France: Thousands of protesters wrongly punished under draconian laws(amnesty.org)
amnesty.org
France: Thousands of protesters wrongly punished under draconian laws
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/france-thousands-of-protesters-wrongly-punished-under-draconian-laws-in-pre-and-post-covid19-crackdown/
65 comments
I'm not necessarily sure "participation in a group with a view to committing violent acts" needs to describe a thoughtcrime. Even the most liberal societies criminalize conspiring to commit or inciting violence, even if they don't get around to enacting the violence.
Well here the law is sufficiently vague so they used it to arrest journalist because they had a camera or a helmet, or arrest many protestors without clear reason. Most of them are out 48h later, but still spent 1 to 2 days in "jail"... A way to deter people from protesting...
It depends heavily on how the law is actually used because the phrase 'with a view to committing' means it's down to proving or disproving intent and even if you don't actually go to prison ultimately you can be arrested and/or detained under that law, which is unpleasant, disruptive and definitely acts to discourage people from participating in anything that would risk arrest.
You don't risk arrest for taking part in a lawful demonstration in France.
You may risk arrest if you "come prepared", or don't follow police orders to move on or back off.
During the Yellow Vests protests some people showed up with helmets, gas masks, and home-made shields, then complained that the police were infringing on their right to 'peaceful' protest when they were prevented from joining the demonstration or arrested...
Dress like if you were out for a walk, which you are, and behave in the same way, and the police won't do anything to you.
You may risk arrest if you "come prepared", or don't follow police orders to move on or back off.
During the Yellow Vests protests some people showed up with helmets, gas masks, and home-made shields, then complained that the police were infringing on their right to 'peaceful' protest when they were prevented from joining the demonstration or arrested...
Dress like if you were out for a walk, which you are, and behave in the same way, and the police won't do anything to you.
That's not really true unfortunately, there's a good amount of videos that proves the contrary.
It also does make sense to come protected when the police use dangerous weapons and violent strategies against protests.
> That's not really true unfortunately, there's a good amount of videos that proves the contrary.
Are you referring to any of the exquisitely cherry picked videos that were highly edited to convey the militants talking points?
Better yet, are you able to provide a single example that supports your assertion?
> It also does make sense to come protected when the police use dangerous weapons and violent strategies against protests.
That assertion makes absolutely no sense in france, specially as you're referring to one-off protests where activists plan to riot and assault people and destroy property.
Are you referring to any of the exquisitely cherry picked videos that were highly edited to convey the militants talking points?
Better yet, are you able to provide a single example that supports your assertion?
> It also does make sense to come protected when the police use dangerous weapons and violent strategies against protests.
That assertion makes absolutely no sense in france, specially as you're referring to one-off protests where activists plan to riot and assault people and destroy property.
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_polici%C3%A8re_en_F...
There is plenty of journalist who did a good job to report violence also. You can look for articles in 2018 and 2019 mainly.
> That assertion makes absolutely no sense in france, specially as you're referring to one-off protests where activists plan to riot and assault people and destroy property.
You don't know much about what has been happening in France apparently. I'm not talking about the actions of far-right parties to discredit protests or the few people that joins protests just for the fight but people who are protesting in the first place.
There is plenty of journalist who did a good job to report violence also. You can look for articles in 2018 and 2019 mainly.
> That assertion makes absolutely no sense in france, specially as you're referring to one-off protests where activists plan to riot and assault people and destroy property.
You don't know much about what has been happening in France apparently. I'm not talking about the actions of far-right parties to discredit protests or the few people that joins protests just for the fight but people who are protesting in the first place.
Good luck trying to convince anyone with such a crap argument. At this point I cannot distinguish the GJ from a crying kid on a plane that's crying just because and the more they scream the more it hurts their throat making them scream more.
The protestors are exposing themselves to be the chair à canon of political movements (which might or might not have ulterior motives)
The protestors are exposing themselves to be the chair à canon of political movements (which might or might not have ulterior motives)
> Literal thought crimes.
These are explicit acts, not thoughts, and not new offences.
"Contempt of public official", I think they mean "outrage a agent" in French, does not mean the feeling but the act of showing 'contempt' as in insulting or threatening.
For example, if you take part in a demonstration and you insult a police officer for whatever reason they can arrest you for "contempt of public official".
