4 ms·

He has. That being said, he has nominated some semi competent people for tech related things (eg Mounor Mahjoubi as ministre du numérique) so hopefully that was

by GuiA 9y ago

He has. That being said, he has nominated some semi competent people for tech related things (eg Mounor Mahjoubi as ministre du numérique) so hopefully that was all campaign talk and won't actually get implemented. Fingers crossed.

cm2187 9y ago
The first decision he took as a president is to renew the Etat d'Urgence (which suspends many civil liberties) while having campaigned against the "Etat d'Urgence permanent", which probably doesn't require a translation. So there is indeed hope that he won't follow his campaign line to the letter.
- zdkl 9y ago
  While I agree in spirit with your point, I cannot help but imagine the shitfest of goal realignment that must follow the first your-eyes-only presidential briefing from the intel agencies.
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    Correct. It would be irresponsible to remove it now.
    - cm2187 9y ago
      Not really. There is no more terrorism now than there has been for the past 50 years. We forget it but Europe, and France in particular has been constantly the target of violent terrorist attacks. The OAS for a while, then far left extremists and pro-Palestinian movements, then state-sponsored terrorism (Iran, Libya), the Algerian islamists (FIS), now a broader stream of home grown islamism, and of course all sort of other movements (corsican nationalists, far rights, etc). I don't see why there would be a need for a Etat d'Urgence now but not in the 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s... Plus the scale of casualties of terrorism is dwarfed by common crime for which the state response has been the exact opposite than to terrorism (i.e. to reduce or eliminate jail sentences). And if this Etat d'Urgence was used solely against terrorism, it could be debatable, but instead it is clearly being used against lots of non-islamist terrorist targets (including preventing people from demonstrating against the previous government labour laws...) so I believe we are in a clean cut abuse of power situation. More worryingly, Macron's exit from the Etat d'Urgent Permanent strategy involves basically making these exceptional measures permanent by adding them to common law. So low expectations...
      - raverbashing 9y ago
        (Though you are right about past events) No thanks, I don't think there's an acceptable level of terrorism (as I also don't believe in draconian security measures)
        cm2187 9y ago
        There isn't a morally "acceptable level" of terrorism, rape, assaults, burglaries or pretty much any form of crime. But there is still nevertheless a balance to establish between surveillance/totalitarian state and a tolerance for some level of crime. An absolute zero level of terrorism means that the society is immune to some crazy guy taking the wheel of a lorry to run over people. To get there you need an unprecedented level of controls which I'd rather not even try to picture (and which cost I'd certainly not want to pay for with my taxes).

by GuiA 9y ago

cm2187 9y ago

The first decision he took as a president is to renew the Etat d'Urgence (which suspends many civil liberties) while having campaigned against the "Etat d'Urgence permanent", which probably doesn't require a translation. So there is indeed hope that he won't follow his campaign line to the letter.

zdkl 9y ago
While I agree in spirit with your point, I cannot help but imagine the shitfest of goal realignment that must follow the first your-eyes-only presidential briefing from the intel agencies.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  Correct. It would be irresponsible to remove it now.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    Not really. There is no more terrorism now than there has been for the past 50 years. We forget it but Europe, and France in particular has been constantly the target of violent terrorist attacks. The OAS for a while, then far left extremists and pro-Palestinian movements, then state-sponsored terrorism (Iran, Libya), the Algerian islamists (FIS), now a broader stream of home grown islamism, and of course all sort of other movements (corsican nationalists, far rights, etc). I don't see why there would be a need for a Etat d'Urgence now but not in the 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s... Plus the scale of casualties of terrorism is dwarfed by common crime for which the state response has been the exact opposite than to terrorism (i.e. to reduce or eliminate jail sentences). And if this Etat d'Urgence was used solely against terrorism, it could be debatable, but instead it is clearly being used against lots of non-islamist terrorist targets (including preventing people from demonstrating against the previous government labour laws...) so I believe we are in a clean cut abuse of power situation. More worryingly, Macron's exit from the Etat d'Urgent Permanent strategy involves basically making these exceptional measures permanent by adding them to common law. So low expectations...
    - raverbashing 9y ago
      (Though you are right about past events) No thanks, I don't think there's an acceptable level of terrorism (as I also don't believe in draconian security measures)
      - cm2187 9y ago
        There isn't a morally "acceptable level" of terrorism, rape, assaults, burglaries or pretty much any form of crime. But there is still nevertheless a balance to establish between surveillance/totalitarian state and a tolerance for some level of crime. An absolute zero level of terrorism means that the society is immune to some crazy guy taking the wheel of a lorry to run over people. To get there you need an unprecedented level of controls which I'd rather not even try to picture (and which cost I'd certainly not want to pay for with my taxes).