Spain jails Catalan separatist leaders, protesters take to streets
reuters.com
reuters.com
And in response to some of the commenters in this thread: of course an independence movement is going to be violent, especially when the state is trying to oppress it. The independence movements in the US, NI, and India were violent too, not because they were wrong but mostly because of mixed public opinion and an oppressive state.
Perhaps if we legally recognised the right to secession and offered citizens a democratic route to secession then violence wouldn't be necessary. Secession movements are going to happen regardless of their legal status.
Can I just ignore the rules of the country I live in on the sole basis of "a group of people sharing an identity" being people that are me?
The argument is worth having, because trying to secede part of a country unilaterally by "legal" means gets down to this absurdities.
One question that someone who wants to create a new country out of another, to put it that way, must ask should be "what can I give in return?"
If this is going to become a negotation, hopefully, then both parties must understand that there has to be compromises, and have to find common ground. Not just "this is my right because I say so", nor "this can't be because I say so".
Platitudes on liberty and justice and words that essential mean nothing lead us nowhere.
In fact, mistrust that people can decide things for themselves and that localism leads to the best outcome for them is the hallmark of centralism and bureaucrats. Things we don't need more of.
The issue isn't simple and I'm positive that this has nothing to do with "human rights" or "democracy" or else. It's much, much more complex than that.
People are more peaceful as neighbors than flat mates.
At the end of the day no matter how many people it is you are still taking away resources from the state (land, tax revenue, etc.) and creating issues with political consequences, border control, and all sorts of things.
How many people does it take to make such actions "acceptable"?
Further, allowing groups of people to just break away from the state and create their own systems, creates a threat to the state from all non-indigenous populations.
Why allow any immigration if newcomers are just going to be able to take your resources and land whenever they feel like it?
I agree that in a perfect world none of this would matter, but currently I don't see a scenario where any state would allow this, regardless of the number of people involved.
The point that I am making is that regardless of my personal feelings, I don't see any state giving up sovereignty in exchange for nothing.
I've generally either agreed with or appreciated your points in this thread, but this one triggered a reflex in me which has been honed by Brexit.
If we're talking about what a population of people want, we should qualify it with a reference to which poll we are citing. Otherwise it sounds far too agenda-y.
Because it underlines the fallacy of appealing to an alleged right to cecede.
> Its not made in good faith and obviously nobody is discussing one-person states.
Strawman, and one that's based on a disingenuous premise. It's quite clear that the argument is on whether to draw the line of when a minority has your so called right to cecede. You already admit that your so called right to cecede is absurd and ridiculous if only one person wants out. How about two? Do you believe a couple has the right to cecede? How about two dozen persons? Two hundred? Do you believe a couple of appartment blocks have the right to cecede? Or is the whole idea and concept entirely absurd, and only pointed out as a self-serving tautology?
- a different language? - a well defined culture? - a political composition which differs greatly to that the rest of the country? (check the representation of the PP and PSOE)
If you are interested in discussing the reality of the Spanish situation, it is pretty clear where this right of seccesion might want to get exercised (Basque Country, Galicia...) and for sound, historical reasons.
We clearly don't.
I was just listing regions that might have historical reasons and even parties with strong independent ideals, versus a group of friends wanting to separate from Spain for the sake of the argument.
It really isn't, as it purposely excludes portions of the electorate that don't support the idea.
I think you mean 'secession'. Anyway, what would be the minimum number of people to have the right for it? A region? A city? A 'barrio'? A family? A group of friends?
> Anyway, what would be the minimum number of people to have the right for it? A region? A city? A 'barrio'? A family? A group of friends?
If you're asking my personal opinion I think there would need to be a population of at least a few hundred thousand in favour of succession. I guess it would depend on how many people are required to run a functional state.
Perhaps there would be middle grounds where smaller groups can be granted some level of independence. Although that might naturally arise from states wishing to retain some level of control over a discontent population seeking independence. I know many believe devolution is the answer to Scottish independence in the UK.
Pro independent movements are quite against your first paragraph, according to discussions regarding either vall d’Aran or Tabarnia (two sub-catalonia independence movements, one based in history/culture, the other one in both jest (a la pastafarism) and anti-independence opinions.
In a world where modern democracies everywhere are coming under increasing stress because state authorities are increasingly breaking the long-held covenants of trust that bind a state and its citizenry, these outrageous sentences only make a further mockery out of the law. Ultimately, cool heads soon need to resolve this stand-of or inevitably it will lead to further civil disobedience and possibly worse. And one must never forget that the last time this happened in 1936-'39 many hundreds of thousands died over the issue.
In the modern Europe of today, borne out of the horrific chaos of WWII (and its prelude the Spanish Civil War), there should be no place where people should be subject to such authoritarian rule as they have been subjected to here.
It's now time for Europe to pressure Spain to finally give the people of Catalonia both their autonomy and freedom. Catalonia has been in Spain's chains far long enough.
There has been a lot of mistakes on how to handle this situation but Catalan leaders made a calculated decision and forced the situation. You can express any idea, demonstrate, make your own party, but you it's not reasonable to expect that, if you not only break the law, but try to seize a large portion of a country and its resources, and just ignore the will of about half of the population in that very region, the spanish state does nothing.
And I'm not even mentioning a shitload of things that are also going on in this issue that makes it way more complicated, typical in this multi-layered spanish power plays.
It's wrong to say that Catalonia is basically a US state, since US is a federation while Spain is a unitary state. This means the central government can overrule whatever the communities decide on. They don't have the same authority over ruling, as the central power has in the case of Spain.
