Hacker News Reader

Comment by gjulianm | Hacker News Reader

Yes we can. There are independentists in parliament. The president of Catalonia is an independentist. Pro-independence demonstrations happen and there are no arrests just by going there (except in riots, but that's because the police force is way too uncontrolled, not because of a general freedom of expression issue).

This takedown was to an app that was used to organize a blockage of a major airport. I do not agree with the takedown, but I do not think it's such a clear cut that it's 'freedom of expression'.

View on HN

No. That's a false wrapper around "lack of freedom" trying to make it look like freedom.

The politicians are free to have independentist ideology, and they can put it into their political program. But if they try to execute some pro-independence laws, they are blocked by the overuse of judiciary system in Spain and threatened (or punished).

So yes, the Catalan independentists are there for their ideas. Carme Forcadell is going to spend 10 years in jail while the rest of the table members of the parliament are being accused of disobedience [1]. Other Catalan politicians have seen reduced the accusations because they abandoned politics (Mundo or Santi Vila[2]).

> This takedown was to an app that was used to organize a blockage of a major airport. I do not agree with the takedown, but I do not think it's such a clear cut that it's 'freedom of expression'.

It's the right to protest.

[1] https://www.ccma.cat/324/el-suprem-jutjara-el-govern-puigdem... [2] https://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20191014/47901534881/c...

According to your reasoning, if I am a communist and think that everything has to be shared, and decide to take your property and get in jail, I would be a political prisoner because I would be there for my ideas.

And Carme Forcadell is not going to spend 10 years in jail. I would bet she will be out next year.

Please, stop spreading lies.

The treatment of Carles Puigdemont and others is hardly consistent with free expression.

They were prosecuted not when they expressed pro-independence views, but when they decided to disobey court orders and use public resources for the referendum. At no point it was an issue regarding freedom of expression, and they in fact admitted disobedience during the trial.

Puigdemoont is free and has been free to say whatever he wants but embezzlment is a crime.

Executing your elected mandate is not embezzlement. Calling a spade a fish does not make it a fish, <i>even if the courts of law in your state agree with you</i>. If the government of Catalonia was not competent to hold a referendum, they should have been dismissed. (The central government in Spain retains that authority.)

If it was not politically possible to dismiss them, then spending public resources on a policy which is the raison d'etre for the governing parties but which is outside the competence of that government should merely be considered a cost of the distribution of power.

Other democracies constantly have disputes about whether such a use of funds is within the competence of a specific government. And they find that, no, it is not within the competence of a specific government. And they manage to cope without charging anyone with embezzlement despite the money having been irrecoverably spent.

If this is too much for Spain, then Spain should remove the statutes of autonomy.

If we remember their thousands of interviews in european radios, tvs, local, national and international press, It seems he has granted much more opportunities to express their ideas freely than any of us. He definitely can talk. Can talk for hours about himself and his bizarre world. Can talk until you start thinking about suicide.

The fact that lots of people in Europe wouldn't touch him anymore with a fifty foot pole and that Canadians panicked this same week about the idea of receiving him in Canada, is probably related with the fact that he can talk, but is definitely unable to stop talking.

Puigdemont took selfies with each requirement that the supreme court sent to him, like a thug. They had multiple warnings that they were steering out of the law and it wasn't until they approved some clearly unconstitutional laws in the parliament that justice acted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com