Week 18: France’s gilets jaunes target luxury shops and restaurant in protests - Polidicks

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/16/gilets-jaunes-target-luxury-shops-restaurant-paris-protests An 18th weekend of gilets jaunes protests erupted once more into violence and looting on Saturday as masked demonstrators smashed their way into luxury stores on the Champs-Élysées and destroyed one of the street’s most celebrated restaurants. The Hugo Boss and Nespresso stores were among those targeted as well as the chic Le Fouquet’s restaurant, popular with the wealthy and powerful. Former president Nicolas Sarkozy was criticised for holding his election victory party at Le Fouquet’s in 2007, leading to him being seen as out of touch with ordinary people before even taking office. As well as smashing luxury store fronts, protesters on the Champs-Élysées attacked police and gendarmerie vehicles. By midday, the prefecture said police had arrested 44 people and estimated there were up to 8,000 gilets jaunes demonstrating in the city.

Fouquet's fire now argued to have been started by flaming tear gas canister - develloping , I'll get back to this thread if new evidence surfaces. For now, there's no conclusive footage that I know of on what started the fire Police setup was made harder by the four separate marches on the same day, with the yellow vest march taking up most of the manpower

I don't really support destruction of property in protests like this but at least destroying luxury brand stores is better than destroying mom and pop stores and timeless pieces of art, they are putting out a clear message by doing the former.

Fouquet's brasserie was founded in 1899 by Louis Fouquet. Since 1990, the main room is listed as a historical French monument (Inventaire des Monuments Historiques). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouquet's I doubt destruction of property will do the protesters's cause any good.

If a so-called monument historique discriminates entrance based on whether or not you look like a bougie you won't see me mourn its loss. Maybe it's time we hold that title to a higher standard.

I don't think so, specifically targeting luxury stores and rich restaurants does send a much more powerful message than looting regular stores at random. It fits the movement's message, its contestation of the hegemony of wealth. Don't worry though, the Fouquet's will manage to recover without hurdle. The wealthy will be able to waste their tax-evasion euros on overpriced menus in time, and this so-called "historical monument" will be restored for them (and only them) to enjoy. Those enterprises can take it, they will recover, unlike mom and pop shops. I don't pity them.

I honestly fail to see what having a dress code means when it comes to historical value.

You don't think that access to a historical monument shouldn't be discriminatory? Here I thought that our historical monuments belonged to the people, not to private entities to do as they please.

That's not even close to what I said lol.

Tl;dr : This movement overstayed it's welcome, has devolved into violence, and i'd rather fight against actual tyranny, and fight the worst enemy of mankind ever created/faced : Climate change. Yeah, you guys are praising destruction of property on the sole basis that "It's rich dudes so it's okay" Well, what about that guy who had his newspaper kiosk burnt to the ground? The dude has no job now, because some assholes decided to burn it. Or all those people who work at the various vandalized stores. What did they do to deserve it? Like one of the "gilet jaune" that went on TV said, are they only collateral? That's it? What about all of those who wanted to break into L'Arc-de-Triomphe again? What if they actually managed to go there? How does any of this violence make their claim more valid? And when will they actually stop? Because at this point, they show no sign of stopping for anything. Sorry if i'm cynical, but i'm pretty sure they will go as long as they feel like, and when the gov will give them stuff, they'll ask for more, cause they feel like they're making history and should get everything and more. Especially since, at the same time, there was "La Marche du siècle" or "Century's march" but nobody's talking about that now Cause it got drowned by all the violence that happened. Fighting for the actual future of Mankind and the Earth. (it's protest to make the government take action against climate change, a complement to a huge law suit against the gov for "inaction toward climate change") Look at the state of the world and where we stand RIGHT NOW as French. Look at the United States, look at the middle east, look at China. Look everywhere else and ask yourself "Are we really fighting the right fight" Where's all of that energy to defend "liberty" or to fight "wealth inequality" when people suffer everywhere else 'cause they have no real liberty or rights? While people here are fighting for more, people in America are fighting to keep their rights. The UK is going trough a crisis because peoples in suits though leaving the union would fix every problem they had. The rise of White Nationalism, Alt-Right way of thinking, xenophobia, Islamophobia and all the rest. Things that get people killed. Women are fighting to regain their rights in the Middle east. And get arrested for it. EVERYONE is oppressed in China. There's literal concentration camps there. Or all those countries starving because of climate change. Or the wars that are going on currently, displacing a huge population. There's way better fight, and better hills to die on.

