Compared to the constant, unceasing reminders by Russian activists that the de facto prohibition on protests in Russia is a legal sham and the actual thing would require the president declaring a state of emergency (that only happened in 2022 and then not fully), the silence in an established democractic society was deafening.
The tired “freeze peach” responses on HN evoke similar feelings, as do the “private businesses can deny anything to anyone”. (Never seen a less-than-loyal artist’s concert cancelled the day before because the venue received a suggestion—not a command, mind you, a suggestion—from a city official’s phone? Have I got news for you.)
That's because the governments actively work to and encourage the fracturing of their population and cultures and the breakdown of trust in society. If you hate or fear your neighbor, you will be okay with the state trampling their rights.
The fact they are more often religiously promoted by people often from EU countries or wealthier cities in the US is a signal but that doesn’t mean they were merely fooled by bad actors in gov hiding stuff. They could just as often see a consistent positive stability in their own local community, then immediately rationalize/correlate that to the popular mantras of the well intentioned local politicians… regardless if such that positive state is a stagnated legacy of prior success, claiming issues in other regions that their country/community never really experienced is because x gov policy (ie, using the absence of negatives to rationalize some norm, regardless if it’s been tested IRL), or merely positives happening in spite of their own govs policies.
Gov policy making / promotion is far too complex and multilayered to dismiss it outright as intentioned manipulative and planned.
It has come to the point where debating any of above Topics is impossible and gets you stamped as "crazy, outlier".
And on a lot of these topics, the messages from government that have been sent were plain wrong, but no corrections have been made, thus the cycle continues.
Where the more 'poor' people around me seem to think more for themselves and with common sense. Those are the people that wonder why the riots in Paris are nowhere to be found in our mainstream media (Netherlands).
I wonder why this is the case and if this is unique to me. One explanation could be that the wealthier group has more to lose when going 'out of favor'. Thoughts?
That people are irrational or willfully ignorant about things is not surprising. People can become irrational and blind to truth through their own self-delusions or through propaganda. Being "educated" or having more money doesn't change that.
Actually, Paris' mayor is the mayor with the less executive power, as they don't have a municipal police. Paris prefect, on the other hand, is the most powerful prefect in France.
But prefects in France have too much power. It would be fine if the legislative and judiciary branch acted as they should in a healthy democracy, but the legislative power is subordinate to the executive, and different presidents over tim choose to reduce the judiciary power. The fact that Macron and ex-Sarkozists claim Erdoğan is going too far with his judicial reform is a joke. A bad one.
> [The mayor] can refuse an organized protest [...], but cannot prohibit protests.
What’s the practical difference? I’m not sure I see one, having seen years of “oh no you can’t have your rally here, there’s extremely unfortunately some other thing nobody’s heard about happening in your primary location and renovations at your alternate one and you’ll have to move to a place two hours from city centre and by the way we sat on your notification for a month and the deadline to resubmit was two days ago”.
(Legally, the Russian system is that of affirmative notifications, not of requests for permission, so you have to manufacture a conflict or a threat to public safety of some sort to really refuse, as well as offer an alternate location. The ECHR had a field day dismantling those excuses with about a decade’s latency, before Russia was drummed out of the Council of Europe to widespread cheering and activists were left to maybe possibly write to the OHCHR in the godsdamned UN and hope it works? I heard they’ve literally sent out more complaints now than the office has handled over the entirety of its pre-2022 history. I guess even the UN needs to have its joints greased from time to time.)
In fact, I was wrong, I thought the mayor had some interdiction power, they have none. the mayor cannot 'not allow' a protest, the prefect can. When Paris' mayor is not on the same political side 1s the government, it can lead to weird stuff (like what's happening now).
It is absolutely authoritarian. I think France was ranked as one of the most authoritative democracy, on par with Russia, turkey,a bit less than Egypt.
