French authorities confirmed that a protest against police violence set to take place in Paris on Saturday could not go ahead due to police shortages. NGOs say the ban signals a “more and more repressive” approach from authorities.

  • Kinglink
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    If there’s one thing that has proven to stop protests, it’s laws.

  • itsdavetho
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    2 years ago

    Surely this will stop them this time for really real

  • hetscop@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    2 years ago

    “You can’t protest agains police violence because we don’t have enough police officers”. I’m sure that will stop them

    • cmbabul
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 years ago

      It almost seems like a trap, they are all but saying “please stop protesting we can’t take it any more”, a protest becomes a coup/revolution if the authorities refuse to concede to the demands and are overwhelmed by the protesters

  • alcamtar
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

    So we are commanding you not to protest police, also we don’t have enough police to enforce our command.

    We know you’re upset with the police but don’t come into our police-free zone. Pretty please.

    Longer I think about this the funnier it gets.

  • French authorities confirmed that a protest against police violence set to take place in Paris on Saturday could not go ahead due to police shortages.

    “We don’t have enough cops to commit violence on everyone protesting so we have cancelled the protest.”

  • andrewta
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    49
    ·
    2 years ago

    People protesting: no problem

    People protesting and then certain groups “joining” them and burning cars and breaking windows requires a police presence.

    Stop burning shit.

    And yeah it won’t stop the protest from happening just because the French authorities banned the protest. Probably a few people will get arrested though.

      • andrewta
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yes I have and that was basically the point of my comment.

        It isn’t the protestors burning shit it’s other bad actors. But whether it’s the protestors burning stuff or the other bad actors is really irrelevant. Either way stuff is getting damaged so there needs to be a police presence.

        • TheGreatFox
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Why would they arrest their own undercover agents?

          • schroedingershat
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            The police presence is to arrest (violently) anyone who tries to stop the agents provocateur.

            If you miss the chance you have to set more small businesses on fire.

          • andrewta
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            21
            ·
            2 years ago

            Now that is the dumbest thing I’ve read so far.

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Either way stuff is getting damaged so there needs to be a police presence.

          why, what are they going to do, arrest the fire? Shoot at it?

      • andrewta
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        2 years ago

        Where was I blaming the victim?

        I openly said it isn’t the protestors burning shit.

        The other victim would be the owners of the cars and businesses… how am I blaming them?

          • andrewta
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            I’m hoping there is a hidden /s in there.

            It is entirely possible to talk about who is burning shit and care about the protests and care about the protestors and care about the businesses that are being destroyed. Just because I didn’t mention every single one of those things in a comment doesn’t mean I don’t care about them.

            • Tangent5280
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 years ago

              Please do try to mention them anyway, because not doing so comes across as callousness, regardless of how you actually feel about it.

              Your argument is a valid viewpoint - you want positive change for the people protesting, but you want it without any of the wanton violence or burning that goes along with rioting; correct?

              However, it is also true that you were: (1) placing the onus of non-violence on the people who were wronged, and protesting here. (2) assuming there was some way for the people protesting, to seperate themselves from the bad actors who engage in these riots with the sole purpose of destroying and looting shit. (3) assuming that there are other easily available methods were the masses could change the system they’re in without any of the rioting. (4) assuming that the powers that be (legislative bodies/lawmakers/policy builders) willingly engage in these methods in good faith, for which history already has plenty of counter-examples.