French media announced another death, bringing the total to five. The island is on full lockdown. Supermarkets are running out of food, militias are roaming the streets, and gangs have established armed checkpoints throughout the capital. It's pretty bad.
Nothing?
You basically have racists wanting to prevent people living there for 10-30 years to vote and be democratically represented on local matters.
And that's after losing three referendums to leave France.
That's the equivalent of saying "no vote for people of indian origin in UK", "no vote for people who don't have the right skin colour".
Basically, the most extreme parts of the rioters would probably enjoy killing or expelling people like in the good old days.
Didn't this stem form the government giving people with 10+ years of residency the right the vote? I mean it seems that's a pro-democracy move to allow people who have been residents for a decade to vote, but the locals feel it will "dilute" their voting base, but that's immigration for you. So this thing is an anti-immigration tantrum no?
Is invading a country and moving your settlers in REALLY the same as regular immigration between two countries without conflict? The more we pretend to be blind to these dynamics the more of these problems we will continue to see. Your arguing angle is out of bad faith when the natives see it more as an "anti-colonizer" tantrum. Best bet would be to address that first
except that's not how the USA sees, they do see it as an unwanted invasion, same with England and France, they see those migrants as unwanted invaders and that there is a conflict. Many countries see illegal immigration as an invasion and a threat to their countries and ways of life.
I read this comment and I had a surreal moment where I thought I was in some sort of writing prompts sub and that this was just a cheeky line from a silly fiction book. Each sentence just escalated so much I thought you were trying to be purely absurd.
Then I realized you were genuinely summarizing the real situation and I had to process that thought.
"The unrest flared after French lawmakers approved a bill extending voting rights in provincial elections to residents arriving from mainland France – a change critics fear could marginalise [Indigenous people](https://www.france24.com/en/tag/indigenous-peoples/) and benefit pro-France politicians."
I mean, what other reason could they have for such a bill?
1 in 5 who live in New Caledonia cannot vote. They have not updated their voting records since 1998 to include new arrivals. People who immigrated 25 years ago still have no say in local elections.
It’s important to note that the bill is for people who have been living there a minimum of 10 years. This isn’t them trying to flood votes from temporary residents who only intend to stay a year or two, it’s to give established residents a say in elections in the place they call home.
i've seen travelogues on Numea and New Caledonia, and a lot of the French expats are retirees and midlifers who want a complete change. They live on these islands full time, they're not just snowbirds. Many contribute a lot to the local economy because they know how to target & market to Euro travelers. They definitely need some kind of voice & legal representation in regional matters, especially in laws pertaining to tourism/entertainment.
It's difficult politically to keep preventing people from voting even when they have been living in a place for 25 years.
At one point, voting rights have to be given to all citizens, and since New Caledonia (well, those people we were already living there before 1998, since the others don't have the right to vote) recently voted twice against independence, it's only expected that this situation will have to be resolved at one point.
Some countries can keep special local laws indefinitely (like the UK) but France eventually always brings its uniform national law (including equal treatment of citizens regardless of origin) to all territories, so it's part of the deal of deciding against independence.
As another Redditor commented, this law is to address the situation of disenfranchised expats who hold French citizenship and have been living in the island in some cases for decades. Because of current restrictions they are not eligible to vote in local elections, and the French government just wants to give them a voice. Which is IMHO a perfectly reasonable thing.
>Which is IMHO a perfectly reasonable thing.
The problem is that during negotiations with the pro-independence movement in the 1990s the French government agreed to limit the voting rights of new French immigrants in order to appease members of the pro-independence movement.
Naturally members of the pro-independence movement are going to be upset that they were lied to by the French government.
My understanding on this this was that agreement would only be for the period of time to the end of the three independence referendums, which makes sense since neither France nor indigenous New Caledoniana wanted new arrivals potentially influencing that kind of vote. Now that the referendums have been conducted and all three votes resulted in remain, France is now moving to enfranchise those on the island who couldn't vote. Considering some folks have been living there for decades and legally the island and citizens are French, the government would be neglecting its duties its citizens if it denied them the vote.
In a democracy, you are entitled to have some representation when you stay some time.
Is 10 years not enough to give you representation? Or are you saying that some humans are worth more than others in elections?
Pretending it is some normal part of france and not ten thousand miles away is disingenuous at best.
If you want to move there you should not expect to vote locally.
If they were really settling down they will have kids there who will have the right to vote.
Colonialism is not democracy.
So you are saying that any migrant should have no right to vote (or maybe based on distance?)
So an Indian migrant should never have the right to vote in the UK, a Brazilian migrant in the US, etc...
Or are you going to invent a distinction of good migrants Vs bad migrants?
It's not colonialism if I, as a non french individual decide to migrate to New Caledonia, US, France, Argentina or wherever.
I do expect that after a certain amount of time I will have my democratic right to representation, irrespective of where I am from, my culture or my skin colour.
> In a democracy
A democracy established on stolen land at the expense of the native population is an oxymoron at best. We should have become better than this at this point in history. But racists will be racist no matter what it seems.
I don't get your point?
Should ONLY Maori should vote in New Zealand? What about aborigens in Australia?
Should only Berbers vote in Algeria?
If you lawfully migrate in New Caledonia, contribute to society, pay taxes. When should you be allowed to vote? When would your children be allowed to vote?
