I read on some leftist websites that the Spanish parliament passed a very restrictive anti-protest law, which among others, provides for a fine of up to EUR 30k for filming the police during a protest.
I havent seen any mainstream media report on this but if true, this looks quite outrageous. Is it true?
This is allegedly the full list of new offences. Admittedly, some of these are not that outlandish, but some seem straight out of Belarus. :huh:
1. Photographing or recording police – 600 to 30.000€ fine.
2. Peaceful disobedience to authority – 600 to 30.000€ fine.
3. Occupying banks as means of protest – 600 to 30.000€ fine.
4. Not formalizing a protest – 600 to 30.000€ fine.
5. For carrying out assemblies or meetings in public spaces – 100 to 600€ fine.
6. For impeding or stopping an eviction – 600 to 30.000€ fine.
7. For presence at an occupied space (not only social centers but also houses occupied by evicted families) – 100 to 600€ fine.
8. Police black lists for protesters, activists and alternative press have been legalized.
9. Meeting or gathering in front of Congress – 600 to 30.000€ fine.
10. Appealing the fines in court requires the payment of judicial costs, whose amount depends on the fine.
11. It allows random identity checks, allowing for racial profiling of immigrants and minorities.
12. Police can now carry out raids at their discretion, without the need for "order" to have been disrupted.
13. External bodily searches are also now allowed at police discretion.
14. The government can prohibit any protest at will, if it feels "order" will be disrupted.
15. Any ill-defined "critical infrastructure" is now considered a forbidden zone for public gatherings if it might affect their functioning.
16. There are also fines for people who climb buildings and monuments without permission. (This has been a common method of protest from organizations like Greenpeace.)
Oh no the mob can no longer rule unhindered. Wah-fucking.. er... wah. Tear-falling pity dwelt not in this eye.
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2015, 04:28:14 PM
Oh no the mob can no longer rule unhindered. Wah-fucking.. er... wah. Tear-falling pity dwelt not in this eye.
Stupid troll is stupid.
It is true, and cause of some pretty big political upheaval - it's been nicknamed "the gagging law". The entire opposition have vowed to abolish the law if they gain a majority.
The ruling right-wing party has seen big street unrest these past years, as it has deployed Brussels-mandated austerity, while unemployment has remained tragically high. I guess that they believe that killing the symptoms will kill the problem - they are nowhere near a clear majority in the polls and the Spanish equivalent of Siritza is surging.
Zombie Franco is alive and well it seems.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rankmagic.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F06%2Flike-icon1.png&hash=bcc2e6d97d90e101b62c699ba850f2e7e527180d) - monoriu likes this
:lol:
Maybe Mono can move to work here now, our roads are plentiful and unblocked.
Anyway, the law is in the Senate, and then it will go back to the Congress. I guess it will get softened in some parts to make it look like they relaxed a little, while still remaining outrageous overall.
Y'all still have whole villages for sale?
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 03, 2015, 05:51:46 PM
Y'all still have whole villages for sale?
Yeah, they even started an entire website for them; like russianbrides.com, but without brides, or Russians.
http://aldeasabandonadas.com/
ahhhh.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-IWjww76Ia-Q/U3349ilyDXI/AAAAAAAAF_I/lV9evXwJ9KI/w480-h640-no/P5220071.JPG)
Quote from: celedhring on January 03, 2015, 05:57:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 03, 2015, 05:51:46 PM
Y'all still have whole villages for sale?
Yeah, they even started an entire website for them; like russianbrides.com, but without brides, or Russians.
http://aldeasabandonadas.com/
Can they be populated with Russian brides?
Anyway, I'm sorry about your country going repressive--and once again thanks to the Germans. <_< Now, I get a lot of shit for being authoritarian, but the one freedom that's legitimately the most important of all (well, short of being randomly gunned down in the street) ought never be touched. :(
Pop quiz: is the EU a failure? I hate to say it, but it looks like it.
The right to free speech is infinitely more important than the right to carry mass-produced signs and giant puppets in public.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2015, 11:18:59 AM
The right to free speech is infinitely more important than the right to carry mass-produced signs and giant puppets in public.
