This is ridiculous. The app just gives a list of the schools to vote according to your address. Even if the referendum is "illegal" under spanish law, it is completely bananas to ban such an app.
Google complied with the Spanish courts; complying with local laws is something Google does routinely (as does every other global corporation for that matter).
ETA: Aware that plenty of companies selectively choose what laws they follow (see Uber). Just generally their stated policy is "We comply with local laws"
I post a video in my first comment, take a look. It is nothing to be like what happens in China or Venezuela, the comparison is a non-sense.
EDIT: I forgot the people who want to use it as distraction to avoid talking about their corruption and other issues.
I just realized you might be Catalan. Don't get me wrong, I think people should have the right to decide by themselves, but you have to tell them the truth of what will happen and have an open dialog. Not what we are doing now on both sides of the problem.
Comparing Cataluña with Venezuela or China is a non-sense. Although we might end up as Venezuela (lot of corruption everywhere, poor people, etc), I think we are still far from it. The law has been like this since decades, and no one did nothing to change it, even the catalans.
The Spanish government hasn't pressured Google. A Catalan judge has given them a court order, and they are required by law to comply, like anybody else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_clubs_playing_i...
Section 2. The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1978
Aiding and abetting a crime is also a crime. "Just" giving a list of addresses of, say, brothels is a crime in a jurisdiction where prostitution is illegal.
Yes, it's bananas that the central Spanish government has this reaction, but it's a perfectly correct and legal reaction, and this is part and parcel of the idea that Google should abide by the law in the countries where it operates.
From a distance it seems that it would have been preferable to let the referendum go ahead with as little fanfare as possible, but make clear that it's outcome has no legal status whatsoever, but then again, I'm not in the hot seat, representing a national constituency that's overwhelmingly against independence.
Considered... by who? Do their governments view themselves that way?
You really don't seem to be willing to consider that two reasonable people can have differing opinions about the same situation. Who appoints these "reasonable outside observers"? And who defines who or what is "corrupt"? It all just boils down to what you yourself view as corrupt or reasonable.
So...people's personal opinions then?
Also, if Spain is like most countries (but I really don't know this for a fact), but elected representatives will have signed or sworn or something similar to uphold the constitution.
I think the legitimacy difference has to do with inalienable rights. People have a right to representation in their own governance. That's what the dictator gets wrong. People also have a right to liberty - i.e. To not be slaves. A "law" that says you can't ever secede is making people slaves by taking away their right to withdraw from the political union they're a part of.
The argument above is that it's legal because it's written down. What I hoped to call attention to is that simply writing something down and calling it a law isn't necessarily better than what a dictator does.
Of course their governments see that as the way it should be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_law#Rule_of_law : > Despite the newly elevated role of courts in Chinese society, there still remains some consensus about defects in China's legal system in regards to progressing towards the rule of law.
I have never read anything similar about Spain.
http://en.administracion.gob.es/pag_Home/espanaAdmon/comoSeO...
>Parliament approves the budget of the judiciary.
"Independent" is a strong word here.
All western democracies have the executive branch influence the judiciary in more or less degree. But it's a huge jump from that to single-party systems like China or, de facto, Venezuela.
And now, please inform us of how long this murderer actually served, just for the laugh. Was it 1 year? 6 months? 3 months?
And for even more laugh, just tell us how his sentence vanished, thanks to... the government's pardon.
Your example is going against your point!
But if your argument is that the courts in all these countries are puppets of their governments based on the fact that they have the power to pardon later on, I don't think it's a strong argument.
Google would be right to let Spain threaten to ban them from the country.
Do you mean to say this is basically universal?
I'm American. I would not expect many people here to say holding a vote can be a crime. Many people would say that secession itself may be a crime even if it was voted for (while others would say the vote establishes the right to secede).
But they would say holding a vote is a right that should be protected by killing the people trying to prevent the vote from happening, if necessary.
You want to separate from the rest of the country, them make an open dialog, explain what exactly do you want, negotiate with the central government and ask to the population. Not what they are doing right now. I find it very stupid (for both sides, because it is the others side faults too)
Clearly the definition of who should decide these matters is crucial: at one side some people believe that it's a local matter: Catalans should chose. In the other hand, others think that that since this affects the rest of Spain, all Spaniards should have a say.
Only in this context is clear how a (possible) majority of Catalans can still be considered a minority in a broader scope.
The issue of sovereignty is central but somewhat arbitrary if you think: imagine that before/during the brexit referendum the rest of the European population (or at least Brits living abroad, ehm) were asked if Britain was allowed to leave. After all, it was something that in a way or another could have affected them, right?
But no, it's "obviously" not the same, because "countries" and the illusion of well defined borders between ethnicities and political entities. We grown so used to it, but one should not forget how this bond has been applied through force and coercion.
This may be undesirable (and, where the election is non-binding or only binding on the entity holding it, perhaps illiberal), but not inconsistent with democracy.
Perfectly correct for them? Okay, cool. Also perfectly correct for the rest of the world to discuss... On freely accessable platforms...
Look I'm not blaming you mseebach, and thank you for the insightful information, but from an outside point of view. 'I don't care' what the Constitution says.
I can't do pretty much anything frm where I am, but I'll certainly pay attention to censorship for profit. It may not be useful, but perhaps one day it will.
As for you personally, stay safe mate, be careful. I hope everything goes well for your country:-)
Edit:big thumbs :--
The app ban is a court in Catalonia preventing some public servants to keep using their positions and public funds to go on with an act that's been deemed illegal.
Practically speaking, a privately organized referendum would need access to census data, and wouldn't have binding implications.
More info https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_self-determination_r...
(Previous President of Catalonia and other officials have been recently convicted of using around 4 million euros in promoting and organising the event. As this is spending public money is something not oficially approved in the budget, it’s ilegal. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-13/former-ca... 0
No. "Perfectly correct" and "legal" are two completely different things.
Wait wat? China isn't considered to be under the rule of law? Using the passive voice is a really weaselly[1] way to hide the fact that it's highly significant who the entity making the call is.
[1] I don't mean this as an insult, I mean it in the specific sense used by eg Wikipedia in their guidelines. For example, saying something like "Some people consider XYZ to be true" to give the claim false authority.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/23/china-must-res...
Constitutional law set limits on the state, and defines minimum rights of a person and applies to the state.
A crime is breaking a criminal law, which applies to people and has defined penalties associated with it.
To me, this is also bananas. As well as the US equivalent (more perfect union).
It doesn't matter if it's democratic law or a monarch - refusing people the right to independence leads to oppression and revolution.
It is the right of all humans to turn their backs upon their current rulers and establish for themselves a new regime.
Of course, doing so imprudently, or without adequate preparation, means that you will probably lose the war that will inevitably follow.
Perhaps Spain should not have written their Constitution such that if any part of it manages to secede, then the remainder of the nation is left without a foundation law. Seems like a bad plan.
What really matters is whether those considering armed rebellion have read it. They will determine whether those aforementioned judges get shoved up against the wall, or whether they will preside over the sedition trials later.
Edit: but of course the referendum itself being illegal does not necessarily imply that voting in it, is illegal. And it seems more reasonable that the state could determine the results of the referendum to be non-binding per their constitution, rather than being justified in preventing it from taking place.
That said, the case was premised on a Sheriff making it his mission to shut them down, so it's probably worth finding out what Google did during that time.