Hacker News Reader

> No, because neither China or Venezuela are considered to be under the rule of law.

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.

It's merely [citation needed], it's not [who?].

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/23/china-must-res...

I don't think it's controversial to say that China isn't a democracy, unlike Spain.

A quick check of the definition confirms that 'rule of law' doesn't actually have anything to do with democracy, at least according to Google's results.

This thread isn't talking about countries being democracies, they're talking about being under the rule of law.

You may want your scrutiny under the Wikipedia guidelines at the Wikipedia article itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_law#Rule_of_law

> Section 2. The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards

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.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

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.

The Supreme Court of the United States does not consider the Declaration of Independence to have the force of law. It’s merely inspirational. Quoting it is not a valid legal argument.

I imagine that Spanish courts do not recognize anything written by Americans to be legally binding, either.

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.

> No, because neither China or Venezuela are considered to be under the rule of law.

Considered... by who? Do their governments view themselves that way?

As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt. The corruption in these countries and the actions they take which are based on decrees and fiat, rather than actions carried out equally and fairly according to defined law, have been widely documented.

> As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt.

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.

>As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt.

So...people's personal opinions then?

I like to think of myself as both reasonable and not corrupt. I can't see how being obliged to give up your right to secede because a document you didn't write, sign, or agree to, says you give up that right is any different than the decree of a dictator.

You're frankly not a reasonable source of opinion on the rule of law if you don't consider laws you didn't write, sign or agree to, legal.

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 asked how a law you have nothing to do with is different from a dictator's decree. You have no say in either of them.

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.

Spain has an independent judiciary. In China, and I guess also Venezuela although I know less about it, the judiciary is heavily influenced by the government.

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.

>Spain has an independent judiciary.

http://en.administracion.gob.es/pag_Home/espanaAdmon/comoSeO...

>Parliament approves the budget of the judiciary.

"Independent" is a strong word here.

The judiciary in Spain sentenced a Ministro del Interior (the 2nd most powerful political position after President) to 10 years in prison.

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.

> The judiciary in Spain sentenced a Ministro del Interior (the 2nd most powerful political position after President) to 10 years in prison.

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!

Most if not all western democracies give the Government the power to pardon convicts. It's one of the checks the three branches have against each other. I, along with the vast majority of Spaniards, agree that it's been abused and should be restricted.

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.

I don't really see why you must have an independent judiciary to have rule of law. It's obviously good, but as far as I'm aware, rule of law is merely about the fact that the law applies to everyone. I don't think it says anything about how a court system (if it even needs to exist) should function? In an extreme case, if your Supreme Court was completely independent (i.e. no impeachment risk, which we don't have in the US) but had only 1 justice on it, then he would essentially be the dictator, since he could interpret any law to mean anything, and his decision would need to stand.

There is a difference between illegal and unconstitutional. Do you see any penalty associated with that section?

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.

Ok, so 'crime' is incorrect terminology, that's fair. But let's substitute 'illegal activity', and does anything in the argument change?

This is the point where I would say, 'i don't care, let's talk about it'.

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 :--

It's perfectly correct and legal to discuss it within Spain too. (And it's been discussed non-stop for years).

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.

Would it be acceptable for private citizens with private funds to organize a referendum then?

Pretty much. What kind of law could possibly prevent that?

Practically speaking, a privately organized referendum would need access to census data, and wouldn't have binding implications.

I guess it depends on what do you mean by “referendum”. Private citizens could also organize with private funds a US presidential election, but the winner wouldn’t become POTUS...

Three years ago there was a “poll” that was organised nominally by non-gubernamental organisations. Turnout was small and control on who voted or how many times was also not great. It was closer to a demonstration, but of course didn´t have any binding result.

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

>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.

No. "Perfectly correct" and "legal" are two completely different things.

But it's a vote. Secession can be illegal in a democracy, but not voting.

Google would be right to let Spain threaten to ban them from the country.

Voting to take an illegal action is not legal or morally correct, according to common Western concepts of natural rights. Secession is an act of last resort after all other reasonable measures to resolve a conflict have been exhausted.

Let's leave the current issue aside and speak to your general statement - that voting for an illegal action is typically considered immmoral.

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.

Wild guess: the Catalonian government had that idea and challenged the view of the courts that the vote is illegal.

They say the vote is binding, so if they get more than 50% they will start the secession.

That's cool and all, but you still aren't carrying out the secession by voting for it.

They do have an action plan and they tried before and people was put in jail because of this. It is a vote for secession organized unilaterally by some Catalans.

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)

I honestly don't understand how can one be at the same time afraid that a vote is won by a majority (possibly involving a quorum as many referendums do) and at the same time point out that it's organized by a minority.

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.

I think the problem is that the binding referendum is not about the independence of the Catalans, but it is more related to the politic corruption and fights among politics. Otherwise there would have been an open debate in the whole country, but a lot of politics stopped it to happen (in both sides).

A particular election can be illegal in a democracy, a government can certainly be democratic and prohibit subordinate governments or agencies from holding elections on matters that are reserved to the central government.

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.

Should one country be able to force Google to stop offering an app for all countries?

Obviously not, but that's not what happened here. The app is still available in other countries: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cat.onvotar1oc...