barricades and gear and try to get back ahead of the pack. It seemed to go on all night but just out of sight. This was just a “low” key affair mostly done just for the “h**l of it.
      Right now the French police do not need this sort of foolishness with an on going threat to the population and their ah guests
      michael

  36. “Another reason was the combination of magistrate and prosecutor in one position”
    Wrong. Doesn’t happen. If you are the examining magistrate, you cannot act as prosecutor. In fact there are safeguards about your ever appearing in cases involving the defendant. Look it up in wikipedia if you like.

  37. For once I agree with Greenpeace. The people whose freedoms France has arbitrarily trampled, are not accused of a specific crime.

    I agree.
    While I’m glad we should be spared most of the usual displays the loud put on for the press, I’d rather put in earplugs than have those I don’t agree with muzzled, even they would try to muzzle me.

    • Mods
      Typo
      ” even they would try to muzzle me.”
      Should be:
      ” even though they would try to muzzle me.”

    • I’d like to add this caveat, if the intelligence community had credible information that the green things gathering was going to be a target or a source of terrorist attacks, then I can understand. Otherwise…..

  38. Abuse of state power caused far more suffering and death all over the world during the last hundred years than anything else combined. That’s a fact.
    Therefore the most dangerous enemies of people are states.
    The only remedy to that is checks and balances, that is, forcing various branches of government to keep each other in check, because no one else has the power to do that.
    That vital ingredient is weak under French law or missing altogether, a crime committed out of negligence by the French public. Because France is still a democracy.
    Everyone should be afraid of such a rough state, first of all its own citizens, that’s the state of affairs right now.

    • There are a lot of abuses of state power in France. Tons.
      Even former President has been abused, repeatedly, by the Justice. The juges d’instruction do not even fear publicity. Actually, they love it. Even bad publicity.
      Ordinary people are treated like the worst criminals, and criminals can get a jail verdict and never go to jail.
      France is sinking to Soviet level with chaos as a bonus (at least Soviet russia had apparent low criminality and some ‘order’).
      But I don’t see a gross abuse here.

      • State of emergency was declared for a completely different, unrelated reason in France (with next to no tangible results so far).
        Using this immense power out of context is a clear case of abuse, no matter how repugnant those climate activists are.

      • “Using this immense power out of context is a clear case of abuse,”
        Context?
        The context is recent terror attacks, insufficient police forces, nuclear-bacteriological-chemical protection suits very recently stolen in a hospital, etc.

    • Do you grasp the fact that free societies ALLOW their governments to create different laws to be enacted during different circumstances? That even the United States has laws in place for times of war that preempt the laws in place during peace times? Do you honestly believe that anyone in their right mind would demand that the freedoms enjoyed during every day life/peace times be guaranteed to them and expect the government to comply? The French government is doing EXACTLY what any US state is legally and lawfully allowed to do during a “state of emergency”.
      How do you think the US, and New York City in particular, would have acted if COP21 had been scheduled to start on September 29th, 2001, just two weeks after those terrorist attacks? Would you have viewed it as an abuse of state for New York to have banned all large public gatherings then? As an infringement on free speech?
      The kicker is, what you would have viewed it as then, or what you view it as now, is absolutely irrelevant. The French government doesn’t care what you, or I, or anyone else “thinks”. The French government is doing exactly what governments are elected to do first and foremost…protect the lives of their citizens by adhering to the laws and protocols put in place for exactly such circumstances. France considers the attack two weeks ago to be an act of war, and implemented emergency laws created for such a time.

      • Berényi Péter- said “State of emergency was declared for a completely different, unrelated reason in France (with next to no tangible results so far).”
        Really? The current “state of emergency” is an extension of the original declaration made 16 days ago, on November 13th, immediately after the terrorist attacks. You are claiming that the President of France declared a state of emergency for a “completely different, unrelated reason”…that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks that night.
        Do tell. And show the evidence that convinced you of this please.

