17 ms·

Marine Le Pen banned from running in 2027 and given four-year sentence

213 points by tlogan 2y ago

ehutch79 2y ago
Wait, so she's in prison of embezzlement? Are people claiming this is a fake charge, or are they saying that it's ok with them?
- tiahura 2y ago
  I think they’re saying that if voters want her, voters should be able to get her.
  - petre 2y ago
    Then they'll have to wait until she has finished her sentence and in the mean time think about it.
zkmon 2y ago
This kind of punishing a politician, though correct legally, would only backfire on the party in power. This was seen in many cases throughout the history of democracies, including Trump's case. No wonder that, politicians happily get into jail as it would get them sympathy credit. And people are not entirely wrong in giving that sympathy.
- randomNumber7 2y ago
  If you go for the king you need to kill him.
iteratethis 2y ago
The authoritarian right's playbook is simple but brilliantly effective. The roadmap ends with a strong man dictator that has removed any and all hurdles towards absolute power so that the agenda can be implemented without compromise. Any roadblock towards this is called "anti-democratic" which is the ultimate irony as those preaching it fully support the end of democracy. The US is now an inch away from being a dictatorship as the last line of defense, judges, are under severe attack. They're targeted to be impeached, called "radical left" and Musk is throwing money at flipping votes. This process is happening in several countries and it's baffling how many people eat it up, including in these comments. I suppose it is true that democracy is fragile and that with a few nudges people vote to dismantle it themselves.
- quickthrowman 2y ago
  > This process is happening in several countries and it's baffling how many people eat it up, including in these comments. All of the people who remember the last round of fascism in the 1920s to 1940s are dying off, only those of us who never experienced it are left.
Georgelemental 2y ago
Far-left politician and fierce Le Pen critic Jean-Luc Mélenchon condemned the decision: https://twitter.com/JLMelenchon/status/1906673335796146412 https://twitter.com/JLMelenchon/status/1906673335796146412 (His party is under investigation for the same crime. The Prime Minister’s party was also investigated, got off with a simple fine)
- StopDisinfo910 2y ago
  > The Prime Minister’s party was also investigated, got off with a simple fine Untrue. Seven people were condemned to jail time and made ineligible in the MoDem trial.
- simgt 2y ago
  It's hardly a condemnation... They reiterated that they consider the accusations to be very serious, and are not casting doubt or whether the decision is unjust. They do emit doubts about the timing of it, but for political gains. Mélenchon's strategy has been for a while to get voters from both the ghettos and from Le Pen's pool of supposedly unhappy but not racist voters. That's again what they're doing here: painting themselves as more respectable [0] than the far right while shitting on Macron / the current establishment. [0] As opposed to the far right, their ranks aren't filled with people who have been convicted for antisemitism, and the sheer amount of fraud cases in there also speaks for itself...
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > They do emit doubts about the timing of it What's wrong with the timing? Isn't the election in 2027?
    - Georgelemental 2y ago
      It makes her ineligible for that election
      - mmooss 2y ago
rdm_blackhole 2y ago
As a French person, I can say that this situation will unfold the same way as it did for Trump. Jordan Bardella is going to take her place and most likely win in 2027. He is well liked by people, he is young and he doesn't have a political legacy. In some polls, they floated his name as a replacement if she was unable to run and he polled 10% + ahead of all his rivals in the first round giving him a very good chance to actually win the run off. This is exactly how Macron won in 2017 (no political baggage, young) and despite his vows to crush the far right he never managed to do it. Even worse, the far right is far stronger now than it was 8 years ago. The justice system gave the far right a martyr and that is something that they will use for campaigning.
- StopDisinfo910 2y ago
  > Jordan Bardella is going to take her place and most likely win in 2027. He is well liked by people, he is young and he doesn't have a political legacy. Considering Bardella past debating performance, this seems highly unlikely to me. The RN always polls high when they can stay silent and represent an easy way to express opposition. Sadly, this doesn’t remain possible during the presidential election where they actually have to defend a program. Bardella will most likely be skewered alive by any competent opponent if he is the appointed candidate and manages to pass the first round (two big if).
  - rdm_blackhole 2y ago
    > this seems highly unlikely to me. I disagree for many reasons. 1) He led and won the EU elections by a wide margin. 2) Debates are no longer what tips the scale in the elections. Losing a debate is no longer the disqualifier that it once was. See the EU elections where the debates were terrible and not just because of Bardella. 3) This is a new world and Bardella is very good at campaigning on social media and has a very good reach with young people. Other parties besides LFI struggle to talk to people in general. 4) The RN is pretty much leading in all social categories except for retired people who so far had stuck with Macron. That will change as France is bleeding out and needs cash and the current government is going to get it where it can, including from it's most fervent admirers, retired people. 5) Marine Le Pen being sidelined is actually a blessing in disguise. She has worked hard to change the name of the party, change it's image, change it's people, in order to make it more likeable and more modern and by all account she has succeeded. But there was one thing that always stuck, her name, which represent the past, when her dad ran the party. Now that she is out, the RN can embrace being "Le Pen" free and some people who did not want to vote for her on principle because of her family history could very well be inclined to support a young, fresh face with 0 political baggage/scandal. She is the sacrificial lamb, thrown to the wolves and in public they will lament it everywhere but come election time, her name will not be on any pamphlets and the final transformation phase of the party will be completed. 6) TINA (There is no alternative) The French political landscape is frozen in time with the same people doing the same race every 5 years. The right wing party is basically an appendage to Macron's party at this point, the Socialists are decimated, the other left wing parties will not unite behind JLM due to his controversial views. The center is going to be split by a civil war in order to decide who will inherit Macron's party as well as his legacy but whoever wins will also inherit the label "more of the same" which sunk Kamala Harris in the US. Zemmour is now seen as the troublemaker and stands no chance of winning so his supporters will most likely vote for Bardella in the run off. Bardella is the new kid on the block who will run for the first time and that will generate a lot of buzz, just like when Eric Zemmour ran in 2022. If we add the votes from all the "far right" parties: RN + Reconquete + NPA, their total is above 40% in the first round according to the latest polls, which is the highest it has ever been. > The RN always polls high when they can stay silent and represent an easy way to express opposition. I don't agree with the staying silent part. I think people know by now what the party represents. Less legal and illegal immigration, tougher on crime, better salaries, and so on as it has always been. That is why people vote for them. The rest is small potatoes in comparison. > Bardella will most likely be skewered alive by any competent opponent That remains to be seen. Macron won in 2017 just the same. He was not a politician, not a very good debater either and his political stance was murky at best. See the "Yes I am a socialist" bit on TV followed by another bit a while later "No, I am not a socialist" Novelty can be a good thing and I think the French people are ready for a change. But I guess we will know in two years from now. Please note that I am expressing my personal views on this issue based on what I have seen and heard from relatives living in France. I personally don't support any of the mainstream candidates so I don't really care who wins or loses.
mmooss 2y ago
Stop blaming the courts (and really, the legislature for making the law). Le Pen is the person responsible, as is her party: Don't commit crimes, don't make leaders of people who commit crimes, and you won't have problems. Yes, there is a potential for abuse, but eliminating the rule of law for political leaders is very dangerous. (Edit: You can't take a popular vote on whether someone - especially a political leader, and one in a populist movement - committed a crime.)
- wdr1 2y ago
  > Don't commit crimes, don't make leaders of people who commit crimes, and you won't have problems. Not to be disrespectful, but this is naive. In a perfect world only "real" crimes would be prosecuted. But almost every despot prosecuted their opponents by claiming they were criminals. Remember Nelson Mandela spent decades in prison as a criminal. The leaders of the KPD & SPD parties were both arrested as criminals during Nazi Germany. Putin has arrested many of his opponents, citing criminal behavior. Saying "don't commit crimes" overlooks that the "crimes" themselves may not be real.
  - 1659447091 2y ago