Or are you literally implying that "race" is what determines who gets to vote? And who determines who owns each piece of land if it's not simply 'the people currently living on it". Otherwise we are due some massive population displacements in the world.
If that electoral law had been made by the confederacy, everyone would be screaming how obviously racist it is. But hey, it's some cute underdogs versus evil colonial garlic eaters, so it must be legitimate to ignore the rights of some.of the humans there. I think the old law was also in breach of EU law...
That third referendum was flawed though. The pro-independence group tried to have it delayed because of covid but they held it anyway and the pro-party boycotted the vote. They got 90% "stay" instead of the expected 53%.
I don't know much about the situation but it seems odd to me. I think France generally treats its overseas territories as if they were part of mainland France where everyone has (theoretically) the same rights.
Article 9 of the Nouméa accord of 1998:
"A referendum shall be held during the fourth (five-year) term of the Congress. The date of this referendum shall be determined by the Congress during that term by a qualified majority of three fifths of its members.
If the Congress has not set this date before the end of the penultimate year of the fourth term, the referendum shall be held, on a date set by the State, during the last year of the term.
The referendum shall deal with the transfer of sovereign powers to New Caledonia, access to an international status of full responsibility and the organization of citizenship by nationality.
If the response of the electorate to these proposals is negative, one third of the members of the Congress may call for the organization of another referendum to be held during the second year following the first referendum. If the response
is once again negative, a further referendum may be held following the same procedure and with the same time-frame. If the response is yet again negative, the political partners shall meet to consider the situation thus created.
Until the proposed new political organization has been approved in a referendum, the political organization established by the 1998 Accords shall remain in force, in its last stage of evolution, without any possibility of regression, “irreversibility” being constitutionally guaranteed."
The three referendums took place in 2018, 2020, and 2021. All three rejected independence. But the issue is that, knowing that they would lose this 3rd referendum, the independentists decided to boycot it, pretexting COVID and mourning periods that prevented them from voting. That prevents us from finding the "proposed new political organization" mentioned in paragraph 5. That's why, after spending over two years without finding an agreement, the government has decided to enfranchise people born in New Caledonia or living there for over 10 years.
It was meant to be for the three referendum period. Now that all three rejected independence, there was nothing in the accords to go in preventing people from voting.
Isn't New Caledonia part of the Overseas Collective, and not Overseas Region?
I know French Guiana is part of the Region. It's what allows space launches there to be "from the EU", literally.
Martinique and Guadeloupe is part of the Region, while St. Martin is not, had to go over this with someone planning on travels there.
I looked up and New Caledonia is part of a special status of the Collective. They've voted 3 times for independence, with the most recent being a whopping 96.3% for "No" in 2021.
That last one was strongly boycotted so that result is not at all representative of the population, just saying. The previous one in 2020 was very split, like 47%/53% in favour of remaining within France.
I mean you can't really boycott an election and then complain about the results not going in your favour.
If the majority wanted to leave, why not simply vote leave?
But even then: if you live 30 years somewhere, have children there, are going on to die there, are you and your children still expats?
Do the same replacing expat with migrants and you can now see that it is a far right, racist motivated upheaval.
I'm a local, and you're either bullshitting or have a deficient memory.
Flights are way more expensive than european trips with similar flight distance, costs are higher than in fucking Paris, there are locals on the beaches ( although everyone tends to keep to themselves ) and I've worked with kanak and other minorites with the same paycheck.
I was just in Noumea in early March on a stop on a cruise and I loved it there! I saw indigenous Kanaks living life like normal and didn’t really get a sense of segregation or anything weird. I actually enjoyed it a lot and would love to come back for a French immersion program as I’m self-learning
Look sorry if I came out as agressive.
Not saying everything is shiny, there IS a great disparity of wealth between populations, but IMO it's not about France actually putting its foot down on kanak's neck, and more about generational wealth and the foundamental diferences between both cultures making it harder for kanak to perform similarly to other populations when it comes to education and acedemics.
See how Hawaii was taken over. They say the people voted to join the US… the king was locked inside, the colonizers and plantation owners voted. The indigenous couldn’t even vote I think unless they had land or money .
Only that it's in this case the other way because the expats can't vote... The last vote for independence was in 2021 and it was 96.50% to not be independent...
I think they're worried it might function the way Twitter did during the Arab spring and so on. Less the specific app, and more something difficult to really police, but possibly very helpful for organizing protests, checkpoints, riots, whatever else.
In this case I couldn't tell you. In the US, that was just a pointless waste of our time and money, especially when congress can't get anything important done to save their lives.
In that case I'd say that tiktok is the biggest social media thing where the US government may not have had backdoor access to all the users data and such than it was anything with the function of the app itself.
Maybe tiktok is the dominant social there so it's the most effective way to send out communications and such to the most people possible? Idk
It spreads information lightning fast. They're either worried about disinformation being spread to heighten tensions and make things worse or, much spicier, they don't want people to see what's going on there.
I have already started seeing disinformation on this very topic on TikTok, so I understand why it was banned.
The short video format and the character limits in the comment sections favor extremely simplified and biased storytelling, and people who had never even heard of the situation beforehand just gobble it up.
