Suchergebnisse

The referendum of October 1st, 2017 on self-determination in Catalonia was called by the Catalan government, but it was possible thanks to the popular organization. A judicial ban and the police violence and brutality were the State's response to the call. This political repression would be followed by the opening of several legal cases, the most important of them is known as the "trial of the process", which would end with accusations of very serious crimes, with imprisonment and with political exile on the part of the Catalan government and social leaders. In this article we analyze the "frames of reference" and the "repertoires of action" of the collective action of the voters of October 1st. We use these same constructs to analyze the political and judicial responseof the Spanish State. This analysis allows us to discover that the political conflict around the events of October 1st, is the expression of a transitional confrontational divide between a social bloc that defends conservative, authoritarian and ultra-nationalist values with another social bloc that wants to expand the democratizing limits and, therefore, rights and freedoms. We also note that the political repression of the State has functioned as a factor that increases meanings and imaginations linked to the need to broaden and deepen democracy, at the same time, it has shown that the principles of authority and Spain's indissoluble unity are deeply rooted. ; El referéndum del 1 de octubre de 2017 sobre la autodeterminación en Catalunya fue convocado por el gobierno catalán, pero la jornada fue posible gracias a la organización popular. Una prohibición judicial y la violencia y la brutalidad policial fueron la respuesta del Estado a la convocatoria. A esta represión política, le seguirían la apertura de varias causas judiciales, la más importante de ellas la que se ha conocido como "juicio del proceso", que acabarían con acusaciones de delitos muy graves, con encarcelamientos y con el exilio político de par-te del gobierno catalán y de líderes sociales. En este artículo analizamos los "marcos de referencia" y los "repertorios de acción" de la acción colectiva de los votantes del 1 de octubre, y usamos esos mismos constructos para analizar la respuesta política y judicial del Estado español. Este análisis nos permite descubrir que el conflicto político alrededor de los hechos del 1 de octubre, es la expresión de una divisoria de confrontación transicional entre un bloque social que defiende unos valores conservadores, autoritarios y ultranacionalistas con otro bloque social que quiere ampliar los límites democratizadores y, por lo tanto, derechos y libertades. Constatamos, además, que la represión política del Estado ha funcionado como un factor acrecentador de unos significados e imaginarios ligados a la necesidad de ampliar y profundizar en la democracia, a la vez, que ha puesto de manifiesto que los principios de autoridad y de la indisoluble unidad de España están muy arraigados.

This is the final version. Available on open access from SAGE Publications via the DOI in this record ; Research on social movements shows a bias towards movements that oppose the status quo. Consequently, state–movement relations are primarily characterised as antagonistic. Where cooperative relationships are considered, the focus is on co-option and institutionalisation of movements. By contrast, this article focuses on social movements that support the status quo and how in their collaborations with governmental actors, they act as para-statal agencies. Drawing on findings from a multi-site ethnography examining the implementation of the UK Prevent counter-terrorism programme, I show how neoconservative think tanks and counter-extremism civil society organisations help to enact and extend Prevent as a distinct form of political repression. As such, this article gives close attention to the otherwise neglected role that non-state actors play in non-violent political repression. My argument builds on and extends emerging work analysing social movement activity beyond the prism of the 'challengers versus authorities' paradigm. ; British Academy

Reseña de Cornellà-Detrell, Jordi Literature as a Response to Cultural and Political Repression in Franco's Catalonia. Woodbridge: Tamesis, 2011. 225 pp. (ISBN: 978-1-85566-201-8)

This scientific work provides information on the process of industrialization in Karakalpakstan and coverage of political repressions in memoir literature. The author emphasized the positive aspects of this process. The industrialization policy carried out in Uzbekistan between 1930 and 1940 was a structural and integral part of the colonial policy of the Soviet government and the Communist Party.

This paper explores the rhetoric of political repression in the Guardian newspaper reports of June and July 2008 Nigerian Union of Teachers" (NUT) nationwide strike embarked upon to demand a special salary scale. It specifically focuses on language use in the newspaper reports on this issue as an indication of the media's seemingly transparent but inherently ideological reportage, projecting the "truth†of the political power elite and repressing the views of the less dominant whose interest the media supposedly champion. Using three theoretical perspectives, critical discourse analysis which takes the side of the less privileged to question the textual representations of the power elite; systemic functional grammar which studies the meaning relations residing in the systemic patterns of textual choices of language users; and argumentation theory used to determine the various appeals made in the reports to argue the case of the various stakeholders, the paper highlights the truism of the media"s apparent neutrality in their reports. The various forms of rhetoric, located in the unsaid, attribution to sources, manipulation of intertextual resources and gatekeeping ideology were among the strategies employed in the newspaper reportage. In a total of forty-six reports, spanning thirty-six days the strike lasted,it was found that the newspaper deliberately avoided an editorial on the strike thereby locating its ideology in the "unsaid". It also, in connivance with the dominant power elite, manipulated the wordings of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 using ad hoc argument and subtle persuasion to quash the demands of the NUT, thus exploiting intertextual resources ("the already-said") to support a suppressive regime. These representations portray the newspaper"s gate keeping-ideology –as partial and selective in its reports. It also implicates the newspaper as adopting the "ideology of silence" and as reneging on its watchdog role as the champion of public interest.

What consequences for political freedom arise from high levels of political intolerance among the American public? Comparing surveys from 1954 to 2005, I document the level of perceived freedom today and consider how it has changed since the McCarthy era. Levels of intolerance today and in 1954 are also compared. Next assessed is whether restrictions on freedom are uniformly perceived or whether some subsections of the population are more likely to feel repressed than others. I find that while intolerance may have declined somewhat since 1954, perceived constraints on individual freedom have actually increased. These findings produce telling consequences for the subtheory of pluralistic intolerance. During McCarthyism, intolerance focused on the Left; today, many groups are not tolerated, so the loss of freedom is more widespread. Heretofore, many thought that pluralistic intolerance tended to be benign. At least in the case of the contemporary United States, it seems not to be.

Russia is still dealing with the legacy of widespread Soviet oppression. An important Rehabilitation Law adopted in 1991 established a compensation system for victims of state repression, including a right to housing in their families' pre-exile place of residence. However, the practical realization of these rights has been problematic, particularly following amendment to the 1991 Law in 2004. There is a cohort of elderly victims who as children were exiled with their parents. Three of these unsuccessfully brought claims for their promised housing and eventually appealed to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. In December 2019, the Court issued a landmark ruling supporting the claimants. Here we explain the historical context and contemporary significance of this important constitutional case.