10 ms·
«prosecuted simply for carrying goggles or masks to protect themselves» This is quite a dishonest interpretation of the facts. They were arrested because they
by invaliduser 6y ago
«prosecuted simply for carrying goggles or masks to protect themselves»
This is quite a dishonest interpretation of the facts. They were arrested because they participated to an unregistered (therefore forbidden) protest, there was proper communication from the police that such event was not authorized because of the expected violence issues, and the goggles / masks were proof of participation.
It's pretty easy to start a protest rally or march in france, you just have to declare it to the prefecture. Sometimes they are not accepted, for instance when a protest with violence history wants to pass in certain parts of the city with a lot of shop (they are regularly attacked). It happens that violent protestors such as the yellow vest types declare a march passing for instance the Champs Elysee avanue (famous locally for its numerous shops), knowing it will be rejected, then calling it a dictature when it happens, and doing it anyway, and there the violence begins. The Amesty report says nothing of this context, I have no idea why (I can guess it probably is because they support the yellow vest movement).
- dfxm12 6y agoThe article makes it clear that these are sperate and distinct from other charges for “organizing a protest without complying with notification requirements”.
- scollet 6y ago> They were arrested because they participated to an unregistered (therefore forbidden) protest... Protest permits really defeat the point though.
- barumi 6y ago> Protest permits really defeat the point though. They are not protest permits. They are protest announcements. The only requirement is that protest organizers need to inform public officials beforehand that they are going to hold a protest on day x at place y. Consequently public officials are able to prepare conditions to ensure a) the protest can be held and b) counterprotests cannot interfere, c) neutrsl third parties (that is, people who wish to go on with their lives as they didn't want to participate) are not forced to be sucked into the mess. And once announced public officials cannot stop a protest from happening. Otherwise we would see football moorings being described as peaceful protests under free speech instead of what they really are.
- scollet 6y agoI see. It's fair to me that protestors should enable safety officers, but I believe they should not wait for permission. I understand that football excitement is a tectonic force, but I'm focusing on more humanist exploits. Thank you for this perspective. I'd really appreciate the message to efficiently get across when constituents are repressed.
- scollet 6y agoMaybe this evolves greater efficiency in social officers.