8 ms·

French Court bans far-right leader Marine Le Pen from running for office

rsynnott 2y ago
> which has seen her hit with a four-year prison sentence, to be served with an electronic tag, and a five-year ban from running for office Arguably burying the lede a bit. Meanwhile, with absolutely no apparent irony: > "More and more European capitals are going down the path of violating democratic norms," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in a briefing when asked about the decision. I hadn't realised it was a democratic norm to just allow politicians to do random crimes because they're so special. Also: > Matteo Salvini, Italy's far-right deputy Prime Minister said that the ruling against le Pen was a "declaration of war" by the EU that would not dissuade her far-right allies. In which the EU somehow controls the French courts.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  > I hadn't realised it was a democratic norm to just allow politicians to do random crimes because they're so special. You must've not been paying attention to the US ... I'm not even talking about the president. Lower level things like Bridgegate [1] resulted in everybody involved receiving no punishment (eventually). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    Ah, well, that's America for you, they've always been weirdly okay with criminal politicians. But more broadly, no, it is not a democratic norm that politicians should be allowed to commit multi-million euro frauds with no consequences.
    - quitit 2y ago
      Seems like this is the true meaning of "american exceptionalism".
    - Agingcoder 2y ago
      It used to be the case in France too. For a truly incredible version of it see the helicopter affair : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Toubon?wprov=sfti1#Controversial_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Toubon?wprov=sfti1#Con... In many ways, sending high profile politicians to prison or semi-prison ( Sarkozy, now Le Pen ) is new.
  - HWR_14 2y ago
    Bridgegate resulted in no punishment, but not because politicians are special. It was because of their lawyers attacked legal nuances of their specific convictions.
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
      In a sense, I guess, but the legal nuances are part of a general pattern that politicians are special. The Supreme Court has essentially legalized political bribery, for example; after McDonnell v. US you can accept bribes for setting up a meeting or scheduling an event, and after Snyder v. US you can accept bribes for anything at all so long as you do the thing you're being bribed for first. (These cases were based, yes, on legal nuances of the specific convictions: McDonnell's actions didn't constitute an "official act", and Snyder's after-the-fact bribes were technically not bribes at all but "gratuities".)
      - HWR_14 2y ago
        These legal nuances don't seem like that. The court held that creating a traffic jam between states did not violate a civil right to travel between states (because that right does not exist). And that it wasn't fraud because it just made people's lives miserable as opposed to depriving them of something physical. What crime do you think was committed?
        hedora 2y ago
        Intentionally interfering with emergency services, for one. Try blocking a major bridge in your home town for a day and see what crimes you're charged with.
        transcriptase 2y ago
        In Canada as long as it’s in support of a sufficiently left-wing cause you won’t be charged with anything.
        SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
- throwawaymanbot 2y ago
  [dead]
- quitit 2y ago
  > "More and more European capitals are going down the path of violating democratic norms," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in a briefing when asked about the decision. Sounds like they're upset that their investment just went up in smoke.
- lenkite 2y ago
  If Marine Le Pen was found guilty of embezzlement of using EU funds, so should a swath of other politicians. So should the prime EU candidate for embezzlement: Ursula von der Leyen! She awarded expensive contracts to many external consultants without any bidding. A formal parliamentary inquiry even found evidence of nepotism but no charges were brought since she is the champion poster girl of the EU bureaucracy. The EU has fully lost the right to lecture the third world about democracy since it has now transmogrified itself to a self perpetuating, corrupt cabal. There will always be something propped up and selectively applied to cancel any so-called right-wing politicians who have a favored chance of winning elections. All anti-establishment politicians are auto-applied the "right wing" category. They will also be labelled Russia-bot/Putin-bot for the icing on the cake.
  - grimblee 2y ago
    Though in this case its not "so called right wing" but straigth up neo-nazis, so good ridance. Give me a thousand corrupt liberal over even one fascist in power, thanks.
  - zolbrek 2y ago
    I would very much like to know the contents of VdL's Signal messages with Pfizer's CEO for one. I don't think we ever got any transparency on that particular issue.
- scotty79 2y ago
  Welcome to the world as seen from the eyes of decades long russian psyop target.
lloeki 2y ago