  39. Government ministers, of France and elsewhere, are not subject to the state of emergency.
    The citizens of France are the Evildoers. This is just as President George W. Bush did to us, the citizens of the USA on 9/11/2001.

    • The French gov doesn’t need a état de … anything to abuse the citizens’ rights.
      The freedom of the press is under attack. The hyped diversity of opinions on TV is joke, TV channels are 50 nuances of socialism and “we need state intervention” (because between 70% and 80% of the economy created or controlled by the state is considered extreme free market economy).
      “Hate speech” is any speech that criticise people non-white, non-French people… and truth is not a defense.
      Sarkozy was bad for freedom (except the constitutional reform), Hollande is worse. Both want a French NSA, both want to tap everybody. The cherished ideas of both are evil.

  40. The French have had their asses handed to them in so many places now, think WW1/2/Syria/Lebanon/Algeria/Vietnam etc etc (I won’t even mention what they did in Rwanda)…that the only people they can bully now are their own people.

      • I zinke it is ze ‘Simple’ one talking ze merde!
        In 2010, during a visit to Rwanda, French President Nicolas Sarkozy acknowledged that France made “mistakes” during the genocide, although, according to a BBC report, he “stopped short of offering a full apology”.

      • Charles Nelson ,”Rwanda” was I think part of the Belgian Congo, not any of the French colonies. I think there may have been some U.N. troops stationed there back then; and that may be what you are thinking of. I seem to remember the U.N. Sec.Gen. asking any one and everyone for troop to put in there.
        And true the French have had a bit of a losing streak in the last century. But in the preceding one they took almost every capital in Europe. Not a bad days work.
        michael

      • “French President Nicolas Sarkozy acknowledged”
        Not something to be proud of, but the expected move from a socialist-leftist buffoon produced in huge numbers in France: try to make friend with an enemy, try to please haters, racists, extremists.
        You don’t hearn respect that way.
        USA didn’t apologise for bombing Japan, I guess Sarkozy might have.

  41. I have worked professionally in the area of public and private security, so have a slightly different perspective.
    France is hosting an international conference with hundreds of foreign VIPs in country in a single city for almost two weeks. I I wanted an opportunity for a major terrorist attack, I’d invent the COP 21. Protecting all those VIPs, especially after such a recent clear demonstration of the ease of planning and carrying out such attacks in Paris, must be a nightmare for France’s police forces, Army, and Security apparatus.
    The fact the France has never really been a bastion of what Americans think of of civil liberties and has never really tied the hands of its Security and Intelligence agencies only makes it marginally easier for them.
    I can think of nothing more counter-productive to the effort to protect the delegates to COP21 than to allow the kind of violent-circus demonstrations that some of these groups are known for. I can not overstate the increase to the Threat Level involved.
    One way of mitigating the negative effects of suppression of demonstrations to to allow them at some easily controlled site far away from the actually COP21 meeting place. Let them have their say — the press will come to where they are. The delegates at COP21 won'[t be listening to them or watching their circus — so it doesn’t matter where they demonstrate — except for security reasons. Allowing demonstrations in a large park area, with adequate facilities for large crowds, and that can be contained by law enforcement is a good compromise.

  42. I don’t think climate activists, alarmists, or environmental groups such as Greenpeace would EVER support the free speech of anyone who disagrees with them. On the contrary, they are the ones most likely to try to implement such restrictions on those with different viewpoints to themselves, as evidenced by the RICO bullying in the USA. Supporting the free speech of those who would try to stifle the free speech of others if they could is not supporting free speech, it is enabling those who seek to eliminate free speech, so I have absolutely no sympathy for them whatsoever. I’m not saying they should be banned, just that if they choose to live by the sword they should expect to die by the sword.

  43. France’s biggest challenge will be to keep Lord Monckton outside of COP21’s walls. If they can do that, the terrorists don’t have a chance.

