The spanish government is trying to ban everything related to the referendum: physical urns, ballot papers, websites and apps, violating the most basic human rights. However, for each ban, 10 new websites/apps/bots will pop up. I created a chatbot so that people can vote at referendumvirtual.cat and it went viral in the last 48h. People will always find ways to excercise freedom of expression and decide its own future in peace.
The judge in Catalonia doesn't mind what it seems to you or anyone: her job is to interpret and apply the law. As the Supreme Court did, e.g., when they sent a Ministro del Interior to prison.
The law isn't written by the Spanish government either, it's written by Congress. A Congress in which nationalistic parties have more representation per number of voters than other parties with a higher number of total voters.
Insinuations that the judges in Catalonia are puppets of the Spanish government ignore the reality of Spain.
In parliamentary democracies "the government" often refers to the current administration in power. "The current government" means "the current PM and their cabinet". So "the government" tends to mean only the politicians at the top of the executive branch.
Oh my god of course it's not, unless by government you mean something broader than the executive branch, in which case you have to include the judiciary too. The three separate powers is the foundation of western democracies.
Yes, a U.S. "administration" is the closest analogy to a "government" in the sense usually used in reference to parliamentary systems when talking about a particular leader's government or a change of government, as opposed to the government of the country ("Europe" is sort of beside the point here, as its more about form of government than geographic location.)
The agencies in the executive branch are 99% civil service people, not political appointees, and they don't change over every four years. The administration is the President, the cabinet, and political appointees, so I think that's the equivalent term.
I think that's correct in an academic sense. But in the day-to-day usage, I think Obama's “this administration” lined up pretty well with Cameron's “this government”.
The thing that changes in a change of "government" isn't the whole executive branch -- most parliamentary systems have a well-developed permanent civil service. What changes are the PM, cabinet, and some subordinate political rather than civil service officers. That's pretty much a precise parallel to a U.S. "administration", not the whole of the executive branch.
I think the distinction stems from the fact that in France for instance if I want to refer to all three branches I say "l'État", but obviously in the USA "the state" is something different. "Le gouvernement" is only the président and his ministres.
Roughly, but the nomenclature is different. It's kind of the opposite of metonymy, it's using the more general word ("government") to refer to the more specific thing (the current set of politicians in power).
No, it doesn’t. It refers to the executive. Whenever we complain about the poor quality of government, (the VA, DMV,) we’re complaining about an organ of the executive (be it federal, state or municipal).
Er, not in the US. E.G. "those government fat cats in Washington" is more likely to mean the Congress (or at least the Congressmen you don't like) than anything else.
In the US, "the government" refers to all three branches. When we complain about the poor quality of government, we're frequently talking about Congress, too.
It most certainly isn't, not in Spain, nor in the US or most other democracies.
Separation of powers:
- Legislative (parliament, congress, senate, house of ..., many names - in Spain I think they call it Cortes Generales and it consists of two chambers, a senate and a congress)
This is wrong for the US, but I don't know the Spanish government structure enough to weigh in there.
The US Government is split into three branches, like you mentioned (Legislative, Executive, Judicial). Those three branches are the government. You are erroneously equating government to mean exclusively the executive branch of the government though.
I have no skin in the game, but I think that in a democracy if you forbid the people from at least expressing a yes/no on whether they should continue to be governed by the group currently governing them, you are breeding discontent.
If a democracy is nominally a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then the legitimacy of the government is driven by the continued support of the citizens. If a portion (or region) of your populous wants to no longer be collectively governed by the current group and would instead rather form their own government more attuned to their needs, why not at least let them find out if the other people in their group agree?
I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession.
So, to your point, perhaps the judge is just 100% about following the law, even if they disagree. They could just as well be a 'stay' voter imposing their will on others. In either case, the underlying laws that are forbidding the vote, binding or not, are what I find objectionable. But again, I have no skin in that particular game and am just a bystander.
> I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession.
You know, this makes sense on the surface, but when you start to think about the details, the trickiness of the situation becomes apparent.
Ok, so we are going to allow seccession. Well, how big a group does it have to be to be allowed to secede? Can I secede as an individual, and make my house an independent nation? A neighborhood? A city? A county? A US State? Each level is going to have its own problems.
Ok, lets imagine we agree on the minimum size we will allow to secede. Let's say we are in the USA, and we decide a state can secede.
Does it require a simple majority? 2/3rds vote? 3/4ths? We have a constitution for a reason, to protect the minority from the majority. We have decided the majority can't do certain things (like establish a state religion, or ban the practice of minority religions), but do we allow a secession vote to be an end-run around that idea? Could a majority just vote to secede and create a new nation that doesn't have the protections for minority viewpoints?
How do we even do the vote? Do we vote as individuals, or do our state representatives make the decision?
Ok, suppose we set decide an individual votes, and you need 2/3rds to vote to secede. Well, who gets to vote? Let's imagine it is Texas voting to leave; does Joe, the guy who moved from California 3 weeks ago get to vote in the secession? What about the guy who moved there 3 years ago, but lives a quarter of the time in South Dakota? What about people who own houses in Texas but live somewhere else?
I think a big part of this comes down to the fact that once you are a single nation, there is no longer a clear definition of who would have standing to secede. I don't need to request permission to move to a different state in the United States, I just do it. The entity that can make the decision to break apart is only the entire country; if Texas wants to secede, it would have to be as a decision the entire country makes together, since that is the unit of sovereignty that exists.
This is not impossible to organise. Scotland and the UK were in a very similar situation, and determined answers to those issues perfectly well, and held a referendum in which it was closer than expected but Scotland opted to remain part of the UK.
Spain has instead opted to prevent a vote of any kind taking place. Perhaps Spain is different, but I'd imagine that rarely goes well -- it seems to me that the fastest way to get someone to want independence is to tell them they can't have it.
And Spain was a dictatorship until 1978 (still well within living memory). Rushing in to arrest people for printing ballots seems like a way to stir memories of governments Madrid would probably prefer not to be associated with.
If one or more regions of the United States tried to do this, they would likely be arrested at gunpoint by SWAT teams and jailed indefinitely under terrorism laws for treason against the state. Spain is being relatively kind, comparatively.
I think you’re over complicating things and also not recognizing key differences.
Catalonia is a large autonomous region in present Spain with its own independent history, culture, and language which the government of Spain is trying to repress both historically and currently. For example, they limit the number of hours in school in which students are allowed to learn their own mother tongue. That’s nothing compared to what Franco did in outright banning Catalonian nationalism and thought.
The US was formed under different circumstances and laws. States joined with certain expectations. It does not have the same history or same struggles — it has different ones.
People in Spain dont move around like people in the US do. There is a notion of being part of a historical ethnic group in Catalonia and being raised in its mother tongue. Regardless, you have a large bloc that’s been there for many generations that can vote as single coherent bloc.
You can never rely on a majority to protect a minorities rights.
- Catalonia has never been an independent country. It was part of the Aragon Kingdom.
- The only mother tongue that students are limited to use in Catalonia is Spanish. All public schools use only catalan, except for Spanish language classes, which are treated as a foreign language, like English.
Spanish is not treated as a foreign language. What the fuck. Why is everyone spreading so many lies about Catalonia? Spanish is treated at the same level as Catalan. We do Spanish literature and grammar, which is not the case for English or French.
If anybody wants to know the truth, you can just go to the official Catalan Goverment education page: http://xtec.gencat.cat/ca/inici/
The page itself it's only in Catalan, with no translation into Spanish available. If you as a parent only speak Spanish, tough luck, you don't have the right to get to know official information about the education of your child in the official language of your country.
If you are curious, you can see the obligatory contents of any course (called Seqüències didàctiques). For instance, 1r ESO (roughly first high school year):
http://xtec.gencat.cat/ca/curriculum/eso/sequencies/
The only subjects that are not in Catalan are "Llengua castellana i literatura" (Spanish language) and "Llengua anglesa" (English language).
It is true that the education is mainly in Catalan, but I fail too see what's so bad about this? It's ironic that the people that complain that the education is in Catalan are those that do not live in Catalonia; the Catalans that complain about it are an extreme minority. Furthermore, Catalans are around in the middle in terms of Spanish level if you look at all the communities. You know what the problem is? You guys have a sense of superiority. We have been teaching in Catalan for a long time and we have never had a single issue, but you want to impose your language when we have been doing fine in a bilingual culture. Most TV channels are in Spanish, and people speak in Spanish in the streets all the time. And then you wonder why we want to leave Spain?
I didn’t say independent country. I said it’s an autonomous region.
Regarding the second point, I’m only echoing my friends commentary who is from Barcelona and flew home from San Francisco to vote. I can’t speak for him, but he talked at length about these laws. And I’m talking about language class here — not what language most classes are taught in.
"I don't need to request permission to move to a different state in the United States, I just do it."
Trying to equate EU and Spanish law with USA law is an exercise in futility. The point you are trying to make only makes sense if you consider the EU and its nation-states to be the counterpart to the US and its states. In that case, we are seeing a secession unfold right now with Brexit.
A better analogy would be if a group of counties in a US state wanted to break off and leave not only their home state, but the US overall, to become their own micro-nation, with the option to rejoin the US as the 51st state.
Are you saying that if someone living in Madrid wants to move to Barcelona, they have to request permission from the government?
I never mentioned the EU at all, I am not sure what you mean by that. Catalonia leaving Spain is an internal issue, not related to the EU. I am comparing Catalonia being a province of Spain to California being a state in the US.
My quick answer: 2/3, all the resident citizens, only the people in the region, any size (too small gets impractical and won't happen, if it does ok, good luck to them).
This is impractical already and it's happening: Catalonia wants to secede, but no one has any clue of what's happening afterwards: They'd want to become a separate nation. This nation would require to be recognized. If the Catalan nation would actually be recognized, it would not be part of the EU, thus have (at least initially) border checks, tariffs, no freedom of movement. It probably could keep the Euro as de-facto currency but have no power over its policy. It could apply to become a member of the EU, but a single veto of an existing member would block that. Now, which member might actually go veto a catalanian EU-membership? I can't possibly think of any, maybe you can. Even if not vetoed, this process takes years. What happens to people that live in Catalonia, but self-identify as spanish? What happens to people that live outside Catalonia, but self-identify as Catalonian? Their pensions, their work and residence permits? Their families and livelihoods? Shouldn't they be allowed to vote as well?
To be extra-clear: I don't think the hard-line course that the spanish government is pursuing is good, but I don't consider the forceful push for a referendum against spanish law and constitution is helping either.
