[HN Gopher] Marine Le Pen banned from running in 2027 and given ...
___________________________________________________________________
Marine Le Pen banned from running in 2027 and given four-year
sentence
Author : tlogan
Score : 163 points
Date : 2025-03-31 12:22 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| rjtavares wrote:
| Not a fan of the immediate effect on part of the sentence
| (everything should be contingent on the result of the appeal
| process).
| freen wrote:
| Well, it's quite common in France, especially for the
| particular activities one was convicted of engaging in (barred
| from politics for embezzlement of political funds, not allowed
| to trade equities if convicted of insider trading, etc. ) and
| even more common if the convicted person shows defiance of the
| courts, lack of cooperation, etc.
|
| Make no mistake: this is completely standard and of LePen's own
| doing.
|
| Anyone telling you otherwise is either at best completely
| ignorant of French jurisprudence and the factual details of the
| case, or, at worse, intentionally deceiving you.
| Spartan-S63 wrote:
| While not versed in French law or their view of personal
| liberties, from an American lens, this seems fine. Barring
| running from public office could be reversible on appeal and
| that stipulation isn't irreversible--you could run after the
| ban is reversed--, so it's not depriving you of something
| significant enough that that should rise to a level of stricter
| scrutiny.
|
| The prison sentence being suspended until appeals are exhausted
| also seems sane to me for a nonviolent crime.
|
| So, overall, it seems reasonable. The ban on a run isn't
| infringing on fundamental rights in a way that is permanent and
| there's no deprivation of liberty until appeals are exhausted.
| zdimension wrote:
| There is a very real risk of political candidates committing
| political fraud, getting elected thanks to it, and putting
| pressure on the judiciary branch to lower their chances of
| getting arrested. We're seeing this exact process happen in
| real time in the US. Every modern country pretends that nobody
| is above the law and that bad people will get convicted and get
| sentences but in real life the government has power over this
| stuff.
|
| Making ineligibility sentences immediate is a way to make sure
| this sort of thing doesn't happen.
| pc86 wrote:
| It's also a way for someone to make their own re-election (or
| the continued control of their party) easier by "putting
| pressure on the judiciary branch" as you said to find their
| opponent guilty.
|
| Take the individual parties of today out of it. You don't
| want the party in power in the government to have the ability
| to decide who is allowed to run for office. If you actually
| want to live in a democracy and not just autocracy with your
| favored party in power, you want the people to decide who
| runs with as little government input as possible.
|
| A judge saying someone is not allowed to run for office is
| objectively, by definition, anti-democratic.
|
| > _We 're seeing this exact process happen in real time in
| the US._
|
| Last I checked Rosie O'Donnell is only one stupid enough to
| imply that the latest presidential election was not
| completely above board.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > by "putting pressure on the judiciary branch" as you said
| to find their opponent guilty.
|
| In a court of law in the US, a jury decides whether someone
| is guilty or not guilty in criminal cases.
| pc86 wrote:
| I know that, I'm just saying that if you can "put
| pressure on the judiciary" (which is a ridiculous
| statement in most western countries but especially
| France) to find someone not guilty, you can certainly do
| it to find them guilty.
|
| The information the jury hears in the US in criminal
| cases, especially high profile ones, is extremely tightly
| controlled. They're not in the room when lawyers are
| making evidentiary arguments to include or exclude
| evidence. I've served on a couple juries and the most
| high-stakes one carried potentially decades of jail time
| for the defendant. We were shuffled in and out of that
| room dozens of times each day for lawyers to make
| arguments about what we could or could not hear. Several
| of our questions during deliberation were answered with a
| section of the transcript and nothing more.
|
| Juries are wrong all the time.
| Steve16384 wrote:
| As long as it's not a death sentence (and we don't want those),
| all sentences should be immediate. If everything hinges on an
| (another) appeal, where does it end?
| ChocolateGod wrote:
| Not remotely a fan of Marine LePen or her politics, even if she's
| become more moderate in recent years, but this will make her a
| martyr and empower her.
|
| She can spend the next five years campaigning on how the
| establishment is trying to shut her down. These judges love own
| goals, no one should be barred from running for office of a
| country they're a citizen of. To me, it feels like overreach of
| un-elected judges.
| ealexhudson wrote:
| The Judges impose the punishment set out in the law; they don't
| make this stuff up.
|
| The alternative is Judges letting people off just because
| they're politicians. That seems like an extremely poor
| precedent to set, those in political life should be held to
| higher standards.
| ChocolateGod wrote:
| I didn't say letting someone of, a crime has been committed
| and the person should be punished. But forbidding someone
| from running from office? I don't think that should be the
| power of the judiciary. That should be the power and
| responsibility of the electorate (to not vote for them).
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| And why are your feelings relevant to the French legal
| system?
| z7 wrote:
| Why are you hallucinating feelings? Also, appeal to
| authority. ("Why are your feelings relevant to the
| wizarding laws of Hogwarts?")
| nchagnet wrote:
| You do understand that this is explicitly mandated by the
| law and only in special cases can this be lifted (and here
| the judge mentioned the lack of remorse or admission from
| the defendant was a deciding factor for this)? Here is a
| reference for that: https://www.vie-publique.fr/questions-
| reponses/297965-inelig...
| ahtihn wrote:
| There are all kinds of eligibility rules, you think they
| shouldn't exist?
|
| By your logic, Trump should be allowed to run for a 3rd
| term right?
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| >> Trump should be allowed to run for a 3rd term right?
|
| From the 25th Amendment:
|
| "No person shall be elected to the office of the
| President more than twice, and no person who has held the
| office of President, or acted as President, for more than
| two years of a term to which some other person was
| elected President shall be elected to the office of the
| President more than once."
|
| Trump might not be able to "be elected to the office of
| the President" again, but he could run as a temporary
| Vice President and then the President could resign,
| allowing Trump to serve another term, for example.
|
| Of course the 12th Amendment says, "no person
| constitutionally ineligible to the office of President
| shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United
| States", but the 25th Amendment doesn't say a two-term
| President is ineligible to the office of President, it
| says he can't "be elected to the office of President".
|
| The Supreme Court recently decided that a law prohibiting
| false statements did not prohibit misleading statements.
| If the legislators had wanted to prohibit misleading
| statements, they would have prohibited false and
| misleading statements, not just false ones. Words matter
| to them.
|
| And there are many other possibilities for creative
| types.
|
| As far the French eligibility rules go, would you be
| comfortable with a system where anyone who Trump's DOJ
| can get a conviction on is ineligible to run for office,
| with no right of appeal on that holding? That would be a
| really terrible incentive.
| rsynnott wrote:
| I'm not sure how good a look "they imposed consequences for my
| stealing a measly 4 million euro of taxpayer money" is for a
| populist politician, tbh.
|
| Like I mean I'm sure her core followers will be able to explain
| it away, but for a broader populist appeal it doesn't seem
| great.
| Centigonal wrote:
| > this will make her a martyr and empower her.
|
| The US Supreme Court and Congress decided to allow Donald Trump
| to run in 2024, choosing not to enforce Section 3 of the 14th
| Amendment against him. As you can see today, this resulted in
| Donald Trump not being empowered.
|
| [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-
| anderson...
| LunaSea wrote:
| Marine Le Pen herself stated a few years ago that corrupt
| politicians should be banned from running for office for life.
|
| I'm sure that her meaning changed in the last few hours.
