Very interesting; it looks like these people went to Syria to fight ISIS, and got this ill treatment when they returned.
Why does it seem like the French government is always supporting the worst actors in any conflict? ISIS is (was) so evil and barbaric, they make Putin seem like a great guy. Why would volunteering to fight them ever be seen in a bad light?
There are basically two sides to this conflict: ISIS on one hand, and the Syrian/Kurdish PYD/YPG side on the other. The latter has ties to the PKK, which is an internationally recognized terror org just like ISIS.
Now, depending on who you ask, the PYD/YPG is "good, because they fight ISIS" (e.g. the official stance of the US) or "Terrorists, because they are basically just extensions of the PKK" (what Turkey says).
This leads to a lot of inconsistency in foreign policy within NATO. For example Sweden is pressured to crack down on PYD/YPG to be admitted into NATO. The US, like many others, have supported the YPG/PYD in the fight against ISIS. So I imagine Turkey is also pressuring other NATO countries like France in this case, to go after PKK collaborators including the adjacent syrian orgs.
So basically: why are the people volunteering to fight ISIS seen as terrorists within NATO? I'd guess these days to a large extent because Turkey says so.
>Why would volunteering to fight them ever be seen in a bad light?
In part, because the YPG is seen by the french state as a terrorist group, for various political reasons, and also because having leftists trained in handling weapons is seemingly more terrifying to the government than having neonazis trained in handling weapons. Make of that what you will.
Someone taking weapons somewhere (regardless of the cause) is always a dangerous person. Regular soldiers included and the government treat them as such. It's an unfortunate position (of course) if that person is fighting on "your" side.
Yes, but the problem here is not that, it's the arguments used to build the case.
They have not been any evidence of criminal activities by those people. So far, all what they have against them is "they are protective about their privacy".
That's a terrible reason to arrest and maintain people in jail.
It's grounds for having your citizenship revoked unless it will render you stateless. People suspected of being on the way to Syria would get their passports confiscated.
Nine EU countries made similar rules, though I don't know how many still have it in effect. Any citizen/resident of Denmark is still prohibited from going to the conflict zones of Syria and Iraq.
Because government's really don't like their citizenry knowing how to apply violence, unless it's done through government controlled activities (ie military, police).
A cynical person would say it's because corrupt leaders are afraid of potential consequences for their actions. But there's likely other, more mundane reasons too. :)
Or course the French government doesn't support ISIS, they also monitored everyone who fought for them. The problem is that these people are (supposedly) radicalised, and with active military experience (and probable related PTSD), not who they fought against.
There are different directions in which one can be radicalised, not just ISIS style radical Islam. The group don't hide they were calling for revolution, which is pretty radical.
> And what exactly has France done to fight ISIS anyway?
Just sent an aircraft carrier, some ships and planes, and special forces. And intelligence. Contributed more than anyone outside of the US and local forces like YPG. Led one of the first coalitions that were extremely wide (including everyone from Bahrain through Belgium and Japan to Russia and China). But sure, you haven't heard about it, so they didn't do anything
> I guess that's a little better than what they did in Rwanda to support the genocide there
Wait, is France bad when it intervenes or when it doesn't intervene? In Rwanda they didn't "support" the genocide of course, just didn't do much to stop it after supporting the faction that commited it before.
They are far-left activists who went to fight alongside Kurdish militias of the YPG, a group affiliated with the PKK, considered a terrorist organisation by the European Union.
That is why they were put under surveillance when they came back to France.
Ultimately it's a bit more complicated than good people fighting versus evil people (and as far as I'm concerned, they were effectively fighting for a US proxy against another US proxy).
In "pacific" Europe (specially in those countries where conscription is not mandatory) voluntarily taking weapons and going to a different country to kill people, no matter the reason, IS definitely considered radicalized, in the sense that it's very, very rare and "anti-social" behavior.
The monopoly on violence is the central component of the power of the state. This case undermines that power as much as violence used in self defence does, and is being prosecuted as passionately as self defence killings often are.
