In the U.S., no one disputes that secession is legal. The whole country was founded by secession. It is, however, well-established by precedent that if any states do secede, the remaining states will then be able to launch a war of conquest against them, and re-annex their territory back into the union as a new entity with exactly the same name, borders, and government structure as before the secession occurred. If you want to secede, you must prepare to fight for it.
As of 1775, no English colony in North America had ever been independent. It had always been subject to the king of England. This was not sufficient reason for the colonists to remain loyal subjects of the crown.
The colonists took it upon their own initiative to secede from England. Any votes that may have been cast were taken mainly among those who wanted independence, and those who wished to remain loyal were likely not even informed that a vote was taking place. It isn't really there for a democratic mandate, but a means of gauging support among the uncommitted for any war that may follow.
In the ideal case, the result of the vote is strong enough that the war is a foregone conclusion, and it never actually happens. The WOPR concludes that the only way to win is not to play. Or it may be a means of the parent entity tactfully trying to shed a non-performant territory. Or it may be because people are genuinely trying to decide a course of action based on the will of the people. The U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, for instance, may one day hold a referendum to determine whether the island should apply for statehood, petition for independence, or remain in the status quo. It is likely that the remainder of the U.S. would honor the results of any such vote, though probably with the U.S. retaining sovereignty over any territory the military already directly controls.
It is not necessary for any national or international body to recognize the vote. It is purely for the secessionists, to determine if they could win a war if the parent entity invades after the split.
The secessionists don't have to pay any attention whatsoever to other regions with an equally strong or stronger case for secession.
If you are voting to secede, you don't care whether or not the vote is legal or binding. The explicit wording is regarding secession, but implicitly it is about whether people will take up arms for Catalonia, or at least not take up arms for Spain, if there is a war for independence. The percentages don't really matter, only the raw numbers. If 10000 people vote "yes", you know that there are potentially 10000 armed rebels out there, waiting for the signal to join the fight.
I think Spain is handling this in the worst possible manner, diplomatically. Viral videos of people getting beaten by police is only going to increase the number of people willing to fight to make it stop.
As an American, I am automatically suspicious of any claim that video of a cop beating someone has been faked.
While we do tend to think that our cops are the best in the world at being unnecessarily violent against suspects, especially minorities and pet dogs, we are aware that cops in other countries are also capable of lesser brutality. Except in Scandinavia, where suspects are ordered into the comfy chair, offered the hot tea, told they have been very naughty, and given actual help towards not repeating their crimes--and that somehow actually works for them.~
We have a nationwide protest movement organized entirely around the suspiciously-high number of black men dying during police encounters or while in police custody. And every time, the video comes out, and the police say, "That isn't what it looks like. It was entirely justified use of force. We investigated ourselves thoroughly, and cleared ourselves of all wrongdoing. Thoroughly."
If an American cop can kill someone for "taking a fighting stance" and "moving a hand toward his waistband," I can consider that maybe Spanish cops might punch someone in the face for committing an overt and obvious act of rebellion against their national government, participating in an event that could sunder the political tranquility of the entire country. It might even be a really strong punch--like, enough to leave a bruise for a few days.~
Half of the U.S. is horrified at the idea of people getting physically attacked for the act of voting. The other half is sorely disappointed at the lack of blood in the streets. There may be some overlap.
Anyway, in the U.S., the police tell blatant and obvious lies whenever they get caught on camera doing something terrible. The cop-cheerleaders believe the lies without hesitation, and the cop-haters don't believe anything a cop says, regardless of the subject. So the only way to really counter video evidence is with more video evidence, from a different angle. All referees and umpires are blind when the call is against our team, but we will grudgingly accept video review of the play. All I have seen is the original video. I haven't seen the video showing how they faked those videos. In the absence of any such evidence, my default assumption is that the official government story is deliberately crafted prevarication.
So you are not disputing that the people who appear to be police are genuinely police, or that they actually engaged in violence against people engaged in a (nominally) peaceful protest against the authority of the national government? If a real cop really hit a person, and that resulted in real injury, that's not a fake video.
