Talk:2017–2019 Romanian protests

Better pictures
It would be nice to use Dan Mihai Balanescu's pictures. He has extraordinary aerial images covering the event (Victoriei Sq. in Bucharest). Icflorescu (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Reactions
There is no coverage of the public consultations that took place on Jan 30th, which saw both pro and against opinions shouted and screamed (literally), and for which there was considerable coverage in the Romanian media.--Strainu (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

These "public" consultations weren't actually public, it was mostly a sham. They even said that they would refuse to televize it. RogueShadow124 (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC) RogueShadow124 (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It is mentioned that public consultations took place. Whether or not it should be delved into is up to you. My opinion is that since the public ordinance did not have an impact on the ordinances (considering that the draft virtually remained untouched), it is not significant enough to be detailed in the article. Also, the main focus during the consultations was on the collective pardoning ordinance bill, which was sent to parliament rather and in an unmodified form. Therefore, the public consultations were more or less insignificant on the development of the bills. - Eduardm (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Remove police/gendarmerie from the right column?
Out of curiosity. Why are the police and the gendarmerie listed on the right column? Did they make any press releases where they said they are opposing the protests? It's only natural for the police and gendarmerie to gather and protect the government buildings. LaUr3nTiU (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead figures
Can we please add Augustin Lazăr, the Prosecutor General? He's been top-notch and more active than Kovesi, in my opinion. DIICOT's Horodniceanu should be in there too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.209.68 (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Counter-protest
Some of my edits  were reverted without explanation, but we should mention the protests against the President Klaus at the Cotroceni Palace. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  20:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I see in history that explanations were given. The disputed issue was whether 1,500 or 2,500 people attended the counter-protest. The current phrasing solves the dispute. Furthermore, it is stated that the counter-protesters were against President Iohannis and calling for his resignation. The sentence regarding attendees being paid by PSD were removed as the rumour could not be backed up by a source. - Eduardm (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Liviu Dragnea, Florin Iordache and Sorin Grindeanu
I think that we should talk more about them and their stakes on this issue, specifically since the protestors call them out by name as corrupt. Liviu Dragnea's role in this, specifically, is in question as he denied knowing of the document, as it was being drafted on one of his computers, he is the head of PSD and the document could scrap the trail at which he was accused, among other things, of electoral fraud. RogueShadow124 (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC) RogueShadow124 (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Constitutional Court
There is no mention in this article that the ordinance in question was issued to address a request from the Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR), which stated that a threshold should be imposed, below which the act in question was decriminalized. This request was sent last summer and the previous government did nothing to solve it. If CCR finds a law that violates the Constitution, then it is of utmost urgency to correct it, hence the reason for the emergency ordinance. Without mentioning this, the article is bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.43.19.62 (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

What? Have you even read the Constitutional Court judgements? They never mentioned that a threshold must be imposed! Last year they only to change the phrase "in mod defectos" to "prin incalcarea legii". The modifications went beyond what the Constitutional Court requested! - Eduardm (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

See pts 75 & 76 (and below) here: http://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/justitie/motivarea-ccr-la-decizia-privind-abuzul-in-serviciu-536018

These two points show the Court's analysis of the legislator's intent as to the broadness of the crime. Those two points just state that since a limit wasn't included, the court concludes that regardless of the size of the prejudice or the degree of the injury, any action can be considered "abuse of power" as long as it meets the elements. Therefore, since it is so broad, it could cover any action which couldn't have been the legislator's intent, thus the need to limit the wording "in mod defectos". However, it never requested to limit the size of the prejudice or the degree of the injury, but instead decided to change to phrase "in mod defectos" to "prin incalcarea legii". Therefore the two points you stated were an interpretation regarding the legislator's intent that gave reason to amend the law with regard to its definition, but not that the prejudice or injury themselves should be limited. - Eduardm (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

