My point of view about the situation in #Spain (/cc @admitsWrongIfProven):
“The gouvernment that brought you good things for the people”
Err… sure. What government does not bring at least some “good things for the people”?
“I heard nothing negative about them in terms of caring for the people”
Not sure I understand. One does not need to hear anything specific to know that in a democracy of ~48M people millions of voters think that the government is not “caring for the people” properly, much, or at all.
In this case: I think this government “didn’t care” much for the youth (transfers of wealth from younger generations to boomers in the form of public pensions, massive public debt and a two-tier job market), for men (a divisive strand of feminism), for women (ditto, cf trans issues), for immigrants (several scandals about that), for entrepreneurs and freelancers (populist rhetoric against wealth and corporations), for the middle class (tax hikes), for students (our PISA scores are shameful), for the Sahrawis (they abandoned them to appease Morocco), or for truth and science (too many examples to cite).
“The only violence i heard of is […] not the catalans”
There has been very little violence from any side, fortunately. (But lots of hatred.)
The crimes that will be erased now are mostly non-violent ones: rebellion, sedition and misuse of public funds.
“An amnesty seems a good idea to keep the peace”
Roughly half of the population here disagrees. Recent History has proven otherwise: the more that institutions have appeased the separatists and made concessions to them, the more radical and defiant they grew.
“Fascists will never keep peace”
I agree. Those whose crimes will be erased, those who signed the deal with #PedroSánchez, are fascists. As you say, they will never keep peace. For years they have been trying to silence dissenters, banning certain ideas, appealing to nativist ideas, encouraging hatred towards other Spanish regions, attacking minorities and the individual, expecting groupthink, bending the facts and distorting History, and glorifying the idea of a nation.
@tripu @admitsWrongIfProven
Who are the fascists is very clear. Those who show Swastikas and the fascist salute, show symbols of the Franco regime and sing songs from the fascist "blue division". These things happens daily during the protests against the amnesty.
Yes, those are fascists too.
The good news is, nobody’s signing a deal with them.
@tripu @admitsWrongIfProven
Oh, but they did. PP signed several agreements with fascist party Vox.
That’s a dishonest sleight of hand that you did there.
The PP hasn’t signed agreements with anyone “who show Swastikas and the fascist salute”.
Any organisation with more than a few members has a fringe, freaks, psychopaths.
We have to analyse what the leaders say and do. Otherwise, no major party would come out unscathed.
The PSOE was (and will continue to be) in power with Podemos. The leaders of Podemos are avowed communists. The radical left has its own share of goons and even killers.
Anyway, none of this is relevant. I despise Vox, too. I don’‘t want them in power. I won’t defend “the right”.
For the sake of making progress in the debate, assume we agree: Vox is made up of fascists. And the right is full of resentment.
How does any of that make this specific amnesty legal or ethical?
@tripu @admitsWrongIfProven
It's very simple: Fascists (as Vox) are the enemies of democracy. By agreeing to form coalitions with them the PP has excluded itself from other options.
Puidgemont, Junts and other seperatist parties are not opposed to democracy. I don't support their ideas and I think, seceding from Spain is would be a terrible mistake.
But they don't want to overthrow the government, put elected people in jail, abolish human rights, or similar things that only fascists do.
“It’s very simple”
If only!
“Fascists […] are the enemies of democracy. By agreeing to form coalitions with them [a poitical party excludes] itself from other options”
“Enemy of democracy” is such a vaporous and loaded term. But OK, let’s play that game.
Bildu is the umpteenth rebranding of the “political arm” of the ETA. Bildu supported terrorist attacks and enabled the violence that killed more than 800 people over many years, and continue to do so. You mention people “who show Swastikas and the fascist salute”… Well, Bildu has (had) some of its leaders behind bars for shooting innocent village mayors, journalists, passers-by, etc, and for planting bombs, all in the name of the “nation”. Talk about fascism! And in case you think they’re the enemies of the Spanish regime only (not “of democracy”) they have always attacked Basque democracy and fellow Basques who didn’t think like them.
If Vox is fascist, Bildu definitely so.
So, by having agreed years ago to form a coalition with them, and announcing now that they will continue to do so, why is the PSOE not being excluded from other options? Why are Sumar, Coalición Canaria and a few other little parties allied with them?
@tripu @admitsWrongIfProven @ImperfectIdea
"If Vox is fascist, Bildu definitely so."
That is a very strange definition of fascism. It's not my understanding that Bildu wants to deport everyone who is not basque. They don't want to eliminate the rights of minorities like LGBTQI* people. Vox does.
There is now a chance to find a political solution. The "solution" of Vox and parts of PP would be to simply oppress the seperatist movements, which would result in violence.
We have so many open threads. I think you are not trying to answer my questions or evaluate my counterarguments. I’ll try once more.
“It’s not my understanding that Bildu wants to deport everyone who is not basque. They don’t want to eliminate the rights of minorities like LGBTQI* people.”
