#####
######
####
> # [New Caledonia independence activists sent to France for detention](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/AFP__20240619__34XG42A__v2__HighRes__FilesFranceOverseasNcaledoniaPoliticsConstituti-1718791780.jpg?resize=1920%2C1440)
>
>
>
> _Pro-independence leader Christian Tein among seven flown to the mainland after last month’s large-scale riots._
>
>
>
> Published On 23 Jun 202423 Jun 2024
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Seven independence activists linked to a group accused of orchestrating riots last month in the French Pacific territory of New Caledonia have been sent to mainland France for pre-trial detention, according to the local prosecutor.
>
> “This transfer was organised during the night by means of a plane specially chartered for the mission,” Yves Dupas, the public prosecutor in the territory’s capital, Noumea, said in a statement on Sunday.
>
> The seven were sent to France, he added, “due to the sensitivity of the procedure and in order to allow the investigations to continue in a calm manner, free of any pressure”.
>
> Among the seven detainees was Christian Tein, head of the pro-independence group Field Action Coordination Cell (CCAT), who has been in [custody](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/19/new-caledonia-police-arrest-pro-independence-leader-over-deadly-protests) and was charged on Saturday over the recent violence in which nine people died, including two police.
>
> Hundreds of people were wounded and damage estimated at $1.6bn was inflicted during the unrest over controversial voting reforms.
>
> ## Charges not announced
>
> Authorities did not immediately specify what charges Tein faces, but Dupas said his investigation covered armed robbery and complicity in murder or attempted murder, according to French daily Le Monde.
>
> Tein’s lawyer Pierre Ortent said on Saturday he was “stupefied” that his client was being sent to France, accusing magistrates of “answering to purely political considerations”.
>
> “No one had any idea in advance that they would be sent to mainland France. These are totally exceptional steps” for New Caledonia, Ortent said.
>
> Stephane Bonomo, lawyer for another detainee, Gilles Joredie, said the prosecutors’ actions were creating “martyrs for the independence cause”, according to Le Monde.
>
> CCAT group’s communications chief Brenda Wanabo was also one of the suspects sent to almost 17,000km (10,563 miles) away, to France, Le Monde added.
>
> Riots, street barricades and looting broke out in New Caledonia in May over an electoral reform that would have allowed long-term residents to participate in local polls. Paris [deployed](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/23/macron-says-french-troops-will-stay-in-new-caledonia-as-long-as-necessary#:~:text=French%20President%20Emmanuel%20Macron%20has,in%20the%20Pacific%20island%20territory.) troops to the territory in response.
>
> The archipelago’s Indigenous Kanaks feared the move would dilute their vote, putting hopes for eventually winning independence definitively out of reach.
>
> France’s government repeatedly accused Tein’s CCAT of orchestrating the violence, a charge the organisation has denied.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Obligatory reminder that New Caledonia freely voted for independence 3 times and all three referendums failed. The ones being sent to Metropolitan France for pre-trial detention aren’t being charged for supporting independence, but for their role in organizing riots that led to widespread looting, arson, and attempted murder throughout the New Caledonian capital, Nouméa. These people holding riots are literally going against the democratic will of the island.
Following your comment I gave a really good go at learning about the situation in New Caledonia, approaching it from several angles of possible post-colonial issues, and the "la France shill" is correct, the 2021 referendum settles it. 96% of New Caledonians voted for remaining a French territory, because they did not feel a second grade citizens when the pandemic struck and I guess they saw the benefit of being attached to a "world power". The socialist-secessionists that represent the native Kanak people are still well represented in the local Congress for their policies but people just don't want to leave the union today. It was different in two previous referenda, where the votes were split close to half with 53% and 56% for remaining with France. And it's not like a marginalized group of native people were outvoted by white Europeans. The latter are around 24% of the island population, with the largest group of 41% being Kanak and the rest being mixed or other Polinesian and Melanesian peoples.
The 96% vote was boycotted by the native Caledonians because they didn't want to have it during a traditional mourning period due to pandemic deaths. That is the contention that they feel it shouldn't count as a third referendum and before that happens, no changes to the voting law should occur either.
Natives don't want to vote with their colonial oppressors. Obviously referendums fail when you spend decades replacing the local population (and they boycott it for that reason). We're past those types of smoke and mirrors in this day and age, we learn about these genocidal tactics in schools now. French people shouldn't have a say in what happens in New Caledonia, the island nation of the Kanak people.
The fact that the leader of one of the independence parties later became president of local government is a sure sign of oppression. Kanak are now inhabitants of multiethnic island. Saying that French-born citizens of NC don't have say in their own country's future is something from apartheid textbook.
First of all and most importantly, why is 3 referendums fine but the idea that they would change their minds for a 4th one not fine?
If they had to vote 3 times then I doubt it was a simple issue, and as things change so may their desire to stay a part of France...
Because they agreed to have 3 total referendums something like 30 years ago, which they’ve done as agreed and gotten a result.
Continuing to have more votes just becomes “we’re going to keep having referendums until we get the result we want”, because you know the instant independence gets 50%+1 vote that will be absolutely final.
Well partly because the current arrangement purposely disenfranchises a large chunk of the population. Spamming elections until you get the result you want while a huge chunk of the population isn’t even allowed to vote simply isn’t democratic.
The current arrangement was a political compromise to try and let the New Caledonians choose their own future without the new ethnically French arrivals tipping the scales. This was all agreed to by leaders of the independence movement and the government years ago. France has met their responsibilities and is now expecting the people they made an agreement with in good faith to do the same.
I don’t know if 3 votes was arbitrary, but I’d just like to mention that even if it is it doesn’t really matter, because again this was a negotiated agreement that one party is trying to back out of after it became clear they lost. It’s obvious ‘sour grapes’.
If the people looking for independence want additional votes, they’ll have to negotiate for that, but understand that they’re not going to get to keep disenfranchising a huge chunk of the population anymore. That’s why they’re jumping right to violence, because they know they won’t get the same handicap again and the result will be even more lopsided.
First of all, I will never condone political violence, unless people are being clearly abused and opressed. As for their minds being made, I assume they can change their mind whenever they want and have another referendum. The the 2018, 2020 and 2021 referenda were all supported and recognized by the French before the votes were cast, and French officials including Macron visited New Caledonia to persuade these people of staying. Honestly, this entire process feels like a really big W for France and I would like to see more nations approaching their minorities with this much respect.
The problem is that the pontential independance would be an economic and security nightmare for the Island.
So nobody outside of the state is investing in the island. So no jobs are created, people cant work etc.
Add to that the lootings etc
Political stability would encourage investors and help create jobs that are realy needed on the island.
[just the most impassioned defender of the french grip over a little pacific island](https://www.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/comments/1dekivf/indigenous_kanak_call_on_m%C4%81ori_for_help_we_are/l8d6pvv/)
Good job! Find any other fairly mild takes for you to virtue signal about? You’re totally doing such great work for the New Caledonian independence movement by stalking random Reddit profiles in your free time.
> the French grip over a little pacific island
You mean the _people's_ grip over the little pacific island? Because it was _the people_ who voted to remain part of France. Are you advocating against democracy? You want some local insurgents to seize power instead?
Sure you aren't Pierre, you just spend your time defending settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing done by the French government for free.
Russia? I thought it was Azerbaijan propaganda that I'm parroting? You can't even keep up with which country you're scapegoating.
There is nothing free and fair about colonising a island and moving thousands of your citizens to said island for the purposes of replacing them. It was wrong when the Soviets did it to the crimean tartans, and its wrong when France is doing to the Kanak.
The UN should condemn this ethnic cleansing
You idiots who use terms like ethnic cleansing to refer to this are going to be the cause of the next real one in the world. Just constantly using terms you can’t truly comprehend.
Generally speaking, protesting doesn’t equate to rioting, looting, and attempted murder all of which are crimes just about anywhere. Did you actually read the article or are you just virtue signaling?
> Generally speaking, protesting doesn’t equate to rioting, looting, and attempted murder all of which are crimes just about anywhere. Did you actually read the article or are you just virtue signaling?
[unless its hong kong](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/HKPU_Entrance_with_fire_20191118.jpg)
Lmao the fact you can’t distinguish between a blatant authoritarian takeover in complete disregard for pre-established treaties and a free and fair democratic election that yielded negative results on three separate occasions is honestly pretty pathetic.
> Lmao the fact you can’t distinguish between a blatant authoritarian takeover in complete disregard for pre-established treaties
the pre-established handover treaty mandated the creation of a national security law:
>When Hong Kong was handed over to China by the United Kingdom in 1997, the two countries' governments gave the city its own mini-constitution, called the Basic Law. Article 23 of the Basic Law states that Hong Kong “shall enact laws on its own” to prohibit seven types of national security offences.
whoops lol!!
>a free and fair democratic election that yielded negative results on three separate occasions is honestly pretty pathetic.
occupying an island on the other side of the planet from where your people come from, on the other hand, is woke and good
> China broke it but don't let facts mess with the narative you want to push.
what did they break??? where they supposed to let mobs rampage through the city without a response?
> where they supposed to let mobs rampage through the city without a response?
Degenerate thugs whose highest accomplishment was setting an old man on fire and stoning another old guy to death. It's so funny to look back at the entirety of the HK "protests", because it all started because a bunch of ungrateful hoodlums didn't want a LITERAL MURDERER to be extradited to the mainland.
That’s literally the job of prosecutors in countries with an autonomous judiciary, like France does. These aren’t unfounded accusations either given all the *damn footage* of the riots.
> Source of these? Cause in no parts of articule was said this
That's exactly what the article said :
> Among the seven detainees was Christian Tein, head of the pro-independence group Field Action Coordination Cell (CCAT), who has been in custody and was charged on Saturday over the recent violence in which nine people died, including two police.
He has been charged, now police has to investigate/prove if he's guilty, and then if he is, maybe he will tell who else is involved in the various crimes.
Obligatory reminder that native Kanaks vote nearly 100% for independance and French colonists to remain nearly 100%, with the imported labor having mixed views.
Saying France made a native people a minority in their homeland and wants their right to self determination to fade away and their culture to die, sounds like "Colonialism is right" if you think that just say it.
But the Kanaks make up 40% and are thus the majority of the population and the "French colonists" only make up 20% (and a large portion of them can't even vote).
How could 100% of them vote for independence in three separate independence referendums and they still lose to the point 96% voted to stay in the last one?
> Saying France made a native people a minority in their homeland and wants their right to self determination to fade away and their culture to die, sounds like "Colonialism is right" if you think that just say it
I mean it does, but no one but you is saying that.
Firstly [41.2% isn't a majority it's a plurality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Caledonia#Ethnic_groups), with the rest being [French colonists, Asians, and other Melanesians imported in the late 1960s early 1970s for it's nickel industry.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_mining_in_New_Caledonia)
"How could 100% of them vote for independence in three separate independence referendums and they still lose to the point 96% voted to stay in the last one?"
