SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Police and would-be voters have clashed during a Catalan independence referendum held on Sunday:
Scenes of chaos and violence unfolded in Catalonia as an independence referendum deemed illegal by Madrid devolved quickly on Sunday. As police followed orders from the central government to put a stop to the vote, they fired rubber bullets at unarmed protesters and smashed through the glass at polling places, reports The Associated Press. Three hundred and thirty-seven people were injured, some seriously, according to Catalonia's government spokesman.
Spain's Interior Ministry said a dozen police officers were injured. NPR's Lauren Frayer reports from Barcelona that some people were throwing rocks down at officers from balconies. Yet the violence came from all directions.
"Horrible scenes," Lauren reports. "Police dragging voters out of polling stations, some by the hair."
Scuffles erupted as riot police forcefully removed hundreds of would-be voters from polling places across Barcelona, the Catalan capitol, reports AP. Nevertheless, many people, managed to successfully cast their ballots across the region after waiting in lines hundreds-of-people-deep, including the elderly and families with small children, says Reuters.
Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said that he did not acknowledge the vote and called it "illegal".
Also at NYT, Bloomberg, The Washington Post, and BBC:
Catalan emergency officials say 761 people have been injured as police used force to try to block voting in Catalonia's independence referendum.
Update: Catalan referendum: Catalonia has 'won right to statehood'
Spain Vows to Enforce the Law in Rebel Catalonia
Catalonia Leaders Seek to Make Independence Referendum Binding
Previously: Spain Trying to Stop Catalonia Independence Referendum
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday October 04 2017, @01:40AM (1 child)
The constitution stated that any referendum on secession would have to be given to the whole of Spain, not just the Catalonians. I suspect the majority of the rest of Spain would vote "No". The total population of Catalonia is 7.5 million, for Spain: 30.5 million.
Why should other territories get a say? That's like taking a vote among all Southerners (white and slaves) circa 1850 about whether slaves should be freed. Obviously, the oppressors are going to vote against it.
Besides, it's hard to say just how much of the rest would vote "no". The Basques would likely vote "yes". Perhaps others would too. And besides, on the internet comments, the pro-Madrid people usually put down Catalonia, saying it's corrupt, it has too much debt, etc. If Catalonia is so problematic, then why are they so desperate to hang onto it? That's like a husband insisting on not allowing his wife to divorce him, even though she cheats on him constantly and has spent him into bankruptcy, and is now pregnant with some other guy's child. If you don't like someone, why do you want to stick with them?
Surely the entire country should have a say whether a territory is carved out of it, or not?
No, where did you get this crazy idea? Just because some of their ancestors came to some deal where their territories were merged together doesn't mean it's "their" land. It's not. They don't live there. I don't live in Hawaii, for instance, so I would never presume to think that I have any right to say that Hawaiians cannot leave my country, if they wanted to secede. Their island wasn't even acquired through ethical actions.
If a people vote on a constitution, and accept it (which the Catalans did do)
Their ancestors in the 1970s voted on it, and the Catalans were always a minority. Times change, and they want a new vote. Why aren't they allowed to change things now? Just because a bunch of other people want to oppress them? And "oppression" is absolutely the right word: look at how the federal police acted.
It is a standard procedure, because if Spain says something is unconstitutional, and people go do it anyway, and there is no punishment, then other people may think they can violate the constitution as well, so some sort of punishment is required.
If that many people require violence to stifle their views and actions, then the law is unjust, and needs to be changed. When a majority (esp. in a differing region) refuse to allow a change and insist on oppressing a minority, then violence usually results, and a civil war. At that point, it's not the fault of the secessionists that violence was used.
1) Nagorno-Karabakh
Looks like the Azerbaijani should have just let them go. It didn't turn out well for them.
Result: Victory for Croatia, secessionists were crushed. Mass deportations of non-croats from area.
Didn't turn out well for secessionists, but how is mass deportation OK? Isn't that genocide? Still, shows that you're not going to have peace by ignoring the secessionists.
