5 ms·

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

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.
  - aredox 2y ago
    >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? ...Yes? Or are you saying politicians can just barge in and say "the rules don't apply to me because I'm popular"? Because that's how you don't get stable democracies. What you get is Trump, or the Red Brigades, or the Brown Shirts running things to the ground. Because the motto of those orgs is "one man, one vote... One last time"
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Are you okay with Trump having the power to do each of those quoted actions? To decide if the opposition is a threat to democracy or if elections must be canceled "as a last resort". I read that list and it looks like instructions on how to end democracy, not preserve it
      - darthrupert 2y ago
        Trump should have been the target of defensive democracy, not the abuser of it. At least if US would have had a working version of the concept. So your question seems to evade the point.
        refurb 2y ago
        As you said “no system is perfect” so you’d have to accept that it fails to stop someone like Trump from getting into office. It’s like having a gun to defender yourself then the criminal takes it from you. So are you comfortable with someone like Trump using those same tools?
        johnbronnan 2y ago
        You are again comparing the flawed US "democratic" system to a real democracy. Trump should not be able to gain those tools because a functioning democracy protects the rule of law and holds justice to be above all other concepts. In the US, the legal system is a sham and the levers of power are easily taken for abuse (not to mention corporate capture of the two political parties which control all political life). So while Trump should not be able to capture those tools, it is only possible because the US does not have a real functioning democracy. In places like France, the state ensures that it is not possible to easily take complete power as Trump has in the US. In short, no, Trump should not be able to take these tools. But in actual democracies they have checks to ensure that this is not possible while in the US no such checks exist.
- profstasiak 2y ago
  how is sentencing for corruption connected to defensive democracy?
  - condensedcrab 2y ago
    The headline really should be Le Pen guilty of embezzlement, ineligible to run for public office for X years. Seems like a reasonable policy we should adopt in the US…
    - trilbyglens 2y ago
      Wouldn't matter. Trump is already a felon and should be ineligible. We have at least two parallel lehal systems in the US, probably more. The more "important" you are the less the rules are able to touch you. That's the american way.
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        This aligns with America's original "sin", rule of law versus a disguised aristocracy. It's always there beneath the surface. People find the dream of hitting the jackpot far more appealing than creating a genuinely classless society.
        trilbyglens 2y ago
        Exactly. For better or worse, and whether or not people realize that we have basically inherited and mutated the English class system, except instead of being defined by your birth lineage, it's now defined by how much money you have. I guess you could call that egalitarian in the way that the British call their private schools, "public schools", meaning that anyone with an adequate amount of money is allowed to attend them.
  - woodpanel 2y ago
    Hehe, now let’s wait and see how they grapple with the fact that you can’t have both! It‘s either criminal use of EU funds or defensive democracy, unless you’re drenched in kool-aid.

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.
- aredox 2y ago
  >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? ...Yes? Or are you saying politicians can just barge in and say "the rules don't apply to me because I'm popular"? Because that's how you don't get stable democracies. What you get is Trump, or the Red Brigades, or the Brown Shirts running things to the ground. Because the motto of those orgs is "one man, one vote... One last time"
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Are you okay with Trump having the power to do each of those quoted actions? To decide if the opposition is a threat to democracy or if elections must be canceled "as a last resort". I read that list and it looks like instructions on how to end democracy, not preserve it
    - darthrupert 2y ago
      Trump should have been the target of defensive democracy, not the abuser of it. At least if US would have had a working version of the concept. So your question seems to evade the point.
      - refurb 2y ago
        As you said “no system is perfect” so you’d have to accept that it fails to stop someone like Trump from getting into office. It’s like having a gun to defender yourself then the criminal takes it from you. So are you comfortable with someone like Trump using those same tools?
        johnbronnan 2y ago
        You are again comparing the flawed US "democratic" system to a real democracy. Trump should not be able to gain those tools because a functioning democracy protects the rule of law and holds justice to be above all other concepts. In the US, the legal system is a sham and the levers of power are easily taken for abuse (not to mention corporate capture of the two political parties which control all political life). So while Trump should not be able to capture those tools, it is only possible because the US does not have a real functioning democracy. In places like France, the state ensures that it is not possible to easily take complete power as Trump has in the US. In short, no, Trump should not be able to take these tools. But in actual democracies they have checks to ensure that this is not possible while in the US no such checks exist.
profstasiak 2y ago
how is sentencing for corruption connected to defensive democracy?
- condensedcrab 2y ago
  The headline really should be Le Pen guilty of embezzlement, ineligible to run for public office for X years. Seems like a reasonable policy we should adopt in the US…
  - trilbyglens 2y ago
    Wouldn't matter. Trump is already a felon and should be ineligible. We have at least two parallel lehal systems in the US, probably more. The more "important" you are the less the rules are able to touch you. That's the american way.
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      This aligns with America's original "sin", rule of law versus a disguised aristocracy. It's always there beneath the surface. People find the dream of hitting the jackpot far more appealing than creating a genuinely classless society.
      - trilbyglens 2y ago
        Exactly. For better or worse, and whether or not people realize that we have basically inherited and mutated the English class system, except instead of being defined by your birth lineage, it's now defined by how much money you have. I guess you could call that egalitarian in the way that the British call their private schools, "public schools", meaning that anyone with an adequate amount of money is allowed to attend them.
- woodpanel 2y ago
  Hehe, now let’s wait and see how they grapple with the fact that you can’t have both! It‘s either criminal use of EU funds or defensive democracy, unless you’re drenched in kool-aid.