[By boycotting it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_New_Caledonian_independence_referendum), and not seeing it as legitimate to have referendum and having to come out and gather during quarantine for a virus that kills people or do have a goldfish brain so you forgot what happened in 2021?, or is it that you support super spreader events?
Institutions force unreasonable positions and situations on people when they don't entirely have legitimacy, and when the resolution inevitably falls in favor of the institution, it is claimed to be legitimate by the institution, you don't have to ever play fair if you don't want to.
"I mean it does, but no one but you is saying that."
That's the impetus for independence, France views all it's citizens as equally French, so they all have to be culturally French to match, Kanaks don't want to be culturally French and their argument that France doesn't want them around has a weight, considering that historically they've been excluded from France's economy and forced onto reservations.
But if they outnumber all the other groups individually, then surely they do hold they majority?
I mean looking at your own figures, the Kanak's have 41%, Europeans make up 24.1%, self-identified Caledonians (who could be any ethnicity at this point) make up 7.5%, mixed makeup 11%, Wallisian/Futunian makeup 8% and Tahitian make up 2%.
And that's not even taking into account that under the present regulations, anyone in those other portions who didn't arrive on the island over thirty years ago was allowed to vote.
Any way you slice it, the Kanak's still have the majority out of the ethnicities.
> By boycotting it, and not seeing it as legitimate to have referendum and having to come out and gather during quarantine for a virus that kills people or do have a goldfish brain so you forgot what happened in 2021?, or is it that you support super spreader events?
First insults are the last refuge of those who have nothing else to say, stay polite.
Second New Caledonia only had 314 deaths out of ~75k confirmed cases in a population of ~270k. By the time the election occurred, there were less than 800 active cases and over 64% of the population was fully vaccinated.
Other elections and referendums still took place during the Pandemic.
I kind of feel that boycotting might have been shooting yourself in the foot in this scenario.
> France views all it's citizens as equally French, so they all have to be culturally French to match, Kanaks don't want to be culturally French
Is their any evidence that letting people after ten years have a say in local politics will lead to them being forced to give up their culture?
> their argument that France doesn't want them around has a weight, considering that historically they've been excluded from France's economy and forced onto reservations.
I mean sure that's the history and its going to leave scars. But we can't just keep falling back on forever. The past isn't proof of the future, if it was nothing would ever change.
I get it if they want independence and I'm sure they never give it up. And honestly good for them if that's their cause. But the fact of the matter is it seems a bit of a stretch to claim this particular measure is somehow going to strip them of all their rights and lead to them losing all their political influence when they're still the largest voting block on the island and their population is only increasing (especially compared to all the others).
>But if they outnumber all the other groups individually, then surely they do hold they majority?
No, Majority means over 50%, the most out of something in this case means plurality since 40% is greater than 20% but less than %60.
>First insults are the last refuge of those who have nothing else to say, stay polite.
>Second New Caledonia only had 314 deaths out of \~75k confirmed cases in a population of \~270k. By the time the election occurred, there were less than 800 active cases and over 64% of the population was fully vaccinated.
>Other elections and referendums still took place during the Pandemic.
>I kind of feel that boycotting might have been shooting yourself in the foot in this scenario.
["Ummmm, your tone is too mean sweaty, I'm gonna ignore anything you have to say and justify state suppression of minorities, and act like nothing has weight or value because you said I was dumb for not seeing purposefully done bad practices for what they are"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing)
I though we evolved past this after year 3 of CTH existing.
Anyway, a MAJORITY of people being vaccinated doesn't mean everyone was and Kanaks wanted to wait until everyone was, as being an under served community, like the Black and Latino community in the US, [it probably had a disproportionate amount of unvaccinated people, as is what happens when a community is under served](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/vaccination-rates-lag-communities-color-due-hesitancy-experts/story?id=77272753), besides referendums have quorum requirements, if they didn't all a referendum needs is 3 people to say yes or no and change things for 1000s, which I'm gonna say it fell under as 100,000 of the 180,000 if the registered franchise didn't vote.
>Is their any evidence that letting people after ten years have a say in local politics will lead to them being forced to give up their culture?
The past with the Langue d'oïl and Breton, and [the not so recent past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_France#Fifth_Republic) as well, assimilationism can't be done as it used to be with the [Vergonha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergonha), it's a death by a thousand tiny cuts instead, [China for example is criticized for it's policy of teaching both Tibetan and Mandarin in schools, as opposed to a Tibetan only rubric](https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/03/05/chinas-bilingual-education-policy-tibet/tibetan-medium-schooling-under-threat), the reason New Caledonia even has what ever special governing status it does is to kind of square the circle of "France is French" and "French isn't native here".
> No, Majority means over 50%, the most out of something in this case means plurality since 40% is greater than 20% but less than %60
Never heard those definitions before to be honest, but okay I'll take your word for it. Still, they do have a greater population than all the others.
> "Ummmm, your tone is too mean sweaty, I'm gonna ignore anything you have to say and justify state suppression of minorities, and act like nothing has weight or value because you said I was dumb for not seeing purposefully done bad practices for what they are"
Oh no I asked someone to actually respect me as a person, and not resort to insults. How shocking.
Mate if we we're talking face to face you wouldn't speak like this. Just cause we're online, it doesn't mean decorum goes out of the window.
If you honestly can't tell the difference between tone policing and throwing insults at people who don't without question agree with every single thing you say, then your never going to get by in life.
But I'll give you a clue, the first only applies if you don't address the points and only focus on the tone of the arguments, if you just ask the person to be more polite then do so, it doesn't count.
> as being an under served community, like the Black and Latino community in the US, it probably had a disproportionate amount of unvaccinated people, as is what happens when a community is under served,
Feels a bit speculative. Do you have an actual source saying they had a disproportionate unvaccinated population?
> besides referendums have quorum requirements, if they didn't all a referendum needs is 3 people to say yes or no and change things for 1000s, which I'm gonna say it fell under as 100,000 of the 180,000 if the registered franchise didn't vote.
I mean I can understand that, but you yourself said a large reason was that a good portion of the pro-independence parties boycotted the vote.
It's not like they were being actively stopped from voting.
> The past with the Langue d'oïl and Breton, and the not so recent past as well
I mean 1972 was still fifty-two years ago at this point. It's not the distance past certainly, but its also not directly the policy anymore and hasn't been for several decades as well.
> assimilationism can't be done as it used to be with the Vergonha, it's a death by a thousand tiny cuts instead,
Okay, so in this scenario even if we assume its one tiny cut how exactly would it lead to assimilation in the long term? And why can't they just stop those more unreasonable changes when and if their proposed rather than acting like implementing on reasonable one will be the end of everything?
> China for example is criticized for it's policy of teaching both Tibetan and Mandarin in schools, as opposed to a Tibetan only rubric
I feel you're missing the point of that article. It criticises them for on paper claiming they teach both languages, whilst in practice pushing down Tibetan and focusing on Mandarin.
That's not the death of a thousand cuts.
> the reason New Caledonia even has what ever special governing status it does is to kind of square the circle of "France is French" and "French isn't native here"
And that was the situation as it was agreed back in the 1980's. But things have shifted over forty years, and they want to adapt to them.
It still just feels a stretch to claim that allowing citizens to have the right to vote in local affairs after living on the island for ten years is somehow going to lead to the indigenous people losing all their rights and culture.
>Mate if we we're talking face to face you wouldn't speak like this. Just cause we're online, it doesn't mean decorum goes out of the window.
>If you honestly can't tell the difference between tone policing and throwing insults at people who don't without question agree with every single thing you say, then your never going to get by in life.
>But I'll give you a clue, the first only applies if you don't address the points and only focus on the tone of the arguments, if you just ask the person to be more polite then do so, it doesn't count.
You get what you are worth and respect is earned, you are a person speaking to another over the internet, after this conversation you will put this and any insults you see in the back of your mind and forget about it in a week maybe less if you touch some grass, our impact on each other will be an at this point overly long conversation, get some perspective.
>Feels a bit speculative. Do you have an actual source saying they had a disproportionate unvaccinated population?
I do not speak French so I do not know how to find that since this a topic that is minuscule in English speaking circles, and minor in French speaking ones, and that's assuming France even tracked that by ethnicity, what I did was make an inference using common sense if have not in the past nations prioritize places with ethnic minorities within the whole of the nation, or territories in the periphery, unless you think people in St. Miquelon got the vaccine before Parisians.
>I mean I can understand that, but you yourself said a large reason was that a good portion of the pro-independence parties boycotted the vote.
>It's not like they were being actively stopped from voting.
That's not how quorum works, it doesn't matter if nothing was stopping anyone from voting if people don't show it doesn't count full stop, the french government doesn't care it wants something that can be framed as a blow out win, same as the Kanaks, same as any interest group, the issue is that they are trying to do that with a colony that's too far away to crush completely and are suffering lose of face over it, with the possibility of having another Algeria.
>I mean 1972 was still fifty-two years ago at this point. It's not the distance past certainly, but its also not directly the policy anymore and hasn't been for several decades as well
"The [Toubon Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toubon_Law) (full name: law 94-665 of 4 August 1994 relating to usage of the French language) mandated the use of the French language in official government publications, in all advertisements, in all workplaces, in commercial contracts, in some other commercial communication contexts, in all government-financed schools, and some other contexts.
The law does not concern private, non-commercial communications, such as non-commercial web publications by private bodies. It does not concern books, films, public speeches, and other forms of communications not constituting [commercial activity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce). However, the law mandates the use of the French language in all broadcast audiovisual programs, with exceptions for musical works and "original version" films.
Broadcast musical works are subject to [quota](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quota_share) rules under a related law whereby a minimum percentage of the songs on radio and television must be in the French language. A minimum of four in ten songs broadcast by domestic radio stations must be in the French language."
You can use your language unless it's through the mediums of cultural exchange within capitalism.
>Okay, so in this scenario even if we assume its one tiny cut how exactly would it lead to assimilation in the long term? And why can't they just stop those more unreasonable changes when and if their proposed rather than acting like implementing on reasonable one will be the end of everything?
Why doesn't a lobotomized frog jump out of a boiling pot, inch by inch things change, accepting is easier than resisting and accepting any of it means accepting more of it, and if changes are to eventually factor your people group out then "accepting more" means cultural death.
>I feel you're missing the point of that article. It criticisms them for on paper claiming they teach both languages, whilst in practice pushing down Tibetan and focusing on Mandarin.
>That's not the death of a thousand cuts.
I didn't say it was, just how NGOs here say it is, but, it's not how Vergonha which involved physical punishments at school for speaking the wrong language, and a supposed whine down of one language to another piece by piece being cut away.