And what you said wasn't close to being related to Scarabix's point. A historical monument doesn't deserve to be called as such if its access is exclusively restricted to a tiny elite. There isn't much to mourn when practically nobody were allowed to see it beforehand anyway.

My point was And you were right to call me out on the wording. Monument historique come in two statuses : inscrit and classé. Fouquet's is inscrit, which means it only has regional relevance. I'm from around here and I haven't heard a word from Fouquet's. It might sound dishonest to dismiss the cultural relevance of something just because I ignore what's in these walls, but if I'm not let in on why I'm supposed to care, the title alone falls flat on its face.

Unless I'm missing something here, what makes this place "restricted to a tiny elite"? As far as I can tell, I could book a table (if it wasn't looted anyway) and probably cough up the money for a menu if I cared that much for French cuisine. It's also completely besides the point, because, you know, things that are restricted in access now won't necessarily be in the future. Does the Queen's residence here in Denmark lose all historical worth since not everyone can go there? Of course it doesn't, and burning it down now wouldn't preserve it for a future where Denmark perhaps isn't a constitutional monarchy. You won't see me arguing that places of historical significance shouldn't be open to the public, but A) it seems to be, since you can seemingly book a table and go there and B) the historical worth of something isn't determined by access to it today.

Didn't see anyone here praising any of that. Nor did I see anyone say this. Because you think the government has made meaningful concessions so far? Only things that come to mind was the minimum wage "increase" (which actually wasn't anything remotely close to that when you read the fine print) and the whole great debate sham that's been set up in bad faith by the gov since the beginning. So far I don't see any reason for them to back down. Then blame the media for not focusing on that instead? They are the ones who pick and choose the topics to cover. Besides, there is coverage on the march. I saw a significant segment on it on France 5, they had a couple high schooler protesters on. To oppose those two protests only serves to divide. They're not fundamentally incompatible. The fuck does any of that have to do with protest happening in France? What are you even arguing? That Frenchman should go to the US, to the UK, or to China to protest on their behalf? Instead of protesting to better our own nation? Doing so would only be used as ammunition by their opposition to cry at foreign influence. We have no legitimacy to directly oppose foreign countries' internal matters. That has to come from within. And that is incompatible with Gilets Jaunes revendications... How? This post is just a giant fallacy of relative privacy. You say that you think the fight against climate change is the most important issue of our century (and it is), but how do you expect us to win this fight without addressing this chokehold that private interests - many of whom huge contributors to climate change - hold on our governments? Without enforcing proper distribution of wealth? The banks that had their storefront smashed in on Saturday are the same companies that got their headquarters blockaded by eco-concerned high-schoolers for financing huge ecologically irresponsible endeavours. There is evidently common ground between the two movements. I don't understand why you'd insist on opposing the two.