Then I suppose one of the bigger issues remain in answering "Is Catalonia autonomous enough?" and "Who decides how autonomous Catalonia should be?"
I generally agree you in both practice and principle and in a democracy democratic processes say what laws or rules apply. And this is how things normally work in stable democracies. The trouble is that these days democracies are coming under considerable and increasing strain from various competing interests whose worldviews are essentially irreconcilable. Whilst this has always been so to some extent, in the past a 'reasonable' government could evaluate competing interests then come up with effective and acceptable laws based on utilitarian principles. Nowadays that's far from easy—and it's becoming increasingly so for many reasons that are too complex to detail here expect to say that attitudes and norms within societies have changed, and together with improved communications, internationalism and changes over the past 40 or so years in the way capitalism plays a role in society have had much to do with it.
At the risk of oversimplifying these complex issues, here's a few examples. Let's say a government is under pressure by a majority of citizens to regulate the bad behavior of certain types corporations but the corporations strenuously fight the proposal on the grounds of loss of jobs, loss of profits, interference in the free market and violations of international trade agreements, etc. so a stalemate ensues and thus nothing or little is done. In a previous era, the issues about 'free markets' and 'violations of international trade agreements' would have played a much lesser role and back then corporations effectively had less influence on government policy, thus governments would have found it easier to regulate. These days, there are so many instances where governments have failed to regulate that the citizenry has a justifiable right to be annoyed and to assume the democratic process has failed it. [Incidentally, one such matter has again made it into today's HN, that's the huge price Big Pharma is charging for drugs—that government has failed to act for so long is symptomatic of the problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21250491]
Another is the rise of identity politics. Whatever one's views on this are it is hard to disagree with the fact that nowadays it is increasingly difficult to govern a country where its citizens hold so few views in common. Clearly, a society wherein a majority hold common views and interests makes governance easier but today this structure has broken down to the extent that governing for all is very difficult, especially so in a democracy. Once only four or five decades ago, those within a society were much more homogeneous in their views than they are today. Back then a majority of citizens held similar views as they were bound together by a common culture or race, or by religion and or by isolation from other societies any or all of which would have steered the society in certain directions. Today, the parallel between the governance of a democracy and the parable from Aesop's fable* The Man, The Boy, and The Donkey of 'try to please all and you will please none' is truer than ever. I would add that in this era where one's rights and sense of entitlement trump the Rousseauian notion of the General Will of the Citizenry then governments are damned if they do or they don't.
Quo vadis? We should look to history for examples of what happens when citizenries consider their governance has gone beyond the pale. All too often, we see that when a majority of citizens hold such high levels of mistrust in and discontent with their government then it often boils over into an uprising, insurrection or revolution, and inevitably, it does not end well—even for the 'winning' side. Moreover, we've many notable examples whose outcomes we actually accept (and often respect) as we live with and abide by the rules and laws they've since engendered, notably the French Revolution, English Civil War, American War of Independence and the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 just to name a few.
Sure, the outcome of every one of these social upheavals was political change but the cost in human terms was enormous: they were all brutal and bloody events that for many thousands of citizens ended in tragedy and or death. I would suggest that no reasonable person would ever recommend these ways of achieving change unless is was absolutely the last resort.
That leaves the issue of what do we do short of revolution when democracy breaks down to the point where effective governance is lost; for, as I see it, that's where those of us who live in democracies are headed right now. In almost every country, both democratic and totalitarian, we are seeing many laws enacted that are increasingly authoritarian by nature and in their extent, all of which inexorably result in fewer freedoms being available for individuals. Frankly, I consider that living in a state where every citizen, year after year, has less and less autonomy to act as very worrisome and quite frightening—especially so when there is seemingly no end in sight and where politicians consistently fail to provide both sufficient explanations and justifications of such laws.
It's in this light that I suggested that Catalonia be set free of its Spanish chains (irrespective of Spanish laws) as this is probably the most efficacious and pragmatic solution—at least in the short term. It too is likely to be the best solution when it comes to minimizing future violence and bloodshed, which as history amply demonstrates, is highly likely if the matter continues to fester. Essentially, in respect of Catalonia, Spain should collectively pull its head in and accept that it has lost some national sovereignty—after all; it's something Spain has had to do many times over the centuries as the Spanish Empire crumbled so by now it ought to know how to manage the loss successfully.
The matter of how we citizens should manage our democracies in the longer-term should be foremost in the thoughts of every citizen right now. We citizens not only must re-establish trust between those whom we elect to govern us but also forge new and effective covenants that will be the basis of all future and ongoing law. We should not expect this process to be easy or quick as entrenched power-hungry bureaucrats and implacable governments will no doubt fight us citizens every inch of the way.
-
* https://fablesofaesop.com/the-man-the-boy-and-the-donkey.htm...
Catalonia can enact his own laws, and it does so. There's very little substance if you say "being freed from the chains of Spain". There isn't any massive difference in the understanding of the world between catalans and the rest of the peninsula. You could pimpoint some laws here and there, and some simbols, but it's pretty much it. There's no systemic repression of Catalans of any sorts because of speaking or being Catalan. I know that an independence supporter will disagree and is willing to paste thousands of links here, but IMO from the big picture there's no much substance. They are not loosing autonomy as you said, as it's been happening quite the opposite.
