6 ms·

They include the criminalization of “contempt of public officials”, “participation in a group with a view to committing violent acts” Literal thought crimes. I

by dfxm12 6y ago

They include the criminalization of “contempt of public officials”, “participation in a group with a view to committing violent acts” Literal thought crimes. I wish I could say my country handles this stuff better with a straight face, but there has been a very recent, almost worldwide, shift towards authoritarianism.

caturopath 6y ago
I'm not necessarily sure "participation in a group with a view to committing violent acts" needs to describe a thoughtcrime. Even the most liberal societies criminalize conspiring to commit or inciting violence, even if they don't get around to enacting the violence.
- skitout 6y ago
  Well here the law is sufficiently vague so they used it to arrest journalist because they had a camera or a helmet, or arrest many protestors without clear reason. Most of them are out 48h later, but still spent 1 to 2 days in "jail"... A way to deter people from protesting...
- rtkwe 6y ago
  It depends heavily on how the law is actually used because the phrase 'with a view to committing' means it's down to proving or disproving intent and even if you don't actually go to prison ultimately you can be arrested and/or detained under that law, which is unpleasant, disruptive and definitely acts to discourage people from participating in anything that would risk arrest.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    You don't risk arrest for taking part in a lawful demonstration in France. You may risk arrest if you "come prepared", or don't follow police orders to move on or back off. During the Yellow Vests protests some people showed up with helmets, gas masks, and home-made shields, then complained that the police were infringing on their right to 'peaceful' protest when they were prevented from joining the demonstration or arrested... Dress like if you were out for a walk, which you are, and behave in the same way, and the police won't do anything to you.
    - boudin 6y ago
      That's not really true unfortunately, there's a good amount of videos that proves the contrary. It also does make sense to come protected when the police use dangerous weapons and violent strategies against protests.
      - barumi 6y ago
        > That's not really true unfortunately, there's a good amount of videos that proves the contrary. Are you referring to any of the exquisitely cherry picked videos that were highly edited to convey the militants talking points? Better yet, are you able to provide a single example that supports your assertion? > It also does make sense to come protected when the police use dangerous weapons and violent strategies against protests. That assertion makes absolutely no sense in france, specially as you're referring to one-off protests where activists plan to riot and assault people and destroy property.
        boudin 6y ago
        https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_polici%C3%A8re_en_France https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_polici%C3%A8re_en_F... There is plenty of journalist who did a good job to report violence also. You can look for articles in 2018 and 2019 mainly. > That assertion makes absolutely no sense in france, specially as you're referring to one-off protests where activists plan to riot and assault people and destroy property. You don't know much about what has been happening in France apparently. I'm not talking about the actions of far-right parties to discredit protests or the few people that joins protests just for the fight but people who are protesting in the first place.
      - raverbashing 6y ago
        Good luck trying to convince anyone with such a crap argument. At this point I cannot distinguish the GJ from a crying kid on a plane that's crying just because and the more they scream the more it hurts their throat making them scream more. The protestors are exposing themselves to be the chair à canon of political movements (which might or might not have ulterior motives)
uniqueid 6y ago
A lot of democratic countries have restrictions on plotting against the government; America, for example (18 US Code 2385). I should add, I don't know the details of this story, and I'm not a lawyer.
- dfxm12 6y ago
  FYI, the details are very plain in the article. Enforcement falls clearly short of "plotting to overthrow the government": In Marseille, a man who swore at a police officer who was about to hit a woman with his baton during a protest was himself beaten, held in pre-trial detention for 24 hours, convicted for contempt and fined €900. He also had to pay €1,000 in damages to the police officer, while no action has been taken against the police officers. Protesters have been arrested and prosecuted simply for carrying goggles or masks to protect themselves from tear gas and rubber bullets.
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    I'm quite happy to defer to your take on this particular protest. In general, I just find the issue of "sedition" interesting. On the one hand, it makes sense that a minority not take it upon themselves to override a democratically elected government. On the other, people plotting an uprising, often use the rationale that the government is only democratic in name.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - invaliduser 6y ago
    «prosecuted simply for carrying goggles or masks to protect themselves» This is quite a dishonest interpretation of the facts. They were arrested because they participated to an unregistered (therefore forbidden) protest, there was proper communication from the police that such event was not authorized because of the expected violence issues, and the goggles / masks were proof of participation. It's pretty easy to start a protest rally or march in france, you just have to declare it to the prefecture. Sometimes they are not accepted, for instance when a protest with violence history wants to pass in certain parts of the city with a lot of shop (they are regularly attacked). It happens that violent protestors such as the yellow vest types declare a march passing for instance the Champs Elysee avanue (famous locally for its numerous shops), knowing it will be rejected, then calling it a dictature when it happens, and doing it anyway, and there the violence begins. The Amesty report says nothing of this context, I have no idea why (I can guess it probably is because they support the yellow vest movement).
mytailorisrich 6y ago
> Literal thought crimes. These are explicit acts, not thoughts, and not new offences. "Contempt of public official", I think they mean "outrage a agent" in French, does not mean the feeling but the act of showing 'contempt' as in insulting or threatening. For example, if you take part in a demonstration and you insult a police officer for whatever reason they can arrest you for "contempt of public official". "Participation in a group with a view to committing violent acts", which is not an offence specific to France, allows the police to arrest and charge people before they commit violent acts when it is clear through their actions that this is what they are planning. In relation to public demonstrations this may mean a group of people showing up with helmet, shield, or legal 'weapons' (e.g. slingshot and steel beads, or what not). Likewise for the ban on face coverings, it is primarily to deal with people showing up with bike helmets, gas masks, etc. in order to (a) protect themselves against tear gas, and (b) not be identified (usually while they commit violence against police and property). > "“It is ironic that a country with such a long and proud tradition of collective action for social change is criminalizing protest in this way" On the contrary, it's because France has a long tradition of 'collective action' (i.e. really riots and revolutions) that a body of laws to counter violence has come about. > The French authorities must stop criminalizing people and amend all the laws that hamper the right to peaceful assembly. The offences mentioned above are not related to peaceful assembly. Amnesty International is being rather disingenuous in this article.
- gdwatson 6y ago
  I'm sorry that you're being downvoted; I don't think that's warranted. >> Literal thought crimes. > These are explicit acts, not thoughts, and not new offences. > "Contempt of public official", I think they mean "outrage a agent" in French, does not mean the feeling but the act of showing 'contempt' as in insulting or threatening. As the expression is usually used, "thought crimes" can refer to speech acts. This may reflect a difference between American ideas of free speech and those more common in Europe. (I don't understand the variety of European views very well.) Most Americans are going to view anything that smacks of lèse majesté as a thought crime and react accordingly. And I don't think we're wrong to do so.
  - 6y ago

