My interpretation of GP's comment was about the draconian approach towards silencing internet activity. Is it believed the raiding of ISPs, outright blocking of websites, etc is the fault of Catalonia's government or Spain's?
Edit: "Getting away with it" is mostly a question of "which side are you on?". Independentists and most non-government supporters think that what's going on is outrageous, whereas government supporters are totally fine with it.
These laws where passed mainly to fight against piracy (think thepiratebay). Of course the excuse was that it was a tool against terrorism and pedophilia though ;)
Without disobbeying, woman and black people would not vote nowadays, so history proves it is a good way to take down immoral legal laws.
EDIT: UN experts say that Spain must respect fundamental rights in Catalonia. Freedom of expression, freedom of press and power separation is at stake.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?Ne...
This is about democracy.
Democracy is deciding new law based on current law following people's desires... Like it or not, every day meter of Catalan soil belongs as much to a Catalan woman as to an Andalusian man...
Nobody in his right mind would say that Catalonia is an oppressed region by Spain's government... Quite the opposite actually.
This does not seem like the correct definition to me.
Suppose that a country is an absolute dictatorship, with the exception that the citizens may vote on the color of a bikeshed, and their word goes for the color of the bikeshed regardless of the dictator's preference for the color of the bikeshed, and that this is all enshrined in law.
This would not be a democratic country.
Democracy is based on people voting on the decisions being made.
"deciding the new law based on the current law" is not a fundamental part of democracy?
That is not to say that I don't think that "deciding the new law based on the current law" is valuable. I strongly agree that it is valuable. But it is not, I think, an essential part of what democracy is.
The current status is complicated and a failure of politicians' ability to do their job, but the fact is that trying to split the country unilaterally is currently illegal and wrong from at least some very sound points of view (another comment put it very well: Catalonia is as much of the Andalusians as of the Catalans).
So the government is now forced to stop this - they would otherwise be letting Andalusians be robbed. It is their job to block the referendum. It was also their job to avoid this situation by creating avenues of dialogue though... So in my opinion their next task in their job is to resign.
You don't argument why Catalonia is not opressed. Banning all the laws emerging from its parliament is not respecting.
Sorry Spaniards, we will vote. It's not about you, it's about us. It's not about us feeling superior or supremacist. It's about deciding our way, as we think too different in too many things. We can be good neighbours.
Not all laws emerging from its parliament are ruled unconstitutional by the courts. And unconstitutional laws enacted by any parliament in Spain are banned by the courts, Catalonia or not. It's not really a matter of respect.
E.g. "Catalonia is a nation". The Spanish Constitution says "Catalonia is a nationality" while the Andalusian Estatuto says "Andalusia is a nation".
TÍTULO PRELIMINAR Artículo 1. Andalucía. 1. Andalucía, como nacionalidad histórica y en el ejercicio del derecho de autogobierno que reconoce la Constitución, se constituye en Comunidad Autónoma en el marco de la unidad de la nación española y conforme al artículo 2 de la Constitución.
http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/html/especiales/NuevoGobierno...
Unless that's not the most current estatuto, you've been misled.
The count is of about 30 different articles. Here's a comment from El País (hardly pro-indy or pro-catalan) about it: https://elpais.com/diario/2007/07/05/espana/1183586424_85021...
La Constitución se fundamenta en la indisoluble unidad de la Nación española, patria común e indivisible de todos los españoles, y reconoce y garantiza el derecho a la autonomía de las nacionalidades y regiones que la integran y la solidaridad entre todas ellas.
The Andalusian estatuto almost uses the exact same words, "nacionalidad historica" in the "unidad de la nación española". Can hardly be considered against the Constitution. Agreed?
One can argue that "Cataluña es una nación" is a valid interpretation of the Constitution (I won't, because I'm not a constitutional lawyer and I don't think you are either), but you can't really use the Andalusian estatuto to support that the Tribunal Constitucional gives inconsistent rulings. (And has the Andalusian one even been challenged? I don't think the Tribunal Constitucional can strike down laws that haven't been brought to them).
And for the record, I read that, back in the day, Ciudadanos asked the Defensor del Pueblo to bring the Andalusian estatuto to the Tribunal Constitucional. Not sure if he did, or who can and cannot bring laws to their court.