There's a lot of stuff happening daily and a lot of propaganda going on. The Catalan government is very good at this, and it's difficult to make foreigners understand how much effort they actually put on this. To give you a glimpse, yesterday they sent their supporters to occupy the Barcelona airport. Politicians are not stupid, and they know that place is guarded by national police and the military. Some time later, as it seemed such actions wouldn't yield any PR material, they've sent their own police. That's the videos foreigners have seen in their media. Obviously, the majority of them don't have to know that Catalans have their own police, and they were sent there coordinated by their own government, that it wasn't spontaneous. And most media won't clarify it.
Today, their explanation for internal consumption is that they had to send the Mossos d'esquadra (Catalan police) because they had to "protect the demonstrators from themselves", they were afraid to be accused fo sedition again and some other BS, that of course will be noise tomorrow.
I know there's enough speculation in the last two paragraphs, but I worked for them for some time, so I know how they think. And that's my take on it because, if it wasn't for that, it would be absurd to send your people somewhere and then beat em just because.
And this stuff is happening on a Weekly basis.
Now, you think the most pragmatic solution would be just accept "the fact" that Spain lost Catalonia, and that it has to become another country. Now, what happens with half the catalans that want to remain spanish? Do we just forget about them? What if they become violent? What would do the Catalan Government if they become their own country and half its population does the same they have been doing? What if they win elections and want to rejoin? (I forgot, that wouldn't be possible under the new catalan law, they wanted to make parties against secession illegal), are we going to split and join multiple times because of this?
I mean, there's a lot to put in a cost/benefit analysis and from my POV is unclear at best. There's no clear solution to avoid conflict even if we splitted to day and we had it in good terms. And I'm not even mentioning that the most probably economic outcome for Catalonia would be to suffer massively due to loosing it's status with the EU, not being anymore the preferred port for trading with Spain and basically loosing it's status as an asset for Spain.
It's natural for everyone to try to frame events in a local setting, but take in account that you are not just witnessing two ants fighting for a piece a bread, but organizations with a lot of power and resources, that actively try to shape your opinion on the issue.
As I see it, it's a huge problem and I agree that the Catalonian issue is a small and almost significant part of that.
I'd only add that I'm old enough to vividly remember the horrible bombing and killings in that part of the world and thus I've developed a long-held view that with the 'right' triggers that they could easily happen again.
Sorry for just pointing out one thing, but it was what you started with so I feel the need to correct it.
Yes, Catalonia can enact their own laws. But even if they do, Spain reserve the right to override them, with what they feel like. Catalans I've spoken to, have expressed this to be a pain point, especially when the relations to Madrid are poor.
Madrid can always regain control over Catalonia according to it's laws, and them having this ability, makes peoples drive to independence stronger.
Catalan (and other nationalists) are key to form governments on Spain, specially the last two or three legislatures, so this is highly debatable at best. Some laws that were not passed/revoked in the central parliament have been precisely because of the vote of such parties.
A party can be both in its autonomous and central parliament. And this has been the case for decades.
I know what independence supporters feel about, but there's no substance to an argument where Catalans are ignored or overruled from the central parliament because of any sort of authoritarian rule, because they are integral and important part of how power is distributed and managed in such institution.
"there's no substance to an argument where Catalans are ignored or overruled from the central parliament because of any sort of authoritarian rule" leads me to believe that you're not thinking the same way as me regarding understanding both sides.
Image if the EU Council could, at any time, invoke a article to take control over what the member states themselves should decide over. This is what Catalans feel right now is happening.
Any autonomy that Catalans currently enjoy, is devolved power from Madrid. Just having the possibility for Madrid to at any time suspend the autonomy of (what they see as) their own state, makes them uneasy, and we're seeing the result of that uneasiness coming to the surface more and more recently.
Such thing has happened, but it's not the current state of affairs. The central state took control of the Catalan institutions until elections were held, not past that.
And of course such thing didn't happen in a vacuum. Not to mention that this is a pretty standard procedure in most countries.
> leads me to believe that you're not thinking the same way as me regarding understanding both sides
I can understand why you think that. I have been following this issue for the last, maybe, ten years. I've worked for politicians in political marketing for a consultant company so I know how they think. I'm an "insider" to political propaganda if you like, so I'm not just sitting back watching events like am a neutral observer.
Thankfully I've moved to another totally different field, but it affected my ability to read the really deeply, I'd say.
The half didn't give their opinion, they didn't ignore it, in fact they tried to do everything they could to get their position even though Spain did everything they could to not let anyone give it.
It is highly questionable whether the independence movement has even 50 percent support. Indications are that the support hovers around 40-something percent. It was highest in 2013, where it reached 55 percent. Please notice that this is not close to the super majority which is normally required for constitutional changes in most democracies.
The way Catalan folk showed what they think on this subject, was by voting. That's pretty fundamental.
It seems that only a slice from the non-supporters from the left showed up to vote.
Next time, I humbly suggest everyone vote, and have their voice heard.
Given that the so called decision was ripe with voting fraud (I mean, separatists storing voting ballots at home?) then the process actually has nothing to do with deciding and everything to do with a Putin-istic imposition of a policy hidden with a thin façade of an election.
You adbicate nothing by refusing to participate in a illegal vote.
You can't talk about democratic legitimatecy when only 40% voted.
I know this is an emotional issue. But the rule of law is purported to be enshrined in the Spanish Constitution.
No. "The Constitution has been amended twice. The first time, Article 13.2, Title I was altered to extend to citizens of the European Union the right to active and passive suffrage (both voting rights and eligibility as candidates) in local elections. The second time, in August/September 2011, a balanced budget amendment and debt brake was added to Article 135."