by dfxm12 6y ago

caturopath 6y ago

I'm not necessarily sure "participation in a group with a view to committing violent acts" needs to describe a thoughtcrime. Even the most liberal societies criminalize conspiring to commit or inciting violence, even if they don't get around to enacting the violence.

skitout 6y ago
Well here the law is sufficiently vague so they used it to arrest journalist because they had a camera or a helmet, or arrest many protestors without clear reason. Most of them are out 48h later, but still spent 1 to 2 days in "jail"... A way to deter people from protesting...
rtkwe 6y ago
It depends heavily on how the law is actually used because the phrase 'with a view to committing' means it's down to proving or disproving intent and even if you don't actually go to prison ultimately you can be arrested and/or detained under that law, which is unpleasant, disruptive and definitely acts to discourage people from participating in anything that would risk arrest.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  You don't risk arrest for taking part in a lawful demonstration in France. You may risk arrest if you "come prepared", or don't follow police orders to move on or back off. During the Yellow Vests protests some people showed up with helmets, gas masks, and home-made shields, then complained that the police were infringing on their right to 'peaceful' protest when they were prevented from joining the demonstration or arrested... Dress like if you were out for a walk, which you are, and behave in the same way, and the police won't do anything to you.
  - boudin 6y ago
    That's not really true unfortunately, there's a good amount of videos that proves the contrary. It also does make sense to come protected when the police use dangerous weapons and violent strategies against protests.
    - barumi 6y ago
      > That's not really true unfortunately, there's a good amount of videos that proves the contrary. Are you referring to any of the exquisitely cherry picked videos that were highly edited to convey the militants talking points? Better yet, are you able to provide a single example that supports your assertion? > It also does make sense to come protected when the police use dangerous weapons and violent strategies against protests. That assertion makes absolutely no sense in france, specially as you're referring to one-off protests where activists plan to riot and assault people and destroy property.
      - boudin 6y ago
        https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_polici%C3%A8re_en_France https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_polici%C3%A8re_en_F... There is plenty of journalist who did a good job to report violence also. You can look for articles in 2018 and 2019 mainly. > That assertion makes absolutely no sense in france, specially as you're referring to one-off protests where activists plan to riot and assault people and destroy property. You don't know much about what has been happening in France apparently. I'm not talking about the actions of far-right parties to discredit protests or the few people that joins protests just for the fight but people who are protesting in the first place.
    - raverbashing 6y ago
      Good luck trying to convince anyone with such a crap argument. At this point I cannot distinguish the GJ from a crying kid on a plane that's crying just because and the more they scream the more it hurts their throat making them scream more. The protestors are exposing themselves to be the chair à canon of political movements (which might or might not have ulterior motives)