"Participation in a group with a view to committing violent acts", which is not an offence specific to France, allows the police to arrest and charge people before they commit violent acts when it is clear through their actions that this is what they are planning. In relation to public demonstrations this may mean a group of people showing up with helmet, shield, or legal 'weapons' (e.g. slingshot and steel beads, or what not).
Likewise for the ban on face coverings, it is primarily to deal with people showing up with bike helmets, gas masks, etc. in order to (a) protect themselves against tear gas, and (b) not be identified (usually while they commit violence against police and property).
> "“It is ironic that a country with such a long and proud tradition of collective action for social change is criminalizing protest in this way"
On the contrary, it's because France has a long tradition of 'collective action' (i.e. really riots and revolutions) that a body of laws to counter violence has come about.
> The French authorities must stop criminalizing people and amend all the laws that hamper the right to peaceful assembly.
The offences mentioned above are not related to peaceful assembly.
Amnesty International is being rather disingenuous in this article.
These are explicit acts, not thoughts, and not new offences.
"Contempt of public official", I think they mean "outrage a agent" in French, does not mean the feeling but the act of showing 'contempt' as in insulting or threatening.
For example, if you take part in a demonstration and you insult a police officer for whatever reason they can arrest you for "contempt of public official".
"Participation in a group with a view to committing violent acts", which is not an offence specific to France, allows the police to arrest and charge people before they commit violent acts when it is clear through their actions that this is what they are planning. In relation to public demonstrations this may mean a group of people showing up with helmet, shield, or legal 'weapons' (e.g. slingshot and steel beads, or what not).
Likewise for the ban on face coverings, it is primarily to deal with people showing up with bike helmets, gas masks, etc. in order to (a) protect themselves against tear gas, and (b) not be identified (usually while they commit violence against police and property).
> "“It is ironic that a country with such a long and proud tradition of collective action for social change is criminalizing protest in this way"
On the contrary, it's because France has a long tradition of 'collective action' (i.e. really riots and revolutions) that a body of laws to counter violence has come about.
> The French authorities must stop criminalizing people and amend all the laws that hamper the right to peaceful assembly.
The offences mentioned above are not related to peaceful assembly.
Amnesty International is being rather disingenuous in this article.
I'm sorry that you're being downvoted; I don't think that's warranted.
>> Literal thought crimes.
> These are explicit acts, not thoughts, and not new offences.
> "Contempt of public official", I think they mean "outrage a agent" in French, does not mean the feeling but the act of showing 'contempt' as in insulting or threatening.
As the expression is usually used, "thought crimes" can refer to speech acts.
This may reflect a difference between American ideas of free speech and those more common in Europe. (I don't understand the variety of European views very well.) Most Americans are going to view anything that smacks of lèse majesté as a thought crime and react accordingly. And I don't think we're wrong to do so.
>> Literal thought crimes.
> These are explicit acts, not thoughts, and not new offences.
> "Contempt of public official", I think they mean "outrage a agent" in French, does not mean the feeling but the act of showing 'contempt' as in insulting or threatening.
As the expression is usually used, "thought crimes" can refer to speech acts.
This may reflect a difference between American ideas of free speech and those more common in Europe. (I don't understand the variety of European views very well.) Most Americans are going to view anything that smacks of lèse majesté as a thought crime and react accordingly. And I don't think we're wrong to do so.
Threatening a public official, or even insulting one, is not a thoughtcrime, which means having incorrect thoughts. If some people use the term to mean something else then perhaps it just means that they do not fully understand the words they use.
Certainly threats are not free speech. Insults may indeed be considered free speech, but it's hard to argue that insults used in the way described in the law being discussed (which is about serious insults and threats to people while they're working) can serve any useful purpose including in terms of expressing one's opinion.
Note that in France this applies to anyone performing a "public service" so you would also in principle be committing an offence by insulting a bus driver.
I don't think this is unwarranted or excessive. Free speech is very important but, at least in Europe, people think that this does not give you the right to insult the police, bus drivers, firemen, teachers, etc. to their face while they're working.
I note further than in the US "fighting words, "threatening the President", "obscenities", and "true threats" are not protected under free speech.