Additionally, it is not helpful to "suggest" that a majority of a region take part in illegal activity. It would seem to me that not every election is democratic; this reductive argument that elections, write large, equal democracy does not help find a solution
Take a look at the support for independence: it's not a majority opinion and it's getting smaller:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_movement#...
If there was a fair and legal vote, we'd see some actual numbers that can be trusted.
Declaring independence, more times than not, is an illegal act in someone's eyes.
There are a few cases where the independence referendum was legal and recognized by whoever they were trying to get independence from. Algergia, Guinea, Samoa, whole bunch of ex Soviet Union countries. There are future referendums planned that are recognized as well.
So it's not impossible. It just won't work with the current Spanish Government (a referendum. Indepedence, maybe)
The government of spain should be condemned the same way other countries that have political prisoners are condemned.
What you can't do is misuse public funds and census data to organize an illegal election.
You want to secede? No problem, but you must abide by the existing laws, or face the consequences.
In practice, the first thing they needed to do was ammend the Constitution, which, like in most democracies, requires a supermajority in the parliament and the senate. It's not that hard, there was an ammend a few years ago.
Application of unreasonable punishment simply will increase the number of people supporting secession, so allowing referendum (possibly requiring 3/4 majority in catalonia alone) would have done much less damage to Spain, than what have happened instead.
Incidentally, much like it happened with Brexit, the "leave" campaign makes all sorts of promises that it could never deliver: catalonians would keep their Spanish passports, they would continue to receive Spanish pensions, they would automatically remain part of the EU and NATO, they would not be burdened with any of the existing public debt (bond obligations), etc.
Misled with all these transparent lies, around 40% of those called to vote actually show up, while the rest of the people listen to the advice of the central government urging them not to vote and take part in that farce. Unsurprisingly, most of the people who voted were hardcore leavers.
I don't like how the Spanish central governments have handled the situation. But it's also true that there's been an outstanding marketing campaign online to paint a minority of catalonians as "the true will of the Catalonian people" and it's tiresome to hear foreigners voice strong opinions about something they understand so superficially.
Lots of Spaniards like myself are tired of the situation. Want to secede? Fine. Let's follow the law, ammend whatever needs to be ammended, have some basic plan for fundamental questions like membership to the EU, pensiond, debt obligations, etc. The, with an understanding of what is on the table, vote for it. Just like Brexit should have been done.
Otherwise, it's pretty obvious people voting for Cs and PP will never answer "Yes" and that's already way more than 20%
* People who simply identified as Catalan and wanted to have their own language and culture as a separate political and social unit
* People who were wealthy and had assets to protect from real or perceived looming economic correction in Spain
* People who formerly opposed secession, but were pissed to live in a country with high-profile political prisoners.
It was hard to form a solid takeaway from all this; I'd need many more months to start to really understand the political dynamics at play.
One thing about which I feel strong and certain, though, is this:
The fact that something is a crime according to the entity claiming jurisdiction over a given landmass makes it neither right nor inevitable that people engaging in that thing.
The right to dissolve bonds that arbitrarily obligate people to the whims of a state to which they don't consent is a real and enduring right.
Whether or not the movement is righteous, it's not OK to jail people for peacefully (even if disruptively) trying to separate.
For example the huge Catalan cannabis industry has been stuck in a legal limbo largely thanks to Madrid failing to legislate and Spanish courts blocking Catalans from doing so.
* 4 are sentenced for sedition and embezzlement
* 5 for sedition
* 3 for disobedience
Their actions have been judged under the laws of a democratic state but of course Secessionist propaganda calls it 'Fascism'.
0 people for “their ideas”
0 people for “peaceful demonstration”
Etc. Please read everything about this issue with a grain of salt in both sides, it is heavily politicized to the point of reality being sidetracked. Even the prime minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, showed today grave misinformation on the ruling through a tweet.
There are plenty of examples where people have been pardoned in Spain for more ethically questionable reasons [1]. This, in contrast, is a clear case where it should be resolved politically, not through the legal system.
Sounds like they are correct. It's absolutely shocking to see an European country jailing people for the "crime" of sedition.
Misuse of funds by itself would be much harder to argue against.
Under a state they voted against is a pretty important point.
Under a state they weren't even allowed to vote against.
Under a state they were actively trying to separate from.
Freedom of association?
"The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms.[1][2] It states that people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference."
I am not an international lawyer myself but seeming "the right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law". If this is incorrect a people do have rights. In fact this is a cardinal principle in modern international law.
That said, and again, these are individual rights. You can't condemn Rwanda for the crimes committed by their leaders: these leaders are put on trial.
It occurs to me that the US has sanctioned Iran and other countries (not an expert) in the past/present (again, not an expert). But that isn't international law: those are unilateral decisions made by the US government.
I can see both things occurring, but not intertwined. Could you please expand on what you understand by "people do have rights"?
Personal international law is basically a post-WWII invention,and having regularized international methods of enforcing such law started with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court quite recently.
International law operating at the level of nations has existed longer, and while ad hoc national acts are still the dominant method of compelling compliance, has had a permanent international venue for resolving cases much longer than international law addressing individual responsibility. So, yes, as well as (and longer than) we’ve been able to hold individuals accountable for violations of international law, we can also hold whole nations responsible.
Depends. If you talk about rights as given by some law, then the law subjects are the ones who bear rights. In some cases the law subjects are individuals, in other cases (international law) these are explicitly not individuals.
Nations do not have "rights to vote", for instance: it all comes down to the individuals that make up those nations.
