ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Hotel Catalonia

In Spain, you can vote out, but you can never leave. It seems only fair to give the Spanish government's side to the question of Catalonian secession and its recent actions in response to the Catalonians.
After learning about the searches and arrests made on Wednesday morning by the Civil Guard at various Catalan government agencies, regional premier Carles Puigdemont called a news conference to convey his position to the public opinion and the media. The gravity, but above all the falseness of the accusations that he made, now force us to debunk them one by one, for the sake of rigor and freedom of information. We believe it to be a basic tenet of democracy that public authorities cannot lie to citizens with impunity.

1. “The government of the Generalitat has today been the target of a coordinated aggression by the Interior Ministry’s police forces.”

False: the searches and arrests conducted on Wednesday inside various government agencies were carried out by the Civil Guard, not on the orders of the Interior Ministry or of the Prosecutor’s Office – rather, it was on the order of the judge at Barcelona’s 13th investigative court, as a result of legal proceedings that began a long time ago. As such, the Civil Guard acted in its role of “judicial police.”

2. The goal of the operation was to “suspend the activities of the (Catalan) government,” a government that holds “democratic legitimacy.” 

False. The Catalan government’s activities in all areas where it has devolved powers by virtue of the regional charter, the Estatut (education, health and so on), have not been suspended. The Catalan government has no power to organize a secessionist referendum and it knows this; the Constitutional Court has informed it of this fact. So there has been no suspension of the Catalan government’s activities. On the other hand, while it is true that the Catalan government was appointed by a majority of the deputies who were elected at the regional election of September 27, 2015, this kind of legitimacy (which does not even represent a majority of the people who voted that day) does not give them a mandate to repeal the Estatut or to organize activities that violate the law, as the Constitutional Court has also reminded the Govern. What defines a democracy is not the existence of majorities – all political regimes have them – but rather the fact that democracies cannot disobey the law with impunity. The Catalan government has no power to organize a secessionist referendum and it knows this

3. This aggression lacks legal backing,” it “violates the rule of law” and the European Charter of Rights, and is “a de facto suspension of self-government and a de facto application of a state of exception.”

It is all false. The police intervention not only took place under the aegis of the judiciary, it was in fact ordered by the latter and has the backing of the Constitutional Court. It therefore falls within the boundaries of the rule of law, of which the independence of the judiciary is a basic pillar (in contrast with the aim of the breakaway laws that were dictated by the secessionist bloc and later suspended by the courts). Nor can one say that Catalan home rule has been suspended, since nobody has invoked Section 155 of the Constitution, which would allow central authorities to temporarily intervene in Catalonia’s affairs. What’s not been applied either is the National Security Law, which would allow the government to take over all law enforcement agencies. There is no state of exception, because not a single civil right has been suspended, as shown by the freely exercised freedom of demonstration on the streets of Barcelona to protest acts ordered by the judiciary.

4. Various acts including “indiscriminate raids, even inside private homes” and other measures such as “the closure and blocking of websites” represent “an assault on democracy.” 

False: the searches on Wednesday were not indiscriminate, they were individualized as part of the judicial police’s operation. And it was the prosecutor’s office, following the Constitutional Court’s resolutions, that ordered the closure of a website that aimed to apply a law (passed on September 6 to facilitate the referendum) that had already been suspended by the Constitutional Court; the website provided details about the illegal ballot and instructions on how to carry it out.

5. “We condemn and reject the totalitarian and antidemocratic attitude of the Spanish State” and after its actions “we consider that the (central) government has crossed the red line separating it from authoritarian and repressive regimes” and that “it doesn’t respect the chief elements of democracy.”

This accusation is not new. Carles Puigdemont has previously argued that, politically speaking, Spain is like Turkey. But the reverse is the case: Puigdemont is, like Erdogan, the one who is shielding himself behind the majority, ignoring the separation of powers and breaking the law, violating the Constitution and the Estatut and using the institutions to push forward an illegal referendum without guarantees. Spain, a member of the European Union, is recognized as a democracy by all the relevant international organizations. The announcement of the ballot is the culmination of a project to repeal constitutional democracy

6. “We citizens have been called to the polls on October 1 to defend democracy in the face of a repressive and intimidating regime.” 

False: the announcement of the ballot is not about defending democracy, but rather about the culmination of a project to repeal constitutional democracy, to repeal the charter of self-government; and to cause the fragmentation of the Spanish rule of law, as embodied in the suspended breakaway laws paving the way for a referendum and for the transition to an independent republic, which were approved in the regional Catalan parliament on September 6 and September 8, 2017 inside a chamber that was half empty as most opposition deputies walked out in protest against the fact that their parliamentary rights were being denied. Intimidation has been carried out by secessionist groups, among them the radical left-wing CUP party, which has put up posters with photos of Catalan mayors and councilors who are in favor of compliance with democratic law.

7. “We are defending the right of Catalans to freely decide their future” 

The assumption that Catalans currently cannot decide their future in free elections is false: they have participated in 35 fully democratic elections since 1977 (at the local, regional, national and European levels) and in three referendums (the ratification of the Spanish Constitution and, on two occasions, of the Catalan Estatut); they enjoy self-government; and the region’s parties are fully present inside the Spanish Congress and Senate (and in the European Parliament, as Spaniards), as well as in many other public institutions.

8. “What is happening in Catalonia isn’t happening anywhere else in the European Union” 

This is the only assertion by Puigdemont that is actually accurate. Unfortunately, in the European Union we have nationalist leaders in both Hungary and Poland who want to put an end to the separation of powers and revoke the systems of laws and liberties currently in force. Luckily, as is also the case with Catalonia, this type of behavior has no place in the EU.
I can't say I find this to be a convincing refutation of the Catalonian people's right to self-determination, but I will note that by the Spanish government's standard, it is very clear that neither the USA nor the EU subscribe to the basic tenets of democracy.

Labels: , ,

183 Comments:

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 5:03 AM  

Far from my favourite newspaper, but at last we could see here some writing about the current events in my region that is not absolutely clueless.

Catalonia has not right to unilateral independence, according to this:

"Introduction / Definition:
Self-determination has two aspects, internal and external. Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference. External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state. However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination.

In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the 1960s was interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose. Ethnic or other distinct groups within colonies did not have a right to separate themselves from the "people" of the territory as a whole. Today, the right of groups to govern themselves is increasingly intertwined with human rights norms, in particular the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples. While no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law, it is possible that such a right may be accepted in the future as an exceptional measure, if a distinct group of people is systematically denied the right to participate in the government of the state or if individuals within such a group suffer systematic and gross violations of human rights that make their participation in that state impossible."

Source: https://pesd.princeton.edu/?q=node/254

Anonymous Looking Glass September 21, 2017 5:05 AM  

Spain has been in a rough spot for a while. The 2008 GFC probably ruined the ability for the country to stay together, as it destroyed about a 10 year cohort of Spaniards. I think it was dc.sunsets that said wars happen coming off of lows? Good chance this is the modern take of one.

Anonymous Yann September 21, 2017 5:07 AM  

The police intervention not only took place under the aegis of the judiciary, it was in fact ordered by the latter and has the backing of the Constitutional Court.[...]the announcement of the ballot is not about defending democracy, but rather about the culmination of a project to repeal constitutional democracy

Right. But the law is tailored to prevent Catalonia from having a referendum. Only way to make the referendum and to have the right of Self-Determination is to break the Spanish law.

Another different thing is whether a law that prevent a nation of having the right of Self-Determination can be considered legit.

the searches and arrests conducted on Wednesday inside various government agencies were carried out by the Civil Guard, not on the orders of the Interior Ministry or of the Prosecutor’s Office. the searches on Wednesday were not indiscriminate, they were individualized as part of the judicial police’s operation

Probably a half-truth. Police in Spain is highly politicized when it comes to nationalism, so it's likely to be have been organized to have some kind of excuse by now.

The assumption that Catalans currently cannot decide their future in free elections is false: they have participated in 35 fully democratic elections since 1977

True, but this is not related to the right of self-determination. Spanish elections and Self-determination referendum are different issues. It's like somebody telling you that you already have your right to free speech because you can vote every 4 years, and that's all the free speech you need.

Anonymous LF September 21, 2017 5:09 AM  

So a leftists separatist party craps all over the constitution of It's country and by your parameters It's allright because it represents the will of the (relative, and due to intimidation) people?

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 5:09 AM  

Yann, are you a male member of the bovine species? That BS production would be explained in a more easy way...

Blogger VD September 21, 2017 5:14 AM  

So a leftists separatist party craps all over the constitution of It's country and by your parameters It's allright because it represents the will of the (relative, and due to intimidation) people?

Genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter WHY a group of people doesn't want to be part of a state. This is the excuse that imperialists always offer. The South had no right to secede because slavery. Catalonia has no right to secede because idiot leftists.

The argument is a named logical fallacy.

Either a right to democratic self-determination exists or it does not. If it exists, the Catalonian people, as a nation, have that right. If it does not exist, then shut up and prepare to fight an imperialist war.

Anonymous LF September 21, 2017 5:17 AM  

"Right. But the law is tailored to prevent Catalonia from having a referendum"

No, It's tailored so people don't get to gtfo unilateraly, so they'd have to pass through the constitutional court to get a legal referendum.
Since they won't, they deserve the tender mercies of the Guardia Civil, like other entitled lefties.

Anonymous Eduardo September 21, 2017 5:19 AM  

Time for Franco 2.0!

History is rhyming at levels that shouldn't even be possible.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 21, 2017 5:20 AM  

In a connection between this and other recent topic, I read yesterday that Spanish police seized the headquarters of the Catalonian registrar that controls the .cat TLD. Not sure why, or what they're doing with it, but perhaps it's an early sign of the nationalization of Internet services that's coming.

Anonymous LF September 21, 2017 5:21 AM  

"Genetic fallacy."
No, because the problem is that they are crapping over the constitution, and If They were right wing they'd still be crapping over the constitution. I mention the fact that they're leftist because that's what they are and that's the kind of thing they do.
And with wich You're apparently fine.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 5:24 AM  

A refutation of the refutation:

Point 1: "Judicial Police"? Really?

Point 2: "What defines a democracy is not the existence of majorities – all political regimes have them – but rather the fact that democracies cannot disobey the law with impunity."

Are you sh****ng me? Democracy is literally defined as rule by majority. The law? What law? Certainly not one democratically arrived upon!

Point 3: "Nor can one say that Catalan home rule has been suspended, since nobody has invoked Section 155 of the Constitution, which would allow central authorities to temporarily intervene in Catalonia’s affairs."

Right, but you're still intervening, and illegally so, apparently. Home rule has absolutely been suspended, liar.

Point 4: Whatever dude, irrelevant. This is all "You're illegal" "No, YOU'RE illegal!" squabbling. See refutation of point 3.

Point 5: "ignoring the separation of powers" About that...

"Spain, a member of the European Union, is recognized as a democracy by all the relevant international organizations." Except for, well... Catalonia, which neither recognizes nor is recognized as a democracy, quite apparently.

Point 6: "to repeal the charter of self-government" Actually, it's to implement self government, but don't mind me, do carry on dearie.

"posters with photos of Catalan mayors and councilors who are in favor of compliance with democratic law." You mean Catalan mayors and councilors in favor of compliance with law imposed democratically... by non-Catalans.

Point 7: "The assumption that Catalans currently cannot decide their future in free elections is false"

You're literally stopping them from doing so.

Point 8: "This is the only assertion by Puigdemont that is actually accurate."

Ironically, it's the only assertion that's a lie.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 5:25 AM  

Cail Corishev - I've seen the same piece of news today, courtesy of a twit from VD.

Seems that .cat related thing was the seizure of several thousands of domains that were related to the referendum. Spain Supreme Court, by determining the referendum illegal, also outlawed publicity or propaganda of the referendum.

Blogger VD September 21, 2017 5:25 AM  

And with wich You're apparently fine.