uniqueid 6y ago

A lot of democratic countries have restrictions on plotting against the government; America, for example (18 US Code 2385). I should add, I don't know the details of this story, and I'm not a lawyer.

dfxm12 6y ago
FYI, the details are very plain in the article. Enforcement falls clearly short of "plotting to overthrow the government": In Marseille, a man who swore at a police officer who was about to hit a woman with his baton during a protest was himself beaten, held in pre-trial detention for 24 hours, convicted for contempt and fined €900. He also had to pay €1,000 in damages to the police officer, while no action has been taken against the police officers. Protesters have been arrested and prosecuted simply for carrying goggles or masks to protect themselves from tear gas and rubber bullets.
- uniqueid 6y ago
  I'm quite happy to defer to your take on this particular protest. In general, I just find the issue of "sedition" interesting. On the one hand, it makes sense that a minority not take it upon themselves to override a democratically elected government. On the other, people plotting an uprising, often use the rationale that the government is only democratic in name.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- invaliduser 6y ago
  «prosecuted simply for carrying goggles or masks to protect themselves» This is quite a dishonest interpretation of the facts. They were arrested because they participated to an unregistered (therefore forbidden) protest, there was proper communication from the police that such event was not authorized because of the expected violence issues, and the goggles / masks were proof of participation. It's pretty easy to start a protest rally or march in france, you just have to declare it to the prefecture. Sometimes they are not accepted, for instance when a protest with violence history wants to pass in certain parts of the city with a lot of shop (they are regularly attacked). It happens that violent protestors such as the yellow vest types declare a march passing for instance the Champs Elysee avanue (famous locally for its numerous shops), knowing it will be rejected, then calling it a dictature when it happens, and doing it anyway, and there the violence begins. The Amesty report says nothing of this context, I have no idea why (I can guess it probably is because they support the yellow vest movement).

mytailorisrich 6y ago

> Literal thought crimes. These are explicit acts, not thoughts, and not new offences. "Contempt of public official", I think they mean "outrage a agent" in French, does not mean the feeling but the act of showing 'contempt' as in insulting or threatening. For example, if you take part in a demonstration and you insult a police officer for whatever reason they can arrest you for "contempt of public official". "Participation in a group with a view to committing violent acts", which is not an offence specific to France, allows the police to arrest and charge people before they commit violent acts when it is clear through their actions that this is what they are planning. In relation to public demonstrations this may mean a group of people showing up with helmet, shield, or legal 'weapons' (e.g. slingshot and steel beads, or what not). Likewise for the ban on face coverings, it is primarily to deal with people showing up with bike helmets, gas masks, etc. in order to (a) protect themselves against tear gas, and (b) not be identified (usually while they commit violence against police and property). > "“It is ironic that a country with such a long and proud tradition of collective action for social change is criminalizing protest in this way" On the contrary, it's because France has a long tradition of 'collective action' (i.e. really riots and revolutions) that a body of laws to counter violence has come about. > The French authorities must stop criminalizing people and amend all the laws that hamper the right to peaceful assembly. The offences mentioned above are not related to peaceful assembly. Amnesty International is being rather disingenuous in this article.

gdwatson 6y ago
I'm sorry that you're being downvoted; I don't think that's warranted. >> Literal thought crimes. > These are explicit acts, not thoughts, and not new offences. > "Contempt of public official", I think they mean "outrage a agent" in French, does not mean the feeling but the act of showing 'contempt' as in insulting or threatening. As the expression is usually used, "thought crimes" can refer to speech acts. This may reflect a difference between American ideas of free speech and those more common in Europe. (I don't understand the variety of European views very well.) Most Americans are going to view anything that smacks of lèse majesté as a thought crime and react accordingly. And I don't think we're wrong to do so.
- 6y ago