3) Bosnia, pretty much as above, but 3 way between Croats, Bosnians and Serbs. NATO intervened to prevent the secession movements. citing that "sovereignty trumps self-determination". Result: ... Issues still unresolved and could reignite at any moment.
Same here. Secessionists want to go, but aren't allowed to, so there's no peace and the country is worse off for it.
4) Kosovo: ... NATO intervened in 1999 on the KLA/Albanian side, citing the right of "self determination trumps sovereignty"
Interesting how they changed course there. Maybe they figured out they were wrong before. Anyway, looks like things are better off now because the secessionists won, and got away from the Serbs.
However coming up and supporting Spains right to crush Catalonias secession movement could not only look really anti-democractic
It IS anti-democratic.
5) Crimea: ... Interestingly, very little bloodletting here, but the result was disputed by the western powers and Ukraine.
Here again, the secessionists got their way and things are better. Maybe Ukraine should have allowed a proper and fully-sanctioned referendum instead, since the dispute seems (as usual) to revolve around the idea that the vote wasn't really representative of the whole population. Well if you don't allow a proper election, what do you expect?
6) South Ossetia
Lots more fighting until the secessionists got their way.
Basically, you've proved my point: ignoring secessionist movements and stifling their referenda doesn't end up well. You end up with civil war unless some large power steps in. The best thing to do is solve it diplomatically: allow a proper referendum and go from there. If the people really don't want to be part of your country, it's not going to go well if you just forcibly shut them up. Every one of your examples proves this.
(continued...)
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday October 05 2017, @01:46AM
> Why should other territories get a say? That's like taking a vote among all Southerners (white and slaves) circa 1850 about whether slaves should be freed. Obviously, the oppressors are going to vote against it.
Because people in other territories may be from Catalonia originally. Their taxes paid for the shared infrastructure, and they may have ties to the area. They are all citizens of one country, and all citizens should have a voice in whether it should go or not, not just one side surely?
This is different to slavery, because a person has rights to their own body and being, they are not (and never should have been) other peoples property. Land ownership is property, always has been, and as such all those who jointly lived, working and invested in a country as a whole, should have a say in how the country is split, if at all.
> Besides, it's hard to say just how much of the rest would vote "no". The Basques would likely vote "yes". Perhaps others would too. And besides, on the internet comments, the pro-Madrid people usually put down Catalonia, saying it's corrupt, it has too much debt, etc. If Catalonia is so problematic, then why are they so desperate to hang onto it? That's like a husband insisting on not allowing his wife to divorce him, even though she cheats on him constantly and has spent him into bankruptcy, and is now pregnant with some other guy's child. If you don't like someone, why do you want to stick with them?
Good question, who knows. Had the proper procedure been followed by the Catalans, maybe the majority of Spain would have voted for them to leave as well, but as the majority were denied a voice in this referendum, we will never know. This issue has polarised both sides, and made normal discussion on it quite a bit harder.
> No, where did you get this crazy idea? Just because some of their ancestors came to some deal where their territories were merged together doesn't mean it's "their" land. It's not. They don't live there. I don't live in Hawaii, for instance, so I would never presume to think that I have any right to say that Hawaiians cannot leave my country, if they wanted to secede. Their island wasn't even acquired through ethical actions.
It seems to be a perfectly logical idea. If you marry someone, and you both bring a piece of land to the table and merge it, then spend generations building it up, investing in it, you have interest, it ceases being one persons and becomes property of the group, because the total invested in it by all sides has exceeded what it was originally.
Your idea only works if the systems were always kept separate. Had Catalonia been a state in a federation I would agree with you. They would have raised their own taxes, handled their own residents, paid for their own infrastructure and enforcement, and sent the rest upwards. In which case it would be a clear cut case of what is theirs is theirs. I believe this is how the USA works, up to even having your own national guard and police forces on a per state basis. That isn't how Spain has ever been configured.
> Their ancestors in the 1970s voted on it, and the Catalans were always a minority. Times change, and they want a new vote. Why aren't they allowed to change things now? Just because a bunch of other people want to oppress them? And "oppression" is absolutely the right word: look at how the federal police acted.