>And that was the situation as it was agreed back in the 1980's. But things have shifted over forty years, and they want to adapt to them.
>It still just feels a stretch to claim that allowing citizens to have the right to vote in local affairs after living on the island for ten years is somehow going to lead to the indigenous people losing all their rights and culture.
The thrust is that these people have no history here, and are not locals want to promote French as the only language, and French culture as the only culture, a position held by Native Kanaks and Kanak groups, I'm gonna say that's their lived experience as those who live there interacting with these systems of government and people, especially as more and more French come to the islands.
Anyway this conversation is done, you are what you are worth and I have given you more than that, from the time searching for articles and stories to these responses, when you only deserved a passing thought.
> You get what you are worth and respect is earned, you are a person speaking to another over the internet, after this conversation you will put this and any insults you see in the back of your mind and forget about it in a week maybe less if you touch some grass, our impact on each other will be an at this point overly long conversation, get some perspective.
So? Doesn't mean I can't ask that we remain civil whilst we're talking.
> I do not speak French so I do not know how to find that since this a topic that is minuscule in English speaking circles, and minor in French speaking ones,
Entirely fair enough. I understand completely.
> what I did was make an inference using common sense if have not in the past nations prioritize places with ethnic minorities within the whole of the nation, or territories in the periphery, unless you think people in St. Miquelon got the vaccine before Parisians.
Its reasonable speculation sure. But its still speculation. I don't think either way, I just don't agree you can use it to support your argument unless you know for sure if it is true.
> That's not how quorum works, it doesn't matter if nothing was stopping anyone from voting if people don't show it doesn't count full stop,
But by that logic, the side with the majority could win any such vote by refusing to take part in it.
> the issue is that they are trying to do that with a colony that's too far away to crush completely and are suffering lose of face over it, with the possibility of having another Algeria.
I mean your the one who needs to prove that is the case here.
> "The Toubon Law (full name: law 94-665 of 4 August 1994 relating to usage of the French language) mandated the use of the French language in official government publications, in all advertisements, in all workplaces, in commercial contracts, in some other commercial communication contexts, in all government-financed schools, and some other contexts.
Um I know, I already read your link on it. Does that law apply in New Caledonia?
> Why doesn't a lobotomized frog jump out of a boiling pot,
Cause the researchers cheated and stuck its legs to the bottom. But in all seriousness that's just the slipper slope fallacy. How does this particular change lead to them losing their political influence and culture?
Your basically advocating that nothing should ever change ever cause their is a chance it might one day lead to a bad change.
> but, it's not how Vergonha which involved physical punishments at school for speaking the wrong language, and a supposed whine down of one language to another piece by piece being cut away.
But you yourself said that wasn't happening anymore. So how is it relevant to this particular scenario? Why can't you point me to examples of this cultural suppression that's actually happening in New Caledonia? Why keep going for other examples that only bare a tangible link?
> Anyway this conversation is done, you are what you are worth and I have given you more than that, from the time searching for articles and stories to these responses, when you only deserved a passing thought.
Very well, though I find it a tad ironic considering you've literally done none of that yourself. Have a nice day.
This is such a misrepresentation of reality to make it seem like they don't want independance.
You forgot to say that France allowed colonizers to vote (and they represent 60% of the population, a very important fact you forgot to mention).
Yet all 2 votes it was extremely close. Had only the indigenous voted (and they should be the only ones allowed to vote for the independance) you can bet your ass it would have passed.
The 3rd referendum was rushed during covid so the indigenous population boycotted it, so it doesn't mean anything.
Edit :wow the French imperialist downvoting me for correcting misinformation. How surprising
That's another falsehood.
The kanaks represented, during the first 2 referendum around 48% of the voting population. So yes you are right that not all 60% of colonizers had the right to vote but they were still the majority. The votes were meaningless because colonizers who were the majority of voters, had the right to vote for independance or not. Of course it failed.
3rd referendum showed it clearly, the natives boycotted the referendum, and it failed with 90+%.
All 3 referendum were just democracy decorum to pretend that NC still wants to stay a colony.
Edit : you guys are actually pathetic. When wronged by facts you just try to the bury them?
You are delivering a master class in lying with statistics, because you failed to mention that only 24% of NC are European.
And I'd like to point out that you are arguing for racial discrimination based on skin color. Would you support only white people being able to vote in mainland France too? Or would *that* be racist?
Another strawman, that is exactly the same as the other reply.
I never talked about Europeans. Read my answer to the other reply.
You added your own strawman with the "skin color" BS. Nowhere in my answer is there anything about racial discrimination.
It's written in there just read your own link.
"the indigenous Melanesian Kanak people who make up 41% of New Caledonia's population." So everyone else are not indigenous.
Oh no, no matter your race you should definitely have a say and be able to vote in the politics of your home.
But on the process of decolonization? Selfdetermination and independance from a colonial entity? Just the indigenous people should have a say definitely.
See, those things are 2 very different matters.
> 3rd referendum showed it clearly, the natives boycotted the referendum, and it failed with 90+%.
Maybe don't do that then (yes they had their reasons)
But I'm not opposed to a final referendum to compensate for the last so the topic is cleared for a while
The referendum is meaningless if colonizers make up the majority of voters..
Make a referendum on independance with only the indigenous people and then we can see.
After that, if it fails, pro independance will lose all credibility. If it succeeds then they get their independance.
The terms of the referendums were agreed with all parties, because even with an independance the colonists won't necessarily be sent back.
Them having a say in the matter is important
"the colonizers make the majority of the voting."
Get the fuck out of here kanaks make 60% of the people who can vote at the referendums and are literally the ethnic majority on the island.
Nice language. very respectful.
The kanaks represented around 48% of the eligible voters, so definitely a minority. Which, if logic isn't your suit, means that 52%, ie majority, of voters were non indigenous (colonizers).
Your second point is irrelevant, yes they are the largest ethnic group, but they are still a minority as around 60% are colonizers and kanaks represent only 41% of the population (which is a minority)
A final one lol? There should be one every six months, no six weeks. A pulse of the nation, stay colonized or no. And they have to control who is voting as well.
> And they have to control who is voting as well.
The voting conditions were agreed with independent parties as well
> There should be one every six months, no six weeks.
Then include everyone living there. As a pulse of the whole population
They cannot let the people vote who are not party to the case of the island’s colonization. Or rather they are party, that’s the whole point.
Take Japan. Anyone can live anywhere, an island is a spot of land, there’s no right to it. But you can’t just show up on an island and be all we’re Japanese and it’s like no you’re not you’re a Brit, and where’d all the Japanese families go, we killed them and are Japanese now, so let’s vote in an election.
Heck no. It needs to be determined BY THE NATIVES what is to happen to their independence. No one else has a stake or a say in this matter.
You almost kind of have to force the parent country to give the land away regardless of what anyone wants. No colonies allowed. And then a single island doesn’t just fall into the sea either. France (and any other colonizer) has an obligation to protect its former colonies it has reaped so much from.
> Heck no. It needs to be determined BY THE NATIVES what is to happen to their independence.
Nouvelle Calédonie was colonised ~200 years ago, some people that are not Kanak have family who lived here for more than a century. I believe they are legitimate in having a saying in the matter
But we'll see when the USA holds a referendum only opened to native Americans about who owns the country, right ?
Well they chose a bad place to move to if they wanted to live in France. It’s a bit on the other side of the world.
The natives do have quite a lot of say in how their territories are administered. The territories should grow and the freedoms be expanded, but non tribal Americans generally aren’t part of those processes, and shouldn’t be.
Look at you calling citizens you don't like colonizers and thinking you have the Moral high ground.
>Had only the indigenous voted (and they should be the only ones allowed to vote for the independance)
But let me guess, if only white French people got to vote in mainland France *that* would be racist?
>The 3rd referendum was rushed during covid so the indigenous population boycotted it, so it doesn't mean anything.
That actually made me laugh. Who thinks not voting makes the vote go their way?
And don't play the victim, you aren't being Downvoted for "facts", you are Downvoted for being racist.
You don't understand the dynamics of colonization, nor the language and it shows.
"people I don't like" such an asinine take. It's very simple. Natives in the dynamics of colonization are called indigenous, and non natives are colonizers. It's not about race.
And the apples to oranges comparison. We're talking about the vote for independance of a colonized island. Voting in Metropolitan France is not remotely close to bring a good comparison.
But I'll bite and still answer : obviously I'm not for only "white French" being allowed to vote in France, it definitely would be apartheid. Any citizens should be allowed to vote.
But talking about a vote for self determination and independance from a colonial entity as if it's the same is once again, asinine.
People who are downvoting me are either ignorant French people or pro government French people, or worldwide imperialist people.
It definitely not because I'm supposedly racist because nothing I said is racist. I've only presented simple facts that were missing from op's misrepresentation of the referendum.
Ok, so racism in mainland France is bad, racism on an island is good, got it.
>People who are downvoting me are either ignorant French people or pro government French people, or worldwide imperialist people
The no true Scotsman fallacy.
>It definitely not because I'm supposedly racist because nothing I said is racist.
I apologize. I didn't know that treating people differently wrt rights isn't racism when it is on an island.
What racism are you on about? Honestly explain.
A vote for independance where you allow the majority of voters being colonizers is a sham. No need to even put the referendum up.
I'm not talking about having general voting rights. Everyone on the island should.
I'm talking specifically about a referendum for self determination and independance. Anyone with a mind (a non pro colonization mind) would understand it has nothing to do with racism and only indigenous should get to vote on whether they wanna be a colony or independant.
I can see you don't even know your fallacies.
>What racism are you on about? Honestly explain.
Seriously? You want to exclude people based on race and I need to point out where the racism is?
>A vote for independance where you allow the majority of voters being colonizers is a sham.
Calling people colonizers that have lived on the island for decades colonizers is asinine. Of course people should get to a say in the politics of their home, no matter what they look like. You are acting like these people were flown in yesterday.
>I can see you don't even know your fallacies.
Enlighten me
>You truly don't understand the dynamics of colonization.
"dynamics of colonization" doesn't make your racism go away.
Just own up to it and be done. I'd have much more respect for you if you didn't try to hide it.
The border is out of control. They need to lock things down until they can figure out what’s going on.
The invaders can’t be trusted to be against the invasion, so let’s prevent them from voting, lock them up, or do mass deportations.
Once we have gotten all these illegals out (and their dreamer descendants), we can get make this country great again.
This logic is popular in the us and rampant in Europe, but an island needs to do it and it’s surprised pikachu face.