So yeah, impractical, idiotic things happen all the time and the minority (in your proposal up to 1/3rd plus quite a few) is dragged into the mess. These things must be negotiated carefully and consider what will happen after secession. A referendum on a full treaty could work, see the separation of Czechoslovakia, but an unilateral declaration is just a mess. (see also: Brexit - where Theresa May just called upon support from the worlds leaders because of tariffs imposed by the US on Bombardier airplanes. If only you could be member of a major, powerful trading block.)
> Now, which member might actually go veto a catalanian EU-membership?
Spain, for starters. Belgium and Italy might consider it as well. Basically any country that has a notable successionist movement.
That's one of the things that was pointed out during the Scottish independence referendum: contrary to the SNP's hope, the EU pointed out that membership was not going to be automatic, and Spain did signal that it was not going to look kindly on Scotland applying to join.
I'm torn on this, and I think in general your statements make sense.
However, you're also arguing that the South in 1861 should've been allowed to secede, or at least have an unemcumbered plebiscite. Or the Kurds should be allowed to leave Iraq, which may set off regional catastrophe. Is that an accurate reading?
I would agree with your reading and at the same time I also think it is morally sound to go to war with the South to free up the slaves from the South.
Catalonia has been allowed to discuss. It’s just the referendum, as I understand it, that is being banned. I’m trying to think what would happen if California passed an independence referendum whose results were then nullified by the Supreme Court.
Not that guy here but yes as someone who is pro self determination I think the Kurds should be allowed to leave Iraq and the South should have been allowed to secede.
> I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession.
Nitpicking but considering the context of the news item, I think you meant "secession". Edit distance of 2 but makes a lot of difference in the meaning of your sentence.
Well, their job is to interpret the law and weigh in on it's validity. They have a lot of leeway in that task honestly. Unfortunately, they are not immune from politics.
I am one of the persons who think this is not the way to do the things and there should be an open debate. (and also that both sides are wrong right now). As we lack of this open debate about the independence I am interested to know your opinion about it, as how independent Cataluña wants to be. Does it want to be an associate state, or a completely independent state (that would also need to enter the Europena Union by its own)? This is something it is still not clear for me, and I have the feeling that some politics don't want to discuss it because their goal is to get rid of corruption trials and with any independence they will achieve it.
> Does it want to be an associate state, or a completely independent state (that would also need to enter the Europena Union by its own)? This is something it is still not clear for me,
Hmm, maybe if you want to know what the people of Cataluña want, maybe we should ask them? Perhaps by holding a referendum to get their views on the matter?
(Note that a similar situation in Scotland was addressed by doing exactly this. The referendum was done begrudgingly, and certainly was not popular in Westminster, but it did happen, as it should have -- even though I'm personally glad they voted to remain.)
> Perhaps by holding a referendum to get their views on the matter?
Playing devil’s advocate. Referenda may prematurely compress a multidimensional discussion space into binary options. There’s no “I’d prefer to stay in Spain if X, Y and Z.”
True, I was being slightly facetious. That's why the wording of the question is so very important, e.g. in the case of Scotland there was no "third option", which would have been further devolution of powers.
I am asking directly a catalan because our country didn't want to have that debate. This is a binding referendum, they have other open referendums before with low participacion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_self-determination_ref... ), in none of them the question I am making was made that clear.
It doesn't state whether to be an associate state or not. Some politics want to be independent but as an associate state to Spain, that means to remain in the EU and be part of Spain for most things.
But this is not what some politics defend and claim. Some say Cataluña as an independent associate state. That is why I made the question and we should have an open debate.
I don't know where you get those ideas from. Literally no one talks about an associate state, no one. Especially after these weeks repressive reactions by the Spanish Government.
No one is talking about anything. The attitude of politics of both sides is really an issue, and the worst thing is that they are both supported by the population, they get more votes because of this. I find completely stupid the central government not willing to talk about this while they negotiate with them about other things and even get their support. I still want a couple of Catalans tell me what they exactly want with the independence. I find a completely mistake to be independent, because being part of something bigger where people help each other is better. But I make this question several times here in this thread and still don't have an answer yet.
Are you serious? I said what I think in the 7th nested comment, I repeated 6 times I want to know what they think before saying what I think. You have to be kidding me.
Just a bit of feedback. This weekend there is a referendum in Cataluña, a province of Spain, about their independentism. This is not supported by the central government and it is consider illegal, and that is the reason the app was removed from the PlayStore, the court ordered it.
Nothing so see here unless you want to talk about politics.
As a side note, if we are talking about politics then this comes on the heels of the Kurdish vote to pursue independence from Iraq with 92% of voters in favor (I read 72% turn out).
Both the US and Britain condemned the vote, which is morally disgusting after the Kurds and Peshmerga supported both of them in at least 2 wars (Iraq War of 2003+ & fight against IS).
It's okay when developed countries invade developing countries to "spread democracy", but when ethnic subgroups attempt to seek independence non-violently it's not?
I think you should read the US and UK words on this referendum as "saying no but nodding yes". For geopolitical reasons (see: Bosphorous straits) the US/Western Bloc can't afford to piss off Turkey. But in a vacuum I'm sure the US and Brits are perfectly fine to see a Kurdish state. The result is that the US and UK will pay lip service to being anti-secession while doing nothing to stop it on the ground.
The US (and probably UK) don't want a Kurdish state formed out of the Kurdish areas of A Iraq because because, Syria, Iran, and Iraq have been united in opposing Kurdish separatism, and even if Iraq gets okay with it, a Kurdish state encourages separatists in Iran, Syria, and Turkey, and drives Syria and, more importantly, Turkey into deeper alignment with Iran.
Ideologically, the US and UK might support the Kurds goals, but geopolitically they do not. And geopolitical, especially with the US, trumps ideals in the Middle East.
> And geopolitical, especially with the US, trumps ideals in the Middle East.
Always has, everywhere, unfortunately. See our various exploits overthrowing legitimate democracies that sided with the USSR and replacing them with bloody-handed dictators that sided with us.
> but when ethnic subgroups attempt to seek independence non-violently it's not?
I didn't say anything, just it is against the law and the constitution (the same Catalans signed).
The big issue is that there is no an open debate for this. There is only fight without arguments. It is not clear what type of independence they are fighting for but they want to make a binding vote. And the central government doesn't want even to talk about a possible secession. They use it to gain votes in the rest of Spain (but at the same time they made negotiations with independants to change the law). This is more about corruption. The same way "spread the democracy" is more about getting local resources.
Would you say the same thing if Chinese or Venezuelan courts banned google apps that give information "considered illegal" there?
This is ridiculous. The app just gives a list of the schools to vote according to your address. Even if the referendum is "illegal" under spanish law, it is completely bananas to ban such an app.
I think that's the point of the parent poster--it's politics, not some crazy Google policy.
Google complied with the Spanish courts; complying with local laws is something Google does routinely (as does every other global corporation for that matter).
ETA: Aware that plenty of companies selectively choose what laws they follow (see Uber). Just generally their stated policy is "We comply with local laws"
However you feel about it, it would be incredibly worrying if Google started ignoring local laws because it disagreed with them; it doesn't have any particular moral high ground from which to make such decisions.
From Wikipedia: The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that a people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference. ... self-determination entails the "moral double helix" of duality (personal right to align with a people, and the people's right to determine their politics) and mutuality (the right is as much the other's as the self’s). Thus, self-determination grants individuals the right to form "a people," which then has the right to establish an independent state, as long as they grant the same to all other individuals and peoples.
You need a bit of feedback for this. There is a big amount of people in Cataluña that doesn't want the independence. There is people who wants a completely independence and doesn't understand the consecuences. And there is a lot of corrupted politics that wants only a partial independence to be avoid judge by the law.
I post a video in my first comment, take a look. It is nothing to be like what happens in China or Venezuela, the comparison is a non-sense.
EDIT: I forgot the people who want to use it as distraction to avoid talking about their corruption and other issues.
What a patronising comment. You describe four groups and why they are all wrong. Have you not considered that there might be people who want complete independence and _do_ understand the consequences? And that your “we know best” attitude might be feeding that?
The biggest issue is that we never had an open debate. When the first politics asked to be independent they wanted to be an associate state, so not really independent. Now politics say they want to be completely independent but at the same time they assume they will be in the European Union and Barcelona will still play in the Spanish League. So the group you are talking about is really a minority, they are different groups depends on the type of independence they have in mind. They don't fight against theirselves because the central government close any possible debate and blame all the independents the same way. (even all catalans)
Why wouldn't Barcelona continue to play in the Spanish League? Swansea (Welsh) currently play in the English Premier League (as did Cardiff City until they were relegated). Monaco play in the French league, San Marino in the Italian, there's a German team that plays in the Swiss leagues and an Austrian team that plays in the German league... Europe is a curious patchwork of teams playing in other countries...
The political video that you posted (only in spanish, and from 2015) is not very helpful, nor related to the current topic (the removal of an app from google due to the pressure of a government in a desperate crisis).
I always wanted to understand what type of independence do you want exactly. Could you give me your opinion? Between a completely independent state as if Cataluña had a cristal bubble around it and nothing can enter or leave it, and the current sittuation, how much independent Cataluña wants to be? I heard some people wants to be an associate State to Spain and others to be a completely separate state (which means things like enter again the european union)
The Spanish government hasn't pressured Google. A Catalan judge has given them a court order, and they are required by law to comply, like anybody else.
Is it form 2015? I though it was from this month. Anyway it was for background of the topic.
I just realized you might be Catalan. Don't get me wrong, I think people should have the right to decide by themselves, but you have to tell them the truth of what will happen and have an open dialog. Not what we are doing now on both sides of the problem.
Comparing Cataluña with Venezuela or China is a non-sense. Although we might end up as Venezuela (lot of corruption everywhere, poor people, etc), I think we are still far from it. The law has been like this since decades, and no one did nothing to change it, even the catalans.
No, because neither China or Venezuela are considered to be under the rule of law. Spain is, and it's constitution is pretty unambiguous on the matter:
Section 2. The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards
Aiding and abetting a crime is also a crime. "Just" giving a list of addresses of, say, brothels is a crime in a jurisdiction where prostitution is illegal.
Yes, it's bananas that the central Spanish government has this reaction, but it's a perfectly correct and legal reaction, and this is part and parcel of the idea that Google should abide by the law in the countries where it operates.
From a distance it seems that it would have been preferable to let the referendum go ahead with as little fanfare as possible, but make clear that it's outcome has no legal status whatsoever, but then again, I'm not in the hot seat, representing a national constituency that's overwhelmingly against independence.
