Judge who convicted Le Pen under police protection amid online threats
-
Maybe the reason is that the court's decision goes completely against democracy? I fully agree with the statement from the French Left party that such a decision should only be made by the people, not by an unelected structure. Elections allow people to vote, so why should the court interfere?
Quant au reste, la France insoumise n’a jamais eu comme moyen d’action d’utiliser un tribunal pour se débarrasser du Rassemblement National. Nous le combattons dans les urnes comme dans la rue, par la mobilisation populaire du peuple français, comme nous avons su le faire lors des élections législatives de 2024.
That is difference between left and liberals, imo. While leftists are trying to fight the right by convincing people, liberals just trying to restrict anything that they do not like using legal tricks.
There is a law saying that for corrupted politicians a temporary election ban is a possible sentence. This women and her accomplice stole 4 millions Euro, that's a lot of money. Not allowing her to be elected for 5 year sounds like a way to protect taxpayer money for money. It's also not unique to politicians, French law can also ban someone from managing a company (Executive who stole money, or ignore regulation leading to serious accidents).
Moreover, Le Pen, and a lot of right wingers, are the one who pushed law for harsher punishment and appeal not postponing the sentence so they're getting a taste of their own medecine.
Finally, While a dozen of Rassemblement National politicians are banned for election, the party isn't banned. It's not the first not the last time that a politicians who could have run for president ends-up found guilty of stealing taxpayer money leading to not being able to run for election. There is a long range between a serious potential candidate and a president. if the RN doesn't play too much Game of Throne to get the candidate position, they may even come in a stronger position for 2027 election
-
Maybe the reason is that the court's decision goes completely against democracy? I fully agree with the statement from the French Left party that such a decision should only be made by the people, not by an unelected structure. Elections allow people to vote, so why should the court interfere?
Quant au reste, la France insoumise n’a jamais eu comme moyen d’action d’utiliser un tribunal pour se débarrasser du Rassemblement National. Nous le combattons dans les urnes comme dans la rue, par la mobilisation populaire du peuple français, comme nous avons su le faire lors des élections législatives de 2024.
That is difference between left and liberals, imo. While leftists are trying to fight the right by convincing people, liberals just trying to restrict anything that they do not like using legal tricks.
crawl back inside your patsoc cave 🧯
-
Maybe the reason is that the court's decision goes completely against democracy? I fully agree with the statement from the French Left party that such a decision should only be made by the people, not by an unelected structure. Elections allow people to vote, so why should the court interfere?
Quant au reste, la France insoumise n’a jamais eu comme moyen d’action d’utiliser un tribunal pour se débarrasser du Rassemblement National. Nous le combattons dans les urnes comme dans la rue, par la mobilisation populaire du peuple français, comme nous avons su le faire lors des élections législatives de 2024.
That is difference between left and liberals, imo. While leftists are trying to fight the right by convincing people, liberals just trying to restrict anything that they do not like using legal tricks.
What's stopping me from illegally winning the election then? Where do you draw the line ? Isn't the additional money here already an unfair advantage compared to your opponents ?
Let's not act like the extra money was not used to further the party goals elsewhere. There is no such thing as "a fair debate of opinion" and whatever bullshit.
They break the law, they get caught, they pay for it. And they where happy to vote this very law 10 years ago.
Do not generalize the left with your opinion, I disagree with LFI completely here. -
You're arguing for a democracy without a Justice system?
An independent Justice system is fundamental to a working, healthy democracy.
Just look around to where and how Justice system is weakened by political parties and it's always developing into autocracy and oppression.
I'm arguing that people should decide who they want elect, not the court. I dislike Le Pen (especially her father with his "great replacement bulshit"), I dislike right-wing and all their narratives. But I dislike too when not-elected bureaucracy trying to decide instead of people.
-
crawl back inside your patsoc cave 🧯
I have no idea what "patsoc cave" is and why should I crawl here.
-
The decision of the court has been taken following laws established by the Parliament. The punishment for convicted crimes and felonies are not pulled out of thin-air by a judge doing whatever he feels like.
If LFI feels that ‘ineligibility’ is not a suitable punishment (and indeed it is subject to some controversy, as it can indeed in theory be used to surpress political opponents), they should push to change the law. I don’t recall if RN+LFI have an actual majority but they should be close enough that they could push to amend existing legislation if they want to, rather than slander judges or question the independence of justice (which again, if they want to improve that they can also suggest legislative changes).
I don't think that LFI would go further than just a statement, there no reason to do it. Le Pen is a far right politician and the direct opposition to LFI. I still agree with a statement from LFI. Right-wing should be defeated in the election and on the streets, not in the court. And if liberals cannot do it, they should step back in favor of the actual left, instead of trying to fight the right in courts. That is my opinion, even if it is unpopular here.