The right to watch sports is more important than the right to watch college basketball.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2015, 11:18:59 AM
The right to free speech is infinitely more important than the right to carry mass-produced signs and giant puppets in public.
CLEAR THE ROADS.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2015, 11:27:45 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2015, 11:18:59 AM
The right to free speech is infinitely more important than the right to carry mass-produced signs and giant puppets in public.
The right to watch sports is more important than the right to watch college basketball.
:lol:
Btw, does anyone ever chant "Guernica! Guernica!" at these rallies. They should.
Who brought back Franco? Oh, yeah, the PP. Well, bollocks to them.
I got a solution for Europe:
Small goverment, low taxes, free market capitalism, and liberty.
Quote from: Siege on January 06, 2015, 03:52:03 PM
I got a solution for Europe:
Small goverment, low taxes, free market capitalism, and liberty.
This sounds more like a solution for sensible countries. :hmm:
Quote from: Siege on January 06, 2015, 03:52:03 PM
I got a solution for Europe:
Small goverment, low taxes, free market capitalism, and liberty.
Thatcher already tried that. And look where it got us: fewer coal mines.
What if we had: cool mines?
Quote from: Siege on January 06, 2015, 03:52:03 PM
I got a solution for Europe:
Small goverment, low taxes, free market capitalism, and liberty.
Do you mean the policies that have never even correlated with prosperity in the US, except for about 15 years in the early 20th century (and even then it's pretty arguable)?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 06, 2015, 04:22:34 PM
Do you mean the policies that have never even correlated with prosperity in the US, except for about 15 years in the early 20th century (and even then it's pretty arguable)?
We should bring back the sky high taxes and enormous bureaucracy of the 19th century.
Yeah, the 19th century was prosperous AS FUCK.
Amen.
Quote from: Siege on January 06, 2015, 03:52:03 PM
I got a solution for Europe:
Small goverment, low taxes, free market capitalism, and liberty.
I'd be careful about suggesting "solutions" in Europe in general, if I were you.
Anyway, I meant industrial America. "Prosperity" metrics don't really apply to pre-industrial economies. And yes, 19thC was industrial toward end, am shorthanding somewhat.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 06, 2015, 04:53:54 PM
Yeah, the 19th century was prosperous AS FUCK.
Rockefeller's shares gained much value.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2015, 04:54:21 PM
Amen.
Well besides the massive and devastating depression that dominated the last quarter of it.
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2015, 06:52:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2015, 04:54:21 PM
Amen.
Well besides the massive and devastating depression that dominated the last quarter of it.
And the pauperisation of millions that ushered it in. Or the attendant miseries of the urban poor.
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2015, 06:52:35 PM
Well besides the massive and devastating depression that dominated the last quarter of it.
Which leaves three quarters of a century of prosperity during a time of low taxes and small government.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2015, 07:28:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2015, 06:52:35 PM
Well besides the massive and devastating depression that dominated the last quarter of it.
Which leaves three quarters of a century of prosperity during a time of low taxes and small government.
Eh not really much reason to tax back then unless you had large military needs. But yeah it certainly worked for early industrialization.
The biggest way governments could fuck up things back then were protectionism and monopolies and other shit.
Did you read Ide's post, the one I responded to?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2015, 07:33:06 PM
Did you read Ide's post, the one I responded to?
Yes I did but you distracted me.
Sorry.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2015, 07:28:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2015, 06:52:35 PM
Well besides the massive and devastating depression that dominated the last quarter of it.
Which leaves three quarters of a century of prosperity during a time of low taxes and small government.
The whole century was boom and bust, the economy wildly fluctuating between rapid expansion and deep contraction, often with major bank faliures.
Did you read Ide's post, the one I responded to?
Which three quarters of the century are you referring to, Admiral Sachs?
Did anyone read Ide's post?
Nah
I didn't.
That Ide dude is lumpen proletariat
Quote from: Norgy on January 04, 2015, 12:22:44 PM
Who brought back Franco? Oh, yeah, the PP. Well, bollocks to them.
