Referendum: Licence to kill or the commercial Death penalty (EN)
From Noeuconstitution
DE . EN . [[{{{es}}}|ES]] . FR . NL
This text is in the moment autotranslated and need update. Bitte helfen Sie uns, diese Seite zu übersetzen. Original Based On [1]
One could think, here or there, that myself and some other writers of altermonde, just like a certain number of analysts, elsewhere, we want to say NOT to the TCE for reasons ideological or right for the pleasure of being opposed. To think that would be a great error, but of course, the partisans of Yes will push in this direction, them which adore to find all kinds of slanderings against us for better disturbing the public opinion. (see: [1])
What I will write now goes further in my reasons of saying NOT, definitively NOT. That exceeds the narrow framework of Europe; that joined the essential motivations which animated the resistant ones to the Nazism there is more than sixty years. And I remain surprised that nobody (at least I did not read anything in this direction up to now) reacted in a virulent way to the some lines which I will deliver to you. And I hope, highly, that I am mistaken, that my intutition lies me...
First of all, I must give my sources. The lines in question come from a received text of Eric, that it transmitted to me coming from friends to him. This text is named: Charts TCE. It is a very interesting analysis of various points contained, but if not very easy to discover, in the thick paving stone. Some are known, others hardly...
Before developing the lines which interest me, I publish the preliminary explanations appearing in the text of the charts:
" Explanations relating to the Charter of the basic rights. It is on the charter of the basic rights which rest the partisans of yes to praise the social projection that represents, in their eyes, this project of constitution. This charter gives a certain number of rights which can appear, at first sight, like positive. With a more attentive reading, one discovers, for example, than the right to the work registered in our Constitution is replaced by "the right to work or seek an employment" what is not at all the same thing.
But the social field not being familiar with the majority of the European governments, it was joined explanations relating to this charter. It is announced in the preamble to the charter: " the charter will be interpreted by duly taking into account the explanations established under the authority of Praesidium of Convention ".
The praesidium was composed of the President of Convention, Valéry Giscard d' Estaing and of a representative by State.
To find these explanations, it is necessary to go to excavate in tens of appendices which accompany the project by Constitution. Us be hidden would something? Each article thus has its explanation provided by Praesidium. So some do not pose problems, others are more worrying...
I propose to you an analysis in the opposite order of the articles which I want to subject to you to finish by most worrying of all.
Article II.67: "Any person is entitled to the respect of her private and family life, her residence and her communications" There still fixed Præsidium of the limits...
"There cannot be interference of a public authority [ except if she ] is necessary (...) to the economic welfare of the country, with the protection of morals."
Attention with you if, for example, you defend the public utility. You can be a disturber of the "economic welfare."
What means, in the spirit of the writers of this text, in fact in particular in the spirit of Valéry Giscard d' Estaing, this limitation " of the respect of the private and family life, the residence and the communications "? First of all, and it is very serious, which the individual and family life is subjected to the right first which is the economic right. To defend the right of the public utility will be, of course, a crime; but, to fight against the establishment of the nuclear power in France, will be another; to fight against the OGM and the other products mortals for humanity will justify the rape of the private life; any social fight to improve the lamentable lot of the employees will be, the obviously, a crime against the first and, in fact, the only right recognized in the text of Giscard d' Estaing, the economic right!
This will allow controlling future, in all the countries of Europe giscardienne, under the influence of high employers, to violate the respect of the private and family life; this will also make it possible to violate the respect of the residence and the private communications. Any individual who will fight for "another possible world" will not know any more private life; all will be excavated, appraised, analyzed, listened, filmed, even exposed to the public under the fallacious pretext of the "economic welfare"!
Article II 66: "Any person is entitled to freedom and to safety" But the explanations of præsidium give at the very least strange exceptions...
"No one cannot be private of its freedom, except in the following cases: d) If it is about the regular detention of a person likely to propagate a contagious disease, of a lunatic, an alcoholic, a drug addict or a vagrant. e) If it is of the arrest or the regular detention of a person to prevent it from penetrating irregularly in the territory, or against which a procedure of expulsion or extradition is in progress."'
Here marked in the immutable text of the European constitutional treaty, the exclusion programmed of weak, the patients, the poor and abroad. This development of praesidium, therefore of Giscard d' Estaing in person and its some accomplices, is thus the work and the signature of people who legalize the exclusion and the discrimination of the world of misery. That locates the spirit and the "value" of the text.
It is abominable and contains in oneself the apartheid of the modest populations and the poor if, by misfortune, they find neither the force nor the means of serving suitable slaves, and especially profitable, to serve these powerful who only will decide which has or right to freedom does not have!
Most scandalous and the most serious remainder to come. And that strongly smells the rancour of Giscard d' Estaing which never forgave the French, even in the whole world, to have shown him the door in 1981!
Art.II.62: Right to the life.
1. "Any person is entitled to the life"
2. "No one cannot be condemned to the death penalty, nor carried out".
The explanations of Præsidium call into question subparagraph 2 since it is known as:
"death is not inflicted in violation of this article whenever it would result from a recourse to the force made necessary:
a) To ensure the defense of any person against illegal violence b) to carry out a regular arrest c) to repress in accordance with the law, a riot or an insurrection "'
The overall philosophy of these three lines means this, in an extremely clear way: - You who belong to the people of in bottom, are servile, do not resist, do not reflect, are useful to us without discussing, accept our laws, and we will guarantee the right to you to live. - You who will claim to resist, will know that we condemn you to death!