    I read the part >>don't make leaders of people who commit crimes, as covering that scenario . Arresting people for "crimes" of getting in your way to power, is a crime in and of itself - even if it is not on the books, so don't make leaders of them.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    It's not naive. I agree the world isn't perfect, but we have to operate with imperfect human systems - that's life. More imperfect is politicians with impunity for corruption - at least when they arrest someone, there is rule of law, it requires a trial (even a jury, if the defendant desires), etc. You are reaching far beyond France to South Africa's minority dictatorship and Nazi Germany for examples. The latter is a great example of political leaders with impunity. Can you provide any examples at all in modern democracies, at any level of government?
ein0p 2y ago
That's the third EU country to arrest or ban the top opposition candidate or party. Georgescu in Romania, Spartans party in Greece, Le Pen in France. You could even say fourth: head of Gagauzia region in Moldova has been arrested a few days ago. And that's before you consider the attempts to ban AfD in Germany. Is that "democracy"? Would it be "democracy" if, say, Trump jailed Vance's main opponent in 2028?
- bgnn 2y ago
  Romania is definitely political, but the rest of the decisions are due to independent courts. Nobody, including Le Pen, believes this is politically motivated. This will help her in the long run too.
  - guizmo 2y ago
    That is not what MLP is saying. She said that immediate application of the ineligibility sentence in particular is politically motivated. And even more precisely, that the judges expressed this political motivation explicitly through the use of MLP running in the presidential election as presenting a risk to public peace. I'm not claiming it is really in the deliberations as I'm yet to read those.
  - ein0p 2y ago
    We're seeing just how "independent" courts really are in the US at the moment. There's no reason to believe they're any more "independent" there, especially in Eastern Europe and Greece.
acidmath 2y ago
While yes, this is happening to someone many really don't like, the optics of this look very bad. And, for those who dislike this particular politician who might be celebrating now, this is much more so bad news than it is good news.
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  At the end of the day, when we select our leaders to represent us, we seem to have forgotten that a big part of it should be about about the ethics, principles, character, and judgement of the individual. If someone on "my side" was found guilty of embezzlement or fraud -- through due process in a court of law with sufficient evidence that there was no path of appeal -- then I have ZERO problems denouncing the individual and would celebrate their punishment. This is the fundamental problem with the left in the US: the standards for ethics, principles, judgement, and character are simply higher and the left will more readily fault candidates for even small lapses while the right has no such qualms.
  - acidmath 2y ago
    The whole 34 felony thing is not the one and only thing that cost the dems the election, but it's one of the major things. That, and the fine people hoax. They managed to float that one for a while. But: what goes up, must come down.
ldng 2y ago
They STOLE 4 millions for f-sake ! AND it's not even the first time; they got away easy until this time. They also have been frothing hard for decades about the leniency of the courts and how utterly honest they were compared to the others ... I guess its only relevant as long as they're not concerned. Incredible. The law has been applied fair and square. Period.
araes 2y ago
Maybe some of the EU folks know a greater amount, yet, where did this come from? Looking on WP, there's nothing... [1] Barely at article. Supposedly the European Anti-Fraud Office opened an investigation in Jan 2014. Never saw a mention in any of the elections. Figure Macron would have jumped on that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_assistants_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_assistants_affa... In 2017, the European Parliament demanded repayment from Le Pen of almost €340,000. Also, seems like it would been jumped on. [2] "Parliament's financial services deducted tens of thousands of euros from her (Le Pen's) MEP allowance before she left Brussels in 2017. Threatened with an enforceable recovery order, Le Pen eventually repaid €330,000 in July 2023." [2] [2] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2024/09/30/why-le-pen-and-26-other-far-right-party-members-are-standing-trial-in-paris-in-fake-eu-parliament-jobs-case_6727729_8.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2024/09/30/w... Then the Le Monde article gets to actual serious issues: "a preliminary investigation was opened in France in March 2015 for breach of trust." 'A judicial investigation was opened in December 2016 on charges of "breach of trust," "concealment of breach of trust," "organized gang fraud," "forgery and use of forgeries" and "undeclared labor."' "In December 2023, at the end of a nine-year investigation, the investigating judges called for the FN and 27 of its senior members and employees to be tried." [2] Except the Le Monde article is also just a Sept. 2024 article. Followed the French elections at least a little bit over the last half decade or so, and ... nothing. Read Le Monde at least a bit. Read France24 a bit. Not even a mention of Le Pen being the subject of a nine (9?) year investigation and repaying 300,000 already to the EU Parliament. She was under investigation for "organized gang fraud" during the last election? Seems like it came out of nowhere from the perspective of somebody in the US. Did this actually make the news regularly in France or the EU? Not much of a supporter or anything, 1000's of miles away, yet all the articles are so recent, and the coverage so nothing, makes me want my tinfoil hat for computer churn articles.
- StopDisinfo910 2y ago
  Yes, all of this is fairly well known in France and was commented ad nauseam during the past elections. No conspiracy here. You can look at the Wikipedia article references which link to a lot of different French newspapers with large readership. A few choices: 2015 - https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2015/03/12/le-fn-champion-du-cumul-de-fonctions-chez-ses-assistants-parlementaires_4592395_4355770.html https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2015/03/12/le-f... 2017 - https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.francetvinfo.fr%2Fpolitique%2Ffront-national%2Faffaire-des-assistants-fn-au-parlement-europeen%2Fle-parlement-europeen-estime-son-prejudice-potentiel-a-pres-de-5-millions-d-euros-dans-l-affaire-des-assistants-fn_2164260.html#federation=archive.wikiwix.com&tab=url https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=https%3A%2F... 2019 - https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2019/06/14/affaire-des-assistants-parlementaires-europeens-les-echanges-qui-accablent-le-rn_5476007_823448.html https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2019/06/14/affaire-...
waltercool 2y ago
[dead]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
refusingsalt 2y ago
[flagged]
rjtavares 2y ago
Not a fan of the immediate effect on part of the sentence (everything should be contingent on the result of the appeal process).
- freen 2y ago
  Well, it’s quite common in France, especially for the particular activities one was convicted of engaging in (barred from politics for embezzlement of political funds, not allowed to trade equities if convicted of insider trading, etc. ) and even more common if the convicted person shows defiance of the courts, lack of cooperation, etc. Make no mistake: this is completely standard and of LePen’s own doing. Anyone telling you otherwise is either at best completely ignorant of French jurisprudence and the factual details of the case, or, at worse, intentionally deceiving you.
- Spartan-S63 2y ago
  While not versed in French law or their view of personal liberties, from an American lens, this seems fine. Barring running from public office could be reversible on appeal and that stipulation isn’t irreversible—you could run after the ban is reversed—, so it’s not depriving you of something significant enough that that should rise to a level of stricter scrutiny. The prison sentence being suspended until appeals are exhausted also seems sane to me for a nonviolent crime. So, overall, it seems reasonable. The ban on a run isn’t infringing on fundamental rights in a way that is permanent and there’s no deprivation of liberty until appeals are exhausted.
- zdimension 2y ago
  There is a very real risk of political candidates committing political fraud, getting elected thanks to it, and putting pressure on the judiciary branch to lower their chances of getting arrested. We're seeing this exact process happen in real time in the US. Every modern country pretends that nobody is above the law and that bad people will get convicted and get sentences but in real life the government has power over this stuff. Making ineligibility sentences immediate is a way to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen.
  - 2y ago
ChocolateGod 2y ago
Not remotely a fan of Marine LePen or her politics, even if she's become more moderate in recent years, but this will make her a martyr and empower her. She can spend the next five years campaigning on how the establishment is trying to shut her down. These judges love own goals, no one should be barred from running for office of a country they're a citizen of. To me, it feels like overreach of un-elected judges.
- Centigonal 2y ago
  > this will make her a martyr and empower her. The US Supreme Court and Congress decided to allow Donald Trump to run in 2024, choosing not to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against him. As you can see today, this resulted in Donald Trump not being empowered. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-anderson/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-anderson...
- LunaSea 2y ago