An important detail: in France a "first instance" ruling can be appealed ("second instance"), and appealing is suspensive. That is whatever sentence has been decided gets temporarily suspended until the appeal concludes. In this case the five year ineligibility sentence has a provisional execution clause, which means appeal will not be suspensive and the sentence must be carried out immediately. This last part is the one creating a heated debate around the 2027 presidential election.
- captainbland 2y ago
  It does seem like it would be a severe constitutional loophole to allow somebody who is appealing a sentence to run for president and then just pardon (which is also a presidential power in France) themselves, even though they've already been found guilty in a court.
  - karpatic 2y ago
    If a jury can rule against the law, why shouldnt the voters.
    - TimorousBestie 2y ago
      Because juries (in some countries, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror's_oath https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror's_oath ; however, includes France) take an oath to examine the evidence presented and judge impartially to the best of their ability. Voters don’t.
      - karpatic 2y ago
        At the presidential level I would say the law should follow the (will of the) people and not the other way around. After all, those irrational voters are the ones who created the law in the first place, in so many ways. As an aside, the more I think about someone being able to truly be impartial, the more I giggle. Myself included, of course.
  - Agingcoder 2y ago
stefantalpalaru 2y ago
[dead]
Georgelemental 2y ago
[flagged]
- skulk 2y ago
  Do you disagree with the facts in the case, or with the idea of prosecuting politicians for any crimes at all?
  - Georgelemental 2y ago
    I disagree with preventing the people from voting for who they want to vote for. Even if she had been convicted of cold-blooded murder, that should not override democracy.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - kashunstva 2y ago
      > Even if she had been convicted of cold-blooded murder… Setting aside the moral issues around murder, which give most humans at least a moment’s pause, wouldn’t it be awfully difficult to govern effectively from a prison cell?
      - Georgelemental 2y ago
        > which give most humans at least a moment’s pause Yes, which is why a murderous candidate would likely lose a democratic election!
    - outer_web 2y ago
      It's not 'overriding democracy' except by your straw definition.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
greatgib 2y ago
And for the one that will shout conspiracy, the main part of the sentence is jail time even if she will do it at home... And losing your citizen rights (voting and be elected) is actually quite common with some crimes, and not specific to her case. I think I saw that at least 2000 other persons were sentenced to it the previous year. And if you ask me, the sentence is light. For me, embezzlement of public funds or corruption is great treason and so should result in execution in public place to set an example. Because of this kind of person manage to get enough power, the will abuse if it to protect and serve only themselves like Trump and Poutine...
sieve 2y ago
In last year's national elections, two people that the Indian government has jailed under various national security and terrorism laws were allowed to participate and actually won their respective contests.[1][2] While they were allowed to take their oaths in parliament, they continue to be in jail due to the charges against them. The trials will take place, eventually. Or some other accommodation will be arrived at. After all, 50m court cases are pending in Indian courts at various levels and these things take their own sweet time. The point is, people were allowed to vote for their preferred candidate in elections in spite of the security apparatus of the State considering them to be terrorists. This is democracy. If prominent politicians in Europe are prevented from standing for elections while the European Union lectures the developing world about the lack of "democracy," why should anyone take these clowns seriously? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Abdul_Rashid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Abdul_Rashid [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritpal_Singh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritpal_Singh
- penultimatename 2y ago
  These are not similar situations. In your example, they were merely charged and arrested. At that point, nothing has been proven. The case in question has already resulted in a conviction. It’s a pretty clear cut case of someone misusing governmental funds to further their political aspirations. Another way of phrasing that is corruption. Is a role of the courts not to prevent this? Is allowing proven corrupt individuals to hold office positive for a democratic institution?
  - sieve 2y ago
    Anyone serious about democracy should think hard before they prevent people from standing for elections. The courts might think they are doing their job, but disqualifying a major political figure from standing for elections based on charges related to 10-20 year old cases gives a very specific message, whether you like it or not.
    - penultimatename 2y ago
      The last instances of impropriety took place seven years before charges were brought. I think that’s in a reasonable time period considering it’s was a conspiracy and had to be investigated. Government officials should be held to a higher standard, let alone a minimum standard of “don’t steal from the people.” A few years of house arrest and a suspension from politics is a light sentence when one violates that bare minimum standard.