Certainly threats are not free speech. Insults may indeed be considered free speech, but it's hard to argue that insults used in the way described in the law being discussed (which is about serious insults and threats to people while they're working) can serve any useful purpose including in terms of expressing one's opinion.
Note that in France this applies to anyone performing a "public service" so you would also in principle be committing an offence by insulting a bus driver.
I don't think this is unwarranted or excessive. Free speech is very important but, at least in Europe, people think that this does not give you the right to insult the police, bus drivers, firemen, teachers, etc. to their face while they're working.
I note further than in the US "fighting words, "threatening the President", "obscenities", and "true threats" are not protected under free speech.
A lot of democratic countries have restrictions on plotting against the government; America, for example (18 US Code 2385). I should add, I don't know the details of this story, and I'm not a lawyer.
FYI, the details are very plain in the article. Enforcement falls clearly short of "plotting to overthrow the government":
In Marseille, a man who swore at a police officer who was about to hit a woman with his baton during a protest was himself beaten, held in pre-trial detention for 24 hours, convicted for contempt and fined €900. He also had to pay €1,000 in damages to the police officer, while no action has been taken against the police officers.
Protesters have been arrested and prosecuted simply for carrying goggles or masks to protect themselves from tear gas and rubber bullets.
In Marseille, a man who swore at a police officer who was about to hit a woman with his baton during a protest was himself beaten, held in pre-trial detention for 24 hours, convicted for contempt and fined €900. He also had to pay €1,000 in damages to the police officer, while no action has been taken against the police officers.
Protesters have been arrested and prosecuted simply for carrying goggles or masks to protect themselves from tear gas and rubber bullets.
> In Marseille, a man who swore at a police officer who was about to hit a woman
Is there any evidence that supports in any way that one-sided and deeply biased personal assertion of what really happened during the protest?
Because it's unbelievable that a man, who just happens to be directly involved in a violent riot with a long track record of destruction of property and assault on passer-bys and even law enforcement just so happens to be there in the thick of it just minding his own business and doing absolutely nothing to no one at all until he just so happened to find a moral argument that led him to just blurb a mild curse word directed at a bad police man, and only that, at the wrong time.
Incidentally, cases like these are the real motivators of these slippery slope legislation hikes. We have been seeing semi-professional activist organizations exploiting and abusing any conceivable loophole to avoid any legal consequence of their violent actions, under the guise of democracy and free speech, that they are single-handedly screwing up everyone out of their rights.
Is there any evidence that supports in any way that one-sided and deeply biased personal assertion of what really happened during the protest?
Because it's unbelievable that a man, who just happens to be directly involved in a violent riot with a long track record of destruction of property and assault on passer-bys and even law enforcement just so happens to be there in the thick of it just minding his own business and doing absolutely nothing to no one at all until he just so happened to find a moral argument that led him to just blurb a mild curse word directed at a bad police man, and only that, at the wrong time.
Incidentally, cases like these are the real motivators of these slippery slope legislation hikes. We have been seeing semi-professional activist organizations exploiting and abusing any conceivable loophole to avoid any legal consequence of their violent actions, under the guise of democracy and free speech, that they are single-handedly screwing up everyone out of their rights.
I'm quite happy to defer to your take on this particular protest.
In general, I just find the issue of "sedition" interesting. On the one hand, it makes sense that a minority not take it upon themselves to override a democratically elected government. On the other, people plotting an uprising, often use the rationale that the government is only democratic in name.
In general, I just find the issue of "sedition" interesting. On the one hand, it makes sense that a minority not take it upon themselves to override a democratically elected government. On the other, people plotting an uprising, often use the rationale that the government is only democratic in name.
[deleted]
«prosecuted simply for carrying goggles or masks to protect themselves»
This is quite a dishonest interpretation of the facts. They were arrested because they participated to an unregistered (therefore forbidden) protest, there was proper communication from the police that such event was not authorized because of the expected violence issues, and the goggles / masks were proof of participation.
It's pretty easy to start a protest rally or march in france, you just have to declare it to the prefecture. Sometimes they are not accepted, for instance when a protest with violence history wants to pass in certain parts of the city with a lot of shop (they are regularly attacked). It happens that violent protestors such as the yellow vest types declare a march passing for instance the Champs Elysee avanue (famous locally for its numerous shops), knowing it will be rejected, then calling it a dictature when it happens, and doing it anyway, and there the violence begins. The Amesty report says nothing of this context, I have no idea why (I can guess it probably is because they support the yellow vest movement).
