Hacker News Reader

> The NORMAL reaction by the state is to apply it, and stop the Catalan government from breaking it.

It's interesting that you think so. I'd say the normal thing to do would be to issue a press release pointing out that the results aren't legally binding under the constitution and whoever wastes government money running a referendum on the thing might be held criminally or civilly liable.

Actually trying to STOP the thing is so expensive that it defeats the purpose of preventing the central government's money being wasted on the thing. It's so heavy-handed that it seems like it would just make Catalans who want to split more determined, and perhaps drive some to the other side. The most rational thing about it is that it might serve as a show of force to prevent other territories from doing the same. That part seems kind of sad.

This is incorrect.

If, for example, the State Of California, in the US, were to organize, without constitutional mandate, an "official" referendum calling for succession, Federal Marshall would be all over that in a blink of an eye.

And I'd agree that heavy-handed action gives the Calatan separatists quite a boost ... for the short term. But states don't really have choice about enforcing the law when a significant actor is visibly flouting that law. That's just how the law works, more or less everywhere it exists.

IE, the situation is as the GP states.

How do you reconcile that with the Wilson doctrine on self-determination ?

These things are rarely black and white, and laws often lack the necessary flexibility to address them.

> If, for example, the State Of California, in the US, were to organize, without constitutional mandate, an "official" referendum calling for succession, Federal Marshall would be all over that in a blink of an eye.

It would not be illegal under federal law for California to hold a referendum on secession. It wouldn't mean anything at all. It would be legally equivalent to my planting a big red flag in the turf at a National Park and claiming that land in the name of Portugal. (it's a crime - littering - if you leave the flag there when you leave) The Federal Marshals could watch if they wanted to.

A number of actions taken by the state of California after the referendum would probably be illegal under federal law, unless the people of California held the referendum and passed it and the state officials in California simply ignored it. You'd expect that to cause a constitutional crisis at the state level in California, and that might eventually bubble up to the federal courts.

If the referendum passed and the state actually started to behave independently and take liberties with federal property, all sorts of things would start to go wrong for them. You don't really need to get heavy handed with federal law enforcement in that case. Not when you control the Federal Reserve Banks and pretty much everything else. There's a whole path of escalation you could follow in the courts before federal agents would start arresting people, but even if you want to get right to that you have to wait for them to commit actual crimes.

> If, for example, the State Of California, in the US, were to organize, without constitutional mandate, an "official" referendum calling for succession, Federal Marshall would be all over that in a blink of an eye.

California has, in fact, held initiatives (“referendum” has a particular meaning in California law which is slightly different than it's general usage) on things which violate the federal Constitution. The federal government has done nothing about the votes, though it has a role in challenging and overturning substantive actions taken by the State based on such initiatives after they've passed.

There's no real reason to think a secession initiative would be any different.

They have also blocked many websites not directly associated to the government. Heck, even the OP mentions the Gateway.ipfs.io HTTP2IPFS gateway being blocked. There are other examples such as:

Assemblea.cat (Assemblea nacional Catalana - Independentist association)

cridaperlademocracia.cat (Website protesting for actions perceived as political repression)

Empaperem.cat (Crowdsourced advertising campaign for the referendum)

What do the court orders argue for blocking those three websites?

I haven’t been able to find the court orders for any of the website blocks (only newspapers talking about it) but it’s all related to an order of the Constitutional Court that prohibits basically anything that promotes the referendum since it’s against the Constitution.

E.g. http://www.elmundo.es/cataluna/2017/09/23/59c69496468aeb8c7f... https://www.elindependiente.com/politica/2017/09/25/la-guard...

Not true at all. You are either misinformed or malicious.

Private organisations websites like assemblea.cat have been banned.

Lots of signs drawn, designed, printed by people have been seized by police. Including signs that only said "democracy".

Private citizens have been arrested for mirroring the websites with their own resources. That's political prosecution, stop hiding behind the law.

Please don't spread misinformation.

> Private citizens have been arrested for mirroring the websites with their own resources.

I very much would like to see a source for this, and, if the order to arrest them was given by the TSJC judge, what the reasoning was and whether charges were brought.

