5 ms·

There was no request (afaik) done by any of the involved parties. By law, if you’re planning a rally/event/etc you have to make a request to your local mayorsh

There was no request (afaik) done by any of the involved parties. By law, if you’re planning a rally/event/etc you have to make a request to your local mayorship, who then approves it (or not) while informing the police about it, so that security details can be planned. Since the rallies in question involved displays related to certain countries or were held in front of embassies (like the one supporting Navalny, which brought this case to the limelight), the embassies were also informed about who the organisers were. As some one on the comments already mentioned, it seems to be a case of Hanlon’s Razor albeit a very unfortunate (and disturbing) one

Ekaros 5y ago
Sounds entirely reasonable and sane process. You have to allow these foreign embassies to prepare against potential terrorist activities. In some case when known anti-government terrorist forces are identified they have good reason to increase preparedness.
- seanieb 5y ago
  Without any context or common sense applied, sure.
- briefcomment 5y ago
  Why in the world would it be reasonable to give out home addresses in this situation?
- toomanybeersies 5y ago
  Attacks on diplomatic missions in developed countries are uncommon [1], and usually not connected with protests or rallies. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_...
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> were held in front of embassies Fine. But Correia's "protest was held on the Largo de Camões, which is nowhere near the Chinese embassy," so that doesn't apply. > related to certain countries Sorry, this doesn't follow. If I show up for a Tiananmen massacre vigil in New York, Gracie Mansion doesn't and doesn't need to notify the Chinese embassy.
- foliveira 5y ago
  > that doesn’t apply I did add an OR in the sentence you quote; exactly because of the example you shared and another on in support of the Palestinian cause held in front of a concert hall just before a Brazilian singer concert, that would go on tour to Israel after. As for your second point, I totally agree with your point. My previous comment isn’t supposed to show any agreement with the episodes, but just a factual showing of what happened, and how this has been general malpractice rather than some shady intelligence underground operation.
baybal2 5y ago
Freedom of assembly conditional upon something is not a freedom, by definition.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  All freedom comes with conditions, generally around not abusing them or otherwise interfering with other people's freedom. Freedom in general or in reference to a particular type never means you can do whatever you want. The entire premise of civil society is that there are conditions on behavior. It is a fundamental principal that one person's freedom ends where another person's begins. Or as I've heard it said, "The freedom of your fist ends at the tip of my nose".
  - baybal2 5y ago
    I heard the same thing you now tell us from every totalitarian regime
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      That's a nice sound bite that doesn't actually respond to what I said. It's the sort of thing a politician would say, and as with most such things it avoids difficult topics in favor of easy simplifications. Because by implication, you're saying there should be no laws, since every law is a condition on freedom in some way. Is that your position on things? As for dictators and the like: they adopt the words of civil society and spin it into propaganda. All you've pointed out it that bad people do bad things and lie about them, claiming they were good. You haven't addressed the problem of making sure my freedom isn't taken away when someone else acts on what they believe is their freedom. So, do you think there should be any laws at all? If not, I'm not sure we can have a reasonable conversation here. If so, I'm happy to discuss further, as long as it's not in sound bites and cliches.
      - 5y ago

Ekaros 5y ago

Sounds entirely reasonable and sane process. You have to allow these foreign embassies to prepare against potential terrorist activities. In some case when known anti-government terrorist forces are identified they have good reason to increase preparedness.

seanieb 5y ago
Without any context or common sense applied, sure.
briefcomment 5y ago
Why in the world would it be reasonable to give out home addresses in this situation?
toomanybeersies 5y ago
Attacks on diplomatic missions in developed countries are uncommon [1], and usually not connected with protests or rallies. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_...

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> were held in front of embassies Fine. But Correia's "protest was held on the Largo de Camões, which is nowhere near the Chinese embassy," so that doesn't apply. > related to certain countries Sorry, this doesn't follow. If I show up for a Tiananmen massacre vigil in New York, Gracie Mansion doesn't and doesn't need to notify the Chinese embassy.

foliveira 5y ago
> that doesn’t apply I did add an OR in the sentence you quote; exactly because of the example you shared and another on in support of the Palestinian cause held in front of a concert hall just before a Brazilian singer concert, that would go on tour to Israel after. As for your second point, I totally agree with your point. My previous comment isn’t supposed to show any agreement with the episodes, but just a factual showing of what happened, and how this has been general malpractice rather than some shady intelligence underground operation.

baybal2 5y ago

Freedom of assembly conditional upon something is not a freedom, by definition.

ineedasername 5y ago
All freedom comes with conditions, generally around not abusing them or otherwise interfering with other people's freedom. Freedom in general or in reference to a particular type never means you can do whatever you want. The entire premise of civil society is that there are conditions on behavior. It is a fundamental principal that one person's freedom ends where another person's begins. Or as I've heard it said, "The freedom of your fist ends at the tip of my nose".
- baybal2 5y ago
  I heard the same thing you now tell us from every totalitarian regime
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    That's a nice sound bite that doesn't actually respond to what I said. It's the sort of thing a politician would say, and as with most such things it avoids difficult topics in favor of easy simplifications. Because by implication, you're saying there should be no laws, since every law is a condition on freedom in some way. Is that your position on things? As for dictators and the like: they adopt the words of civil society and spin it into propaganda. All you've pointed out it that bad people do bad things and lie about them, claiming they were good. You haven't addressed the problem of making sure my freedom isn't taken away when someone else acts on what they believe is their freedom. So, do you think there should be any laws at all? If not, I'm not sure we can have a reasonable conversation here. If so, I'm happy to discuss further, as long as it's not in sound bites and cliches.
    - 5y ago