Spanish Delegate wants to Ban Public Protests

By LUIS MIRANDA| THE REAL AGENDA | OCTOBER 3, 2012

Cristina Cifuentes wants to limit the right of the Spanish people to protest in public.

No self-entitled bureaucrat likes to be contested, questioned or responded to. Despite the existence of a constitutional right to publicly protest on the streets, there are people who think it is a good idea to limit or simply ban such action. In fact, there are people who support banning or limiting public protests while encouraging police violence against protestors.

This is the case of Cristina Cifuentes, a Madrid Delegate who last week praised the acts of police brutality against some of the thousands of protesters that arrived outside Congress to raise the heat against the deadly austerity measures imposed by the Mariano Rajoy administration. On Tuesday, Ms. Cifucentes went beyond its praise of violence to call for legal reform to limit and eventually ban public protesting.

It’s not me, it’s the law, said Cifuentes on Friday after a colleague of hers, Ana Botella, complained about “too many” demonstrations in the capital of Spain. On Tuesday, Cifuentes said that the law is “very permissive and wide” regarding the right of assembly and that the demonstration was out of control. She questioned whether it was necessary to debate and approve the imposition of limits to the right to protest.

Although Cifuentes commented on such limitations in a very spontaneous way, she rapidly proposed to put in place “modular” laws to “rationalize the use of public space.” The bureaucrat also attempted to clarify that it would not change the Constitution, but it would check out the Organic Law governing this right, not to “cut it” but to expand the room for maneuvering that the Administrations has to change routes and schedules.

Cifuentes’ speech is very well known in other parts of the world such as the United States, where the government called for ‘rational’ ways to limit free speech and protesting by designing a plan through which people could only protest in so-called ‘free speech zones’. These zones are designated by the government and are usually located far, far away from public offices or events such as G10 meetings or secretive encounters of world re-known philanthropists.

But what does the Spanish Constitution say about public protesting?

The right of expression and assembly, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, which reads: “The right of peaceful assembly, without arms. The exercise of this right shall not require prior authorization.” Add that to the “case of meetings in public places and events,” will  need to inform “the authority,” which can only forbid it if there are “substantial grounds for disorderly conduct, endangering persons or property” .

This last sentence is very important, because it is from there where people like Cifuentes may seek the legal backing to impose limitation to  both free speech and public protesting. As it has happened in many occasions, governments could use agent provocateurs to cause disorderly conduct, hurt police or protesters in order to limit the right of the peaceful mass to protest in front of Congress, for example.

In an interview with National Public Radio (RNE), Cifuentes reiterated that Madrid is “a complicated city because demonstrations are permanent and disproportionate”, a view based on one fact that people in Spain are sick and tired of government robbing them of their livelihoods and decided to take to the streets in numerous occasions. There have been almost 2,200 rallies and demonstrations in Madrid this year. Last Friday alone 2732 stood outside Congress and thousands more occupied the same place on Saturday and Sunday. Back in  2011 there were 1380 public demonstrations.

“The theme of the protests is a timely issue that is given by the political moment and encouraged because there are groups trying to get on the street that have failed at the ballot box,” she argued, blaming the Socialists without naming them, for the increase of street protests.

Cifuentes said that she knows there is a Constitutional right to protest in public, but that the rights of the rest of the people are also as important, which is the reason why she is proposing to limit or ban such activity. This is the traditional collectivist point of view that seeks to impose a particular way of thinking and is often excused by the ‘it is in the best interests of the majority’ argument.

Cifuentes is proposing a ‘compatible solution’ with the right of the rest of the population “to be in a livable city.” According to her, this means that people are “able to move with ease, without incidents, riots, or problems of public order.” In this sense, Cifuentes defends changes in legislation, but has not detailed how it would work. “What I want is to open a debate because any amendment must be adopted by a broad consensus.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the use of the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web, unless you request and receive written permission to do so. If permission is granted, you must publish the article EXACTLY as it appears on The Real Agenda.

NO Rights for Terrorists!

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 5, 2010

So I have been thinking, with all this terror that exists today around the world, where mindless idiots blow themselves up in order torights avenge their countries and fight our freedoms in the western world, we should all be worried.  So, does the government say.  Reading through government papers and documents like the MIAC report, the Patriot Act and listening to talking heads on television, and politicians from 7 developed nations in the world, I began to wonder.  Who do we need to be afraid off and why?