| curiousgal wrote:
| She's now the perfect candidate to run in the U.S.
| like_any_other wrote:
| Same story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43533857
| tekla wrote:
| Really making it hard to not believe that France is trying to ban
| a legal candidate by making this cute shim where everything BUT
| being able to run is subject to the appeals process.
| soco wrote:
| I'm fully aware that in other countries skirting or blatantly
| ignoring the courts is becoming practice, but I'm definitely
| not a fan of that practice.
| furyg3 wrote:
| If you're caught using steroids before the race, you're banned
| from running in the race (and may be fined, and may face
| criminal charges). If you want to appeal that's fine, but you
| can't run in the race today.
|
| She was caught improperly funneling EU funds to her own party
| (members), which would give her party an unfair advantage in
| any current political race.
| tekla wrote:
| I'm glad to live in a country has strict rules about being
| able to run for office that has an obscenely high bar before
| being taken away.
| eclecticfrank wrote:
| Being convicted of a crime is an obscenely high bar.
| tekla wrote:
| Good thing convicting a political opponent of a crime has
| never been used to crush dissidents.
| rsynnott wrote:
| I mean, possibly such 'dissidents' should refrain from
| doing multi-million euro frauds, in that case. Seems like
| asking for trouble.
| johnbronnan wrote:
| Sorry, are you claiming that the independent judiciary
| who convicted her of embezzling funds considers her their
| "political opponent"? And that the sentence they handed
| down which is laid out by the French legal system is
| tantamount to "crushing dissidents"?
| phtrivier wrote:
| There are quite a few things were the sentence can be enforced
| even during the appeal.
|
| For example, you can be jailed before your trial ; you can have
| your driving license overturned if you kill someone ; and, it
| turns out, you can get banned from running into elections if
| you're found guilty of embezzlement.
|
| Fortunately for her, the next elections are in 2 years ; I
| would not be surprised is she get an appeal, a reduced
| ineligibility sentence to allow her to run in the next
| legislative election. And she might be happy with that - two
| round presidential elections are hard for her party, and, more
| importantly : winning an election is a _terrible_ situation in
| France.
| baggachipz wrote:
| Interesting concept, forcing prominent crooked far-right
| politicians to face the consequences of their illegal actions.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Would you not expect the same standard to be held for prominent
| politicians outside the far right?
| pjc50 wrote:
| Yes. I'd expect the law to apply equally.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy_corruption_t.
| ..
| adev_ wrote:
| And to be fair, not even only on the right side.
|
| The left is in the same bath:
|
| https://www.france24.com/en/20170718-france-far-left-
| leader-...
|
| Since this case is making jurisprudence, the likeliness of
| them being convicted just become even higher.
| baggachipz wrote:
| Good. Criminals should be held accountable. I can't
| believe there's even an argument about this. Whataboutism
| only breeds more criminal activity.
| leereeves wrote:
| That hasn't happened yet though, it's only a preliminary
| investigation.
| r00fus wrote:
| This is really just a "they're all doing it too" finger
| pointing from Le Pen's party.
|
| "The preliminary investigation - already targeting
| members of France's centrist MoDem party, conservative
| party The Republicans and the Socialist Party - was
| opened after a member of Marine Le Pen's far-right
| National Front asked the Paris prosecutor to look into
| the issue."
|
| I glad all such allegations will be investigated.
| raffael_de wrote:
| Lagarde 2016, comparable case, same country, very different
| outcome.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/christine-
| laga...
|
| Lagarde's case was about 400 million Euro. Le Pen is
| convicted of embezzling 474.000 Euro.
|
| Honi soit qui mal y pense.
| jmague wrote:
| Christine lagarde was found guilty of negligence, in
| favor of someone else. Marine Le Pen was found guilty of
| deliberately embezzling money for her own party. The
| cases are in no way comparable.
| raffael_de wrote:
| And why would Lagarde neglect several hundred million
| Euro in favor of someone else?
| phtrivier wrote:
| Interestingly, the Lagarde case was not ruled by
| "regular" judges, but by a special court "of politicians,
| by politicians, for politicians". The idea, being,
| precisely, to try and deal with separation of power, and
| avoid the judiciary ruling against "the will of the
| people".
|
| At the time, the decision was controversial because it
| was too "nice" with the former minister. I'm pretty sure
| you can find an archive of the FN/RN spokepersons of the
| time criticizing the "Cour de Justice de la Republique."
|
| So, instead, let "normal judges" make decisions about all
| citizens, voters and elected alike ?
|
| Suddenly that does not sound that appealing.
|
| She will run again. She will keep her deputy job. Her
| "jail" will be much more confortable than Navalny's.
| She'll have other decades to run in other elections.
|
| Her party will keep winning some, provided gas prices and
| taxes and rents still go up. I don't see a politician
| trying anything against that. She'll be fine.
| baggachipz wrote:
| Absolutely, I would. It just seems that the criminals tend to
| be from one end of the spectrum....
|
| But crime is crime and justice should always be applied
| equally.
| pc86 wrote:
| If she's a clear cut fascist criminal and everyone on the
| other side is great then why wouldn't you want her to run?
| Should be easy to trounce her if she's as bad as you say.
| baggachipz wrote:
| You'd think so, but _other_ elections have proven this to
| be false.
| piva00 wrote:
| She committed crimes, and having the potential for a
| felon to achieve power over the government doesn't seem
| to be conducive for them to be punished under the law.
|
| Allowing a populist criminal to run for office is not
| great for democracy.
| stfp wrote:
| So if someone is proven to be corrupt we should just let
| them run in elections and trust that they won't use
| corruption or other immoral or illegal means to get
| elected? Or that they won't do more of that if they do
| get elected. Maybe we should never convict any politician
| of any crime, what could go wrong
| throwaway173738 wrote:
| I mean why wouldn't we just take anyone accused of a
| felony and just hold an election for some high office
| right there? Then if they win it's because no crimes were
| committed, and if they lose obviously it's because they
| were criminals. A simple majority should suffice and
| there's no need to review any evidence of wrongdoing.
| bell-cot wrote:
| > criminals tend to be from one end of the spectrum
|
| _At best_ , that trait is highly localized.
|
| And compared to (say) "1900's standard" levels of
| corruption in Democrat-controlled big American cities - Le
| Pen's crimes were nickle-and-dime stuff.
| throwaway173738 wrote:
| It's been 100 years. Can you find something that happened
| in this century? With people who are alive today?
| bell-cot wrote:
| How about Greece, where the corruption goes all the way
| to humanitarian and rehab organization?
|
| https://borgenproject.org/10-facts-about-corruption-in-
| greec...
|
| (BTW, it ain't been 100 years. Mayor Daly Sr. ran Chicago
| into the 1970's. Mayor Young ran Detroit into the 1990's.
| Etc.)
| verzali wrote:
| Rod Blagojevich? Bob Menendez? Eric Adams?
|
| Not saying the left is particularly corrupt, there are
| examples on all sides.
| benterix wrote:
| > It just seems that the criminals tend to be from one end
| of the spectrum....
|
| Why would you say so? Are there any studies on proportional
| crime distribution among politicians worldwide?