This is quite a dishonest interpretation of the facts. They were arrested because they participated to an unregistered (therefore forbidden) protest, there was proper communication from the police that such event was not authorized because of the expected violence issues, and the goggles / masks were proof of participation.
It's pretty easy to start a protest rally or march in france, you just have to declare it to the prefecture. Sometimes they are not accepted, for instance when a protest with violence history wants to pass in certain parts of the city with a lot of shop (they are regularly attacked). It happens that violent protestors such as the yellow vest types declare a march passing for instance the Champs Elysee avanue (famous locally for its numerous shops), knowing it will be rejected, then calling it a dictature when it happens, and doing it anyway, and there the violence begins. The Amesty report says nothing of this context, I have no idea why (I can guess it probably is because they support the yellow vest movement).
The article makes it clear that these are sperate and distinct from other charges for “organizing a protest without complying with notification requirements”.
> They were arrested because they participated to an unregistered (therefore forbidden) protest...
Protest permits really defeat the point though.
Protest permits really defeat the point though.
> Protest permits really defeat the point though.
They are not protest permits. They are protest announcements. The only requirement is that protest organizers need to inform public officials beforehand that they are going to hold a protest on day x at place y. Consequently public officials are able to prepare conditions to ensure a) the protest can be held and b) counterprotests cannot interfere, c) neutrsl third parties (that is, people who wish to go on with their lives as they didn't want to participate) are not forced to be sucked into the mess.
And once announced public officials cannot stop a protest from happening.
Otherwise we would see football moorings being described as peaceful protests under free speech instead of what they really are.
They are not protest permits. They are protest announcements. The only requirement is that protest organizers need to inform public officials beforehand that they are going to hold a protest on day x at place y. Consequently public officials are able to prepare conditions to ensure a) the protest can be held and b) counterprotests cannot interfere, c) neutrsl third parties (that is, people who wish to go on with their lives as they didn't want to participate) are not forced to be sucked into the mess.
And once announced public officials cannot stop a protest from happening.
Otherwise we would see football moorings being described as peaceful protests under free speech instead of what they really are.
I see.
It's fair to me that protestors should enable safety officers, but I believe they should not wait for permission.
I understand that football excitement is a tectonic force, but I'm focusing on more humanist exploits.
Thank you for this perspective. I'd really appreciate the message to efficiently get across when constituents are repressed.
It's fair to me that protestors should enable safety officers, but I believe they should not wait for permission.
I understand that football excitement is a tectonic force, but I'm focusing on more humanist exploits.
Thank you for this perspective. I'd really appreciate the message to efficiently get across when constituents are repressed.
Maybe this evolves greater efficiency in social officers.
There are huge differences between protest (even violent protest) and plotting to overthrow a government.
It's the same difference as that between posting a review saying you don't like a dish served at a restaurant, and wanting to destroy a restaurant because you believe a cook of your personal choosing should be in charge instead.
Unfortunate that Amnesty wouldn't be able to produce a similar report [0] about India [1] now.
Protestors in India are being charged under UAPA [2]. In 2019, the act was amended allowing the government to designate an individual as a terrorist without trial.
[0] Amnesty International India Halts Its Work On Upholding Human Rights In India Due To Reprisal From Government Of India - https://amnesty.org.in/news-update/amnesty-international-ind...
[1] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1314054705455144962.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Activities_(Preventio...
Protestors in India are being charged under UAPA [2]. In 2019, the act was amended allowing the government to designate an individual as a terrorist without trial.
[0] Amnesty International India Halts Its Work On Upholding Human Rights In India Due To Reprisal From Government Of India - https://amnesty.org.in/news-update/amnesty-international-ind...
[1] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1314054705455144962.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Activities_(Preventio...
"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. "- Admiral Adama
French here. I have no intention to downplay the reported behaviour, just to give some perspective.
First, the military vs police comments sound a bit off to me. Technically, the most incriminated force, CRS, are part of the "gendarmerie nationale" which is a branch of French military. But the comparison stops here, for all purpose they are trained and behave like a police force, only one dedicated to handle riots. Which puts them more than other in a position to commit abuses, hence the focus on them.