-
I'm arguing that people should decide who they want elect, not the court. I dislike Le Pen (especially her father with his "great replacement bulshit"), I dislike right-wing and all their narratives. But I dislike too when not-elected bureaucracy trying to decide instead of people.
She broke the law and is punished for it. Why is this so hard to understand?
-
I'm arguing that people should decide who they want elect, not the court. I dislike Le Pen (especially her father with his "great replacement bulshit"), I dislike right-wing and all their narratives. But I dislike too when not-elected bureaucracy trying to decide instead of people.
Someone thats in prison cant be an active politician. They arent sentencing her for her political decisions, but because she is a criminal.
-
She broke the law and is punished for it. Why is this so hard to understand?
Understand what? Am I looking like a follower of the Legal Positivism / Statism? And even if she broke the law, why not just let people to decide not to vote for her? I see that this stupid movement of the court only makes far-right more popular.
-
Understand what? Am I looking like a follower of the Legal Positivism / Statism? And even if she broke the law, why not just let people to decide not to vote for her? I see that this stupid movement of the court only makes far-right more popular.
Basically, popular people shouldn't need to follow the law?
-
Basically, popular people shouldn't need to follow the law?
Not this. I only think that not the court but people should decide who will be elected. Even a criminal, if it is a decision of people. People should rule, not the bureaucracy. Otherwise courts will be used one day to protect the power of the ruling instead of protecting the society from the criminals.
-
Someone thats in prison cant be an active politician. They arent sentencing her for her political decisions, but because she is a criminal.
Someone thats in prison cant be an active politician.
Why? Why not to let people to decide?
-
Not this. I only think that not the court but people should decide who will be elected. Even a criminal, if it is a decision of people. People should rule, not the bureaucracy. Otherwise courts will be used one day to protect the power of the ruling instead of protecting the society from the criminals.
Marine Le Pen demands a lifetime ban from office for politicians convicted of crimes committed by abusing their position (2013, French with auto-generated subtitles).
-
Bénédicte de Perthuis, the judge who sentenced Le Pen for embezzling EU funds and barred her from running in France's 2027 presidential election, was placed under police protection on Monday night over alleged death threats she received, domestic press reported.
-
Someone thats in prison cant be an active politician.
Why? Why not to let people to decide?
Literally the most braindead take ever lmao
-
Marine Le Pen demands a lifetime ban from office for politicians convicted of crimes committed by abusing their position (2013, French with auto-generated subtitles).
Oh how the turn tables
-
Someone thats in prison cant be an active politician.
Why? Why not to let people to decide?
We did that here in the states, and look what it got us.
-
We did that here in the states, and look what it got us.
I read a lot of articles about how the democratic party of the US became "the party of Wall Street" instead of being the party of the working class. But of course it so easy to blame in everything the court that allows trump to participate in the election.
-
Someone thats in prison cant be an active politician.
Why? Why not to let people to decide?
Say you let the people decide, it still wouldnt make a difference because that what a jury does. There would not be any difference, the problen if you would make every single case in the country a sort of referendum like vote then it would be very easily influenced, and thus not be impartial and fair like how a legal system should work. Imagine this a murderer is on trail, he brutally killed 5 people in a maniac rampage, but hes a massively succesful tiktokker(ew) and says hes very very sorry and it wount happen again. Do you maybe think the results would be skewed in his favor due to his massive fanbase? If no you are oblivious to how easily people are manipulated.
The peoples vote is inherently objective and never impartial. The law exist to try and remedy that si that everybody is treated fairly. Also do you really want someone in power where its proven that the laundered huge amounts of money to themselves? Thats just a recipe for disaster
-
I'm arguing that people should decide who they want elect, not the court. I dislike Le Pen (especially her father with his "great replacement bulshit"), I dislike right-wing and all their narratives. But I dislike too when not-elected bureaucracy trying to decide instead of people.
This garbage needs to stop. The "not-elected beurocracy" is comprised of civil servants who often reject better paying positions in the private sector in order to contribute to the society they live in.
This vilification of civil servants is part and parcel of reactionary right wing movements, who can't stand people in decision making positions not being subservient to their particular partisan reactionary project. A good recent example is the insane opposition to the 15 minute city concept on the right. As if a traffic planner in the municipality trying to create walkable cities is some evil plant of the 'deep state' or some other insane garbage.
Those 'beurocrats' are the ones making the wheels of your nation's public sector turn, they are the ones providing public services to people who need them to survive. Vilification of public servants is and always will be the domain of the reactionary impulse. You hating that pig Jean-Marie doesn't change this fact in the slightest. You should really reconsider this position if you actually have leftist sentiments.