  Marine Le Pen herself stated a few years ago that corrupt politicians should be banned from running for office for life. I'm sure that her meaning changed in the last few hours.
  - thiht 2y ago
    No, the OTHER corrupt politicians!
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Could you provide the quote?
- ealexhudson 2y ago
  The Judges impose the punishment set out in the law; they don't make this stuff up. The alternative is Judges letting people off just because they're politicians. That seems like an extremely poor precedent to set, those in political life should be held to higher standards.
  - 2y ago
curiousgal 2y ago
She's now the perfect candidate to run in the U.S.
like_any_other 2y ago
Same story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43533857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43533857
streptomycin 2y ago
[flagged]
- logicchains 2y ago
  It's balanced out by the right banning left-wing candidates in Turkey.
- akmarinov 2y ago
  In Romania there’s some room to argue this, but in France she just plain broke the law and embezzled funds. Should justice not be served because she’s above the law?
  - soco 2y ago
    I'm not sure why you'd say there's room to argue about Romania (lying about campaign funding is probably the only easy provable reason to be banned) but it's not the topic here.
- pjc50 2y ago
  We could expect an investigation into paying for votes in Wisconsin, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
  - cmurf 2y ago
    Republicans stopped the ice cream bribes. Edit: https://bsky.app/profile/kfile.bsky.social/post/3llodejyyl22r https://bsky.app/profile/kfile.bsky.social/post/3llodejyyl22...
    - pjc50 2y ago
      Ok, I can't even Google what this is about?
      - cmurf 2y ago
        https://bsky.app/profile/kfile.bsky.social/post/3llodejyyl22r https://bsky.app/profile/kfile.bsky.social/post/3llodejyyl22... Not a fan of screenshots as sources though.
tekla 2y ago
Really making it hard to not believe that France is trying to ban a legal candidate by making this cute shim where everything BUT being able to run is subject to the appeals process.
- phtrivier 2y ago
  There are quite a few things were the sentence can be enforced even during the appeal. For example, you can be jailed before your trial ; you can have your driving license overturned if you kill someone ; and, it turns out, you can get banned from running into élections if you're found guilty of embezzlement. Fortunately for her, the next elections are in 2 years ; I would not be surprised is she get an appeal, a reduced ineligibility sentence to allow her to run in the next legislative election. And she might be happy with that - two round presidential elections are hard for her party, and, more importantly : winning an election is a _terrible_ situation in France.
- soco 2y ago
  I'm fully aware that in other countries skirting or blatantly ignoring the courts is becoming practice, but I'm definitely not a fan of that practice.
- furyg3 2y ago
  If you're caught using steroids before the race, you're banned from running in the race (and may be fined, and may face criminal charges). If you want to appeal that's fine, but you can't run in the race today. She was caught improperly funneling EU funds to her own party (members), which would give her party an unfair advantage in any current political race.
  - tekla 2y ago
    I'm glad to live in a country has strict rules about being able to run for office that has an obscenely high bar before being taken away.
    - eclecticfrank 2y ago
baggachipz 2y ago
Interesting concept, forcing prominent crooked far-right politicians to face the consequences of their illegal actions.
- deepsun 2y ago
  Believers just say it was cooked up, and reinforces their belief. Makes the politician a martyr, breaker of chains.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    I'm okay with this outcome. Especially if a jury of peers reviews the evidence and stops the far right-wing (fascist) politician from further compounding crimes or marrying their criminality with state power, often abusing the rights of people a democratic government is established to protect. It is a brave thing to do, to hold popular people accountable for their actions (especially things like leaking secrets to geopolitical adversaries resulting in the deaths of intelligence personnel, or, other things like what Le Pen is guilty of), but it is necessary. Once you let it go, your country becomes ruled by authoritarians.
    - deepsun 2y ago
      No, when a martyr becomes popular (elected), the "jury of peers" is likely be composed of the believers as well. They are not going to hold the martyr accountable, but rather their oppressors.
      - tomrod 2y ago
        Which is not what happened here. Fascinating.
      - atmavatar 2y ago
        Is your suggestion to grant legal immunity to any and all far-right politicians so you can avoid their followers' ire just in case they become popular enough for election at some point in the future?
smooc 2y ago
I've heard people on the radio (ha yes I listen to that ;-)) that they disagree with Le Pen being banned from running for president. That seems strange to me as this was public (eu) money that was funneled into her own movement, i.e. bolstering her popularity in some way. So letting her run in the elections would basically mean she would get away with the fraude.
- pc86 2y ago
  At the risk of just repeating a previous comment, if you actually want to live in a democracy you have to trust the electorate at some level. I don't know the specifics of this case but if it's clear cut corruption it should be easy to make that case to the electorate and absolutely destroy Le Pen in the election. If it's not that easy, then banning her from running is even worse.
  - add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
    Weird time in history to be a maximalist on trusting electorates.
  - eviks 2y ago
    That's what happened - some officials trusted the electorate at some level and decided that the rules the electorate chose to make via their representatives should be followed. Those officials also trust the electorate to change the rules if they want to.
    - animuchan 2y ago
      That's a very charitable way of explaining away literally anything. Let me try: It's not like Putin started a war, but rather some officials trusted the electorate at some level and decided that the rules the electorate chose to make via their representatives should be followed. The representatives being Putin and friends. Those officials also trust the electorate to change the rules if they want to. There were no actual attempts at a coup btw, so the electorate is evidently happy with this.
tlogan 2y ago
Personally, I believe that in a democracy, courts shouldn’t have the power to disqualify individuals from running for office. That’s just my opinion, though, and I’m not familiar with the situation in France. Separately, here in the U.S., I take issue with the fact that ex-felons are denied the right to vote. I believe we should push for a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to vote for every U.S. citizen—regardless of their criminal record or other issues.
- eclecticfrank 2y ago
  The temporary loss of the right to stand for election is a common punishment in France when politicians are convicted of corruption and breach of trust.
  - pc86 2y ago
    I don't think anyone is questioning whether it's legal, simply whether it's right or ideologically consistent with people who claim to be pro-democracy.
- voytec 2y ago
  > Separately, here in the U.S., I take issue with the fact that ex-felons are denied the right to vote. You have a _CURRENT_ felon serving as POTUS.
  - machomaster 2y ago
    Strawman. "right to vote" != "right to be elected"
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      Good thing Florida exempted Trump from their "convicted felons can't vote" laws, too, huh? Oh, it's Trump, they said, well, yes, he has been convicted, but because a sentence has not been imposed or completed he's akshualllly not reallly a felon... yet. All the inmates in Florida prisons whose sentences have not been completed were very surprised to learn they were still eligible to vote. Except, no, this is just for Trump.
d--b 2y ago
We’ll see how it plays out, but this could be helping her party ultimately. 1. She is a woman. Her party is very conservative and a male figure would project more strength and attract voters that she might deter to parties further on the right (yes there are a few) 2. She is been here a long time, so she doesn’t exactly qualify as anti-establishment. 3. It makes the party looked harassed, and it is easy for them to state that “everyone is cheating, but they’re the only one paying for it”. Further cementing the image of the party as one of resistance. 4. She’s not good at debates. She gets destroyed every time. I have been thinking for a long time that she’s the main reason why the far right doesn’t win in France. People would vote a Trumpian president for sure.
- zahlman 2y ago
  > She is a woman. Her party is very conservative and a male figure would project more strength and attract voters that she might deter to parties further on the right (yes there are a few) From what I've been able to discern, among countries that have had an elected female head of state, those women often - if not typically - represent the right wing of the local politics. The idea that conservative parties would disdain a female leader as "weak" strikes me as a strawman created by their political opponents. (However, female conservative candidates for leadership do seem uninterested in treating their gender as a reason to vote for them.) > She is been here a long time, so she doesn’t exactly qualify as anti-establishment. This fundamentally misunderstands the meaning of the term.
- jordanb 2y ago
  Her father was the original party leader and she was vastly more successful as a leader than him.
frereubu 2y ago