Hmmm... Nah, you just said that you don't care that property got damaged and that it send a powerful message cause the guys are rich, sorry no praising only that it's something useful my bad eh Whatever you say. Because you think the government has made meaningful concessions so far? Only things that come to mind was the minimum wage "increase" (which actually wasn't anything remotely close to that when you read the fine print) and the whole great debate sham that's been set up in bad faith by the gov since the beginning. So far I don't see any reason for them to back down. "Government did not do exactly what i expect therefore what they are doing is a sham." What did you expect, a straight 200€ raise for everyone In the span of 2 months? Just like that? They literally organized something never seen before to try and find solutions and you keep calling it a sham everytime it's brought up in these threads. Because you feel like it is. Even though it's still not finished. Most of the stuff they ask for are pipe dreams that would span multiple presidents to be implemented. And the other are just straight up : "Remove" homeless, make jobs, reduce gas prices, and all those stuff that everybody want, but nobody has any actual solution. Politics is not magic, you can't just do stuff immediately without consequence. Then blame the media for not focusing on that instead? They are the ones who pick and choose the topics to cover. Besides, there is coverage on the march. I saw a significant segment on it on France 5, they had a couple high schooler protesters on. To oppose those two protests only serves to divide. They're not fundamentally incompatible. Hmmmm, the media is covering violence and one of the biggest case of vandalism since the start of these riots? Weird huh I'm comparing those two protests cause one is a peaceful march, with a clear goal. And the other is a muddled mess, with no real organization, things burning, stores getting ruined and stuff getting stolen. I may be biased, but i'm more inclined to support the first one ehh. I'm opposing them cause one has always violence in it. Which is obviously never the right way. One has made CLEAR action, like SUING the government. One has made 18 protests and everyone is saying different things. If you can't understand why i don't want the two lumped together, i can't do anything for you. And for the rest, what is enlisting in humanitarian aid organization. What is raising up awareness of things going down in the world. Yeah sure, can't really protest in the US or China. But there's a lot people could do today to help even a small percentage of the people that need it. Those organizations would LOVE to have that much energy put into them. Also: This post is just a giant fallacy of relative privation*. Oh, thinking that this protest (which half of the population, and growing, want it to end) is misplaced and we should look outside out little bubble is a fallacy, sure. Call it what you want. I sorry that I'm pretty happy to live in a country where we have pretty much everything already. I just don't believe that they're currently doing anything remotely useful right now beside breaking stuff and should rather use that energy someplace else. Also, to clear things up : I'm AGAINST the Gillet Jaune, but that doesn't mean that I find EVERYTHING in what they ask bad. If they followed the rules i wouldn't say that it should end. Sadly this is not the case. And MAYBE, just maybe, if they waited a little to let the gov do what they have to do, people would not be tired of it. Protest when it matters, stop when your point is heard. If nothing's done, restart protest. Protesting just to protest is useless. But anyway, I don't even know why I try to argue, since you are obviously really biased toward the movement, and won't change your mind. And I won't change my mind either that they are a bad example of a proper protest. I'll support them when they'll stop breaking stuff. End of story

You only would if you were interested in wasting significant savings on overpriced food. If you actually care for French cuisine, there are plenty of incredibly cheaper options to choose from, especially if you actually care for French cuisine, as in, what the French actually eat traditionally, and not gastronomy, which is way more niche and specific, (and no doubt good) but not very authentic, which falls flat if you're going there for the historical aspects. Most of the price tag from menus like the Fouquet's come from the prestige associated with the brand, much like any luxury product. It's why former president Sarkozy was criticized for going there on the day of his election, it came off as vain, and reinforced his reputation of being a superficial person. But that's besides the point anyway. If you want to claim your asset is of historical significance and should receive the adequate protections, then it should be open to the public in return for its use of public services. That means you shouldn't have to pay much more for access to it than is needed for its maintenance (and also give reductions/free access to seniors and students, as do any historical monument worth its salt). Paying outrageous amounts for a menu just to be able to see the inside of the building doesn't pass muster. Yes, historical worth isn't based on whether one has access to something. I still wouldn't call something that doesn't satisfy that standard a historical monument, but I digress. This is ultimately irrelevant to the subject at hand, since as Scarabix pointed out, as far as we know it's only listed as a regional monument for its old age, which basically tons of old Parisian buildings are, and the protected part of the Fouquet's was unaffected by the looting anyway.

I really admire how often the French protest and revolutionize. It's something America should work on.

