Judge who convicted Le Pen under police protection amid online threats
-
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.
-
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.
Right-wing should be defeated in the election and on the streets, not in the court.
This is not about defeating the far right, this is about temporarily preventing several politicians who misappropriated public money thanks to their position from gaining access to positions that would allow them to commit a repeat offence. (Letâs keep in mind that theyâve not even expressed regret about what theyâve done, instead theyâve spent all the trial playing the martyrs.)
-
The decision had nothing to do with the RNâs political leaning. Nothing. Itâs beside the point.
-
The RN will still be able to take part in the presidential election. Nobodyâs forbidding them to take part in the election. For example, the RNâs current president, Jordan Bardella, has not been convicted or even prosecuted (even though he was one of the fake assistants!), and is free to try to run for the election.
-
-
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.
Youâre blaming the court for what she did.
-
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 nâa jamais eu comme moyen dâaction dâutiliser un tribunal pour se dĂ©barrasser 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 Ă©lections lĂ©gislatives 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 court is simply applying French law. It is not going against democracy. Le pen and her party broke the law and attacked democracy.
The judges didn't invent and apply their own stuff, they applied the same law yhat appllies to everyone and punished le pen and het party within the boundaries of 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.
You are confusing something with another political system.
Since ancient Greek times, where democracy was invented, severely unlawful behaviour was always being punished by also revoking political rights: offenders would loose both the right to vote and the right to represent others or hold any kind of public office.
And all of this exactly so as to protect the democracy itself.
-
System shared this topic on