Absolutely. I don't trust the Spanish "Constitutional Court" any more than I trust the U.S. Supreme Court. Spain can no longer pretend to be a democracy if it does not permit the Catalonians to vote on whether they want to be part of Spain or not.

It will be another fake democratic multinational empire imposed by force, like the USA.

Anonymous Eduardo September 21, 2017 5:27 AM  

@Cail

Probably to bring down the site as per the excuse of the Central Government. It makes sense.

@LF

Unfortunately... Yes... Self-Determination for a nation should be a Human Right!

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 5:28 AM  

Yes, Judicial Police:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_police

(sorry, there is no Infogalactic entry yet)

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 5:32 AM  

Sorry, VD, sir, but only the UK, and Canada allow secession referenda, both with constraints.

Anonymous LF September 21, 2017 5:34 AM  

"Absolutely".
Ok then, I just wanted to make sure I understood your position.
@Eduardo
"Unfortunately... Yes... Self-Determination for a nation should be a Human Right!"
Nations aren't human, they're made of humans, and Cataluña is more self governed now than most US states.
You're mistaking spoiled antifas asking for moar gibs to the EU for allies.

Blogger Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club September 21, 2017 5:55 AM  

it is true that the Catalan government was appointed by a majority of the deputies who were elected at the regional election of September 27, 2015, this kind of legitimacy (which does not even represent a majority of the people who voted that day)

Muh popular vote!

democracies cannot disobey the law with impunity

Even given the the loosest definition of "the law", by this formulation, there ain't no democracy nowhere.

Anonymous Ages September 21, 2017 6:10 AM  

I will never understand why people seem to believe the world map as it appears at any given time is sacrosanct. It's even sillier than Global Warmists who insist a particular temperature is divine.

If they want out, let them vote out. It does not matter who they are, what they believe, what motivates them, or what the consequences might be ("X cannot be self-sustaining). That goes for every secessionist movement.

It's always the statists who oppose independence.

Anonymous zebedee September 21, 2017 6:17 AM  

The Spanish Constitution of 1978 which is the Supreme law of the land and does not permit the Catalonian regional government to hold a referendum on independence was ratified following a national referendum in which the peoples of Spain were asked whether they approved of it. The results of the Referendum were 91.81% in favour. The people of Catalonia were even more in favour of the Constitution than the national average, voting 95.15% in favour of the proposed constitution, the second highest total in the country after the Canary Islands. The Constitution was drafted by the elected members of the Cortes in it's role as a constituent assembly. Catalonians have a right to self-determination but they overwhelmingly voted not so long ago to subject it to certain constraints. The actions of the current Catalonian regional government are a deliberate attempt to subvert the rule of law. Anarchy does not equal Democracy. Now it's certainly arguable that the reaction of the Spanish Government to this illegal provocation is counterproductive, but upholding the democratic will of the people as embodied by the supreme law of the land is nothing if not democratic.

Blogger Lazarus September 21, 2017 6:25 AM  

Rule of Law:

The petty criminal breaks the law, the devious criminal evades the law, the master criminal uses the law.

Blogger bobby September 21, 2017 6:25 AM  

Section 155 of the 1978 Constitution is going to put the kibosh on any secession that doesn't involve guns:

"If a Self-governing Region does not fulfill the obligations imposed upon it by the Constitution or other laws, or acts in a way that is seriously prejudicial to the general interest of Spain, the Government, after having lodged a complaint with the Premier of the Self-governing Region and failed to receive satisfaction therefore, may, following approval granted by the overall majority of the Senate, take all measures necessary to compel the Region to meet said obligations, or to protect the above-mentioned general interest.

With a view to implementing the measures provided for in the foregoing paragraph, the Government may issue instructions to all the authorities of the Self-governing Regions."


As zebedee points out above, Catalonia voted for this 95% to 5%.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 6:29 AM  

Okay, so here's my actual opinion on the subject:

"I live in the world as I permit it to exist. If it were not so, either the world would not be as it is, or I would not live. You live in the world in the same manner."

War or be subjugated.

Blogger Lazarus September 21, 2017 6:34 AM  

Moar Democracy

The Spanish national assembly on Wednesday rejected a motion to support the Spanish government’s heavy-handed response to the the referendum by 166 votes against to 158 in favor, after the centre-left opposition party PSOE teamed up with left-wingers Podemos and smaller separatist parties in the parliament.

Anonymous Student in Blue September 21, 2017 6:35 AM  

The regional premier is apparently responding to an emotional event with dialectic. That's not going to end well.

Blogger James Dixon September 21, 2017 6:35 AM  

> Sorry, VD, sir, but only the UK, and Canada allow secession referenda, both with constraints.

The US Constitution does not outlaw secession referenda, and therefore (by definition) allows them. Secession itself is "with constraints".

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 6:36 AM  

"Catalonians have a right to self-determination but they overwhelmingly voted not so long ago to subject it to certain constraints."

Can one cede a human right?

Let's be pellucid. There is no such thing with regard to peaceful self-determination, and anything functionally resembling any sane definition of a "human right" does not exist under that heading in any modern political situation I am aware of.

This is logical, and also exactly why demonic possession is a possibility. Even God-given free will may be willed away.

War to the death or be subjugated, that's the closet that exists to a human right with regard to self determination, a decision between slavery and death, which is precisely why ancient warriors recognized "slave" to be synonymous with "craven".

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 6:37 AM  

Using Dialectics? The Separatists? That would be really a first!

Blogger Galahad78 September 21, 2017 6:39 AM  

@NobodyExpects

"Sorry, VD, sir, but only the UK, and Canada allow secession referenda, both with constraints."

In fact, it could be done in Spain too: Catalonian separatist politicians attended Congreso de los Diputados to ask for permission before 9N-2014, where it was voted and turned down. However, they advised, even before traveling to Madrid, that they would not respect (as they indeed did not) the resolution of Congreso. At that time, one of the options which was offered was that, as according to Spanish Constitution sovereignity belongs to all Spanish people, the referendum should take place in all of Spain. Obviously, Catalonian separatists turned down this offer.

Re. our appreciated host's question: they already exercise their right to self-determination, in local, regional, national and European elections. Then, perhaps, the question ought to be a differente one. Might it be "should they have the right to unilaterally secede from Spain?". My answer would be "Of course". However, and I'm genuinely curious about your opinion here, should this right be applied to even smaller "population"? (cities, towns, neighbourhoods, households).

Anonymous Rocklea September 21, 2017 6:39 AM  

Hotel Catalonia, there's plenty o' room.
(appropriate riff)

Such a fragile thing, the Law. 1978? I mean, really? It's 2017!

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 6:40 AM  

"Using Dialectics? The Separatists? That would be really a first!"

Neither the separatists nor the "unionists" are being either honest or dialectic.

Cool story bro.

Blogger VD September 21, 2017 6:43 AM  

However, and I'm genuinely curious about your opinion here, should this right be applied to even smaller "population"? (cities, towns, neighbourhoods, households).

Cities yes. Towns no. Towns are indefensible.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 6:48 AM  

Could you support that assertion, Azure Amaranthine?

For instance, that editorial in the current blog entry is a good example of Dialectics, in the sense of an ordered, reasoned, exposition of arguments. You disregarded it because reasons. Do you remember that bit about judicial police?

The Separatists side is quite adept to the use of lies, the most ridiculous the better. For instance, there are sources that state that bullfighting on foot was invented in Navarre, in Northern Spain, around the 14th century. Southern Spain preferred bullfighting on horse. But someone thought convenient to make bullfighting something only the less white Spanish would support, so invented that thing about bulls and tourism. Good from a Rhetorical point of view, but a bit insulting.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 6:50 AM  

"Towns are indefensible."

I think that says it all, right there.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 6:53 AM  

"The Separatists side is quite adept to the use of lies"

They're both lying.

If you can't understand the difference between self-determination being an actual human right (read: inviolable) and it being a manifestation of force, I can't have any meaningful argument with you, and if you CAN understand it, we've no reason to argue.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 6:57 AM  

As far as proving that neither is dialectic, "What defines a democracy is not the existence of majorities – all political regimes have them – but rather the fact that democracies cannot disobey the law with impunity."

Obviously bull. Democracy is about rule by majority. Adherence to rule or law is a separate or subjugate issue, and yet he stated it as if it were the sole truth, rather than being irrelevant. Obvious lie.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 6:59 AM  

More Rhetorics...

Do I need to put here for the third time the text that explains that self-determination does not mean right to form a new country, Azure Amaranthine?

Because if you have not read it the two previous times, nor feel inclined to discuss it then I feel I will be wasting my time.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 6:59 AM  

It would be at least somewhat honest if he had said that "Civil society" or "the concept of government" were based upon obeying the law, but he clearly (and disingenuously) did not.

Anonymous Yann September 21, 2017 7:00 AM  

The Constitution was drafted by the elected members of the Cortes in it's role as a constituent assembly. Catalonians have a right to self-determination but they overwhelmingly voted not so long ago to subject it to certain constraints.

This is only partially true, it misses two important elements.

1. The Constitution was voted under the threat of another military coup d'etat. Many people voted in fear of losing the chance for democracy if the Constitution was not approved. It can be debated whether a vote under coercion is compelling later on.

2. The Constitution does NOT states clearly that Catalonia can't hold a referendum. What it says is that referendums to consult all citizens can only be organized by the Spanish government.

The issue here is that the referendum is not consulting all citizens but only the Catalan ones. Constitutional Court stated that it applies to local referendums too. However, the Constitutional Court heavily antagonizes nationalism and that decision was said to be a highly politicized one. The same Constitutional Court declared some articles in the statute of Catalonia to be against the Constitution. The very same articles, however, are considered to be legit in the statute of Andalusia by the same Constitutional Court. That was a big issue in Catalonia and it was one of the issues that lead to the current situation.

In a nutshell: being the Constitution approved and voted in the 78 unclear about whether Catalonia can hold a referendum among Catalan people or no, it's heavily debatable that Catalan people renounced to that right.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 7:00 AM  

"Do I need to put here for the third time the text that explains that self-determination does not mean right to form a new country, Azure Amaranthine?"

Does it need to be pointed out again to you that that is an entirely arbitrary limitation that clearly violates and invalidates the basic concept of self-determination?

Blogger Galahad78 September 21, 2017 7:00 AM  

@VD

Ha, good point, thank you.

Blogger Emmett Fitz-Hume September 21, 2017 7:02 AM  

What is about this Catalonia thing? They've been the most instructive and entertaining posts on VP for the past week or so.

Is it language barrier that keeps some from understanding VD's point? I'm not trying to be snarky, since I don't think some of these people are trolls or idiots. But still...

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 7:02 AM  

Great, now you want to convert this in a discussion about the sources of international law.

Sorry, I do not feel qualified for that.

Blogger ZhukovG September 21, 2017 7:02 AM  

"An unjust law is no law at all."

St. Augustine

"...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."

Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson

The only question is:

Does a nation(people) have the right of self determination? This must include the right to change their mind in regards to previously selected political associations.

I say yes. Let Catalonia hold its referendum.


Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 7:03 AM  

I don't care if a text explains it if that text is bull, or otherwise self-contradictory. Either self-determination is absolute as a human right, or it does not exist and is instead an ideological window-dressing of a very different underlying principle.

Anonymous That Guy - Don't be that guy September 21, 2017 7:03 AM  

The meme wars email link is wrong. It goes to yesterday's meme.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 7:04 AM  

"Great, now you want to convert this in a discussion about the sources of international law."

No, it's about common sense and very simple dialectic.

"Sorry, I do not feel qualified for that."

Agreed, you're not a dialectic-speaker.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 7:07 AM  

"Is it language barrier"

Did you know that some languages, such as German and English for example, used to have "High" and "Low" versions?

If you consider those to be different languages from each other, then yes.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 7:07 AM  

Oh, now the black/white dichotomy.

What do you understand as self-determination, Azure Amaranthine? Because seems we have different ideas about what that is.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 7:14 AM  

"Oh, now the black/white dichotomy."