It's really hard for me to understand how groups of people would have rights, if someone could elaborate on that, that would be much appreciated.
Nations do have the right to vote, just look at the UN General Assembly (well, not counting Taiwan or the Sahrawis).
Regarding rights of individuals: If country A commits a violation of international law, and an individual B who is national of country C is affected by that, then B cannot sue A directly. Instead, C must bring the case against A before an appropriate court like the ICJ. This happened e.g. in the LaGrand case[1] between Germany and the US.
On the other hand, if A finds that C owes it money, and C doesn't pay, then any assets of B that happen to be under the jurisdiction of A can be confiscated to pay for the debt. This happened e.g. in the Icesave dispute[2] between Iceland and the UK.
'In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the 1960s was interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose. Ethnic or other distinct groups within colonies did not have a right to separate themselves from the "people" of the territory as a whole.'
"Other definitions offered are "peoples" being self-evident (from ethnicity, language, history, etc.), or defined by "ties of mutual affection or sentiment", i.e. "loyalty", or by mutual obligations among peoples.[40] Or the definition may be simply that a people is a group of individuals who unanimously choose a separate state"
With the world being unipolar for the last 30 years and that sole superpower being seemingly incapable of winning wars for the last 20, many minority groups are thinking that's a bad bargain and they'd rather trade security for self-determination.
Is it not obvious, at this point, that "winning" the wars are not the goal? That the wars are used as pretense for endless military presence to serve geopolitical goals?
I recall in a debate with Allard Lowenstein back in those days, he said “Jerry, you want to win this and get out. I just want to get out. But your friends there “—indicating the Secretary of Defense —“want to lose it and stay in.” I admit to being silenced. I didn’t have the minutes to give a lecture on how to win a war of attrition when it is part of a strategy of containment, and I am not sure I understood the situation that well in 1968 anyway.
In the WW2-era, the stakes were literal annihilation: a number of minority groups were specifically targeted for extermination by the belligerent powers, and many others were occupied under threat of extermination. Today, the stakes are that you face random drone strikes and your weddings get blown up. But there's nothing you can do about this: instead of "if you accept our rule, we'll let you live", it's "we're not interested in ruling you, die anyway". When wars are fought to make a point rather than to win, and that point has nothing to do with you, they're not going to change your behavior. So great powers and separatist/extremist groups exist in symbiosis, with each constructing and reinforcing the other in the absence of an external reason for their existence.
This theory reminds me of slatestarcodex’s “The Toxoplasma of Rage,” specifically section V. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage...
Australian aborigins or Navajo indians could say that they feel oppressed, and they have totally original cultures and languages.
This people instead are far, really far from being oppressed and show a severe case of being chronically spoiled.
They are richer than most spaniards, enjoy the best infrastructures and an excelent health care system (paid with taxes of all spaniards), have more job opportunities than many, and tailor-made markets and industries located there for their profit
They live in a fantasy world where you can just decide to ignore the law when and as you will, or close an airport or train station (because you are a "freedom figther" aren't you?), and say later that you just were joking and is unfair.
P.S. your comment very nicely applies to the US.
The truth is that youngsters in Catalonia eat the same hamburgers, drink the same german beer, wear the same Nike shirts and pasta glasses, play the same world of warcraft, drive the same brands of cars and bikes, enjoy the same pop, rock, rap and flamenco (inherited from the Andalusian inmigrants), read the same Harry Potter books, watch the same spiderman's hollywood films, use the same smartphones and operative systems, celebrate Halloween (probably dressed as Franco, or maybe Lady Gaga), study the same english, science and maths, culture the same peruvian potatoes and tomatoes, farm the same cows, sheep and chicken, and share the same religion, mythology and culture, the same... as any other occidental people.
Their grandpas are from Andalucia, Murcia, Castilla and Asturias more often that they would prefer to admit.
They eat onions entire and make castles in the air with people that climb over other people. Two nice apportations to the planet diversity, nobody denies that.
They dream that everybody, except they, are Franco (forty years after Franco death) and they behead the dragon with a flamiger sword in from of a bunch of grateful ladies. hurrah
And they have TWO languages, not one. Spanish, with 600 millions of native speakers that everybody understands and uses (even if they choose to hide this fact and feel ashamed for it), and a different language that uses the same latin alphabet (A,B,C... we are not talking of the invention of Lord of the Ring's runes here) borrows a lot from french, spanish and maybe italian; and is used as political weapon all the time.
They aren't the only european with two languages (or the only spaniards that suffered with Franco) and they do exactly the same things as any other european in the 99% of their journey.
If we talk about their culture, maybe they should be nationalised US citizens directly, as millions of other people in the planet.
A lot of people want self determination, and they haven't exactly made much progress recently.
(Also, ask the Scots how they feel about the UK and especially brexit right now)
I said that they're trading security for self-determination, not that they get security and self-determination. The endgame is a multipolar world with lots of wars, not peaceful coexistence.
Secretly mail everyone a wallet address which they can use to vote on the blockchain.
Without the threat of violence from the state, more people will vote.
Since laws are coercive, whoever has the power (both legal and police) can jail secession leaders.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/861001/Catalan-referend...
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/10/12/spain-police-used-excess...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/catalan-vote-claims-s...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-41463955/cataloni...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4586709/catalonia-won-right-in...
The trial is subject to European courts and even if they dont appeal (which they will most probably do), this ensures that they are not abandoned to the purportedly fascist judges. So at the end they will be overseen by the EU.