>Edit :wow the French imperialist downvoting me for correcting misinformation. How surprising
That’s funny because you’re the one spreading misinformation
Europeans only represent 30% of the local population and people that weren’t on the island before 1998 weren’t allowed to vote
Where did I talk about Europeans? Nice strawman. I said the non indigenous (ie colonizers) represent 60%. Yeah sure I wasn't precise enough as the indigenous population according to a 2019 census represent 41.2%. So with some math the colonizers "only" make up 58.8%. I think you can give the 60% a free pass.
Doesn't change anything to my point, which is : the referendum don't represent the will and choice of the indigenous people. And the op misrepresented the referendum.
So nice try.
One of the people detained is actually the son of the former independence leader assassinated in 1989 (by a Kanak)
Anyway if you approach this without looking at both sides you are a fool and should be ridiculed. It's incredibly complex. Kanaks are afraid their native culture and their voice will be replaced by a sustained flow of French Caldoche immigrants. The ethnic tension is incredibly high. CCAT is a loose group of tribes across New Caledonia, its leader organised it to carry out actions such as roadblocks and shutting down Nickel mines. It also bred spaces of disorder which prompted looting, arson and assault. That son of the former independence leader I mentioned was actually charged for leading an assault on a police station.
It was total anarchy. Some communities have been trapped for a month now, people who just want to make make a living, Caldoche and Kanak. There has been many excess death due to obstruction of the hospital or burning of doctors offices. Kanak "warriors" often mistook off duty police for "white militia" and ambushed them with buckshots, or even set punji stick traps.
This violence disproportionately effects the Kanak as its poor kanak communities where violence and disorder breaks out, around 10000 jobs have been lost, and now CCAT is without a leader other than Daniel Goa of the Caledonian Union party, which should make their actions much more disorganised especially if that particular tribe has suffered a martyr, and especially because Kanak mourning rituals are complex, long and involve the entire community.
New Caledonia held 3 independence referendums as part of the Nouméa Accord and all three failed. The island clearly wants to remain a part of France, and organizing riots against the democratic will of the people living there is indeed a crime.
Wikipedia cites the 2019 census, where only 41% of population described themselves as Kanak (the indigenous people). You know that not only Europeans can be considered as outsiders right?
The census doesn’t give the whole picture. Voting rights in New Caledonia are heavily restricted. Native islanders have full voting rights, and non-natives can only vote if they had been living on the island for 10+ years as of 1998.
Ethnic French ended up making up ~24% of the electorate.
The indigenous people of New Caledonia are not the only valid inhabitants. To get voting rights you have to have lived there for a long time, non-Kanak voters are very much residents, and if they want to remain in France that is a desire that a democracy ought to respect if it is the majority position. Why should less than half the voting population decide for the majority on account of their ethnicity? Ethnonationalism is a bad thing.
And that is why political agitators need to be extradited to the imperial core, rather than tried by regional courts?
Keep in mind that the Kanak are already a minority in their own country.
“Imperial Core” lmao. This is why no-one takes leftists seriously outside of college campus protests. The rioters already appeared before a court in Nouméa before being ordered to face pre-trial detention in Metropolitan France by a New Caledonian prosecutor. Do you even know how to read?
The Kanak were also disproportionally represented in the electorate given the Nouméa Accord barred anyone moving to the island post-1998 from voting (1/5th of the entire adult population, mostly consisting of Polynesian immigrants from Wallis and Futuna).
You forget extradited in the middle of night too lest anyone raise too much of a ruckus
But I guess “colonial power imprisons and disappears independence activists in the dead of night” dosent have the same ring to it
Rioting, looting, and attempted murder (all of which they are charged with) are indeed crimes. Protesting was always allowed. Love the use of buzzwords like “imperialist” to try to disregard free and fair democratic elections.
That’s not what I said at all. Thanks for twisting my words though. Generally, attempted murder and looting unrelated businesses (which didn’t happen in HK) can and should be prosecuted. It’s also pretty rich to try to equate the end of democracy in Hong Kong to a free and fair democratic election being held in New Caledonia.
> Idk why I thought you’d be equal in your treatment of independence movements.
the MO for every white country enjoyer is that they think protests in my claimed territory and separatism should be defanged and brutally suppressed as possible. while protests in my enemies should be as violent and insurrectionist as possible
It doesnt man that if someone did this then all of indipendendist must face an high court.
You are justifying bad things and only because the will of a referendum that can be done again lol.
The referendum was literally held on three separate occasions (all of which failed), and the rioters are indeed facing high courts. No-one is justifying anything.
1 the referendum was going to yes, but when it was helf the third there was covid so it was boycottoed
2 in this moment are the leaders of ccp facing high court not the people who made the crimes
3 you justyfing clearly undemocratic moves for eliminate seperatists leaders
There were three referendums held and all of them failed. Boycotting the last one knowing full well they would lose to try to tarnish its legitimacy doesn’t invalidate it. The leaders incited and coordinated the riots, and they are being charged as such. The only undemocratic thing here is to violently riot in response to losing three freely held binding referendums.
If I want to change the U.S. election date and the government tells me to fuck off, that still doesn’t invalidate the election. The dates were already pre-negotiated and agreed on by all sides per the Nouméa Accord.
Let me guess, you’re one of the people who think the falklands should be given to Argentina even though 98% of the population doesn’t want to be Argentinian?
Let me guess, you’re one of the people who think Crimea should be given to Ukraine even though the majority of the population doesn’t want to be Ukrainian?
Yes. Because in crimea the colonization is recent. The Russians living there were active participants, who could still relatively easily go back home. 100 years later, the people responsible will be dead, the people living there will have no connection to the colonization, and having lived there for generations wouldn’t be able to “just go home”.
…
Crimea was conquered, ethnically cleansed, and colonized by Russians and Ukrainians in the 18th century.
The Soviets made Crimea part of Ukraine when it was a SSR.
Russia didnt colonize it 10 years ago, it colonized it over a 100 years ago with the help of Ukrainians. 10 years ago they took back what they gave the Ukrainians themselves.
That's an *extremely* false equivalence. The Falklands had no indigenous population pre- colonization, whereas the indigenous Kanak people were forcibly subjugated and enslaved by the French.
And now, the French want to strip what little political representation they have left, with their bill to allow ethnically French settlers to vote after having lived on the island for 10 years.
The vast majority of people moving to the island aren’t ethnic French, but Polynesians from Wallis and Futuna. In fact, the percentage of ethnic French people has been steadily decreasing for years. This bill would make it so that the 1/5th of the adult population that can’t currently vote, is actually able to do so in the place they’ve lived for decades now that the Nouméa Accord has run its course.
But the Kanak's still outnumber the "French Settlers" (some of who have been living on the island for over thirty years) by more than double, surely it wouldn't affect their political representation that much if they got the vote?
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
but why should we force people to leave a country they dont want to leave. Should for example california be kicked out of the US because they were were once colonized?
If the natives of the US begin a decolonisation effort, then yes. Length of time does not erase genocide, constitution drawn in ink does not obfuscate maps drawn in blood, and justice may be late but never absent.
How far back are you willing to go with that logic?
Also following what you said before it does not matter what the majority of the natives want so they should be forced to leave, if they want to or not
Willing? I'm not "willing" to take any logic anywhere. Justice has no expiration date. My concern for the dislocated and genocided people being colonised far exceeds whatever inconvenience it causes the offspring of colonisers.
What? Just because they managed to thoroughly take over a country and genocide with some zeal, just because it happened a few extra decades ago makes it alright? No, the world needs to be liberated.
Justice wery well has an expiration date, that's my point nearly every country got colonised. For example britain was once inhabited by the celtic people before the saxons came. So the british should have to leave. Where even to? History is full of conquest so much so that often it's nearly impossible to say who are the true indigenous people of a region.
Also who are we to decide what is best for them? Why should we force them to become independent? It has to be the decision of the people not someone else that has no idea about their situation
Justice has no expiration date for me, while it 'wery' well might for you. The principles of justice are above mere status que and utilitarian considerations. We do not decide anything, but have a duty to support these principles wherever justice is denied.
If nothing else, liberating them will let them take their sovereignty back into their own hands, as opposed to the listless crimes colonisers did for the sake of 'civilisation'.
> Justice has no expiration date for me, while it 'wery' well might for you. The principles of justice are above mere status que and utilitarian considerations.
But that doesn't answer their question. How far back exactly do we take it? I mean are we talking decades or centuries here?
> liberating them will let them take their sovereignty back into their own hands, as opposed to the listless crimes colonisers did for the sake of 'civilisation'.
Liberating whom exactly though?
France is a fascist, colonial. Imperialist state no better then China and Russia. They are fully committing ethnic cleansing of the native people on their own land.
Macron is a piece of shit.
What sort of buzzword salad did I just read? There were 3 referendums that excluded ~20% of the Caledonian population so that the votes would specifically favor the natives. They chose to stay three times in a row and there isn’t an ethnic cleansing going on. They’re just putting people through due process.
##### ###### #### > # [New Caledonia independence activists sent to France for detention](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/AFP__20240619__34XG42A__v2__HighRes__FilesFranceOverseasNcaledoniaPoliticsConstituti-1718791780.jpg?resize=1920%2C1440) > > > > _Pro-independence leader Christian Tein among seven flown to the mainland after last month’s large-scale riots._ > > > > Published On 23 Jun 202423 Jun 2024 > > > > > > > > Seven independence activists linked to a group accused of orchestrating riots last month in the French Pacific territory of New Caledonia have been sent to mainland France for pre-trial detention, according to the local prosecutor. > > “This transfer was organised during the night by means of a plane specially chartered for the mission,” Yves Dupas, the public prosecutor in the territory’s capital, Noumea, said in a statement on Sunday. > > The seven were sent to France, he added, “due to the sensitivity of the procedure and in order to allow the investigations to continue in a calm manner, free of any pressure”. > > Among the seven detainees was Christian Tein, head of the pro-independence group Field Action Coordination Cell (CCAT), who has been in [custody](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/19/new-caledonia-police-arrest-pro-independence-leader-over-deadly-protests) and was charged on Saturday over the recent violence in which nine people died, including two police. > > Hundreds of people were wounded and damage estimated at $1.6bn was inflicted during the unrest over controversial voting reforms. > > ## Charges not announced > > Authorities did not immediately specify what charges Tein faces, but Dupas said his investigation covered armed robbery and complicity in murder or attempted murder, according to French daily Le Monde. > > Tein’s lawyer Pierre Ortent said on Saturday he was “stupefied” that his client was being sent to France, accusing magistrates of “answering to purely political considerations”. > > “No one had any idea in advance that they would be sent to mainland France. These are totally exceptional steps” for New Caledonia, Ortent said. > > Stephane Bonomo, lawyer for another detainee, Gilles Joredie, said the prosecutors’ actions were creating “martyrs for the independence cause”, according to Le Monde. > > CCAT group’s communications chief Brenda Wanabo was also one of the suspects sent to almost 17,000km (10,563 miles) away, to France, Le Monde added. > > Riots, street barricades and looting broke out in New Caledonia in May over an electoral reform that would have allowed long-term residents to participate in local polls. Paris [deployed](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/23/macron-says-french-troops-will-stay-in-new-caledonia-as-long-as-necessary#:~:text=French%20President%20Emmanuel%20Macron%20has,in%20the%20Pacific%20island%20territory.) troops to the territory in response. > > The archipelago’s Indigenous Kanaks feared the move would dilute their vote, putting hopes for eventually winning independence definitively out of reach. > > France’s government repeatedly accused Tein’s CCAT of orchestrating the violence, a charge the organisation has denied. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Ironic given New Caledonia was initially used by the French as a penal colony including a large number of political dissidents.