At pt 76 it says: "the Court has reserves that this was the intent of the law-maker" especially because "there are deeds that can be assumed as abuse in service but lack the degree of intensity to be penal sanctioned". At pt 78 it says: "there are circumstances in which a deed can be sanctioned both penal and administrative/disciplinary/civil. Especially because there is no mention of a threshold or intensity". This is a clear sign that the CCR is considering the lack of a threshold or degree of intensity is a flaw in the law and can be used as reason to introduce such measures. This at least can be mentioned in the article, because it was the point of view of the Government. Without this explanation, one that doesn't know the context of these protests might be lead to conclude that the Government acted on their own will. You should present this point of view just as you did with the one of the protesters that, according to the article, think this was made to "decriminalize the government corruption". Based on what? That is only an assumption. If you presented that, you must present the reason why the Government issued the ordinance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.43.19.62 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

From seeing what you wrote, I suppose you're not a lawyer? Also, you didn't translate the points correctly since point 77 is taken out of context, and in fact states that "the Court notes that the LEGISLATURE identified and regulated through a civil measure the necessary level to eliminate the consequences of conduct, that, although according to current rules can circumscribe as a crime of "abuse of powers", will not meet the required degree of intensity to apply a criminal penalty." Thus, there was intent on the part of the legislator to limit the crime and not apply to any action. Therefore, the CCR looked at the lack of limits on prejudice and injury ONLY to determine the legislator's intent and not criticize the lack of limits on prejudice and injury. Even point 78 shows that in the last sentence, where it in fact states that the legislator INTENDED for for both penal and civil/disciplinary measures to cover "abuse of power". This INTENTION can be seen in the lack of limits on prejudice and injury. I don't see anything in the writing that shows Court's displeasure to the limits, but rather simply analyzed the legislator's intent and, in general, looked at to the law's broadness regarding an conduct "in mod defectos". Besides, the Court cannot pronounce on something that was not introduced by counsel as issue, and the aforementioned limits weren't brought as such issues. You can't simply take three points out of a judgment and interpret them out of context when there is no specific intent on the part of the Court to find on the issues you are talking about. The Government's motive may be included in the article, but then it must be clarified that this motive is questionable considering the actual content of the CCR's judgement, and thus also just an assumption. By the way, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to whom this law would directly benefit and why this amendment would decriminalize certain corrupt practices. - Eduardm (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I had some connection issues. I am not a lawyer, but you certainly ain't one either. Your interpretation is totally wrong. The articles mentioned by me showed the CCR had a concern that the abuse of power was lacking the limits of prejudice. This view is supported by Dana Gîrbovan, president of the Judges' Union: http://www.mediafax.ro/economic/judecatorul-dana-girbovan-dupa-o-analiza-a-deciziei-ccr-privind-abuzul-in-serviciu-ccr-a-impus-legiuitorului-stabilirea-unui-prag-valoric-16152515. Also, please remove the labeling of this Government decision as "secret" (in the beginning of the article)! This is illogical and bias. A government is unable to pass secret decisions, because all of them are published in the Official Monitor, where anyone can see them. Stop with this manipulation that, because it was passed during the night, it must be dubious! If it's in the Official Monitor, it's not secret!! And put the mention of the threshold already! It's more than a week since I've mentioned it here. I hope it's not because you think this government is corrupt or something. In that case, I strongly advise you to leave the editing of this page in the hands of someone who can listen to both sides. I'll even considering doing it, if my comments won't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.43.19.62 (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, I am a qualified lawyer! And the fact that Dana Girbovan interprets it one way, doesn't mean it's the correct way. The CCR never stated explicitly that parliament must limit the prejudice and injury. If it was an issue, the CCR would have been more explicit about this, like how they instructed parliament to change "in mod defectos" to "prin incalcarea legii". And on wikipedia, you cannot post a challenged interpretation of the CCR's ruling and present it as fact. Furthermore, your definition of "secret" makes no sense. No one is stating the law itself is secret, obviously. The procedure they chose to pass the ordinance was done secretly, in other words they never announced their intention to do so and actually led the public to believe otherwise, and the approval of the ordinances was never introduced in the public agenda of that government meeting. The fact that it was published in the "Monitorul Oficial" doesn't mean it wasn't passed secretly. It just mean that the ordinance became law. So please explain the bias, which your statement should be accused of instead. The fact that you keep insisting on these points make me wonder what your true intentions are. I am basing my statements on facts that have also been relayed by every major news channel, and you are twisting them to fit your purpose or basing your facts on unreliable sources! - Eduardm (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Article reads like a copy of news stories
The article reads like a copy of news stories, it would be good if it could be copyedited to synthesize the sources and provide a coherent account of the events. Vyvek (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe it reads like that because, well, that's what it pretty much is. I find it disturbing that about 50% of cited sources are in fact one source and that's HotNews. Erm... right. Seth Lex (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Disputed
Please see this comment concerning the factual accuracy of this article. --Mihai (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Plus: The first protests took place on 18 January, 2 weeks after the Government took office, with 5000 persons attending. At that point they were not "massive". On 31 January, the Government passed only an emergency ordinance tackling the amnesty issue, not the "grațiere"... --Mihai (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

