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?
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
“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.
Please translate in English “juge d’instruction”.
“WAS” Michel, not IS. One of the things the Napoleonic Code addressed was the practice of allowing one person to do both. It STOPPED it. Look it up in wikipedia if you like.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338255/Pope-s-shoes-spotted-Paris-protest-climate-change-conference-prepares-open-conditions-high-security.html
Yeah – those “peaceful” thugs in Paris –
Wow, the leftwing liberal loons are almost as radical as ISIS !!!
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…..
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.
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.
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 won’t even mention what they did in Rwanda”
WHAT?!!
They did nothing…pulled out their troops just as the genocide began!
Charles, please stop making up s h i t.
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
This is all you got? Mistakes?
You are a grotesque troll.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
I heard he was going to tunnel in this time.
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.
“The Napoleonic Code assumes one is guilty until proven innocent.”
WHAT?
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?
@Charles
Seriously, your trolling is boring.
Put up or shut up
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?
@Charles
Nothing to say about Rwanda anymore?
I guessed so, resident troll.
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.
I don’t feel safe…I need a safe space…
Steve, you made me laugh. Thanks! 🙂
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
😎
After they helped uncle Adolf into power, he disposed of them.
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
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?
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.
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):
India’s Prime Minister Modi warned Obama and the West’s Industrialized nations not to engage in Carbon Imperialism..
Great Line.
Yes, because everyone agrees that Carbon Dioxide would rule with an iron fist..if it was made of iron…or had fists…:)
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. 🙂
“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.
And STILL no comment on the events of Oct 1961?
Yours Sincerely.
(pathetic) Troll.
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.
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.
“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 )
There is only officially sanctioned zealotry allowed there. The money flow has already been spoken for.
Joseph Stalin did not take kindly to unofficial zealots.
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.