Bildu wants to kick everyone who is not they don’t consider Basque. That’s not only nativistic and nationalistic (two hallmarks of fascism), but also nonsensical, for several reasons:
- The Basque Country is tiny (it has less population than the city of Madrid).
- It’s not a separate “ethnic group” (Spain doesn’t have “a problem with its different ethnic groups”, as you said; it’s largely a matter of language and finance).
- It’s just impossible to determine who is “a Basque” and who isn’t: someone born and raised in the Canary Islands, the descendant of generations of Canarians, can move to Bilbao tomorrow and become, on paper, as “Basque” as anyone — and vice versa. And in case you’re wondering, fluency in Basque is irrelevant: there are descendants of generations of Basques, living in the land, who don’t speak the language either.
To try to achieve that, Bildu has enabled and encouraged violence for decades; not only towards “Spaniards”, but also towards fellow Basques who dared to think differently (another big tick in the “fascism” checklist). Some of its leaders are convict terrorists. You asked me about “some sources to verify that”: that’s vox populi, check the newspaper archives for the last 65 years, I guess.
Apart from “all Spaniards” and “the wrong kind of Basques”, Bildu has been a bully, often a violent one, towards the military, the police, the Civil Guard, the Monarchy, and anyone they perceive to be on “the right” — among others. Do those “minorities” not qualify, like “LGBTQI* people”?
“The ‘solution’ of Vox and parts of PP would be to simply oppress the seperatist movements”
Separatist ideas, speech and parties are fully legal. If by “oppress” you mean “prosecute with legal means”, then yes, I agree with those parties (and a few others) that one ought to “oppress” whatever is illegal. By definition. Unilateral separatism outside the law, of the kind #Puigdemont et al perpetrated in 2017, is illegal and should be “oppressed”. Just like we “oppress” extrajudicial killings, paedophilia, or the construction of a nuclear reactor in your backyard, and so many things. I don’t think that “the ‘it’s illegal’ and ‘it’s against the constitution’ argument is a very weak one”, and in fact I don’t understand how anyone could defend the rule of law negating those premises.
“Fascists are ruthless murderers. History shows that fascists can’t stopped by democratic means only.”
On that, we agree.
“Above the national law, there is international law, which grants the right of self determination”
Self-determination does not apply to the Catalan case. I think you didn’t read my essay. Check bogus argument no. 10, “they’re calling a referendum because self-determination is a basic human right”.
“I don’t get why it should be ethical wrong if Catalunya wants to choose its own faith”
I agree. There’s nothing inherently wrong in a country splitting in two. That’s not the question we’re debating.
@tripu @admitsWrongIfProven @ImperfectIdea
"We have so many open threads"
That's right, and you didn't answer my request for sources for your claim, that Bildu still supports terrorist actions.
Besides, Bildu wasn't the main point. The main point is, from my POV, how to resolve the mutliple conflicts with the various ethnic groups.
Force and oppression, like PP and especially Vox wants, isn't going to work. Sánchez is trying another way now, and that's good for a start.
Tell me: what are the “various ethnic groups” you see in Spain?
What is your criterion? Why did you leave out Canarians, Riojans, Ubetenses, Ceutans, Rascafrienses or Torrejoneros?
@tripu @admitsWrongIfProven @ImperfectIdea My criterions are the same as science use. According to the science of ethnology Basques, Catalans and Galicians are distinct ethnic groups (among others in Spain).
You're doing the same as you're doing with the definition of fascism. No political scientist would categorize Junts, Bildu or any other seperatist party in Spain as "fascist" (while Vox does very well fit in that category).
I’m contesting your idea of “ethnic groups” in contemporary Spain because:
- “Ethnicity” is a very contingent and politically-motivated concept; think of how we have classified the “races” in the last centuries, how arbitrary (and “racist”) it all was — and is. “There has been constant debate over the classification of ethnic groups”.
- There’s no formal definition or set of criteria universally accepted, as opposed to real, meaningful scientific categories.
- The closest translations into Spanish are “grupo étnico” or “etnia”. Nobody in Spain uses those words to refer to anyone living in Spain (only exception: gypsies in Spain are commonly considered an etnia). Not even Catalan or Basque separatists talk in terms of “ethnic groups”. Thus my surprise when you introduced the concept in the debate.
- Ultimately, the concept it’s pointless. Sorting out people by “ancestry, history, homeland, language or dialect and cultural heritage”, and granting different privileges to those groups of people, or prioritising the demands of some over the others, is regressive and against Humanism. Especially so when all those groups already share a common state, a Constitution, a military, a wealth redistribution system, a continuous chunk of land without internal borders, a cultural religion, and a language.
Apparently, the Vaqueiros de Alzada are one of those distinct “ethnic groups” in Spain. I’m sure some of them have made demands similar to those of Basque and Catalan separatists. Whatever new “rights” we grant the Basques and the Catalans, we must automatically grant to the Vaqueiros de Alzada too, or else we would be rewarding the Basques and the Catalans for having been violent and acting against the law. It’s all very absurd.