These issues are clarified. Nowhere is it stated that Government also passed an ordinance regarding the collective pardoning of criminals. - Eduardm (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

In this context, is the involvement of the president at the street level constitutional?82.137.9.242 (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What is unconstitutional about it? The president is the president of the people, and he went to the people in favour of a principle enshrined in the constitution: the rule of law. And since the president is also the protector of the country and the constitution, he must also protect the rule of law. Therefore he has the constitutional right to show his displeasure and also join people in their protest against any attempts to weaken it. What normal president/leader around the world wouldn't do that? Although two (even three) certain political parties claim to be fighting for the rule of law, their actions shout otherwise. Anyway, this is all I will write about on the issue, since the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article and not our personal opinions on the matter. - (Eduardm (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC))
 * The action of the president to take sides calling those in the street my Romanians has been criticized for instance by Liviu Antonesei by saying Mr President, I'm not one of your Romanians. The president has to be president for all Romanians, not just for those in the street. He tried to confiscate the street protests for his battle with PSD.--82.137.9.242 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your unverifiable personal interpretation that he "tried to confiscate the street protests for his battle with PSD" is not relevant to Wikipedia. According to the President of Romania article, the president is required to swear that he will defend democracy—in the absence of reliable sources suggesting otherwise, it shouldn't be to surprising that he supports those using their democratic rights to protest the corruption of democratic institutions.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, did you just used a biased comment and your own personal interpretation to criticize someone else for using a personal interpretation? Talk about fallacies... Here's another personal interpretation: "The presidency is a corrupted and manipulated structure which no longer serves the people, but polarized political interest, and its representative had ulterior motives for siding with the protesters and actively participating in the protest. Despite being a faux pas for any self respecting president, his actions are not only morally questionable, but also might fall under the scrutiny of the law." Don't say I believe it, just making a point. Say I publish this - does it make it a source for wikipedia? You talk about manipulation and yet you guys are doing it to yourselves everyday. :( Seth Lex (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. There - simple. If basic logic is so difficult for you to grasp, read the hundreds of pages dedicated to explain it.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsorced material
Hello.
 * I removed unsourced material on 9 February, but re-added it that day.
 * I removed unsourced material on 10 February, but re-added it that day.

This is a problem. Unsourced material can't be kept on Wikipedia. Sources must be provided, or it's simply speculation.--200.223.199.146 (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing?
Are these protests really ongoing? I haven't heard anything about them for awhile. Charles Essie (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Clearly they are ongoing. Charles Essie (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Protest against corruption - Bucharest 2017 - Arcul de Triumf - 2.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2017 Romanian protest - banner (1).jpg