For those wondering whether this is targeted harrassment, France has a long history of this kind of sentence for people of all political stripes. Wikipedia has 108 pages covering just the most significant ones: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Personnalit%C3%A9_politique_condamn%C3%A9e_%C3%A0_une_peine_d%27in%C3%A9ligibilit%C3%A9_en_France https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Personnalit%C3%...
- frereubu 2y ago
  Six have been added since I wrote this comment. Le Pen wasn't the only person convicted in this trial of course...
- eclecticfrank 2y ago
  That is a great list. The principle behind this is the defensive democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    >The principle behind this is the defensive democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy Excuse me but what in the hell? To come in here and redefine a corruption investigation as being in that camp is not only an insult to the reader but it an insult to everyone who both cares about civil rights and government corruption at the same time. Defensive democracy is just marketing spin on exactly the sort of civil rights violating process that gives the establishment huge advantage over any challenger and exactly the sort of crap totalitarian regimes love and leverage to great effect. The wikipedia page that you linked lists the following examples of "defensive democracy". >Surveillance by the security corps (especially military and police intelligence) of activists who are considered dangerous, or after entire associations outright; >Restrictions on the freedom of movement or action over bodies suspected of endangering democracy; >Deprival of the rights of individuals and parties from running for election >Outlawing of organizations considered a danger to democracy; >Cancellation of elections as a last resort "" Does that sound like the kind of stuff that fair, well run by rule of law, stable democracies with lots of buy in from the populace do to you? Because it sure doesn't to me. It's basically a list of stuff unpopular governments use to stay in power a little longer. To come in and lay claim to the credibility of of something that everyone can agree is good (prosecuting corruption, equality under the law) and siphon some of that off onto a subject that is highly controversial (selective violations of civil rights, nominally for a good reason) by just falsely claiming the good thing is a subset of the controversial thing is dishonest and morally reprehensible.
seydor 2y ago
she failed so many times, might as well step aside
xqcgrek2 2y ago
There needs to be democratic checks and balances against such a judiciary. Impeachment of undemocratic judges needs to be on the table.
- kanbara 2y ago
  stop applying american ideas to the french system. europe has many checks and balances at several levels, and embezzling Union funds for your campaign does in fact make you not eligible to run for office for some time. it’s not even permanent.
- pjc50 2y ago
  You're arguing that the conviction is unsound, or that the sentence I outside that permitted by the French legal code?
  - tick_tock_tick 2y ago
    I mean clearly the French legal code needs to be changed if this is a valid sentence seems to be the general consensus.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      Consensus among Americans on this site, which counts for very little.
      - tick_tock_tick 2y ago
        I'd bet if you put it to a vote in France you'd find very little appetite to ban her either.
Perfudital 2y ago
[flagged]
underseacables 2y ago
Really don't like this. It's smacks of corruption. I don't really care for Le Pen, she's not a good candidate, but the court should not be allowed to suspend someone from running for office. That's the voters job.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  Prosecuting people for corruption is corruption?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- eclecticfrank 2y ago
  False, it's simply a requirement. French law explicitly states that a candidate for an election must not be ineligible by reason of criminal conviction or judicial decision. Should have thought about messing with EU funds before, I suppose.
  - tick_tock_tick 2y ago
    > French law explicitly states that a candidate for an election must not be ineligible by reason of criminal conviction or judicial decision. Then French law needs to change; it's simply a requirement.
    - OKRainbowKid 2y ago
      Because some people on HN who most likely are neither French nor lawyers say so?
netdevphoenix 2y ago
why is this post flagged?
- tomrod 2y ago
  My perspective is that there are lot of people with an analogue of some type of fad called such-and-such derangement syndrome (not in DSM), but wholly in support of far-right/fascism -- blinders, for a better term. We live in weird times. When I grew up, it was a civic duty and social expectation to stamp out fascism and punch Nazis. Now, people downvote and flag when their ills and rightful punishments are reported. It was strange in the early 2010s when libertarianism (antithetical to fascism, except perhaps anarchocaptialism) seemed to embrace fascism at conferences. For lack of a quick source (it's been over a decade since I saw this happening), here is a medium writeup: https://thomas-perrett97.medium.com/from-hayek-to-hitler-an-analysis-of-the-libertarian-to-fascist-pipeline-dcd219fba473 https://thomas-perrett97.medium.com/from-hayek-to-hitler-an-...
  - GuB-42 2y ago
    Now, when you bring out the Nazis, it is called the Godwin point, and it tends to mark the end of constructive discussion and a good time to change the subject. Marine Le Pen is a far-right politician, the Godwin point is close, and such subjects tend to get flagged on sight before it degenerates. Politics in general tends to get this treatment. But this time, for such a hot topic, the discussion is, I think, better than expected. With interesting viewpoints independent from her political orientation. I guess that's how this topic was saved.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Every unthinking heuristic that can be exploited, will be. Everything devolves into claims of Nazism and fascism when it the claim is respected. This guy tomrod over here is a Nazi, someone needs to take them out.
PedroBatista 2y ago
Just as in Romania ( and hopefully someday in Hungary ) these people "against the EU" are the ones channeling millions from the EU into their pockets. And after all that they even become "martyrs" because everyone is corrupt and against them.
tomrod 2y ago
Weird this was flagged. This is important to EU hackers.
- freen 2y ago
  YC and PG think they are going to be able to escape the worst of what is to come by appeasing the far right in advance. Narrator: they were horribly wrong.
- on_the_train 2y ago
  No it's not
darthrupert 2y ago
Why wouldn't they just ban her for life? And why not include the whole party in the ban? She certainly did not act alone.
surgical_fire 2y ago
> When the radical left can’t win via democratic vote, they abuse the legal system to jail their opponents. This is their standard playbook throughout the world. Ah yes, the famous leftist Macron.
- fooker 2y ago
  Haha by US standards he might as well be Karl Marx reincarnated!
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Their position is that anyone who doesn’t drink the koolaid is a radical opposite side. It’s exhausting. When they oppress, it is righteous. When the other side holds them accountable, it's oppression. To them, equality and accountability are tyranny.
armchairhacker 2y ago
Can't someone else run as a stand-in? Are voters so stupid that the stand-in would poll worse than Le Pen despite her party's victim advantage? Disclaimer: I don't support Le Pen. I also don't support banning her from running, but it's harder for me to understand and argue why I feel that way. I think it's a combination of: - If people would elect a "bad" leader, disqualifying them delays the problem. They'll eventually elect another bad leader or revolt. Unless the bad candidate is only popular for a temporary reason, but that may not always be the case. - Disqualifying someone because they broke a law is bad, because anyone can be "breaking a law"; every nation has many laws and they can be misinterpreted. Related: the situation in Turkey. - Counterpoint: a self-interested party will disqualify whoever they want. But written laws (even guidelines) matter in the long-term because borderline party-supporters need justification to stay supportive, and people revert to laws. See: countries (like Turkey and Russia) using laws to justify banning candidates instead of "because we said so". Keeping the rules simple (e.g. "anyone can run for office, whoever gets the most votes wins") makes it harder for an adversary to break them while retaining support. Keeping Democracy makes it more likely that an "adversary" will lose power, because such parties tend to become unpopular. If Democracy leads to a "bad" party consistently winning, why have it? In fact, maybe it's necessary for a Democracy to have a "really bad" candidate win every once in a while, so people know what is bad. Then, the approach people should take is to ensure that the leader can't make rapid, far-reaching changes, so they can't ruin Democracy or people's lives in a single term. Just far-reaching enough for people to realize they made a mistake; then regular elections should be frequent, or there should be a quick way to get a snap election, so the bad leader is replaced.
- olivergregory 2y ago
  She allowed the law to pass by not voting against. There was enough abstention for her voice to matter. She stole money from the EU, an act she did after being voted MP. She couldn’t have done it if she had not been elected. So, basically she was elected, stole money and she still should not be barred from the next presidential election after she allowed that ban law to be voted? She chose the path, she should face the consequences.
- Keats 2y ago
gahhsbbs 2y ago
[dead]