What part of "human right" do you not understand?

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 7:18 AM  

These are the things I do not understand about your idea of "human right", AA:

Who defines what is a human right and what is not?
Are human rights individual rights, or are there collective rights?
Could a collective right trespass on an individual right?

Blogger ZhukovG September 21, 2017 7:19 AM  

@Emmett Fitz-Hume: What you are seeing is human nature. The self centered nature of Man is capable of erecting a near impenetrable barrier against even the most elementary dialectic.

In this case:

A distinct nation(people) have the right of self-determination. That is, that they may establish and dissolve political bonds and organizations as they will. Further, that no nation(people) shall have the right to interfere with the right of self-determination exercised by another nation(people).

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 7:20 AM  

Self-determination. Literally "right" to make all choices for themselves.

You can't just say that they can't make certain choices, because that means that they do not, in fact, have complete self determination. They are subjugated to others in those matters where they do not have it.

By precisely the same logic as yours, if someone ever agrees to be a slave, they have no right ever to not be a slave again. So, basically what you're saying is, slavery is A-OK as long as the slave agreed to it at some point.

Blogger Emmett Fitz-Hume September 21, 2017 7:23 AM  

I can see it Zhukov. I guess it still surprises me, unfortunately.

I'm been fighting the urge to type, "The Spain is Fine."

I guess I lost.

Anonymous Rocklea September 21, 2017 7:24 AM  

Human right:
The ability to choose the least harmful(most beneficial) outcome(or action) from a given set of circumstances.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 7:25 AM  

"Who defines what is a human right and what is not?"

Supposedly, they are either natural or God-granted attributes, and they are supposed to be utterly inviolable.

"Are human rights individual rights, or are there collective rights?"

Collectives are composed of individuals and nothing else. Logically a collective should manifest the rights of its individual components and NO other rights.

"Could a collective right trespass on an individual right?"

Can individual rights trespass on individual rights? Logically no, because it would be, by my first definition for you, paradoxical for them to do so.

Blogger ZhukovG September 21, 2017 7:26 AM  

@Emmett Fitz-Hume: I figured you did. I just decided to spell it out for the hard headed Spaniards.

Anonymous Yann September 21, 2017 7:26 AM  

What is about this Catalonia thing? They've been the most instructive and entertaining posts on VP for the past week or so.

The situation in Spain is more or less a inverted version of the one in the western world, which is quite a strange thing that nobody knows exactly how to explain, not even in Spain.

While in most of the western world you have a leftist establishment and most of the media is controlled by the left, in Spain both media and establishment are controlled by the right. But it's not the right you could have in UK, France, Germany or USA, but something that looks more like a lite version of Erdogan.

But there's more than one right in Spain, you have nationalistic rights. Indeed, the most important figures in both Basque and Catalan nationalism belong to the right. For example, Jordi Pujol, the most important figure in the Catalan nationalism, was the typical Christian-Democrat (which is the most common right in the Center of Europe). Arzalluz, who is the key figure in the Basque nationalism, is another Christian-Democrat.

So right now you have both left and right cooperating, both in Catalonia and Basque Country, to get rid of Spanish government, dominated by the right. The position of the Spanish left is kind of strange "No Belligerency", which means they don't support the Spanish right trying to take down the Catalan referendum... but they don't oppose it neither. Kind of "that's OK as long it's you who gets your hands dirty".

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 7:27 AM  

I am quite sorry, AA, but if you think "my logic" supports slavery, you have not the remotest idea about what I think in these matters.

On the other hand, that self-determination you defined does not look like a human right. That definition looks more like the definition of free will.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 7:30 AM  

"That definition looks more like the definition of free will."

Pray tell why "self determination" and "free will" are not absolutely synonymous.

Hint: They're absolutely synonymous by definition.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 7:30 AM  

And again Yann manages to describe the current situation in the wrong way in all aspects.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 7:32 AM  

Determination and Will are synonyms, and "free" and "self"... "free" means ability to act individually, and "self" means distinctness and ability to act... individually.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 7:36 AM  

Wrong AA. In international law, this is a more accurate definition:

"Self-determination has two aspects, internal and external.

Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference.

External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state."

This is a collective right, and this self-determination is the one that should be in mind when considering secessions, independences, etc. Were we considering self-determination as free will, the manifestation of self-determination would be to vote with the feet and go live in another country.

Not in making noise, convince for some time other people, and drag that people and a portion of an existing country to the adventure of being a new country.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 7:36 AM  

In other words, yes, Catalonia possesses absolute self-determination, but only if they're willing to kill and die for it. Otherwise, well, they're just slaves to whatever particular degree their masters care to impose on them.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 7:41 AM  

And now you use it as a collective right...

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 7:43 AM  

""Self-determination has two aspects, internal and external.

Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference.

External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state."


"You, the slave, have internal self determination regarding when to relieve yourself. Whether you will be in a restroom at that time, however, falls under the domain of external self determination."

Do you see the problem with the moronic, intentionally dishonest distinction between internal and external self-determination? The bounds of "internal" and "external" are entirely arbitrarily defines.

"the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination"

What part of ALIEN DOMINATION cannot satisfy any definition of slavery? You literally have no idea what you're talking about, NobodyExpects. If they don't have "external self determination" they are, by definition, indistinguishable from slaves.

Blogger Valtandor Nought September 21, 2017 7:46 AM  

Galahad78: However, and I'm genuinely curious about your opinion here, should this right be applied to even smaller "population"? (cities, towns, neighbourhoods, households).

VD: Cities yes. Towns no. Towns are indefensible.


I was turning this question over in my mind, too.

I asked myself, "If there is a right to self-determination up to and including unilateral secession and political sovereignty, is there a scale below which it is too small to work?" I think the answer is yes. At minimum, a community is too small to self-determine if the state it is seceding from would still, as a practical matter, be responsible for its defence, trade and foreign relations.

My house is far from being economically self-sufficient: it is only viable through trade with the outside world. As for military self-sufficiency, the country where I live could not avoid defending my house without also giving up defending a large portion of its own territory.

The Queen, in short, has to endure the downsides of having me as a subject (responsibility for defence, etc.). Therefore, it's only right that she should get the advantages: that I pay my taxes and keep her laws.

This doesn't apply to Catalonia. Catalonia is, I'm sure, quite capable of a high degree of economic self-sufficiency, to at least the degree of nations such as Japan and the United Kingdom. Catalonia is a compact and contiguous territory on the periphery of Spain: Spain could let Catalonia go without being divided into multiple small pieces, without having a myriad of tiny statelets surrounded by Spanish territory, and with no requirement to give up large parts of what would remain Spain if they didn't wish to defend an "independent" Catalonia.

By any reasonable standard, then, if there is such a thing as a right to national self-determination (regardless of imperial legislation preventing it, for such legislation will always exist), the Catalans have it, at least as much as the Czechs in 1918. The Czechs had been a part of the Austrian Empire (as the Kingdom of Bohemia) for hundreds of years, and they spoke a language other than German. They weren't governed democratically as we would now understand the term, but then neither were the German-Austrians.

One could say that the right to self-determination only exists if the relevant empire is wholly undemocratic, or if it is a mix of democratically governed and undemocratically governed parts (in which case the people seeking self-determination only have the right if they are among the undemocratically governed). To which I would ask: How is a democracy in which you know your people will always be outvoted (on ethnic lines) functionally different from an undemocratic state? You have no real say in your rulers or your laws, as they are erected over you by a different ethnic group who outnumber you.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 7:46 AM  

AA, may I ask if English is your native language?

For sure, it is not mine.

Blogger Valtandor Nought September 21, 2017 7:46 AM  

(continued)

As regards the military side of things, I can understand an argument that a right to self-determination (including unilateral secession) must be balanced against a right of countries, including those who are being seceded from, to maintain such defensible borders as they possess. Spain, for instance, might prefer an eastern border along the Pyrenees and the Mediterranean for military reasons than an eastern land border with an independent Catalonia, which may from time to time be hostile to Spain (or at least not an ally). But while this argument can be made, it is not an argument that the Catalans are undeserving of self-determination; rather, it is an argument against there being a right to self-determination for any ethnic group.

I have seen arguments advanced that the Catalans are undeserving of self-determination, usually on account of their politics, their tactical missteps, and so forth. Well, if a "right" can be taken from someone (or a group) who doesn't deserve it, then it is not and never was a right; it is rather a privilege.

I have also seen advanced the idea that there is no right because Spanish law forbids it. If that is the case, then the only time a "right to self-determination" exists is when a dying empire lacks the will or power to maintain its grip on its territories. In which case, again, there is no such thing as a right to self-determination; there is merely the historical fact of a disintegrating imperial state.

Blogger Stilicho September 21, 2017 7:46 AM  

Hey, if some clown in black robe approved an action, it must be democratic and legitimate...

Well, if that's going to be the standard...

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 7:46 AM  

"And now you use it as a collective right..."

No, this is just you proving yet again that you are not in fact a dialectic speaker. Either that or you're functionally illiterate.

I can speak of "Catalonia" as a collection of individuals. Why you think a collection of individuals and a "collective" are different... you smell like a commie.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 7:48 AM  

"if English is your native language?"

It is.

"Hey, if some clown in black robe approved an action, it must be democratic and legitimate..."

Sounds familiar somehow.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 7:51 AM  

"By any reasonable standard, then, if there is such a thing as a right to national self-determination (regardless of imperial legislation preventing it, for such legislation will always exist), the Catalans have it"

They're going to have to fight for it. So, no, they don't actually have it until they take it.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 7:54 AM  

Valtandor Nought, considering that since 1978, few parties have achieved absolute majority in the Spanish low chamber, and that the most voted ones usually had to negotiate with the regionalist parties to form government, I'd say that the Catalonian, and Basque regions are influential enough in Spain. So influential that the national state is almost residual in Catalonia and in the Basque Provinces.

However, that increase of devolution of govt powers and functions has made Catalans more favourable to independence. Could you explain that?

By contrast, North Catalonia, or French Catalonia, has no secession problems whatsoever. And they are inside one of the most centralized states in Europe.

So another reason less for self-determination.

Blogger Valtandor Nought September 21, 2017 7:54 AM  

Azure Amaranthine: They're going to have to fight for it. So, no, they don't actually have it until they take it.

If that is indeed the case, there's no such thing as a right to self-determination. There's merely a natural "right" to fight for what you desire, and a corresponding natural "responsibility" to pay the penalty due to losers if such is the outcome.

Blogger ZhukovG September 21, 2017 7:57 AM  

@Azure Amaranthine: Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. But a right exists regardless of the ability of a people to exercise it.

The Catalan people have the right to dissolve their political bond to the Spanish state whether they are capable of overcoming Spanish imperial opposition or not.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 7:57 AM  

Functionally illiterate. That's new! :D

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 7:58 AM  

"If that is indeed the case, there's no such thing as a right to self-determination. There's merely a natural "right" to fight for what you desire, and a corresponding natural "responsibility" to pay the penalty due to losers if such is the outcome."

Correct.

Anonymous Rocklea September 21, 2017 8:00 AM  

Rocketman went the Family Atomics route.

Blogger Valtandor Nought September 21, 2017 8:02 AM  

ZhukovG:The Catalan people have the right to dissolve their political bond to the Spanish state whether they are capable of overcoming Spanish imperial opposition or not.

And does the Government of Spain, on your view, have the moral right (as distinct from the practical ability) to declare the Catalan people rebels and traitors if they do so, and to proceed against them with much force as it has available and wishes to use?

Blogger Valtandor Nought September 21, 2017 8:03 AM  

(...with as much force..., naturally)

Anonymous Yann September 21, 2017 8:09 AM  

By contrast, North Catalonia, or French Catalonia, has no secession problems whatsoever. And they are inside one of the most centralized states in Europe. So another reason less for self-determination.

Both French Catalonia and French Basque Country are not for independence. And France is heavily centralized.

However, both Catalan and Basque culture are closer from French one than from Spanish one.