> No, because neither China or Venezuela are considered to be under the rule of law.
Wait wat? China isn't considered to be under the rule of law? Using the passive voice is a really weaselly[1] way to hide the fact that it's highly significant who the entity making the call is.
[1] I don't mean this as an insult, I mean it in the specific sense used by eg Wikipedia in their guidelines. For example, saying something like "Some people consider XYZ to be true" to give the claim false authority.
A quick check of the definition confirms that 'rule of law' doesn't actually have anything to do with democracy, at least according to Google's results.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
It is the right of all humans to turn their backs upon their current rulers and establish for themselves a new regime.
Of course, doing so imprudently, or without adequate preparation, means that you will probably lose the war that will inevitably follow.
Perhaps Spain should not have written their Constitution such that if any part of it manages to secede, then the remainder of the nation is left without a foundation law. Seems like a bad plan.
The Supreme Court of the United States does not consider the Declaration of Independence to have the force of law. It’s merely inspirational. Quoting it is not a valid legal argument.
I imagine that Spanish courts do not recognize anything written by Americans to be legally binding, either.
What really matters is whether those considering armed rebellion have read it. They will determine whether those aforementioned judges get shoved up against the wall, or whether they will preside over the sedition trials later.
Spain has an independent judiciary. In China, and I guess also Venezuela although I know less about it, the judiciary is heavily influenced by the government.
Of course their governments see that as the way it should be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_law#Rule_of_law : > Despite the newly elevated role of courts in Chinese society, there still remains some consensus about defects in China's legal system in regards to progressing towards the rule of law.
I don't really see why you must have an independent judiciary to have rule of law. It's obviously good, but as far as I'm aware, rule of law is merely about the fact that the law applies to everyone. I don't think it says anything about how a court system (if it even needs to exist) should function? In an extreme case, if your Supreme Court was completely independent (i.e. no impeachment risk, which we don't have in the US) but had only 1 justice on it, then he would essentially be the dictator, since he could interpret any law to mean anything, and his decision would need to stand.
The judiciary in Spain sentenced a Ministro del Interior (the 2nd most powerful political position after President) to 10 years in prison.
All western democracies have the executive branch influence the judiciary in more or less degree. But it's a huge jump from that to single-party systems like China or, de facto, Venezuela.
Most if not all western democracies give the Government the power to pardon convicts. It's one of the checks the three branches have against each other. I, along with the vast majority of Spaniards, agree that it's been abused and should be restricted.
But if your argument is that the courts in all these countries are puppets of their governments based on the fact that they have the power to pardon later on, I don't think it's a strong argument.
As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt. The corruption in these countries and the actions they take which are based on decrees and fiat, rather than actions carried out equally and fairly according to defined law, have been widely documented.
> As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt.
You really don't seem to be willing to consider that two reasonable people can have differing opinions about the same situation. Who appoints these "reasonable outside observers"? And who defines who or what is "corrupt"? It all just boils down to what you yourself view as corrupt or reasonable.
I like to think of myself as both reasonable and not corrupt. I can't see how being obliged to give up your right to secede because a document you didn't write, sign, or agree to, says you give up that right is any different than the decree of a dictator.
You're frankly not a reasonable source of opinion on the rule of law if you don't consider laws you didn't write, sign or agree to, legal.
Also, if Spain is like most countries (but I really don't know this for a fact), but elected representatives will have signed or sworn or something similar to uphold the constitution.
I asked how a law you have nothing to do with is different from a dictator's decree. You have no say in either of them.
I think the legitimacy difference has to do with inalienable rights. People have a right to representation in their own governance. That's what the dictator gets wrong. People also have a right to liberty - i.e. To not be slaves. A "law" that says you can't ever secede is making people slaves by taking away their right to withdraw from the political union they're a part of.
The argument above is that it's legal because it's written down. What I hoped to call attention to is that simply writing something down and calling it a law isn't necessarily better than what a dictator does.
This is the point where I would say, 'i don't care, let's talk about it'.
Perfectly correct for them? Okay, cool. Also perfectly correct for the rest of the world to discuss... On freely accessable platforms...
Look I'm not blaming you mseebach, and thank you for the insightful information, but from an outside point of view. 'I don't care' what the Constitution says.
I can't do pretty much anything frm where I am, but I'll certainly pay attention to censorship for profit. It may not be useful, but perhaps one day it will.
As for you personally, stay safe mate, be careful. I hope everything goes well for your country:-)
It's perfectly correct and legal to discuss it within Spain too. (And it's been discussed non-stop for years).
The app ban is a court in Catalonia preventing some public servants to keep using their positions and public funds to go on with an act that's been deemed illegal.
Three years ago there was a “poll” that was organised nominally by non-gubernamental organisations. Turnout was small and control on who voted or how many times was also not great. It was closer to a demonstration, but of course didn´t have any binding result.
(Previous President of Catalonia and other officials have been recently convicted of using around 4 million euros in promoting and organising the event. As this is spending public money is something not oficially approved in the budget, it’s ilegal. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-13/former-ca... 0
I guess it depends on what do you mean by “referendum”. Private citizens could also organize with private funds a US presidential election, but the winner wouldn’t become POTUS...
>Yes, it's bananas that the central Spanish government has this reaction, but it's a perfectly correct and legal reaction, and this is part and parcel of the idea that Google should abide by the law in the countries where it operates.
No. "Perfectly correct" and "legal" are two completely different things.
Voting to take an illegal action is not legal or morally correct, according to common Western concepts of natural rights. Secession is an act of last resort after all other reasonable measures to resolve a conflict have been exhausted.
Let's leave the current issue aside and speak to your general statement - that voting for an illegal action is typically considered immmoral.
Do you mean to say this is basically universal?
I'm American. I would not expect many people here to say holding a vote can be a crime. Many people would say that secession itself may be a crime even if it was voted for (while others would say the vote establishes the right to secede).
But they would say holding a vote is a right that should be protected by killing the people trying to prevent the vote from happening, if necessary.
A particular election can be illegal in a democracy, a government can certainly be democratic and prohibit subordinate governments or agencies from holding elections on matters that are reserved to the central government.
This may be undesirable (and, where the election is non-binding or only binding on the entity holding it, perhaps illiberal), but not inconsistent with democracy.
They do have an action plan and they tried before and people was put in jail because of this. It is a vote for secession organized unilaterally by some Catalans.
You want to separate from the rest of the country, them make an open dialog, explain what exactly do you want, negotiate with the central government and ask to the population. Not what they are doing right now. I find it very stupid (for both sides, because it is the others side faults too)
I honestly don't understand how can one be at the same time afraid that a vote is won by a majority (possibly involving a quorum as many referendums do) and at the same time point out that it's organized by a minority.
Clearly the definition of who should decide these matters is crucial: at one side some people believe that it's a local matter: Catalans should chose. In the other hand, others think that that since this affects the rest of Spain, all Spaniards should have a say.
Only in this context is clear how a (possible) majority of Catalans can still be considered a minority in a broader scope.
The issue of sovereignty is central but somewhat arbitrary if you think: imagine that before/during the brexit referendum the rest of the European population (or at least Brits living abroad, ehm) were asked if Britain was allowed to leave. After all, it was something that in a way or another could have affected them, right?
But no, it's "obviously" not the same, because "countries" and the illusion of well defined borders between ethnicities and political entities. We grown so used to it, but one should not forget how this bond has been applied through force and coercion.
I think the problem is that the binding referendum is not about the independence of the Catalans, but it is more related to the politic corruption and fights among politics. Otherwise there would have been an open debate in the whole country, but a lot of politics stopped it to happen (in both sides).
I think in many first-world nations, distributing info intended to enable others to commit a crime is, itself, a crime. (Which is not to suggest I agree with the state's legal ruling here.)
Edit: but of course the referendum itself being illegal does not necessarily imply that voting in it, is illegal. And it seems more reasonable that the state could determine the results of the referendum to be non-binding per their constitution, rather than being justified in preventing it from taking place.
You're probably right, but I think Google could make an argument that any app which is even adjacent to "illegal activity" may be a violation of their ToS, regardless of the app's actual legal status. And there's much less argument to be made here for Google's obligation to tolerate this use-case because their store does not operate as a monopoly on the platform like Apple's does.
As of Backpage v Dart, the activities on Backpage are presumptively lawful. This isn't to say that every action that occurs on Backpage is above board (just as not every transaction on Facebook is).
That said, the case was premised on a Sheriff making it his mission to shut them down, so it's probably worth finding out what Google did during that time.
This isn't just about politics. True general purpose computing (i.e. free from the walled gardens of Google and Apple) wouldn't be able to block something like this; irrespective of what you think of the politics. We've taken the path where governments can decide what programs we can and can't run on our devices.
Which would mean any overseas sites wouldn't care as they'd be outside their jurisdiction, or Spain would need to implement a Great Firewall like China.
"Actually I'd argue that it's more important because the government doesn't support it."
A considerable number of Catalans don't support it either.
When you have an 'unofficial referendum' - likely to be boycotted or ignored by those not support of it - you can possibly arrive at a situation wherein the 'majority of votes cast' opted for independence, but wherein this is not remotely an accurate reflection of the actual populations wishes.
In politics, there's no such thing as 'a referendum that has no legal binding' - the results of the referendum, however inaccurate, will be used by political activists the world over as 'claims of legitimacy'.
Either there is a clear, unambiguous, clearly worded, properly managed referendum (with some kind of legal status i.e. 'not binidng' or 'binding' or whatever) - or there is nothing.
De-facto partisan-managed referendums are not good.
"A considerable number of Catalans don't support it either."
So what? Just ignore it then.
As for the majority of votes, just tally them vs total population. Simple.
But now that it's blocked, they have put it in the spotlight.
"Either there is a clear, unambiguous, clearly worded, properly managed referendum (with some kind of legal status i.e. 'not binidng' or 'binding' or whatever) - or there is nothing."
Oh bullshit, have you ever seen any political party say anything 100% clearly, that's just raising the bar.
If it's a small minority voting, then why should they care? If it's something that may be popular... Well we're seeing where this is going now, arnt we.
+ If a considerable number of people ignore a referendum it loses it's legitimacy.
"As for the majority of votes, just tally them vs total population. Simple."
No. Absolutely not. This is not how either elections or referendums are done.
"Oh bullshit, have you ever seen any political party say anything 100% clearly, that's just raising the bar."
I'm afraid you are dead wrong. The 'wording' of a referendum is a very important and contentious thing - otherwise it loses legitimacy and legal standing.
As for 'bullshit' - there is actually a law in Canada, called the 'Clarity Act' that legally requires referendum questions to be clear.