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| In the United States, you can compare the number of
| people in each president's administrations in recent
| years. There's a striking difference between Republican
| administrations and Democratic administrations.
| deepsun wrote:
| Believers just say it was cooked up, and reinforces their
| belief. Makes the politician a martyr, breaker of chains.
| tomrod wrote:
| I'm okay with this outcome. Especially if a jury of peers
| reviews the evidence and stops the far right-wing (fascist)
| politician from further compounding crimes or marrying their
| criminality with state power, often abusing the rights of
| people a democratic government is established to protect.
|
| It is a brave thing to do, to hold popular people accountable
| for their actions (especially things like leaking secrets to
| geopolitical adversaries resulting in the deaths of
| intelligence personnel, or, other things like what Le Pen is
| guilty of), but it is necessary. Once you let it go, your
| country becomes ruled by authoritarians.
| deepsun wrote:
| No, when a martyr becomes popular (elected), the "jury of
| peers" is likely be composed of the believers as well. They
| are not going to hold the martyr accountable, but rather
| their oppressors.
| tomrod wrote:
| Which is not what happened here. Fascinating.
| atmavatar wrote:
| Is your suggestion to grant legal immunity to any and all
| far-right politicians so you can avoid their followers'
| ire just in case they become popular enough for election
| at some point in the future?
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| There was no jury in this case. In France jury trials are
| only in "Cour d'Assises", which deals with the most serious
| criminal cases.
|
| Factually you can't call her or her party "fascist",
| either. This is really one of those terms that is over-used
| to an extent that is not useful at all.
| tomrod wrote:
| We should all identify far right with fascism. In every
| case they have taken control, they exercise
| authoritarianism to the point of removal of dissent --
| which is a hallmark of fascism.
|
| I therefore reject your claim this is improper labeling.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| I would rather have them as martyrs. Let them all be martyrs.
|
| Better than not doing anything and allowing them to become
| actual leaders.
| smooc wrote:
| I've heard people on the radio (ha yes I listen to that ;-)) that
| they disagree with Le Pen being banned from running for
| president.
|
| That seems strange to me as this was public (eu) money that was
| funneled into her own movement, i.e. bolstering her popularity in
| some way. So letting her run in the elections would basically
| mean she would get away with the fraude.
| pc86 wrote:
| At the risk of just repeating a previous comment, if you
| actually want to live in a democracy you have to trust the
| electorate at some level. I don't know the specifics of this
| case but if it's clear cut corruption it should be easy to make
| that case to the electorate and absolutely destroy Le Pen in
| the election.
|
| If it's not that easy, then banning her from running is even
| worse.
| piva00 wrote:
| Counterpoint: USA's presidential elections 2024.
| tpm wrote:
| At some level, yes. At the level of letting convicted
| criminals run for the highest office, no, that would be
| stupid.
|
| > it should be easy to make that case to the electorate
|
| It turns out if you have enough money for endless propaganda
| it is easy to make any case to the electorate. And who will
| be making the case anyway? The state cannot because it has to
| be inpartial in the elections; their opponents have a clear
| agenda (they want to be the president) so it's easy to
| dismiss their case. So that leaves no one with standing.
|
| > If it's not that easy, then banning her from running is
| even worse.
|
| If the result is that a convicted criminal will not be
| elected into the highest office of the state, that's not a
| worse outcome, that's a perfect outcome.
| overfeed wrote:
| Allowing some people to be above the law is a bad idea in
| general. Selecting _elected officials_ to be above the law
| in particularly is ill-thought-out, IMO. Perverse
| incentives abound . Elections shouldn 't be a get-out-of-
| jail card.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| Only when the rules are followed.
|
| For democracy to work properly politicians need to follow the
| rules.
| glandium wrote:
| The problem is when rules don't apply the same to all
| politicians.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| That's a claim. You should back it up.
|
| In the case of EU are there other politicians who
| embezzled funds that were let off the hook?
| glandium wrote:
| Here's one: Jacques Chirac was condemned in 2011 to 2
| years with suspension (so, less than Le Pen) for
| something very similar (party members paid for fictitious
| jobs at the Mairie de Paris when he was mayor), and no
| ineligibility (so again, different consequences).
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| So it sounds like other politicians have indeed been
| convicted of similar things. The difference in punishment
| would then require you to examine the difference in the
| severity of the actions, which is beyond my pay grade.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| Your example was of a politician being condemned. It
| seems that the system does work as intended after all.
|
| As for the length of punishment, we would have to look in
| detail what each did.
|
| Two murders may result is different length of
| imprisonment.
| crazygringo wrote:
| That's where it gets tricky.
|
| Ultimately, rules come from the people in a democracy.
|
| If they decide they want a candidate who broke the rules,
| that's where it gets messy in political philosophy.
|
| Should the democratic will of the people from years ago or
| decades ago override the democratic will of the people now?
| Of course that's the general idea of having constitutions
| and such, but it can only ever be a matter of degree, and
| there's no right answer as to how much.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| There's nothing messy about this.
|
| Rules should be followed. If when rules are broken no
| punishment is applied, the rules are meaningless. Once
| rules become meaningless, everyone will be emboldened to
| break the rules, to the detriment of society as a whole.
|
| If you want the rules changed, vote for them being
| changed, don't give free pass for any asshole to break
| them.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Of course it's messy.
|
| > _Rules should be followed._
|
| But free, democratic elections is a "rule" too -- not
| just a rule, but a bedrock _principle_.
|
| Why should people be prevented from voting _now_ for
| someone because of previous rules made by a _previous_
| electorate? Why should someone from the past be allowed
| to nullify my preferred vote in the present?
|
| There's always something inherently anti-democratic about
| preventing someone from running for office. The question
| is whether it's outweighed by other democratic concerns.
| It's messy.
| ahtihn wrote:
| > Why should people be prevented from voting now for
| someone because of previous rules made by a previous
| electorate? Why should someone from the past be allowed
| to nullify my preferred vote in the present?
|
| All elections follow rules set by a previous electorate
| unless you want to first vote on defining the rules for
| an election every time you have an election.
|
| If Trump were to actually run for a 3rd term, would you
| argue that he should be able to because term limits were
| set in place by a previous electorate?
| crazygringo wrote:
| Obviously they have to follow the rules for how to count
| votes, establish boundaries, etc.
|
| But there is definitely a serious philosophical argument
| that term limits are inherently undemocratic.
|
| I personally think they're necessary, but at the same
| time I realize they are undemocratic. They're literally
| taking away the ability for an electorate to freely
| choose.
|
| All I'm saying is, the tradeoffs get messy. Restricting
| candidates from running can be a slippery slope. Look at
| what's happening in Turkey, where the popular opposition
| candidate was just barred from running. How do you know
| when you've gone too far? Barring candidates can
| corruptly entrench power, even when following the "rules"
| to the letter. What then?
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > Barring candidates can corruptly entrench power, even
| when following the "rules" to the letter. What then?
|
| Bold claim. Bold claims require bold evidence. You
| provided none.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Two sentences previous, I literally stated:
|
| > _Look at what 's happening in Turkey, where the popular
| opposition candidate was just barred from running._
|
| Are you aware of the current situation in Turkey? If
| that's not bold evidence, I literally don't know what is.
| johnbronnan wrote:
| Erdogan has consolidated power independently and
| undemocratically and is using it to jail his opponents.
| That is completely different from this situation where a
| politician is engaging in anti-democratic actions and is
| then barred from running by an independent judiciary.
|
| > term limits are inherently undemocratic
|
| A society where the people are not able to participate in
| the electoral process is not a democratic society. True
| democracies represent the will of all people, regardless
| of whether they are part of the majority or whether they
| were eligible to vote in the single election which
| transitioned the political system from democracy to
| dictatorship.
| psychlops wrote:
| Oh, Erdogan consolidated his power over the last few
| decades democratically. Rural turks came out in mass to
| vote for him over past decades. Incidentally, in the past
| he was actually jailed by his political opponents and
| banned from politics.
| ahtihn wrote:
| I mean you could easily argue that any election rules are
| undemocratic. The rules for the US presidential election
| are quite flawed for example.
|
| The rules can be changed but again there are rules for
| how to do that! It's rules all the way down.
|
| You can't have a functioning democratic system without
| rules.
|
| The problems start when people start thinking that rules
| don't matter or aren't applied evenly.