In the recent years, there has been a tendency to equip them more and more like terminators with body armors and weapons like rubber bullets, tasers and the like. It is not well perceived and subject to continuous debate. But they have nowhere near the level or weaponization of US police force (almost typed "military" there, that is telling).
What Amnesty International reports here is known, it makes the headlines all the time in national newspapers, and a lot of people (me included) are not happy at all about it. There are ongoing inquiries and CRS and police in general do not have the same level of immunity as in the US, even though more scrutiny is always welcome.
Finally, keep in mind the level of violence in France is not comparable to the US. Every report you may see about it should be read relatively to what we are used to. From a different viewpoint, two policemen have been attacked and severely beaten two days ago. This is a national news, something exceptional, making again headlines on "Le Monde" (probably the major French newspaper) since then.
But sure, maybe caused by terrorism and black blocs, the level of violence in police response has increased. This is a major issue and a big topic, not something ignored. And it should not be.
First, the military vs police comments sound a bit off to me. Technically, the most incriminated force, CRS, are part of the "gendarmerie nationale" which is a branch of French military. But the comparison stops here, for all purpose they are trained and behave like a police force, only one dedicated to handle riots. Which puts them more than other in a position to commit abuses, hence the focus on them.
In the recent years, there has been a tendency to equip them more and more like terminators with body armors and weapons like rubber bullets, tasers and the like. It is not well perceived and subject to continuous debate. But they have nowhere near the level or weaponization of US police force (almost typed "military" there, that is telling).
What Amnesty International reports here is known, it makes the headlines all the time in national newspapers, and a lot of people (me included) are not happy at all about it. There are ongoing inquiries and CRS and police in general do not have the same level of immunity as in the US, even though more scrutiny is always welcome.
Finally, keep in mind the level of violence in France is not comparable to the US. Every report you may see about it should be read relatively to what we are used to. From a different viewpoint, two policemen have been attacked and severely beaten two days ago. This is a national news, something exceptional, making again headlines on "Le Monde" (probably the major French newspaper) since then.
But sure, maybe caused by terrorism and black blocs, the level of violence in police response has increased. This is a major issue and a big topic, not something ignored. And it should not be.
Actually, CRS are part of the Police Nationale, not of the Gendarmerie Nationale. They are civilians, not military.
> Forces civiles, contrairement aux gendarmes mobiles avec lesquels ils sont souvent confondus
(wikipedia.fr)
You are correct and I was wrong. I learnt something today, thanks.
(wikipedia.fr)
You are correct and I was wrong. I learnt something today, thanks.
CRS and traditional police forces specialized in protest and riot have been accused of many abuse. But the biggest part of the abuses came from police forces that is not specialized in protest and riot, mainly from the Brigade anticriminalité known to be super violent.
Because the protest were large and long, because of budget cut before, and because the state wanted to hit hard, they chose to put use many of those violent and not properly trained police forces
On the top of that they've been (illegal) order given to the police force to hit hard (newspaper le monde published this news)
Furthermore, the state was dependent on police, and police was already unhappy (wanted more money, pay rise...), that partly explain why those abuse continued to happen during months, without political or judicial reaction...
Because the protest were large and long, because of budget cut before, and because the state wanted to hit hard, they chose to put use many of those violent and not properly trained police forces
On the top of that they've been (illegal) order given to the police force to hit hard (newspaper le monde published this news)
Furthermore, the state was dependent on police, and police was already unhappy (wanted more money, pay rise...), that partly explain why those abuse continued to happen during months, without political or judicial reaction...
My impression was always that the level of violence in French protests was in general much higher than in the US (see gilets jaunes).
I am in no position to judge, I have not participated to protests either in France or in the US. So everything I will say is only about perception from media reports or what I saw in my medium/smallish-sized city (Brest)
I feel the level of violence of gilets jaunes has been overreported by international medias, or maybe misattributed. I believe the large majority of protesters have been angry, determined people but overall pacific ones. And the reported violence came from a small minority, who abused the opportunity. And the same thing happened in the US months ago when there were reports of looting and degradation. Maybe I am naive and manipulated by medias, who knows.
But you are probably right, in the sense that gilets jaunes organized blockade of infrastructure, and were generally very active, trying to be heard. Much more than in recent US protests. But I would not call that "violence".