Those interdiction weren't used offensively until Macron though. You have to limit the area of the interdiction (can't be the whole city) and pre-2017 were easely accessible 48h before they were effective, and could be challenged in court.
In 2018-2019 they tested putting the interdiction up at the last moment, it worked, so now it's even worse, they draft the interdiction as active immediately and put a copy on the prefecture doors, do not make them available on the internet then fine everyone.
The most egregious was one that took effect at 17h but wasn't put on the door until 17h30.
What's funny is that people voted macron 'against fascism' twice, not realizing that his way is a fascism too (in this case, I mean fascism as a catch-all for ideologies coming from Cesarism/Bonapartism, as defined by Krondstadt butcher himself, Trosky, terrible man but accurate critic of his time).
I think that one big reason is that there is practical difference in the two systems ... and that practical difference is favoring the French system.
The issue is that with such huge loopholes, FUTURE one might exploit them on a bigger scale than what happens in Russia.
And being constantly vigilant and opposed to such laws, is what keeps the society sane and working.
The protest in France could be officially banned, but it wouldn't stop the protesters. Whereas current Russia would bring in the army to forcefully stop protests.
I am saying that looking toward Russia laws is bad place to take lessons from. The in book laws in Russian system mean literally nothing. Wagner is illegal in Russia too, actually. Post-socialist human right activists lost and failed.
> The protest in France could be officially banned, but it wouldn't stop the protesters. Whereas current Russia would bring in the army to forcefully stop protests.
First part yes. Latter part, actually, no. Russia don't bring army within Russia for that nor need to. They have cops and secret service for that and both have enough power. But the lack of democracy in Russia did not happened because the army would systematically suppress Russian protests. (It successfully suppressed Belarusian protests and made Chechnya into vasal state. But in Russia itself, it is not the threat of army that is preventing protests.)
The "affirmative notifications" is doing absolutely nothing for democracy in Russia.
Hell, I had to apply for a same permit to organize a very small LAN party in one of the college's classrooms.
Is that permit to "stage a protest" or a permit to block traffic and do otherwise illegal actions?
https://www.nswccl.org.au/right_to_protest
"Civil disobedience" has always entailed paying the consequences of lawvreaking to send a message.
That doesn’t mean the French system doesn’t work right now (certainly there’s a lot of protesting in Paris), but from my paranoid viewpoint it seems extremely exploitable, and it’s chilling to see people shrug at government actions that would have every post-Soviet human rights activist up in arms. I don’t know how else to put this; it just seems fundamental that the government must not (have the ability to) start to prohibit protests, because sooner or later it won’t stop.
Maybe I’m just too unwilling to believe in a reasonable government, I don’t know.
Even if somehow there were a genuinely benevolent socially minded government willing to put society above all of their personal interests (including, even getting elected) - it would be unwise to support potentially oppressive powers. Because sooner or later, that government will be replaced by one that will be happy to exploit those powers for wrongful purpose.
Despite the "bans" on mass protests, the French still protest plenty.
Post-Soviet activists did accepted quite a lot ... and post soviet societies are quickest to fall into authoritarian. There are not that many activists in the first place and activists are looked down upon by too many people.
My point here is that generally, people on the west are massively better at keeping things democracy.
there don't seem to many RUSSIANS of this description around at the moment (not that i would blame them).
Chinese traffic laws come to mind, were reporting somebody overtaking on the right got you a small monetary reward. So folks were creeping on the left side, forcing others to overtake on the right, photos were made, the incident reported, rewards were rept.
Similar things can happen fast on the internet. Bait somebody into breaking the law and report it for a reward. Can even automate it. Piracy and porn comes to mind.
Yeah, but also, people in countries that have had dictatorships recently are waaay more likely to support dictatorships.
Democracy is one bad week away from turning into a dictatorship. We've gotten complacent and forgot that fact. Democracy is not the natural state of society.
If you don't want people voting for extremist parties then get the more mainstream ones to stop ignoring concerns about the current policies.