Hacker News Reader

Comment by conradfr | Hacker News Reader

Yesterday the French government dissolved an environmental movement (which I don't like btw), amongst the reasons stated[0] are that they leave their phones at home or switch them off, refuse to talk to the police when arrested, or even that they organize their protest over the internet.

When accused of authoritarian tendencies the government usually answers "go to China or North Korea to see what a dictatorship is like".

[0] https://twitter.com/mart1oeil/status/1671467485931921408

View on HN

They have not been dissolved because they left their phone at home, they have been dissolved because it was a violent organisation that was systematically attacking the police and destroying property.

And given the sort of stuff they brought to their protests: swords, machettes, baseball bats, jerrycan, bricks, fireworks, petanque balls, Molotov cocktails, fire bombs, etc, it is particularly disingenuous to pretend they have been dissolved for not talking to the police when arrested.

You can read the actual decret in French: https://twitter.com/GDarmanin/status/1671450289298198528

They indeed sometimes destroyed some properties

But you cannot blame them for the violence in the protest they co-organized. People are free to attend the protest, and they cannot control them. They never called for violence against police. And most protest now in France have some people fighting with the police.

The same way you can see firefighters throwing stuff (including petanque ball) to police during firefighers protest. But you cannot blame the firefigheter union for this.

If it happens once it's accident, if it happens constantly, its their responsibility if not starting a protest at all would prevent the violence

And if they put their label on it it's their responsibility.

So should we apply the same thinking with police constantly inciting violence at protests ? At this point anytime there's a major protest in France, I consider it a win if no one in the crowd lost an eye, hand or worse, their life, from the grenades thrown by police.

Just because someone is a catalyst, I don't see how it logically and necessarily follows that 100% of the causal responsibility falls on them.

This seems objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts.

Maybe the masses are upset and this is a sign of things to come, that should be listened to.

Myself, I'm a peaceful guy, if every protest I called (assuming I'm a "leader" of cause $INSERT_CAUSE_HERE ) resulted in violence, I would not call any more protests because that would go against my personal values. So it's hard to believe a group is peaceful if every time they have a protest it turns into a riot.

Would you be okay with being jailed for destruction of property because of a protest you organised that was co-opted by bad actors?

So now the state can silence you by simply sending plainclothes cops to start riots in all your protests

Then you could not organize any "leftist" protest in France :-) Note that they do destroy stuff, they just don't call violence against people. And definitely don't turn in riot every time

Again, accidents happen, but if you are the catalyst over and over again it's on you.

> This seems objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts.

No, you just didn't liked that thing you like got attacked for the thing they did and are making up excuses.

> Again, accidents happen, but if you are the catalyst over and over again it's on you.

Yeah, they "accidentally" carried swords, firebombs and molotov cocktails to a protest. It was an honest mistake, right? I mean, those are normal things people carry around on a daily basis, aren't they?

> Again, accidents happen, but if you are the catalyst over and over again it's on you.

Technically, it "is on" whoever objectively plays a role in the underlying causality.

You "may" be referring to your perception of what is going on, as opposed to what is actually going on (which is unreachable).

>> This seems objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts.

> No, you just didn't liked that thing you like got attacked for the thing they did and are making up excuses.

Except I have the ability to describe the various ways in which it is (at least plausibly) objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts, whereas you have a much harder problem: proving that you can actually read my mind (or, are omniscient).

If we'd implement what you says, you'd just found a way to systematically prevent protests. Doesnt work.

So we should forbid firefighter and farmer's union ? And all leftist union ? And we should forbid any protest where people using black block technique could agree with ?

I think as long as most of the protests don't end up in violence and shop lootings they could stay.

What do you say to evidence that plainclothes police officers are tasked with infiltrating protests and stirring up shit?

In France, in most of the cases you don't need police officer for it, some people are willing to donage bank or fight with the police (especially after police overreacting, or being violent for free)

The fact is you don't know how will end up protest... And even when a protest end up damaging 1 mac donalds and 2 banks, most people are pacific protester... The question is how do you handle this in a democracy ?

That’s not how protests work though, is it?