At the end of the day, it's a matter of cultural proximity. If you are in a house where the rules are quite similar to yours, you'll be OK. But when the rules are very different than the ones you like, you'll want to get out of there asap.

It's the same situation that happened with English and German people in US. Both had enough common ground to feel comfortable in a common house with common rules. The problem appears when somebody with very different rules, like Mexicans, shares that house. And that's where real problems begin.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 8:10 AM  

"a right exists regardless of the ability of a people to exercise it"

If they can't exercise it, they clearly do not actually possess that right, regardless of its existence or lack thereof.

If a right is a universal human right, and the individual(s) in question is/are human, they can either exercise it or it does not exist.

"The Catalan people have the right to dissolve their political bond to the Spanish state whether they are capable of overcoming Spanish imperial opposition or not."

If they have the right it's either universal in scope or at least contains the political scope.

Politically, they are being denied that right. This necessitates that is neither universal nor political in scope. If it exists elsewhere or by other means, it exists meaninglessly, divorced from its purpose. If a word is meaningless, why use it? Do you intend to champion their rights? If not, they don't have any rights they cannot ensure by force.

The concept of a "right" is a civil and political nicety, meaning that ceases to exist when people stop being nice. The only right anyone has is to make an attempt, all else regarding execution or outcome depend on force, be it physical, economic, social or spiritual.

The only remaining question is whether they are willing and able to exercise that right by force, because no other mean will avail them.

"Functionally illiterate. That's new! :D"

Look, I get that English isn't your native tongue. Either way, you're definitely not understanding what's being written in it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now and assume you're not completely literate in English rather than either assuming that you're not a particularly bright bulb, or are not being entirely honest.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 8:12 AM  

"Rocketman went the Family Atomics route."

Where's my Mr. Fusion? I want to generate clean, limitless energy by energetically annihilating banana peels with no waste radiation!

Blogger ZhukovG September 21, 2017 8:18 AM  

Valtandor Nought: No they do not. Now if a group of Spaniards aligned with the Catalans to impose Catalan imperial rule on the Spanish nation then those Spaniards could rightly be declared traitors.

Blogger FALPhil September 21, 2017 8:18 AM  

From my Catalan amigo on the ground in Malaga:

Hey Phil,

¡Qué buen español, Phil! Gracias por el interés

To make a long story short, since the end of 19th century (where nationalism grew over Europe) there has been a fluctuating pro-independence feeling in Catalonia that was strongly repressed during Franco dictatorship. Democratic parties after Franco’s death managed to find a balance between regional demands of autonomy and self-government (not only for Catalonia, also for the Basque Country and Galicia) and the fear that, at that time, Spanish army wouldn’t have accepted going too far in these demands.

In 2006, both Catalan Parliament and Spanish Parliament passed a new Autonomy Statute (approved by more of 80% in Catalonia) that was strongly opposed by the party (Popular Party) that now is in office in Spain but back then was in the opposition. In 2010 this Statute was overridden by the Spanish Constitutional Court and that’s when the current state of affairs started, since it was taken as an insult to the people of Catalonia and not respecting their own autonomy. Then the regional right-winged party (CiU) that has ruled Catalonia most of the time turned from being pro Spanish Constitution to pro-Independence joining the traditional pro-Independence left-winged party (ERC).

In 2014 there was a kind of referendum with no legal consequences about the Independence in Catalonia. Participation was low (less than 40%) but the result was pro-Independece +75%.

In 2015 there was regional elections in Catalonia which was won by a coalition with the only purpose of making a referendum and eventually declare the independence.
No more than 3 weeks ago, Catalan Parliament has passed 2 laws, one on the referendum (October 1st) and the other one on the transition legal state from Spanish Constitution to a new Catalan Constitution. These 2 laws were immediately overridden by Spanish Constitutional Court. Catalan government say that the do not accept this Court because is not impartial and they are keeping their intention of making the referendum. On the other hand, Spanish government is trying to avoid by all means that the voting takes place: they have cancelled the economic autonomy in Catalonia, they have registered printing companies, they have shut down web sites and finally yesterday they have registered the regional offices where they believe the voting was being prepared. In this registers, police have arrested senior staff from the Catalan government (14 persons) and people in Catalonia protested against this coercive actions. They claim that they only want to vote and Spanish Government is far from being democratic. On the other hand, Spanish Government say that the law is with them and they cannot allow that the Spanish integrity be at stake since Constitution does not allow a part of Spain being segregated from the rest of the national territory.

And that’s where we are now. Who knows what can happen next. How far Catalan separatists can go and what actions Spanish Government can follow afterwards (cancelling the full Catalan autonomy, send the military force to reintegrate the public order…) My view is that yesterday’s arrests have crossed a line in which international community may have a different word. Until now, most of the countries understand that hardly any government can accept that their own countries could be broken apart, but it is difficult to explain why sending people to prison who just ask to be allowed to vote…

I hope that someone can bring common sense to both sides and a long term solution can be found, but nowadays it seems that everyone is happy in keeping their contradictory positions…

One of the Spanish greatest painters, Goya, expressed very well the way how Spaniards we have been dealing with differences among us over time…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_with_Cudgels#/media/File:Francisco_de_Goya_y_Lucientes_-_Duelo_a_garrotazos.jpg

Sad but very true.

Anonymous FunctionallyIlliterate September 21, 2017 8:20 AM  

I like it!

Basically because is such a sweet, sweet example of projection...

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 8:26 AM  

"declare the Catalan people rebels"

The concept of rebels, to my mind, can only exist within a hierarchical, top-down framework. If they're in a pure democracy, they can logically elect to quit the democracy, at which point they cannot honestly be declared rebels by the democracy they have quit, because they no longer belong to it.

If they cannot elect to quit the democracy, the effect is similar to being in a prison shower with the door locked shut. They're about to give it up to whoever the strongest man in the room is (read: the majority), "and they're going to like it." Not appreciably different than slavery, the only difference is that they may like the arrangement when they're "not giving it up" and hate it when they are. The conditions that would force them to "give it up" do not violate any legal part of the arrangement, whether they eventually occur or not.

Rebels? Victims or victors in reality.

Blogger JL Domingo September 21, 2017 8:27 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger ZhukovG September 21, 2017 8:28 AM  

Azure Amaranthine: I think I understand what you are saying. If I own a car and it is stolen, I no longer possess it. However, it is still legally and morally my property and the person denying my possession of my property may be rightly viewed as a criminal.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 8:28 AM  

FALPhil, Could you ask your friend what was the horrible pruning committed in that Autonomy Statute?

If he does not remember (very likely), then ask him about the structure of the Catalan judiciary, and the possibility to appeal to the National Supreme Court in Madrid in the Autonomy Statute before being pruned.

Yann, please keep with the creative writing, and remember the traditional friendship between France and Catalonia, especially after the fierce defense of Barcelona in 1714 because of the possibility of having a French king in Madrid.

Blogger FALPhil September 21, 2017 8:33 AM  

Valtandor Nought wrote:How is a democracy in which you know your people will always be outvoted (on ethnic lines) functionally different from an undemocratic state? You have no real say in your rulers or your laws, as they are erected over you by a different ethnic group who outnumber you.

This is the crux of the issue, and essentially, it revolves, as in the case of Catalonia, around power. Whoever has the power decides who gets ruled by whom, and thus, we return to VD's statement, "...neither the USA nor the EU subscribe to the basic tenets of democracy."

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 8:38 AM  

"However, it is still legally and morally my property and the person denying my possession of my property may be rightly viewed as a criminal."

Vox's point (and mine as well) does not depend on the morality or immorality of the action. In fact, the point is that Spain is lying about both being democratic and providing its citizens with self determination. Even more, it's CLEARLY lying, in a fashion that one would think would be plain even to many or most normies.

The argument about whether a right is inviolable or not, "inalienable" you might say, while interesting, is not really very important in this case.

As for the legality of the matter... It would appear to be legal, insofar as are such similar things as holding a minor to an abusive contract (where there is no law against it) or tricking someone into buying a lemon without actually lying to them.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 8:41 AM  

Resorting to bullets is my advice to anyone who does not wish to be a slave when the pedal hits the metal.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 8:44 AM  

Ahem, people, do you think the Catalans that want to secede are majority?

What would happen to those that prefer to remain in Spain?

Which would be the minimum percentage margin, both over votes cast, and over the electoral roll, required for a secession vote to be effective?

Blogger Valtandor Nought September 21, 2017 8:44 AM  

FALPhil: This is the crux of the issue, and essentially, it revolves, as in the case of Catalonia, around power.

We who believe in moral rights (and moral duties) had better appeal to God, because Man doesn't care.

Blogger FALPhil September 21, 2017 8:47 AM  

NobodyExpects wrote:Ahem, people, do you think the Catalans that want to secede are majority?

In Catalonia, yes.

NobodyExpects wrote:What would happen to those that prefer to remain in Spain?

They can move. If Spain is so eager to keep Catalans, I am sure they would welcome the loyalists with open arms.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 8:48 AM  

Note that there is no answer to the third question...

Anonymous Yann September 21, 2017 8:56 AM  

@FALPhil

The letter is a wonderful and very balanced resume. However, there's one detail that it's not exactly correct.

When it says "Then the regional right-winged party (CiU) that has ruled Catalonia most of the time turned from being pro Spanish Constitution to pro-Independence joining the traditional pro-Independence left-winged party (ERC)"

The Catalan nationalist right was never pro-Spanish Constitution. They've been always been pro-independence, but.... they're very pragmatic too, and being the toll to pay for independence such a high one, they sided with the Spanish Constitution.

It's a small detail, but it's a meaningful one. What has changed is not that they're pro-independence now. The difference is that now they consider that independence does worth the price to pay.

Just that. As said, a small detail. Kudos to the letter.

Blogger Valtandor Nought September 21, 2017 8:57 AM  

NobodyExpects: Which would be the minimum percentage margin, both over votes cast, and over the electoral roll, required for a secession vote to be effective?

My answer: A simple majority of valid ballots cast, and no minimum turnout requirement. Those who don't vote are implicitly saying they don't care enough to do anything other than be guided by the majority, and I don't see any basis for requiring a supermajority of valid votes.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 9:05 AM  

About a concise description of the actual situation, this is quite good, on par with the editorial that opens the present blog post:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKKgh9dW4AAfn59.jpg

Yann, I think Miquel Roca Junyent, one of the ranking members of Pujol party, the nationalist right, was one of the framers of the Constitution of 1978. Yes, this individual:

http://www.rocajunyent.com/en/abogados-lawyer/miquel-roca-junyent/

That would not be very consistent with your statement "The Catalan nationalist right was never pro-Spanish Constitution".

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 9:09 AM  

Valtandor Nought, please have a look to the Canadian Act of Clarity. If secession is very desirable, a supermajority of census would be easy to get.

There is also the question of reversibility - while a secession referendum that gives a NO could be repeated several times until the YES is achieved, the YES always leads to a no-return situation. So the practical need of a supermajority.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 9:16 AM  

"If secession is very desirable, a supermajority of census would be easy to get."

If secession is very undesirable, a simple majority for it would be easy to get.

No reason for a supermajority, sorry, but your logic cuts both ways.

"There is also the question of reversibility"

If you ACTUALLY gave a single sh** about reversibility, why are you okay with the, according to you, totally irreversible decision to disallow secession from Spain? It takes more people the more dangerous and irreversible it is? By that logic, something totally irreversible ought to require absolute unanimity, otherwise someone's getting eternally enslaved against their will. 95% in Catalonia just doesn't cut something as plainly irresponsible and irreversible as that.

Blogger Valtandor Nought September 21, 2017 9:17 AM  

NobodyExpects, if political separation were always irreversible, the history of Spain (full of principalities and kingdoms splitting and fusing) would not be as it is. Nor that of many other countries around the world.