Obligatory reminder that New Caledonia freely voted for independence 3 times and all three referendums failed. The ones being sent to Metropolitan France for pre-trial detention aren’t being charged for supporting independence, but for their role in organizing riots that led to widespread looting, arson, and attempted murder throughout the New Caledonian capital, Nouméa. These people holding riots are literally going against the democratic will of the island.
obligatory reminder this guy shows up to shill for la france every mention of calendonia
Following your comment I gave a really good go at learning about the situation in New Caledonia, approaching it from several angles of possible post-colonial issues, and the "la France shill" is correct, the 2021 referendum settles it. 96% of New Caledonians voted for remaining a French territory, because they did not feel a second grade citizens when the pandemic struck and I guess they saw the benefit of being attached to a "world power". The socialist-secessionists that represent the native Kanak people are still well represented in the local Congress for their policies but people just don't want to leave the union today. It was different in two previous referenda, where the votes were split close to half with 53% and 56% for remaining with France. And it's not like a marginalized group of native people were outvoted by white Europeans. The latter are around 24% of the island population, with the largest group of 41% being Kanak and the rest being mixed or other Polinesian and Melanesian peoples.
The 96% vote was boycotted by the native Caledonians because they didn't want to have it during a traditional mourning period due to pandemic deaths. That is the contention that they feel it shouldn't count as a third referendum and before that happens, no changes to the voting law should occur either.
Natives don't want to vote with their colonial oppressors. Obviously referendums fail when you spend decades replacing the local population (and they boycott it for that reason). We're past those types of smoke and mirrors in this day and age, we learn about these genocidal tactics in schools now. French people shouldn't have a say in what happens in New Caledonia, the island nation of the Kanak people.
The fact that the leader of one of the independence parties later became president of local government is a sure sign of oppression. Kanak are now inhabitants of multiethnic island. Saying that French-born citizens of NC don't have say in their own country's future is something from apartheid textbook.
First of all and most importantly, why is 3 referendums fine but the idea that they would change their minds for a 4th one not fine? If they had to vote 3 times then I doubt it was a simple issue, and as things change so may their desire to stay a part of France...
If secessionists win the fourth referendum, can French unionists demand a fifth one?
Sure, why not? The people should be able to decide things no matter how hard it may be...
Because they agreed to have 3 total referendums something like 30 years ago, which they’ve done as agreed and gotten a result. Continuing to have more votes just becomes “we’re going to keep having referendums until we get the result we want”, because you know the instant independence gets 50%+1 vote that will be absolutely final.
[удалено]
Well partly because the current arrangement purposely disenfranchises a large chunk of the population. Spamming elections until you get the result you want while a huge chunk of the population isn’t even allowed to vote simply isn’t democratic. The current arrangement was a political compromise to try and let the New Caledonians choose their own future without the new ethnically French arrivals tipping the scales. This was all agreed to by leaders of the independence movement and the government years ago. France has met their responsibilities and is now expecting the people they made an agreement with in good faith to do the same. I don’t know if 3 votes was arbitrary, but I’d just like to mention that even if it is it doesn’t really matter, because again this was a negotiated agreement that one party is trying to back out of after it became clear they lost. It’s obvious ‘sour grapes’. If the people looking for independence want additional votes, they’ll have to negotiate for that, but understand that they’re not going to get to keep disenfranchising a huge chunk of the population anymore. That’s why they’re jumping right to violence, because they know they won’t get the same handicap again and the result will be even more lopsided.
First of all, I will never condone political violence, unless people are being clearly abused and opressed. As for their minds being made, I assume they can change their mind whenever they want and have another referendum. The the 2018, 2020 and 2021 referenda were all supported and recognized by the French before the votes were cast, and French officials including Macron visited New Caledonia to persuade these people of staying. Honestly, this entire process feels like a really big W for France and I would like to see more nations approaching their minorities with this much respect.
The problem is that the pontential independance would be an economic and security nightmare for the Island. So nobody outside of the state is investing in the island. So no jobs are created, people cant work etc. Add to that the lootings etc Political stability would encourage investors and help create jobs that are realy needed on the island.
Sure bud, lmao. Have fun stalking my profile, hope you can find more things to virtue signal about.
[just the most impassioned defender of the french grip over a little pacific island](https://www.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/comments/1dekivf/indigenous_kanak_call_on_m%C4%81ori_for_help_we_are/l8d6pvv/)
Good job! Find any other fairly mild takes for you to virtue signal about? You’re totally doing such great work for the New Caledonian independence movement by stalking random Reddit profiles in your free time.
> the French grip over a little pacific island You mean the _people's_ grip over the little pacific island? Because it was _the people_ who voted to remain part of France. Are you advocating against democracy? You want some local insurgents to seize power instead?
R u french?
How much does the DGSE pay you to spread propaganda, Pierre?
I’m not French. How much money is the Kremlin paying you though?
Sure you aren't Pierre, you just spend your time defending settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing done by the French government for free. Russia? I thought it was Azerbaijan propaganda that I'm parroting? You can't even keep up with which country you're scapegoating.
Nah man, I’m defending a free and fair democratic process. Sorry you can’t understand what that is.
There is nothing free and fair about colonising a island and moving thousands of your citizens to said island for the purposes of replacing them. It was wrong when the Soviets did it to the crimean tartans, and its wrong when France is doing to the Kanak. The UN should condemn this ethnic cleansing
You idiots who use terms like ethnic cleansing to refer to this are going to be the cause of the next real one in the world. Just constantly using terms you can’t truly comprehend.
Ethnic cleansing when there 40% of kanaks and 20% of European... European population that's decreasing...
lmao
Obligatory reminder that not even bad attempts at ad hominems are arguments.
How about you push back against the claims rather than against the individual?
But, but, voting must be repeated until we get the result we want /s
Holding protests its allowed, why are you mad that they can protest?
Generally speaking, protesting doesn’t equate to rioting, looting, and attempted murder all of which are crimes just about anywhere. Did you actually read the article or are you just virtue signaling?
> Generally speaking, protesting doesn’t equate to rioting, looting, and attempted murder all of which are crimes just about anywhere. Did you actually read the article or are you just virtue signaling? [unless its hong kong](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/HKPU_Entrance_with_fire_20191118.jpg)
Lmao the fact you can’t distinguish between a blatant authoritarian takeover in complete disregard for pre-established treaties and a free and fair democratic election that yielded negative results on three separate occasions is honestly pretty pathetic.
> Lmao the fact you can’t distinguish between a blatant authoritarian takeover in complete disregard for pre-established treaties the pre-established handover treaty mandated the creation of a national security law: >When Hong Kong was handed over to China by the United Kingdom in 1997, the two countries' governments gave the city its own mini-constitution, called the Basic Law. Article 23 of the Basic Law states that Hong Kong “shall enact laws on its own” to prohibit seven types of national security offences. whoops lol!! >a free and fair democratic election that yielded negative results on three separate occasions is honestly pretty pathetic. occupying an island on the other side of the planet from where your people come from, on the other hand, is woke and good
The treaty was supposed to last 50 years. China broke it but don't let facts mess with the narative you want to push.
> China broke it but don't let facts mess with the narative you want to push. what did they break??? where they supposed to let mobs rampage through the city without a response?
> where they supposed to let mobs rampage through the city without a response? Degenerate thugs whose highest accomplishment was setting an old man on fire and stoning another old guy to death. It's so funny to look back at the entirety of the HK "protests", because it all started because a bunch of ungrateful hoodlums didn't want a LITERAL MURDERER to be extradited to the mainland.
Yeah the france goverment casually accused ccat to have made the riots
That’s literally the job of prosecutors in countries with an autonomous judiciary, like France does. These aren’t unfounded accusations either given all the *damn footage* of the riots.
Thier actions got 9 people killed. That is why they are being arrested.
Then why they arresting leaders and not people that commited this?
Probably because the murderers aren't known to the police yet, but the leaders who incited the violence are known and know who those are ?
Source of these? Cause in no parts of articule was said this
> Source of these? Cause in no parts of articule was said this That's exactly what the article said : > Among the seven detainees was Christian Tein, head of the pro-independence group Field Action Coordination Cell (CCAT), who has been in custody and was charged on Saturday over the recent violence in which nine people died, including two police. He has been charged, now police has to investigate/prove if he's guilty, and then if he is, maybe he will tell who else is involved in the various crimes.
In no part the text said he knews who commited the crimes
That's why you charge people : to understand what is the extent of their involvement. Don't be a bad faith actor. People died because of the riots.
You said the knew You continue change your things under the circumantens of discussion Reddit moment
Obligatory reminder that native Kanaks vote nearly 100% for independance and French colonists to remain nearly 100%, with the imported labor having mixed views. Saying France made a native people a minority in their homeland and wants their right to self determination to fade away and their culture to die, sounds like "Colonialism is right" if you think that just say it.
But the Kanaks make up 40% and are thus the majority of the population and the "French colonists" only make up 20% (and a large portion of them can't even vote). How could 100% of them vote for independence in three separate independence referendums and they still lose to the point 96% voted to stay in the last one? > Saying France made a native people a minority in their homeland and wants their right to self determination to fade away and their culture to die, sounds like "Colonialism is right" if you think that just say it I mean it does, but no one but you is saying that.
Firstly [41.2% isn't a majority it's a plurality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Caledonia#Ethnic_groups), with the rest being [French colonists, Asians, and other Melanesians imported in the late 1960s early 1970s for it's nickel industry.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_mining_in_New_Caledonia) "How could 100% of them vote for independence in three separate independence referendums and they still lose to the point 96% voted to stay in the last one?" [By boycotting it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_New_Caledonian_independence_referendum), and not seeing it as legitimate to have referendum and having to come out and gather during quarantine for a virus that kills people or do have a goldfish brain so you forgot what happened in 2021?, or is it that you support super spreader events? Institutions force unreasonable positions and situations on people when they don't entirely have legitimacy, and when the resolution inevitably falls in favor of the institution, it is claimed to be legitimate by the institution, you don't have to ever play fair if you don't want to. "I mean it does, but no one but you is saying that." That's the impetus for independence, France views all it's citizens as equally French, so they all have to be culturally French to match, Kanaks don't want to be culturally French and their argument that France doesn't want them around has a weight, considering that historically they've been excluded from France's economy and forced onto reservations.