This is because separatists want to soften the wording of the question 'i.e. we seek to renegotiate our status' - thereby getting the 10% or so on board who really don't want to separate, but want more power. Those against the referendum want a hard question like: "Do you want to separate from XYZ and loses your passport" etc..
"If it's a small minority voting, then why should they care?"
Because the political entities who directed the 'bad referendum' will use it as political capital to flame the flames.
Either it's done right - or not at all.
Ambiguous referendums are a disaster for everyone.
Without understanding the history of Spain and Cataluña it is easy to make false assumptions. I post a video in my original comment that talks about this. Take a look to it. The referendum is a big mistake and going against it it is also another big mistake. Things are being done the wrong way on both sides.
Look I understand you have a horse in this race, but how can anyone be breaking the law by stating their preference. Just because you don't agree with it, as long as there is no physical harm, or enticement to cause harm, than it shouldn't be banned.
I could stand on a hilltop and say my hairy left testicle is god and should be worshipped, that doesn't make it true(bloody hell I hope not).
My point of view that while there may be unpopular views(some for good reason), banning them doesn't fix the problem. Education and rational conversation is the key(as long as they arnt backed by voilence: see ww2 for an example of when talking doesn't work)
> how can anyone be breaking the law by stating their preference
To be clear, nobody in Spain is against the law for stating their preference, in this or any matter.
> as long as there is no physical harm, or enticement to cause harm, than it shouldn't be banned.
One could argue that wasting public funds on this does harm. But at the end of the day, if we want to change the law, we have democratic mechanisms for that.
In what way would a referendum where every single person (of voting age) in the region could vote would 'not remotely reflect the actual will of the people'?
This sounds like the sort of explanation a dictator would give for why a democratic vote would not tell the 'true story' of whether they really loved the dictator.
Just giving everyone the ability to vote isn't sufficient to make it a legitimate vote. You can skew the demographics in your favour by primarily promoting it in pro-independence areas (the Spanish government aren't going to lend it legitimacy by making sure everyone is aware of it). Furthermore, if you have a vote run by an unaccountable group who have a preferred outcome, what is to stop them re-running it, say, every week? Eventually the people who don't see it as legitimate will stop turning up, even if they did initially, and you will get a de facto independence majority.
FWIW, these are issues in theory with most elections. The difference is the organising party (i.e. the government) can be held to account (if voted out, they can't re-run the vote), and an official vote will have groups from all sides rallying around it so the demographics can't be skewed as easily.
Yes, referendums aren't held in a vacuum, the wealthy, powerful, and the government can use their resources to influence the result.
This happened in the UK with Brexit. The government opposed it, the bank of England, all the major institutions opposed it, the government spent millions on propaganda leaflets, and so on. It was unthinkable that the Brexiteers could win, and yet against all odds they did.
In this situation of course the scales are tipped similarly - while the regional government may want to spend on influencing the election, the financial firepower of the national government (who oppose independence) totally outstrips them, so if the referendum would be unfair it would be because it would disproportionately be tipped against independence.
It's not a perfect system - but a referendum is the best system available for answering these questions.
"In what way would a referendum where every single person (of voting age) in the region could vote would 'not remotely reflect the actual will of the people'?"
---> Because if it's not official, most people wont't vote.
It's laying saying 'why doesn't an online poll reflect the will of the people'.
It isn't official in the sense that the Spanish government has acted to declare it unofficial in various ways. That doesn't make it unofficial or mean that most people won't vote (if that were really the case the Spanish government wouldn't be using force and arresting lots of people to do whatever they can to prevent it).
In terms of legality according to the UN (as I have linked for you above) it is the national Spanish government who are acting illegally here because they are violating the fundamental rights of the Catalonians, which supersede and regional or national laws / constitutions. Spain has a moral and international legal obligation to not oppose the referendum.
The EU, which actually has jurisdiction, is basically siding with Madrid, they will only recognize it if it's legally sanctioned by Madrid.
As for the local Catalan 'law' - it can be superseded by the National Courts. Catalonia does not have 'treaties' with the rest of Spain - there are actual laws.
If it's declared illegal - it's invalid. The police are shutting down dozens of voting centres, there's no way to know in the end the degree to which it's 'valid' ergo, it's not.
There is either a clear and legal referendum, or none.
The Catalonians should have had a referendum that was within constitutional boundaries.
What they should have done was worded the question so that it was legal, like 'do you want to attempt to renegotiate our status with Madrid' - or something like that.
The whole point of fundamental rights is that they are fundamental! Wikipedia: 'They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being", and which are "inherent in all human beings" regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal'
So they apply to the Catalonians in the same way that they apply to the people of North Korea, they are applicable to the Catalonians even if Spain specifically had a law saying they aren't. Of course Spain is a member of the United Nations and is a signatory to all of the UN human rights laws. So you are quite wrong that fundamental human rights do not apply in Catalonia. These laws enshrined in international treates are 'actual laws' as you put it - and they're serious, far more important and serious than any laws the Spanish government might otherwise pass.
This is all a discussion about what is 'legal', and while you can argue that the referendum is illegal and I can counter that making it illegal is in of itself illegal, this kind of misses the point. If Kim Jong-un passes a law stating it is legal to commit genocide within his borders a defender of his could argue that the killing is 'legal', but what good is it to know that? We know that the right to life is fundamental in the same way that the right to self determination is fundamental - violating either of them are morally abhorrent abominations which must be opposed by any right thinking person.
So we know for certain that Spains actions violate international law, and that their actions and those who defend them are morally abhorrent -- does this invalidate the referendum? You want to argue that the validity of the election is binary, but obviously that is ridiculous. When dictators shut down voting stations or kill voters that doesn't invalidate the entire election. Yes it makes it more difficult to know what would have happened had they not illegally and immorally violated people's fundamental human rights, but it doesn't make it impossible.
In fact if you think about it in many ways it makes the outcome easier to interpret. After all, the overriding reason why any political body acts to suppress the electorate's ability to vote is because they fear the outcome will go against them. When Spain busses in thousands of police to arrest people and occupy schools to prevent a referendum it is obvious that they fear if they don't do that the electorate will be heard and they will lose.
I watch this with quiet fascination - I am not Spanish (or Catalonian), I have no horse in this game. I'm English, and we had a similar situation play out over here, the Scottish people wanted to become independent. Like with the Spanish situation under our national law we had 'no obligation' to allow such a referendum, but I guess the British government have a different approach to our moral and international law obligations, and so the UK government granted the Scottish government permission to have a referendum. The Scots voted to remain in the UK, which I'm very glad about.
For those of us looking at Spain from the outside the actions of the Spanish government look pretty abominable, and the arguments deployed by their supporters in suppressing the Catalonian people are pretty horrifying. I see you energetically defending the Spanish actions on HN and I wonder whether you realise what your words and arguments sound like to someone on the outside who is not a 'true believer' in suppressing the Catalonians.
You actually have to demonstrate why you think the international UN law defining fundamental human rights which Spain is a signatory to is 'not relevant' and that the UN has 'zero authority' on interpreting when the UN laws defining human rights have been violated.
Also - by stating that 1/2 Catalonians wouldn't agree you are giving away that 1/2 would. That's the point. If you are suppressing the fundamental human rights of 1 person you're violating them, and you admit they are violating about 3.5 million people's rights.
People who think the whole thing is a travesty (an illegal vote to discuss an illegal subject) are not going to vote, is easy to predict that the “yes” is going to win.
People who think they should remain part of Spain will go out to vote No because otherwise Yes would win and that would provide a lot of momentum to leave.
Again, this is the sort of argument used by anti-democratic regimes to discredit referendums and elections. "Oh of course Yes won, there is a large silent majority of No voters who feel so strongly about this subject they thought it would be better not to express their vote and prevent a Yes landslide" (said no serious person ever)
"Baloney.
People who think they should remain part of Spain will go out to vote No because otherwise Yes would win and that would provide a lot of momentum to leave.
"
No, this has already happened in other referendums, people 'boycott it' or don't vote.
Why would anyone but 'supporters' even vote in an unofficial referendum?
As it happened in Venezuela and many other places:
The opposition did not take part in the election (not a referendum) where there is good reason to believe the result would be rigged so there was no way to vote for them. As you well know the situation in Venezuela is incomparable to the situation in Catalonia. Maduro has arrested the opposition and has totally destroyed the country.
The referendum in Catalonia is valid because the Catalonians have a fundamental moral right to self determination. From Wikipedia: The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that a people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference. ... self-determination entails the "moral double helix" of duality (personal right to align with a people, and the people's right to determine their politics) and mutuality (the right is as much the other's as the self’s). Thus, self-determination grants individuals the right to form "a people," which then has the right to establish an independent state, as long as they grant the same to all other individuals and peoples.
The UN have also been very clear specifically on the referendum that regardless of whatever regional or national laws there are, Spain MUST respect the fundamental rights (which trump constitutional or national laws because of their fundamental nature) of the Catalonians. The UN said '[Spain must ensure they] do not interfere with the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and public participation [of the Catalonians].' They go on to be very clear "Regardless of the lawfulness of the referendum, the Spanish authorities have a responsibility to respect those rights that are essential to democratic societies”
So to be clear - according to the UN office of the high commissioner of human rights, the Spanish government are violating the fundamental rights of the Catalonians. This is an illegal and wholly immoral act. It is not sufficient to declare that it is 'illegal' for them to attempt self determination.
"The referendum in Catalonia is valid because the Catalonians have a fundamental moral right to self determination."
The Spanish courts have rejected this, and the most official statements coming out of the EU by Junker, stand by Madrid's position.
Your Wikipedia quote is not relevant in this case. Both legally and pragmatically.
For example: the city of Manchester cannot separate from the UK by referendum.
The city of Montreal, as I mentioned, contemplated this during the Quebec referendum and it was squashed.
By the UN's vague definition, and 'individual' could claim that their 'home' is sovereign.
Also, legally, the UN has no jurisdiction in this affair.
But most pragmatically - the referendum is invalid because it's not being conducted properly. The state police are shutting down polling stations, urging people not to vote, indicating that 'it's invalid' therefore deterring a lot of people from voting.
There is zero legitimacy in this referendum, legally.
You realise that it's not up to the Spanish courts to work this out right? Similarly the EU is irrelevant here. What is critical the interpretation of the UN when it comes to whether UN enshrined human rights are being violated.
We don't listen to Kim Jong-un when he or his courts declare that his citizens rights are not being violated, and neither is the interpretation of the Spanish courts very relevant.