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| I expect I'm going to be hearing "term limits are
| inherently undemocractic" pretty fucking frequently for
| the next three years
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| This entire argument can be summarized as "no popular
| politician should ever have to obey any law." I realize
| you'll respond that _you don 't mean anything that
| extreme_, of course. But the set of principles you're
| trying to articulate are, in fact, exactly that extreme.
| I don't want to live in that world and neither will you,
| when you have to experience it.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > not just a rule, but a bedrock principle.
|
| Only when the rules are respected by everyone involved.
|
| If we are playing football (or soccer for the barbarians
| across the pond), a core principle is to score goals. If
| in the middle of the game I punch you in the face, that
| principle stops mattering super fast.
|
| > Why should people be prevented from voting now for
| someone because of previous rules made by a previous
| electorate?
|
| Because that is how rules and regulations work. If you
| want them changed, change them properly, don't go
| breaking them because your pet right wing politician was
| punished for breaking them.
|
| > There's always something inherently anti-democratic
| about preventing someone from running for office
|
| I fundamentally disagree. The only thing anti-democratic
| is to allow someone that does not respect the democratic
| rules for running for office, for they will undermine
| democracy from within.
| psychlops wrote:
| > The only thing anti-democratic is to allow someone that
| does not respect the democratic rules for running for
| office, for they will undermine democracy from within.
|
| Surely you see the catch in this belief. If there is a
| group of people who can "allow" others to run for
| election then the system is not democratic at its core.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > If there is a group of people who can "allow" others to
| run for election then the system is not democratic at its
| core.
|
| It is democratic at its core. Any democracy has an
| independent judicial system that can ensure that rules
| are being followed properly.
|
| Separation of powers between executive, legislative and
| judiciary, does it ring a bell to you?
|
| If the judiciary stops doing its job of banning those
| that would cheat elections, you wouldn't have a democracy
| anymore.
| psychlops wrote:
| Or if the judiciary has any sort of bias as is implied in
| this case. (I don't pretend to know the details)
|
| I enthusiastically endorse the separation of powers and
| firmly believe that people should follow systems, not
| people. Perhaps it just a global coincidence, but the
| recent spate of candidate disqualification (US, Romania,
| Turkey, France) gives the appearance of democratic decay.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > Or if the judiciary has any sort of bias as is implied
| in this case. (I don't pretend to know the details)
|
| Then don't assume the judiciary is biased by following up
| with a disclaim that you are repeating baseless
| conjecture. Le Pen was judged with her right to legal
| defense, found guity, and punished accordingly. This is
| democracy working as it should.
|
| > I enthusiastically endorse the separation of powers and
| firmly believe that people should follow systems, not
| people.
|
| Based on the content of your posts, I sincerely doubt
| your enthusiastic endorsement.
|
| You are very quick to make excuses for the right wing
| politician that was punished for embezzlement, claimed
| repeatedly that her being banned from office is
| undemocratic, and claimed without a shred of evidence
| that the court that judged her is biased.
|
| Forgive me if I think you are bullshitting me here.
|
| > Perhaps it just a global coincidence, but the recent
| spate of candidate disqualification (US, Romania, Turkey,
| France) gives the appearance of democratic decay.
|
| Comparing France to Turkey is pure bad faith
| argumentation. If you genuinely think that Turkey and
| France share any sort of democratic decay you are very
| ill informed.
|
| If Le Pen was not punished, I would agree France was
| taking a step in creating its own French Erdogan.
| psychlops wrote:
| You must be confusing my posts with someone else. Or
| claim doesn't mean what you think it means. Forgive me if
| it's difficult to forgive you when you place so much
| negative spin on what I wrote.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Only if those people act in anti-democratic ways. E.g. if
| they apply the law selectively, if they forego or
| restrict due process, and if they play around with the
| meaning of words and crimes then yeah, that's anti-
| democratic. For example, people brought up what's
| happening in Turkey, and I agree what's happening there
| is anti-democratic.
|
| But if the people involved are not making up crimes, but
| prosecuting crimes; if they are not targeting people
| specifically, but enforcing the law that applies to
| everyone; and if they are allowing for the maximum
| possible due process, then there really isn't much of a
| case for that process being anti-democratic.
| aredox wrote:
| That's why we have nowadays _Republics_ , with either
| written constitutions or fundamental legal texts like
| Habeas Corpus, not just pure democracies _a la_ antique
| Athens.
|
| The way out of your conundrum is to admit there is no
| "the People"; there is a collection of diverging, often
| incoherent trends, and no voting system is perfect (no
| voting system is even _logical_ , as proven by Condorcet
| and Arrow[0])
|
| [0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/arrows-
| impossibility-th...
| crazygringo wrote:
| I'm using modern terminology. There's no relevant
| distinction here:
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/democracy-and-
| republ...
|
| The fundamental democratic principle is the same.
|
| And we measure the will of the people in elections,
| without having to worry about Arrow... it's procedural.
| aredox wrote:
| Arrow is not at all "procedural", the French know it
| well: the 1995 presidential election ended with a Chirac
| vs Le Pen (the patriarch) duel, even though Lionel Jospin
| was the favorite and would have beaten both if he had
| faced them off... A clear example of non-transitivity in
| elections.
| crazygringo wrote:
| That's my point, sorry if it wasn't clear. Non-
| transitivity is resolved procedurally. You can theorize
| about Arrow all you want; in the meantime you can write
| rules that actually do produce electoral results.
| cauch wrote:
| The definition of democracy according to Ricoeur is: >
| Est democratique, une societe qui se reconnait divisee,
| c'est-a-dire traversee par des contradictions d'interet
| et qui se fixe comme modalite, d'associer a parts egales,
| chaque citoyen dans l'expression de ces contradictions,
| l'analyse de ces contradictions et la mise en
| deliberation de ces contradictions, en vue d'arriver a un
| arbitrage.
|
| In English, more-or-less: > A society is democratic if it
| acknowledge that it is divided, which means that it
| contains contradictory interests, and if it creates
| modality to analyse and debate these contradictions so
| that we can reach arbitration, with each citizen having
| an equal share in the debate.
|
| I don't believe that a society is democratic if a
| majority of the people have decided something that is
| harmful or unfair to a minority without properly having
| debated if this decision is fair or not for the minority.
|
| Because of that, no, it's not "whatever the majority
| decides". In a democracy, the will to guarantee justice
| and fairness is more important than "the people", and if
| they say "there is suspicion of fraud from this candidate
| but let's just close our eyes because we like this person
| or because it is profitable for us", this is clearly a
| behavior where they are not trying to reach a just and
| fair situation.
|
| This is what distinguish democracy from ochlocracy.
|
| And I don't understand how people can really defend that
| we should ignore the justice/fairness condition: what is
| the point of following "the people" when these people are
| not trying to be just and fair? How will it be a good
| society?
