Le Pen Verdict Fuels Claims That Europe’s Elites Are Colluding Against Populists
-
The case of Le Pen still raises thorny questions for democracies: Should the rule of law apply always, or only most of the time? And when it comes to politicians, how can we trust the law is being applied without political considerations?
For many, the debate boils down to whether one trusts the democratic institutions such as courts and regulators taking those decisions. In many cases, they are trustworthy; in other cases, they might be less reliable.
The disqualification of Le Pen risks deepening the polarization of France’s electorate, divided between urbanites who are broadly supportive of institutions such the judiciary and rural, working-class voters who see Le Pen as a change agent.
Those voters mistrust institutions. That narrative gathered steam after last summer’s snap parliamentary elections, when disparate parties—ranging from President Emmanuel Macron’s pro-business ranks to the far-left France Unbowed—cooperated to keep Le Pen’s candidates from winning seats by withdrawing underperforming candidates from individual races so that voters could coalesce behind a single candidate opposed to Le Pen.
The case of Le Pen still raises thorny questions for democracies: Should the rule of law apply always, or only most of the time? And when it comes to politicians, how can we trust the law is being applied without political considerations?
What a pile of BS.
There was a proper court that convicted her according to the applicable laws. Do we raise thorny questions if anyone else gets sentenced? Maybe the judge didn't like the defendant because of his hairstyle?
Is there any prove, that the trial was unfair? No? Than why are we talking about this at all?
-
Always. The law should always be applied. No exceptions.
Ffs how hard is it to understand.
This whole thing reads as though the writer feels Le Pen didn't really do anything wrong, but is being made an example of for having a different opinion.
I feel like we read a lot of things about far right populists claiming they are being actively prevented from practicing politics due to things they say, but then something comes out about what scumbags they really are.
Pretty much the only thing these populists have to defend themselves is whataboutism. I figured the trias politica would always make sure independent forces could keep these kinds of folks in check. This means
The law should always be applied.
Which begs the question: what happens when these guys do get to power, change the laws to their own liking, somehow get it pushed through...
-
The case of Le Pen still raises thorny questions for democracies: Should the rule of law apply always, or only most of the time? And when it comes to politicians, how can we trust the law is being applied without political considerations?
What a pile of BS.
There was a proper court that convicted her according to the applicable laws. Do we raise thorny questions if anyone else gets sentenced? Maybe the judge didn't like the defendant because of his hairstyle?
Is there any prove, that the trial was unfair? No? Than why are we talking about this at all?
In my country liberal appointed judge let an American TV station celeb walk after he hit and run a granny. My trust isn’t there, it’s not BS. Liberals turn blind eye to cases like that because it benefits them.
-
In my country liberal appointed judge let an American TV station celeb walk after he hit and run a granny. My trust isn’t there, it’s not BS. Liberals turn blind eye to cases like that because it benefits them.
We are not talking about the f-ing USA. We are talking about France.
Do you have any prove the trial was unfair? Any? No? Ok. Case closed!
-
We are not talking about the f-ing USA. We are talking about France.
Do you have any prove the trial was unfair? Any? No? Ok. Case closed!
Things like that happen everywhere and you must be living in a bubble not to see law being applied selectively by whomever took control of the judiciary. The biggest defense of rule of law that liberals love so much is just aesthetics to a regular person. Both sides use it as a pacifying stick these days. Fuck both of those sides but I need to remind everyone that there are more political stances than post truth populism and liberalism.
You don’t know anything about the case I’m referring to but you just „closed the case”. I’m closing the case on proving that liberals will brush off anything that doesn’t fit their world view.
-
Things like that happen everywhere and you must be living in a bubble not to see law being applied selectively by whomever took control of the judiciary. The biggest defense of rule of law that liberals love so much is just aesthetics to a regular person. Both sides use it as a pacifying stick these days. Fuck both of those sides but I need to remind everyone that there are more political stances than post truth populism and liberalism.
You don’t know anything about the case I’m referring to but you just „closed the case”. I’m closing the case on proving that liberals will brush off anything that doesn’t fit their world view.
tl;dr:
You have zero proof and are just wildly speculating to make up a story that fits your preferred narrative. As I already said: There is no reason to even consider this bs unless you come with a proof, which - to no surprise - you are unwilling to do. -
tl;dr:
You have zero proof and are just wildly speculating to make up a story that fits your preferred narrative. As I already said: There is no reason to even consider this bs unless you come with a proof, which - to no surprise - you are unwilling to do.Why the heck would I lie to you. The case Im referring to is commonly seen as an insult to intelligence and it went to the Supreme Court.
-
In my country liberal appointed judge let an American TV station celeb walk after he hit and run a granny. My trust isn’t there, it’s not BS. Liberals turn blind eye to cases like that because it benefits them.
In my country liberal appointed judge
In France, like every other sane country, judges are not political appointees.
The Judiciary has statutory protection from the Executive. This is explained in literally the first sentence on the English-language wiki page:
-
The case of Le Pen still raises thorny questions for democracies: Should the rule of law apply always, or only most of the time? And when it comes to politicians, how can we trust the law is being applied without political considerations?
For many, the debate boils down to whether one trusts the democratic institutions such as courts and regulators taking those decisions. In many cases, they are trustworthy; in other cases, they might be less reliable.
The disqualification of Le Pen risks deepening the polarization of France’s electorate, divided between urbanites who are broadly supportive of institutions such the judiciary and rural, working-class voters who see Le Pen as a change agent.
Those voters mistrust institutions. That narrative gathered steam after last summer’s snap parliamentary elections, when disparate parties—ranging from President Emmanuel Macron’s pro-business ranks to the far-left France Unbowed—cooperated to keep Le Pen’s candidates from winning seats by withdrawing underperforming candidates from individual races so that voters could coalesce behind a single candidate opposed to Le Pen.