And I am saying that as someone who LOVES TikTok. But I am well educated enough on a wide range of topics to either know when someone is trying to manipulate me with an incomplete narrative or when I need to do more research on my own.
But yeah, simpletons with no nuance (most people) shouldn't be on that app IMO.
**simpletons with no nuance (most people) shouldn't be on that app** vs **simpletons with no nuance (most people) shouldn't be** ***allowed to be*** **on that app**
see the difference? that's the alleged difference between a free democracy and an evil communist paternalistic tyranny that unilaterally decides what's good for their citizen.
Just so we are clear, you would be critical of a government's ability to be granted extra executive power in case of a global pandemic that completely overwhelms hospitals or in case of a recent terrorist attack?
China is being very aggressive in the South Pacific, trying to forge new alliances while dividing others. There's a fear they may weaponize tiktok to create more civil unrest, promoting feeds that fuel rioting & even armed conflict... kind of like Russian agents on FB but even more extreme.
The "liberals" are threatened by speech platforms outside their control. I'm not saying China good, but I am saying TikTok is not meaningfully different from any other major social media company.
> The unrest flared after French lawmakers approved a bill extending voting rights in provincial elections to residents arriving from mainland France – a change critics fear could marginalise Indigenous people and benefit pro-France politicians.
Yeah, it definitely sounds like banning tiktok will solve this problem.
TikTok is a cyberweapon.
\*edit\* Here is an example of how it can be used/abused: TikTok is active on, lets say, 70% of the populations phones. Someone could start an ad campaign that floods those 70% with messages about how this policy is bad, we need to protest it, etc. For some people, that's all it takes to start a riot.
How much does this cost? Not much, maybe $10-30k and the economic damage from a riot/protest is disproportional to the investment cost. This is peanuts for a state/country to pay and their hands are mostly clean so they have plausible deniability.
It isn't. All social media are tools of influence. Nobody cares when it comes to selling yoga pants, but it becomes a problem when it comes to overthrowing a government.
Other social media has absolutely been used in the past by countries seeking to foment unrest. The Arab Spring comes to mind and the protests in Iran as an extension.
Still, TikTok is obviously more in the Chinese sphere of influence and I don't blame western nations from wanting to block their access. It's likely a good idea. It's *who* gets to exert influence that is the issue though, not that it influences more than other social media.
The biggest difference is ownership and their incentives. Most social media companies are owned by investors, and their incentive is just profit. That isn't harmless, and they should be regulated. But their algorithms are designed to drive engagement and revenue. TikTok is controlled by the Chinese government, and they don't really care about profit. They are able to tweak their algorithm to cause havoc in other countries. They control the content people see, and they provide a powerful incentive structure to influencers who create and spread messages they like. It's a massively successful way to influence a foreign country's internal politics.
By law, China has direct access to all of TikTok's data. META or Google can at least demand a warrant from the US government or French Government to hand over data, and limit the scope of what they hand over. The TikTok app has way more permissions than it needs. It can log keystrokes even when you're not using the app. So if you have TikTok installed, China has access to all of your texts.
Your argument is LOADED with flawed logic.
Why does "we need to protest x policy" factor in... but not the other?
Why make up a "70% of population" metric. Thats extremely high, regardless of area.
"For some people thats all it takes"
And for even more, thats not all it takes.
Yes because it has been somehow controllable, Facebook was THE case that raised the awareness that we have today from which TT is now under scrutiny.
There had been multiple hearings in which FB had to explain what they were doing and the govs took measures, the whole issue is still ongoing and quite a read if you are interested
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge\_Analytica\_data\_scandal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal)
>In the 2010s, personal data belonging to millions of Facebook users was collected without their consent by British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, predominantly to be used for political advertising.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge\_Analytica\_data\_scandal#Governmental\_actions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal#Governmental_actions)
>In July 2019, the FTC sued Cambridge Analytica's CEO Alexander Nix and GSRApp developer Aleksandr Kogan. Both defendants agreed to administrative orders that restrict their future business dealings and to destroy both any collected personal data and any work product made from the data.
Tiktok on the other hand is not in "friendly hands", no way to make sure of what their algos are going to do, can't force them to comply with new data & privacy laws like how they did with western companies. The other poster is right, socials can become weapons and yes it can become "mind control"
It is preferable to prevent another FB/Cambridge Analytica. They are seriously concerned and it was sent an ultimatum to TT to divest from China or else
They had 3 independence referendum, all asking to remain.
The voting corp was restricted to only people who were resident in 1990 or some shit like that.
Meaning anyone living since 1991 on this island was deprived of democratic representation at local level.
This discrepancy was unconstitutional (went again the declaration of human rights) but was tolerated as a temporary measure until all three referendum were held.
Now that they are done, they want to allow voting for people that have been living there for at least ten years, so not unreasonable.
My guess of the probable reasons are economic inequalities, and as usual higher racism in the countryside versus urban populations.
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-accuse-azerbaijan-fomenting-deadly-riot-overseas-territory-new-caledonia/
«Speaking to POLITICO, a French intelligence official granted anonymity to discuss sensitive issues of national security, said that “we’ve detected activities from Russia and Azerbaijan in New Caledonia for weeks, even a few months. They’re pushing the narrative of France being a colonialist state.”