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| Weird time in history to be a maximalist on trusting
| electorates.
| eviks wrote:
| That's what happened - some officials trusted the electorate
| at some level and decided that the rules the electorate chose
| to make via their representatives should be followed. Those
| officials also trust the electorate to change the rules if
| they want to.
| xracy wrote:
| I mean, "trust the electorate" sounds like a nice ideal, but
| I think it conveniently ignores the shithose of news and
| information that makes its way into the public discourse. We
| can't agree on basic facts in most places. What hope do we
| have to "trust the electorate" when most people are given
| straight propaganda and they buy it whole cloth.
|
| If you want to live in the world where we "trust the
| electorate" you first have to figure out how to make the
| electorate informed. In the meantime, I would gladly accept
| equally applied and adjudicated laws as a way to remove
| corrupt individuals from the electable population. A lot of
| places do this already, so making it so someone can't run for
| a given election cycle seems like a relatively small slap on
| the wrist compared to barring felons from ever being allowed
| to vote or hold office.
| agumonkey wrote:
| Well if that media is biased toward far-right they will push
| for disagreement.
| tlogan wrote:
| Personally, I believe that in a democracy, courts shouldn't have
| the power to disqualify individuals from running for office.
| That's just my opinion, though, and I'm not familiar with the
| situation in France.
|
| Separately, here in the U.S., I take issue with the fact that ex-
| felons are denied the right to vote. I believe we should push for
| a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to vote for
| every U.S. citizen--regardless of their criminal record or other
| issues.
| GTP wrote:
| We should look at the whole legal framework, maybe it's part of
| the check and balances between the executive, legislative and
| judicial powers.
| beernet wrote:
| >> courts shouldn't have the power to disqualify individuals
| from running for office.
|
| Why would you want that? Didn't history teach us better?
|
| >> Separately, here in the U.S., I take issue with the fact
| that ex-felons are denied the right to vote
|
| Well, ex-felons can become Potus, so that's that.
| noitpmeder wrote:
| >> Why would you want that? Didn't history teach us better?
|
| Once you give the courts the power to disqualify candidates
| you open the door to massive potential for political witch
| hunts with the express goal of disqualifying the opposition.
|
| Since the executive branch effectively controls the justice
| department, this is a pretty scary thought.
| jmague wrote:
| At least in France, the courts are independent of the
| executive.
| noitpmeder wrote:
| Thanks for this context! Pretty pivotal piece of info.
| pjc50 wrote:
| If a court isn't independent of the executive, something
| is very seriously wrong (see Poland)
| noitpmeder wrote:
| To be clear, in the US the justice department is under
| the exec branch. The courts themselves are further
| disconnected.
| beernet wrote:
| Exactly. Very telling that this appears to need explicit
| mentioning.
| root_axis wrote:
| Everything has the potential to be a slippery slope. That
| potential doesn't seem like a good reason to abandon the
| idea of standards for our leaders.
| dave4420 wrote:
| Courts already have the power to fine and jail people.
|
| The problem is not the power. The problem is the
| politicisation.
| _heimdall wrote:
| I've always been of the opinion that a power shouldn't be
| granted if it can be abused so easily.
|
| Its unreasonable to say powers should never be abusable,
| but it isn't hard for a political system to become
| politicized. That shouldn't be all it takes.
| ModernMech wrote:
| That's the thing about the nature of power -- it's not
| really power if it can't be easily abused. That's why
| with great power, comes great responsibility.
| Responsibility would not be needed if the power couldn't
| be abused.
|
| At the end of the day if someone has the ability to
| prevent you from using your power, _they_ are the ones
| who actually have power. So who watches the watchmen?
|
| The US tries to solve this conundrum by making the checks
| on power a self-reinforcing circle. "Checks and
| balances". But at the end of the day, the Constitution is
| just a piece of paper, and all it takes to abuse power
| once given to you is to convince yourself you have the
| right.
|
| We can diffuse the power so much that not one person can
| abuse it. But that has the problem of making action so
| impossible that the power is never used and nothing gets
| done. Equally problematic.
|
| That's why it's so important to elect people of high
| character. Most politicians fail this test.
| _heimdall wrote:
| I think we agree here in general. For me the risk is too
| high when only one person can abuse power in a meaningful
| way with little or no check on that authority. I put most
| executive branch powers (in the US) on that list - the
| president was meant to largely be a figurehead only
| executing on what the legislative branch passed and the
| courts haven't found unconstitutional.
|
| > That's why it's so important to elect people of high
| character. Most politicians fail this test.
|
| I'd say we have failed to build a system that
| incentivizes anyone of high character to run for office.
| cmurf wrote:
| The exchange of power, including consolidation and
| fragmentation of power, is politics.
|
| Courts give orders, but the coercive powers of fines and
| incarceration are administrative. At the federal level,
| and the few states I'm familiar with, these are executive
| branch powers.
|
| To whatever degree the founders were deeply flawed
| people, they understood power quite well. They didn't
| create a democracy as much as they created a polyarchy.
| Their interest was to make ambitions compete. Ambition to
| counter ambition.
|
| They were most concerned by consolidated power. Monarchy.
| For obvious reasons.
| _heimdall wrote:
| > Why would you want that?
|
| I don't have a strong opinion on it wither way, but the GP's
| opinion seems totally reasonable to me.
|
| Why shouldn't the public be able to elect whoever they want?
| If the courts can block candidates before they run, the
| courts can effectively circumvent checks and balances before
| the person could be elected.
|
| > Didn't history teach us better?
|
| I'm not sure what you're referring to here, help me out. What
| examples of history show the universal downsides when courts
| _can 't_ disqualify potential candidates?
| mfuzzey wrote:
| >Why shouldn't the public be able to elect whoever they
| want?
|
| Because some types of illegal behaviour of candidates can
| influence the vote.
|
| This isn't about a court banning MLP because of her views
| or policy proposals (that would be very bad) but because
| she has been show to have comitted fraud by abusing EU
| money to pay for her own party.
|
| Unlike in the US there are strict rules in France about how
| much politicians can spend on campainging and where the
| funds can come from that are intended to ensure a level
| playing field rather than favouring rich candidates.
|
| If courts couldn't ban candidates who don't respect the
| rules then elections could be "bought" illegaly.
| cmurf wrote:
| What's ex- about it? Presently still convicted, unless I
| missed an appeal?
|
| Anyway POTUS is likely the only job a convicted felon can
| get.
| beernet wrote:
| Agreed, my bad.
| pc86 wrote:
| If your crime is so heinous as to come with life-long
| punishment, you should be in prison for life. If the idea of
| putting someone in prison for life for a particular crime makes
| you take pause, perhaps they shouldn't have _any_ life-long
| punishment for that crime. This includes all Constitutionally-
| protected rights: voting, gun rights, whatever one you want to
| pick.
| like_any_other wrote:
| Conversely, if there are so many prisoners or the
| disenfranchised that, in a democracy, they can sway elections
| and drive policy, isn't that a sign there's something wrong
| with the system, e.g. disenfranchisement and prison is being
| used as a weapon against parts of the population? Denying
| them the vote means the system is that much harder to fix.