As for Canada's Clarity Act, I'm aware of it. I seem to recall that it calls for a "clear majority" without actually specifying what that means. Thus subjecting any successful independence referendum in a province (most obviously Quebec) to the ultimate judgment of Canada's federal judiciary - was any given majority clear enough? Is 55% enough? 60%? 75%?

I answered your question. I now ask you one: Since you obviously think some sort of supermajority is required, what do you think that ought to be and why? Words like "clear" or "decisive" aren't enough; I would like actual numbers.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 9:19 AM  

"this is quite good, on par with the editorial that opens the present blog post"

If it's only on par, that's all the excuse I need not to subject myself to reading more obvious lies.

Anonymous FunctionallyIlliterate September 21, 2017 9:19 AM  

To affirm Catalans are currently enslaved would be stretching truth behind breaking point.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 9:22 AM  

Valtandor Nought, I asked for figures too. You did not give a definite answer. So no, you have not answered my question.

Try again, please.

Blogger Valtandor Nought September 21, 2017 9:27 AM  

NobodyExpects, since you seem incapable of looking up the definition of "simple majority", I will indulge you on this occasion. A simple majority means "more votes in favour than against". One more than against is enough. This is commonly, but not entirely correctly, expressed as "50% + 1", not to be confused with 51%.

I also said no minimum turnout. If only one person bothers to cast a valid ballot, that one ballot determines the outcome.

(I am assuming no harassment, intimidation or fraud such as would cast doubt on the integrity of the voting and counting processes themselves. If the election is conducted in an atmosphere of danger, or the count is tampered with, that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)

Now, your turn.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 9:33 AM  

"To affirm Catalans are currently enslaved would be stretching truth beyond the breaking point."

To say that they are not currently enslaved to one degree or other would be quite dishonest. I never said they were totally enslaved, only made analogies to total enslavement. The fact is that the difference between them and total enslavement is only by degree, something of which you should be taking note.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 9:36 AM  

"If the election is conducted in an atmosphere of danger, or the count is tampered with, that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish."

Not really, if they care enough they'll still turn out, even if they have to kill people to do it. If they don't turn out, apparently the abuse they are receiving is insufficiently painful to impel them to turn out.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 9:38 AM  

Yes, you had answered. I did not see your post.

Between 2/3 and 3/4 of census. Bit more that the votes that approved the 1978 Constitution in Catalonia, about 60% of census.

Why the supermajority? Because if NO wins, there will be almost no changes in the day to day life. But in case of victory of YES, there is the need of using another currency, negotiate with the former country the transition, spend a time outside international treaties, etc. So it would be pretty disturbing.

On the feasibility of a legitimate vote next month, there seems to be no ballots, no census, no electoral officials...

The streets are not the most peaceful also.

Blogger Valtandor Nought September 21, 2017 9:39 AM  

Azure Amaranthine, I was talking about the validity of a vote, not its effectiveness. I think we both agree that any independence movement in the face of opposition from the central government will require more than ballots to be successful.

I think it's reasonable to say a vote will be unlikely to accurately reflect the will of the people if there are soldiers out on the streets and an order that, "Anyone who goes to vote will be shot."

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 9:40 AM  

On the feasibility of a legitimate vote next month, there seems to be no ballots, no census, no electoral officials...

If you're not being self-referentially sarcastic, you're one of the most internally dissonant individuals I've ever had the displeasure of observing in action.

Blogger Valtandor Nought September 21, 2017 9:45 AM  

Ok, NobodyExpects, you're saying (to rephrase) that to be successful the Yes vote must attract between 2/3 and 3/4 (precise figure still to be determined) of eligible voters, with those who don't vote implicitly treated as voting No.

Setting aside that there's a big range between 2/3 and 3/4, and focusing on the lower bound of 2/3:

Why 2/3, as opposed to, say, 60%? What is magic about the additional 6.67% of voters? The boundary at 50% I can understand, since then the one side outnumbers the other, but isn't any number higher than 50% somewhat arbitrary?

And why would an abstention be treated as a No? If the person meant to vote No, wouldn't he or she have just done so?

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 9:46 AM  

Currently, the danger comes more from not going to vote, because of the Separatist brutal squads in the streets.

And AA, you liberator of slaved Catalans, there is no census because the regional government is not empowered to make one, the absence of ballots were because some unlawful ones were confiscated, and the absence of officials was because the notifications are also unlawful and were confiscated also. There could be a plan B, however.

No sarcasm, only trying to reflect the reality on the field, in which the speedy actuation of the police helped to preserve rule of law. If that gets you angry, well, it is your problem.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 9:47 AM  

Now, Valtandor Nought, you see the wisdom of the Canadian Act.

Blogger James September 21, 2017 9:47 AM  

Everyone has a hypothetical moral right to secede, even though secession is pretty much always technically illegal, just as revolution is always illegal. But secession does not occur in a vacuum. If God blesses your secession, then you get it. If God curses your secession, then you don't. I support or oppose secessions on a case by case basis, based on my own personal attitude towards the secessionists. I like the Kurds and support their efforts to create and independent Kurdistan, but I hate the Chechnyans and would just as soon see the Russians rid the world of their stench. The law is not important, but instead what is important is who is an @$$-hole and who is not as much an @$$-hole. In other words, I see secession and revolution in transcendent moral terms, not in legal and political and scientific terms. As for Catalania, I used to be open to the idea of their independence, but now I've decided they suck bit time and I hope the rest of Spain sticks together long enough to give Catalonia a big kick in the yarbles.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 9:49 AM  

"Azure Amaranthine, I was talking about the validity of a vote, not its effectiveness."

My understanding is that bullets are, as they say, "super effective" and "mortally valid". Between the varying degrees of pressure from "minor social" to "pascals perpendicular to your spine and possibly parallel to your p....", if you don't meet higher pressure with higher pressure, you don't care enough.

Obviously not from a moral standpoint. I'll note that very much of Europe is very, very atheist, from which standpoint they logically have no morals of their own beyond extrapolations of "if it feels good...".

Blogger ZhukovG September 21, 2017 9:53 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 9:54 AM  

"Currently, the danger comes more from not going to vote, because of the Separatist brutal squads in the streets."

Slightly insufficient lies detected. Lie moar. Irrelevant detected. Irrelevant moar. Everything for the cause, EVERYTHING! Sell your faith, sell your hope, sell your love, sell your honor!
/s

If anything, it would be the opposite, considering Spain literally rolled up in tanks in some places, and sent in the enforcement brigade *cough"police"cough* pretty much everywhere else. IF there are actually separatist squads still in the streets, apparently there are a LOT of people who REALLY want to separate.

Blogger ZhukovG September 21, 2017 9:55 AM  

Azure Amaranthine: Of course if Spain's constitution does not allow self-determination, in this context, then they would not be lying about it. I confess I am not a scholar of Spanish constitutional law, so I don't know.

Also a limit on democracy does not necessarily render a state undemocratic. One purpose of having a constitution is to limit democracy. The intent being to protect the minority from the depredations of the majority.

So depending on what the Spanish constitution specifically states the Spanish state might not be a liar.

After all, if I tell you that I am going to rob you and do so; I am not a liar. But I am still a thief.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 10:02 AM  

"there is no census because the regional government is not empowered to make one"

"There is no freedom because the slaves are not empowered to take it."

"the absence of ballots were because some unlawful ones were confiscated"

The absence of hacksaws and files to cut through shackles was because some unlawful ones were confiscated from the slaves.

"and the absence of officials was because the notifications are also unlawful and were confiscated also.

"and the absence of organizers among the slaves was because the organizers were arrested for plotting an unlawful escape attempt."

You're still saying that they aren't empowered by the rest of Spain... you're so damn stupid there's no further point in arguing with you, because you're incapable of learning. Whether by choice or by nature, I don't care. You're a sick f***.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 10:02 AM  

Tanks, AA?

TANKS?

Where on Earth did you see extra tanks going to Catalonia?

Or in the streets?

Do you know what a tank is, per chance?

Did you see any APCs or IFVs, instead?



Between you and that fake Catalan...

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 10:08 AM  

"Of course if Spain's constitution does not allow self-determination, in this context, then they would not be lying about it."

They're lying about the definition of democracy, if nothing else. They're trying to substitute "behave, slave" (obey the insane law) for "majority rules" in the definition. That's my point.

"The intent being to protect the minority from the depredations of the majority."

Disallowing the minority from quitting the democracy does absolutely nothing other than to lay them prone to the depredations of the majority.

"So depending on what the Spanish constitution specifically states the Spanish state might not be a liar."

They're lying about being democratic, period.

If you tell me you're not a robber, and then you rob me, you're lying AND you're a robber. If you tell someone you're all about self determination, all the time, but embed clauses in the contract to the effect of "only when I feel like it", you're a liar, all the time.

Anonymous DissidentRight September 21, 2017 10:09 AM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:Okay, so here's my actual opinion on the subject:

"I live in the world as I permit it to exist. If it were not so, either the world would not be as it is, or I would not live. You live in the world in the same manner."

War or be subjugated.


‘Might makes right’ is less an ideological principle and more a description of natural reality.

War can solve EVERY problem, not just the problem of moral principles being violated.

The practical use of morality and concepts of human rights is to govern and guide the actions of the strong, particularly when A > B > C, and C appeals to A to protect them from B.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 10:10 AM  

Clearly, Azure Amaranthine is special, and blue. According to him there are no democratic countries in the world. Well, perhaps Somalia, and only for warlords.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 10:17 AM  

"Where on Earth did you see extra tanks going to Catalonia?"

Familiar with the Catalonia Offensive? It's happened before.

As to Tank/APC/etc. I don't really care, and no one else much does either outside of the military. They look similar, if they roll up it's a very blatant sign of force, and yes, they were positioned near the Catalonian borders. Don't try to move the goalposts.

That's all you've got? "There weren't ACTUAL tanks IN Catalonia!" I didn't even say there were, and force was still applied. "rolled up in tanks in some places" does not either mean or say "rolled tanks into Catalonia".

Blogger Xellos September 21, 2017 10:17 AM  

Valtandor Nought:

The motivation for 2/3 would probably be that if over 2/3 participate and over 1/2 of them votes Yes, then you definitely have over 1/3 voting Yes and two smaller parts of the people voting No and IDGAF, respectively. If 1/2 show up and half of them vote Yes, you can have 1/4 voting Yes, 1/4 voting No and 1/2 voting IDGAF, which can be treated as a victory for dude weed lmao.

Not saying such rules don't exist just to leverage manipulation of public opinion in democracy to its fullest, but there is a reasoning.

Blogger ZhukovG September 21, 2017 10:18 AM  

@James: I believe the right of self determination is the property of a nation whether I like them or not. As such if an actual majority of Catalans desire independence from the Spanish state then they should be allowed it.

Chechnya is an interesting situation.

The first Chechen War was fought for Chechen independence. Therefore I believe the Chechen people were in the right.

However after winning their independence from Russia, things went downhill. The Chechen state was dominated by foreign Jihadists. The chief export of Chechnya became terrorism and its chief import became kidnapped Russian citizens. Then, to top it off, Chechnya launched an actual invasion of Russia, attacking the Autonomous Republic of Dagestan.

This kicked off the Second Chechen War, in which Russia emerged victorious. In this case I believe Russia was absolutely right to neutralize the failed Chechen state and now administers it as the relatively calm and stable Autonomous Republic of Chechnya. The Chechen nation enjoys a great deal of internal autonomy while under the protection and control of the Russian state.

Likewise if Catalonia gained its independence and then became a threat to the Spanish nation, the Spanish state would have every right to neutralize that threat.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 10:20 AM  

"‘Might makes right’ is less an ideological principle and more a description of natural reality."

They (Spain) clearly don't hold to their professed ideological principals, so it's might or God's intervention or the highway.

"Clearly, Azure Amaranthine is special, and blue. According to him there are no democratic countries in the world. Well, perhaps Somalia, and only for warlords."

Wrong. Go ahead, try to straw-man me more, you'll only look stupider each time you maliciously misinterpret what I said.

