MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Chilean congress rejects bill imposing harsher punishments for public disorder
Chile's Lower house ended a two-year debate over the contentious ‘Hinzpeter Law’ aimed to impose stricter punishments for public disorder, but which critics argued it would also apply harsh penalties to peaceful protesters. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesProtesting is one thing, attempting to burn people alive with petrol is entirely different. You deserve no protection from the law if you attend a protest with your face covered and a bag full of weapons.
Dec 18th, 2013 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Totally agree.
Dec 18th, 2013 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First setback, Condorito?
Dec 18th, 2013 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Personally, I don't think rioting count as demonstrating, and I'm glad for the outcome...
;)
Somebody needs to explain this. Why are Chilean students demonstrating for “free” education? Don't they know that nothing is “free”? Why are they allowing these 'encapuchados' to infiltrate? Who's investigating the argie involvement? Looks like typical “destabilisation” activities. And are these 'encapuchados' La Campora or Quebracho? When there's a breakdown of law and order, look at the closest lawless state!
Dec 18th, 2013 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@3
Dec 18th, 2013 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you understood anything you would understand that it is a set back for all including Bachelet. She will have to send the bill back.
Bachelet drew on the use of special anti-terrorist powers more than any president in the last 20 year.
Remember this:
http://www.archivochile.com/Chile_actual/04_gob/chact_gob0003.pdf
“Protesters” set fire to La Moneda. Burning the presidential palace is not a democratic right. It is not difficult stuff Stevie. Even you might grasp it.
As I said, rioting isn't the same as demonstrating. And I'm glad the bill was rejected, removing civil liberties is something of the past, no?
Dec 18th, 2013 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0;)
@Stevie
Dec 18th, 2013 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The law was aimed at protecting civil liberties. Burning people alive is not a civil liberty. Nobody, not the protesters, not the police, not the citizens want the encapuchados at the protests.
The law was aimed at making life harder for the encapuchados.
Like I said, Bachelet will now be faced with the task of getting adequate legislation in place. You will of course be pleased when she does.
@Conq
The students are no longer protesting. The protests stopped a year ago when the government increase spending on education by a record amount.
Of course you are right, education is not free. On falling copper revenues Bachelet is going to have to explain that to the arithmetically challenged.
TWIMC
Dec 18th, 2013 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MercoPress's “*”Freudian Slip“*” says it better than I could in 10,000 words....:
“ The ”'*“Law to Safeguard Public Disorder”*“............... was rejected.”
Thank you, hermanitos Senadores y Diputados Shilenos for rejecting this “Piece of Shit legislation”.....
Think is happy :-)))
4 Conqueror
Dec 19th, 2013 - 01:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0These so called demonstrators are organized by factions of the communist party. The hooded violent thugs who brutalize and loot would probably be shot if they carried on like this in New York or any other major US city. Unfortunately The commies will still use their youth hit squads to get concessions from Bachelet, that is their Modus operandi, the red scumbags.
I'm sad at what has happened, times will get tough now not just on the economic side but security and law and order will now take a back seat. I guess we get what we deserve.
Believe it or not, in Chile the worst enemy of democracy is legal: the communist party!
Dec 19th, 2013 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Philippe
I have no idea why it is so difficult to determine the peaceful protesters from the murderous thugs who go round with hoods and scarves over their faces so that they cannot be identified by the security cameras.
Dec 19th, 2013 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The solution seems blindingly obvious to me: have specialized forces which have cameras in support and go into the crowd and snatch the miscreants out and back behind the barriers and pull off the hoods with the cameras rolling. If violence escalates at this then shoot the hoodies with bird shot; if they still resist, shoot to kill the hoodies with buck shot. The operational procedure needs to be worked out to ensure no peaceful protesters are harmed but this is easy.
There should be segregation between the levels of authority: shotguns with birdshot MUST NOT have access to buck loads.
The buck shot police need a camera on them at all times and their own commander, one on one. If they shoot without authority they should be prosecuted accordingly.
Denigrating democracy is a strict no-no. Putting the peaceful protestors in danger is a strict no-no. Attacking the forces attempting to keep the peace is a strict no-no. How many more no-no’s are you going to need before dealing with these thugs in the only way they will respect?
Chris
Dec 19th, 2013 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sometimes I wonder, did you leave England or were you forced to leave?
@ Chris,
Dec 19th, 2013 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is a difficult job. The police are massively outnumbered and once they go in aggressively to detain the hoodies a significant part of the peaceful protesters get indignant with the police and the whole march can degenerate.
What they often do is use paint ball rounds to literally “paint the target” for easier snatching. The police are good enough at detaining the criminals, but problem is that the law is not adequate and they will be through the revolving door of the justice system in time to get home for tea - hence the need for tighter legislation.
@ 12 Stevie
Dec 19th, 2013 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course I was forced to leave or have my wrist slapped for killing 2 million ragheads!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10528042/Could-MI5-have-prevented-murder-of-Lee-Rigby.html
AND, your brothers, the commie bastards known as the Tupamaros killed at least three people and YOU are pointing the finger at me.
FFS grow up.
@ 13 Condorito
Yes, I have every sympathy with what you say and I just cannot understand the two faced politicians who voted out the law (hang on a cotton picking minute: of course I can – they ARE two faced arseholes after all).
So there is your problem! Until the politicians come off the fence and see this “disobedience” for what it is – a challenge to democracy by a few thugs who need to be taught a serious lesson (including death) then nothing will ever change. Believe me, these people are cowards and three or four of them killed would soon make the rest stop.
When I was a teenager I lived on a council housing estate with some very nice people and then some not so nice people were dumped on us. Break-ins, old people robbed at knife point, the usual crap. The local copper who knew my dad asked him if the local lads could deal with it – without anybody being really hurt. So we did – deal with it. I think the tally was three broken fingers and another with a broken ankle (the clumsy twat fell over whilst trying to run away) and the two families deciding to leave after a couple of us had a word in their shell-like. The words were “Terry Mellia”. He was a big friend of my dad, they went to school together, my dad went one way and Terry became the local gangster but with a real sense of community spirit. They knew a word to him and they would be in real trouble: it wouldn’t just be a slapping around for their grown up kids next time.
That was 50 years ago. I recommend that Chile promote the scheme to deal with these wanabe gangsters before it’s too late.
@11 I have some problem with your solution. If you have specialised forces that can “infiltrate” the crowds, why would you “snatch” anyone? A bayonet or combat knife punched through a kidney would be more than effective. That's the way to deal with thugs.
Dec 19th, 2013 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@12 And here we have a “thug”. Pretty cowardly, of course. But then most thugs are. Hello, Stevie, want to give your full name and address?
@14 I'm afraid that the UK, hamstrung by the imbecilic ECtHR, has not yet evolved a method of dealing with the animals that infest our streets. But I have. No-one that tries to assault me will not survive the experience. Combat knives in both boots. Steel soles and toecaps. A kukri behind my shoulder. Spiked knuckledusters in my pockets. Goggles covered by a peaked balaclava. Can't mention the rest. I used to be “out there”. Where the police and military don't go unless they are mob-handed. Even in the UK. I'm still afraid. But I'm not defenceless. And my car and house are the same. Defended.
#13 It's a difficult job in the USA as well when 1000's and 1000's of demonstrators come out to protest. There always seems to be some violent ones mixed in that turned the events into something more than it was started to be. Things escalate rapidly. People get injured, both police and protesters, tear gas comes out, arrests are made. It's not easy being police and trying to maintain order in large protests.
Dec 24th, 2013 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!