|
|
Post by Mr. Williams on Dec 5, 2017 3:15:38 GMT
The was a lot of drama dealing with the two terrorist attacks in the past two years causing 239 deaths in france. But the action that was takin was very important for the need and want to make citizens happy while feeling protected. Terrorist attacks are very devastating and knowing that they can happen at anytime is super scary so if we have our protection systems (police) upgraded by giving them more power it may prevent some of those attacks. The only problem about giving the police and etc too much power they may be a menace to society and use it the wrong way. For example, when they search peoples houses and stuff they just do it all the time and causing drama and conflict with the citizens because they feel that their right of freedom is being taken away. In the article Macron anti-terror law replaces French state of emergency it says that “The government now claims the enhanced police powers have helped prevent more than 30 attacks” meaning right now the cops are doing there job which has caused more protection and less people getting injured or killed. Also the state of emergency has only declared once since 1962 according to the article France has declared a state of emergency, but the law has an ugly history but when it did occur citizens did not like it and it became a disaster for some part of it. There were riots that caused two teenages to die which caused even more problems but as long as no riots happen and the citizens are basically happy and feel somewhat protect they are making the right move.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarah Shumaker on Dec 5, 2017 3:15:50 GMT
@chase I definitely think they should do more, but I'm not sure how much more than can do. Regulate immigration maybe? Put travel bans in place? I'm not sure. Stuff like this can't always be prevented, so I think they're doing the best they can with what they have. I think many countries can learn and develop laws off of France, but I think every country should go about it in whatever way they deem necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eithan Beckwith on Dec 5, 2017 3:16:15 GMT
I think that the state of emergency was necessary in France to provide protection to the people. However, the severity of the rules put in place during that state were cruel and unfair. These new laws set in place after the state of emergency was lifted are essentially a new way of enforcing the emergency. As stated in the second background article, although it seems like this is just another way of putting the state of emergency into effect, a majority of the general public seems to be in favor of these new laws. “A poll conducted in early October showed more than 80 percent of support for the bill.” These laws allow for brutal forces and unfair circumstances such as house arrest, searches, and many other things. I think that these new laws give an unnecessary amount of power to the police and government officials and I cannot imagine living there myself. I actually traveled to France this summer, and while I was there, the state of emergency would have still been in effect. In one article it mentioned the heavily armed guards everywhere protecting monuments and heavily populated areas, I can agree that it's true. It is terrifying seeing these guards walking around with huge machine guns everywhere you look, and I cannot imagine how the people living in France feel. It is for protection, but it is still scary seeing how their country so quickly turned until one that was constantly watching their backs. How would you feel living in France during a time like this, with all of these extreme laws being put in place? if i was in the scenario i would be startled but would then accept it because the government is only doing what they deem necessary to protect the civilian people so they cant be upset it might seem extreme but it only in play to help reduce deaths and terrorist from killing the innocent |
|
|
|
Post by Derek on Dec 5, 2017 3:16:40 GMT
@chase I don't know if it is necessary to have other countries adopt the ways France has to stop terrorism. I know for the United States I would for sure say no we do not need men with large guns walking around the streets at the moment and hopefully never.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Williams on Dec 5, 2017 3:21:43 GMT
@autumn I fully agree with your example about a deer jumping in front of you while driving then it changes the way you drive for a little then you forget about it and that's how France feels at the moment with everything going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evelyn McCullough on Dec 5, 2017 3:25:10 GMT
@nick Newman
you're question proposes a lot of thoughts about the idea of connection by relation / association. If we beg the question of punishing those connected , tho not directly linked to terrorism, are we going to far by making assumptions . In some cases it may make sense, it may be necessary , but in other cases it may be seen as oppressive
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Williams on Dec 5, 2017 3:27:30 GMT
@derek i would want new measures to happen if the place where i lived is always getting attacked i would like to be able to walk on the streak and know that i will be safe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Williams on Dec 5, 2017 3:36:57 GMT
my question i forgot to add them
Would you rather not feel protected and live your daily life or do whatever it takes to save your life and others?
After knowing that there was drama with the first time the state of emergency was declared do you recommend it again?
|
|
|
|
Post by Evelyn McCullough on Dec 5, 2017 4:10:28 GMT
@autumn although it may make you personally feel safe, and although the laws would be inconvenient, imagine how 'inconvenient' it may be for the people indirectly targeted by these laws ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Erin Reimers on Dec 5, 2017 4:18:38 GMT
@ autumn
I can totally agree with your point of view! I really like the comparison you made with driving a car at night. The actions that the French president is making is only going to help protect and better France for the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erin Reimers on Dec 5, 2017 4:24:24 GMT
@ chase
I agree that the French government is indeed doing what they see fit to help prevent further attacks. The powers bestowed upon certain officials however can be interpreted as seemingly "too much" power. There is always a negative side to something that appears positive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolinski on Dec 5, 2017 11:55:02 GMT
@autumn people will almost certainly be afraid of the police, but not even just because of these laws. There are groups who no matter how much or how little power the police have will still be against police control.
@derek I agree that France should be taking the measures they are. Macron did this out of fear and protection of his own people. In our society of global terrorism, the U.S. should not be too far off in copycatting France in this regard either.
|
|