Blogger bw September 21, 2017 10:22 AM  

What a nice surprise
Bring your alibis

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 10:26 AM  

AA, do not tell me you imagine seeing armored tracked vehicles, on top of Catalan slaving away at the tourist restaurants of Costa Brava...

Oh, wait!

Are you sure those "tanks" were not yellow and black?

Because the Spanish Civil War ended a lot of years ago, I mean.

Anonymous Avalanche September 21, 2017 10:28 AM  

I'd be interested in seeing the Spanish govt trying to ... sneak dialectic into the mix via rhetoric?

(Thought experiment here: ) Make a list of ALLLLLL the things that Catalans will now have to pay for and provide for themselves.

First, stress that: the EU had refused to accept Catalonia as a member -- so no EU taxes -- and NO EU bennies (if there are any!).

Spain would no longer be taxing Catalonia. Spain would no longer be supporting Catalonia.
(Sub-list: what funds and services are provided by Spain TO Catalonia? Who will pay the police? (Who will BE the police? Train them, equip them?) What about "the common defense" -- what is Catalonia’s plan there?

Some economist could no doubt gin up a "here's what Catalonia's tax burden will probably rise to."
Who will pay for the post office and its workers?
Will there BE Catalonian welfare? Retirement? Medical care? Child care?

Spain and Catalonia will have to negotiate control, staffing, shipping, and upkeep for the port of Barcelona. How much will Catalonia need to repay for Spain building/upgrading that port? (They don't get to just KEEP it, do they?)


Would Catalonia be allowed to remain in (or get thrown out of) the Schengen Agreement? Regardless, Catalonia would have to design, print, provide for, manage, and control passports for travel in (and from?) the EU. How would that affect shipping of food and goods? Tariffs? Border guards? Immigrants?


Would Catalan have to negotiate trade agreements with EVERY individual country in the EU -- since they would no longer be a part of it? Do they even have negotiators? (And with what will they pay them? Will they need to create money/tender?)

Catalonia and Spain would have to negotiate on borders, cross-border travel and shipping. Catalonia will need to negotiate with France about their joint border.

It would seem to me that Spain is 'acting out' their (understandable?) displeasure, rather than working on persuading both Spaniards and Catalans that this may very well be a deeply stupid idea!


There's a lot of talk here (and there) about 'rights to self-determination' (oh, hey! Like "free speech" definitions and Gab, no?) and so on... I would like to see some serious discussion of the end result OF self-determination. Yes, of course, every human has the inalienable right to stick his leg in a bucket of dry ice to kill it, so the doctors will finally cut it off -- but, should the REST of the 'group' (insurance pool, tribe, town, city, family, whoever) have to pay for the surgery AND the rest of the one-legged man's medical care secula seculorum?

"Freedom now!" "Secession is our right!" is all well-and-good. Nice warm fuzzy (or nasty commie) feelings about it... If an 8-yr-old decides he wants to 'secede' from the family without knowing/understanding about rent, taxes, and food; what then?

Anonymous DissidentRight September 21, 2017 10:30 AM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:"‘Might makes right’ is less an ideological principle and more a description of natural reality."They (Spain) clearly don't hold to their professed ideological principals, so it's might or God's intervention or the highway.

Yes, but I was talking about your ideological principles.

I don’t think ‘might makes right’ is really an ideological principle, any more than that ‘steel is stronger than flesh’.

Do you think there is a role for actual moral principles? Is what Spain doing wrong?

Anonymous Avalanche September 21, 2017 10:32 AM  

Azure: Either self-determination is absolute as a human right, or it does not exist and is instead an ideological window-dressing of a very different underlying principle.

Either FREE SPEECH is absolute as a human right, or it does not exist and is instead an ideological window-dressing of a very different underlying principle.

Discuss.

Anonymous Avalanche September 21, 2017 10:32 AM  

Er. Discuss, please.

Blogger Chent September 21, 2017 10:39 AM  

Imagine that liberals want to abolish the Second amendment about guns, but they don't have the majority that it is necessary to do that.

Imagine that Hillary Clinton has won the election (with a small majority and less that 50% of the votes) and manages to approve "the Gun Law": a law abolishing the Second Ammendment and banning guns for private citizens. Obviously the law is illegal but she doesn't care. She orders the Police to go to the shops selling weapons and close them.

Liberals brag about "we don't care about the Court Supreme of Justice and the Constitution"

The Supreme Court of the United States fails against "the Gun law". Then, they procede to fine some civil servants that have broken the law and to confiscate some of the material used to apply "the Gun law".

Liberals whine and whine that this is against democracy. Hillary Clinton has won the election. This is not fair. The United States is a dictatorship because the Second Ammendment cannot be abolished even if you win the elections. They throw a temper tantrum and say they are victims of the meanie Supreme Court.

People from other countries, who don't know how the American system works, start saying that there is no democracy in America and liberals should have the right to ban guns.

This is what happening in Catalonia. These are the equivalent:

Second Ammendment = Self-determination referendum (it can be done, but it's more difficult than winning an election).

Liberals = Catalan secessionists. Hillary Clinton= Carles Puigdemont.

Supreme Court of Justice of the United States = Constitutional Court of Justice of Spain/Supreme Court of Justice of Spain


Anonymous Avalanche September 21, 2017 10:40 AM  

Valtandor To which I would ask: How is a democracy in which you know your people will always be outvoted (on ethnic lines) functionally different from an undemocratic state? You have no real say in your rulers or your laws, as they are erected over you by a different ethnic group who outnumber you.

And here is the destruction of the U.S. (and probably the West) unless we rise up! Poor Minnesota is turning african moslem. A clearly, purely, DESIGNED-to-be-undemocratic state.

And the voting will always be on ethnic (racial) lines. Become a racist today -- SAVE your nation!

Blogger Matthew September 21, 2017 10:41 AM  

Great demonstration of the >2SD communication gap in this thread. NobodyExpects simply cannot understand what Azure Amaranthine is trying to explain.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 10:54 AM  

"I don’t think ‘might makes right’ is really an ideological principle, any more than that ‘steel is stronger than flesh’.

Do you think there is a role for actual moral principles? Is what Spain doing wrong?"


It's a reality principle. As for Spain, they're definitely doing something wrong, the fact that they simultaneously hold two contradictory positions necessitates that. I for one don't believe that democracy is a sane form of government, so it's all a bunch of retards joyfully swimming in their own waste matter from that perspective.

As for my moral principles, I believe that free will is a God-given perpetual (until death) miracle bestowed upon human kind. That being said, it operates VERY close to the chest. People offering up their free will to twisted thoughts and ideologies or demons (synonymous?) is a very real possibility with often very permanent implications. I think that says pretty much all I need to say.

"Either FREE SPEECH is absolute as a human right, or it does not exist and is instead an ideological window-dressing of a very different underlying principle.

Discuss."


Discuss what? Human rights don't exist in that fashion.

If you can force it? Good for you?

Should you have it? Maybe.

Will you have it? Almost certainly not.

"The United States is a dictatorship because the Second Ammendment cannot be abolished even if you win the elections."

This is where your analogy all falls apart. Just because it isn't a democracy, it doesn't mean it's a dictatorship. It just means it isn't a democracy, which is absolutely correct in both cases. Only the libs over here are lying and calling it a democracy, as they have for decades. As for Spain...

Blogger Chent September 21, 2017 11:00 AM  

"The United States is a dictatorship because the Second Ammendment cannot be abolished even if you win the elections."

This is where your analogy all falls apart. Just because it isn't a democracy, it doesn't mean it's a dictatorship. It just means it isn't a democracy, which is absolutely correct in both cases.


Well, if you read my text, you will see that I was not expressing my opinion but the claims of Catalan secessionists (or liberals in the imaginary case).

My point stands but it you don't like it, replace "The United States is a dictatorship " by "The United States is not a democracy". Still my point stands.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 11:01 AM  

Good perspective, Avalanche.

"I'd be interested in seeing the Spanish govt trying to ... sneak dialectic into the mix via rhetoric?"

You will not. Catalans are divided and entrenched in their respective positions.

"First, stress that: the EU had refused to accept Catalonia as a member -- so no EU taxes -- and NO EU bennies (if there are any!)."

Plenty of agricultural subsidies from the EU. Ironically, the areas that are net receptors are among the most Separatist ones.

"Spain would no longer be taxing Catalonia. Spain would no longer be supporting Catalonia.
(Sub-list: what funds and services are provided by Spain TO Catalonia? Who will pay the police? (Who will BE the police? Train them, equip them?) What about "the common defense" -- what is Catalonia’s plan there?"

Currently, the Catalonian regional government is unable to obtain money on the bond markets, because a very poor qualification of its bonds. So the Spanish National Government has a regional liquidity fund (FLA: Fondo de Liquidez Autonómica) to provide for cash needs. Of course, management of the Catalan regional administration is quite poor - current regional finance minister (and no. 2 of government) has no related University degree. Could not cope with the maths in Economics, then went to read History, and wrote a quite plagiarized PhD. thesis. Apart from that:

The regional police force is paid by the National Interior Ministry.
Defence plans were till recently to do a Costa Rica, neutrality, with no armed forces, and outside NATO, in order to "not invite aggression".

"Some economist could no doubt gin up a "here's what Catalonia's tax burden will probably rise to." "

Not me.

"Who will pay for the post office and its workers? "

Not a big expense, I suppose.

"Will there BE Catalonian welfare? Retirement? Medical care? Child care? "

Current plans are for senior citizens to continue collecting their Spanish pensions. However, there is expected a reduction in the amount of those. Medical care is already devolved. No child care, except for immigrants.

"Spain and Catalonia will have to negotiate control, staffing, shipping, and upkeep for the port of Barcelona. (...)"

And the ports of Tarragona, and Palamós. There are also several international airports, Barcelona's being most important.

"Would Catalonia be allowed to remain in (or get thrown out of) the Schengen Agreement?"

This, I do not know, but probably a reincorporation would be needed.

"(...)How would that affect shipping of food and goods? Tariffs? Border guards? Immigrants?"

And loss of the Spanish market, also. Projections are in the range of a loss of one million of jobs, and a reduction of 20% in GDP.

"Would Catalan have to negotiate trade agreements with EVERY individual country in the EU -- since they would no longer be a part of it? Do they even have negotiators? (And with what will they pay them? Will they need to create money/tender?)"

Yes, Brexit redux, quite hellish for the future Catalan state. There are negotiators, quite incompetent, judging by one Raul Romeva. Yes, a new currency would be needed, as probably the ECB will have a look to the economy and run away. No automatic entry in Euro. So rising interest rates, and inflation.

"Catalonia and Spain would have to negotiate on borders, cross-border travel and shipping. Catalonia will need to negotiate with France about their joint border. "

Yes, and yes.

"It would seem to me that Spain is 'acting out' their (understandable?) displeasure, (...)"

National govt. is betting on the failure of referendum, new financing arrangements discussions beginning October, 2nd., and more "bribing" of the region.

"There's a lot of talk here (and there) about 'rights to self-determination' (...)"

See first comment in this blog entry, with the international law on self-determination. I think that law is quite fair.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 11:05 AM  

Seems, Chent, that you also are 2SD away from Azure. Welcome to the club!

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 11:08 AM  

My impression is that AA is not able to understand what he supposedly wants to express, from moral theology conflated with international law, to Catalan slaves, and phantom tanks. Or bulldozers, passing by collective/individual rights, and "might makes right" psycho morality.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 11:08 AM  

"Well, if you read my text, you will see that I was not expressing my opinion but the claims of Catalan secessionists (or liberals in the imaginary case).

My point stands but it you don't like it, replace "The United States is a dictatorship " by "The United States is not a democracy". Still my point stands."


My apologies for mistaking you.

Your point seems very opaque or otherwise unspecified, perhaps you're trying to say that the Catalonians are the "bad guys" or perhaps the "dumb guys"?

