Catalonia independence vote

[Udayana]

What would you call it?

"repugnant, barbaric, primitive, superstitious" obviously.

I'm looking for examples where breaking the law in a democracy led to beneficial change...

Irish independence? And the continuation in NI leading to the Good Friday Agreement and power sharing?

Although NS's Rosa Parks example is more reasonable - breaking the law with non-violent demonstrations or protest to make a point - accepting any penalty for the cause, and bringing injustice to light.
 

[Shaker]

"repugnant, barbaric, primitive, superstitious" obviously.

Irish independence? And the continuation in NI leading to the Good Friday Agreement and power sharing?

Although NS's Rosa Parks example is more reasonable - breaking the law with non-violent demonstrations or protest to make a point - accepting any penalty for the cause, and bringing injustice to light.
 

Reasonably sure that Jeremy "Excitable" P probably won't accept the Irish Free State/Irish Republic c. 1920s/1930s (say) and 1950s USA as democracies.

[Nearly Sane]

Can you cite some significant advancements made by breaking the law in a country that was already a democracy.
Which is why the Spanish government would have been better off letting it go ahead and then ignoring it. I hope we can all agree that, no matter the legality of the vote, sending riot troops in to stop people from voting was a seriously bad idea on several levels.

Well you have to define democracy as you gave (a) introduced it as a condition, and then (b) gone for a no true democracy approach. I appeared to live in a 'democracy' in 1979 when two friends "broke the law' by a same sex kiss. Are you saying that in 1979 it wasn"t a democracy.

As to your second point, it was precisely the non agreement that I had seen and the equivalence of pensioners not actially breaking any law being beaten by bid sticks with that beating.

[Udayana]

Seen a couple of different posts elsewhere on what happened in Catalunya yesterday, saying well there were mistakes on both sides, or the decision to hold a vote was provocative,. Can I just suggest to anyone who wants to make this sort of false Trumpian equivalence that they thank the people who went before then, who didn't always follow the rule of law for the rights they have now instead of pissing on their memories?

Those going to vote were, despite the vacuous posturings of some apologists of thuggery , not 'breaking the law'. It's not an individual law and there is nothing against holding such a vote, it's just of no constititional value, and might lead to those elected officials who have a duty to uphold the constitution to be held on that breach. Those pensioners beaten up were attacked while acting in a legal manner. Those that  minimise that, are complicit in it.

Worthy sentiment, except for the last sentence which is ballcocks. Everyone knew this could happen, as we feared throughout this thread. Rajoy should have ensured it could not - we all know that sending armed police, including batons and shields, into a confrontational situations greatly increases the risk of violence and police abuse. They should have stood by and done nothing after their efforts to halt the arrangements the day before.

We also all know that it is very likely that there is worse to come.
 

[Udayana]

Good post!
#Catalunya

Yeah, they need cheerleaders in this madness...

[Nearly Sane]

Worthy sentiment, except for the last sentence which is ballcocks. Everyone knew this could happen, as we feared throughout this thread. Rajoy should have ensured it could not - we all know that sending armed police, including batons and shields, into a confrontational situations greatly increases the risk of violence and police abuse. They should have stood by and done nothing after their efforts to halt the arrangements the day before.

We also all know that it is very likely that there is worse to come.
 

so you think playing down violence and beatings for pensioners behaving legally isn't being complicit and somehow that's just wrong because it's bollocks? So you think calling an argument a name like say 'barbarian social mores' makes you right?

[Nearly Sane]

Yeah, they need cheerleaders in this madness...

Yeah cos saying people shouldn't express their beliefs is useful in this madness...

[Udayana]

so you think playing down violence and beatings for pensioners behaving legally isn't being complicit and somehow that's just wrong because it's bollocks? So you think calling an argument a name like say 'barbarian social mores' makes you right?

No one here is "playing down" any violence. How can anyone be complicit in an attack only after the event? Minimising it is just that.. and mostly opinion irrelevant to the actual event, that we don't need. 

Right about what? That's not an argument.

[Anchorman]

Yeah cos saying people shouldn't express their beliefs is useful in this madness...

Yeah, they need cheerleaders in this madness...

If a people wish to express themselves in a peaceful, non-violent, democratic way, then, yes, I'm happy to supp9rt them.
Independence is not a load around their necks, it's the lodestone of their identity.

[Nearly Sane]

No one here is "playing down" any violence. How can anyone be complicit in an attack only after the event? Minimising it is just that.. and mostly opinion irrelevant to the actual event, that we don't need. 

Right about what? That's not an argument.

Nice to see your objective statement about a subjective matter. If you try and excuse people beating people up, then surely you become complicit as you are justifying it? You indulge people in doing it. You give them a belief it is right.

You appear to have missed or ignored the quote referencing your position as regards Outrider? Given I quoted the line that seems odd.

[Udayana]

Noce to see you put ypur subjective opinion, as objective,

But as to the complicit part, ypu think thst  it"s not bad to beat pensioners and try and explain it, and that seems to me what minimising it does, then yep, complicit.


Note you appeared to miss your hypocrisy as regards Outrider.

Sorry, I am not following .. probably time I gave up.

It is definitely bad to beat up pensioners. When people beat up pensioners it needs to be explained and, hopefully, prosecuted. Anyone who does not care about the beaten up pensioners, or claims that it is not serious is, in my opinion, wrong but that does not mean they have any part in the crime. Assuming they are not actually involved in the case, it is just an opinion - of similar value to mine.

