"... the honor of a person" comes from the person. If your honour is not recognised you ain't got it.
Spain's ruling Popular Party has proposed banning internet memes. No word of a lie. Right-wing Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has put forward legislation that would make it a crime to "spread images that infringe the honor of a person", noting that a similar law from the 1980s is out of date because it doesn't account for the …
I do not even know exactly where to start.
So, Mr Rahoj he is allowed to censor any cartoons of himself?
While this is not the first time he has tried to get Spain back on Frankist footing, I think this one beats any previous ones.
As my Granddad used to shout levelling his I16 out of a spin to get the Frankist Fiat CR.32 in his crosshairs. NO PASARAN.
They are from Franco roots it seems.
"[...] The People's Party was a re-foundation in 1989 of the People's Alliance (Alianza Popular, AP), a party led and founded by Manuel Fraga Iribarne, a former Minister of the Interior and Minister of Tourism during Francisco Franco's dictatorship. The new party combined the conservative AP with several small Christian democratic and liberal parties (the party call this fusion of views Reformist centre). In 2002, Manuel Fraga received the honorary title of "Founding Chairman".[...]"
It is clear that this idiot needs to be fired. Preferably soon, since this type of thinking is dangerous to democracy. As has been seen with the demonstration law.
Fiat you muppet. Fiat CR.32 - standard fighter aircraft of Franco's air force and the "volunteers" sent in by Mussolini.
My grandad shipped, trained pilots and flew Polikarpov I16s for the Republic. While he never got onto the list of aces, he had several air victories then and (again using I16) against Nazis in the beginning of WW2 before he became a test pilot.
By the way, my granduncle also fought for the republic against Mr Rahoj political progenitors. Similarly - he shipped, trained republican crews and fought with them in T-26s both at Burgos and Guadalajara.
I would repeat what either one of them would have said to Mr Rajoy. NO PASARAN you fascist c*nt.
So Spain just spent ten months in political crisis without a government. Finally, after the best part of a year, a government is finally put together. And after that long period in governmental limbo, surely they must have a great many weighty issues to legislate on, right? So what's top of the list? Banning f**king memes. No wonder all the opposition parties dug their heels in for so long against agreeing to a Rajoy government. The socialists will be wishing they had listened to Pedro Sanchez after all.
Oh but it was government as usual, except when it was inconvenient, and then it was "oh, we can't do that, we're the interim government". Inconvenient means running their budget past the EU, debates or question time in Parliament, and so on.
Not that any weighty issues were tackled before. Like the good funcionario that Rajoy is, most things were just ignored and hopefully they'd go away and stop bothering him. He did this with the election results as well and it worked - he just waited while the opposition parties, incapable of coming to agreement on anything, disintegrated around him.
When you ban peaceful protest, all protest must become violent because the arms of the state will make it so.
The storm clouds are gathering, they have been for some time.
Populist jingoism and the cult of personality will lead us to the place they always have - disaster, war and death.
This one from a bit over a year ago sums it up well:
Mariano*: he lives on another ****ing planet.
* Rajoy's first name, and one letter away from Marciano, meaning Martian.
This law is probably came about because of a website satirising the PP's electoral programme which popped up during the last elections. It was done by El Mundo Today (the equivalent of The Onion or The Daily Mash) so you can tell exactly how much Rajoy's honour was slighted.
It took all of a day for a legal demand to be written and go to court where it jumped to the front of the queue and was rubber stamp and the website was removed. Long live the separation of powers.
Other parties also had satricial websites made about their programmes. They didn't go to court.
> It took all of a day for a legal demand to be written and go to court where it jumped to the front of the queue and was rubber stamp and the website was removed. Long live the separation of powers.
I spent many years in Catalonia, where the Spanish government's actions go beyond the farcical, and that was before independence was a mainstream political proposition.
The website wasn't removed, simply renamed. It's still up: http://esawebdelaqueustedmehabla.com/
As a resident of Valencia I particularly like the policy on corruption. My translation:
What measures does the party you mention propose to end corruption?
A firm hand. Anyone who holds a position of responsibility and who carries out illegal practices will see their political life ended and will be sent to the Senate.
> As a kid we were advised by the (UK) Foreign Office not to stop and help if we saw a traffic accident or somebody in trouble whilst on holiday in Spain,
And let us hope the Foreign Office are by now aware of § 195 of the Spanish criminal code and stop giving "advice" that will get you arrested or worse.
This is also something that every driver in Spain is aware of, as it's part of the test, and that police take seriously, apart from being the honourable thing to do, so make sure that even if you do not feel it's safe or in the interests of your personal security to stop at the scene of an accident, you do at the very least call for help without delay. And do note that if you happen to be a medical professional, police, firefighter, soldier, aircrew, etc., that § 20.5.3 holds you to a different standard. It does not matter if you are off duty, or even a foreigner on holidays.
> The second one means that there are penalties for stopping police, firefighters, doctors, soldiers*, etc... from doing their work.
No. Not at all.
It is an exception to the exemptions. That section details in what cases one is exempt from criminal responsibility. Point 5 deals with conflicts of legal rights and spells out the conditions under which violating somebody else's rights out of a circumstantial need is not a criminal offence.
In the context at hand 5.3 applies, for example, when I neglect my duty to assist someone in danger (that's what section 195 covers) in order to safeguard my own physical integrity. If I happen to be under "obligación de sacrificio" (which incidentally I am), Spanish law expects me to take bigger risks, in relation to the loss potentially suffered by other parties, than otherwise would be acceptable.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019