|
| On the other hand, if only those who really deserve it lose
| their right to vote (i.e. a small fraction of the
| population), then it doesn't really matter if they can vote
| or not - their small numbers mean they won't make a
| difference. But the benefit is that disenfranchisement can no
| longer be used as a political weapon.
| pc86 wrote:
| You shouldn't be able to vote if you are actively in prison
| on the day of the election. Or maybe cases like house
| arrest. But if we say that you're able to be walking around
| in society with us, including probation/parole, you should
| have all the rights that others have.
| rsynnott wrote:
| It doesn't come with life-long punishment. She's banned from
| public office for five years (immediate), and jailed for four
| years (won't come into effect until after the appeal).
| pc86 wrote:
| I'm just talking about felons in the US who have served
| their time in incarceration and finished
| parole/probation/supervised release being denied multiple
| rights for the rest of their lives.
| throwaway173738 wrote:
| That's actually up to each state. For example in my home
| state you can vote once you've served your term and any
| probation.
| Ragnarork wrote:
| If it's been proven that a politician will cheat democracy, how
| is banning them from running for office a bad thing? And who
| should decide that if not the courts?
|
| How would that be any different than banning someone from
| running a company after they've been found guilty of fraud or
| any other way of breaking the law about how to run companies?
|
| If they've been proven unable to follow the law, they shouldn't
| be able to be elected.
|
| As some extra context here, the judge mentioned that she was
| totally recognizing how heavy the situation was. But she
| mentioned a few things:
|
| - it's been found that it was all part of a system designed
| from the very top of the party (so MLP) to embezzle money
|
| - it's been noted that during the entire procedure, all the
| defendants showed complete denial of the facts and no will to
| accept that they did something bad
|
| As such she pointed out that they was a high risk that they
| would do it again, and that's what tipped the scale in favor of
| banning them right away. I agree with that.
| tlogan wrote:
| My concern is that courts can become corrupted or influenced
| by those in power, which creates a serious problem. While
| courts should have the authority to issue sentences--like
| prison terms--they shouldn't be the ones deciding who the
| public is allowed to vote for.
|
| If people want to vote for someone, that's their democratic
| right. And if they make a mistake, they'll learn from the
| consequences. But the decision should ultimately rest with
| the voters, not the courts.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| That argument makes sense in most cases. If the candidate
| is a rapist, voters can and should be the ones to
| disqualify them.
|
| But this is a case of cheating. If a candidate cheats in an
| election, that should disqualify them because otherwise the
| election is tainted.
| inimino wrote:
| This is an embezzlement case. No-one tampered with
| election results, so can you explain how there is any
| logic to your argument?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| They used the money on the election campaign.
| inimino wrote:
| All I have seen is that four people worked for the party
| while being paid by the EU. Nothing like routing money to
| advertising campaigns or anything that would actually
| swing an election. And the headlines are all about
| embezzlement, not election fraud. So this seems like a
| stretch.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| In my experience, boots on the ground are far more
| effective at affecting election outcomes than advertising
| campaigns are.
| machomaster wrote:
| Go and congratulate Kamala for her win against Trump.
|
| This is just the latest example showing how wrong your
| take is.
| bisRepetita wrote:
| I read that 9 European representatives, plus 12
| assistants, plus 4 other members of the party were found
| guilty as part of a scheme to earn illegally EUR 2.9M for
| the party.
|
| https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_des_assistants_parl
| eme...
| nabla9 wrote:
| "been proven" by who?
|
| There is no final arbitrator that is above all others.
|
| Liberal democracies are build on the principle that no
| institution is beyond corruption. That's why they build
| systems based on separation of powers and checks and
| balances.
|
| (1) Courts should be independent, because executive branch
| can be corrupt and law-making branch (voters and their
| representatives) don't always want to follow the laws they
| set up.
|
| (2) Law making branch (elections, representatives) should be
| immune from courts and executive branch messing with them.
| Lawmakers have immunity from courts and executive. Courts and
| executive branch should not be able to limit candidates too
| much.
|
| (3) Executive branch should execute laws, but not allowed to
| make them. Courts should keep the executive branch in check
| and have at least some immunity form it.
|
| It's all balancing acts. Different countries have different
| balances.
|
| > And who should decide that if not the courts?
|
| We could trust voters to take that into the account when
| making decision who to vote.
| agumonkey wrote:
| > Liberal democracies are build on the principle that no
| institution is beyond corruption.
|
| It's an ontological issue, if everyone is potentially
| compromised, how do you know anything ? It's also leveraged
| by biased medias to discredit old institutions and suddenly
| no more counter powers..
| lr1970 wrote:
| > It's an ontological issue, if everyone is potentially
| compromised, how do you know anything ?
|
| You just made a strong case for freedom of speech and
| free press.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "If they've been proven unable to follow the law, they
| shouldn't be able to be elected."
|
| Because it gives incumbents a strong incentive to try
| influencing the courts against their opponents.
|
| I believe - yes, it is my opinion only - that existence of
| such incentives and a temptation to act upon them is, in the
| long run, more dangerous to democracy than allowing felons
| into elections.
|
| People respond to incentives. If we know anything at all
| about human behavior, it is that people respond to
| incentives. And there is no shiny nice wall separating
| democracies from authoritarian states. Countries slide along
| the scale, and they can absolutely slide in the wrong
| direction.
| deepsun wrote:
| Kinda, sometimes politicians gets elected, and tear down the
| courts who could say against them. Belarus was a democracy for
| a short time, until the future dictator ordered SWAT team to
| throw out members of parliament who wanted his impeachment.
| Then several of them disappeared forever, others got the
| message. And the democracy ended.
| cmiles74 wrote:
| Donald Trump is in the process of doing this right now. Law
| firms that worked with the prosecution of many of his cases
| are being actively pressured. In some cases they are being
| banned from government owned buildings, banned from lists of
| law firms the federal government may hire and having security
| clearances revoked.
| tlogan wrote:
| I think Democrats are doing a disservice by not pushing
| back harder against Trump's attacks on judges and his calls
| for their impeachment. The judiciary is one of the few
| remaining institutions that can check executive overreach,
| and defending it should be a top priority.
|
| More broadly, I believe Democrats would gain much more
| support if they focused on a few key issues--ones that have
| broad consensus and appeal to independents--and pursued
| them with laser focus. Instead, they tend to chase after
| every single distraction Trump throws their way, which only
| plays into his strategy.
| Apreche wrote:
| The problem is tying this to the category of felony, which is
| too broad of a category.
|
| Someone who committed something heinous like felony assault,
| there's still an easy argument to be made that they should be
| allowed to both run for office and vote.
|
| But if someone was guilty of some kind of corruption, bribery,
| taking bribes, spying, insurrection, treason, organized crime,
| violating their oath of office, or anything else that suggests
| they are not going to serve with the best interests of their
| constituents and the world at heart, they should absolutely not
| be allowed to run for office, and maybe should not be allowed
| to vote.
| eclecticfrank wrote:
| The temporary loss of the right to stand for election is a
| common punishment in France when politicians are convicted of
| corruption and breach of trust.
| pc86 wrote:
| I don't think anyone is questioning whether it's legal,
| simply whether it's right or ideologically consistent with
| people who claim to be pro-democracy.
| nabla9 wrote:
| This is Separation of Power Issue and not a clear cut issue.
| The principle is that Law, Law-making, and executive-power
| should be separated.
|
| It's really who you trust more: courts or the people.