In detail of the three lines, here what that gives: a) " to ensure the defense of any person against illegal violence. " In fact the" licence to kill "is delivered with the forces of repression, with the forces of death to come' , any person wanting to resist the " Holy economic law ".
Lu quickly, one could think that it is struck with the corner of the good direction. But, let us reflect: What is, in the spirit of Giscard and its assistants, an illegal violence? That wants of course nothing to say, but that will allow to the torturers future to put at it the direction which they will want, since nothing is specified, and I think intentionally, according to their interests of the moment to protect, interests of caste, of course.
b) " to carry out a regular arrest " In fact still the "licence to kill" is delivered officially with the same forces of death, with the future militia of the "priests of the déifiée economy".
What is, in the head, the criminal spirit of the writers of these lines, a "regular arrest"? There are not more explanations than for the preceding assertion. What leaves the same field of freedom of application according to the interests of the moment of some economic power, of a multinational, for example...
Imagine one moment that the arrest of José Bové, it there has almost two years, proceeds under the laws of an adopted TCE... One knows the hatred which it undergoes because of its too clear standpoint, too right, too mediatized. Under the law of Giscard, Europeanized, what could be simpler than to affirm than it resisted against its arrest, than it was shown threatening, and than it was necessary, alas, three times alas, to draw...
It is that the significance of the point B...
c) "to repress in accordance with the law, a riot or an insurrection" Here the point which concerns us all, as soon as we have the direction of Justice, the direction of the necessary fights for a better world, a world which is not a merchant, who is not the world of the money-god! Of course, not more than the two other points, which wants to say "in accordance with the law" is not clarified. Except that we know that all in the TCE is subjected to the law of the market which never has the least respect of the life to him, since in its eyes all is goods. However, goods, when one regards it as damaged or exceeded, one destroy it!
And what is thus, with the eyes of the writers of these some lines, I repeat it, criminals, a riot or an insurrection? 1968 were one! Imagine the same kind of movement in Europe giscardienne of the future if we have misfortune to follow it: the forces of death would have, without blow to férir, made use of their weapons, but to kill, knowingly. And this always to protect only the few monstrous profiteurs whom humanity must support!
We are thus warned, we all which will resist, because for the survival of humanity we will not have an other choice only one baited resistance, which they, opposite, will have condemned us to died without judgement, in the secrecy of a ministerial cabinet or the office of a business leader!
Thus still, if high-school pupils of the future had, because of their natural idealism, and their very great direction of Justice, to express to refuse to see delivering their schools to the merchants, the forces of death will shoot at all the leaders, to kill them knowingly! Not only these militia of State will have the "licence to kill", but in these cases, the obviously, they will have "the order to kill".
I would like to hope that these lines which I have just analyzed ever existed in this text that so many politicians, right-hand side, center, of left, presents to us like the text founder of new Europe. If somebody could show me that these lines were not registered in what they want to impose to us like a constitution, I would be the man more relieved of the world!
Because, such as I feel it, such as I include/understand it, this new Europe is of cruelly fascistic gasoline!
With what it will have been used that so many men fought against the Nazis, there left their life, if is to give that tomorrow? And they is even more vicious than the Nazism since this Europe of Giscard avoids itself of all qualities and virtues! I do not even include/understand how a Jean-Marie the PEN can reject it, so much it is similar to his most fanatic dreams. Admittedly, it is not France alone, undoubtedly is this that, but only that which obstructs it.
You cannot imagine how much I feel, with deepest the my being, misfortune to have been born in one time which, betraying the hopes of the fathers of Europe, establishes, by requiring our signature in addition, a dictatorship worse than all those which humanity had to undergo. Rare are those which, today, perceive the nature of the danger, its importance, its width.
I would like to repeat with all those which trust me, but also with all those which my writings irritate or wound without there not being of my share such a will, that if, in their spirit, they are sincere, it is necessary that they understand that the ideology néolibérale is, in a totalitarian way, an ideology of death!
The goal of this ideology, the apparent goal, is the profit of small a caste, if small in comparison with the whole of humanity. But this profit is by totalitarian nature. It does not admit no division; it does not admit null reflexion of human nature and does not comprise the least concept of love, of love of the life as a whole, of love of humanity. So it carries in him the mark of death.
This "profit", by nature dictatorial, can only sow death all around him if one nothing resists to him. Just as it will be able only to spread death among the people, when, through wasting and of flights, it exhausts the natural resources. The little which will remain, it will monopolize it by the death of the others, of all those which it will regard as unworthy of living, or like potential competitors with its exclusive wellbeing { (see: [2] ( http://www.altermonde.levillage.org/article.php3?id_article=1710)) } . You point out the words of George Bush, but also of its predecessors, who all affirmed that: "All is negotiable except the way of life of the Americans" (or with a margin of few things).
If you laugh, if you smile, if you think that I digress, then I fear that you will not have included/understood anything with this text nor what it means. Then, without to have sought it, you will be also responsible for deaths to come. It is necessary of it to be conscious; it is time still to reflect until being made a headache of them to include/understand what is this ideology, which will be the crimes to come.