> which has seen her hit with a four-year prison sentence, to be served with an electronic tag, and a five-year ban from running for office Arguably burying the lede a bit. Meanwhile, with absolutely no apparent irony: > "More and more European capitals are going down the path of violating democratic norms," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in a briefing when asked about the decision. I hadn't realised it was a democratic norm to just allow politicians to do random crimes because they're so special. Also: > Matteo Salvini, Italy's far-right deputy Prime Minister said that the ruling against le Pen was a "declaration of war" by the EU that would not dissuade her far-right allies. In which the EU somehow controls the French courts.

lesuorac 2y ago
> I hadn't realised it was a democratic norm to just allow politicians to do random crimes because they're so special. You must've not been paying attention to the US ... I'm not even talking about the president. Lower level things like Bridgegate [1] resulted in everybody involved receiving no punishment (eventually). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal
- rsynnott 2y ago
  Ah, well, that's America for you, they've always been weirdly okay with criminal politicians. But more broadly, no, it is not a democratic norm that politicians should be allowed to commit multi-million euro frauds with no consequences.
  - quitit 2y ago
    Seems like this is the true meaning of "american exceptionalism".
  - Agingcoder 2y ago
    It used to be the case in France too. For a truly incredible version of it see the helicopter affair : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Toubon?wprov=sfti1#Controversial_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Toubon?wprov=sfti1#Con... In many ways, sending high profile politicians to prison or semi-prison ( Sarkozy, now Le Pen ) is new.
- HWR_14 2y ago
  Bridgegate resulted in no punishment, but not because politicians are special. It was because of their lawyers attacked legal nuances of their specific convictions.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    In a sense, I guess, but the legal nuances are part of a general pattern that politicians are special. The Supreme Court has essentially legalized political bribery, for example; after McDonnell v. US you can accept bribes for setting up a meeting or scheduling an event, and after Snyder v. US you can accept bribes for anything at all so long as you do the thing you're being bribed for first. (These cases were based, yes, on legal nuances of the specific convictions: McDonnell's actions didn't constitute an "official act", and Snyder's after-the-fact bribes were technically not bribes at all but "gratuities".)
    - HWR_14 2y ago
      These legal nuances don't seem like that. The court held that creating a traffic jam between states did not violate a civil right to travel between states (because that right does not exist). And that it wasn't fraud because it just made people's lives miserable as opposed to depriving them of something physical. What crime do you think was committed?
      - hedora 2y ago
        Intentionally interfering with emergency services, for one. Try blocking a major bridge in your home town for a day and see what crimes you're charged with.
        transcriptase 2y ago
        In Canada as long as it’s in support of a sufficiently left-wing cause you won’t be charged with anything.
      - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
throwawaymanbot 2y ago
[dead]
quitit 2y ago
> "More and more European capitals are going down the path of violating democratic norms," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in a briefing when asked about the decision. Sounds like they're upset that their investment just went up in smoke.
lenkite 2y ago
If Marine Le Pen was found guilty of embezzlement of using EU funds, so should a swath of other politicians. So should the prime EU candidate for embezzlement: Ursula von der Leyen! She awarded expensive contracts to many external consultants without any bidding. A formal parliamentary inquiry even found evidence of nepotism but no charges were brought since she is the champion poster girl of the EU bureaucracy. The EU has fully lost the right to lecture the third world about democracy since it has now transmogrified itself to a self perpetuating, corrupt cabal. There will always be something propped up and selectively applied to cancel any so-called right-wing politicians who have a favored chance of winning elections. All anti-establishment politicians are auto-applied the "right wing" category. They will also be labelled Russia-bot/Putin-bot for the icing on the cake.
- grimblee 2y ago
  Though in this case its not "so called right wing" but straigth up neo-nazis, so good ridance. Give me a thousand corrupt liberal over even one fascist in power, thanks.
- zolbrek 2y ago
  I would very much like to know the contents of VdL's Signal messages with Pfizer's CEO for one. I don't think we ever got any transparency on that particular issue.
scotty79 2y ago
Welcome to the world as seen from the eyes of decades long russian psyop target.

