Judge who convicted Le Pen under police protection amid online threats
-
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.
-
System shared this topic on
-
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.
The right-wingers are such a bunch of pansies. They don't want justice, only power. If there were calls to punish the judge, those people should be arrested for attempting to incite violence.
These people talk about violent and dangerous left-wingers, but they are just projecting.
-
The right-wingers are such a bunch of pansies. They don't want justice, only power. If there were calls to punish the judge, those people should be arrested for attempting to incite violence.
These people talk about violent and dangerous left-wingers, but they are just projecting.
*Terrorists. Right wingers are terrorists.
-
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.
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.
-
As well as that, us not tolerating their intolerance annoys me no end.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
such a decision should only be made by the people
This is completely wrong, the courts are one of the pillars of democracy, and their job is to interpret the law, including laws that are supposed to protect democracy.
It is exactly the failure of doing that, that allowed Trump to become president, even after he tried to take power forcefully, and is now threatening democracy in USA.What the courts did in Romania and in France is the right thing to do, when fundamental rules of democracy are broken.
-
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.
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).
-
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.
The rule of law is not against democracy, it is the other way round: courts protect people and democracy from unlawful actions. In democracies (with all four pillars of power intact), no politician and no criminal stands above the law, even if those play their usual "victim" role, when caught.
If politicians do not want to be convicted by court, they should not break the law. Seems to be a simple rule to follow.
-
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.
Marine Le Pen isn't the first prominent French politician to be disqualified from public office. Since it stopped being automatic, it has already affected big names such as like her father, Nicolas Sarkozy, Jacques Chirac, Charles Pasqua, and Bernard Tapie.
This isn't exclusive to right-wing politicians; the disqualification penalty has been imposed by French justice on several dozens of elected officials and public representatives since 1992. It was in 1992 that the concept was introduced into French law. It was even applied automatically for a series of offences until a reform in 2010. Since then, it's a standalone penalty that must be decided on by a judge. It can last up to 5 years for an offence and 10 years for a crime. Here is a small selection of well-known male and female politicians who have been sentenced to this penalty (listed alphabetically).
-
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?