They are allowed to change things now, by requesting changes to the constitution, and there are procedures for that. They don't go and just ignore the parts they don't like. It would be like US states ignoring different parts of the US constitution because they disagree with it (I suspect if this were to happen, it would be due to the 2nd amendment). If any US state started that, the law would be declared unconstitutional and void, and overruled. The same happened in Spain, except certain people carried on despite being told it was unconstitutional, therefore "coercion to follow the law" was administered.
> If that many people require violence to stifle their views and actions, then the law is unjust, and needs to be changed. When a majority (esp. in a differing region) refuse to allow a change and insist on oppressing a minority, then violence usually results, and a civil war. At that point, it's not the fault of the secessionists that violence was used.
That many people? It is still a minority compared to the entire population. Sure, as a number it might be large, but it has to be compared to the total. I don't like to ascribe fault to who starts a war, because that is always murky, and fingers always point at the "other" for the reason (nobody ever says "yep, I started the war").
> 1) Nagorno-Karabakh - Looks like the Azerbaijani should have just let them go. It didn't turn out well for them.
Yes, but a lot of blood was spilled
> Result: Victory for Croatia, secessionists were crushed. Mass deportations of non-croats from area.
> Didn't turn out well for secessionists, but how is mass deportation OK? Isn't that genocide? Still, shows that you're not going to have peace by ignoring the secessionists.
Yes, but a lot of blood was spilled.
>3) Bosnia, pretty much as above, but 3 way between Croats, Bosnians and Serbs. NATO intervened to prevent the secession movements. citing that "sovereignty trumps self-determination". Result: ... Issues still unresolved and could reignite at any moment.
>Same here. Secessionists want to go, but aren't allowed to, so there's no peace and the country is worse off for it.
Agreed, but still, a lot of blood was spilled
> 4) Kosovo: ... NATO intervened in 1999 on the KLA/Albanian side, citing the right of "self determination trumps sovereignty"
> Interesting how they changed course there. Maybe they figured out they were wrong before. Anyway, looks like things are better off now because the secessionists won, and got away from the Serbs.
But a lot of blood was spilled, and judging by the desperation of anyone living there to get the hell out, I suspect it didn't really work out that well.
> [ etc.. ]
>Basically, you've proved my point: ignoring secessionist movements and stifling their referenda doesn't end up well. You end up with civil war unless some large power steps in. The best thing to do is solve it
> diplomatically: allow a proper referendum and go from there. If the people really don't want to be part of your country, it's not going to go well if you just forcibly shut them up. Every one of your examples proves this.
My point of listing those was to demonstrate that unilateral actions towards independence pretty much guarantee bloodshed, even if referendums were used. Just because it was "democratic", doesn't mean things will go peacefully. It also doesn't bode well for Catalonia if they continue down this path. referendums are just excuses to get what those in power want. Of course if we just allowed everyone to declare independence the bloodshed wouldn't happen, but that is a completely unrealistic expectation.
As for figuring out they were wrong before, why are they not supporting the Catalans now?
> However coming up and supporting Spains right to crush Catalonias secession movement could not only look really anti-democractic
Interesting, as the EU came out today saying that the use of violence was "proportional". Seems that perhaps after Kosovo they realised it was a bad idea to give peoples self determination higher priority to sovereignty. It just opens a pandoras box.
You can find a disenfranchised minority in every region of the world. The amount of chaos you could spread by dismembering countries left right and centre would be quite something.
> It IS anti-democratic.
Like I responded in the previous message. You seem have a very idealistic definition of democracy. Democracy, as you define it, I don't think exists anywhere in the world, nor has it ever done.
It may exist one day in the future, but taking into account human nature (and the fact it has never really changed despite all our progress) makes me think that long after both of us are gone, it still won't exist.
So you can sit and argue what would be the true democratic way to solve such crises, but that doesn't change the fact that your democratic method of resolution has no chance in hell of happening in 99% of cases. It just isn't how centralised power structures work.