The threat of terrorism as portrayed by the oppressor governments does not exist.  There aren’t terrorists out there who want to kill us for our freedoms.  White Al-Qaeda does not exist either.  The Tea Party is not a racist movement.  The militias are not anarchists as Homeland Security says.  Libertarians, Ron Paul followers, Tea Partiers, WeAreChange and other people like that are not violent as the Main Stream Media preaches.  As we found out today, the Hutaree Militia was released with bond, because the judge said their right to free speech cannot be violated, and also because there was not any proof that they were planning to attack the government.  The whole war on terror is a sham, to suppress our civil liberties, rights and even our duties.  Instead of closing the borders, effectively inspecting cargos and protecting us at home, the governments simply decides to fight a war against an invisible enemy, an enemy that can exist forever.

That is why the government itself plans and executes false-flag attacks, in order to keep the boogie-man alive.  And when one boogie-man goes away, a new one comes alive.  The only time when groups of citizens commit violent events is when they are incited by government infiltrators.  The recent Times Square incident where a Nissan was supposedly holding a bomb was all a lie that the media gladly hyped.  How do I know that?  Well, if one studies the history of terrorism, it is clear that terrorists always want to get attention from the government and the media.  So what a better way to get that attention than perpetrating attacks on civilians or civilian targets?  That is why when the government orchestrates attacks, they are greatly exaggerated at first, and then quietly labeled as misunderstandings.  That is why when a supposed attack happens, citizens are immediately labeled as responsible, (Tea Party members) but then quietly dismissed as non guilty.  It occurred with the Hutaree Militia, Joe Stack, some of the 9/11 hijackers, and countless other citizens who are first accused of violating laws, but then released because there is nothing to prove the claims.

Previous to 9/11, the United States, Spain, Ireland and other countries used to give the least amount of air time and importance to real terrorist attacks exactly for the same reason mentioned above: All the terrorists want is attention in order to get what they demand.  But after 9/11, suddenly everything is terrorism and everyone is a terrorist.  However, the real terrorists are easily let in, flown in and out with the help of intelligence agencies (the underwear bomber was let on the plane by an intelligence officer).

So who do we need to fear?  Let’s review.  The governments have decided they have the power -although we did not give it to them- to label anyone they wish as a terrorist.  This means you, me or anyone we know can be called a terrorist and be accused of terrorism or of  inciting it, get stripped of rights such as due process, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and so on.  As if that was not enough, today I read on the press that the government intends to take away the rights of those citizens who are found to be terrorists.  And who has the prerogative to decide a person is a terrorist?  The government.

Flip-flopper Joe Lieberman has been pushing this idea for a while, but it now seems to be picking up more steam than before due to the false-flag terror attempt in New York City.  Lieberman has championed the causes of the government for the past 9 years and now he is proposing to rid us of our rights if he or Obama or Homeland Security believes we belong to a terrorist group.  “If you’re attacking your fellow Americans in an act of war you lose the rights that come with citizenship,” Lieberman told reporters.  That is right.  Not only has the government the power to call you a terrorist, detain you indefinitely, torture you, and make you disappear.  Now, Mr. flip-flopper wants to rape the Constitution and simply turn citizens into what would I say… Prisoners of war?

According to the Raw Story, Lieberman stated that “any individual apprehended, American citizen, who is found to be involved with a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the Department of State, would be deprived of their citizenship rights.”  Again, who has the power to designate a citizen a terrorist?  That is right, the government.  Do you see where my concern comes from?  “If you have joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States to try to kill Americans I think you sacrifice your rights of citizenship,” said Lieberman.

In a separate event, Barack Hussein Obama spoke at a commencement and arrogantly warned the audience and those who watched the event to stop criticizing the government, especially his Health Care Reform.  This criticism, he said, is not kosher because ‘we are all the government’ and in a Democracy, if we criticize the government we impair ourselves.  How about that?  Mr. Obama forgot two things.  First, the U.S. is not a Democracy, and second, that in a free Republic, the rights of the people such as freedom of speech, come first.  If we think the government is doing a bad job, we say it!  Neither will Obama’s warnings nor Lieberman’s attacks on citizens will deter our right to denounce the government, the corporations that control it or the existence of false-flag terrorist attacks.  You can take that to the bank!