Is it correct that the crime Le Pen was convicted of was hiring assistants to her parliament office who in reality were working for the national political party?
I've seen this claimed and if true I hope that a lot of people were convicted, not just her. Because I know for a fact that this exact setup has been used by other MEPs. At the time they believed it to be fully legal.
I'm happy she got convicted, but I don't want this to in any way having been politically targeted because that opens up a shitload of worm cans.
-
In my country liberal appointed judge
In France, like every other sane country, judges are not political appointees.
The Judiciary has statutory protection from the Executive. This is explained in literally the first sentence on the English-language wiki page:
When all of the elites come from wealthy families then are the institutions they staff really independent? We know that wealth affects your chances at getting highier education, connections etc. Maybe the system is rigged subtly enough so that we don’t revolt? Just consider the possibility and basic flaws in human nature.
-
Is it correct that the crime Le Pen was convicted of was hiring assistants to her parliament office who in reality were working for the national political party?
I've seen this claimed and if true I hope that a lot of people were convicted, not just her. Because I know for a fact that this exact setup has been used by other MEPs. At the time they believed it to be fully legal.
I'm happy she got convicted, but I don't want this to in any way having been politically targeted because that opens up a shitload of worm cans.
This is my understanding as well.
-
This whole thing reads as though the writer feels Le Pen didn't really do anything wrong, but is being made an example of for having a different opinion.
I feel like we read a lot of things about far right populists claiming they are being actively prevented from practicing politics due to things they say, but then something comes out about what scumbags they really are.
Pretty much the only thing these populists have to defend themselves is whataboutism. I figured the trias politica would always make sure independent forces could keep these kinds of folks in check. This means
The law should always be applied.
Which begs the question: what happens when these guys do get to power, change the laws to their own liking, somehow get it pushed through...
It's almost funny how the right wing in every country is both claiming to make very popular politics while also being the minority against the "elite", which is supposedly a secret coalition of everyone else.
At the same time they are themselves swindling EU funds to go to secret meetings where they coordinate by the same playbook. They're using the same words and strategy in all of Europe. It's always projection.
They're very loud, but it's time for the citizens in all of Europe to show them that facism is in fact not popular. I have had it with politely ignoring them - we all need to speak up and call out the bullshit as it happens.
-
The case of Le Pen still raises thorny questions for democracies: Should the rule of law apply always, or only most of the time? And when it comes to politicians, how can we trust the law is being applied without political considerations?
For many, the debate boils down to whether one trusts the democratic institutions such as courts and regulators taking those decisions. In many cases, they are trustworthy; in other cases, they might be less reliable.
The disqualification of Le Pen risks deepening the polarization of France’s electorate, divided between urbanites who are broadly supportive of institutions such the judiciary and rural, working-class voters who see Le Pen as a change agent.
Those voters mistrust institutions. That narrative gathered steam after last summer’s snap parliamentary elections, when disparate parties—ranging from President Emmanuel Macron’s pro-business ranks to the far-left France Unbowed—cooperated to keep Le Pen’s candidates from winning seats by withdrawing underperforming candidates from individual races so that voters could coalesce behind a single candidate opposed to Le Pen.
LOL. What nonsense! This is simply far right propaganda.
-
I've seen this claimed and if true I hope that a lot of people were convicted, not just her.
And you have done your civic duty and reported this cases of crime happening to prosecutors/law enforcement?
Yes, if anyone else was doing it, they should be charged. Even in this case, it wasn't merely Le Pen. The case involved over 10 people being charged for various roles in misappropriation funds.
-
It's almost funny how the right wing in every country is both claiming to make very popular politics while also being the minority against the "elite", which is supposedly a secret coalition of everyone else.
At the same time they are themselves swindling EU funds to go to secret meetings where they coordinate by the same playbook. They're using the same words and strategy in all of Europe. It's always projection.
They're very loud, but it's time for the citizens in all of Europe to show them that facism is in fact not popular. I have had it with politely ignoring them - we all need to speak up and call out the bullshit as it happens.
They’re very loud, but it’s time for the citizens in all of Europe to show them that facism is in fact not popular.
Isn't it, though? I'm kind of losing my faith about that, recently.
-
The case of Le Pen still raises thorny questions for democracies: Should the rule of law apply always, or only most of the time? And when it comes to politicians, how can we trust the law is being applied without political considerations?
For many, the debate boils down to whether one trusts the democratic institutions such as courts and regulators taking those decisions. In many cases, they are trustworthy; in other cases, they might be less reliable.
The disqualification of Le Pen risks deepening the polarization of France’s electorate, divided between urbanites who are broadly supportive of institutions such the judiciary and rural, working-class voters who see Le Pen as a change agent.
Those voters mistrust institutions. That narrative gathered steam after last summer’s snap parliamentary elections, when disparate parties—ranging from President Emmanuel Macron’s pro-business ranks to the far-left France Unbowed—cooperated to keep Le Pen’s candidates from winning seats by withdrawing underperforming candidates from individual races so that voters could coalesce behind a single candidate opposed to Le Pen.
Typical WSJ bullshit. Seeing the rule of law applied to a politician seems new and scary to them. They can't understand that applying the law to someone like Le Pen might actually increase faith in the institutions that govern them.
-
Why the heck would I lie to you. The case Im referring to is commonly seen as an insult to intelligence and it went to the Supreme Court.
Jesus Christ. He's not asking about your case. He's asking if you have any proof the Le Pen trial was unfair or whatever. Other than your speculation about "liberals duh!".
-
System shared this topic on
