Marine Le Pen barred from public office

[widge]

I think JLM would be a grimmer proposition than MLP's lot ....

Oh yes!

I sort of agree, MLP has been trying to drag her party away from the extreme right, but not very successfully, as shown by the last elections, quite a number of the more undesirables jumped ship to support Eric Zemmour, but they soon came back again when he got knocked out in the first round, I have watched and read a few things over the last few years, and there are still too many extreme right members for me to even consider voting for the party.

Unfortunately (and I blame social media for a big chunk of it) we don't have any moderate left or right parties anymore.

[demi]

Why do you blame social media?

And that's not a sarcastic question, I'm genuinely interested.

[MAD87]

It's the basis of the conviction I condemn. Supposing you were accused of a crime, and before you got to trial the law was changed to make your conviction more likely or the sentence heavier, how would you feel?

[Blaze]

During an interview on the Public Sénat channel in 2013, Marine Le Pen vehemently called for the ineligibility of politicians after a conviction, including for embezzlement of public funds.

Presumably this was not written into the law at the time ....
One of the problems in France is that the law is sometimes too precise, leaving no room for a proper judge to use his judgement.

[Wilbro]

I thought the law as interpreted now was brought in 10 years ago in which case how can she have any complaints?

[MAD87]

La Loi Sapin was applicable from 2017 - after the facts complained of. L'inéligibilité automatique is not part of that law.

[Blaze]

La Loi Sapin was applicable from 2017 - after the facts complained of. L'inéligibilité automatique is not part of that law.

What I find irritating is that the people protesting don't mention this, which is a far more credible argument than simply ranting about 'the most popular politician in France".

[widge]

It's the basis of the conviction I condemn. Supposing you were accused of a crime, and before you got to trial the law was changed to make your conviction more likely or the sentence heavier, how would you feel?

I suppose a lot depends, when she was actually charged with the crime, and was that after the law changed, also was the change in the law actually anything to do with getting at her, or just that she has been caught up in a law that was going through anyway.

[exile]

The law should apply at the time of the offence.

Laws serve a number of purposes - protecting society, punishing the guilty etc. but the key purpose must be to deter wrong doers and you cannot deter someone post the event.

Sentencing however might be different. So if for example a country decides to abolish capital punishment, does that mean that a crime committed before that decision can still see a perp executed? I think the answer is no. In which case MLP by analogy could have current punishments applied to a crime committed before those punishments came into force provided that the crime was already recognised as such at the time it was committed.

Edit: But there again, is the potential punishment level part of the deterrent? I am now very confused.

[Biloute]

The Constitution stipulates that the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) must be independent.
In this judgment, we see that the judiciary has unfairly encroached on the executive and legislative branches.
On the legislative branch:
- the Court recognized that there was no personal enrichment (or fictitious employment)
- it therefore admitted that the money allocated to the National Rally (RN) was indeed used to pay the salaries of parliamentary assistants
- the criticism is that these assistants allegedly worked for the party and not for the EU
- the role of MPs is to promote their party's political ideas in Parliament, and that of their assistants is to help them do so.
- MPs and their assistants carry out political work: that is their role. And the nature of this work is confidential within the party: it does not have to be published outside it
- moreover, no parliamentary regulations define the limits of the assistants' work. - The Justice system has no right to interfere in the nature of this work ! It has exceeded its prerogatives...
On the executive branch:
- The constitution provides that it is the people, and they alone, who elect the president by universal suffrage.
- Making MLP ineligible is to prohibit a portion of the people from voting for whomever they wish.
- It is up to the people to decide who should lead the country, not the Justice !
Here too, it has exceeded its prerogatives...
Finally, the provisional execution of MLP's ineligibility effectively prohibits her from defending herself on appeal, as any accused person has the right to do, in accordance with the constitution...
Finally, the arguments used to decide on this provisional execution are unfounded:
- risk of recidivism: MLP is not in the European Parliament: how could she reoffend ?
- risk of public order disturbances: if MLP cannot be a candidate, there is a risk of unrest, and it will be the judges' fault if part of the population becomes angry...
It's not just RN voters who should be concerned about the abuse of power by judges, but all French people who believe the EU should be improved !