The responsibility is 100% on the police. They're the ones who are systematically coming armed to 100% of protests, they're the one gouging people eyes out, pushing people in rivers, causing limbs to be amputated, they're the ones who murdered my 80 yo neighbor during a protest. The ratio of police vs protestors injuries is about 1 vs 10.

Protesting for the survival of the planet we're all living on is not a crime it's a necessity to not go extinct.

Then the state can prevent demonstrations and protests, by paying some of their own men to join as protestors and start throwing stones.

> Then the state can prevent demonstrations and protests, by paying some of their own men to join as protestors and start throwing stones.

Oh, come on, as if that were a thing so common that there had been a specific word for it for nearly 200 years.

That's not a good assessment at all. Because no one holds the government or its police to that standard.

Do you know how many problems in America regarding human rights stem from qualified immunity? Don't let that BS keep spreading.

If some Neo-nazis co-organize a protest, and it becomes violent, do you blame the neo-nazis?

Just wondering if your reasoning is based on logic or political sides.

If the Neo-nazis is protesting something like workers rights, I would probably turn a blind eye. My reasoning is based on ACTIONS

Depend which kind of Neo-Nazi organization (they are illegal in France and most of them in France do like to punch people and say it), and co-organized with whom, and depend on what is saying these Neo-Nazi

But for sure I do blame Neo-Nazi for being Neo-Nazi !

Fighting back against totalitarianism by doing away with freedom of association and assembly. Cute.

No better than the gang laws we have here in the US. It seems Jefferson's rule about 200 years or so between revolutions was right after all.

What about just regular fascists then? Do you blame fascists for violence, perhaps caused by communists?

A significant majority (67%) of the currently active low ranking French police force (not counting the retirees) vote, or at least declare they intend to, for one the parties that has historically been as right wing as one can be.

Taking that into account, one could have reasons to believe cops wouldn’t be as tough on protesting fascists, and that protesting fascists wouldn’t be as violent towards cops.

Though I’d be curious to see wether or not facts support this hunch.

> …, petanque balls, …

While I won't argue with the fact that these are indeed formidable missiles, it does make for a unique French touch.

> "Eh Roger, tu tire ou tu pointe sur le CRS !?"

Okay, so if the government ever wants to shut anything down for any reason, get a few dozen goon squad members to show up as fellow protestors with weapons and cause property damage and smack cops around a little bit?

Pretty much, yes? There's even a French term for it! Agent provocateur. There is no shortage of accusations of such in the US and abroad.

Impressive mix of lies.

The total value of items destroyed has been estimated to be about 8 million by the French state. While not a small number, I haven't seen the antiterrorist police be sent to the FNSEA's headquarters for their history of violence and destruction ever since 1960. It is part of their methods ever since their inception, but greasing some palms high up in the government certainly helps.

>And given the sort of stuff they brought to their protests: swords, machettes, baseball bats, jerrycan, bricks, fireworks, petanque balls, Molotov cocktails, fire bombs, etc, it is particularly disingenuous to pretend they have been dissolved for not talking to the police when arrested.

Violence. Is. Caused. By. The. Police. None of these, not a single one of these items were used until the police started indiscriminately tear gassing thousands of protesters, the vast majority of them peaceful. Five thousand grenades and weapons classified as war weapons used on protesters. Half of the items you mention were taken by the police with roadblocks more than twenty kilometers away. Sorry for driving with petanque balls in my trunk, I guess.

>You can read the actual decret in French: https://twitter.com/GDarmanin/status/1671450289298198528

Sure, let's read the sexual abuser, the national-socialist-journal-writing sack of shit's declaration. One part in particular is very interesting:

Considérant d'autre part que le groupement SLT diffuse a ses membres et sympathisants, via ses réseaux sociaux, des modes opératoires directement inspirés de ceux des <<Black Blocks>>; que parmi ces préconisations figurent le port de tenues interdisant leur identification par les forces de l'ordre, en contradiction avec les habitudes des militants écologistes de manifester a visage découvert, le fair de laisser son téléphone mobile allumé a son domicile ou de le mettre en <<mode avtion>> en arrivant sur les lieux de la manifestation pour éviter le bornage, le fait de ne pas communiquer les codes dévérrouillage de l'appareil ou de ne pas répondre aux forces de l'ordre en cas d'interpellation; qu'y figurent également des consignes d'ordre médical <<en cas de nécessité d'hospitalisation, dans la mesure du possible, se rendre dans un hôpital éloigné de l'action, rester flou, ne pas donner son identité, prévoir de l'argent liquide>>; que par ailleurs est préconisé le port du masque FFP3; de lunettes de protection contre les gaz; ...