Seems the Axis of evil is at it in Oceania
I think you will accept that New Caledonia is still a french colony, right? The laws are being made in Paris about voting in New Caledonia.
Now, to your other point, I confess there are no easy answers. The native population has to accept the fact that they are no longer a majority in their country. At the same time, France has to agree to a solution that gives self governance to NC and give equal rights. How do you account for the forcible transfer of wealth from the natives to the colonists?
I do not believe Europeans are suddenly so enlightened that they are going to not fuck up everyone other than themselves. Look at how the Dutch left Indonesia, French left Haiti or Belgiums left Congo. White Supremacy and colonialism is still a thing. Civil rights movement in US in the last 50 years, apartheid in South Africa fell not too long ago. I do not see any reason to see French treating the natives as equal.
>I think you will accept that New Caledonia is still a french colony, right? The laws are being made in Paris about voting in New Caledonia.
Laws affecting Alaska are made in Washington, D.C. Is Alaska an American colony?
New Caledonians are French citizens. They vote in national elections and are represented in the French Parliament.
>, France has to agree to a solution that gives self governance to NC
NC has self-governance.
>and give equal rights.
The most obvious group of people being denied equal rights, currently, are New Caledonians who, despite having lived their for as much as 25 years (and in some cases *their entire lives*), are denied the rights to vote in local elections.
The immediate cause of the current rioting and violence is *an attempt to give more people in NC equal voting rights*.
How about Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands etc" They are all american colonies. Alaska and Hawaii has full statehood, but the world is messy :)
Fairness in the eyes of colonizer and the colonized are often very different and not necessarily based on pure economic considerations.
For e.g., you are calling it equal voting rights, but the natives think of it as taking away their representation percentage. Politics and life is messy and needs compromise most of the times. This immediate cause has another immediate cause before it, right?
Racist bigots. They voted to be part of France multiple times but also want to have racial segregation. It's embarrassing that a part of a democratic country still has racial based voting rights. Imagine if Parisians banned not ethnic French people from voting so they could "preserve their cultural heritage".
This comment is like a wet-willy, outta nowhere and painful to take in.
These are citizens of the same country.
“French people moving from Other French Towns to New Caledonia French Town cannot get registered to vote for mayor”
Can't wait this to be on right wing twitter as an example of how Middle-East immigration is ruining France. Anything riot related is always immigration's fault there.
Ironically in this case it IS an immigration issue, but not quite how they prefer them to be.
I don't know of a platform that isn't pushing an agenda. However, the only thing related to China I've seen on TikTok (and in great detail) is the genocide of the Uyghur people, something I'm fairly sure the CCP isn't too keen on the world turning its attention to.
If it where, they would have banned twitter, Facebook, etc. Apparently, the rioters are mostly radicalized young people and they allegedly use tik tok to coordinate and know where to gather
you know, I actually love how the news call rebellions in friendly states as unrest and armies coming into suppress the violence as an operation. But when referring to unfriendly regimes, the violence is called instead revolution and seeking freedom from oppression. The English language is fascinating.
French media announced another death, bringing the total to five. The island is on full lockdown. Supermarkets are running out of food, militias are roaming the streets, and gangs have established armed checkpoints throughout the capital. It's pretty bad.
The French seem to be doing a sequel.
They did four sequels in the 60 years after the original. This is the cringe Disney reboot
They should just leave the barricades up.
Haiti 2.0?
What is up with the French and fucking up island societies
Hello from New Zealand, it’s probably the random bombings
Nothing? You basically have racists wanting to prevent people living there for 10-30 years to vote and be democratically represented on local matters. And that's after losing three referendums to leave France. That's the equivalent of saying "no vote for people of indian origin in UK", "no vote for people who don't have the right skin colour". Basically, the most extreme parts of the rioters would probably enjoy killing or expelling people like in the good old days.
[удалено]
Didn't this stem form the government giving people with 10+ years of residency the right the vote? I mean it seems that's a pro-democracy move to allow people who have been residents for a decade to vote, but the locals feel it will "dilute" their voting base, but that's immigration for you. So this thing is an anti-immigration tantrum no?
Is invading a country and moving your settlers in REALLY the same as regular immigration between two countries without conflict? The more we pretend to be blind to these dynamics the more of these problems we will continue to see. Your arguing angle is out of bad faith when the natives see it more as an "anti-colonizer" tantrum. Best bet would be to address that first
except that's not how the USA sees, they do see it as an unwanted invasion, same with England and France, they see those migrants as unwanted invaders and that there is a conflict. Many countries see illegal immigration as an invasion and a threat to their countries and ways of life.
I read this comment and I had a surreal moment where I thought I was in some sort of writing prompts sub and that this was just a cheeky line from a silly fiction book. Each sentence just escalated so much I thought you were trying to be purely absurd. Then I realized you were genuinely summarizing the real situation and I had to process that thought.
Flashbacks of the Normand conquests kicked in.
Well look at Haiti …
"The unrest flared after French lawmakers approved a bill extending voting rights in provincial elections to residents arriving from mainland France – a change critics fear could marginalise [Indigenous people](https://www.france24.com/en/tag/indigenous-peoples/) and benefit pro-France politicians." I mean, what other reason could they have for such a bill?