This guy was arrested in Valencia: https://github.com/GrenderG

Tried to find a Twitter thread from his lawyer, but no luck. Check this out: http://www.levante-emv.com/comunitat-valenciana/2017/09/22/p...

He was also taken to police premises, put on the phone with someone from Madrid and released.

Indicted for a crime here couldn't commit as he's not a civil servant. Also the judge authorised to get his online accounts and change the passwords (wtf). A terrible attack on civil liberties.

http://www.lavanguardia.com/local/valencia/20170927/43159282...

Thanks for the links! From them, he was asked whether he was under contract by the Generalitat to do it.

If they can't find any evidence of such contract, I expect the charges will be dismissed and his stuff restored.

I don't think the argument that he's not allowed to do it, by his own will with his own funds, will hold in court; if I understand the law correctly. I guess at most he might be in trouble regarding the Ley de Protección de Datos, IANAL and I wouldn't know. In any case if private data-handling is fine and still the law wouldn't allow it, that law needs to be changed.

Thank you for asking for those :-)

I also expect charges dismissed. A detail about his stuff is that he didn't get a receipt (as per his lawyer that was not yet present), so his things were (in his lawyer's words) "effectively stolen by the police".

This happened before the "where to vote" part of the referendum site existed. It was just an informational static site.

Many other have been called to declare with "no specific crime" in the judge notifications also for mirroring the website, including at least one member of the Catalan branch of the Pirate Party. This has been seen by some as harassment to avoid more people mirroring the website.

>We have a Spain-wide constitution. The Catalan government decided it has a democratic mandate by the people of its region to not abide by it. The NORMAL reaction by the state is to apply it, and stop the Catalan government from breaking it. It's only oppresive insofar laws and the judicial system are opressive.

Of course, the American Revolution was also illegal by the laws of the British.

It's also oppressive in the sense of trying to rule people without their consent.

If you try to let people choose, but the other side says no, what's there left to do?

I'm not even arguing the Catalan government actions aren't _justified_, as the American Revolution may have been. My point is that the Spanish judiciary's reaction is just that of a normal, European, liberal democratic state under rule of law.

(It's my opinion that it's _not_ justified, though: there's a fair chance of getting through the necessary changes to allow a referendum and other self-government demands by following legal procedures, given the current Spain-wide political climate. I believe this is mainly a politically dishonest and populist move by the Catalan government. But that's besides the point.)

No, it's not a reaction most liberal democracies in the EU would have.

MPs all over Europe (Denmark, Switzerland, Finland to name a few) have asked the Spanish government to stop prosecuting and negotiate a referendum.

MPs in Spain have asked the same. Doesn't mean those other countries wouldn't have their judges apply the law.

Not only it is the judge's job: it's not even legal for a judge to knowingly allow an illegal action.

The point is those other countries would have allowed the vote.

We don't even have to imagine. It happened recently: Scotland. Or if you allow me to jump the pond: Québec.

Also, indyref not ruled illegal yet so it might not be that clear cut.

If you think France would allow the vote you don't know much about France

> If you try to let people choose, but the other side says no, what's there left to do?

Not much really. I think its really stupid of the Spanish Govt. to try to stick to formal constitutional means when there is a genuine, popular mandate for independence. What they seem to be saying is that a referendum is not allowed by current laws so it is illegal to have it. And their ham handed response is only agitating the region even more, legitimizing the separatists call for independence.

OTOH if they had provided a path for an actual referendum to be held, provided democratic means for allowing independence... who knows? Maybe there wouldn't be a popular mandate in the referendum. Maybe the central government could have worked closely with those people, parties and cities that wanted to continue being part of Spain and convinced more.

Its seems really rich of the Spanish govt. to claim they are following democratic processes to enforce a very undemocratic rule. They seem to be playing with semantics to enforce their will.

Disclaimer: Total outsider view, I'm neither from Spain or Catalan nor have I ever visited. My opinions are based solely on news reports.

> there is a genuine, popular mandate for independence

That remains to be seen. There are still less than 50% proponents of independence, according to what I read. The recent Spanish actions may have increased that number though.

That is exactly the point I am trying to make. If the Spanish Central Government had handled this better, it probably could have convinced more Catalan against independence. But its actions have antagonized more and it doesn't look like it will end well.