I think it's impressive that a Spanish cop can hold out for two hours of continuous abuse before breaking, but again, I'm used to American cops. Quite a lot of ours can maintain a professional demeanor for an entire shift of continual public abuse, maybe even for several days in a row, as might occur in a G20 protest or similar, but we also have some who will retaliate for frowning at them, or giving them "dehumanizing looks". Sometimes all it takes is just being there while black, or pointing a camera in their general direction.
The international--or at least Western European--expectation for police, as I understand it, is that a cop never breaks down and assaults a person who is not already violent or otherwise endangering the public, regardless of how unpleasant they may be in their non-violence. I'm pretty sure that would never work here. If you can't occasionally gun down a man in the streets just for looking at you funny, how can you expect to generate that pervading aura of absolute terror that keeps everyone nervously polite and law-abiding the rest of the time you're around?~
I'm sorry to tell you that cutting out the three hours of tension prior to the most-viewed portion of the video does not actually debunk it. You'll need to show one of the following:
- The police in the videos were not real police.
- The apparent victims became violent prior to the start of the video.
- The apparent victims were not as injured as they appeared to be.
If the video does show a real person assaulted and battered by a real cop for no reason considered valid under any theory of the ethical use of force, I don't know how you can realistically claim that it is fake or debunked. Good cops don't punch peaceful people in any country, no matter how rude or angry they get. They don't even punch the notorious criminals. They use the minimum amount of force necessary to preserve the peace, and do not allow their personal emotions to interfere with that duty.
Video shows later that policemen grab her by the right hand. For some reason the bandage is in her left hand. Hospital report explained later that one finger was "sored", I don't know the exact term for capsulitis in english but is not "broken". The other nine were, fortunately, fine. I let you to decide how to calificate the stairs part claim.
Well done. That's the type of counterargument I was looking for. I already suspected the "broke all my fingers, one by one" claim to be a gross exaggeration, at the least. The video itself did not support the claim, and it would seem easy enough to establish or disprove after the fact with hospital records.
From what I saw, "they threw me down the stairs" is also obvious exaggeration. While it is not a preferred manner of descent, I think "they dragged/forced me down the stairs" would have been more accurate.
It is still clear that police used force. It is not clear to me whether it was an appropriate use of force by Spanish or European standards.
This is the sort of thing that is commonly accepted from American cops during protests, even though it is nominally unconstitutional for them to deprive people of their right to petition the government for redress under color of law. So I genuinely don't know whether that is the sort of thing that gets Spaniards angry at their government.
As of 1775, no English colony in North America had ever been independent. It had always been subject to the king of England. This was not sufficient reason for the colonists to remain loyal subjects of the crown.
The colonists took it upon their own initiative to secede from England. Any votes that may have been cast were taken mainly among those who wanted independence, and those who wished to remain loyal were likely not even informed that a vote was taking place. It isn't really there for a democratic mandate, but a means of gauging support among the uncommitted for any war that may follow.
In the ideal case, the result of the vote is strong enough that the war is a foregone conclusion, and it never actually happens. The WOPR concludes that the only way to win is not to play. Or it may be a means of the parent entity tactfully trying to shed a non-performant territory. Or it may be because people are genuinely trying to decide a course of action based on the will of the people. The U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, for instance, may one day hold a referendum to determine whether the island should apply for statehood, petition for independence, or remain in the status quo. It is likely that the remainder of the U.S. would honor the results of any such vote, though probably with the U.S. retaining sovereignty over any territory the military already directly controls.
It is not necessary for any national or international body to recognize the vote. It is purely for the secessionists, to determine if they could win a war if the parent entity invades after the split.
The secessionists don't have to pay any attention whatsoever to other regions with an equally strong or stronger case for secession.
If you are voting to secede, you don't care whether or not the vote is legal or binding. The explicit wording is regarding secession, but implicitly it is about whether people will take up arms for Catalonia, or at least not take up arms for Spain, if there is a war for independence. The percentages don't really matter, only the raw numbers. If 10000 people vote "yes", you know that there are potentially 10000 armed rebels out there, waiting for the signal to join the fight.
I think Spain is handling this in the worst possible manner, diplomatically. Viral videos of people getting beaten by police is only going to increase the number of people willing to fight to make it stop.