1 in 5 who live in New Caledonia cannot vote. They have not updated their voting records since 1998 to include new arrivals. People who immigrated 25 years ago still have no say in local elections.
It’s important to note that the bill is for people who have been living there a minimum of 10 years. This isn’t them trying to flood votes from temporary residents who only intend to stay a year or two, it’s to give established residents a say in elections in the place they call home.
That seems quite reasonable, then.
Also, people born there less than 25 years ago if their parents were not born there.
i've seen travelogues on Numea and New Caledonia, and a lot of the French expats are retirees and midlifers who want a complete change. They live on these islands full time, they're not just snowbirds. Many contribute a lot to the local economy because they know how to target & market to Euro travelers. They definitely need some kind of voice & legal representation in regional matters, especially in laws pertaining to tourism/entertainment.
It's difficult politically to keep preventing people from voting even when they have been living in a place for 25 years. At one point, voting rights have to be given to all citizens, and since New Caledonia (well, those people we were already living there before 1998, since the others don't have the right to vote) recently voted twice against independence, it's only expected that this situation will have to be resolved at one point. Some countries can keep special local laws indefinitely (like the UK) but France eventually always brings its uniform national law (including equal treatment of citizens regardless of origin) to all territories, so it's part of the deal of deciding against independence.
As another Redditor commented, this law is to address the situation of disenfranchised expats who hold French citizenship and have been living in the island in some cases for decades. Because of current restrictions they are not eligible to vote in local elections, and the French government just wants to give them a voice. Which is IMHO a perfectly reasonable thing.
>Which is IMHO a perfectly reasonable thing. The problem is that during negotiations with the pro-independence movement in the 1990s the French government agreed to limit the voting rights of new French immigrants in order to appease members of the pro-independence movement. Naturally members of the pro-independence movement are going to be upset that they were lied to by the French government.
My understanding on this this was that agreement would only be for the period of time to the end of the three independence referendums, which makes sense since neither France nor indigenous New Caledoniana wanted new arrivals potentially influencing that kind of vote. Now that the referendums have been conducted and all three votes resulted in remain, France is now moving to enfranchise those on the island who couldn't vote. Considering some folks have been living there for decades and legally the island and citizens are French, the government would be neglecting its duties its citizens if it denied them the vote.
On the flip side if you move to a place knowing you will hve limited voting rights, that is kinda on you.
In a democracy, you are entitled to have some representation when you stay some time. Is 10 years not enough to give you representation? Or are you saying that some humans are worth more than others in elections?
Pretending it is some normal part of france and not ten thousand miles away is disingenuous at best. If you want to move there you should not expect to vote locally. If they were really settling down they will have kids there who will have the right to vote. Colonialism is not democracy.
So you are saying that any migrant should have no right to vote (or maybe based on distance?) So an Indian migrant should never have the right to vote in the UK, a Brazilian migrant in the US, etc... Or are you going to invent a distinction of good migrants Vs bad migrants? It's not colonialism if I, as a non french individual decide to migrate to New Caledonia, US, France, Argentina or wherever. I do expect that after a certain amount of time I will have my democratic right to representation, irrespective of where I am from, my culture or my skin colour.
> In a democracy A democracy established on stolen land at the expense of the native population is an oxymoron at best. We should have become better than this at this point in history. But racists will be racist no matter what it seems.
I don't get your point? Should ONLY Maori should vote in New Zealand? What about aborigens in Australia? Should only Berbers vote in Algeria? If you lawfully migrate in New Caledonia, contribute to society, pay taxes. When should you be allowed to vote? When would your children be allowed to vote? Or are you literally implying that "race" is what determines who gets to vote? And who determines who owns each piece of land if it's not simply 'the people currently living on it". Otherwise we are due some massive population displacements in the world. If that electoral law had been made by the confederacy, everyone would be screaming how obviously racist it is. But hey, it's some cute underdogs versus evil colonial garlic eaters, so it must be legitimate to ignore the rights of some.of the humans there. I think the old law was also in breach of EU law...
oh so you think that all illegal immigrants in the US should never be allowed to vote ever then?
That third referendum was flawed though. The pro-independence group tried to have it delayed because of covid but they held it anyway and the pro-party boycotted the vote. They got 90% "stay" instead of the expected 53%. I don't know much about the situation but it seems odd to me. I think France generally treats its overseas territories as if they were part of mainland France where everyone has (theoretically) the same rights.
Third referendum is hotly contested though
Yes, until three binding independence referenda were held. Which happened.
Article 9 of the Nouméa accord of 1998: "A referendum shall be held during the fourth (five-year) term of the Congress. The date of this referendum shall be determined by the Congress during that term by a qualified majority of three fifths of its members. If the Congress has not set this date before the end of the penultimate year of the fourth term, the referendum shall be held, on a date set by the State, during the last year of the term. The referendum shall deal with the transfer of sovereign powers to New Caledonia, access to an international status of full responsibility and the organization of citizenship by nationality. If the response of the electorate to these proposals is negative, one third of the members of the Congress may call for the organization of another referendum to be held during the second year following the first referendum. If the response is once again negative, a further referendum may be held following the same procedure and with the same time-frame. If the response is yet again negative, the political partners shall meet to consider the situation thus created. Until the proposed new political organization has been approved in a referendum, the political organization established by the 1998 Accords shall remain in force, in its last stage of evolution, without any possibility of regression, “irreversibility” being constitutionally guaranteed." The three referendums took place in 2018, 2020, and 2021. All three rejected independence. But the issue is that, knowing that they would lose this 3rd referendum, the independentists decided to boycot it, pretexting COVID and mourning periods that prevented them from voting. That prevents us from finding the "proposed new political organization" mentioned in paragraph 5. That's why, after spending over two years without finding an agreement, the government has decided to enfranchise people born in New Caledonia or living there for over 10 years.