Junker is not a UN human rights expert, he's a politician who has a history of making statements not because they are true but because they support his political aims. It's ridiculous to think that his statements have any meaningful bearing on determining whether Spain are violating international UN laws which they have signed up to. What matters is the understanding of the UN experts on those laws.
When the UN says '[Spain must ensure they] do not interfere with the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and public participation [of the Catalonians].' They go on to be very clear "Regardless of the lawfulness of the referendum, the Spanish authorities have a responsibility to respect those rights that are essential to democratic societies” they are saying that Spain has broken international law, laws that it is a signatory to and so has to obey.
The city of Manchester and the Catalonian people obviously have very different properties among those which are relevant to self determination as you are well aware. I know you realise this so I won't engage with your facile comparison further.
Your pragmatic argument fails for the same reason that: "Mugabe: The election is invalid because I ordered the police to go around beating up and arresting everyone who might not vote for me. Therefore the election has no legitimacy, because errr... I intentionally tried to ruin it because I was afraid of the people?"
Of course it will have legitimacy 'popularly' if you go around smashing the skulls of black people you create a situation where public support for them surges. Spain (and your) attempt to evilly suppress the Catalonians and deny them their fundamental human rights is morally evil and rightly draws support to their side (regionally and internationally).
Could you please explain how to you 'some racist group' is equivalent to the Catalonian regional government, the democratically elected government of 7.5 million people?
Make it some major of a southern village, or even the whole State of Alabama, if you prefer. It would't make the question about Jim Crow laws more legitimate.
The legitimacy of 'Jim Crow laws' would be determined by how people voted - and presumably people would vote No. The 'legitimacy' of a referendum is related to who is trying to organise it - here it is the democratically elected government of 7.5 million people - that's why your initial 'some racist group' was a poor analogy.
Your analogy is totally invalid anyway. This vote is not equivalent to a call for racism, it's a call for self determination. The Catalonians have a fundamental moral right to self determination. From Wikipedia: The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that a people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference. ... self-determination entails the "moral double helix" of duality (personal right to align with a people, and the people's right to determine their politics) and mutuality (the right is as much the other's as the self’s). Thus, self-determination grants individuals the right to form "a people," which then has the right to establish an independent state, as long as they grant the same to all other individuals and peoples.
The UN have also been very clear specifically on the referendum that regardless of whatever regional or national laws there are, Spain MUST respect the fundamental rights (which trump constitutional or national laws because of their fundamental nature) of the Catalonians. The UN said '[Spain must ensure they] do not interfere with the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and public participation [of the Catalonians].' They go on to be very clear "Regardless of the lawfulness of the referendum, the Spanish authorities have a responsibility to respect those rights that are essential to democratic societies”
So to be clear - according to the UN office of the high commissioner of human rights, it is the Spanish government who are acting illegally in violating the fundamental rights of the Catalonians.
The political parties opposed to the “process” (who by the way got a majority of the votes in the last local elections) are telling people not to participate. With the exception of Podemos, or whatever is the name of that coalition, which doesn’t have a clear position.
Of course they are, if you think you're going to lose a referendum you can try the "if No don't vote, that way we can delegitimise the result" card. That they do so doesn't invalidate the referendum any more than it would with any other anti-democratic leader or organisation that tried to prevent the populace being able to clearly and publicly vote.
The referendum is invalid from the get-go. You said that “People who think they should remain part of Spain will go out to vote No”. Do you really think they will? Maybe you’re right and they won’t pay attention to the “anti-democratic leaders and organizations” (!) asking them not to participate...
Yes I do think that people who care about the results of a referendum will go out and vote because that is what people do when they care about the result.
I also believe you that some of the people opposed will not vote, but that they do this because those opposed to a democratic referendum fear the likely result will go against them does not invalidate the referendum.
First, it is against the law because the court has said so. Another topic of discussion is the law, but this is something some people want to talk about and there are way to do something like this. Some politics are open to discuss, most of them no (mostly because the use this as a distraction for other stuff).
The referendum is a big mistake because of what you said, lack of communication and not willing to talk on both sides. I think it is very stupid, you have the central government full of corruption that uses Cataluña and the independence to get votes from the nationalist and as a distraction. You have the Catalan politics that want an independence but remaining in Europe, with (economic) support from the government of Spain and only want to change a little bit the law in their interest and don't provide economic resources to the rest of Spain. And at the same time the central government used the catalonians politics to get the votes they needed at the same time given them some privileges other parts of Spain doesn't have.
"First, it is against the law because the court has said so."
.... What? If I said you couldn't talk about me slaughtering 1000 people would that be okay if I was an officer of the court. That's a stupid reason.
"there are way to do something like this" - which are being blocked!(sorry to cut off a bit, but you can read up for full quote).
"The referendum is a big mistake"...(he said more). You may be right, but who will know if they can't communicate.
At the end of the day I don't agree nor disagree with your personal politics, but silencing an opponent only gives them more power in the long run, and in the short term makes everyone wonder what is being hidden.
Edit: changed not to nor dn autocorrect
Edit2: jorgemf -sory threads too long I can't reply to you.
Look I don't 'disagree' with you per se, but I'll never agree with censorship.
It doesn't matter who agreed to what, why should any government stop it's citizens from talking about an issue.
The government is suppose to be a representive of the people, no mater what country you are in(if not, expect those same people to remove that government eventually).
They may very well be wrong, but unless it is discussed in an open forum, it will only lead to resentment and eventually bloodshed.
It has been a visible fact over human history, repressing the speech of the populace, has never worked well for the repressors.
Funny you mention that. I live here (I´m not Spanish or Catalan) and all I see is towns and cities completely plastered with variants of "Vote yes!" and not a single flyer, banner, or poster with "Vote no". There is no information, only the whipping up of the masses. Yesterday in my village there was a massive banner stating "Say hello to the Catalan Republic!".
All of this is paid for by public funds. It shouldn´t be.
There is no "organised anti-independence movement" as such. There are anti-independence political parties, but they lack the funding of the insanely massive PR campaign that is currently being waged.
Then there is the intimidation. I am a quiet neighbor, don´t bother anyone, and mostly want to get on with my life in peace. I frequently have Catalans yelling at me to get the fuck out of their country. The xenophobia here, as well as in Barcelona, is at an insane pitch. These fuckers can have their independence, and sink in the sea for all I care. I have lived in many countries over the years, and have never been in a less welcoming place.
Sorry to hear that. I don't live in Barcelona but I though there were town there more open minded as Barcelona is more multicultural. Where city do you live?
Nacionalist can be very xenofobes if you are not catalán. You ask them for something in Spanish and they reply you in Catalan.
It was the constitutional court, and there were a trial. The constitution says it is illegal, the same constitution the catalans signed years ago. They cannot do it unilaterally.
Don't get me wrong, I want them to decide by themselves. But I want politics to tell them the truth and don't use the population for their own interests. And don't use the referendum to make people hate other people as they are doing now. First tell them the type of independence you want, it is not the same to be completely independent than a associate state. I think people are fighting for the independence but for different ones. And don't use the indpendence of cataluña to put the rest of spain against them (some politics said you should vote them to avoid breaking spain, and few months later making deals with the politics of Cataluña that support the independence and giving them more privileges).
Some politics want to open a public debate, but other don't let them (sadly)
> why should any government stop it's citizens from talking about an issue
They shouldn't, but what happens it that the use the independence to get votes. So basically a lot of Spain supports the censorship (sadly again)
> but unless it is discussed in an open forum, it will only lead to resentment and eventually bloodshed.
This is what I think is happening right now. The bloodshed is starting.
I think we agree in a lot of things. I am not against a vote for independence, I am against everything is happening around and how is everything happening. This is not the way.
First that I am getting a lot of downvotes because I don't support any side and I will get more in this comment.
It is hard to sum up everything. I am going to give you my biased opinion. We were a dictatorship 40 years ago, he died and put a king to govern Spain. The king created the democracy. We always had very different cultures (vasque country, cataluña). They got privileges during the democracy. Cataluña is an important province of Spain with strong economics (some of them because of the past privileges). They just decide as they have different language/culture they don't want to be part of spain and they want do things like they want (like any one that wants to be independent). The government (formed by people who supported or it is linked somehow to the dictatorship in the past) used the problem of Cataluña to get votes, but at the same time they make deals with the Catalans. Catalans always blame central government. The corruption is quite relevant in the country (all the country), the first Catalan politics who wanted the independence are under trials because of corruption, the same for the central government. Now, I think, some catalan politics want the independence to avoid the spanish law. The central government use the catalans to avoid talking about the corruption issues. Both sides are putting people against people. Only few people really want to have an open debate, but noone lets them. Fight is starting. We didn't even have an open debate to discuss the type of independence, like competletely independent or an associate state, but Catalans want a binding vote right now.
IndyRef didn't hammer out all the details first either. Neither did Brexit. Before the detail-hammering starts, it needs the decision that people actually want it in the first place (the referendum) otherwise it's all moot.
A two-referendum model isn't necessarily a bad idea -- if you hold the first referendum on negotiating independence, and the second on executing it. Though I suspect you'd need to make that clear before the first referendum, otherwise it'd seem like "Hmm, that wasn't the answer we wanted; perhaps if we ask you the question again..."
It having gone this far, though I could be wrong, I can't currently see denying a referendum working for anybody. Spain seems to be pursuing a kind of One Spain policy, and I doubt the Catalan populace will go along with that -- seems more likely to get their hackles up to say there's no way they could have independence even if they all wanted it.
This is worse done than Brexit. Brexit had a public debate, this didn't. For some people being independent also means to be part of the European Union, let the Barcelona FC play in the Spanish league, getting funding from the central government of Spain, no borders, etc. There is only hate in both sides that has been fed by politics during years. I am quite sure an open debate would have reach a middle point that would have make happier everybody. Catalans that don't want to be independent are also angry with the central government because they want the right to vote. Numbers were never made public but 80% of catalans want the right to vote and only 33% have stated clearly they want to be independent whatever it means. If people go to vote probably they won't be independent, but with this referendum how is being done a lot of people are not even going to care and only nacionalist will vote.
I think I will memorize and remember your comment to show that America is special and totally unique in the world. I presume you're a European, and you call it nothing special that the State forced the removal of a private form of expression.
In America every single adult of average or slightly below average intelligence knows they have a first-amendment right to say whatever they want. The Supreme Court, which is totally separate from the executive and legislative branches, and has members appointed for life (who often don't end up beholden to the people who appointed them) interpret the Constitution with total independence.