|
| 1. French law recognizes that French people are not trusted to
| weigh in the conviction properly, and the court sentences put
| limits to how can and can't run.
|
| 2. On the other hand, corrupting of the courts would prevent
| correcting the system by voting. If the courts are corrupt all
| hope is lost.
| lr1970 wrote:
| > 2. On the other hand, corrupting of the courts would
| prevent correcting the system by voting. If the courts are
| corrupt all hope is lost.
|
| Just last week a turkish court arrested the mayor of Istanbul
| under similar "corruption" charges. He happens to be the most
| popular opposition politician challenging Erdogan.
|
| EDIT: forgot to mention that recently Romanian supreme court
| canceled the elections altogether because the current
| government did not like the guy who won the first round. And
| of course he is not allowed to run in the rerun of the
| elections. People's votes do not seem to count any longer.
| com wrote:
| The Romanian justice system didn't rule the candidate out
| because "the current government didn't like him".
|
| Where do you get your information, Fox News?
|
| It was because of grievous breaches of campaign financing.
| The kind of thing that brings the integrity of their
| electoral system at serious risk.
| gman83 wrote:
| It's relevant that the corruption charges against Erdogan's
| opponent are obviously trumped-up, whereas the ones against
| Le Pen are entirely legitimate.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| In this case an appeal would normally suspend the verdict so
| the judge in effect specifically decided to prevent her from
| running for President by imposing immediate effect on a verdict
| that isn't final.
|
| No doubt that this will only strengthen the claims that this is
| politically motivated, and the timing is obviously very
| "interesting"... So unclear how this will play out in public
| opinion and polls.
| voytec wrote:
| > Separately, here in the U.S., I take issue with the fact that
| ex-felons are denied the right to vote.
|
| You have a _CURRENT_ felon serving as POTUS.
| machomaster wrote:
| Strawman. "right to vote" != "right to be elected"
| petre wrote:
| That's how democracy works in Europe: the courts are part of
| the checks and ballances, politicians have to be transparent
| about campaign financing so that we hopefully don't get Uncle
| Adolph running the show again, needing Allied intervention
| again and bombs dropped on innocent people and beer factories.
|
| Le Pen's case is similar to Sarkozy takng a briefcase of cash
| from Gaddafi to finance hus campaign (and then waging war
| agsinst him) but it's more nuanced, because instead she used EU
| funds when Putin's funding dried up due to the need to finance
| his war. So basically she should probably be in the same place
| that Sarkozy is now or wherever the court will decide based on
| evidence.
| jltsiren wrote:
| Do you believe that non-citizens should be allowed to run for
| any office? Or that citizens living outside a state/district
| should be allowed to represent that state/distict? If not,
| courts and/or election officials must have the power to
| disqualify individuals. As long as there are any legal
| requirements for a candidate, someone must make the final
| decision on whether a potential candidate fulfills the
| requirements.
| mmooss wrote:
| There is separation of powers: The legislature made the law,
| the executive enforces it, the courts interpet it. The
| legislature is more responsible than the courts, IMHO.
|
| The real responsible person is Marine Le Pen: Don't commit
| crimes and you won't have these problems.
| d--b wrote:
| We'll see how it plays out, but this could be helping her party
| ultimately.
|
| 1. She is a woman. Her party is very conservative and a male
| figure would project more strength and attract voters that she
| might deter to parties further on the right (yes there are a few)
|
| 2. She is been here a long time, so she doesn't exactly qualify
| as anti-establishment.
|
| 3. It makes the party looked harassed, and it is easy for them to
| state that "everyone is cheating, but they're the only one paying
| for it". Further cementing the image of the party as one of
| resistance.
|
| 4. She's not good at debates. She gets destroyed every time.
|
| I have been thinking for a long time that she's the main reason
| why the far right doesn't win in France. People would vote a
| Trumpian president for sure.
| jordanb wrote:
| Her father was the original party leader and she was vastly
| more successful as a leader than him.
| frereubu wrote:
| 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%...
| eclecticfrank wrote:
| That is a great list. The principle behind this is the
| defensive democracy.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy
| profstasiak wrote:
| how is sentencing for corruption connected to defensive
| democracy?
| Tostino wrote:
| Applying the laws regardless of if that person is a
| political candidate.
| condensedcrab wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| >The principle behind this is the 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 wrote:
| >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"
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| 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
| machomaster wrote:
| >Or are you saying politicians can just barge in and say
| "the rules don't apply to me because I'm popular"?
|
| I hope you misrepresent due to ignorance and not
| deliberately.
|
| Nobody is saying that politicians should not be
| investigated. And nobody is saying that politicians
| should not be convicted and even put in prison.
|
| What people are rightfully baffled about is the riddance
| of the passive election right - as in, inability to be
| elected. If a candidate was convinced and is in prison,
| then it's up to the voters to decide if they still trust
| that person and if they consider the conviction rightful
| and not bias.
|
| Surely, if the conviction was pure as a tear of a newborn
| baby and there was no dirty persecution of the political
| competitors, surely voters would take that into account
| and there would be no need for artificial restrictions.
| But that requires the absence of political hunt. One
| needs to impose artificial restrictions only if there is
| fault play.
|
| The EU is taking the tried and tested ways Putin used to
| destroy his opposition. First Romania, now France.
|
| P.S. The same critique applies to the American democratic
| travesty of "current/former criminals are not allowed to
| vote".
| seydor wrote:
| she failed so many times, might as well step aside
| xqcgrek2 wrote:
| There needs to be democratic checks and balances against such a
| judiciary. Impeachment of undemocratic judges needs to be on the
| table.
| pjc50 wrote:
| You're arguing that the conviction is unsound, or that the
| sentence I outside that permitted by the French legal code?
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| I mean clearly the French legal code needs to be changed if
| this is a valid sentence seems to be the general consensus.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Consensus among Americans on this site, which counts for
| very little.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| I'd bet if you put it to a vote in France you'd find very
| little appetite to ban her either.
| kanbara wrote:
| stop applying american ideas to the french system. europe has
| many checks and balances at several levels, and embezzling
| Union funds for your campaign does in fact make you not
| eligible to run for office for some time. it's not even
| permanent.
| underseacables wrote:
| Really don't like this. It's smacks of corruption. I don't really
| care for Le Pen, she's not a good candidate, but the court should
| not be allowed to suspend someone from running for office. That's
| the voters job.
| eclecticfrank wrote:
| False, it's simply a requirement.
|
| French law explicitly states that a candidate for an election
| must not be ineligible by reason of criminal conviction or
| judicial decision.
|
| Should have thought about messing with EU funds before, I
| suppose.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| > French law explicitly states that a candidate for an
| election must not be ineligible by reason of criminal
| conviction or judicial decision.
|
| Then French law needs to change; it's simply a requirement.
| netdevphoenix wrote:
| why is this post flagged?
| tomrod wrote:
| My perspective is that there are lot of people with an analogue
| of some type of fad called such-and-such derangement syndrome
| (not in DSM), but wholly in support of far-right/fascism --
| blinders, for a better term.
|
| We live in weird times. When I grew up, it was a civic duty and
| social expectation to stamp out fascism and punch Nazis. Now,
| people downvote and flag when their ills and rightful
| punishments are reported.
|
| It was strange in the early 2010s when libertarianism
| (antithetical to fascism, except perhaps anarchocaptialism)
| seemed to embrace fascism at conferences. For lack of a quick
| source (it's been over a decade since I saw this happening),
| here is a medium writeup: https://thomas-
| perrett97.medium.com/from-hayek-to-hitler-an-...