Dismissing something's historical value out of pocket because it's privately owned is completely fucking ridiculous.

Maybe without the wanton property damage, though.

Fighting for the rights of the oppressed and forgotten is one thing, but if you storm the Presidental Palace and so much as touch a fancy salt shaker you should kiss your human rights goodbye tbh.

I do not condone this sort of violence and honestly do not understand people that rate winner on this post. "Yes, we will show these riche burgeoisy fucks how it's done by torching shops in the Champs-Elysées and putting officers at risk" The true essence of the Gilet Jaune movement is well founded and valid but the movement has become so vast and there are other groups that started picking up jackets and destroying property. It's way overboard. Also, like it was mentioned in this thread, the Champs-Elysées are a historical site. I absolutely understand the frustration of rising petrol prices and that the governement does not seem to give a shit about low income families, still french people always go way overboard with protests.

the class of people who's shops and restaurant are being targeted in this article are the same ones who caused and let climate change get as bad as it is the rich actively benefit from destroying the environment for its resources, just as they benefit from underpaying and exploiting workers but guess who gives platform and publicity to these people? outlets like fox (and in the uk the sun, daily mail, etc), owned by Rupert Murdoch and various other billionaires. they stand to gain by demonising immigrants as it gives the ruling class people to oppress and exploit easier without war england would lose its 4th biggest export china is a dictatorship in the pockets of rich business owners practically all of these points apply to these protests. the rich has fucked over the working class so much yet the working class still pay the price of it.

Yeah, but they go bonkers on the most minor shit.

Holy shit these guys are still going? I would've thought they would've lost interest after like 2 weeks or so. Do they just go to work and they go riot when they get home?

Mostly because the government hasn't really listened to them. If it doesn't listen, steadily escalate until it does.

If there were no property damage, people would complain about protesters preventing people from getting to work instead, or making shops lose customers, or inattentive drivers crashing at roundabout blockades (which they get blamed for already). Any remotely efficient protest will lead to financial losses and inconveniences for third parties. Whether it's directly through property damage or indirectly through blockades or strikes doesn't really make much of a difference in terms of resulting losses. If waving a sign on a sidewalk was sufficient to put pressure on the people in power and get meaningful change, none of this would happen in the first place. But that's not how the real world works, and French protestors understand this. If you were talking about harming actual people, though, then you'd have a point. But that goes both ways, and you'll have to blame police which do a terrible job at that as well. Personal harm should be avoided at all costs, and should be denounced when it happens. But financial harm, in one form or another, is inevitable in large scale protests and a prerequisite for the government to care.

Cultural difference but in America protestors get bored after a while (see: Occupy wallstreet)

It's scheduled on Saturdays, most people don't work on those days. And that's why their protests practically never lead to anything. Regularity and stubbornness are key. Even in France, many protests end up fizzling out. That's exactly what the government is counting on with the GJ.

what are the demands of GJ? Like from what I understand this started with a fuel tax?

I almost made a point of not replying to this post because it's just so unfathomably stupid and obviously disinformed. If you want to be like the british and let a lofty upper class cuck you out of all your labor rights, move there and shut up. You were already there during El Khomri protests telling us to put up and shut up. Is there any right you don't want us to give up in sucking up to the very people who affirm their right to mass scale pollution? Funny thing is, the European council has redlit the elkhomri labour laws as abusive business practice last week. La loi El Khomri censurée par l'Europe pretty wild huh? It's almost like you've been spoon-fed a bourgeois fable about people who can barely make two ends meet in reality. Maybe it's time for you to stop eating the koolaid formula out the bag. I don't mean to clown on you for zinger points, I just hope you stop putting the little people back to back when you actively ignore the bigger picture, regardless of what you've been taught. Income and carbon output are also intrinsically linked, I'll start vouching for ecological alternatives to my current lifestyle when I start being paid a decent salary. Hard to vote with your wallet when you're poor as dirt you know.