  44. The Napoleonic Code assumes one is guilty until proven innocent. That’s why French law seems so distant from English (and American) law. It’s that way in most of continental Europe, a legacy from the Napoleonic occupation and wars.

      • If I was you I wouldn’t keep saying WHAT?, like that.
        It makes you look even more ignorant than you probably are!
        Don’t you know anything at all about France?

      • Hey Simple.
        As our resident Francophile, maybe you could throw a little light on the events that took place in Paris on the 17th of October 1961?

      • France was Rwanda’s one great ally and the French must have known of the activities of the extremists – certainly in the army. France provided arms, soldiers, technical advice and expertise to the Rwandan military, even embedding French officers to work side by side with officers and known extremists. Just two weeks before the genocide began, French officers were still serving in the very units that were responsible for carrying out the elimination of the entire political opposition, touring Kigali at dawn with prepared lists. And they continued to intervene in support of the extremists during and, crucially, after the April 1994 massacres.

  45. Though I intellectually deplore these types of government strong arm methods — yet somehow I can’t help but snicker that the climate brownshirts are getting a taste of the type of world that they wish to create.
    Eugene WR Gallun

      • Gunga Din
        My memory may poorly serve me here. German history is not my strong point.
        Ernst Rohm who headed the Brownshirts, after working with Hitler for years, managed to make himself Hilter’s chief rival for power. As the story goes Hitler had the regular army (at the time still under restrictions placed after WWI and only about 100,000 strong) swear an oath of loyalty to him personally. Upon hearing this Rohm had his two million brownshirts swear an oath of loyalty to him personally. Rohm had wanted the regular army semi-incorporated into the brownshirts and put under his command. This Hitler had refused citing the the army’s absolute negativity on the proposal.
        Hitler came to absolute power through politics. Rohm seemed to want to obtain absolute power by making himself a “warchief” subjugating the politicians to his will. Unfortunately he failed to surround himself with a praetorian guard and Hitler used members of the regular army to enforce his arrest — the infamous Night Of The Long Knives.
        Socialism and Communism have a long record of eating up their “useful idiots”. All the pinkos of the world don’t realize it but it is in their own best interest to NOT succeed at revolution.
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • My memory did fail me. It was the Gestapo and not members of the regular army that did the dirty work of the Night Of The Long Knives.
        Eugene WR Gallun

  46. French or Napoleonic law is not the same as American or Australian law. Hollande is well within his rights to do this.
    These Warmistas boasted that they planned law-violation of the state of emergency. The planning of it constitutes civil disobedience. House arrest is quite tame compared to what happened with other violent protest actions seen these days. They could have kept it secret, done it and been arrested later (after the damage). This way we avoid the damage. Are they above the law?

  47. The debate should be over what a state of emergency should entitle the government of France to do.
    Given there are 24 people that are restricted to their homes and that these individuals have conducted violent protests in the past and said they were planning it this time as well, the French government was worried that those 24 people would help turn the climate meeting into something like a zoo. A zoo that would turn people more against the environmentalists especially after the Islamic terrorists just attacked. So, the French government is siding with alarmism by preventing some alarmists from acting stupidly. They may also fear violent protests would stop some people from attending the meeting.
    In the US, putting someone under house arrest would be problematic legally and I don’t think the authorities could legally do it so long as the people involved have not made specific threats of violence and or conducted some preparations to commit violent acts. On the other hand, the current administration is always willing to push the boundaries of the law so who knows what they might try for a good enough reason.

    • “So, the French government is siding with alarmism by preventing some alarmists from acting stupidly.”
      What? What evidence confirmed this for you? Stupidity is one thing, violence is another. If France was going to arrest people for being stupid during COP21…my lord…there’s no prison big enough. And putting 24 people on house arrest is not going to prevent idiotic activists from turning the meetings into a zoo, as any news site can prove.
      Every tactically trained person knows that you keep people alive by NOT forcing your soldiers/officers to have to hesitate. You never want them in the position of deciding, on the spot, “Is that idiot down there throwing things an activist or a terrorist?.” I prefer to believe that France’s decision was a tactical one, not a political one.
      Violent protests won’t stop anyone that wants to attend the meeting from being there, but I would suspect that terrorist attacks might. The VIPs that are invited to attend will all arrive and depart in heavily armored cars, and have personal security to protect them.