lloeki 2y ago

An important detail: in France a "first instance" ruling can be appealed ("second instance"), and appealing is suspensive. That is whatever sentence has been decided gets temporarily suspended until the appeal concludes. In this case the five year ineligibility sentence has a provisional execution clause, which means appeal will not be suspensive and the sentence must be carried out immediately. This last part is the one creating a heated debate around the 2027 presidential election.

captainbland 2y ago
It does seem like it would be a severe constitutional loophole to allow somebody who is appealing a sentence to run for president and then just pardon (which is also a presidential power in France) themselves, even though they've already been found guilty in a court.
- karpatic 2y ago
  If a jury can rule against the law, why shouldnt the voters.
  - TimorousBestie 2y ago
    Because juries (in some countries, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror's_oath https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror's_oath ; however, includes France) take an oath to examine the evidence presented and judge impartially to the best of their ability. Voters don’t.
    - karpatic 2y ago
      At the presidential level I would say the law should follow the (will of the) people and not the other way around. After all, those irrational voters are the ones who created the law in the first place, in so many ways. As an aside, the more I think about someone being able to truly be impartial, the more I giggle. Myself included, of course.
- Agingcoder 2y ago

stefantalpalaru 2y ago

[dead]

Georgelemental 2y ago

[flagged]

skulk 2y ago
Do you disagree with the facts in the case, or with the idea of prosecuting politicians for any crimes at all?
- Georgelemental 2y ago
  I disagree with preventing the people from voting for who they want to vote for. Even if she had been convicted of cold-blooded murder, that should not override democracy.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - kashunstva 2y ago
    > Even if she had been convicted of cold-blooded murder… Setting aside the moral issues around murder, which give most humans at least a moment’s pause, wouldn’t it be awfully difficult to govern effectively from a prison cell?
    - Georgelemental 2y ago
      > which give most humans at least a moment’s pause Yes, which is why a murderous candidate would likely lose a democratic election!
  - outer_web 2y ago
    It's not 'overriding democracy' except by your straw definition.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

greatgib 2y ago

And for the one that will shout conspiracy, the main part of the sentence is jail time even if she will do it at home... And losing your citizen rights (voting and be elected) is actually quite common with some crimes, and not specific to her case. I think I saw that at least 2000 other persons were sentenced to it the previous year. And if you ask me, the sentence is light. For me, embezzlement of public funds or corruption is great treason and so should result in execution in public place to set an example. Because of this kind of person manage to get enough power, the will abuse if it to protect and serve only themselves like Trump and Poutine...

sieve 2y ago

In last year's national elections, two people that the Indian government has jailed under various national security and terrorism laws were allowed to participate and actually won their respective contests.[1][2] While they were allowed to take their oaths in parliament, they continue to be in jail due to the charges against them. The trials will take place, eventually. Or some other accommodation will be arrived at. After all, 50m court cases are pending in Indian courts at various levels and these things take their own sweet time. The point is, people were allowed to vote for their preferred candidate in elections in spite of the security apparatus of the State considering them to be terrorists. This is democracy. If prominent politicians in Europe are prevented from standing for elections while the European Union lectures the developing world about the lack of "democracy," why should anyone take these clowns seriously? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Abdul_Rashid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Abdul_Rashid [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritpal_Singh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritpal_Singh

penultimatename 2y ago
These are not similar situations. In your example, they were merely charged and arrested. At that point, nothing has been proven. The case in question has already resulted in a conviction. It’s a pretty clear cut case of someone misusing governmental funds to further their political aspirations. Another way of phrasing that is corruption. Is a role of the courts not to prevent this? Is allowing proven corrupt individuals to hold office positive for a democratic institution?
- sieve 2y ago
  Anyone serious about democracy should think hard before they prevent people from standing for elections. The courts might think they are doing their job, but disqualifying a major political figure from standing for elections based on charges related to 10-20 year old cases gives a very specific message, whether you like it or not.
  - penultimatename 2y ago
    The last instances of impropriety took place seven years before charges were brought. I think that’s in a reasonable time period considering it’s was a conspiracy and had to be investigated. Government officials should be held to a higher standard, let alone a minimum standard of “don’t steal from the people.” A few years of house arrest and a suspension from politics is a light sentence when one violates that bare minimum standard.