213 points by tlogan 2y ago

Wait, so she's in prison of embezzlement? Are people claiming this is a fake charge, or are they saying that it's ok with them?

tiahura 2y ago
I think they’re saying that if voters want her, voters should be able to get her.
- petre 2y ago
  Then they'll have to wait until she has finished her sentence and in the mean time think about it.

zkmon 2y ago

This kind of punishing a politician, though correct legally, would only backfire on the party in power. This was seen in many cases throughout the history of democracies, including Trump's case. No wonder that, politicians happily get into jail as it would get them sympathy credit. And people are not entirely wrong in giving that sympathy.

randomNumber7 2y ago
If you go for the king you need to kill him.

iteratethis 2y ago

The authoritarian right's playbook is simple but brilliantly effective. The roadmap ends with a strong man dictator that has removed any and all hurdles towards absolute power so that the agenda can be implemented without compromise. Any roadblock towards this is called "anti-democratic" which is the ultimate irony as those preaching it fully support the end of democracy. The US is now an inch away from being a dictatorship as the last line of defense, judges, are under severe attack. They're targeted to be impeached, called "radical left" and Musk is throwing money at flipping votes. This process is happening in several countries and it's baffling how many people eat it up, including in these comments. I suppose it is true that democracy is fragile and that with a few nudges people vote to dismantle it themselves.

quickthrowman 2y ago
> This process is happening in several countries and it's baffling how many people eat it up, including in these comments. All of the people who remember the last round of fascism in the 1920s to 1940s are dying off, only those of us who never experienced it are left.

Georgelemental 2y ago

Far-left politician and fierce Le Pen critic Jean-Luc Mélenchon condemned the decision: https://twitter.com/JLMelenchon/status/1906673335796146412 https://twitter.com/JLMelenchon/status/1906673335796146412 (His party is under investigation for the same crime. The Prime Minister’s party was also investigated, got off with a simple fine)

StopDisinfo910 2y ago
> The Prime Minister’s party was also investigated, got off with a simple fine Untrue. Seven people were condemned to jail time and made ineligible in the MoDem trial.
simgt 2y ago
It's hardly a condemnation... They reiterated that they consider the accusations to be very serious, and are not casting doubt or whether the decision is unjust. They do emit doubts about the timing of it, but for political gains. Mélenchon's strategy has been for a while to get voters from both the ghettos and from Le Pen's pool of supposedly unhappy but not racist voters. That's again what they're doing here: painting themselves as more respectable [0] than the far right while shitting on Macron / the current establishment. [0] As opposed to the far right, their ranks aren't filled with people who have been convicted for antisemitism, and the sheer amount of fraud cases in there also speaks for itself...
- mmooss 2y ago
  > They do emit doubts about the timing of it What's wrong with the timing? Isn't the election in 2027?
  - Georgelemental 2y ago
    It makes her ineligible for that election
    - mmooss 2y ago

rdm_blackhole 2y ago

As a French person, I can say that this situation will unfold the same way as it did for Trump. Jordan Bardella is going to take her place and most likely win in 2027. He is well liked by people, he is young and he doesn't have a political legacy. In some polls, they floated his name as a replacement if she was unable to run and he polled 10% + ahead of all his rivals in the first round giving him a very good chance to actually win the run off. This is exactly how Macron won in 2017 (no political baggage, young) and despite his vows to crush the far right he never managed to do it. Even worse, the far right is far stronger now than it was 8 years ago. The justice system gave the far right a martyr and that is something that they will use for campaigning.

StopDisinfo910 2y ago
> Jordan Bardella is going to take her place and most likely win in 2027. He is well liked by people, he is young and he doesn't have a political legacy. Considering Bardella past debating performance, this seems highly unlikely to me. The RN always polls high when they can stay silent and represent an easy way to express opposition. Sadly, this doesn’t remain possible during the presidential election where they actually have to defend a program. Bardella will most likely be skewered alive by any competent opponent if he is the appointed candidate and manages to pass the first round (two big if).
- rdm_blackhole 2y ago
  > this seems highly unlikely to me. I disagree for many reasons. 1) He led and won the EU elections by a wide margin. 2) Debates are no longer what tips the scale in the elections. Losing a debate is no longer the disqualifier that it once was. See the EU elections where the debates were terrible and not just because of Bardella. 3) This is a new world and Bardella is very good at campaigning on social media and has a very good reach with young people. Other parties besides LFI struggle to talk to people in general. 4) The RN is pretty much leading in all social categories except for retired people who so far had stuck with Macron. That will change as France is bleeding out and needs cash and the current government is going to get it where it can, including from it's most fervent admirers, retired people. 5) Marine Le Pen being sidelined is actually a blessing in disguise. She has worked hard to change the name of the party, change it's image, change it's people, in order to make it more likeable and more modern and by all account she has succeeded. But there was one thing that always stuck, her name, which represent the past, when her dad ran the party. Now that she is out, the RN can embrace being "Le Pen" free and some people who did not want to vote for her on principle because of her family history could very well be inclined to support a young, fresh face with 0 political baggage/scandal. She is the sacrificial lamb, thrown to the wolves and in public they will lament it everywhere but come election time, her name will not be on any pamphlets and the final transformation phase of the party will be completed. 6) TINA (There is no alternative) The French political landscape is frozen in time with the same people doing the same race every 5 years. The right wing party is basically an appendage to Macron's party at this point, the Socialists are decimated, the other left wing parties will not unite behind JLM due to his controversial views. The center is going to be split by a civil war in order to decide who will inherit Macron's party as well as his legacy but whoever wins will also inherit the label "more of the same" which sunk Kamala Harris in the US. Zemmour is now seen as the troublemaker and stands no chance of winning so his supporters will most likely vote for Bardella in the run off. Bardella is the new kid on the block who will run for the first time and that will generate a lot of buzz, just like when Eric Zemmour ran in 2022. If we add the votes from all the "far right" parties: RN + Reconquete + NPA, their total is above 40% in the first round according to the latest polls, which is the highest it has ever been. > The RN always polls high when they can stay silent and represent an easy way to express opposition. I don't agree with the staying silent part. I think people know by now what the party represents. Less legal and illegal immigration, tougher on crime, better salaries, and so on as it has always been. That is why people vote for them. The rest is small potatoes in comparison. > Bardella will most likely be skewered alive by any competent opponent That remains to be seen. Macron won in 2017 just the same. He was not a politician, not a very good debater either and his political stance was murky at best. See the "Yes I am a socialist" bit on TV followed by another bit a while later "No, I am not a socialist" Novelty can be a good thing and I think the French people are ready for a change. But I guess we will know in two years from now. Please note that I am expressing my personal views on this issue based on what I have seen and heard from relatives living in France. I personally don't support any of the mainstream candidates so I don't really care who wins or loses.

mmooss 2y ago

Stop blaming the courts (and really, the legislature for making the law). Le Pen is the person responsible, as is her party: Don't commit crimes, don't make leaders of people who commit crimes, and you won't have problems. Yes, there is a potential for abuse, but eliminating the rule of law for political leaders is very dangerous. (Edit: You can't take a popular vote on whether someone - especially a political leader, and one in a populist movement - committed a crime.)

wdr1 2y ago
> Don't commit crimes, don't make leaders of people who commit crimes, and you won't have problems. Not to be disrespectful, but this is naive. In a perfect world only "real" crimes would be prosecuted. But almost every despot prosecuted their opponents by claiming they were criminals. Remember Nelson Mandela spent decades in prison as a criminal. The leaders of the KPD & SPD parties were both arrested as criminals during Nazi Germany. Putin has arrested many of his opponents, citing criminal behavior. Saying "don't commit crimes" overlooks that the "crimes" themselves may not be real.
- 1659447091 2y ago
  I read the part >>don't make leaders of people who commit crimes, as covering that scenario . Arresting people for "crimes" of getting in your way to power, is a crime in and of itself - even if it is not on the books, so don't make leaders of them.
- mmooss 2y ago
  It's not naive. I agree the world isn't perfect, but we have to operate with imperfect human systems - that's life. More imperfect is politicians with impunity for corruption - at least when they arrest someone, there is rule of law, it requires a trial (even a jury, if the defendant desires), etc. You are reaching far beyond France to South Africa's minority dictatorship and Nazi Germany for examples. The latter is a great example of political leaders with impunity. Can you provide any examples at all in modern democracies, at any level of government?