While you call Spain's action "nothing to see", America is a shining beacon of free speech whose transcendent importance has not even made it to the average educated person (you) in Europe, let alone the whole of its population.
Anyone who objects to American exceptionalism would do well to reflect on the parent comment's nonchalance.
>Just a bit of feedback. This weekend there is a referendum in Cataluña, a province of Spain, about their independentism. This is not supported by the central government and it is consider illegal, and that is the reason the app was removed from the PlayStore, the court ordered it.
>Nothing so see here unless you want to talk about politics.
What is happening currently shows that the right to free speech is not respected by the Spanish government.
AFAIK, Spain doesn't have any law that guarantees the citizens are free to speak there mind without fear of censorship from the government. It does however have laws restricting speech (glorification of crimes).
The US on the other hand, included it in the first amendment of its constitution.
Much of the rest of the world does not have the guarantees on free speech that the US does (it is hard to get much freer). Germany for example restricts criticism of the state, denial of the holocaust, etc.
The US is fairly unique in preserving the freedom of speech to the degree that it does. There are others such as Poland or Norway that also make strong guarantees, but Spain is not among them.
> What is happening currently shows that the right to free speech is not respected by the Spanish government.
You might have missed the non-stop concentrations of people claiming for independence. Or if you think the app being banned from the Play Store is by a private individual developed using their own funds, you should know it's not the case.
> You might have missed the non-stop concentrations of people claiming for independence.
Are you saying that the Spanish have the right to free speech because they claim independence? Any person can do whatever is within their power (such as speak their mind or kill somebody); the right to free speech is the assurance that the Government won't interfere (as they should with murder).
> Or if you think the app being banned from the Play Store is by a private individual developed using their own funds, you should know it's not the case.
I am not sure what you are trying to insinuate with this.
I'm just speculating with what made you think this:
> What is happening currently shows that the right to free speech is not respected by the Spanish government.
because you didn't explain it.
The Spanish have the assurance, from our Constitution, that the Government won't interfere with concentrations claiming independence, or whatever else. Thus, by your own definition (and mine) we have the right to free speech.
> The Spanish have the assurance, from our Constitution, that the Government won't interfere with concentrations claiming independence, or whatever else. Thus, by your own definition (and mine) we have the right to free speech.
Which section(s) are you referring to? I couldn't find anything about interfering in concentrations claiming independence or free speech? I did find Section 71 stating that members of Congress have free speech in order to do their functions, but that implies normal people do not.
Hi, I'm the poster that originally objected to the lack of first-amendment protection in Spain, and the nonchalance of the other poster with regard to this fact. I just read your link and I like it. I'd like to quote it so it's part of our thread here:
>1. The following rights are recognised and protected:
> a) the right to freely express and spread thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, in writing or by any other means of reproduction.
> b) the right to literary, artistic, scientific and technical production and creation.
> c) the right to academic freedom.
> d) the right to freely communicate or receive truthful information by any means of dissemination whatsoever.
I didn't quote points 2, 3, 4 and 5 immediately after, you can click on the PDF parent poster quoted they're on page 16 and page 17 there. They're about prior censorship, mass media, and a couple of exceptions concerning privacy, and how publications can be seized.
The language I did quote, though, is very good. So the question is, why doesn't this apply to the case we're reading about?
This is what we're reading about (quoted from our article):
>The app, available on Google Play until just before 7 p.m. on Friday, helps people to find their polling station via their address and shows the closest polling stations on Google Maps via GPS, the name of the town or keywords.
>It also allows users to share links to polling station locations.
It's directly under point A "by any other means of reproduction" and it's under point b "technical production and creation" and point d "freely communicate any truthful information by any means of dissemination whatsoever."
Is information about polling stations, distributed by app, truthful information disseminated by any means whatsoever? Clearly it is.
So why doesn't what we just quoted have teeth? This goes directly to what I'm saying that although it might be written somewhere, the (excellent) language you referred to doesn't have the force that the first amendment does in the United States.
The problem here is that a court has determined that the referendum is illegal. So helping to do an illegal act is not allowed, and preventing it is one of the exceptions of free speech. I think advertising for drug dealers in the USA also wouldn't be covered by free speech.
The other problem is using public funds for something illegal. The use of public money is very restricted in Spain. There is a body of civil servants (interventores) whose only job is approving and supervising every euro spent by any gobernment entity. If there is public spending involved in the development or promotion of this app this is a big problem.
What do free speech have to do with a local government breaking laws? If the Catalan government proclaims next week the “independence” of their new republic (but maintaining the Spanish passports, of course), do you think the reaction from the Spanish government will also be an attack on their right to free speech?
> What do free speech have to do with a local government breaking laws?
Censorship is what it has to do with. The Spanish Government does not want the Catalan government to be able to organize people and thus has tried to remove the people's right to communicate with each other about it.
I was directly addressing the parent comment. It also addressed free speech.
> do you think the reaction from the Spanish government will also be an attack on their right to free speech?
It may be; that entirely depends on what the reaction is.
> The Spanish Government does not want the Catalan government to be able to organize people and thus has tried to remove the people's right to communicate with each other about it.
This has very little relation to the actual situation:
- The Catalan government, and anybody really, can organize people and the Central Government can't do anything about it.
- The Central Government, further, has nothing to do with the app that was banned from the Play Store. That's an order from a court in Catalonia.
- The banned app doesn't allow people to communicate with each other.
> In Spain every single adult of average or slightly below average intelligence knows they have the right to say whatever they want.
As smug as you are, you're wrong -- Spain doesn't have freedom of speech as Americans understand that term.
For example, from Wikipedia: "justifying the Holocaust or any other genocide is an offence punishable by imprisonment in accordance with the constitution."
Yes, the entirety of my comment refers to the United States.
So, where you say "The law is the law", in the United States there is also a higher law which is the constitution, and which protects free speech. It's "stronger than" the law. Everybody in America knows this.
So my point, which, respectfully, you have just confirmed, is that this idea has not made it back to Europe. You confirm this in your comment stating "the law is the law" and that people support it, and you state that this should be enough. (In the United States this is not enough, and what you describe cannot occur due to the philosophy and legal structure: if Congress passed a law making political discussion of something like the independence of a state illegal, then even if people supported that law, the supreme court would rule the law itself unconstitutional and it would be struck down. Because in the United States freedom of speech is higher than the law, and protected by the supreme court in the manner I described; it's a separate branch of government.)
Mate, the constitution is what makes this illegal. They cannot do a binding referendum unilaterally with any open dialog. This referendum is not a discussion, or for asking opinions, is to create an separately country. Well, it is not even clear what they exactly want, they just say they want to be independent, but nothing how or the trade of.
It's just that their comment was very surprising to me. Spain is obviously completely modern in every way and a full-size EU participant: therefore, their comment (and followup, "the law is the law") reveals that this structural protection for the idea of free speech, that there is something higher than the law, isn't baked into the structure of modern European democracies via a separated judicial branch or analogous institute of checks and balances. Instead, European democracies are apparently governed by law.
If I'm mistaken, then which European country did you have in mind, which couldn't decide to do the same thing, because their respective institutions would strike down the law as unconstitutional (even if it had majority support)?
1) It is a binding referendum (this is what some catalan politics say). It is not about what they think, but about what are they going to do. The binding part is what makes this completely illegal.
2) Some people don't take is seriously because it is against the law (there is a law which they can use to do a referendum like this but it needs support from central government and an open dialog that is not happening)
3) Catalans agree with the law. The Catalan court was who said this referendum was illegal.
In any democracy you must govern by the law. The people chose the government and they make the laws. What is wrong with this? If you want a different government you vote something different, but Catalans are not doing this either. This process is not supported by some independist.
>In any democracy you must govern by the law. The people chose the government and they make the laws. What is wrong with this?
you raise a good question and the answer is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority . That's why in America even if the majority support a law limiting speech, the supreme court will still strike down such a law - the State can't cause the removal of things like this app in America, lawfully; even if it has people's support.
what is interesting is that I wouldn't have to explain this to someone else in America - it's part of what everyone already knows.
> the State can't cause the removal of things like this app in America, lawfully; even if it has people's support.
It can however cause the removal of apps that are ruled illegal by a court; the only difference is the kind of app that would be illegal. The US already has all kinds of restrictions on free speech, or somewhat speech-like actions like distributing an app. That is backed by the US constitution, just as this instance was (apparently) backed by the Spanish constitution.
What is interesting to me is a) that you think everyone in the US is intimately familiar with the implications of the first amendment and concepts like the tyranny of the majority. That doesn't seem to be the case, given the striking number of people who think they can say whatever they want without any legal repercussions. And b) that you believe your argument to be so persuasive that someone who disagrees with you couldn't possibly have been aware of it.
That is why you have a constitution. This referendum is against it and that is why is against the law. You cannot claim your city as independent of the country doing a referendum among your friends. This is what is happening now in Spain (more or less)
So, I actually didn't mention anything about the referendum at all.
I was just using your example to point out that your attitude about the removal of an app means that "first-amendment" (free speech) issues aren't big in Europe. It has nothing to do with what the app (or referendum) says or doesn't say. It could be about anything. I was pointing out that you don't consider the forced removal of the app by the state to itself be a huge issue. It shows how strongly people feel about "free speech" in Europe: not at all. It's not part of the discussion or a relevant matter for you, as long as it's done lawfully.
Because how this is being done is a completely mistake. They don't respect each other and do things against the law they supported before. But don't compare it with free speech, this is not what is happening now. I want an open dialog, not this bullshit. If you do something illegal you face the consequences, as this is completely illegal they faced them. Otherwise is that they open a public debate and discuss, talk with the people, negotiate the terms, etc. They could do things right like in Ireland, but they are not doing it. And the central government instead of open a dialog is closed completely to any type of dialog. Someone tries to open a dialog and they point at them and blame them. And they got more votes because of their attitude. So fight is served because politics don't want to talk and are making the people hate the other people.
To sum up, the problem is how are they doing the things and that most population support both of them (each one their party) increasing the anger and the hate.
> If I'm mistaken, then which European country did you have in mind, which couldn't decide to do the same thing, because their respective institutions would strike down the law as unconstitutional (even if it had majority support)?
You think the government of California can pass a law of secession and that law wouldn't be stroke down?
I often wonder at what point should we (as programmers) ignore a countries ruling if we disagree with it.
(Note I'm not arguing for or against here, I don't know enough about the situation but thought it may be an interesting conversation).
We (generally) have the knowledge to get around most restrictions, some of us can even bypass enforced walls.
I do wonder what it would take for a large subset of techs to say 'screw this, we're going to flood their airwaves, satlinks, reroute all out out traffic' etc. (Yes I know this is an impossibility, I'm theorizing here).