I feel the level of violence of gilets jaunes has been overreported by international medias, or maybe misattributed. I believe the large majority of protesters have been angry, determined people but overall pacific ones. And the reported violence came from a small minority, who abused the opportunity. And the same thing happened in the US months ago when there were reports of looting and degradation. Maybe I am naive and manipulated by medias, who knows.
But you are probably right, in the sense that gilets jaunes organized blockade of infrastructure, and were generally very active, trying to be heard. Much more than in recent US protests. But I would not call that "violence".
I've been in some major cities (e.g. London & Liverpool & Manchester, Madrid Barcelona, a bit everywhere in France excluding Marseille, Sydney & Melbourne, everywhere in Germany, Budapest, Prague, Rome & Milan, Amsterdam, etc...) and while walking around during the night I felt everywhere most of the time OK, but the only place where I definitely never felt OK was Paris (very bad general feeling + I didn't like the people I crossed + twice me and my ex girlfriend were harassed by some people) => maybe most of these problems that refer to "France" are actually mainly focusing on "Paris"? Just asking, thx :)
My understanding that at least in the US the police is not legally obligated "to serve and protect", they're there to enforce the law.
[deleted]
They swear an oath. But you are right, they aren’t legally obligated to.
The recent news that some minors should be placed under supervision by military people is quite disturbing.
Minor delinquency is a civil problem that should be tackled by police and justice.
At the moment no laws permit that, but probably it will soon be drafted and voted [0].
[0] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3...
Minor delinquency is a civil problem that should be tackled by police and justice.
At the moment no laws permit that, but probably it will soon be drafted and voted [0].
[0] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3...
Military supervision of young people used to exist in France. It was even compulsory. It was called the 'National military service'.
It was abolished 20 years ago but some people think it was actually useful to mix social classes, get young people away from mum and dad, teach some useful skills (people could get a driving license or a truck driving license as part of the training they got) and effort/discipline.
This proposal is just a re-hash of that and of the classic "send them to military school/bootcamp, that'll teach tem".
It was abolished 20 years ago but some people think it was actually useful to mix social classes, get young people away from mum and dad, teach some useful skills (people could get a driving license or a truck driving license as part of the training they got) and effort/discipline.
This proposal is just a re-hash of that and of the classic "send them to military school/bootcamp, that'll teach tem".
> people could get a driving license or a truck driving license as part of the training they got
For non-Europeans who might not appreciate the value, this is roughly $1,000 in value and many hours of {written,driving} lessons.
PS: love the De Funès reference in your username!
For non-Europeans who might not appreciate the value, this is roughly $1,000 in value and many hours of {written,driving} lessons.
PS: love the De Funès reference in your username!
Actually, De Funes himself used this sentence as a reference to "L'Anglais Sans Peine", which is a famous book to learn English, since he was teaching English to his men.
CDLs in the US are similarly valuable.
US military truck drivers (88M) doesn't give you a civilian CDL as part of the training. You can use a CDL as the training part to get a military license though -- aside from having to have a specific license for every different vehicle to be qualified to drive them but that's as simple as driving around the block to get 'signed off'.
If you have a military drivers license you can drive on public streets in military vehicles but you can't use it to drive a civilian vehicle on military or public roads.
(used to be an 88M and driver testing NCO)
If you have a military drivers license you can drive on public streets in military vehicles but you can't use it to drive a civilian vehicle on military or public roads.
(used to be an 88M and driver testing NCO)
It doesn't get you a CDL but it gives you the experience needed to get a CDL with a tiny bit of book study and a truck to borrow and without incurring a bunch of debt or becoming an indentured servant to Swift of similar.
Someone who's day job is dicking around in an M911 will be able to get a CDL with minimal effort compared to some rando off the street and they will likely be able to skip the "spend a few years holding a steering wheel for a dry van and get treated like crap by dispatch" part of the truck driver career progression.
Someone who's day job is dicking around in an M911 will be able to get a CDL with minimal effort compared to some rando off the street and they will likely be able to skip the "spend a few years holding a steering wheel for a dry van and get treated like crap by dispatch" part of the truck driver career progression.
Not sure on often this is happening but I was told about many cases of officers abusing the recruits I don't like the idea of soldiers becoming tyrannical educators.