ein0p 2y ago

That's the third EU country to arrest or ban the top opposition candidate or party. Georgescu in Romania, Spartans party in Greece, Le Pen in France. You could even say fourth: head of Gagauzia region in Moldova has been arrested a few days ago. And that's before you consider the attempts to ban AfD in Germany. Is that "democracy"? Would it be "democracy" if, say, Trump jailed Vance's main opponent in 2028?

bgnn 2y ago
Romania is definitely political, but the rest of the decisions are due to independent courts. Nobody, including Le Pen, believes this is politically motivated. This will help her in the long run too.
- guizmo 2y ago
  That is not what MLP is saying. She said that immediate application of the ineligibility sentence in particular is politically motivated. And even more precisely, that the judges expressed this political motivation explicitly through the use of MLP running in the presidential election as presenting a risk to public peace. I'm not claiming it is really in the deliberations as I'm yet to read those.
- ein0p 2y ago
  We're seeing just how "independent" courts really are in the US at the moment. There's no reason to believe they're any more "independent" there, especially in Eastern Europe and Greece.

acidmath 2y ago

While yes, this is happening to someone many really don't like, the optics of this look very bad. And, for those who dislike this particular politician who might be celebrating now, this is much more so bad news than it is good news.

CharlieDigital 2y ago
At the end of the day, when we select our leaders to represent us, we seem to have forgotten that a big part of it should be about about the ethics, principles, character, and judgement of the individual. If someone on "my side" was found guilty of embezzlement or fraud -- through due process in a court of law with sufficient evidence that there was no path of appeal -- then I have ZERO problems denouncing the individual and would celebrate their punishment. This is the fundamental problem with the left in the US: the standards for ethics, principles, judgement, and character are simply higher and the left will more readily fault candidates for even small lapses while the right has no such qualms.
- acidmath 2y ago
  The whole 34 felony thing is not the one and only thing that cost the dems the election, but it's one of the major things. That, and the fine people hoax. They managed to float that one for a while. But: what goes up, must come down.

ldng 2y ago

They STOLE 4 millions for f-sake ! AND it's not even the first time; they got away easy until this time. They also have been frothing hard for decades about the leniency of the courts and how utterly honest they were compared to the others ... I guess its only relevant as long as they're not concerned. Incredible. The law has been applied fair and square. Period.

araes 2y ago

Maybe some of the EU folks know a greater amount, yet, where did this come from? Looking on WP, there's nothing... [1] Barely at article. Supposedly the European Anti-Fraud Office opened an investigation in Jan 2014. Never saw a mention in any of the elections. Figure Macron would have jumped on that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_assistants_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_assistants_affa... In 2017, the European Parliament demanded repayment from Le Pen of almost €340,000. Also, seems like it would been jumped on. [2] "Parliament's financial services deducted tens of thousands of euros from her (Le Pen's) MEP allowance before she left Brussels in 2017. Threatened with an enforceable recovery order, Le Pen eventually repaid €330,000 in July 2023." [2] [2] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2024/09/30/why-le-pen-and-26-other-far-right-party-members-are-standing-trial-in-paris-in-fake-eu-parliament-jobs-case_6727729_8.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2024/09/30/w... Then the Le Monde article gets to actual serious issues: "a preliminary investigation was opened in France in March 2015 for breach of trust." 'A judicial investigation was opened in December 2016 on charges of "breach of trust," "concealment of breach of trust," "organized gang fraud," "forgery and use of forgeries" and "undeclared labor."' "In December 2023, at the end of a nine-year investigation, the investigating judges called for the FN and 27 of its senior members and employees to be tried." [2] Except the Le Monde article is also just a Sept. 2024 article. Followed the French elections at least a little bit over the last half decade or so, and ... nothing. Read Le Monde at least a bit. Read France24 a bit. Not even a mention of Le Pen being the subject of a nine (9?) year investigation and repaying 300,000 already to the EU Parliament. She was under investigation for "organized gang fraud" during the last election? Seems like it came out of nowhere from the perspective of somebody in the US. Did this actually make the news regularly in France or the EU? Not much of a supporter or anything, 1000's of miles away, yet all the articles are so recent, and the coverage so nothing, makes me want my tinfoil hat for computer churn articles.

StopDisinfo910 2y ago
Yes, all of this is fairly well known in France and was commented ad nauseam during the past elections. No conspiracy here. You can look at the Wikipedia article references which link to a lot of different French newspapers with large readership. A few choices: 2015 - https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2015/03/12/le-fn-champion-du-cumul-de-fonctions-chez-ses-assistants-parlementaires_4592395_4355770.html https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2015/03/12/le-f... 2017 - https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.francetvinfo.fr%2Fpolitique%2Ffront-national%2Faffaire-des-assistants-fn-au-parlement-europeen%2Fle-parlement-europeen-estime-son-prejudice-potentiel-a-pres-de-5-millions-d-euros-dans-l-affaire-des-assistants-fn_2164260.html#federation=archive.wikiwix.com&tab=url https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=https%3A%2F... 2019 - https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2019/06/14/affaire-des-assistants-parlementaires-europeens-les-echanges-qui-accablent-le-rn_5476007_823448.html https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2019/06/14/affaire-...

waltercool 2y ago

[dead]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

refusingsalt 2y ago

[flagged]

rjtavares 2y ago

Not a fan of the immediate effect on part of the sentence (everything should be contingent on the result of the appeal process).

freen 2y ago
Well, it’s quite common in France, especially for the particular activities one was convicted of engaging in (barred from politics for embezzlement of political funds, not allowed to trade equities if convicted of insider trading, etc. ) and even more common if the convicted person shows defiance of the courts, lack of cooperation, etc. Make no mistake: this is completely standard and of LePen’s own doing. Anyone telling you otherwise is either at best completely ignorant of French jurisprudence and the factual details of the case, or, at worse, intentionally deceiving you.
Spartan-S63 2y ago
While not versed in French law or their view of personal liberties, from an American lens, this seems fine. Barring running from public office could be reversible on appeal and that stipulation isn’t irreversible—you could run after the ban is reversed—, so it’s not depriving you of something significant enough that that should rise to a level of stricter scrutiny. The prison sentence being suspended until appeals are exhausted also seems sane to me for a nonviolent crime. So, overall, it seems reasonable. The ban on a run isn’t infringing on fundamental rights in a way that is permanent and there’s no deprivation of liberty until appeals are exhausted.
zdimension 2y ago
There is a very real risk of political candidates committing political fraud, getting elected thanks to it, and putting pressure on the judiciary branch to lower their chances of getting arrested. We're seeing this exact process happen in real time in the US. Every modern country pretends that nobody is above the law and that bad people will get convicted and get sentences but in real life the government has power over this stuff. Making ineligibility sentences immediate is a way to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen.
- 2y ago

ChocolateGod 2y ago

Not remotely a fan of Marine LePen or her politics, even if she's become more moderate in recent years, but this will make her a martyr and empower her. She can spend the next five years campaigning on how the establishment is trying to shut her down. These judges love own goals, no one should be barred from running for office of a country they're a citizen of. To me, it feels like overreach of un-elected judges.

