Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @04:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the with-them-or-against-us dept.

The Washington Post reports:

Hollande is expected to put forward a bill this week to extend a state of emergency for three months, enhancing police power to restrict freedom of movement and gatherings at public places.

At Versailles, he also proposed constitutional changes that would allow authorities to withdraw French citizenship from people with dual nationality, even if they were born in France, and to prevent French terrorism suspects from returning to France.

(Emphasis added.)

I feel this would be unproductive; among the problems Europe has long faced is that the children and even grandchildren of immigrants feel unwelcome in the nations of their birth: I understand there are some European countries in which birth does not convey citizenship. President Hollande's proposal would dramatically exacerbate the problem and so give rise to further terrorism.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @02:16PM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday November 18 2015, @02:16PM (#264854)

    So you'd do nothing?

    No. For instance, you could investigate attacks using methods that do not violate people's fundamental liberties. But declaring war on the concept of terrorism is just silly and costly. Much like with the unjust war on drugs, you will never win.

    You seem to think that because doing absolutely nothing would be bad, that doing *something*, no matter what it is, is therefore necessarily good. But in fact, some responses are going to be harmful and worse or just as bad as doing absolutely nothing. Like taking away people's liberties in the name of security, for instance.

    You are one of those people who in the Dark or Middle Ages, when the Goths, Mongols or Saracens came, would meekly shelter in a church and pray until the invaders burst in and cut your throat.

    No, I'm just not scared of remote threats, because I take probability into account.

    To deal with something does not mean you are terrified.

    To surrender your liberties to stop it, though, does. Anyone who would do that is a filthy coward who lacks principles.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @02:22PM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday November 18 2015, @02:22PM (#264858)

    Additionally, in the US, we get molested by worthless government thugs at airports, have our communications spied on, and many people jump at the mere sight of someone who appears as if they would be Muslim. Other countries, France included, want to take some similar measures. If you don't think that demonstrates that they are terrified, I don't know what to say.