Thanks for making my point for me twice here. It's philosophically gibberish for you to use the argument that something being against the law is by nature anti democratic because as you have illustrated here you don't believe that.
Why don't you just say "it's wrong" instead of "philosophic gibberish". From here it looks like you are dressing your points up in sophistry because you don't have a good argument.
If a law is made by a democratically elected government then it is undemocratic to break that law. If you don't like a law in a democracy, the correct procedure is to use the democratic process to change it.
The Catelonians are able to participate in Spanish democracy. The suffragettes of the early twentieth century UK were not able to participate in their "democracy". That is why you're analogy was fundamentally broken.
You are adding in a number of specific values for a democratic state and then saying that in that case the law applies - however, it's precisely the question of what is democratic that we are discussing. I see the right to look to have self determination, however that is defined, as part of what democracy is, and it's philosophically illogically for you to use the against the ;aw' card there because you don't think law is the determinant of democracy
Why is Puidgemont being in Belguim relevant as to whether he's making a good argument?
Who said it was? I said Puidgemont was hiding in Belgium and no European lawyers were leaping to his defence as evidence that the Spanish government is not breaking any EU laws. If the Spanish government was breaking an EU law why isn't Puidgemont hauling them through the European courts now. Probably because he has no case.
Actually I was thinking of 15, 19, and 20
15
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Catalonians have a right to a nationality. They are Spanish nationals. The second point allows you to change your nationality, not invent arbitrary new ones.
19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions with- out interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Catalonians have every right to express the opinion that Catelonia should be independent. Nothing here says they have the right to set up a new country within the boundaries of another already existing country.
20
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Doesn't say the assembly and association can be a new country. Also, perhaps you'd like to consider how the second point relates to Catalonians who want do not want to be part of a new country.