Doesn't really matter, both sides are bad guys operating on deceit, and this incident is highlighting that rather nicely.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 11:15 AM  

"My impression is that AA is not able to understand what he supposedly wants to express"

That's called the dunning-krueger effect.

Your perpetual attempts at straw-manning me are not making you look and smarter or more accurate or more honest.

What I want to express is simple, that Spain is not a democracy, even though some of them lie and say it is. In addition, self-determination in the mode they intend it to be understood is a lie, and a plain one. I've said these about five different ways now, and you apparently have a basic incapacity to grasp them, seeing as you continuously lose the not-terribly-complex chains of logic.

Anonymous Avalanche September 21, 2017 11:16 AM  

Yann It's the same situation that happened with English and German people in US. Both had enough common ground to feel comfortable in a common house with common rules. The problem appears when somebody with very different rules, like Mexicans, shares that house. And that's where real problems begin.

This metaphor seems very good on a first-read. However, let me really 'stretch the metaphor (maybe to breaking; but as a way to point out the bad premise). The/A 'problem' with your metaphor is that it is an ENGLISH house: designed, built, paid for (in money, blood, time, work, etc.), defended, maintained, and increased by the ENGLISH who built it. The Germans may indeed have had enough common ground to come "feel comfortable" in the ENGLISH house.

The question arises however:
Is there ENOUGH common ground for the ENGLISH to "feel comfortable" with the non-English habits, choices, decisions, desires, and ways/standards of living of the GERMANS that it's okay with them? Is that not the GERMAN (and all-immigrant) description: "WE feel comfortable enough and so we do not ASK the English (whose 'house' it was) what THEY think and feel. And we do not care to ask; it's enough that WE feel comfortable"?)

The problem began because the Germans (and Scandinavians etc.) who came and "felt comfortable enough" to live in someone else's house ALSO brought -- were able to institute -- the welfare system that involved/allowed/supports bringing in these completely undesired "guests."

The ENGLISH allowed the Germans (et al.) to move in; is it not then incumbent on those "white men of good character" whom the "homeowners" allowed in to ABIDE BY the house rules of the homeowner?

Anonymous DissidentRight September 21, 2017 11:19 AM  

Azure Amaranthine:

It's a reality principle.

Yes.

As for Spain, they're definitely doing something wrong, the fact that they simultaneously hold two contradictory positions necessitates that.

Sure, but I specifically meant blocking secession.

I for one don't believe that democracy is a sane form of government

Sure, although it’s a little better than “rule by Leftists” or “rule by globalists”.

As for my moral principles, I believe that free will is a God-given perpetual (until death) miracle bestowed upon human kind. That being said, it operates VERY close to the chest. People offering up their free will to twisted thoughts and ideologies or demons (synonymous?) is a very real possibility with often very permanent implications. I think that says pretty much all I need to say.

I think I misinterpreted your original comment. These discussions are generally interesting because on the one hand you’ve got the libertarians arguing from the view that might is only right if the NAP is violated, whereas the Right argues that the violations of the NAP don’t fully overlap the moral uses of force.

Blogger Chent September 21, 2017 11:20 AM  

Your point seems very opaque or otherwise unspecified,

It is about the rule of law. It is easy if you read the text.

perhaps you're trying to say that the Catalonians are the "bad guys" or perhaps the "dumb guys"?

No. No. Read the text.

Doesn't really matter, both sides are bad guys operating on deceit, and this incident is highlighting that rather nicely.

Irrelevant. My point stands.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 11:22 AM  

There is no Athens-style democracies around. There are representative democracies, subjected to the rule of law. If those are no democracies for you, Azure, fine, but I think the rest of the world understand them as democracies, different and imperfect.

Same confusion is visible in what you think is self-determination.

Could be a difference in raw IQ, could be a question of having different structures for abstracting ideas.

Anonymous Yann September 21, 2017 11:27 AM  

Imagine that Hillary Clinton has won the election (with a small majority and less that 50% of the votes) and manages to approve "the Gun Law": a law abolishing the Second Ammendment and banning guns for private citizens. Obviously the law is illegal but she doesn't care. She orders the Police to go to the shops selling weapons and close them. The Supreme Court of the United States fails against "the Gun law". Then, they procede to fine some civil servants that have broken the law and to confiscate some of the material used to apply "the Gun law". People from other countries, who don't know how the American system works, start saying that there is no democracy in America and liberals should have the right to ban guns. This is what happening in Catalonia. These are the equivalent

No, it is not.

You're portraying a situation where one part breaks the Constitution regarding some rule that affects the common life. And thats is clearly wrong since the Constitution is the frame that this community of people has accepted to work and live together. But there's nobody LEAVING in your example, and that's the key issue.

If some people want to LEAVE your group, and you're telling them they can't leave because this is the law of your group, that's the same issue.

It's not about people wanting to be part of the group, but who are not willing to obey its rules. It's about people who DON'T want to be part of the group.

Blogger Chent September 21, 2017 11:30 AM  

@NobodyExpects

Yes, NobodyExpects. When I lived in the United States, I admired many things about American people. They are hard-working, honest, law-abiding, polite and so on and so forth.

But there is something I didn't understand. People are very arrogant in their opinions, even if they don't know anything about the topic.

I admit being ignorant in many topics (nobody can know everything). I don't think I know more about Indian politics than a guy from India. Even if I read the Indian news from time to time. This is why I never speak about India. So I keep quiet about topics I don't know so I don't make a fool of myself.

American people are not this way. They want to know everything in the world. They read half a dozen articles about Catalonia throughout their lifetime and they are experts about Catalonia. They are more experts than a guy like me (a Catalan, with Catalan as a mother tongue, who has read tenths of books about the topic, who reads daily about the topic, who has lived all his life in this environment and who is surrounded by other Catalan people with different opinions)

It is like they find intolerable to say: "I don't know". Even when you try to explain them, they don't want to listen. It's like they see debate as a war, not as a way to find truth. They have to win, even if people that understand the topic know their ignorance.

Well, I have to go. One has to work.

Blogger DJ | AMDG September 21, 2017 11:31 AM  

How does that jive with the celebration of the Sudan/South Sudan split?

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 11:33 AM  

Why people that do not want to be part of the group should bring with them a portion of the territory, plus people that do want to be part of the group?

I mean, they are free to leave for other places. Spain is not a Communist system with frontiers defended against desertion by minefields and concertina wires.

Blogger DJ | AMDG September 21, 2017 11:36 AM  

Does anyone here have any insight on The State of Jefferson movement in the Pacific Northwest?

Blogger JL Domingo September 21, 2017 11:36 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Avalanche September 21, 2017 11:41 AM  

Nobody: Currently, the Catalonian regional government is unable to obtain money on the bond markets, because a very poor qualification of its bonds. So the Spanish National Government has a regional liquidity fund (FLA: Fondo de Liquidez Autonómica) to provide for cash needs. Of course, management of the Catalan regional administration is quite poor

So -- HOW do the Catalans who wish to separate PLAN on paying for anything? Spain is NOT going to give anymore "regional liquidity fund" money to a breakaway state, are they? IF Catalonia under Spanish "rule" cannot manage their money -- do they think ANYone will play with them after!? IT ought to be pretty EASY to convince most working Catalans that this is NOT a good (or at least, affordable!) idea!

Anonymous DissidentRight September 21, 2017 11:43 AM  

Avalanche wrote:Yann It's the same situation that happened with English and German people in US. Both had enough common ground to feel comfortable in a common house with common rules. The problem appears when somebody with very different rules, like Mexicans, shares that house. And that's where real problems begin.The ENGLISH allowed the Germans (et al.) to move in; is it not then incumbent on those "white men of good character" whom the "homeowners" allowed in to ABIDE BY the house rules of the homeowner?

Yes of course. But the Yankees are imperialist pigs, so it is hard to be TOO sympathetic. That is why PanEuropeans are taking their rightful place as the true owners of North America, not the filthy immigrant-importing English.

/s

More seriously, which Englishmen are you talking about? White immigrants went off and died in English wars by the boatload, and Yankees factor heavily among the architects of socialism, feminism, Churchianity, and globalism. Yankees are not united, let alone American Englishmen in general.

It’s funny, I’m 0% English, and although my ancestors immigrated to the Yankee Empire, my loyalty is 100% to the ideal of America 1.0.

Anonymous DissidentRight September 21, 2017 11:45 AM  

NobodyExpects wrote:Why people that do not want to be part of the group should bring with them a portion of the territory, plus people that do want to be part of the group?

I mean, they are free to leave for other places. Spain is not a Communist system with frontiers defended against desertion by minefields and concertina wires.


Because it's their nation's land. Whatever claim the empire has on it, the empire's claim is weaker than theirs.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 11:52 AM  

@Avalanche

That is a very good question, and sadly I have not think about it very much.

Apparently, the current Catalan bosses expect to solve that during the transition process, they could also do some kind of Argentinian/Zimbabwean public finance engineering - "corralito", currency devaluation.

Or they could be simply bluffing, and bargaining in order to get some pardons. That is more possible.

A bank run in case of independence could not be dismissed out of hand. Euros are hard currency now. Who knows what the future will bring.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 11:54 AM  

@Dissident

What Empire? Catalonia is, definitely, not a colony!

Even if Azure could think so.

Anonymous Gen. Kong September 21, 2017 11:59 AM  

I will note that by the Spanish government's standard, it is very clear that neither the USA nor the EU subscribe to the basic tenets of democracy.

Why would anyone think either the Fake Banana Empire or its EUSSR would believe in anything other than lip service to democracy for the zeks within their Goolag? As either Mark Twain or Will Rogers noted many decades ago: If voting actually accomplished anything, it wouldn't be allowed. As the dog returns to its vomit.....

Anonymous DissidentRight September 21, 2017 12:07 PM  

NobodyExpects wrote:@Dissident

What Empire? Catalonia is, definitely, not a colony!

Even if Azure could think so.


Virginia wasn't a colony of Yankeedom, either.

Anonymous Lars Porsena September 21, 2017 12:12 PM  

Is that a nice random attempt at distraction by punching Poland and Hungary at the end there? They're going to argue who's more like the horrible evil Hungarians.

Poland should respond by sending Catalonia US tanks. They don't take potshots comparing each other to Turkey because Erdogan would send tanks.

Anonymous Avalanche September 21, 2017 12:20 PM  

Chent American people are not this way. They want to know everything in the world.

Yes, American people are indeed this way -- it's why more than half the damned WORLD wants to move here and live with (off!) us! To a non-American, I'm sure we do sound as if we think of ourselves as experts on every topic...

(Speaking for at least some of us:) We 'work through' whatever the topic is by arguing our view of a point or its underlying concepts, or how WE would apply the concept, or what WE think might be a thing to do about it.

"You" (i.e., non-Americans) may generally not discuss or 'stand on a side' to discuss things about which you do not feel you know enough: so that thing DOES NOT GET DISCUSSED!

Those are two ... rather irreconcilable ways of interacting!

We challenge your answers to make sure both that you can back them up AND that we understand what you mean and what 'baggage' your answers carry. Colloquial: 'baggage' in this use is the 'stuff' carried along in the term, phrase, or concept you have used; just as 'stuff' is carried along in luggage. Not visible, not known of, not discussed or explained. The guy who "packed the luggage" (used the term or concept) KNOWS what he has put into the baggage; the other person needs to ascertain if what 'is packed in the term' makes a difference in how you mean / how he perceives the term you've used.

So, because we are willing to appear ... arrogant (to a non-American; most Americans just wade in and answer back the same way), we discuss (pretty much everything): we "unpack" a term. That's actually the jargon we use: we "unpack" ideas to find out what's in them -- just as we unpack a suitcase to find out what's in it.

Because you (the metaphorical you, the non-American) would not challenge, discuss, investigate, argue for your understanding of some idea; because you would not "unpack" a term -- either yours or your interlocutor's -- you miss out on where / how communication is going at cross purposes. Americans (well, such as there are left...) are very comfortable 'unpacking' -- asking about / challenging -- any idea, so they are able to consider and invent new ways of seeing things.