>It was called the 'National military service'.
I am a male French citizen aged 65, so I know first hand.
There are several differences:
* It was not compulsory, as in most countries including US, there were actually several alternatives (appelé scientifique, etc).
* Only males were the subject of "conscription".
* The goal was to make most citizen ready to take arms, and from my own experience, I think it did a good job at that.
* Young people from suburban areas where not specially targeted (see what said Dupont-Moretty)
I am a male French citizen aged 65, so I know first hand.
There are several differences:
* It was not compulsory, as in most countries including US, there were actually several alternatives (appelé scientifique, etc).
* Only males were the subject of "conscription".
* The goal was to make most citizen ready to take arms, and from my own experience, I think it did a good job at that.
* Young people from suburban areas where not specially targeted (see what said Dupont-Moretty)
It was compulsory for all males. "Appelé scientifique" was a way of doing it in a 'non-fighting capacity', so to speak.
I remember when I turned 18 and I received a letter from the Ministry of Defence 'ordering'* me to report to the local barracks for an initial physical. That's how it was. After that either you tried to get out of it for medical reasons or delayed it because of University studies (at which point you could indeed apply to do it in a technical/civilian position).
I was lucky that they abolished it while I was at University so there was nothing left for me to do after I graduated. I say 'lucky' but I was actually disappointed as I had planned to apply for the "cooperation" i.e. to be sent abroad for 1.5 years in a technical capacity.
* I added quotes but it was really a legal order and they used to send the gendarmes knock on your door at some point if they didn't hear from you.
I remember when I turned 18 and I received a letter from the Ministry of Defence 'ordering'* me to report to the local barracks for an initial physical. That's how it was. After that either you tried to get out of it for medical reasons or delayed it because of University studies (at which point you could indeed apply to do it in a technical/civilian position).
I was lucky that they abolished it while I was at University so there was nothing left for me to do after I graduated. I say 'lucky' but I was actually disappointed as I had planned to apply for the "cooperation" i.e. to be sent abroad for 1.5 years in a technical capacity.
* I added quotes but it was really a legal order and they used to send the gendarmes knock on your door at some point if they didn't hear from you.
> I say 'lucky' but I was actually disappointed as I had planned to apply for the "cooperation" i.e. to be sent abroad for 1.5 years in a technical capacity.
I've thought that implementing something along these lines in the US would be a fine idea. Everyone, male or female, going off for a couple years of either military training, domestic work (building trails, cleaning up after natural disasters), or international work (Peace Corps on steroids). As an earlier poster said, it'd mix people up across classes and geography. When you get out, you get $10k in your pocket and a plane ticket anywhere in the country. I'm way past 18 now but as the person proposing it, I'd be entirely willing to go take part :)
I've thought that implementing something along these lines in the US would be a fine idea. Everyone, male or female, going off for a couple years of either military training, domestic work (building trails, cleaning up after natural disasters), or international work (Peace Corps on steroids). As an earlier poster said, it'd mix people up across classes and geography. When you get out, you get $10k in your pocket and a plane ticket anywhere in the country. I'm way past 18 now but as the person proposing it, I'd be entirely willing to go take part :)
Thanks for sharing,
Jean-Pierre
Jean-Pierre
> It was not compulsory, as in most countries including US, there were actually several alternatives (appelé scientifique, etc).
The US last had conscription during the Vietnam War and has never had a general-purpose mandatory peacetime "National Service" equivalent. Our draft had deferments of various kinds as well, in addition to alternative service for conscientious objectors.
The US last had conscription during the Vietnam War and has never had a general-purpose mandatory peacetime "National Service" equivalent. Our draft had deferments of various kinds as well, in addition to alternative service for conscientious objectors.
One journalist get arrested cause he had a camera: if you throw the camera, then it can hurt people, so he had a weapon and could get arrested...
> One journalist get arrested cause he had a camera
Do you have any source that mentions that case but also supports your assertion? Because if you don't then people can claim with the same level of honesty that the person you're referring to was actually an alien and instead of a camera it was holding a grenade.
Do you have any source that mentions that case but also supports your assertion? Because if you don't then people can claim with the same level of honesty that the person you're referring to was actually an alien and instead of a camera it was holding a grenade.