Despite the borderless appearance of connected networks, we still operate within society. We either need to operate within societal rules, or make an overt decision to subvert them. No different than any other activity, really, except that we may not live in the jurisdiction we're respecting/subverting (though mail fraud has been a thing for hundreds of years).
You are right, and honestly the more I think about it, the more I worry about it being a bad idea.
Or less a bad idea, and more a 'most likely to steer in a bad Direction's sort of idea as, honestly, humanity doesn't really have a 'decent' direction yet haha.
Sure if you are prepared to go to war. At some point, a company will have enough funds to purchase its own military (aka corporate security department) to go toe-to-toe with a nation state's military. At that point, it would be a return to an era, for example, when the British East India Company can trade opium and wage war on behalf of the English government because they disagree with a country's internal anti-drug laws.
Cyberpunk speculating aside, I'm pretty sure Big Food companies (Coke, Monsonto, Kraft, etc) have private security contractors - due to the sheer amount of physical assets they control, it would be irresponsible to shareholders if they didn't.
Similar accusations were made against Coke's Guatemalan bottler a few years back. Of course, about a hundred years ago it wasn't uncommon for companies to use hired muscle to harass, beat, and even murder labor activists in the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
I think hiring contractors is sufficient these days. The governments do it, no reason that companies can't. In Iraq, many companies hire the exact same outfits as the Pentagon.
There have been plenty of examples of this and will continue to be. The most obvious recent example that I can think of would be Uber and the way they blocked regulators from seeing what was really happening.
I don’t think it is generally in your interest to fight these things, or really anyone’s interest:
- the app can still be side loaded.
- you want simple, explanable resolutions to these things
- supporting this is a political statement. If you’re not based there, this could be stupid at best and leave you in contempt of court at worst (which is about as bad as it gets in the US at least).
Some things are worth taking a stand for; i’d argue strongly against supporting the app in this case as applying the same logic would have allowed the south to peacefully seceed in the american civil war. Best leave this up to the parent government UNLESS you’re willing to argue for human rights violations or something that would go through international courts. I can’t imagine Google or even the employees would want that.
Oh in this case I agree, I was just thinking out loud. Not that we(programmers/techs) could come to a concensus anyway, was just a side track I thought would make for an interesting discussion :-)
The developer kit lets you run anything you want. How do you think apps get written in the first place? Rooting Android phones may be more commonplace sure, but claiming Apple gives "no such option" is disingenuous.
Firstly, you don't have to root an Android device you own in order to install software on it other than through the Google store. It's just a setting (off by default, I assume to create a slightly higher bar for novice users).
Secondly, unless I'm mistaken, the program you mention doesn't allow you to distribute your software to other "regular" iOS users.
You mean enforcing the rule of law? I hope the law is enforced everywhere otherwise why have it?
I am from Barca and this referendum shouldn't happen. We have other issues that are more important like housing. Not all people here are for the referendum. Far from it. Wasting public money and ressources when people spend half their salaries on rent. Disgusting!
There are just laws that protect and maintain civil society and there are unjust laws used to oppress minorities.
Who does this referendum hurt? Who is damaged by it? Where is the victim?
Voting is at the heart of democracy, and laws that prohibit a group of people from speaking out violate the spirit of democracy.
When you take it further and try and shut down people even speaking about it you are even further down the authoritarian path.
And do you realize saying "there are more important and mundane issues" is exactly the kind of reasoning actual dictators use to run actual dictatorships. Democracy is obviously important and people care about it as much as mundane issues, which is probably why this is happening.
This is very bad, people should be able to install any app that they want as long as the app manufacturer / owner is ok with it. and they should be able to keep it on their own device for as long as they wish. Google or a government shouldn't have any say in this
Oh? Without going into whether this app in particular is good, should an app that allows set up of child pornography or murder be allowed “as long as the app manufacturer / owner is ok with it”?
Good. We should be striving for a more integrated world, not a world of separatism.
People are naturally tribal. But tribalism must always be rejected.
People who hold onto tribal identities are excited by the prospect of political independence, but unless real conditions for that group are made genuinely intolerable, there is no excuse for separatism.
Catalan is one of the wealthiest parts of Spain. They are not being oppressed.
Nationalism is okay if the nation is being oppressed (and are somewhat non violent) see Scottish nationalism, Catalan nationalism, and later in this sub-thread about a Russian situation. Tribal and group identity is welcomed and defended if those in that group are at risk. I'm in agreement that tribal and group thinking is bad, and I'm also possibly in disagreement because I see that there is also oppression and marginalisation of groups by other groups. I'm not sure what the solution is apart from talking about this clearly.
The original terms of the Union - England paying off Scotland's debts - and in modern times the Barnett Formula, the West Lothian question, the Blair/Brown government, show that far from the shrill claims of the SNP Scotland has done and continues to do very, very well from being in the UK - far better than England does in fact.
Downvoted... Can someone point me to the HN guideline that forbids requesting an OP to clarify what they are saying?
- is ok legally
- is ok morally
- is ok politically
- is ok strategically
- is ok accord me
- is ok according to most people
- is ok according to the opposition
Tribal and group identity is welcomed and defended if those in that group are at risk.
Welcomed by who?
- welcomed by me
- welcomed by everyone else in that group
- welcomed by everyone outside of that group
- welcomed by some people outside of that group
What are you even saying? Is this a personal manifesto? Is this alluding to some sociological principal, political philosophy, statistic poll?
For a forum geared towards engineers, the quality of thinking here on HN is depressingly low.
IMO, your original comment is too brief, reading as antagonistic. You weren't just politely asking for clarification along with an expression of your understanding.
And anyway, they're just internet points, who cares. I throw my account away when I get to 100, keeps me from getting worked up about it.
Negativo mijo, we must strive to accept cultures that can mesh well together. Imagine a world where everyone was the same, and nobody had a unique identity. It would be incredibly sad and sterile.
Among the countries of the EU, Spain is probably on the top half with regards to protecting the different cultures that form it. Catalan, Basque, and other languages used to be talked in France too.
Okay, then the US will just annex every other country. That way the entire world will have political unity, that's all you want right? Or would you expect your government to fight back on that?
If people are separate now then it's a bad idea to force them together. They should unify of their own accord. It can be a gradual process like with the EU.
But if they are together now I'd want them to stay together, barring severe oppression of one party by another.
The EU isn't unifying people of their own accord. Every time there's a referendum held anywhere on EU policies, the EU always loses yet the policies are put into effect anyway.
I'm not particularly aware of the details of EU politics and couldn't name the major factions.
But I will point out that "integrate further" can itself become a tribal identity -- in some cases a fairly oppressive one, if "integrate" is taken to mean "get rid of any culturally distinctive ideas or practices that might possibly cause friction". Not saying this is specifically true of EU integration, just that it's a possible form of tribalism.
Well that's a bit my point: There's no meaning to "culturally distinctive ideas" in Europe, because all of our cultures are distinct. The only thing joining the continent together and moving the Union towards more integration is a relative homogeneity of values. And preserving our cultural richness is one of those values.
There can only be a relatively dominant tribe if 1. The smaller tribes refuse to join with the larger tribe or 2. The larger tribe refuses to accept the smaller tribes.
regarding 2: there's some nuance needed for what it means to "accept" the smaller tribes -- on whose terms? (Which leads directly to 1 -- if the larger tribe's terms are onerous, unfair, or oppressive, the smaller tribe should reject integration.)
A friend of mine is at an institution which has just started a "diversity" initiative to get people with different ethnic backgrounds in to the institution. But it's unclear whether they're willing to accept different perspectives, or whether they're really just looking for people who think the same but have different external appearances. Does it really make sense to join a "tribe" that wants to wipe out your distinctiveness and make you think and act just like they already do?
The reason why this referendum is illegal is because it attempts to "break the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation” (according to the Spanish constitution).
Larger more inclusive tribalism is better than small scale tribalism. It's a continuous process working towards unity and integration of the human tribe.
The way I see it, tribalism isn't unity. Unity, meaningful and lasting unity, that is, exists between people who are in harmony with themselves and each other. It doesn't require uniformity, it requires the absence of deformation through all sorts of abuses big and small. I don't need to know the backstory a peaceful person or animal to realize they're peaceful and be at peace in their presence. Tribalism on the other hand is people having a lot of ideas about who they are and what makes them valuable, and mutilating each other and themselves to make them seem more real and dignified. Unity is born out of life, tribalism is born out of fear, it's the ghost forever trying to make its presence known to life and failing to move even a match stick. In a nutshell.
The US is more than 300 million people which is nice and big, but the most nationalistic people here have yet to transition into "working towards the unity and integration of the human tribe."
If you're talking about the situation in Spain, you're very misinformed. The judiciary police isn't doing anything at all based on people's political preference. That would be flagrantly illegal.
This is neither nationalism nor separatism driven by the desire to exclude or shut out some "other." This is devolution of power over practical matters like budgets to a more-local level. It is in part enabled by transnationalism as embodied in the EU.
"The Basque conflict, also known as the Spain–ETA conflict, was an armed and political conflict from 1959 to 2011 between Spain and the Basque National Liberation Movement, a group of social and political Basque organizations which sought independence from Spain and France. The movement was built around the separatist organization ETA[4][5] which had launched a campaign of attacks against Spanish administrations since 1959. ETA has been proscribed as a terrorist organization by the Spanish, British,[6] French[7] and American[8] authorities at different moments. The conflict took place mostly on Spanish soil, although to a smaller degree it was also present in France, which was primarily used as a safe haven by ETA members. It was the longest running violent conflict in modern Western Europe.[9] It has been sometimes referred to as "Europe's longest war".[10]"
Catalunya is trying to find a peaceful, democratic path to resolving the issues in their region.
Integration is often just tribalism at a larger scale. In Russia, for example, there's a popular line of thought that basically denies that Ukrainians are a separate nation - the claim is that they're just a "misled" subset of Russia, that their language is just a particularly badly distorted Russian dialect etc. It's not about integration - it's about Russian domination.
For another example, Turkey treats Kurds in a similar vein.
Well Ukraine never actually was a separate nation except very briefly after the revolution, then after the dissolution of the USSR.
Also, Ukrainians are ethnically almost identical to European Russians, and more than half of them speak Russian. Ukrainian is an archaic dialect and probably would have died out if not for a resurgence in nationalism.