Like it or not, Catalonia will break away from Spain if it wants to and there's nothing Spain can do to stop it short of murdering thousands of people. That's the choice Spain will have to make when it comes down to it.
That would be horrible, for sure, but don't worry. Using my disheveled imagination I think that asking the people responsible of breaking the laws to explain their behaviour in front of a jury could be one (very obvious) thing that Spain could do. It seems that they are doing it yet, in fact.
Spain respects fundamental rights in Catalonia and anywhere else in the country; respecting them is the supreme law of the land. Anyone who violates those rights will have the courts after them the exact same way as the courts are acting against this referendum.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?Ne...
Censorship in internet. Opening private letters. Political detentions and raids to political parties offices, searching for posters and ballots. Bringing 10000 policeman by boat to avoid a vote.
Sound quite authoritarian to me.
Threats to the press, threats to polititians. Closing websites, chasing teenagers who fork a repo in github, opening mail, spying communications.
Check Julian Assange tweets to know a bit more about it. You cannot accuse him of being a part in this conflict. https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/914029345018122240
I think there's still a stretch from "there are corrupt politicians and the monarchy and president have a lot of undue influence over the judiciary" to "Catalans don't have freedom of expressions or are oppressed".
I agree free speech laws in pretty much every country are unethical because they are arrayed in a way to ban speech that might risk the dissolution of the nation, but every single country has those laws because its governments trying to protect themselves.
Care to elucidate me on what basis that statement lies? I am a UKoGBnNI citizen who has also lived in DE for a few years in the West Germany part in the 70's and 80's and have friends who are native to DE.
In the UK we have laws banning inflammatory speech of various types that are clearly categorised and so does Deutschland. Both countries also, I think, have citizens who pride themselves on being able to pretty much speak their mind freely. I think both are very liberal states in this regard.
I do feel that some of my civil liberties have been eroded over the years but I in no way feel that my right to freedom of speech has been compromised in any way. I may live in a country that (worryingly) has more CCTV cameras pointing at me than you can shake a stick at but I do not believe that my right to express myself coherently and freely is damaged in any way. I'm not happy about say RIPA and co but we have a formal, legalised right to freedom of speech in the UK.
You are obviously not a US citizen because you seem to believe the US is one "thing" or a single country. It isn't and yet it is. It is a federation of states with a few odd bits tacked on (just like the UK - not) which means that there are federal laws, state laws, county laws, city laws, bye laws and made up by someone laws. This is also how most "normal" countries work.
So, where do you live?
You misunderstand the nature of the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech in the United States. The Bill of Rights are in the federal constitution and are enforceable in the federal courts, against any level of government (federal, state, or local).[1]
One of the central free speech doctrines in the United States is the prohibition on viewpoint discrimination. That means that our laws cannot treat any viewpoint differently than any other. If you are allowed to stand in front of the courthouse and scream anti-racist slogans, then you must be allowed to stand in front of the courthouse and spew all the racist hatred that your heart desires. Communists, fascists, anarchists, democrats, republicans, racists, reverse-racists, white supremacists, black supremacists, holocaust deniers, and even people calling for the overthrow of the US government, they can all speak their minds in America. There is no jurisdiction in the world that guarantees free speech as totally and absolutely as the United States does.
Americans are self-governing people. We don't need someone to tell us what we're allowed to think.
[1] This wasn't always the case, but the Supreme Court has held since the 1920s that the 14th Amendment "incorporated" the Bill of Rights to the states. Before this, most or all states had free speech provisions in their own constitutions anyway, but enforcement was not uniform. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...
On a government level the UK regularly imprisons people for facebook/twitter posts (that would be protected by US first amendment).
Same with the most parts of the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United... .
The US Supreme Court has never allowed something like this in the US: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... .
Free speech laws in the US are strictly governed at the federal level, not at the city / state / county level. Your comment accordingly makes no sense. The states are legally unable to make any laws abridging freedom of speech. Every time a local entity has attempted such, it has ultimately been struck down by the federal government, which retains supremacy over many rights (and will ensure those rights with force against a local entity if necessary, as when ending segregation).
In those other countries, not so much. For example, uttering "I believe that there was no Holocaust" in public.