"Peaceful protests", the GJ have been taking major cities hostages every weekend for a year now (with some Covid pause). It's gone way beyond reasonable now
And yes, Covid is an exceptional situation and the limitations need to be obeyed. "Wrongly punished" is AIs opinion.
And yes, Covid is an exceptional situation and the limitations need to be obeyed. "Wrongly punished" is AIs opinion.
>Peaceful protests have been banned under draconian COVID-19 powers ..
Most regions have draconian regulations on public gatherings (including religious services) but somehow protests (peaceful or otherwise) should be exempted?
Most regions have draconian regulations on public gatherings (including religious services) but somehow protests (peaceful or otherwise) should be exempted?
is amnesty even trustable?
Some months back on holidays in France: turned on the TV, this was BFM a news channel. There was a demonstration in the center of Paris, riot cops in full gear.
It was hot and one had his vest open, showing a "LONSDALE" brand t-shirt where conveniently, the center part of the word that remains visible with a vest says "NSDA".
If you are clued up on this you will know NSDA can stand for National Sozialistische Deutsch Arbeitspartei, ie. the forebear of the Nazi party. It's a know thing among certain wrongheaded folks.
Consider this a public service announcement. I have not gone back.
newcomputer(2)
France has been under martial law long before covid.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/wi...
The state of emergency which enabled the martial law has never gone away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Sentinelle
Yellow vests aka protests against the government have been banned before covid even happened.
Did the yellow vests just give up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement#21_Septe...
Interesting how wiki just stopped covering the yellow vests.
https://apnews.com/article/bf7bc0dc7c2f49bb86ebf1e2595418fc
https://www.newsbreak.com/tennessee/paris/news/2057961521309...
The reason wiki stopped recording about the yellow vests is because the martial law and banning of protests. They arrested the yellow vest folks. The entire leadership have been imprisoned.
If you look back as well. Sarkozy barely won. Hollande barely won. Then after martial law had been declared and general freedoms of the French people have been removed Macron won convincingly? Dominated his opponent.
Then when covid came around he 100% banned protests. They have issued 500,000+ tickets for "non-essential movement outside" and it's currently not recorded how many arrests have occurred under the name of covid 19.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/12/clashes-and-arrest...
The movement is dead because France's martial law has banned protests.
This amnesty article doesn't go far enough. Coverage of France's martial law that has been ongoing for 5+ years and practical banning of basic human rights is quite scant.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/wi...
The state of emergency which enabled the martial law has never gone away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Sentinelle
Yellow vests aka protests against the government have been banned before covid even happened.
Did the yellow vests just give up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement#21_Septe...
Interesting how wiki just stopped covering the yellow vests.
https://apnews.com/article/bf7bc0dc7c2f49bb86ebf1e2595418fc
https://www.newsbreak.com/tennessee/paris/news/2057961521309...
The reason wiki stopped recording about the yellow vests is because the martial law and banning of protests. They arrested the yellow vest folks. The entire leadership have been imprisoned.
If you look back as well. Sarkozy barely won. Hollande barely won. Then after martial law had been declared and general freedoms of the French people have been removed Macron won convincingly? Dominated his opponent.
Then when covid came around he 100% banned protests. They have issued 500,000+ tickets for "non-essential movement outside" and it's currently not recorded how many arrests have occurred under the name of covid 19.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/12/clashes-and-arrest...
The movement is dead because France's martial law has banned protests.
This amnesty article doesn't go far enough. Coverage of France's martial law that has been ongoing for 5+ years and practical banning of basic human rights is quite scant.
In the France of the universe in which I live, martial law hasn't been in use for over 2 centuries.
>In the France of the universe in which I live, martial law hasn't been in use for over 2 centuries.
As established, the military has been deployed as police. Protests are 100% banned and you're not allowed to leave your home. People are being arrested for thought crimes.
Right... not martial law...
As established, the military has been deployed as police. Protests are 100% banned and you're not allowed to leave your home. People are being arrested for thought crimes.
Right... not martial law...
This is what always happens when you allow yourself to be fooled to vote away your souvereignty to others who will rule over you. It is incredible that people still expect a different outcome after thousands of years of history. Einstein called this behavior insanity.
Literal thought crimes. I wish I could say my country handles this stuff better with a straight face, but there has been a very recent, almost worldwide, shift towards authoritarianism.