Macron recently said he was opposed to the entire concept of self defence, after a farmer shot a burglar in his home and was subsequently charged with murder.
After that remark became massively controversial he attempted to walk his statement back and claim that he just meant that he said he was against the presumption of self defence (which seems to imply he supports a presumption of guilt in self defence cases).
Basically every country in the world that has somewhat stable law and order has a history of prosecuting dubious self defence cases. The requirement for the state to have a monopoly on violence might sound edgy, but it’s not a controversial idea, it’s a requirement for being able to enforce the law. Self defence is an almost universally justifiable reason for a person to violate the monopoly, and it’s not hard to understand why government agencies can end up viewing it as an existential threat, not to the country or its people, but to their own institutions.
90% of self defense cases end in the tribunal, meaning that the judges saw it as not-self-defense. The biggest factor in all this is proportionality: if you killed someone in self defense but were not yourself having your life threatened, you will go to court.
Any physical assault is potentially life threatening. One unlucky fall on the pavement and that's it - you can easily die or become permanently disabled. Yet another reason why it's better to deescalate and/or run away if possible.
That podcast does have an interesting explanation of the idea, and Max Weber did provide interesting insights into it. But the governments exerting monopolistic control over violence (to differing levels at different times and places) goes back basically as far as organised society does. The legitimate claim to violence in self defence is just as ubiquitous and has always been at least philosophically at odds with the claim of the state. With that contention arise from the fact that a claim to violence in self defence must either arise from a failure of the state to perform its duties in upholding law and order, or a failure of the individual to follow the law. With the potential for controversy arising from the fact that it’s largely the state who gets to decide whether it was at fault, or if the individual in question was.
Again, you are excluding the critical phrase legitimate claim, which is at the heart of Weber's definition. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself.
Absent this, one of three conditions exist:
1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state.
2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious.
3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition The State.
You might want to consider what a "state" which lacks a monopoly on the legitimate claim to the monopoly on force would look like. To what other entity would it cede that legitimate claim, and/or how would it prevent other entities from enacting capricious violence, as has occurred from time to time in the world, and even now.
The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy
Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California Press. p. 54.
The "monopoly on violence" or "monopoly on force" short-hands are a much more recent emergence, and seem to originate with Murray Rothbard (1960s) and Robert Nozick (1970s), though widespread usage of that phrase really only begins to take off after 1980, per Google's Ngram Viewer: <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=monopoly+on+vi...>
That shorthand has become quite popular, and is often cited by Libertarians as key to their adopting that particular ideology.[1] As expressed by them the formulation is both incorrect and misleading.
I think you’re really putting the kart before the horse here. It’s certainly not true that no legitimate governments existed prior to the 20th century, regardless of what particular phrases may be been invented to describe them during that time. Just like gravity existed long before Newton managed to come up with a sensible description of it. You also almost get to describing the actual reality of the situation, but not quite, which is that a monopoly on violence and a state are the same thing. All states emerged when some group attempted to assert a monopoly over violence, and whether they fail or succeed in becoming a state comes down to their ability to monopolise violence. The status of legitimacy here is entirely subjective, and if it’s called into question, the only way it’s ever falsified is if some other group successfully challenges that monopoly.
Hmm, let me check in again with France… Oh, what, they have a thing called the Foreign Legion, where they want foreigners to fight for them? It seems like actually France wants people to fight for nations that aren’t their own.
I'm French, I know the foreign legion, we accept foreigners in our army, it doesn't mean we accept our own citizen to fight for foreign parties, especially non state armies, they're not mutually exclusive, there is no logical connection between your two statements
From a moral viewpoint, letting someone of your country join another country’s foreign legion is identical to letting someone of another country join your foreign legion. If you say that joining a different group to fight ISIS is not okay while joining France to fight France’s enemies is okay, then you’re saying that ISIS is a better group in the world than France’s enemies.
Viewing with suspicion someone who volunteers to fight in a foreign war does not imply support for any party in that war. We can criticize the French government but it’s an extreme exaggeration to suggest that they support ISIS.