Can't see what this has to do with the discussion with Outrider. Your "argument": "Those that  minimise that, are complicit in it" is not an argument - it is a logically confused accusation or slogan. A bit like "those that are not with us are against us".  I did call it "bollocks" but hopefully have explained why.  If you had said "Those that minimise it are reprehensible barbarians" I would have just taken it as your opinion.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry, I am not following .. probably time I gave up.

It is definitely bad to beat up pensioners. When people beat up pensioners it needs to be explained and, hopefully, prosecuted. Anyone who does not care about the beaten up pensioners, or claims that it is not serious is, in my opinion, wrong but that does not mean they have any part in the crime. Assuming they are not actually involved in the case, it is just an opinion - of similar value to mine.

Can't see what this has to do with the discussion with Outrider. Your "argument": "Those that  minimise that, are complicit in it" is not an argument - it is a logically confused accusation or slogan. A bit like "those that are not with us are against us".  I did call it "bollocks" but hopefully have explained why.  If you had said "Those that minimise it are reprehensible barbarians" I would have just taken it as your opinion.

Sorry, but I don't see the problem. Not a clue as to why you aren't following. If you argue against something being a crime then you end up supporting those who commit that as a crime. If you justify something as being reasonable, then if someone agrees then ypue have helped them to think that.

As to the whole thing with Outrider, you thought just calling an argument something like 'barbarian social mores' was bad, but then you used the argument in precisely the way you objected to, but wasn't used by Outrider, by calling it bollocks.

[Udayana]

... If you argue against something being a crime then you end up supporting those who commit that as a crime. If you justify something as being reasonable, then if someone agrees then ypue have helped them to think that.

Yes, but it doesn't follow that you are also guilty of the crime - unless you actively induced them into it. I don't think, say, taking drugs should be a crime but that provides zero help for anyone caught taking drugs. Huxley, Leary, Burroughs, thought and wrote that taking some drugs was fine, but they are not complicit in any drug crimes thousands that read them may have been involved in. Individuals are responsible for the actions they take - not those of others.

Or take the recent case of the medical student that stabbed her boyfriend - many think either her crime was mitigated or at least she should not suffer the normal penalty for it - it does not mean they are supporting her in stabbing any more boyfriends.

As to the whole thing with Outrider, you thought just calling an argument something like 'barbarian social mores' was bad, but then you used the argument in precisely the way you objected to, but wasn't used by Outrider, by calling it bollocks.

Outrider put forward "barbarian social mores" as an argument against segregation, which it is not - it is an expression of his opinion of segregation (- btw I have no problem with that opinion). Similarly "bollocks" was my opinion of your assertion that ".. are complicit in it" - not intended to be an argument against it.
 

[jeremyp]

But when I asked you what you thought it was you were as much use as Anne Frank's drum kit.

You mean I didn't answer the question

No; I'm trying to clarify what political system you think the UK had prior to the Representation of the People Act 1918 if, as you say, it wasn't a democracy.

Why? Why does it matter? I'm more concerned that you are claiming a society in which half the adults are disenfranchised can be considered a democracy.

[Shaker]

You mean I didn't answer the question

Exactly.

Why? Why does it matter?

Because - as NS pointed out in #77 - you introduced the term without definition, so saying that a particular political system at this or that time wasn't a democracy is meaningless. Without saying what one is, saying that such-and-such a place isn't is just waffle.

[jeremyp]

Well you have to define democracy

Government by the people is the literal definition. However, I think that is is reasonable to extend that to government chosen by the people

I appeared to live in a 'democracy' in 1979 when two friends "broke the law' by a same sex kiss. Are you saying that in 1979 it wasn"t a democracy.

In which democracy in 1979 was a same sex kiss illegal?

[jeremyp]

Exactly.Because - as NS pointed out - you introduced the term without definition

Excuse me for using a common term while expecting other people to understand what it meant.

I honestly though that it would be completely uncontroversial to deny that the UK with half its population disenfranchised because of their sex was a democracy. It clearly wasn't.

[Shaker]

Excuse me for using a common term while expecting other people to understand what it meant.

I honestly though that it would be completely uncontroversial to deny that the UK with half its population disenfranchised because of their sex was a democracy. It clearly wasn't.

Clearly not.

So when - according to you - did the UK achieve democracy? We know you think it wasn't a democracy in 1918; is it now? If so, when, between 1918 and 2017, did it happen?

[wigginhall]

Reuters are reporting that independence will be declared on Monday.   It's difficult to believe this has moved so fast, but Madrid will surely not just accept this.   The king seems to have inflamed things even more. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spain could be out of the EU quicker than us.

[Nearly Sane]

Gerry Hassan being reasonable


https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/gerry-hassan/are-we-all-catalans-now-why-scotland-is-very-different

[Nearly Sane]

A court stops a meeting of an elected parliament? Mmm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41514398

[Nearly Sane]

Catalan police chief in court on sedition charges. I would have thought we are surely at a position where if the EU is to maintain any credibility it does have that it needs to somehow step in. The wringing of hands stuff isn't going to cut it.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41523250

[Rhiannon]

You've noticed wringing of hands? I hadn't thought the EU had gone that far.

[Nearly Sane]

Apparently Switzerland have offered to mediate.