Does that make us seem arrogant? Sure. Do we merit the arrogance? Quite often! (Maybe not so much nowadays... but we're down to 65% of "Americans"; so, 35% "other"). Is the perception (by non-Americans) of arrogance warranted? Not always, maybe not even usually. The 'unpacking-thing' is certainly cross-cultural -- we do it, you don't.

Anonymous Avalanche September 21, 2017 12:21 PM  

(And, just cause I'm female, an example: my married-but-fraught friends and I were shopping. She wanted to buy a new trashcan so she pulled him over and showed it to him, and he said, "No." She stormed off, grabbed me, and asked me to "talk her down" before she had a screaming rage at him in public.

I said: "did you ASK him why not?"
No, she had just 'huffed off'!

"Okay-then. I want you to take a deep breath, go BACK to him, and ask him to re-negotiate. It is usually the case that the man says 'no' as the START of a negotiation, and the woman hears it as the END of a negotiation (without ever having one!) She's furious, he thinks she was okay with his no (i.e., she didn't really want the thing), because she didn't negotiate. So, go ask him (nicely) to justify his no and to listen to your reasons for yes."

He, like most men in that situation, was baffled that she had huffed off (per her usual) -- he was entirely willing to negotiate and she got her trash can. I DID urge her to always say: "let's negotiate" when he says no -- and I urged HIM to never answer her requests with "no" -- but with "convince me."

Same 'cross-cultural' problem as 'cross-sex' problem. Americans are 'saying no' (sounding arrogant) and the non-American is retreating (huffing off) rather than entering a negotiation (discussion).

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 21, 2017 12:28 PM  

@Lars Porsena

That fib against Poland and Hungary is because El País is the Spanish NYT equivalent, and well, old habits...

HOWEVER, the rest of the editorial is pretty good, true and accurate. Quite surprising for that newspaper.

Anonymous Avalanche September 21, 2017 12:33 PM  

Dissident More seriously, which Englishmen are you talking about?

"The answer is not clear. Ask again later."

This is one of the 'future problems' that will be a huge problem... in the future. I want to go at the very very least (as many here seem to) back to pre-1965.

Let's get THERE (God willing!), give us a decade or so to shake out, and THEN consider what further must be done.

It may be as "simple" (ha) as removing the welfare and socialistic tendencies that have sapped the nation. It may be as horrific as "your skin color is your uniform." I'd LIKE to think that once we lift the staggering burden of the gazillions of post-'65 foreigners (and "their sisters and their cousins and their aunts" -- that's an allusion, for any who missed it), we originals will be able to find a reasonably satisfactory way to set up the future.

(But I'm more realistic than that: so arm up, ammo up, and lift! Just yesterday I received 1,500 more rounds! Freedom Munitions -- great stuff, inexpensive! Wait for their free shipping sales: my box was 39 pounds: Yippee!)

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 21, 2017 12:55 PM  

I wonder what will happen when a European country decides to leave the E.U. for reasons?

"Catalonia is to Spain as ______ is to EU".

Anonymous Precious September 21, 2017 2:26 PM  

@zebedee
The Spanish Constitution of 1978...does not permit the Catalonian regional government to hold a referendum on independence...The people of Catalonia ... voted 95% in favor

So what you are saying is, the people of Catalonia are allowed to vote provided they vote for what you approve of...and then should never be allowed to vote again about it. Thank you for making your position on democracy clear.

Anonymous MIG September 21, 2017 2:58 PM  

NobodyExpects, what's in it for you? What rights of yours would be violated were Catalonia to secede? Why are you arguing so passionately against the secession? Just curious. Are you Spanish? Are you familiar with the concept of natural law? You can read about it here:

https://infogalactic.com/info/Natural_law

I personally think that self-determination is a natural right. However it has to be balanced against other consideration. For example, to whom has the land belonged historically? Say the south of Sweden, which has a large islamic population, wants to secede, should their desire for self-determination be honored? The same can be asked about Southern California and Mexico. Does Southern California have a right to secede? In other words, occupation is not the only criterion. One also has to consider how the region has been settled and how long it has been occupied. Who is the "rightful owner" of the land, so to speak?

Anonymous Gen. Kong September 21, 2017 4:01 PM  

A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:
I wonder what will happen when a European country decides to leave the E.U. for reasons?

"Catalonia is to Spain as ______ is to EU".


The EUSSR okrug of Spain has provided the answer, has it not? As you noted yourself in a previous thread on this subject, the so-called "independence" in play here is whether the Catalonian "nationalists" (snort) get to have their own teet from the EUSSR banksta-sow or whether they must take what they can get from the okrug governors in Madrid. The Beast of Brussels has made its decision. The governors of the Iberian okrug would not have sent in the jackboots without approval from those who provide their pizzas. That's the answer. If Poland, Czech republic or Hungary actually decide to leave the EUSSR's prison of nations, they will be facing the legions of the Fake Banana Empire (aka NATO) if they try.

Anonymous Anonymous September 21, 2017 4:28 PM  

Vox, I am more than a bit taken aback by what appears to be your naive and whole-hearted support for the principles of Wilsonian self-determination. Ethnic self-determination has been proven to be a terrible idea in the past; in the context of the European Union, it will be much worse. Instead of setting off a war, it will seal the doom of Western Civilization.

Surely you know how well that principle worked out in the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty created a set of absolutely unrealistic political divisions and feeble nation-states in Europe that simply could not survive over the long term. Hitler saw this, and decided to fix it before someone else did.

The consequences of an enthusiasm for "self determination" sweeping across Europe today would be even more catastrophic than the previous trial of the idea because it would be taking place against the background of the European Union.

The whole aim of the EU is to eliminate the sovereignty of its constituent States, while replacing them with something that is neither sovereign nor a State. Because it is not sovereign, the EU has no notion of defending its borders, and because it has no army, it could not defend anything even if it wished to.

Consider how much easier the fragmentation of the old States would make the work of social Marxist Eurocrats. No more worries about nationalistic parties gaining control of still powerful countries like Germany or France. Small ethnic statelets will be much easier to keep in line. They will be absolutely dependent on Brussels for their financial and economic existence, and if a few of them decide that the EU is a bad thing...well so what? They are far too small and weak to influence events.

A fragmentation of the major European States is the exact opposite of what we need to give Western Civilization at least a chance of survival. We need a renaissance of nationalism in Europe.
We need strong States that can enforce their borders, be financially independent and that have armies to fight wars if necessary. This is the only way to stem the tide of the Mussulman invasion. The political dissolution brought about by "self determination" will hasten the fall.

Please let me know if I have misunderstood you Vox, but I think you're wrong about this one.

Anonymous Anonymous September 21, 2017 4:44 PM  

Avalanche wrote:The problem began because the Germans (and Scandinavians etc.) who came and "felt comfortable enough" to live in someone else's house ALSO brought -- were able to institute -- the welfare system that involved/allowed/supports bringing in these completely undesired "guests."

Avalanche, I am puzzled by your claim that Germans were somehow responsible for the inception of U.S. social welfare policies. And here I thought Franklin D. Roosevelt was responsible!

I know that the great German liberal thinker Prince Otto von Bismarck was largely responsible for introducing socialist notions like old-age pensions in Germany, but I didn't know he was so influential in the United States!

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 21, 2017 6:22 PM  

Spanish government sending Guardia Civil into Catalonia, wants to moor ships in Barcelona and Tarragona harbors as floating barracks. Dock workers in Barcelona refuse to service the ships.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/857208/Catalan-independence-crisis-military-police-boats-blocked

Blogger Pteronarcyd September 21, 2017 8:49 PM  

"[I]t is very clear that neither the USA nor the EU subscribe to the basic tenets of democracy."

Thank God! No sane person subscribes to mob rule. Give me back my constitutional republic. Honor the constitutional guarantee.

US constitution, Article IV, Section 4:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ... ."

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 11:24 PM  

"It is about the rule of law. It is easy if you read the text."

No, it's not clear at all. You stated the situation and did not state your opinion or point whatsoever. I gave your rope to either hang yourself or not with, and you've chosen the former.

As to rule of law, there is legitimate law and illegitimate. Madrid/Spain has lost all claim to being the former, and it's fairly obvious that this is the case. If your law is rooted in democracy, yet cuts off its own roots, it is rooted in nothing. If your law is rooted in lies, it is rooted in nothing.

Rule of law? A law that says one thing and does another is no law, it is a deception, a despotism, a tyranny, a con game. An irrelevant point is yours.

Meaningful questions and points along these lines? With this further step, exactly how close is Spain now to losing its Divine Right and undergoing bloody revolution or forceful assimilation?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2017 11:30 PM  

Sidehill, you've misunderstood. Vox supports honesty and cognitive-coherence. Adherence to polite self-determination is the purported Spanish paradigm. In light of current events, this is obviously lies, therefore Spain as a country is dishonest and cognitively dissonant.

Better for the spirit to play the honest idiot than a clever liar.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 22, 2017 3:35 AM  

"Adherence to polite self-determination is the purported Spanish paradigm"

Is there a written source for that, or are you using your uninformed imagination again?

Had a look to the current Spanish Constitution and there is no acknowledgement of the right to self-determination.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 22, 2017 3:38 AM  

Self-determination in the commonly accepted meaning in international law, not your Humpty-Dumpty-esque definition akin to individual free will, of course.

Anonymous Anonymous September 22, 2017 4:24 AM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:Sidehill, you've misunderstood. Vox supports honesty and cognitive-coherence. Adherence to polite self-determination is the purported Spanish paradigm. In light of current events, this is obviously lies, therefore Spain as a country is dishonest and cognitively dissonant.

That makes no sense. Could you possibly be confusing "self determination" with "democracy"?

Looking over this entire thread, it appears that few people here have a good understanding of the meaning of "state", "self determination", or the current conditions in Europe. Far too many people see this question through the lens of American history. The question of Catalan independence has nothing to do with the U.S. Civil War. It has a lot to do with the Spanish Civil War. I wonder if most of you have even heard of the latter.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 22, 2017 4:25 AM  

@MIG Stating in the open where I was born, or where I am living would be very careless on my part.

In the very first comment to this blog post, I quoted a definition of right to self-determination, from some law library at Princeton. I agree with that definition, and I do not see how Catalonia could have that right, if Catalans are living in a democratic system, the Catalan culture is preserved (and even imposed on top of more general Spanish culture), and the Catalan region enjoys a level of self-government on par with the more decentralized regions on Europe. Some of those European regions were until recently major regional powers, like Bavaria.

On the topic of natural law, let me recall this address by Saint John Paul II to the General Assembly of the UNO from 1995, especially this point:

"11. In this context, we need to clarify the essential difference between an unhealthy form of nationalism, which teaches contempt for other nations or cultures, and patriotism, which is a proper love of one's country. True patriotism never seeks to advance the well-being of one's own nation at the expense of others. For in the end this would harm one's own nation as well: doing wrong damages both aggressor and victim. Nationalism, particularly in its most radical forms, is thus the antithesis of true patriotism, and today we must ensure that extreme nationalism does not continue to give rise to new forms of the aberrations of totalitarianism. This is a commitment which also holds true, obviously, in cases where religion itself is made the basis of nationalism, as unfortunately happens in certain manifestations of so-called "fundamentalism"."

Source: http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1995/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_05101995_address-to-uno.html

Catalan nationalism has shown to be Totalitarian in execution, in aspects like not allowing kids whose mother tongue is Spanish to be educated using Spanish, in spite of what the laws, even Catalan laws, dictate. Going against Totalitarianism, in any form, is always a good endeavour for freedom-loving people.

Anonymous Bukulu September 22, 2017 1:32 PM  

DJ: huh?

No matter the differences between Catalonia and the rest of Spain, they pale to microscopic insignifigance compared to the difference between the Arab, Muslim, and increasingly Islamist north of Sudan, and the non-Arab, nin-Muslim, formerly slave-raided Southerners.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts