Posted: Oct 23, 2017 3:12 am
by Thommo
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Thommo wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Thommo wrote:Wait for an election and vote in a better prime minister.


Do you ever wonder why protest groups defending minority interest ever make a fuss when they could just wait for an election and vote in a leader that will support their interests and oust the oppressing majority's candidate?


Actually, that's exactly how most changes do get made. That's how being gay was decriminalised in most countries, it's how gay marriage has been legalised in dozens of countries, it's how the vast majority of franchise extensions have come to pass.

That's not a fair analogy however as there's little chance of the Catalan people ever convincing a majority of Spanish people to support their independence the way people were presuaded to change their minds on SSM. They're distinctly different issues.


Why?

Although you say this, it is the case that in the majority of developed free democratic countries where issues like this have arisen, that's exactly what has happened. Puerto Rico, Scotland, Quebec, various territories of the Netherlands and so on.

Now, it's possible that the people of Spain are uniquely different, but if you're proposing that then it's something that should be supported with evidence. I, for one, have certainly never been struck when meeting Spanish people that they are uniquely totalitarian and I see absolutely no reason they should be incapable of being persuaded to let Catalonians decide for themselves, over time.*

Nor do I see a reason why the right of Catalonians to hold a referendum is a more pressing violation of rights than disenfranchisement of voters has been, or that criminalisation of gay people was. If those are struggles that could take decades it's rather unclear why this is an issue that must be settled on a much shorter timescale.

Again, if that's something you think I would suggest some reasoning or evidence that would indicate the conclusion would perhaps be appropriate. On the other hand perhaps you agree that it's not so pressing it must be settled right here and now, which would be my view. This isn't oppression of people like that which is happening with women's rights in Saudi Arabia or of an ethnic minority like the Rohynga in Myanmar. This isn't another massacre in the making like Kosovo was.

So what reasoning would lead me to think that all persuasion and diplomacy has failed? Have national or supranational organisations that believe in human rights, like the EU, condemned this oppression?

I'm genuinely not seeing it, so yes, I think it's a fair comparison. At least inasmuch as accepting the original contention that Catalonia should be compared to a human rights struggle, which wasn't mine. If I'd made the comparison I'd have gone directly to other independence movements in free democratic societies, like Canada or the Netherlands.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Thommo wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Hang on. There's something wrong with the logic there.


What logic? It was a suggestion not a piece of reasoning. It's a suggestion based on real life outcomes and the incredible success of peaceful democracy.

How many nations achieved their independence peacefully? Especially before WW2?


Why especially before WW2? Is it before WW2 now? Or would it not be fairer to say it's after WW2 and rights across the board and in recognition of democratic outcomes in particular are much, much better than they were in the 1930s? Isn't it fairer to suggest that Spain has a new constitution written after WW2 and oversight by membership of a new supranational organisation, the EU, also created after WW2?

Anyway, here's a list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_referendum

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Non democratic means have a track record that is spotty in terms of success and that has resulted in large loss of life in many cases.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it's highly unlikely for any segment of a larger nation to become independent through democratic means.


It doesn't change it, I agree. But that's not even a true statement, let alone a fact.

Earlier in the thread I talked about Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Those situations, I agree, resulted in greater stability and recognition of human rights than before the war. Maybe you think that bloodshed worthwhile and that there was no better way, maybe you don't. I'm sure I'm not qualified to claim to know. As I said to Sendraks, I agree the outcome is better than how the situation was before.

So the questions must be: Is this situation actually like those ones? Are comparable violations of human rights taking place? Is there really no question of a lawful movement achieving its objectives? And so on.

* ETA: Incidentally I would say that the Spanish authorities (and the EU as a whole, tangentially) are certainly capable both here, and elsewhere, of acting quite unreasonably - look at the Spanish stance on Gibraltar, for example. However in doing so we can see the limits of that unreasonableness and the possibilities for outcomes when that unreasonableness is managed. It seems to me that even where the wider Spanish public are not happy with an outcome they are as capable as other free peoples of accepting it.

Whilst I would not contend that the outcome in Gibraltar is exactly satisfactory, there has to be a real consideration of what the end game of not respecting the rule of law in Catalonia will be. We should consider what this is going to accomplish, whether it will lead to a more or less satisfactory state of affairs and what the costs of doing so (in comparison with the costs of not acting outside the constitution) will be. Surely it is worth weighing factors like the possibility of departure from the EU for Catalans, economic consequences and the potential for loss of human life in a struggle for power.


ETA2: You may be interested in these statistics from before the referendum in terms of background information:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economi ... xplains-17
The Catalan government’s own pollster finds that while 70% want a referendum on the territory’s future, only 48% do if Spanish government doesn’t agree—which it emphatically does not. According to the same poll, support for independence is slowly declining, and now stands at 41%. Mr Rajoy is relying on the courts to stop the referendum, arguing that the rule of law is fundamental to democracy. The Constitutional Tribunal has suspended the two laws. The Civil Guard arrested 14 senior people, most of them Catalan officials, involved in organising the referendum, and has seized 9.8m ballot slips. Mr Puigdemont insists that the vote will go ahead. He is relying on popular mobilisation: tens of thousands protested against the arrests in Barcelona. But it is hard to see the vote being anything more than an unofficial consultation, similar to one held in 2014. Most supporters of “No” side won’t vote. If anything like the 2.3m alleged to have voted in 2014 were to turn out, Mr Puigdemont would claim victory.