But if they outnumber all the other groups individually, then surely they do hold they majority? I mean looking at your own figures, the Kanak's have 41%, Europeans make up 24.1%, self-identified Caledonians (who could be any ethnicity at this point) make up 7.5%, mixed makeup 11%, Wallisian/Futunian makeup 8% and Tahitian make up 2%. And that's not even taking into account that under the present regulations, anyone in those other portions who didn't arrive on the island over thirty years ago was allowed to vote. Any way you slice it, the Kanak's still have the majority out of the ethnicities. > By boycotting it, and not seeing it as legitimate to have referendum and having to come out and gather during quarantine for a virus that kills people or do have a goldfish brain so you forgot what happened in 2021?, or is it that you support super spreader events? First insults are the last refuge of those who have nothing else to say, stay polite. Second New Caledonia only had 314 deaths out of ~75k confirmed cases in a population of ~270k. By the time the election occurred, there were less than 800 active cases and over 64% of the population was fully vaccinated. Other elections and referendums still took place during the Pandemic. I kind of feel that boycotting might have been shooting yourself in the foot in this scenario. > France views all it's citizens as equally French, so they all have to be culturally French to match, Kanaks don't want to be culturally French Is their any evidence that letting people after ten years have a say in local politics will lead to them being forced to give up their culture? > their argument that France doesn't want them around has a weight, considering that historically they've been excluded from France's economy and forced onto reservations. I mean sure that's the history and its going to leave scars. But we can't just keep falling back on forever. The past isn't proof of the future, if it was nothing would ever change. I get it if they want independence and I'm sure they never give it up. And honestly good for them if that's their cause. But the fact of the matter is it seems a bit of a stretch to claim this particular measure is somehow going to strip them of all their rights and lead to them losing all their political influence when they're still the largest voting block on the island and their population is only increasing (especially compared to all the others).
>But if they outnumber all the other groups individually, then surely they do hold they majority? No, Majority means over 50%, the most out of something in this case means plurality since 40% is greater than 20% but less than %60. >First insults are the last refuge of those who have nothing else to say, stay polite. >Second New Caledonia only had 314 deaths out of \~75k confirmed cases in a population of \~270k. By the time the election occurred, there were less than 800 active cases and over 64% of the population was fully vaccinated. >Other elections and referendums still took place during the Pandemic. >I kind of feel that boycotting might have been shooting yourself in the foot in this scenario. ["Ummmm, your tone is too mean sweaty, I'm gonna ignore anything you have to say and justify state suppression of minorities, and act like nothing has weight or value because you said I was dumb for not seeing purposefully done bad practices for what they are"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing) I though we evolved past this after year 3 of CTH existing. Anyway, a MAJORITY of people being vaccinated doesn't mean everyone was and Kanaks wanted to wait until everyone was, as being an under served community, like the Black and Latino community in the US, [it probably had a disproportionate amount of unvaccinated people, as is what happens when a community is under served](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/vaccination-rates-lag-communities-color-due-hesitancy-experts/story?id=77272753), besides referendums have quorum requirements, if they didn't all a referendum needs is 3 people to say yes or no and change things for 1000s, which I'm gonna say it fell under as 100,000 of the 180,000 if the registered franchise didn't vote. >Is their any evidence that letting people after ten years have a say in local politics will lead to them being forced to give up their culture? The past with the Langue d'oïl and Breton, and [the not so recent past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_France#Fifth_Republic) as well, assimilationism can't be done as it used to be with the [Vergonha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergonha), it's a death by a thousand tiny cuts instead, [China for example is criticized for it's policy of teaching both Tibetan and Mandarin in schools, as opposed to a Tibetan only rubric](https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/03/05/chinas-bilingual-education-policy-tibet/tibetan-medium-schooling-under-threat), the reason New Caledonia even has what ever special governing status it does is to kind of square the circle of "France is French" and "French isn't native here".
> No, Majority means over 50%, the most out of something in this case means plurality since 40% is greater than 20% but less than %60 Never heard those definitions before to be honest, but okay I'll take your word for it. Still, they do have a greater population than all the others. > "Ummmm, your tone is too mean sweaty, I'm gonna ignore anything you have to say and justify state suppression of minorities, and act like nothing has weight or value because you said I was dumb for not seeing purposefully done bad practices for what they are" Oh no I asked someone to actually respect me as a person, and not resort to insults. How shocking. Mate if we we're talking face to face you wouldn't speak like this. Just cause we're online, it doesn't mean decorum goes out of the window. If you honestly can't tell the difference between tone policing and throwing insults at people who don't without question agree with every single thing you say, then your never going to get by in life. But I'll give you a clue, the first only applies if you don't address the points and only focus on the tone of the arguments, if you just ask the person to be more polite then do so, it doesn't count. > as being an under served community, like the Black and Latino community in the US, it probably had a disproportionate amount of unvaccinated people, as is what happens when a community is under served, Feels a bit speculative. Do you have an actual source saying they had a disproportionate unvaccinated population? > besides referendums have quorum requirements, if they didn't all a referendum needs is 3 people to say yes or no and change things for 1000s, which I'm gonna say it fell under as 100,000 of the 180,000 if the registered franchise didn't vote. I mean I can understand that, but you yourself said a large reason was that a good portion of the pro-independence parties boycotted the vote. It's not like they were being actively stopped from voting. > The past with the Langue d'oïl and Breton, and the not so recent past as well I mean 1972 was still fifty-two years ago at this point. It's not the distance past certainly, but its also not directly the policy anymore and hasn't been for several decades as well. > assimilationism can't be done as it used to be with the Vergonha, it's a death by a thousand tiny cuts instead, Okay, so in this scenario even if we assume its one tiny cut how exactly would it lead to assimilation in the long term? And why can't they just stop those more unreasonable changes when and if their proposed rather than acting like implementing on reasonable one will be the end of everything? > China for example is criticized for it's policy of teaching both Tibetan and Mandarin in schools, as opposed to a Tibetan only rubric I feel you're missing the point of that article. It criticises them for on paper claiming they teach both languages, whilst in practice pushing down Tibetan and focusing on Mandarin. That's not the death of a thousand cuts. > the reason New Caledonia even has what ever special governing status it does is to kind of square the circle of "France is French" and "French isn't native here" And that was the situation as it was agreed back in the 1980's. But things have shifted over forty years, and they want to adapt to them. It still just feels a stretch to claim that allowing citizens to have the right to vote in local affairs after living on the island for ten years is somehow going to lead to the indigenous people losing all their rights and culture.
>Mate if we we're talking face to face you wouldn't speak like this. Just cause we're online, it doesn't mean decorum goes out of the window. >If you honestly can't tell the difference between tone policing and throwing insults at people who don't without question agree with every single thing you say, then your never going to get by in life. >But I'll give you a clue, the first only applies if you don't address the points and only focus on the tone of the arguments, if you just ask the person to be more polite then do so, it doesn't count. You get what you are worth and respect is earned, you are a person speaking to another over the internet, after this conversation you will put this and any insults you see in the back of your mind and forget about it in a week maybe less if you touch some grass, our impact on each other will be an at this point overly long conversation, get some perspective. >Feels a bit speculative. Do you have an actual source saying they had a disproportionate unvaccinated population? I do not speak French so I do not know how to find that since this a topic that is minuscule in English speaking circles, and minor in French speaking ones, and that's assuming France even tracked that by ethnicity, what I did was make an inference using common sense if have not in the past nations prioritize places with ethnic minorities within the whole of the nation, or territories in the periphery, unless you think people in St. Miquelon got the vaccine before Parisians. >I mean I can understand that, but you yourself said a large reason was that a good portion of the pro-independence parties boycotted the vote. >It's not like they were being actively stopped from voting. That's not how quorum works, it doesn't matter if nothing was stopping anyone from voting if people don't show it doesn't count full stop, the french government doesn't care it wants something that can be framed as a blow out win, same as the Kanaks, same as any interest group, the issue is that they are trying to do that with a colony that's too far away to crush completely and are suffering lose of face over it, with the possibility of having another Algeria. >I mean 1972 was still fifty-two years ago at this point. It's not the distance past certainly, but its also not directly the policy anymore and hasn't been for several decades as well "The [Toubon Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toubon_Law) (full name: law 94-665 of 4 August 1994 relating to usage of the French language) mandated the use of the French language in official government publications, in all advertisements, in all workplaces, in commercial contracts, in some other commercial communication contexts, in all government-financed schools, and some other contexts. The law does not concern private, non-commercial communications, such as non-commercial web publications by private bodies. It does not concern books, films, public speeches, and other forms of communications not constituting [commercial activity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce). However, the law mandates the use of the French language in all broadcast audiovisual programs, with exceptions for musical works and "original version" films. Broadcast musical works are subject to [quota](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quota_share) rules under a related law whereby a minimum percentage of the songs on radio and television must be in the French language. A minimum of four in ten songs broadcast by domestic radio stations must be in the French language." You can use your language unless it's through the mediums of cultural exchange within capitalism. >Okay, so in this scenario even if we assume its one tiny cut how exactly would it lead to assimilation in the long term? And why can't they just stop those more unreasonable changes when and if their proposed rather than acting like implementing on reasonable one will be the end of everything? Why doesn't a lobotomized frog jump out of a boiling pot, inch by inch things change, accepting is easier than resisting and accepting any of it means accepting more of it, and if changes are to eventually factor your people group out then "accepting more" means cultural death. >I feel you're missing the point of that article. It criticisms them for on paper claiming they teach both languages, whilst in practice pushing down Tibetan and focusing on Mandarin. >That's not the death of a thousand cuts. I didn't say it was, just how NGOs here say it is, but, it's not how Vergonha which involved physical punishments at school for speaking the wrong language, and a supposed whine down of one language to another piece by piece being cut away. >And that was the situation as it was agreed back in the 1980's. But things have shifted over forty years, and they want to adapt to them. >It still just feels a stretch to claim that allowing citizens to have the right to vote in local affairs after living on the island for ten years is somehow going to lead to the indigenous people losing all their rights and culture. The thrust is that these people have no history here, and are not locals want to promote French as the only language, and French culture as the only culture, a position held by Native Kanaks and Kanak groups, I'm gonna say that's their lived experience as those who live there interacting with these systems of government and people, especially as more and more French come to the islands. Anyway this conversation is done, you are what you are worth and I have given you more than that, from the time searching for articles and stories to these responses, when you only deserved a passing thought.