Centigonal 2y ago
> this will make her a martyr and empower her. The US Supreme Court and Congress decided to allow Donald Trump to run in 2024, choosing not to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against him. As you can see today, this resulted in Donald Trump not being empowered. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-anderson/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-anderson...
LunaSea 2y ago
Marine Le Pen herself stated a few years ago that corrupt politicians should be banned from running for office for life. I'm sure that her meaning changed in the last few hours.
- thiht 2y ago
  No, the OTHER corrupt politicians!
- mmooss 2y ago
  Could you provide the quote?
ealexhudson 2y ago
The Judges impose the punishment set out in the law; they don't make this stuff up. The alternative is Judges letting people off just because they're politicians. That seems like an extremely poor precedent to set, those in political life should be held to higher standards.
- 2y ago

curiousgal 2y ago

She's now the perfect candidate to run in the U.S.

like_any_other 2y ago

Same story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43533857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43533857

streptomycin 2y ago

[flagged]

logicchains 2y ago
It's balanced out by the right banning left-wing candidates in Turkey.
akmarinov 2y ago
In Romania there’s some room to argue this, but in France she just plain broke the law and embezzled funds. Should justice not be served because she’s above the law?
- soco 2y ago
  I'm not sure why you'd say there's room to argue about Romania (lying about campaign funding is probably the only easy provable reason to be banned) but it's not the topic here.
pjc50 2y ago
We could expect an investigation into paying for votes in Wisconsin, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
- cmurf 2y ago
  Republicans stopped the ice cream bribes. Edit: https://bsky.app/profile/kfile.bsky.social/post/3llodejyyl22r https://bsky.app/profile/kfile.bsky.social/post/3llodejyyl22...
  - pjc50 2y ago
    Ok, I can't even Google what this is about?
    - cmurf 2y ago
      https://bsky.app/profile/kfile.bsky.social/post/3llodejyyl22r https://bsky.app/profile/kfile.bsky.social/post/3llodejyyl22... Not a fan of screenshots as sources though.

tekla 2y ago

Really making it hard to not believe that France is trying to ban a legal candidate by making this cute shim where everything BUT being able to run is subject to the appeals process.

phtrivier 2y ago
There are quite a few things were the sentence can be enforced even during the appeal. For example, you can be jailed before your trial ; you can have your driving license overturned if you kill someone ; and, it turns out, you can get banned from running into élections if you're found guilty of embezzlement. Fortunately for her, the next elections are in 2 years ; I would not be surprised is she get an appeal, a reduced ineligibility sentence to allow her to run in the next legislative election. And she might be happy with that - two round presidential elections are hard for her party, and, more importantly : winning an election is a _terrible_ situation in France.
soco 2y ago
I'm fully aware that in other countries skirting or blatantly ignoring the courts is becoming practice, but I'm definitely not a fan of that practice.
furyg3 2y ago
If you're caught using steroids before the race, you're banned from running in the race (and may be fined, and may face criminal charges). If you want to appeal that's fine, but you can't run in the race today. She was caught improperly funneling EU funds to her own party (members), which would give her party an unfair advantage in any current political race.
- tekla 2y ago
  I'm glad to live in a country has strict rules about being able to run for office that has an obscenely high bar before being taken away.
  - eclecticfrank 2y ago

baggachipz 2y ago

Interesting concept, forcing prominent crooked far-right politicians to face the consequences of their illegal actions.

deepsun 2y ago
Believers just say it was cooked up, and reinforces their belief. Makes the politician a martyr, breaker of chains.
- tomrod 2y ago
  I'm okay with this outcome. Especially if a jury of peers reviews the evidence and stops the far right-wing (fascist) politician from further compounding crimes or marrying their criminality with state power, often abusing the rights of people a democratic government is established to protect. It is a brave thing to do, to hold popular people accountable for their actions (especially things like leaking secrets to geopolitical adversaries resulting in the deaths of intelligence personnel, or, other things like what Le Pen is guilty of), but it is necessary. Once you let it go, your country becomes ruled by authoritarians.
  - deepsun 2y ago
    No, when a martyr becomes popular (elected), the "jury of peers" is likely be composed of the believers as well. They are not going to hold the martyr accountable, but rather their oppressors.
    - tomrod 2y ago
      Which is not what happened here. Fascinating.
    - atmavatar 2y ago
      Is your suggestion to grant legal immunity to any and all far-right politicians so you can avoid their followers' ire just in case they become popular enough for election at some point in the future?

smooc 2y ago

I've heard people on the radio (ha yes I listen to that ;-)) that they disagree with Le Pen being banned from running for president. That seems strange to me as this was public (eu) money that was funneled into her own movement, i.e. bolstering her popularity in some way. So letting her run in the elections would basically mean she would get away with the fraude.

pc86 2y ago
At the risk of just repeating a previous comment, if you actually want to live in a democracy you have to trust the electorate at some level. I don't know the specifics of this case but if it's clear cut corruption it should be easy to make that case to the electorate and absolutely destroy Le Pen in the election. If it's not that easy, then banning her from running is even worse.
- add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
  Weird time in history to be a maximalist on trusting electorates.
- eviks 2y ago
  That's what happened - some officials trusted the electorate at some level and decided that the rules the electorate chose to make via their representatives should be followed. Those officials also trust the electorate to change the rules if they want to.
  - animuchan 2y ago
    That's a very charitable way of explaining away literally anything. Let me try: It's not like Putin started a war, but rather some officials trusted the electorate at some level and decided that the rules the electorate chose to make via their representatives should be followed. The representatives being Putin and friends. Those officials also trust the electorate to change the rules if they want to. There were no actual attempts at a coup btw, so the electorate is evidently happy with this.

tlogan 2y ago

Personally, I believe that in a democracy, courts shouldn’t have the power to disqualify individuals from running for office. That’s just my opinion, though, and I’m not familiar with the situation in France. Separately, here in the U.S., I take issue with the fact that ex-felons are denied the right to vote. I believe we should push for a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to vote for every U.S. citizen—regardless of their criminal record or other issues.

eclecticfrank 2y ago
The temporary loss of the right to stand for election is a common punishment in France when politicians are convicted of corruption and breach of trust.
- pc86 2y ago
  I don't think anyone is questioning whether it's legal, simply whether it's right or ideologically consistent with people who claim to be pro-democracy.
voytec 2y ago
> Separately, here in the U.S., I take issue with the fact that ex-felons are denied the right to vote. You have a _CURRENT_ felon serving as POTUS.
- machomaster 2y ago
  Strawman. "right to vote" != "right to be elected"
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    Good thing Florida exempted Trump from their "convicted felons can't vote" laws, too, huh? Oh, it's Trump, they said, well, yes, he has been convicted, but because a sentence has not been imposed or completed he's akshualllly not reallly a felon... yet. All the inmates in Florida prisons whose sentences have not been completed were very surprised to learn they were still eligible to vote. Except, no, this is just for Trump.

d--b 2y ago

We’ll see how it plays out, but this could be helping her party ultimately. 1. She is a woman. Her party is very conservative and a male figure would project more strength and attract voters that she might deter to parties further on the right (yes there are a few) 2. She is been here a long time, so she doesn’t exactly qualify as anti-establishment. 3. It makes the party looked harassed, and it is easy for them to state that “everyone is cheating, but they’re the only one paying for it”. Further cementing the image of the party as one of resistance. 4. She’s not good at debates. She gets destroyed every time. I have been thinking for a long time that she’s the main reason why the far right doesn’t win in France. People would vote a Trumpian president for sure.

zahlman 2y ago
> She is a woman. Her party is very conservative and a male figure would project more strength and attract voters that she might deter to parties further on the right (yes there are a few) From what I've been able to discern, among countries that have had an elected female head of state, those women often - if not typically - represent the right wing of the local politics. The idea that conservative parties would disdain a female leader as "weak" strikes me as a strawman created by their political opponents. (However, female conservative candidates for leadership do seem uninterested in treating their gender as a reason to vote for them.) > She is been here a long time, so she doesn’t exactly qualify as anti-establishment. This fundamentally misunderstands the meaning of the term.
jordanb 2y ago
Her father was the original party leader and she was vastly more successful as a leader than him.