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Now, when you bring out the Nazis, it is called the Godwin
| point, and it tends to mark the end of constructive
| discussion and a good time to change the subject.
|
| Marine Le Pen is a far-right politician, the Godwin point is
| close, and such subjects tend to get flagged on sight before
| it degenerates. Politics in general tends to get this
| treatment.
|
| But this time, for such a hot topic, the discussion is, I
| think, better than expected. With interesting viewpoints
| independent from her political orientation. I guess that's
| how this topic was saved.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Every unthinking heuristic that can be exploited, will be.
| Everything devolves into claims of Nazism and fascism when it
| the claim is respected. This guy tomrod over here is a Nazi,
| someone needs to take them out.
| PedroBatista wrote:
| Just as in Romania ( and hopefully someday in Hungary ) these
| people "against the EU" are the ones channeling millions from the
| EU into their pockets.
|
| And after all that they even become "martyrs" because everyone is
| corrupt and against them.
| tomrod wrote:
| Weird this was flagged. This is important to EU hackers.
| on_the_train wrote:
| No it's not
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > When the radical left can't win via democratic vote, they abuse
| the legal system to jail their opponents. This is their standard
| playbook throughout the world.
|
| Ah yes, the famous leftist Macron.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Their position is that anyone who doesn't drink the koolaid is
| a radical opposite side. It's exhausting. When they oppress, it
| is righteous. When the other side holds them accountable, it's
| oppression. To them, equality and accountability are tyranny.
| fooker wrote:
| Haha by US standards he might as well be Karl Marx
| reincarnated!
| armchairhacker wrote:
| Can't someone else run as a stand-in? Are voters so stupid that
| the stand-in would poll worse than Le Pen despite her party's
| victim advantage?
|
| Disclaimer: I don't support Le Pen. I also don't support banning
| her from running, but it's harder for me to understand and argue
| why I feel that way. I think it's a combination of:
|
| - If people would elect a "bad" leader, disqualifying them delays
| the problem. They'll eventually elect another bad leader or
| revolt. Unless the bad candidate is only popular for a temporary
| reason, but that may not always be the case.
|
| - Disqualifying someone because they broke a law is bad, because
| anyone can be "breaking a law"; every nation has many laws and
| they can be misinterpreted. Related: the situation in Turkey.
|
| - Counterpoint: a self-interested party will disqualify whoever
| they want. But written laws (even guidelines) matter in the long-
| term because borderline party-supporters need justification to
| stay supportive, and people revert to laws. See: countries (like
| Turkey and Russia) using laws to justify banning candidates
| instead of "because we said so".
|
| Keeping the rules simple (e.g. "anyone can run for office,
| whoever gets the most votes wins") makes it harder for an
| adversary to break them while retaining support. Keeping
| Democracy makes it more likely that an "adversary" will lose
| power, because such parties tend to become unpopular. If
| Democracy leads to a "bad" party consistently winning, why have
| it?
|
| In fact, maybe it's necessary for a Democracy to have a "really
| bad" candidate win every once in a while, so people know what is
| bad. Then, the approach people should take is to ensure that the
| leader can't make rapid, far-reaching changes, so they can't ruin
| Democracy or people's lives in a single term. Just far-reaching
| enough for people to realize they made a mistake; then regular
| elections should be frequent, or there should be a quick way to
| get a snap election, so the bad leader is replaced.
| olivergregory wrote:
| She allowed the law to pass by not voting against. There was
| enough abstention for her voice to matter.
|
| She stole money from the EU, an act she did after being voted
| MP. She couldn't have done it if she had not been elected. So,
| basically she was elected, stole money and she still should not
| be barred from the next presidential election after she allowed
| that ban law to be voted?
|
| She chose the path, she should face the consequences.
| Keats wrote:
| > I also don't support banning her from running, but it's
| harder for me to understand and argue why I feel that way
|
| Here she is advocating for life ineligibility for politicians
| found guilty of crimes when elected:
| https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9h38r0
|
| 5 years is less than what she advocates for so she should be
| happy
| ehutch79 wrote:
| Wait, so she's in prison of embezzlement? Are people claiming
| this is a fake charge, or are they saying that it's ok with them?
| tiahura wrote:
| I think they're saying that if voters want her, voters should
| be able to get her.
| petre wrote:
| Then they'll have to wait until she has finished her sentence
| and in the mean time think about it.
| zkmon wrote:
| This kind of punishing a politician, though correct legally,
| would only backfire on the party in power. This was seen in many
| cases throughout the history of democracies, including Trump's
| case. No wonder that, politicians happily get into jail as it
| would get them sympathy credit. And people are not entirely wrong
| in giving that sympathy.
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| If you go for the king you need to kill him.
| iteratethis wrote:
| The authoritarian right's playbook is simple but brilliantly
| effective.
|
| The roadmap ends with a strong man dictator that has removed any
| and all hurdles towards absolute power so that the agenda can be
| implemented without compromise.
|
| Any roadblock towards this is called "anti-democratic" which is
| the ultimate irony as those preaching it fully support the end of
| democracy.
|
| The US is now an inch away from being a dictatorship as the last
| line of defense, judges, are under severe attack. They're
| targeted to be impeached, called "radical left" and Musk is
| throwing money at flipping votes.
|
| This process is happening in several countries and it's baffling
| how many people eat it up, including in these comments.
|
| I suppose it is true that democracy is fragile and that with a
| few nudges people vote to dismantle it themselves.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| Far-left politician and fierce Le Pen critic Jean-Luc Melenchon
| condemned the decision:
| https://twitter.com/JLMelenchon/status/1906673335796146412
|
| (His party is under investigation for the same crime. The Prime
| Minister's party was also investigated, got off with a simple
| fine)
| rdm_blackhole wrote:
| As a French person, I can say that this situation will unfold the
| same way as it did for Trump.
|
| Jordan Bardella is going to take her place and most likely win in
| 2027. He is well liked by people, he is young and he doesn't have
| a political legacy. In some polls, they floated his name as a
| replacement if she was unable to run and he polled 10% + ahead of
| all his rivals in the first round giving him a very good chance
| to actually win the run off.
|
| This is exactly how Macron won in 2017 (no political baggage,
| young) and despite his vows to crush the far right he never
| managed to do it. Even worse, the far right is far stronger now
| than it was 8 years ago.
|
| The justice system gave the far right a martyr and that is
| something that they will use for campaigning.
| mmooss wrote:
| Stop blaming the courts (and really, the legislature for making
| the law).
|
| Le Pen is the person responsible, as is her party: Don't commit
| crimes, don't make leaders of people who commit crimes, and you
| won't have problems.
|
| Yes, there is a potential for abuse, but eliminating the rule of
| law for political leaders is very dangerous.
| ein0p wrote:
| That's the third EU country to arrest or ban the top opposition
| candidate or party. Georgescu in Romania, Spartans party in
| Greece, Le Pen in France. You could even say fourth: head of
| Gagauzia region in Moldova has been arrested a few days ago. And
| that's before you consider the attempts to ban AfD in Germany. Is
| that "democracy"? Would it be "democracy" if, say, Trump jailed
| Vance's main opponent in 2028?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-31 23:01 UTC)