  48. There is a key point being missed by an awful lot of commenters when ramping up on “rights and freedoms”. Leaving aside the fact that no western nation actually is a democracy, people forget that there is an explicit contract of responsibility for citizens in a free society. Because there are competing interests and rights, we have a civil code of laws and rules that we, as a co-operative society, agree to abide by. We use quasi democratic means to create the code and we need to work within it for society to function at all.
    But at the end of the day, that also means, for each of us, we are obliged to accept that responsibility, so that everybody has an equal opportunity to exercise their rights. It doesn’t mean that everybody gets, or should even desire, to exercise all of their rights all of the time without regard for one another. That already has a definition: anarchy. When you assert your rights in such a way that you place risk on others, you are being irresponsible, and others will assert their right to see that that risk doesn’t happen.

    • It’s truly amazing isn’t it Paul? A free society cannot enact certain civil laws that protect you, while at the same time making allowances for “civil disobedience”-which is refusal to obey laws which one personally finds unjust or believes to be immoral. It’s’ insane to think it can and remain free.
      My principles require that I either obey and uphold the laws where I live, OR that I take legal and proper action to have them changed. My principles do not allow me to ignore those laws. They do not allow me to sit, even peacefully, in the middle of a public street, or chain myself quietly to a door I don’t own, or to invite my friends to mingle at the town square after midnight if a curfew has been put in place. Why?
      Because my principles do not allow me to trample on the other rights that belong to my fellow citizens just so I can express my opinion about the ones I might disagree with. For ANY reason. My right to object doesn’t supersede my neighbor’s right to drive without worrying about people in the street, or the property rights of whoever owns the door, or the rights of everyone in town to have an available and unfettered police force protect them while they sleep.
      Freedom isn’t free. It has a cost. And I believe that citizenship requires us all to ante up and pay a small, and not always comfortable portion of that price, share that burden. If that means that I have to sacrifice some small things, within reason and for short periods of time, to protect a BIG thing like the security and safety of everyone, so be it. Those who aren’t willing to do that are merely demonstrating that “my rights” mean more to them than “our rights”.

      • “They do not allow me to sit, even peacefully, in the middle of a public street”
        France has tolerated this kind of behaviour for years, maybe believing this would result in kindness from islamists (this way of thinking is over I believe):

  49. India’s Prime Minister Modi warned Obama and the West’s Industrialized nations not to engage in Carbon Imperialism..
    Great Line.

  50. Let’s put together some protest chants for the Paris protesters:
    What do we want?
    The imposition of higher taxation, increased public debt and the expansion of the state!!!
    What else do we want?
    To return to the bitter cold and storminess of the little ice age!!!
    What else do we want?
    Immigration and social collapse!!!
    Who wants us to want all this self-defeating bullcrap?
    Erm…Putin?

    • Dear frog, while I applaud the enthusiasm of your efforts, I’m afraid that they do not rhyme and contain too many big words for protesters to remember easily. You can’t expect them to have to “think” while they chant. Thinking defeats the purpose of repetitive propagandizing.
      They are also too long to be reproduced cheaply on each and every type of surface imaginable. It would take more than a dozen activists to sneak onto an oil rig and securely attach a banner of such a length…and if all 12 got arrested, the movement they belong to might just die off. That’s a risk I’m not sure many are willing to take. 🙂

      • You’re absolutely correct and I appreciate your guidance. How about:
        “What do we want?
        More stuff for everyone!!
        What do we not want?
        Industry!!”
        Still no rhyme. But it’s a bit more snappy this time. 🙂

  51. “France has arbitrarily imposed Soviet style movement restrictions on a number of climate activists”
    Was the article an invitation to anti-France trolling?
    Mods need to say something.