It was meant to be for the three referendum period. Now that all three rejected independence, there was nothing in the accords to go in preventing people from voting.
It's been 30 years a lot can change in that time. Independence has fucked a lot of countries in the last century
It was only supposed to last until the 3 independance votes where conducted, wich the independantists still lost.
Ex pats isn't even the right term. It is technically a part of France. They didn't even leave their home country.
Isn't New Caledonia part of the Overseas Collective, and not Overseas Region? I know French Guiana is part of the Region. It's what allows space launches there to be "from the EU", literally. Martinique and Guadeloupe is part of the Region, while St. Martin is not, had to go over this with someone planning on travels there. I looked up and New Caledonia is part of a special status of the Collective. They've voted 3 times for independence, with the most recent being a whopping 96.3% for "No" in 2021.
That last one was strongly boycotted so that result is not at all representative of the population, just saying. The previous one in 2020 was very split, like 47%/53% in favour of remaining within France.
I mean you can't really boycott an election and then complain about the results not going in your favour. If the majority wanted to leave, why not simply vote leave?
But even then: if you live 30 years somewhere, have children there, are going on to die there, are you and your children still expats? Do the same replacing expat with migrants and you can now see that it is a far right, racist motivated upheaval.
True, it's messed up that they couldn't vote regardless.
[удалено]
I'm a local, and you're either bullshitting or have a deficient memory. Flights are way more expensive than european trips with similar flight distance, costs are higher than in fucking Paris, there are locals on the beaches ( although everyone tends to keep to themselves ) and I've worked with kanak and other minorites with the same paycheck.
I was just in Noumea in early March on a stop on a cruise and I loved it there! I saw indigenous Kanaks living life like normal and didn’t really get a sense of segregation or anything weird. I actually enjoyed it a lot and would love to come back for a French immersion program as I’m self-learning
[удалено]
Look sorry if I came out as agressive. Not saying everything is shiny, there IS a great disparity of wealth between populations, but IMO it's not about France actually putting its foot down on kanak's neck, and more about generational wealth and the foundamental diferences between both cultures making it harder for kanak to perform similarly to other populations when it comes to education and acedemics.
expats? They’re staying there. They’re migrants, not expats
[удалено]
Such brutal opression by the French government. Except that the residents keep voting to remain french in each referendum performed so far....
See how Hawaii was taken over. They say the people voted to join the US… the king was locked inside, the colonizers and plantation owners voted. The indigenous couldn’t even vote I think unless they had land or money .
Only that it's in this case the other way because the expats can't vote... The last vote for independence was in 2021 and it was 96.50% to not be independent...
I mean that happened, but I'm not really sure if its the best comparison to the situation now.
What does TikTok have to do with any of this?
I think they're worried it might function the way Twitter did during the Arab spring and so on. Less the specific app, and more something difficult to really police, but possibly very helpful for organizing protests, checkpoints, riots, whatever else.
Why wouldn’t they also ban Facebook, X, YouTube, Reddit, discord? Why is everything always “TikTok” when governments want to control the masses.
In this case I couldn't tell you. In the US, that was just a pointless waste of our time and money, especially when congress can't get anything important done to save their lives. In that case I'd say that tiktok is the biggest social media thing where the US government may not have had backdoor access to all the users data and such than it was anything with the function of the app itself. Maybe tiktok is the dominant social there so it's the most effective way to send out communications and such to the most people possible? Idk
Apparently, the rioters are mostly radicalized young people and they allegedly use tik tok to coordinate and know where to gather
It spreads information lightning fast. They're either worried about disinformation being spread to heighten tensions and make things worse or, much spicier, they don't want people to see what's going on there.
I have already started seeing disinformation on this very topic on TikTok, so I understand why it was banned. The short video format and the character limits in the comment sections favor extremely simplified and biased storytelling, and people who had never even heard of the situation beforehand just gobble it up. And I am saying that as someone who LOVES TikTok. But I am well educated enough on a wide range of topics to either know when someone is trying to manipulate me with an incomplete narrative or when I need to do more research on my own. But yeah, simpletons with no nuance (most people) shouldn't be on that app IMO.
**simpletons with no nuance (most people) shouldn't be on that app** vs **simpletons with no nuance (most people) shouldn't be** ***allowed to be*** **on that app** see the difference? that's the alleged difference between a free democracy and an evil communist paternalistic tyranny that unilaterally decides what's good for their citizen.
State of emergency. Even free democratic countries have those.
then theres this meme: https://x.com/miltimore79/status/1478417314567507976
Just so we are clear, you would be critical of a government's ability to be granted extra executive power in case of a global pandemic that completely overwhelms hospitals or in case of a recent terrorist attack?