Edit - to add to this, the way Ukrainian identity formed in the first place is that "Ukrainians" were the part of the Russian empire that came under occasional occupation by Western powers (Poland-Lithuania and Austria-Hungary), so they developed their own identity by virtue of essentially being Russians cut off from the empire (they kept Cyrillic writing, attempted to keep the Orthodox religion, etc...). Even in Gogol's writings he refers to the Russian Empire, not Ukraine as a nation (even if the current Ukrainian authorities have censored/modified his writings).
Oh, and I'm an ethnic Ukrainian in Canada whose family originated from the part of Ukraine occupied by the Austro-Hungarian empire...
Edit2 - Sorry, just facts. "Ukraine" never was a country until last century. Maybe one of you down-voters could point out a Ukrainian state pre-1919 that identified as Ukrainian. Because Kievan Rus wasn't Ukrainian, it was Rus-sian....
> "Ukraine" never was a country until last century.
Nothing in the comment you replied to clashes with that. At all. The actual point, which stands unmoved, is something for which both Russia/Ukraine and Turkey/Kurds are mere examples.
> Maybe one of you down-voters could point out a Ukrainian state pre-1919 that identified as Ukrainian.
Why would they have to? They gained independence 1991. That's the most significant bit, no?
> Nothing in the comment you replied to clashes with that. At all. The actual point, which stands unmoved, is something for which both Russia/Ukraine and Turkey/Kurds are mere examples.
Except they really are all different situations. Turks and Kurds are completely different ethnic groups with different languages, origins and history. Kurds are closely related to Iranians, not Turks.
> Why would they have to? They gained independence 1991. That's the most significant bit, no?
Because there's revisionist history which states Ukrainians and Russians are different ethnic groups. They're not. They've shared the same history and culture for over a thousand years, they're the same ethnic group. Yes they're different nations now, but they're not different peoples.
> Except they really are all different situations.
That's the point of analogies. You point out similarities, not that things are the same. They're not even possible between things that are the same.
> Yes they're different nations now, but they're not different peoples.
Yes, and? The comment you replied to goes "there's a popular line of thought that basically denies that Ukrainians are a separate nation". Which, seeing how they're a separate nation, is just valid as Turks wanting to lord it over the Kurds.
Thank you for an excellent illustration of what I was talking about.
For those curious about how exactly this is distorted, briefly: Ukraine was not "part of the Russian empire that came under occasional occupation by Western powers". What is today called Ukraine was part of a single unified state called Kievan Rus, very roughly corresponding to today's European Russia + Ukraine + Belarus - indeed, it was its heartland, where the capital Kiev was located.
Once Kievan Rus disintegrated because of feudal strife between its constituent principalities, its eastern parts were overrun by the Mongols, who integrated it into their empire as a vassal state of sorts (keeping the local dukes mostly in place, but using them as glorified tax collectors, and continuing to pit them against each other to keep them weakened), whereas the western parts were overrun by the then-ascendant Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which annexed the land outright, and mostly integrated the local nobility into its own hierarchy. Map:
This is the point at which then-unified (mostly) East Slavic culture and language breaks apart. Western parts get more exposure to European culture, initially via Lithuania, and later also via Poland when the two form a commonwealth; Catholicism partially (but not wholly) replaces Eastern Orthodoxy, and language gets borrowings from Polish and Latin. Eastern parts get more exposure to the (then mostly Turkic) Mongol culture, with Eastern Orthodoxy becoming even more entrenched per Mongols' usual policy of supporting local religions and using them to control the rulers, and the language gets many Turkic borrowings.
If you look at the map again, you'll see that the Mongol parts are (roughly) what would eventually become Russia, and the Lithuanian parts are what would eventually become Ukraine and Belarus.
The parent is technically true that there was no state called "Ukraine" before WW1. But there was definitely a nation, calling itself and its language Ukrainian, and distinct from the neighboring Russians and Poles, whose statehood mostly dominated over the corresponding territory.
The "Cyrillic writing" point is similarly bogus - Cyrillic alphabet and Eastern Slavic language was used heavily in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as well, to the point of becoming the main language for clerical and legal works. First printed books in Eastern Slavic were printed in GDL. However, it would be incorrect to refer to that language as "Russian". It was an ancestor language common to modern Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Rusyn. Historically, wherever that language was spoken, its speakers generally referred to it as "Rusian" (as in "language of Rus"). In Western sources, it is usually referred to as Ruthenian. Conflating it with Russian is one of the tricks played in this kind of propaganda.
TL;DR version is that there's a substitution trick here: Russia claims to be the sole legitimate successor to Kievan Rus, and all other successor states to be "breakaway parts" (ironic, given where Kiev is located). A rough analogy would be if Italy said that it's the Roman Empire, and France and Spain are its breakaway provinces, and do not constitute nations in their own right.
> But there was definitely a nation, calling itself and its language Ukrainian, and distinct from the neighboring Russians and Poles, whose statehood mostly dominated over the corresponding territory.
And which state was that? The Cossack Hetmanate? Which rebelled against the western occupiers and eventually joined the modern Russian Empire?
> However, it would be incorrect to refer to that language as "Russian". It was an ancestor language common to modern Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Rusyn. Historically, wherever that language was spoken, its speakers generally referred to it as "Rusian" (as in "language of Rus"). In Western sources, it is usually referred to as Ruthenian. Conflating it with Russian is one of the tricks played in this kind of propaganda.
So Russian is one of the modern versions of the older Rus language, but isn't? Not sure I follow your logic here, you're pretty much agreeing with me then claiming for some reason Russian doesn't count as being descendant from the older Rusian language.
> Russia claims to be the sole legitimate successor to Kievan Rus, and all other successor states to be "breakaway parts" (ironic, given where Kiev is located).
You're missing a key part of history here: Muscovy, the Cossacks and others all rebelled against various invaders, and formed a common state: the Russian Empire. Which included both Moscow and Kiev for centuries.
> A rough analogy would be if Italy said that it's the Roman Empire
Do you not remember the part where there were a bunch of Italian city states that did eventually rejoin to form the Italian state? Italy wasn't Italy until quite recently. Also, France and Spain were Gaul and Iberia, inhabited by Celtic groups that were invaded by Rome.
This isn't analogous to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, whose people all came from the same original group.
> This is the point at which then-unified (mostly) East Slavic culture and language breaks apart. Western parts get more exposure to European culture, initially via Lithuania, and later also via Poland when the two form a commonwealth; Catholicism partially (but not wholly) replaces Eastern Orthodoxy, and language gets borrowings from Polish and Latin. Eastern parts get more exposure to the (then mostly Turkic) Mongol culture, with Eastern Orthodoxy becoming even more entrenched per Mongols' usual policy of supporting local religions and using them to control the rulers, and the language gets many Turkic borrowings.
Gotcha, so this is basically the modern revisionist, racist Ukrainian propaganda that Russians = Mongols, and Ukrainians are pure white Europeans, right? Never mind that fact that much of Ukraine (all of Crimea for example, and the south of Ukraine) was ruled by Tatars (one of the offshoots of the Mongol horde) for a decent amount of time. And there was absolutely no intermingling there right? Ukrainians didn't succumb to any Tatar influence or genetics, right?
Edit - also, I'm aware of the entire history of the Rus empire from when the Varangians (Vikings) settled in Novgorod, to when Prince Oleg went from Novgorod to Kiev, to Vladimir the Great, etc... Maybe because my family came during a time long before Ukrainians and Russians were feuding, but even though we've maintained fairly strong Ukrainian identity the modern anti-Russian propaganda is never anything I learned growing up. Just something we see in the media now.
> And which state was that? The Cossack Hetmanate? Which rebelled against the western occupiers and eventually joined the modern Russian Empire?
First of all, I didn't say there was a state. You know there can be nations without statehood? Indeed, I already mentioned one such example - the Kurds.
But, yes, for the brief existence of the Hetmanate, it was an Ukrainian nation-state.
As far as "joined the modern Russian Empire" - it didn't, not quite. It signed the treaty of Pereyaslav with the Tsardom under Khmelnitsky, yes, and which was supposed to preserve their autonomy. The treaty on which Russians essentially reneged, by claiming that the tsar was an absolute ruler, and could not be bound by treaties with his own subjects. In 100 years, the autonomy was dismantled, the local nobles that resisted were suppressed, serfdom was introduced in direct contravention to the terms of the treaty, and Ukraine became, for all intents and purposes, annexed by Russia. Not willingly, either, and not without resisting - does the name "Mazepa" ring a bell?
> So Russian is one of the modern versions of the older Rus language, but isn't? Not sure I follow your logic here, you're pretty much agreeing with me then claiming for some reason Russian doesn't count as being descendant from the older Rusian language.
Russian is not a "modern version" of the older Rus language. It is a language derived from Old East Slavic. So are Ukrainian and Belarusian, but the three have diverged sufficiently over time to be separate languages in their own right. Just as Czech and Polish are demonstrably different languages that diverged from a single common West Slavic language. And just as East and West Slavic, in turn, diverged from a common proto-Slavic.
> You're missing a key part of history here: Muscovy, the Cossacks and others all rebelled against various invaders, and formed a common state: the Russian Empire. Which included both Moscow and Kiev for centuries.
"The others" were mostly conquered, not rebelled. Tver, Novgorod, Pskov, and so on. Ukrainian alliance with Russia was a desperate measure - they needed military support to succeed in a struggle against Poland. 50 years later, they went to ally with Swedes to get military support in a struggle against Russia.
> Gotcha, so this is basically the modern revisionist, racist Ukrainian propaganda that Russians = Mongols, and Ukrainians are pure white Europeans, right?
No, of course not - that's just your own projection, because the propaganda that you're translating includes that bit for "but they're lynching negroes". Russians aren't Mongols, they're East Slavs, same as Ukrainians and Belarusians.
The Russian language does demonstrably have more Turkic borrowings than Ukrainian and Belarusian, though - and the latter two have more Polish borrowings (something, I must add, that people who talk like you do are always keen to point out when they try to make an argument that "Ukrainian is just Russian corrupted by Polish").
None of this has anything to do with race, or make one language "better" than the other. It does, however, make them different languages. And it does make people speaking them different nations.
By the way, while we're at it - there's a difference between "nation" and "ethnicity", too.
Oh, and statehood, too. In theory, there's nothing preventing the three Eastern Slavic nations from having a shared statehood - provided that it's for their mutual benefit. The problem with the Russian take on this problem is that the resulting shared statehood somehow always ends up being called "Russia", has its capital in Moscow, has Russian as a state language etc; while the other two end up as non-descript provinces, and their language, distinctive culture, and any other "separatist tendencies" suppressed by force. That, in a nutshell, is a difference between integration and occupation.