For the HNers that to not have the privilege to read the beautiful language of the country of Human Rights, where protesters get arbitrarily arrested in the hospital and in their homes, this is a translation of how they justify being a single step below "declaring ecologist protestors an actual terrorist group":

Considering that the SLT group spreads to its members and sympathizers through social networks, operative modes directly inspired from those of <<Black Blocks>>; that amongst those suggestions include wearing outfits preventing their identification by the police forces; in contradiction with the habit of protesting with their face out usually had by ecologist protestors; the fact of leaving their mobile phones turned on in their homes or to put them in airplane mode when arriving at the protest to avoid triangulation; to refuse to communicate their passwords or to refuse to respond to the police when being arrested; that also contains medical related orders: <<in case of hospitalization, as much as possible, go to a hospital far away from the action, stay quiet, do not give your identity, have some cash>>; that wearing FFP3 masks and gas protection glasses is recommended...

Want to add some more ? Sure. They arrested an EELV member that was not present at any of the protests. Why ? Because he left his phone at home and used it in airplane mode. https://twitter.com/marinetondelier/status/16714362394494935...?

Thanks for the traduction; I haven't seen an account of this yet in UK media.

> Violence. Is. Caused. By. The. Police. None of these, not a single one of these items were used until the police started indiscriminately tear gassing thousands of protesters, the vast majority of them peaceful. Five thousand grenades and weapons classified as war weapons used on protesters.

It's obvious violence must have existed from both side. It's a bit obvious you're from the far left, just be neutral.

I hope you're kidding, but just to be sure: The average position isn't always right. Also, what even is neutral in this case?

I didn't mean him to be neutral in his position but in what he is writing. You can clearly see he is biaised and is anti-police. Like the police is responsible of everything and that people are peaceful protesters while it's not truth, it's not black and white and he is a fool to believe that.

You can ensure that the average position is always more right than you by staying on the left!

So now you're deflecting by "both sides"-ing the issue. Do you not hold the police to a higher standard? It's pretty telling you have to assume the political leanings of the person you're responding to rather than engaging with the argument or quantifying your position.

It's completely unacceptable for any police force to use "crowd control" devices that are explicitly disallowed in warfare under the Geneva Accords. Full stop.

Neutrality is often the wrong thing to do.

Yeah I meant more like "unbiaised comments" and not black and white comments complaining that one is responsible of everything.

They're voicing their position in writing. There's no way to make that "neutral" unless they have a neutral position. Of course someone on the left is going to write like they're on the left. Likewise, someone on the right is going to write like they're on the right. There's no incentive for people to take the time to neuter their writing just because you disagree with how they stated things. It's not impossible that this is a "black and white" kind of thing in their mind, right?

So, should the FNSEA be dissolved then? https://twitter.com/SebastienM/status/1671842089502494721?s=...

The situation in France is dire and crazy. This will not end well.

I have had well-educated French acquaintences telling me for a decade that France is ripe for a new system of government; the 6th in its history.

Many current problems stem from the fact that post-war mechanisms written into the governmental system are abused by the president and elected leaders. E.g. presidential overruling of parlamental votes.

> I have had well-educated French acquaintences telling me for a decade that France is ripe for a new system of government

First, this is not "well-educated French acquaintences" so much as it is supporters of Melanchon's LFI political party, who explicitely campaign on the idea of ending the 5th republic to start a 6th where all problem would be magically solved.