By the way, Spain is one of the EU countries with the least unfavorable rulings by both the EU Justice Court and the European Court of Human Rights so I think that speak volumes of the fascist remains of our justices.
By the way the whole trial is available for anyone to watch in youtube, and judge Marchena’s job conducting the trial is widely understood to have been impeccable.
2 or 3 million citizens were completely free to do what they wanted that Sunday. No one was detained, fined, or even identified, if they did not do something in the tune of burning a police car.
Where is the fascism?
It's the part where they jail people for "sedition" instead of misuse of funds. One of these is absolutely defensible while the other simply isn't.
Edit: I think you meant to ask this in another thread, so I link it for other reader’s sake: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21247767
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_da...
In the former Yugoslavia I have no direct knowledge of anyone's opinions on the matter, but I am led to believe that a majority of several of the new countries was solidly in favor of splitting up.
Some ethnic group were allowed to have their right to decide in which country they want to live, some never got that right. In the end that injustice is what led to the whole bloody conflict.
Summary: they deny the claims of violence, reject the preventive prison (~2 years for those being condemned to prison today) and denounce the lack of presumption of innocence and an impartial tribunal (119 to 124 and 132 and 133 if you want a quick look).
Violence by spanish police during the "independence referendum" [ https://spanishpolice.github.io (a few hundred videos) ]. Violence by catalan people against spanish police on the same day: [ https://youtu.be/8ak9224HG_E (guy throwing a chair to a police entering a school) ], [ https://youtu.be/DyE0DtVd4Q8 (various people throwing portable fences to the police) ]
But the most blatant case if that of Jordi Cuixart and Jordi Sánchez. They are civilian leaders, not political authorities. They presided Òmnium Cultural (cultural association) and ANC (independentist association) respectively. Today condemned to 9 years each. For context, right before the "independence referendum" there were some searches to investigate the referendum and the people involved. One of them happened in the building of the regional ministry of economy (September 20th, 2017). There, a spontaneous rally started. A few hours later, Òmnium Cultural, even though they weren't the ones to start the rally, filled the documents to formally communicate it to the city hall. Some will say they were trying to obstaculize the judicial operation, and others that they were trying to keep the spontaneous rally under control. Well, one can take a look at the images:
- Police car destroyed, one the most famous images when trying to show the violence of the independentists: [ https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKPUVBoW0AAa4aw?format=jpg ]. Police left the car parked there, with long guns still inside. Many demonstrators, reporters and photographers climbed on top of the car during the day. At least one of the windows was broken by one of the members of the police at the end of the day, as he himself admitted during the trial.
- Jordi Cuixart and Jordi Sánchez climbed on top of the police car at the end of the day too in order to try to dissolve the rally (they also spoke for a couple minutes before this, with the usual "thanks for coming, we will continue rallying tomorrow, we will vote, don't be afraid, bla bla"): [ https://youtu.be/23XrRpfMaw8 ]. They literally say: "as much as possible and in a peaceful way, let's dissolve the demonstration for today". In the trial, Lluís Llach, a famous Catalan singer (temporarily involved in politics at that point), said that he was there and that they initially tried to dissolve the rally from a stage that the association set up on another point on the street, but he eventually suggested that people didn't hear them from that point (as the stage was intentionally at a certain distance from the building [they played some music during the day to distend the mood]), and that they should climb to the police car to speak from there. They told the police that they were going to climb on their car, and they didn't receive a negative response, so they just went with it. During the day, they also set a small corridor [ https://www.publico.es/uploads/2018/06/26/5b324d03dca57.jpg ] to try to assist the people who had to enter and leave the building. Arguably not a good guarantee for the judicial police (who were already inside), but it makes it very hard to argue that they weren't trying to collaborate.
For those rallies they get a sentence of 9 years of prison each.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. The historical and political context is much more complex, I only went over a few details. The independentist leaders were at the very least fools for saying they would achieve independence in a year and a half; they played too lose with parlamentary regulations, and they systematically failed to properly address half of the population that doesn't want independence. But none of that justifies a single year of prison. 2 have already passed. They had a parliamentary majority in catalonia and a clear mandate to organize a referendum. Both the regional opposition and the Spanish government attrociously defected from politics and pushed towards the judicialization of the whole process. The case of the Jordi's is just absurd. Carme Forcadell, the previous president of the catalan parliament, gets 11 years and a half of prison for basically allowing the debate about self-determination (well, this case, like many of the others, is way more complex juridically, so you are warned about my over-simplification here). Just because Spanish media says catalan independentists are violent, that doesn't make it true (even the sentence admits this). This is not even about self-determination, it's about basic democracy and the right to protest. Meanwhile, the arbitrary detentions continue.
I hope someone hears this guy in Europe: [ https://twitter.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/11836594982270197... ]
For example, Julian Assange and Yoko Ono were paid to write some twits pro independence agenda.
(Just moving my comment from the dupe thread)
Roughly 60% to 70% say "No". So, it's unlikely to happen any time soon.
I believe at the end of 2015, a few months before the Brexit referendum, about 70% of people were indicating they'd vote remain in polls. That's the only reason Cameron and the rest of the Remain-supporting political class allowed a referendum at all: they were sure they were going to win.
Turns out that intense discussion, debate and political campaigning can change voter's minds. That's the point of it in fact. Who knew?
edit to paste the relevant guidelines:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
iirc the catalan separatist made some interesting use of technology when they protested in 2017 so that is relevant.
this article is about how they are now sentenced. i.e. TV news
Please don’t even start.