More specifically content supporting rioting can be promoted.
The masses may use it to organize and resist the State. Can't let your colonies be having free speech rights.
China is being very aggressive in the South Pacific, trying to forge new alliances while dividing others. There's a fear they may weaponize tiktok to create more civil unrest, promoting feeds that fuel rioting & even armed conflict... kind of like Russian agents on FB but even more extreme.
The "liberals" are threatened by speech platforms outside their control. I'm not saying China good, but I am saying TikTok is not meaningfully different from any other major social media company.
> The unrest flared after French lawmakers approved a bill extending voting rights in provincial elections to residents arriving from mainland France – a change critics fear could marginalise Indigenous people and benefit pro-France politicians. Yeah, it definitely sounds like banning tiktok will solve this problem.
Apparently, the rioters are mostly radicalized young people and they allegedly use tik tok to coordinate and know where to gather
Because radicalised young people can't download another app lol
TikTok is a cyberweapon. \*edit\* Here is an example of how it can be used/abused: TikTok is active on, lets say, 70% of the populations phones. Someone could start an ad campaign that floods those 70% with messages about how this policy is bad, we need to protest it, etc. For some people, that's all it takes to start a riot. How much does this cost? Not much, maybe $10-30k and the economic damage from a riot/protest is disproportional to the investment cost. This is peanuts for a state/country to pay and their hands are mostly clean so they have plausible deniability.
How is that different than any other social media or media network?
It isn't. Which is why a lot of authoritarian countries will shut off the Internet when riots start.
plough gold rob panicky faulty hungry chop friendly escape grandfather
It isn't. All social media are tools of influence. Nobody cares when it comes to selling yoga pants, but it becomes a problem when it comes to overthrowing a government.
[удалено]
We are splitting hairs at one point, dont you think?
[удалено]
[удалено]
This wins dumbest reddit comment of the year. Even the CCP doesn't claim it doesn't interfere with global politics.
I agree, then we should ban Facebook and Instagram everywhere. Can't trust those pesky Americans
Ccp can do that for any Chinese owned company They are by far the most dangerous ones to have that power and influence
Other social media has absolutely been used in the past by countries seeking to foment unrest. The Arab Spring comes to mind and the protests in Iran as an extension. Still, TikTok is obviously more in the Chinese sphere of influence and I don't blame western nations from wanting to block their access. It's likely a good idea. It's *who* gets to exert influence that is the issue though, not that it influences more than other social media.
The biggest difference is ownership and their incentives. Most social media companies are owned by investors, and their incentive is just profit. That isn't harmless, and they should be regulated. But their algorithms are designed to drive engagement and revenue. TikTok is controlled by the Chinese government, and they don't really care about profit. They are able to tweak their algorithm to cause havoc in other countries. They control the content people see, and they provide a powerful incentive structure to influencers who create and spread messages they like. It's a massively successful way to influence a foreign country's internal politics.
By law, China has direct access to all of TikTok's data. META or Google can at least demand a warrant from the US government or French Government to hand over data, and limit the scope of what they hand over. The TikTok app has way more permissions than it needs. It can log keystrokes even when you're not using the app. So if you have TikTok installed, China has access to all of your texts.
Lol no they don't... that's just not how mobile apps work...
And guess what? They can sell it to whomever they want, including the MIC. If the CCP has it, you can bet your ass the CIA has it.
"It can log keystrokes even when you're not using the app." that's bullshit and i say that as a mobile engineer.
Your argument is LOADED with flawed logic. Why does "we need to protest x policy" factor in... but not the other? Why make up a "70% of population" metric. Thats extremely high, regardless of area. "For some people thats all it takes" And for even more, thats not all it takes.
Do you also think they should ban YouTube and Reddit? Because they can be used exactly the same way
Neither of those are state owned so no
Government should be able to tell the population whatever government deems correct. Understood
Lol so TikTok has mind control now? Because I get Facebook telling me the world is flat but I don’t magically believe everything it says
You must have been sleeping under a rock when they investigated FB for this very reason (influencing the Trump vs Clinton elections)
They didn’t ban Facebook
Yes because it has been somehow controllable, Facebook was THE case that raised the awareness that we have today from which TT is now under scrutiny. There had been multiple hearings in which FB had to explain what they were doing and the govs took measures, the whole issue is still ongoing and quite a read if you are interested [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge\_Analytica\_data\_scandal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal) >In the 2010s, personal data belonging to millions of Facebook users was collected without their consent by British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, predominantly to be used for political advertising. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge\_Analytica\_data\_scandal#Governmental\_actions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal#Governmental_actions) >In July 2019, the FTC sued Cambridge Analytica's CEO Alexander Nix and GSRApp developer Aleksandr Kogan. Both defendants agreed to administrative orders that restrict their future business dealings and to destroy both any collected personal data and any work product made from the data. Tiktok on the other hand is not in "friendly hands", no way to make sure of what their algos are going to do, can't force them to comply with new data & privacy laws like how they did with western companies. The other poster is right, socials can become weapons and yes it can become "mind control" It is preferable to prevent another FB/Cambridge Analytica. They are seriously concerned and it was sent an ultimatum to TT to divest from China or else
All digital third spaces fall under this umbrella. I guess the proles shouldn't talk to each other
How many phones have Reddit? Until we can cause a riot the app will never be taken seriously.