Second, the reason I hate his proposal, is because he explicitely refuses to give any specific detail on what the 6th republic would be. He claims it would be "decided by the public" but there is no reason why a pre work couldn't be done BEFORE. In effect, he pretends to be saying "we will end the 5th for a better 6th", but what he's actually saying is "let's end the one we have now instead of fixing it, and replace it with something I will have the power to decide, you must accept to throw it away without knowing what you will get in exchange or how it will be made but trust me it will totally be better and I will totally let the people decide".

Our 5th republic might be flawed, but I'm not putting it in the trash without any idea of what we will get in return, that's brexit referendum level of flawed.

And I will always be weary of someone who claims to have a simple solution to a complex problem, on the condition that I give him power over me, especially if another condition is that I cannot know what said solution is before making my decision.

Third,

> the 6th in its history

Would be the 6th republic sure, but absolutely not the 6th "system of government", it would be like our 25th or something ?

Not everybody that want a 6th republic are supporters of Melanchon's party. We have to be careful about this kind of amalgamation.

Given that out of the dozen or so "main political parties" he is the only one who wants that, and that when asked about their priorities for the change of France no group of frenchmen put that in their top 5 besides voters of LFI ...

You're absolutely right that there are definitely some people who want a 6th republic but do not vote or agree with LFI, but for the sake of generalized conversation like we're having now they're mostly irrelevant. If it were to happen, it would be through him and his "vision", and as such I maintain my critics.

Beware of what you want for you might just get it.

I’d add that the mentioned acquaintances apparently aren’t calling for a 6th republic.

Just believe that the country is "ripe for it" because of repeated abuses of the, exceptionally large for a western democracy, presidential powers.

But people have been dissatisfied with that ever since the last constitution was enacted. Including, famously, Mitterrand, who despite his many earlier criticisms (describing the 5th republic as "Le Coup d’État Permanent" [1], which could be translated to "The Continuous Coup") was prompt to fully enjoy those powers once elected himself.

So it’s quite old.

[1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Coup_d%27%C3%89tat_permanen...

I was thinking that we needed a 6th republic well decades before Melenchon was known and I think he is a dangerous person.

I am probably not the only one.

Not everyone who supported Brexit in the UK was a right wing xenophobe but look where they ended up.

I’m sorry but it’s more than the left. Even right and centrists people who were ok with the retirement reform are saying that they don’t accept how it have been forced on the parliament.

It was one of the most important and most protested reform of the last decades and the president / government used every constitutional breach they could to avoid any vote from people's representatives.

Charles de Courson, who tried to force the vote by proposing an abrogation of the law to the parliament is not really a leftist, he was even going to vote himself in favor of the reform.

We, the French, elected a parliament where Macron didn’t have the absolute majority and Macron tries everything he can to avoid the parliament when he know he will not have enough votes. It’s a democracy crisis wether you are from the left or from the right because Macron is interpreting the constitution like he can dismissal the parliament when he wants although most French didn’t vote for his party.

We celebrate the revolution and throwing out the king while basically electing a new one every five years that will magically solve all of our problems.

We celebrate the revolution while ignoring it went terribly, being in terms of rights, economy or basically anything else, and we happily put an emperor on the throne less than a decade later

I wouldn't say it went terribly in terms of rights, necessarily. The French Revolution was a massive influence on every other post-enlightenment democracy that came after it. Without the French Revolution (and yes, that includes its failures), we very well could all still be living in different versions of feudalism.

The French Revolution paved the way for just about every pro-worker reform in the modern world.

> we happily put an emperor on the throne less than a decade later

to be fair, the emperor climbed on the throne pretty much on his own; I think he had support across broad parts of the population, but it's not as if he was elected (and he didn't even start as an emperor, that came a few years after his coup)

To quote him ;

> I did not steal the crown. I found it lying in the gutter, and I picked it up with the sword. But it was the people who placed it on my head.

The man was massively popular with the populace [1] [2] and he got elected emperor with a referendum [3] to which 7 million people were called. By modern standard that barely qualifies, but for an emperor in 1804 ...

A common misconception was that the revolution was to remove the all powerful head of state. It wasn't, the people just wanted a competent one and improved living conditions.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/277eu3/why_i...

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gli6nn/consi...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_French_constitutional_ref...

> the 6th in its history.

I assume they were alluding to the fact that the current French state is called the “Fifth Republic” but there were various non-Republic regimes as well so it would actually be more than the 6th “system of government”.

The fifth republic is the result of a coup by a military leader (De Gaulle) that was in talks with commanders of tank divisions to drive to Paris should he not be instated president and allowed to write his own constitution (written by Pierre Debré, a friend of his).

It was ripe to burn since 1958.

For those who can read French and who would want to learn more about this I heartily recommend the recently published Gouverner la France [1] (Governing France), a collection of books written by Michel Winock as part of the prestigious Quarto Gallimard series.

It includes titles like L'Agonie de la IVème République (Agony of the Fourth Republic), La fièvre hexagonale : les grandes crises politiques de 1871 à 1968 (Hexagon Fever: Major Political Crises from 1871 to 1968) and a pretty good biography of de Gaulle. It's from that book that I learned of all the craziness of 1958, the one that involved general Salan (who would be sentenced to death a few years after that for trying a coup against de Gaulle) and all.

[1] https://www.amazon.fr/Gouverner-France-Michel-Winock/dp/2072...

Calling it a coup is highly debatable and debated. It happened outside of the scope of what the 4th happened, and it happened because the 4th had broken down and was not working anymore.

It should be noted that some of the main people who called to view it as a coup were people from other parts of the political spectrum who had other ideas of how it should happen and who should end up in power, including Mitterand (who ended up president of the 5th in 1986). These people however were also for the end of the 4th.

The military guys from Algeria had already put their hands on Corsica, plus, the iminent threat of the landing on the shores of Southern France (or via an aerial operation, can't remember exactly) of said military forces was heavily used by de Gaulle during the negotiations that got him into power.

"The iron was hot. I struck it." - De Gaulle

Is this an actual quote? Interested regardless of the topic of this comment thread.

Couldn't find any source online except for this comment. Might be because of tranalation though.

yup. thats why some folks love to call the current political system a "presidential monarchy", due to the overreaching executive powers granted to the president of the republic.

People have been slow-boiled and don't quite seem to realize the closest regime in Europe in terms of concentration of powers is Russia.

It's been awhile since the elite were reminded how easily their heads can be removed by primitive machine and motivated populace.

I blame a lack of access to pitchforks.

Yep. But this is not exactly new. The Macron government is now using "anti-terror" legislation that was passed by both left and right-wing governments over the past 20 years or so.

I'm really curious as to why Macron govt is looked up to by a lot of Americans. American citizens, with all of the country's flaws, tends to have a lot more inherent civil rights than most of these governments.

You always get only a really tiny window of information, selected by your medias, about foreign countries. (It doesn't matter which receiving country you are in, it is a general principle, not just about the USA).

In France, we almost only hear about other countries politics when there is a chance for a far right party to gain something. As far as all other domains are concerned, we may from time to time get a funny/shocking miscellaneous news item, and that's it.

Also, images/stereotypes about a country last a long time, long after they have stopped being true.

Ironically, perhaps the only emitting country that differs a bit is... the USA, for probably most countries over the planet are flooded with information and contemporary culture from the USA.

For example, to get back a bit to the original subject, people may know the American police and justice system better than their own. Like, French people when they are arrested would believe that they have enforceable rights and that rigorous processes are respected. Ah!

Once, in custody, I even had the impudence of requesting a lawyer as I was allowed to. LOL, no way. And it is not simply a problem of a rotten police: the prosecutor, the judges, they are all covering this up, it is the whole police+justice system which 'works' like this.

I think France is generally perceived here to have more progressive social policies regarding labor, education, healthcare and the environment. The limited media coverage I've seen about French elections seemed to paint Macron as the candidate more representative of those values.

Macron is not a fan of theses social policies, he is right leaning. His governement reduced labor protections, butchered educations, worsened public healthcare, and do nothing for the environment.

Economically right-leaning but culturally left-leaning, he's let in tens of thousands of migrants, does not expel them (cf. the "OQTF" stories pretty much every day), and on top of that, uses taxpayers money to fund them throughout the country.