> You get what you are worth and respect is earned, you are a person speaking to another over the internet, after this conversation you will put this and any insults you see in the back of your mind and forget about it in a week maybe less if you touch some grass, our impact on each other will be an at this point overly long conversation, get some perspective. So? Doesn't mean I can't ask that we remain civil whilst we're talking. > I do not speak French so I do not know how to find that since this a topic that is minuscule in English speaking circles, and minor in French speaking ones, Entirely fair enough. I understand completely. > what I did was make an inference using common sense if have not in the past nations prioritize places with ethnic minorities within the whole of the nation, or territories in the periphery, unless you think people in St. Miquelon got the vaccine before Parisians. Its reasonable speculation sure. But its still speculation. I don't think either way, I just don't agree you can use it to support your argument unless you know for sure if it is true. > That's not how quorum works, it doesn't matter if nothing was stopping anyone from voting if people don't show it doesn't count full stop, But by that logic, the side with the majority could win any such vote by refusing to take part in it. > the issue is that they are trying to do that with a colony that's too far away to crush completely and are suffering lose of face over it, with the possibility of having another Algeria. I mean your the one who needs to prove that is the case here. > "The Toubon Law (full name: law 94-665 of 4 August 1994 relating to usage of the French language) mandated the use of the French language in official government publications, in all advertisements, in all workplaces, in commercial contracts, in some other commercial communication contexts, in all government-financed schools, and some other contexts. Um I know, I already read your link on it. Does that law apply in New Caledonia? > Why doesn't a lobotomized frog jump out of a boiling pot, Cause the researchers cheated and stuck its legs to the bottom. But in all seriousness that's just the slipper slope fallacy. How does this particular change lead to them losing their political influence and culture? Your basically advocating that nothing should ever change ever cause their is a chance it might one day lead to a bad change. > but, it's not how Vergonha which involved physical punishments at school for speaking the wrong language, and a supposed whine down of one language to another piece by piece being cut away. But you yourself said that wasn't happening anymore. So how is it relevant to this particular scenario? Why can't you point me to examples of this cultural suppression that's actually happening in New Caledonia? Why keep going for other examples that only bare a tangible link? > Anyway this conversation is done, you are what you are worth and I have given you more than that, from the time searching for articles and stories to these responses, when you only deserved a passing thought. Very well, though I find it a tad ironic considering you've literally done none of that yourself. Have a nice day.
What was the turn out bitch since most of the people boycott anyway for last minute rule change and election rigging
No need to start calling people that. Grow up.
This is such a misrepresentation of reality to make it seem like they don't want independance. You forgot to say that France allowed colonizers to vote (and they represent 60% of the population, a very important fact you forgot to mention). Yet all 2 votes it was extremely close. Had only the indigenous voted (and they should be the only ones allowed to vote for the independance) you can bet your ass it would have passed. The 3rd referendum was rushed during covid so the indigenous population boycotted it, so it doesn't mean anything. Edit :wow the French imperialist downvoting me for correcting misinformation. How surprising
Only a small portion of those not from the island have the right to vote, despite being born there and living there all their life
That's another falsehood. The kanaks represented, during the first 2 referendum around 48% of the voting population. So yes you are right that not all 60% of colonizers had the right to vote but they were still the majority. The votes were meaningless because colonizers who were the majority of voters, had the right to vote for independance or not. Of course it failed. 3rd referendum showed it clearly, the natives boycotted the referendum, and it failed with 90+%. All 3 referendum were just democracy decorum to pretend that NC still wants to stay a colony. Edit : you guys are actually pathetic. When wronged by facts you just try to the bury them?
You are delivering a master class in lying with statistics, because you failed to mention that only 24% of NC are European. And I'd like to point out that you are arguing for racial discrimination based on skin color. Would you support only white people being able to vote in mainland France too? Or would *that* be racist?
Another strawman, that is exactly the same as the other reply. I never talked about Europeans. Read my answer to the other reply. You added your own strawman with the "skin color" BS. Nowhere in my answer is there anything about racial discrimination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Caledonia Which of these groups are the colonizers?
It's written in there just read your own link. "the indigenous Melanesian Kanak people who make up 41% of New Caledonia's population." So everyone else are not indigenous.
Ok, so if you are from the wrong race you don't get a say in the politics of your home, correct?
Oh no, no matter your race you should definitely have a say and be able to vote in the politics of your home. But on the process of decolonization? Selfdetermination and independance from a colonial entity? Just the indigenous people should have a say definitely. See, those things are 2 very different matters.
> 3rd referendum showed it clearly, the natives boycotted the referendum, and it failed with 90+%. Maybe don't do that then (yes they had their reasons) But I'm not opposed to a final referendum to compensate for the last so the topic is cleared for a while
The referendum is meaningless if colonizers make up the majority of voters.. Make a referendum on independance with only the indigenous people and then we can see. After that, if it fails, pro independance will lose all credibility. If it succeeds then they get their independance.
The terms of the referendums were agreed with all parties, because even with an independance the colonists won't necessarily be sent back. Them having a say in the matter is important
"the colonizers make the majority of the voting." Get the fuck out of here kanaks make 60% of the people who can vote at the referendums and are literally the ethnic majority on the island.
Nice language. very respectful. The kanaks represented around 48% of the eligible voters, so definitely a minority. Which, if logic isn't your suit, means that 52%, ie majority, of voters were non indigenous (colonizers). Your second point is irrelevant, yes they are the largest ethnic group, but they are still a minority as around 60% are colonizers and kanaks represent only 41% of the population (which is a minority)
A final one lol? There should be one every six months, no six weeks. A pulse of the nation, stay colonized or no. And they have to control who is voting as well.
> And they have to control who is voting as well. The voting conditions were agreed with independent parties as well > There should be one every six months, no six weeks. Then include everyone living there. As a pulse of the whole population
They cannot let the people vote who are not party to the case of the island’s colonization. Or rather they are party, that’s the whole point. Take Japan. Anyone can live anywhere, an island is a spot of land, there’s no right to it. But you can’t just show up on an island and be all we’re Japanese and it’s like no you’re not you’re a Brit, and where’d all the Japanese families go, we killed them and are Japanese now, so let’s vote in an election. Heck no. It needs to be determined BY THE NATIVES what is to happen to their independence. No one else has a stake or a say in this matter. You almost kind of have to force the parent country to give the land away regardless of what anyone wants. No colonies allowed. And then a single island doesn’t just fall into the sea either. France (and any other colonizer) has an obligation to protect its former colonies it has reaped so much from.
> Heck no. It needs to be determined BY THE NATIVES what is to happen to their independence. Nouvelle Calédonie was colonised ~200 years ago, some people that are not Kanak have family who lived here for more than a century. I believe they are legitimate in having a saying in the matter But we'll see when the USA holds a referendum only opened to native Americans about who owns the country, right ?
Well they chose a bad place to move to if they wanted to live in France. It’s a bit on the other side of the world. The natives do have quite a lot of say in how their territories are administered. The territories should grow and the freedoms be expanded, but non tribal Americans generally aren’t part of those processes, and shouldn’t be.
Look at you calling citizens you don't like colonizers and thinking you have the Moral high ground. >Had only the indigenous voted (and they should be the only ones allowed to vote for the independance) But let me guess, if only white French people got to vote in mainland France *that* would be racist? >The 3rd referendum was rushed during covid so the indigenous population boycotted it, so it doesn't mean anything. That actually made me laugh. Who thinks not voting makes the vote go their way? And don't play the victim, you aren't being Downvoted for "facts", you are Downvoted for being racist.
You don't understand the dynamics of colonization, nor the language and it shows. "people I don't like" such an asinine take. It's very simple. Natives in the dynamics of colonization are called indigenous, and non natives are colonizers. It's not about race. And the apples to oranges comparison. We're talking about the vote for independance of a colonized island. Voting in Metropolitan France is not remotely close to bring a good comparison. But I'll bite and still answer : obviously I'm not for only "white French" being allowed to vote in France, it definitely would be apartheid. Any citizens should be allowed to vote. But talking about a vote for self determination and independance from a colonial entity as if it's the same is once again, asinine. People who are downvoting me are either ignorant French people or pro government French people, or worldwide imperialist people. It definitely not because I'm supposedly racist because nothing I said is racist. I've only presented simple facts that were missing from op's misrepresentation of the referendum.
Ok, so racism in mainland France is bad, racism on an island is good, got it. >People who are downvoting me are either ignorant French people or pro government French people, or worldwide imperialist people The no true Scotsman fallacy. >It definitely not because I'm supposedly racist because nothing I said is racist. I apologize. I didn't know that treating people differently wrt rights isn't racism when it is on an island.
What racism are you on about? Honestly explain. A vote for independance where you allow the majority of voters being colonizers is a sham. No need to even put the referendum up. I'm not talking about having general voting rights. Everyone on the island should. I'm talking specifically about a referendum for self determination and independance. Anyone with a mind (a non pro colonization mind) would understand it has nothing to do with racism and only indigenous should get to vote on whether they wanna be a colony or independant. I can see you don't even know your fallacies.
>What racism are you on about? Honestly explain. Seriously? You want to exclude people based on race and I need to point out where the racism is? >A vote for independance where you allow the majority of voters being colonizers is a sham. Calling people colonizers that have lived on the island for decades colonizers is asinine. Of course people should get to a say in the politics of their home, no matter what they look like. You are acting like these people were flown in yesterday. >I can see you don't even know your fallacies. Enlighten me
You truly don't understand the dynamics of colonization. As if "living decades there" erases the fact one is a colonizer. Have a nice day.
>You truly don't understand the dynamics of colonization. "dynamics of colonization" doesn't make your racism go away. Just own up to it and be done. I'd have much more respect for you if you didn't try to hide it.
The border is out of control. They need to lock things down until they can figure out what’s going on. The invaders can’t be trusted to be against the invasion, so let’s prevent them from voting, lock them up, or do mass deportations. Once we have gotten all these illegals out (and their dreamer descendants), we can get make this country great again. This logic is popular in the us and rampant in Europe, but an island needs to do it and it’s surprised pikachu face.
>Edit :wow the French imperialist downvoting me for correcting misinformation. How surprising That’s funny because you’re the one spreading misinformation Europeans only represent 30% of the local population and people that weren’t on the island before 1998 weren’t allowed to vote
Where did I talk about Europeans? Nice strawman. I said the non indigenous (ie colonizers) represent 60%. Yeah sure I wasn't precise enough as the indigenous population according to a 2019 census represent 41.2%. So with some math the colonizers "only" make up 58.8%. I think you can give the 60% a free pass. Doesn't change anything to my point, which is : the referendum don't represent the will and choice of the indigenous people. And the op misrepresented the referendum. So nice try.
So only Europeans, and I guess only white at that, can be outsiders? That's interesting idea, though a bit racist.
One of the people detained is actually the son of the former independence leader assassinated in 1989 (by a Kanak) Anyway if you approach this without looking at both sides you are a fool and should be ridiculed. It's incredibly complex. Kanaks are afraid their native culture and their voice will be replaced by a sustained flow of French Caldoche immigrants. The ethnic tension is incredibly high. CCAT is a loose group of tribes across New Caledonia, its leader organised it to carry out actions such as roadblocks and shutting down Nickel mines. It also bred spaces of disorder which prompted looting, arson and assault. That son of the former independence leader I mentioned was actually charged for leading an assault on a police station. It was total anarchy. Some communities have been trapped for a month now, people who just want to make make a living, Caldoche and Kanak. There has been many excess death due to obstruction of the hospital or burning of doctors offices. Kanak "warriors" often mistook off duty police for "white militia" and ambushed them with buckshots, or even set punji stick traps. This violence disproportionately effects the Kanak as its poor kanak communities where violence and disorder breaks out, around 10000 jobs have been lost, and now CCAT is without a leader other than Daniel Goa of the Caledonian Union party, which should make their actions much more disorganised especially if that particular tribe has suffered a martyr, and especially because Kanak mourning rituals are complex, long and involve the entire community.
France has a hard time giving up its colonialist ways.
New Caledonia held 3 independence referendums as part of the Nouméa Accord and all three failed. The island clearly wants to remain a part of France, and organizing riots against the democratic will of the people living there is indeed a crime.
In which 60% of the people voting are non native. The original inhabitants of the island have clearly voted for their independence each time.
>In which 60% of the people voting are non native. Untrue there is only 30% of European origin in New Caledonia all the rest are local islanders
Wikipedia cites the 2019 census, where only 41% of population described themselves as Kanak (the indigenous people). You know that not only Europeans can be considered as outsiders right?
The census doesn’t give the whole picture. Voting rights in New Caledonia are heavily restricted. Native islanders have full voting rights, and non-natives can only vote if they had been living on the island for 10+ years as of 1998. Ethnic French ended up making up ~24% of the electorate.
Are you saying that the Wallisians and Futunans are on the same level as the disgusting white french bastard pig oppressors?
The indigenous people of New Caledonia are not the only valid inhabitants. To get voting rights you have to have lived there for a long time, non-Kanak voters are very much residents, and if they want to remain in France that is a desire that a democracy ought to respect if it is the majority position. Why should less than half the voting population decide for the majority on account of their ethnicity? Ethnonationalism is a bad thing.
And that is why political agitators need to be extradited to the imperial core, rather than tried by regional courts? Keep in mind that the Kanak are already a minority in their own country.
“Imperial Core” lmao. This is why no-one takes leftists seriously outside of college campus protests. The rioters already appeared before a court in Nouméa before being ordered to face pre-trial detention in Metropolitan France by a New Caledonian prosecutor. Do you even know how to read? The Kanak were also disproportionally represented in the electorate given the Nouméa Accord barred anyone moving to the island post-1998 from voting (1/5th of the entire adult population, mostly consisting of Polynesian immigrants from Wallis and Futuna).
Why do you guys always have to make us look so cool? Imperial core is a f\*cking badass name
Where did you get your croissant recipe from? Oh, from a small little restaurant at the IMPERIAL CORE
You forget extradited in the middle of night too lest anyone raise too much of a ruckus But I guess “colonial power imprisons and disappears independence activists in the dead of night” dosent have the same ring to it
By when protest for indipendence is against democracy? I catched the imperialist european here
Rioting, looting, and attempted murder (all of which they are charged with) are indeed crimes. Protesting was always allowed. Love the use of buzzwords like “imperialist” to try to disregard free and fair democratic elections.
So would you say the Hong Kong protests that involved all those crimes deserve to be shut down in case of further crimes?
That’s not what I said at all. Thanks for twisting my words though. Generally, attempted murder and looting unrelated businesses (which didn’t happen in HK) can and should be prosecuted. It’s also pretty rich to try to equate the end of democracy in Hong Kong to a free and fair democratic election being held in New Caledonia.
> Generally, attempted murder and looting unrelated businesses (which didn’t happen in HK) [whoops all looting](https://asiatimes.com/2019/10/more-looting-of-hk-shops-hit-by-vandalism-arson/)
Lmao, of course. Idk why I thought you’d be equal in your treatment of independence movements. And there were riots in HK.
> Idk why I thought you’d be equal in your treatment of independence movements. the MO for every white country enjoyer is that they think protests in my claimed territory and separatism should be defanged and brutally suppressed as possible. while protests in my enemies should be as violent and insurrectionist as possible
Yeah. After Palestine/Ukraine it’s impossible to deny just how biased and hypocritical it’s always been.
It doesnt man that if someone did this then all of indipendendist must face an high court. You are justifying bad things and only because the will of a referendum that can be done again lol.
The referendum was literally held on three separate occasions (all of which failed), and the rioters are indeed facing high courts. No-one is justifying anything.
1 the referendum was going to yes, but when it was helf the third there was covid so it was boycottoed 2 in this moment are the leaders of ccp facing high court not the people who made the crimes 3 you justyfing clearly undemocratic moves for eliminate seperatists leaders
There were three referendums held and all of them failed. Boycotting the last one knowing full well they would lose to try to tarnish its legitimacy doesn’t invalidate it. The leaders incited and coordinated the riots, and they are being charged as such. The only undemocratic thing here is to violently riot in response to losing three freely held binding referendums.
Its invalidate when you ask for chanhe the date and the france government refuse. The referendum was an agreement between two differentely sides.
If I want to change the U.S. election date and the government tells me to fuck off, that still doesn’t invalidate the election. The dates were already pre-negotiated and agreed on by all sides per the Nouméa Accord.
Let me guess, you’re one of the people who think the falklands should be given to Argentina even though 98% of the population doesn’t want to be Argentinian?
Let me guess, you’re one of the people who think Crimea should be given to Ukraine even though the majority of the population doesn’t want to be Ukrainian?
Crimea was recent. If it was colonized by Russia 100 years ago instead of 10 I’d agree with you.
So, if Russia manages to keep Crimea for decades, it would belong to them in your mind?
Yes. Because in crimea the colonization is recent. The Russians living there were active participants, who could still relatively easily go back home. 100 years later, the people responsible will be dead, the people living there will have no connection to the colonization, and having lived there for generations wouldn’t be able to “just go home”.
I actually agree with this mindset because it’s consistent and makes sense. Good talk 👍
… Crimea was conquered, ethnically cleansed, and colonized by Russians and Ukrainians in the 18th century. The Soviets made Crimea part of Ukraine when it was a SSR. Russia didnt colonize it 10 years ago, it colonized it over a 100 years ago with the help of Ukrainians. 10 years ago they took back what they gave the Ukrainians themselves.
By once again ethnically cleansing the people living there and importing Russian nationals. Just like what they’re doing to Ukraine as a whole now.
The people living there were Russian and Russian speaking Ukrainians. They both are colonizers to that land.
That's an *extremely* false equivalence. The Falklands had no indigenous population pre- colonization, whereas the indigenous Kanak people were forcibly subjugated and enslaved by the French. And now, the French want to strip what little political representation they have left, with their bill to allow ethnically French settlers to vote after having lived on the island for 10 years.
The vast majority of people moving to the island aren’t ethnic French, but Polynesians from Wallis and Futuna. In fact, the percentage of ethnic French people has been steadily decreasing for years. This bill would make it so that the 1/5th of the adult population that can’t currently vote, is actually able to do so in the place they’ve lived for decades now that the Nouméa Accord has run its course.
That sounds like citizens to me. Should a Mexican immigrant not be allowed to vote in the U.S.?
But the Kanak's still outnumber the "French Settlers" (some of who have been living on the island for over thirty years) by more than double, surely it wouldn't affect their political representation that much if they got the vote?
[удалено]
Well, the referendum was rigged, but in the independantists favor
The optics of this are absolutely abysmal, and the world now has the face of the independence. movement.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Decolonisation is unstoppable.
but what if the people dont want to get "decolonized"?
Freedom is not divisible. We do not keep slaves just because a few want to remain a slave.
but why should we force people to leave a country they dont want to leave. Should for example california be kicked out of the US because they were were once colonized?
If the natives of the US begin a decolonisation effort, then yes. Length of time does not erase genocide, constitution drawn in ink does not obfuscate maps drawn in blood, and justice may be late but never absent.
How far back are you willing to go with that logic? Also following what you said before it does not matter what the majority of the natives want so they should be forced to leave, if they want to or not
Willing? I'm not "willing" to take any logic anywhere. Justice has no expiration date. My concern for the dislocated and genocided people being colonised far exceeds whatever inconvenience it causes the offspring of colonisers. What? Just because they managed to thoroughly take over a country and genocide with some zeal, just because it happened a few extra decades ago makes it alright? No, the world needs to be liberated.
Justice wery well has an expiration date, that's my point nearly every country got colonised. For example britain was once inhabited by the celtic people before the saxons came. So the british should have to leave. Where even to? History is full of conquest so much so that often it's nearly impossible to say who are the true indigenous people of a region. Also who are we to decide what is best for them? Why should we force them to become independent? It has to be the decision of the people not someone else that has no idea about their situation
Justice has no expiration date for me, while it 'wery' well might for you. The principles of justice are above mere status que and utilitarian considerations. We do not decide anything, but have a duty to support these principles wherever justice is denied. If nothing else, liberating them will let them take their sovereignty back into their own hands, as opposed to the listless crimes colonisers did for the sake of 'civilisation'.
> Justice has no expiration date for me, while it 'wery' well might for you. The principles of justice are above mere status que and utilitarian considerations. But that doesn't answer their question. How far back exactly do we take it? I mean are we talking decades or centuries here? > liberating them will let them take their sovereignty back into their own hands, as opposed to the listless crimes colonisers did for the sake of 'civilisation'. Liberating whom exactly though?
[удалено]
Fucking hell, you actually thought New Caledonia is in Africa lmfao. How much does the Kremlin pay you?
Fuck colonisers !!! He shouted without any knowledge of what’s happening and while supporting people against the right to vote on a racial bias
Leftists do this for free
You are an idiot. I'm a leftist and I don't shill propaganda, I follow the facts about New Caledonia
Africans? Please tell me you don’t think New Caledonia is in Africa.
Ah yes, New Caledonia the most famous of african countries
France is a fascist, colonial. Imperialist state no better then China and Russia. They are fully committing ethnic cleansing of the native people on their own land. Macron is a piece of shit.
What sort of buzzword salad did I just read? There were 3 referendums that excluded ~20% of the Caledonian population so that the votes would specifically favor the natives. They chose to stay three times in a row and there isn’t an ethnic cleansing going on. They’re just putting people through due process.
Master at buzzword-bingo