I have no idea if the below is accurate or true. However the content about narratives being prepared in various scenarios makes some sense to me. I understand that the official numbers of yellow vests cited by the French government the weekend before last was 50,000 protestors, whereas according to French police union the numbers were closer to 300,000. Last weekend the French government said that 32,000 gilet jaunes turned out across France to protest - but the government deployed over 80,000 police to contain them. And yet in photos and videos of protests the yellow vest protestors clearly outnumbered the police - let alone the daftness of deploying some 85,000 police (almost the same number as during the very worst protests) against only 32,000 protestors.
And 'maybe' if their government didn't treat them with contempt and disdain, 'maybe' they wouldn't be rioting? Have you thought of that?
Speed cameras are "serfdom"? I suppose under a Marxist gulag govt we won't see speed cameras? Does that mean you can speed? Or is it that buying a car will be right out of your range?
The below article on today's continuing Yellow Vest demonstrations has a video of protestors versus the Gendarmes in Souillac in the Dordogne. I know this small regional town well. It is a small, sleepy town - a long way from Paris or a major City - and if demonstrations of this order are going on there then Macron is, imo, in serious trouble now. https://www.telesurenglish.net/news...hp6v4bQbX0wXEKaU4GKw7SuQ7mMuutHcOoETS2grdf_xE
More civil than a guillotine, eh? As far as I'm concerned, perhaps the guillotine should be brought back for those public officials convicted of poor governance.
Is it right to fine a cars owner for a 'violation' without having any confirmation as to who was driving? Is it right to fine someone without trial or proof except a photo of a speeding car, speeding because the camera says it was?
It's way off topic. But in Australia you are automatically fined if snapped by a speed camera. But... you can "nominate the driver" if it wasn't you. Otherwise, say the car was stolen. That usually won't work. This frees up the courts, and of course, that is a good thing socially. Besides, the police don't make the rules concerning speed cameras and such, society does.
No, politicians make the rules...society supports, obeys, ignores, or fights...This appears to be a case of fighting.
The road toll reached 1070 dead in 1973 in Victoria, Australia. For such a small population that was a huge figure. There was a groundswell of anguish and anger at this growing figure. I observed this as I was in the industry. I doubt many politicians wanted to spend a lot of money on the issue as until then no-one deemed it a political issue - it was always a case of "be careful, you are responsible for your own safety." After this we had the "Booze Buses"; visible police presence; breathalyzers; safer roads plus all that overseas stuff that came from people like Ralph Nader - better cars; seat belts; air bags etc.. IMO despising "authority" (as you seem to do) utterly misses the point: the authority was public opinion. Politicians had to get on board, and they gave resources to our police. So if I am caught not wearing a seat belt I will take it on the chin, thank the officer who fined me and be glad for the society which mandates I take precaution. Clearly my sentiment is not welcome here.
I for one am enjoying the revolts against the EU thru things like these protest/riots in France the lovely upcoming Brexit. Europe is comprised of proud nations, not subservient member states. They should remain so.
There's another side to this - "proud nations" have in the past done terrible things to each other. That's The Main Reason for the EU.
Proud nations have done far great good than evil in the world. Have advanced the world far more than held in back, muchless regressed it.
Hmmm, is the government following law regarding democratic process and the Citizens referendum initiative? Those things might be very much unwanted by a majority. Not at all. It sets the stage for waste. We can't afford that really. The French are disabled by the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech, just as Americans are. The French, perhaps less so, despite the substance of the constitution. Because they have had a dialog on difficult subjects for generations, uninterrupted. This must be respected as a true people, just as Americans, who have yet to find themselves, will be. If the French dug into the principles in their constitution that serve the people, and claim them as a majority generated initiative demand, there actually would be minimal need for protest. But that requires more communication than they've been able to establish amongst themselves for effective untiy in the destabilizing population pressures of war in the ME.
I sense the frustration, but there is an intelligent method, outside of politics, if you simply use law along with a majority. Yea, majority is a BIG deal. How to create one that is accurately aligned that can resist misalignment by tyrants using mass media, yea, that is the question. A re-declaration is in order that uses petition on state legislation that concerns a fundamental primary, vital right. Using natural law, human instinct carried in societal structure defined by the constitution dynamically. No perfectly, meaning the people need to perfect it. The 9th Amendment is for human adaptation within controlling government, so government cannot over-control preferring its own existence. American state Citizens need to see that the PURPOSE of free speech is restored so that protest is not necessary. The people can quickly communicate in mass accommodated by lawfully specified TV production on commercial broadcast at prime times. Then the return and enhancement of the USENET. That ought to cover getting rid of Chicago’s red light and speed cameras. Here is a page with the full legal concept. http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html
The connection between protest and free speech is a strange one. Societies that have free speech also have protests (US, Canada, UK etc..) Societies that don't have free speech don't have protests (China, North Korea etc..) And of course, red light and speed cameras save lives. That's a fact.
Yes, but it is really about behavior. One vital purpose of free speech is to see society can deal with behaviors without limiting reasonable freedoms. That PURPOSE is abridged, and America has no effective mental health care. They also do not have constitutional courts that will justly help Citizens correct government and see such mental health care created by separating church and state. American state Citizens must unify to restore the PURPOSE of free speech so the constitution can be defended and enforced. There is a legal process. http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html