I thought it was Sony.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2015, 06:56:04 AM
Pop quiz: is the EU a failure? I hate to say it, but it looks like it.
Does not look like it. Quite the contrary. A family is not a failure if one of the family members falls ill. We will see how we come out of this crisis - so far it has been rather good, with no defaults, coups or wars anywhere.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2015, 09:38:57 PM
Did anyone read Ide's post?
Yes. Then you started posting some complete nonsense.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2015, 07:28:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2015, 06:52:35 PM
Well besides the massive and devastating depression that dominated the last quarter of it.
Which leaves three quarters of a century of prosperity during a time of low taxes and small government.
Wait, which country are you talking about?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 01:47:21 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2015, 07:28:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2015, 06:52:35 PM
Well besides the massive and devastating depression that dominated the last quarter of it.
Which leaves three quarters of a century of prosperity during a time of low taxes and small government.
Wait, which country are you talking about?
Wait, I missed that. Is Yi actually calling the 19th century (a century with slavery, Wild West, robber barons and the Civil War) a "century of prosperity"? :lol:
Wow, this is out there even for him.
Well, the USA did turn from a backwater into the world's largest economy during that century. A lot of that was due to immigration and expansion, but not all.
BTW, "a century with slavery"? That's kind of like saying "a century with humans".
Well, for over half that time Slavery was law in the US, and was slave labor made up a massive apart of the economy. It was an era of weak federal government for the most part, but state and local governments were quite powerful. It was also an age of extreme corruption and an age when business could and did just murder people who were inconvenient. It also saw some of the biggest economic disasters in US history, most notably when the President destroyed the Bank of the United States because someone insulted his wife. Though to be fair, a lot of of this is positive in some libertarian circles.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 07, 2015, 02:29:46 AM
Well, the USA did turn from a backwater into the world's largest economy during that century. A lot of that was due to immigration and expansion, but not all.
BTW, "a century with slavery"? That's kind of like saying "a century with humans".
Well, you can't say it was a time of great prosperity if for a better half of it, a substantial portion of populace was treated like property. From that perspective, North Korea is also a land of prosperity, as Kim Jong Un must have a pretty pretty pretty good life there.
The word "prosperity" is not limited to factors such as economic growth - it has to imply a certain degree of economic welfare for everybody, not just the ruling elite.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 03:16:14 AM
Well, for over half that time Slavery was law in the US, and was slave labor made up a massive apart of the economy. It was an era of weak federal government for the most part, but state and local governments were quite powerful. It was also an age of extreme corruption and an age when business could and did just murder people who were inconvenient. It also saw some of the biggest economic disasters in US history, most notably when the President destroyed the Bank of the United States because someone insulted his wife. Though to be fair, a lot of of this is positive in some libertarian circles.
Not to mention it was a completely different world. As Picketty shows, you can't sustain indefinite growth like this unless you are engaging in some forms of imperialism and/or colonisation, or are generally exploiting someone (so it had very little to do with low taxes and low regulation).
Ugh, I thought we were past the Martinus book report.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:15:15 AM
The word "prosperity" is not limited to factors such as economic growth - it has to imply a certain degree of economic welfare for everybody, not just the ruling elite.
Sure, it should be measured across the board, but that doesn't mean it's not about growth. Were sharecroppers better off than slaves? Were factory workers in 1900 better off than workers in 1800? These are the questions we should be asking. Comparing things in the past to now and finding none of them measure up isn't a very useful exercise.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 07:37:18 AM
Ugh, I thought we were past the Martinus book report.
It's 20 pages, single spaced with an 8 pt font. Comic Sans to boot.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 07, 2015, 11:00:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:15:15 AM
The word "prosperity" is not limited to factors such as economic growth - it has to imply a certain degree of economic welfare for everybody, not just the ruling elite.
Sure, it should be measured across the board, but that doesn't mean it's not about growth. Were sharecroppers better off than slaves? Were factory workers in 1900 better off than workers in 1800? These are the questions we should be asking. Comparing things in the past to now and finding none of them measure up isn't a very useful exercise.
What if we discover "now" doesn't measure up? :(