France is using its broad suspension of civil liberties to detain environmental activists

So what, suspend freedom of assembly and arrest people just because they are trying to start a protest, and because of vague affiliation?

Are you implying your line on security involves the complete and "justifiable" censure of freedom of assembly?

 

Leaving aside your contested assumptions of what is more pressing or not, what are you doing about those problems, exactly?

Any one of those activists detained has done more for your pet cause than you have, tbh. You hate "Islamic terror"? Support the one group that wants the West to meaningfully get away from funding the oil regimes. Using government force to surpress their dissent should be everything you should be fighting against.

 

It's not a shock to me: what is a shock to me is that you are against Greenpeace peacefully protesting. A membership doesn't mean anything without action.

http://www.greenpeace.org/internati...ant-march-for-the-climate-to-still-take-part/

Greenpeace was one of several groups who was denied authorization for their planned climate march in Paris.

 

This is what I said to start the thread:

And Greenpeace themselves have said none of these activists are violent!

so when you say things like:

and

and ignoring this:

It's a fair assumption to say that, at the very least, you haven't been paying attention. Yes, the suspension of freedom of assembly affects groups like Greenpeace, which you would have realized if you read your membership newsletter or came to the logical conclusion that the suspension of freedom of assembly affects all stakeholders. That's why blanket bans are so odious. The detention of key activists is the most egregous part of this violation--not only are protests being banned, people petitioning for them are being detained!

Also, I don't know why you're trying to narrowly scope this thread now after you've implied that "Islamic terror" is more pressing than climate change rather than discussing the substance within.

 

Fair enough, we agree on this point.

 

Fine, I implied your position, just like how you used to imply I supported Islamic extremism because I was against state repression. Both are sucky things to do, and neither excuses the other.

You never explictly said "I am against Greenpeace protesting peacefully". It is possible, maybe even probable that despite your membership you were not aware of the fact that Greenpeace was covered under this ban, you were not aware that there was a ban on peaceful protests (though this was covered amply in this thread, including in the article you posted), and that Greenpeace itself had claimed that none of the activists detained were violent--if this is the case, I suppose I can stop implying your nonchalence and apathy on this topic, as well as your stated preference for "climate change activists" to "focus on something else" as statements of apathy, if not outright support to the censoring of non-violent protests like the one Greenpeace planned.

I hope this thread has enlightened you to these facts and you stick to the substance of it instead of avoiding it.

I can apologize for jumping the gun.

Now, do you agree with me that this (i.e suspension of freedom of assembly, arrests of those petitioning for protests) is an egregous violation, especially since you're a Greenpeace member who will have been affected?

 

This suspension applies to citizens of France as well.

This is where the state of emergency comes from:

http://www.vox.com/world/2015/11/14/9736288/paris-attacks-state-of-emergency

France bases its current consititution on the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. You may recognize some of these clauses: they are, after all, partly inspired by Thomas Jefferson.

 

Yeah, except for Greenpeace members looking to do a march on climate change. Do you agree or disagree that Greenpeace should be able to organize a climate march in Paris? Straight yes/no question.

Muslim countries have absolutely zero to do with this topic, can you address the topic in its scope now that you insist on narrowing it down?

 

I don't know if you've been reading this thread (ok if you haven't), but just to fill in you in, "law-breaking" intentions involve any march or public demonstration, including several non-violent marches planned by, among others, Greenpeace.

From ATW's article:

so...can I assume your position based on this statement

 

Yeah, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic or the question you're now trying to avoid.

Do you agree or disagree that Greenpeace should be able to organize a climate march in Paris? Straight yes/no question.