E: Yeah, I get that I’m going to be downvoted as this political cause is not as popular as HK, but this is regular HN content.
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it.
When the protests started hitting the airport, police started asking for boarding passes so that only passengers could enter.
Then, the protesters set up a Telegram group to share actual boarding passes from today's flights. Dozens of them were posted to the group.
Apparently the ruse worked, although from what I've heard, not for long. The police started matching the passes with IDs.
Seems like a bad time for Madrid to move like this, HK protests have been in the news for months and will probably inspire many.
E: Can’t reply below because of ratelimit, but I specifically mean tactics here. It’s no coincidence everyone immediately rushed to the airport.
If we look at when an actual movement existed for Catalan Indepdendence, it was formed 1922 (Estat Català). Granted Hong-Kong wasn't really transfered until 1997, it seems unlikely Hong-Kongers have fought for independence for longer than Catalonia.
But in the end, there are no winners or losers here, only freedom fighters.
Before we make any assumptions, please consider that I'm asking this truly from an intention of learning, and not trying to bait any flames, or establishing my position. I've just never had the opportunity to talk to someone on "the other side".
As an example, I have had some discussions with independence supporters where they have denied me, categorically and multiple times, that at the beginning of the mediatization of the conflict, one of the most important arguments and that was debated with intensity in the television and internet gatherings was that Catalonia contributed much more money than it received, and that such a thing was unfair.
So many people simply want to become independent, regardless of the arguments against and in favour, and of any cost-benefit analysis.
Think how you would feel if Spain was part of Portugal, France, Morocco, or Germany, Spanish language was a minority language in Spain, and you would have spent significant amount of time reading books or learning about the war or some other event that had changed the flow of history and led your country to not exist on the map.
Disclaimer: I am not from Catalonia, but from a country that barely got organized in time to be a separate state, and i am happy about that, as smaller more local governments work better, than the very centralized and huge government we would have now if our separatists did not manage to organize in time.
1) Freeing the politicians. There's plenty of examples of politicians interfering in judicial decisions [1]. Currently, 45% of the Catalan electorate have their elected politicians in jail.
2) Discuss with the central government the best way to modify the constitution to allow a mechanism for people to vote for what they want.
I wouldn't consider myself an independentist, but being surrounded by people that are, I've come to understand that the biggest issue is whether they have the right to even have a vote on how they want to govern themselves.
As for the arguments for the independence of Catalonia, as other people mentioned here, there are several and as varied as people are in Catalonia. The first step though is to be able to even have this discussion in the form of a referendum, even if the final result is staying in Spain.
I'm still not a big fan of the independence movement, but it's hard to disagree with them given the actions Madrid is taking. Most foreigners I've talked to in Catalonia seem to agree with me. They don't give a fuck about the independence movement, they're simply mad about how poorly Madrid has been handling this.
Even today, most big streets in Barcelona have been shut by the police. You drive past and you see empty stretches of road full of police cars for no reason, the whole city is paralyzed.
E: lol, downvoted for a honest answer to someone who wanted to learn. It's exactly this kind of responses by Spaniards creating the strife.
> Before we make any assumptions, please consider that I'm asking this truly from an intention of learning, and not trying to bait any flames, or establishing my position. I've just never had the opportunity to talk to someone on "the other side".
Thank you for asking this so politely! I appreciate it very much. Really, thanks! It is very rare that Spaniards take this attitude, and it feels like a breath of fresh air.
Regarding your question, not all independence supporters share the same reasons. I think my particular reasons are not very representative, so do not take what I say as too relevant in the grand scheme of things. But I can only speak for myself.
My only reason for wanting a catalan state, separate from spain, is concern for the short-term existence of my language. I could not care less about the economic situation.
I have witnessed since my youth in the eighties the slow decline of catalan usage, and its replacement by spanish. I realize that this is not a very important concern; the world has far worse problems, but it is still a legitimate concern that merits political attention. I am anti-nationalist and internationalist, but this does not mean that all languages on Earth must disappear except one, and all cultures must be merged into a single one.
Most of my life I have not been pro-independence. I identified proudly as a catalan-speaking spaniard, and even had t-shirts with the spanish flag as I traveled around Europe. It was in 2003, on a summer travel in Portugal with people from Spain (spanish speakers), that I realized that they did not see the catalan culture as a legitimate part of the culture of their own country. Somehow, the catalan language was "less spanish" than the spanish language. I found this idea illogical, and the fact that they seriously espoused it was deeply outraging. Then they pointed me to the spanish constitution, that states clearly in its infamous Article 3, that spanish language is the preferred language in front of the other, lesser, local languages. This was clearly contrary to my view on how things should be, but it was just a law that could be changed if most people agreed, and it seemed logical than most people would.
I did not become separatist at this point. Instead, I embarked in a sort of personal crusade trying to convince all spanish people that I knew that they should accept the possibility of the catalan language being the sole official language in the catalan countries, lest it would disappear and they would lose an important part of the culture of their country. To no avail: the fact that a person from Valladolid who moved to Girona had to learn the local language was so foreign to all castilians that it left me in sad despair.