    • So criticism of France is ‘trolling’ eh?
      What about this entry from Wiki(troll)ipedia?
      The role of France in the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 has been a source of controversy and debate both within and beyond France and Rwanda. France actively supported the Hutu-led government of Juvénal Habyarimana against the Tutsi-dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front, which since 1990 had been engaged in a conflict intended to restore the rights of Rwandan Tutsis both within Rwanda and exiled in neighboring countries following over four decades of anti-Tutsi violence. France provided arms and military training to Habyarimana’s youth militias, the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi, which were among the government’s primary means of operationalizing the genocide.
      And still no comment on the events of Oct 1961?
      Yours Sincerely.
      Troll.

      • “The role of France in the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 has been a source of controversy”
        “controversy” is codename for “we have nothing, but empty rhetoric and verbal abuse keeps the fire running”. Controversy means some people disagree with settled history.
        In this case, the fire is fueled by the very people who did the genocide, who cut their neighbours in pieces. The racists, genocidal people turned their racist hate to France. Do you trust these people?
        “And still no comment on the events of Oct 1961?”
        No, cause YOU brought that up and YOU want to discuss Oct 1961.
        YOU put up or shut up.
        Not me, YOU.
        Anyway, what is your point? Do you even have a point?

      • My point…that I made twelve hours ago still stands. It is a simple point. I’ll cut and paste it for you.
        The French have had their asses handed to them in so many places now, think WW1/2/Syria/Lebanon/Algeria/Vietnam etc etc (I won’t even mention what they did in Rwanda)…that the only people they can bully now are their own people.
        That’s my point. Hope that’s cleared everything up for you.

        • “Hope that’s cleared everything up for you.”
          Yep, you are clearly a pathetic troll.
          It’s clear enough.
          You can go now.

    • Simple-tourist, every article here seems to invite an anti something . They show up like children chasing a shiny object, or the ice cream truck and then annoy the adults for a treat.

  52. Timing is everything. Personally, I think that France should have cancelled the Climate Circus, but, they never asked my opinion.
    I see nothing to worry about. France is entitled to run things under their laws the way they want to. Americans, can have little to say about it unless it is aimed at us, which is not the case here.
    America’s laws and institutions are different than those of France. I say vive la difference.
    That said, the argument that the US should change its laws to be the same as France is lame. The US is a very different place inhabited by different people, with a different history than France.
    By the same token, saying France should operate the same as the USA is also lame. We should not criticize France unless we know very precisely what they are doing and why. That information is not available to us.

  53. “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.
    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” (Niemöller )

  54. Certainly eco-activists have a history of violence – some are rabid (making claims such as that clearing land for farming is creating a desert), and some politicians associate with initiators of force (two Canadian MPs from BC, for example).
    Is the view of French authorities that the activists planned to violate the „state of emergency“ declaration? Was that left from the Islamic Totalitarian war attacks recently, or is if for the climate talks? Demonstrations can hide violent people, that’s been the case in Seattle WA, Toronto ON, Vancouver BC, and Washington DC (where dangerous substances were detected during a demonstration).
    Have authorities said they have proof of intent? (I wouldn’t expect them to reveal it.)
    Is it sufficient to have the military in place to back up police at the venue, rather than prohibit demonstrators being there at all?

    • “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,”- Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve
      It would be reasonable to have the military in place to back up the police at the venue, rather than prohibit demonstrators being there at all, IF Paris had not just been attacked by terrorists two weeks earlier and declared itself to be at “war”, at which point a State of Emergency was declared, and almost immediately extended to last through February of 2016.
      One could rationally and logically conclude that if the French authorities had ONLY extended the State of Emergency because they were “worried about protesters/demonstrators embarrassing them” or “being violent” during the climate talks, they would have made the end date for the State of Emergency close to the end of the climate talks, not almost three months later.

Comments are closed.