> Economically right-leaning but culturally left-leaning.

Ah yes, the current political Trojan horse.

You are mixing up stuff to fit your scenario. OQTF stories are up to police incompetence, not lax imposed by the governement. Culturally left-leaning if very bold given the recent pension reform debacle, bypassing any democratic recourse. Also very bold statement given the police repression of mosts of the protests.

There is nothing Macron that is left leaning, relative to France politic spectrum.

"not lax imposed by the governement."

>> Interesting. Right-leaning governement (if not "far-right" according to some), but has no control over illegal migrants routinely roaming around committing crimes. I thought a key marker of "the right" was being (too) strict on order and ruthless implementation of the law.

A governement doing badly it's job is a marker of corruption or incompetence, not political alignement.

Im not arguing the point. It's a sad state of affairs. But Le Pen was painted here as a female version of Trump. So that's why Macron was perceived as representative of French progressiveness.

Macron's minister of the interior, Gérald Darmanin, described Le Pen as "too soft". France is not a bi-party system, Macron is not progressive.

The vote (for president) still came down to, "Guy who thinks protecting the workers is the end of the world" or "Lady who seems way too comfortable with actual nazi parties", so americans just had a lot of empathy.

Macron, as so many French leaders before him, is in fact obsessed by transforming France into the US.

Sarkozy, his most alike predecessor, used to wear a t-shirt that said "NYPD" while jogging, as he was president of France; and later renamed his party "Les Républicains" as an hommage to US Republicans (!!?!)

This was 9 years ago, so right before Trump happened. At the time, 53% of party members thought it was "too American" but they accepted the change nonetheless.

Macron pushes through "liberal" reforms (liberal in Europe means the opposite as in the US: liberals here are free-market proponents) because he thinks it will make France great again, I guess.

Fear leads to support for authoritarianism. Covid, climate, nuclear war, economic uncertainty, etc.

I think it is more about fear silences sane people. Not that support for shady things increase. E.g. at work like 2 or 3 out of 20 are phsycotic war mongers to different degrees. There is always this implied "we will shoot you as a traitor if you disagree" if things turn to shit when you deal with that kind of people.

The answer is same as with western commies, coz the ideals speak to them but they never lived by it and are aware of the bad stuff

I was thinking about an uber or courier service that takes your phone for a walk

Pretty much relying on the assumption that investigators will find stationary phones suspicious when they spy on you

Could put them in those charging lockboxes seen as airports and festivals, the infrastructure is already there

Guess I’ll market it to climate activists in europe lol

edit: maybe those delivery robots are even better couriers, since it fits the idea of getting a courier to come back to you better than an uber on the other side of town. risky but the fun kind.

If a stationary phone is suspicious, imagine how suspicious it'll look when prosecutors show someone was using that service.

strength in numbers

Just leave the phone on a bus, somewhere hidden. Then "find" it later, or call the bus service if need be.

I want to charge people a subscription service

Given most activists are at university or are associates with university attendees, you should target it to students. One downside would be that it would only work within term time.

A bunch of radios confusing thousands of gps devices seems better.

Can you fake it with an app somehow instead?

Antenas can ping your location and track your movements. There's nothing you can fake here.

Put your device in front of a vertical metallic plan and have it vertically rotating slowly. You are now walking around your house. Wouldn't this work?

Walking around your house isn’t evading anyone or anything, and it’d be too periodic.

You need wider range, more chaos, but mainly consistent spoofed behaviour.

What is really disturbing for me is that authorities go after such rather well behaving protesters instead of terrorists in disguise as protesters.

>When accused of authoritarian tendencies the government usually answers "go to China or North Korea to see what a dictatorship is like".

China and North Korea exist on completely separate spectrums.

I guess the day they only name North Korea we will know we're done.

Ah ah like when we used to say : Russia, China and North Korea exist on completely separate spectrums.

Honestly the west wanted for China to be more like us but in the end our power hungry politicians made us more like China. And we are on track to be even worse because there are some morons who are actually in favor of police state and “democratically” vote to be policed by the goverment and their cronies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com