But I did not become separatist at this point. Instead, I was moved by the enthusiasm around a new proposal for a local law ("estatut de Catalunya 2006"), that had the support of the spanish socialist party (then the main party in the state, thanks in part to its overwhelming support by catalans and andalusians), and also the support of all the parties in the catalan parliament except the spanish conservative party, which had a minor presence there. This new local law established the equality of the rights for the speakers of both languages in the territory of Catalonia. I did not agree with the form (both languages were to become equally official, and citizens had the right to communicate with the spanish administration in either language), because I really preferred a single official language, but still, it was a reasonable compromise. Then there was a referendum in Catalonia, under the auspices and support of the spanish state, and the new "estatut" was approved by an overwhelming majority. Once it was approved, the spanish parliament decided to "cut" it and remove some articles (notably that of the official languages) and the spanish constitutional court declared it "unconstitutional". I found this very disturbing, and the removal of the articles undemocratic and offensive.
But I did not become separatist at this point. It was just a shitty generation of spanish politicians, and in a few years we would get some fresh, young people who would be more tolerant than old dinosaurs like Alfonso Guerra and Manuel Fraga, the main figureheads of opposition to the catalan "estatut". No worry about that. After all, I was spanish, and catalan was just as spanish as the other official languages, and what I wanted to do was to change spanish law for a better fit with my concerns. Also, this view was shared by millions of people in Catalonia, so it would be just a question of time.
Why do I think the catalan language will disappear if it does not become the sole official language in at least a major part of its territory? Besides programming languages, I have a keen interest in human linguistics, and I have read a lot about its amazing possibilities, and the history and the evolution of languages. I have learned that diglossia (the simultaneous presence of two languages by the same people) is an unstable situation that invariably resolves in the slow disappearance of the least powerful language. A language that has no monolingual people seems to be doomed to disappear. This is clearly the case for the catalan language, and it is enforced explicitly by the spanish constitution. I understand that languages evolve and disappear, and it is ridiculous to feel sad about this natural evolution. But when this evolution is biased by a law with which I do not agree, and which the speakers of the more powerful language refuse absolutely to change, it becomes mildly infuriating.
But I did not become separatist at this point, yet. At the end of the day, my language would be alive as long as I was, so it was kind of a stupid concern to be worried by the disappearance of something that, by definition, I could never witness.
What triggered me was a very emotional situation. My grandmother--who did not speak spanish--had fallen and was spending a few weeks at the hospital. She could not communicate easily with the nurses, who were all foreigners and only spoke spanish. A quite correct spanish, by the way, due to the fact that you can only work in Spain if you speak spanish, regardless of whether you speak catalan or not. Seeing my dying nan struggle to communicate with their caretakers during the day (my family spent most of the nights there) was, to put it lightly, extremely enraging. Now it was not a rational decision; protecting the existence of my language became an emotional issue. A prioritary issue in my political criteria.
Now, I did not still became separatist, due to that problem. It was the result of a very rational argument. Now that the catalan language is a main priority, there are two possibilities.
1. Change the laws of Spain so that Catalan becomes the sole official language in the catalan territories.
2. Separate Catalonia from Spain, and change the catalan laws.
I disliked both alternatives. The first alternative is my preferred, but sadly it is utopical. If Spain could just accept that the spanish language is not official in part of its territory, I would proudly wave a spanish flag again. The ideal example is Switzerland, where each language is official alone in its territory, all on equal grounds, and all the swiss people share a beautiful sense of unity. But any rational person agrees today that accepting such a thing is an impossible burden to impose to the majority of spaniards. Maybe I am wrong, but in that case it must be a majority of spaniards that convince me back.
The second possibility is awful also. For one, all separatist parties have made a major point of their programs that the catalan republic must be bilingual, which in my view does not solve anything. I do not see the point of an independent spanish-speaking catalonia. Yet, I think that convincing the catalan parties that bilinguism must be catalan/english and not catalan/spanish is much less chimerical than convincing the spanish parties. So here we are.
In the end, whatever the reason, I think that the catalan-speaking people is, well, a people, and it has the right to decide, alone, about its future. As a member of this people, I understand that I want to fight for the independence of my country.
Regarding your Brexit reference, I believe that brexiters are nuts and I identify with the scots, who want to escape the English crazyness and stay in the european union for good. I want to escape the Spanish craziness, which I deem impossible to reform. I actually find the idea of wanting to reform spain as abhorrent. As a catalan, I desire the well-being of my western neighbors, but they must sort out their problems themselves.
What about spanish-speaking people? Are they not also catalans? Is “your country” not theirs?
Paraphrasing what you said, somehow, the spanish language is "less catalan" than the catalan language. I find this idea illogical, and the fact that you seriously espouse it is deeply outraging.
No, they aren't. They are spanish.
As Fernando Pessoa said: my homeland is my language.
Will they be expelled from your country or will they have a chance to stay as foreigners in their own land?
Of course not. Why do you say that?
They will only have to respect the local law; probably nothing will change for them in practice, unless they want to work in a public service and they cannot already speak catalan.
Unless they cannot stand to live in a place where spanish is not official. In that case, well, they will easily find twenty countries with five hundred million spanish-speakers where they will feel truly at home. Problem is, as a catalan I have nowhere else to go.
http://www.catalannews.com/society-science/item/supreme-cour...
Of course it isn't. The republic will be able to protect it!
I would also not like for the Catalan language to dissapear, but the above statement is false. AFAIK the only change in that regard was removing the preference of catalan over spanish, making them equal (https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2006-13087&b=8&tn...). Right now both languages are equally legal and valid for both day-to-day life and official documents. As the law states you have the right to use any of them and the right and duty to learn both.
What Catalunha "loses" by being part of Spain (not to mention what it gains) is very different from what HK gains and loses.
Sure, CAT have the right to protest for any case they want, but at a certain point there are laws and states (and last I checked public opinion on secession on CAT was not big on the separatists side)