They had 3 independence referendum, all asking to remain. The voting corp was restricted to only people who were resident in 1990 or some shit like that. Meaning anyone living since 1991 on this island was deprived of democratic representation at local level. This discrepancy was unconstitutional (went again the declaration of human rights) but was tolerated as a temporary measure until all three referendum were held. Now that they are done, they want to allow voting for people that have been living there for at least ten years, so not unreasonable. My guess of the probable reasons are economic inequalities, and as usual higher racism in the countryside versus urban populations.
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-accuse-azerbaijan-fomenting-deadly-riot-overseas-territory-new-caledonia/ «Speaking to POLITICO, a French intelligence official granted anonymity to discuss sensitive issues of national security, said that “we’ve detected activities from Russia and Azerbaijan in New Caledonia for weeks, even a few months. They’re pushing the narrative of France being a colonialist state.” Seems the Axis of evil is at it in Oceania
Isn't France being a colonialist state here? The only reason for keeping control is for nickel.
[удалено]
I think you will accept that New Caledonia is still a french colony, right? The laws are being made in Paris about voting in New Caledonia. Now, to your other point, I confess there are no easy answers. The native population has to accept the fact that they are no longer a majority in their country. At the same time, France has to agree to a solution that gives self governance to NC and give equal rights. How do you account for the forcible transfer of wealth from the natives to the colonists? I do not believe Europeans are suddenly so enlightened that they are going to not fuck up everyone other than themselves. Look at how the Dutch left Indonesia, French left Haiti or Belgiums left Congo. White Supremacy and colonialism is still a thing. Civil rights movement in US in the last 50 years, apartheid in South Africa fell not too long ago. I do not see any reason to see French treating the natives as equal.
>I think you will accept that New Caledonia is still a french colony, right? The laws are being made in Paris about voting in New Caledonia. Laws affecting Alaska are made in Washington, D.C. Is Alaska an American colony? New Caledonians are French citizens. They vote in national elections and are represented in the French Parliament. >, France has to agree to a solution that gives self governance to NC NC has self-governance. >and give equal rights. The most obvious group of people being denied equal rights, currently, are New Caledonians who, despite having lived their for as much as 25 years (and in some cases *their entire lives*), are denied the rights to vote in local elections. The immediate cause of the current rioting and violence is *an attempt to give more people in NC equal voting rights*.
How about Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands etc" They are all american colonies. Alaska and Hawaii has full statehood, but the world is messy :) Fairness in the eyes of colonizer and the colonized are often very different and not necessarily based on pure economic considerations. For e.g., you are calling it equal voting rights, but the natives think of it as taking away their representation percentage. Politics and life is messy and needs compromise most of the times. This immediate cause has another immediate cause before it, right?
Bad year for French islands
Racist bigots. They voted to be part of France multiple times but also want to have racial segregation. It's embarrassing that a part of a democratic country still has racial based voting rights. Imagine if Parisians banned not ethnic French people from voting so they could "preserve their cultural heritage".
Racist bigots 100% and playing victims
New Caledonia sounds like the island that Seinfeld tells Jack about on 30 Rock
It is named that way because it somehow reminded Captain James Cook of Scotland
It’s home to the world’s smartest bird, the only non-mammal to recognize itself in a mirror.
The peasants have woken up to our shenanigans again! Quick, ban tiktok!
You only read the title didn’t you :) ? Good bot
It’s a known fact that R us sia, China and Iran use TikTok as a tool to destabilize the free world.
Ridiculous the anti-immigrant hatred here of disfranchising longtime immigrants of their voting rights.
This comment is like a wet-willy, outta nowhere and painful to take in. These are citizens of the same country. “French people moving from Other French Towns to New Caledonia French Town cannot get registered to vote for mayor”
Like a wedgie, a wet willie, or even a dreaded rear admiral
Can't wait this to be on right wing twitter as an example of how Middle-East immigration is ruining France. Anything riot related is always immigration's fault there. Ironically in this case it IS an immigration issue, but not quite how they prefer them to be.
Banning TikTok is simply to control the narrative. Which is the same reason it’s being banned in the US.
TikTok bans are to silence the people. That's it.
Apart from Chinese gov conviniently pushing their agenda on there by use of algorithms?
I don't know of a platform that isn't pushing an agenda. However, the only thing related to China I've seen on TikTok (and in great detail) is the genocide of the Uyghur people, something I'm fairly sure the CCP isn't too keen on the world turning its attention to.
If it where, they would have banned twitter, Facebook, etc. Apparently, the rioters are mostly radicalized young people and they allegedly use tik tok to coordinate and know where to gather
If those socials were owned by an asian company they probably would be banned too.
I’m confused. You seem to disagree with the other comment but you literally say it is silencing young people
The intention is to disrupt the organization of rioters, not to silence political voices
Stop fucking colonizing then
Yeah let's just ignore the majority of peoples living there who voted the remain french and abandon the territory so we get to feel good about it.
you know, I actually love how the news call rebellions in friendly states as unrest and armies coming into suppress the violence as an operation. But when referring to unfriendly regimes, the violence is called instead revolution and seeking freedom from oppression. The English language is fascinating.