frereubu 2y ago

For those wondering whether this is targeted harrassment, France has a long history of this kind of sentence for people of all political stripes. Wikipedia has 108 pages covering just the most significant ones: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Personnalit%C3%A9_politique_condamn%C3%A9e_%C3%A0_une_peine_d%27in%C3%A9ligibilit%C3%A9_en_France https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Personnalit%C3%...

frereubu 2y ago
Six have been added since I wrote this comment. Le Pen wasn't the only person convicted in this trial of course...
eclecticfrank 2y ago
That is a great list. The principle behind this is the defensive democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy
- potato3732842 2y ago
  >The principle behind this is the defensive democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy Excuse me but what in the hell? To come in here and redefine a corruption investigation as being in that camp is not only an insult to the reader but it an insult to everyone who both cares about civil rights and government corruption at the same time. Defensive democracy is just marketing spin on exactly the sort of civil rights violating process that gives the establishment huge advantage over any challenger and exactly the sort of crap totalitarian regimes love and leverage to great effect. The wikipedia page that you linked lists the following examples of "defensive democracy". >Surveillance by the security corps (especially military and police intelligence) of activists who are considered dangerous, or after entire associations outright; >Restrictions on the freedom of movement or action over bodies suspected of endangering democracy; >Deprival of the rights of individuals and parties from running for election >Outlawing of organizations considered a danger to democracy; >Cancellation of elections as a last resort "" Does that sound like the kind of stuff that fair, well run by rule of law, stable democracies with lots of buy in from the populace do to you? Because it sure doesn't to me. It's basically a list of stuff unpopular governments use to stay in power a little longer. To come in and lay claim to the credibility of of something that everyone can agree is good (prosecuting corruption, equality under the law) and siphon some of that off onto a subject that is highly controversial (selective violations of civil rights, nominally for a good reason) by just falsely claiming the good thing is a subset of the controversial thing is dishonest and morally reprehensible.

seydor 2y ago

she failed so many times, might as well step aside

xqcgrek2 2y ago

There needs to be democratic checks and balances against such a judiciary. Impeachment of undemocratic judges needs to be on the table.

kanbara 2y ago
stop applying american ideas to the french system. europe has many checks and balances at several levels, and embezzling Union funds for your campaign does in fact make you not eligible to run for office for some time. it’s not even permanent.
pjc50 2y ago
You're arguing that the conviction is unsound, or that the sentence I outside that permitted by the French legal code?
- tick_tock_tick 2y ago
  I mean clearly the French legal code needs to be changed if this is a valid sentence seems to be the general consensus.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    Consensus among Americans on this site, which counts for very little.
    - tick_tock_tick 2y ago
      I'd bet if you put it to a vote in France you'd find very little appetite to ban her either.

Perfudital 2y ago

[flagged]

underseacables 2y ago

Really don't like this. It's smacks of corruption. I don't really care for Le Pen, she's not a good candidate, but the court should not be allowed to suspend someone from running for office. That's the voters job.

rsynnott 2y ago
Prosecuting people for corruption is corruption?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
eclecticfrank 2y ago
False, it's simply a requirement. French law explicitly states that a candidate for an election must not be ineligible by reason of criminal conviction or judicial decision. Should have thought about messing with EU funds before, I suppose.
- tick_tock_tick 2y ago
  > French law explicitly states that a candidate for an election must not be ineligible by reason of criminal conviction or judicial decision. Then French law needs to change; it's simply a requirement.
  - OKRainbowKid 2y ago
    Because some people on HN who most likely are neither French nor lawyers say so?

netdevphoenix 2y ago

why is this post flagged?

tomrod 2y ago
My perspective is that there are lot of people with an analogue of some type of fad called such-and-such derangement syndrome (not in DSM), but wholly in support of far-right/fascism -- blinders, for a better term. We live in weird times. When I grew up, it was a civic duty and social expectation to stamp out fascism and punch Nazis. Now, people downvote and flag when their ills and rightful punishments are reported. It was strange in the early 2010s when libertarianism (antithetical to fascism, except perhaps anarchocaptialism) seemed to embrace fascism at conferences. For lack of a quick source (it's been over a decade since I saw this happening), here is a medium writeup: https://thomas-perrett97.medium.com/from-hayek-to-hitler-an-analysis-of-the-libertarian-to-fascist-pipeline-dcd219fba473 https://thomas-perrett97.medium.com/from-hayek-to-hitler-an-...
- GuB-42 2y ago
  Now, when you bring out the Nazis, it is called the Godwin point, and it tends to mark the end of constructive discussion and a good time to change the subject. Marine Le Pen is a far-right politician, the Godwin point is close, and such subjects tend to get flagged on sight before it degenerates. Politics in general tends to get this treatment. But this time, for such a hot topic, the discussion is, I think, better than expected. With interesting viewpoints independent from her political orientation. I guess that's how this topic was saved.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Every unthinking heuristic that can be exploited, will be. Everything devolves into claims of Nazism and fascism when it the claim is respected. This guy tomrod over here is a Nazi, someone needs to take them out.

PedroBatista 2y ago

Just as in Romania ( and hopefully someday in Hungary ) these people "against the EU" are the ones channeling millions from the EU into their pockets. And after all that they even become "martyrs" because everyone is corrupt and against them.

tomrod 2y ago

Weird this was flagged. This is important to EU hackers.

freen 2y ago
YC and PG think they are going to be able to escape the worst of what is to come by appeasing the far right in advance. Narrator: they were horribly wrong.
on_the_train 2y ago
No it's not

darthrupert 2y ago

Why wouldn't they just ban her for life? And why not include the whole party in the ban? She certainly did not act alone.

surgical_fire 2y ago

> When the radical left can’t win via democratic vote, they abuse the legal system to jail their opponents. This is their standard playbook throughout the world. Ah yes, the famous leftist Macron.

fooker 2y ago
Haha by US standards he might as well be Karl Marx reincarnated!
toomuchtodo 2y ago
Their position is that anyone who doesn’t drink the koolaid is a radical opposite side. It’s exhausting. When they oppress, it is righteous. When the other side holds them accountable, it's oppression. To them, equality and accountability are tyranny.

armchairhacker 2y ago

Can't someone else run as a stand-in? Are voters so stupid that the stand-in would poll worse than Le Pen despite her party's victim advantage? Disclaimer: I don't support Le Pen. I also don't support banning her from running, but it's harder for me to understand and argue why I feel that way. I think it's a combination of: - If people would elect a "bad" leader, disqualifying them delays the problem. They'll eventually elect another bad leader or revolt. Unless the bad candidate is only popular for a temporary reason, but that may not always be the case. - Disqualifying someone because they broke a law is bad, because anyone can be "breaking a law"; every nation has many laws and they can be misinterpreted. Related: the situation in Turkey. - Counterpoint: a self-interested party will disqualify whoever they want. But written laws (even guidelines) matter in the long-term because borderline party-supporters need justification to stay supportive, and people revert to laws. See: countries (like Turkey and Russia) using laws to justify banning candidates instead of "because we said so". Keeping the rules simple (e.g. "anyone can run for office, whoever gets the most votes wins") makes it harder for an adversary to break them while retaining support. Keeping Democracy makes it more likely that an "adversary" will lose power, because such parties tend to become unpopular. If Democracy leads to a "bad" party consistently winning, why have it? In fact, maybe it's necessary for a Democracy to have a "really bad" candidate win every once in a while, so people know what is bad. Then, the approach people should take is to ensure that the leader can't make rapid, far-reaching changes, so they can't ruin Democracy or people's lives in a single term. Just far-reaching enough for people to realize they made a mistake; then regular elections should be frequent, or there should be a quick way to get a snap election, so the bad leader is replaced.

olivergregory 2y ago
She allowed the law to pass by not voting against. There was enough abstention for her voice to matter. She stole money from the EU, an act she did after being voted MP. She couldn’t have done it if she had not been elected. So, basically she was elected, stole money and she still should not be barred from the next presidential election after she allowed that ban law to be voted? She chose the path, she should face the consequences.
Keats 2y ago

gahhsbbs 2y ago

[dead]