Very interesting analysis of the UK main media treatment of the affair and far right respectability effort they’ve put since a long time. You’ve quote this image of Marine at the TF1 evening news show : that was a rare piece of good journalism as the guy who was presenting it began by a very good 10 mn explainer and then didn’t let her «expose» without harsh contradictions her propaganda whining.
This a great piece. Some of these journalists act like she stole a yogurt at self-checkout. Let’s put aside her odious politics and lack of moral compass to acknowledge the fact that she EMBEZZLED MONEY from the EU, yet she can still hold office in the future. She can’t be trusted to be a civil servant, let alone hold office. Now, I’m a dumb American whose mind goes blank when I try to read about EU politics, but I know what happens when convicted criminals are allowed to run for office.
I think you have the issue slightly wrong. It's not the crime (which is pretty well established) nor the verdict (which most French people regard as fair) but the punishment. The judge had a great deal of discretion in the punishment awarded, and opted for the harshest available: disqualification with immediate effect, even while an appeal is being mounted. That means that Le Pen cannot present herself in 2027, it means that the party itself probably won’t be able to find another candidate, and that the whole complexion of French politics has just been altered by one judge who could easily have awarded a sentence that was less harsh. Not everybody is happy about a judge having so much power and influence over the French political system. In effect, the French people have been told that they can't vote for a particular presidential candidate in 2027 even if they want to. Now if Le Pen had appealed, the appeal had been refused and the issue was over that would be different. But a lot of people across the political spectrum in France have expressed concern about the consequences of a sentence (not a verdict) that is much harsher than many were expecting, and could have a major, destabilising effect on French politics.
I appreciate the contribution, thank you. I could have expanded more on the specifics of the ruling but my focus was simply on how the three outlets reported on it. Even taking that concern into consideration, their coverage would still be lacking for the reasons mentioned
Hello ! You don’t give all the elements in the judge decision : 1.this disqualification with immediate effect was decided and voted by the different political parties in 2016-2017. So she is just following the law that was decided but those that now are shouting about the «harshness»
2.she has clearly said why she chose to apply this immediateness : neither of the convicted and certainly not Marine, at any moment said they did something wrong or that they didn’t know : on the contrary, they said that it was perfectly legal. That means that they could easily continue to do it therefore the judge chose to make it impossible for her or her party to never even try fraud the people’s money.
And let’s be fair : Jordan Bardela is a good plan B for racists, antisemit, islamophobist, anti transgender (tick the one you want) who really want to vote for the RN. They can even organise themselves as Putin and Medvedev did a decade ago…
That’s helpful context to understand why French voters who don’t support RN would concerned. But why do you think they not be able to find another candidate (e.g. Bardella?) before 2027?
Overall, seems like a no-win scenario for the judge: either people accuse him of being soft on Le Pen because she is a famous politician, or people accuse of politicising the law.
Partly it's because the law as I understand it provides for immediate ineligibility for two reasons. One is the likelihood of re-offending, which seems unlikely given that Le Pen is no longer in Brussels, the other is a "threat to public order." In the second case, the judge's argument apparently was that if Le Pen were to stand for President when she was still appealing against the verdict and the sentence, this could cause a threat to pubic order. I think most people find these arguments unconvincing: you could equally argue that the real threat to public order would come if she were forcibly prevented from standing.
This one summarises it relatively well, and indeed, the issue lies in the sentencing rather than the verdict.
My own hunch is that her appeal will allow her to run and what the whole process will have done ultimately (judgement and media response, etc) is normalise the misallocation of public funds in contempt of the law. Which of course, also serves ‘the establishment’.
Feels like a relatively straightforward case of law vs politics.
If we take the law/justice perspective, then it makes sense to prevent someone who abuses the rules to reach office so as to further abuse the rules. That is why the judge can even bar a candidate from running in the first place.
But this obviously doesn’t stand if you take the politics perspective which would argue that the law is dictated by the legislative and applied by the executive.
Either way, all of it, the ruling and the reactions to the ruling, is just a symptom of liberalism crashing.
I'm not sure how you could securely argue that if Le Pen were to stand for President while still appealing a verdict and sentence that it wouldn't threaten public order. The very idea of a convicted and sentence grifter threatens public order. I think we've all been watching one reality of this idea in the US.
On this point I agree with the previous comment that the judge was in a no-win scenario. Which is in some ways is where a judge might often find themselves if they are actually trying to make just decisions. The role of judge is another conversation.
Even considering the implications that this kind of ruling might have on the democratic process-- and I don't disagree that there's also a threat to order in her not being allowed to run--the argument that there is any real threat to democracy at all hasn't been substantiated. Her party has to find another candidate. One who doesn't take advantage of the system and embezzle funds. If they can't find that by 2027, those are deeper issues that only they as a party can address.
French politics can actually explain rather well why The Guardian is so pathetic on this (clickbait and economics of attention aside).
The way the French presidential election’s two rounds works means that it is strategically advantageous for the establishment to focus all its bile on its left (while appealing to realism and neutrality of course) so as to be able to count on that same left in the face off with the hard right in the second round.
I stopped my subscription to The Guardian when they disgustingly piled on Corbyn with what amounted to slander, rather than any factual reporting.
They are the establishment that works so hard to undermine any popular needs and will go out of its way to berate its own base. Consequently, they prop up the actually racist and antisemitic right so as to legitimise and justify their own thoughtless smugness.
It’s an economic positioning as well as a political positioning that only works because it riffs off the status quo. If it were to actually formulate an explicit positioning, it would fall apart under the contradictions.
It cannot think too hard, as that would push them out of the space they’re trying to occupy. Like everyone else, they know that that space is disappearing fast so instead of starting to think, they instead feed that cycle ever harder and produce the problem they claim to fight.
*We all do it, it’s as much a self-critique as a critique of The Guardian but still they have been so incredibly disappointing of late. But I guess the liberal media cannot do too well when it is liberalism that is nose diving.
**that ‘contradictory yet beneficial’ relationship (we need to coin a term for this)makes me think of the relationship between Zionism and antisemitism, on one level they are polar opposites, enemies, but in practice they actually seem to get along rather well and feed off each other.
> Hungary's Viktor Orban, the Netherlands’ Draco Malfoy and Italy's Matteo Salvini.
💀
Very interesting analysis of the UK main media treatment of the affair and far right respectability effort they’ve put since a long time. You’ve quote this image of Marine at the TF1 evening news show : that was a rare piece of good journalism as the guy who was presenting it began by a very good 10 mn explainer and then didn’t let her «expose» without harsh contradictions her propaganda whining.
This a great piece. Some of these journalists act like she stole a yogurt at self-checkout. Let’s put aside her odious politics and lack of moral compass to acknowledge the fact that she EMBEZZLED MONEY from the EU, yet she can still hold office in the future. She can’t be trusted to be a civil servant, let alone hold office. Now, I’m a dumb American whose mind goes blank when I try to read about EU politics, but I know what happens when convicted criminals are allowed to run for office.
I think you have the issue slightly wrong. It's not the crime (which is pretty well established) nor the verdict (which most French people regard as fair) but the punishment. The judge had a great deal of discretion in the punishment awarded, and opted for the harshest available: disqualification with immediate effect, even while an appeal is being mounted. That means that Le Pen cannot present herself in 2027, it means that the party itself probably won’t be able to find another candidate, and that the whole complexion of French politics has just been altered by one judge who could easily have awarded a sentence that was less harsh. Not everybody is happy about a judge having so much power and influence over the French political system. In effect, the French people have been told that they can't vote for a particular presidential candidate in 2027 even if they want to. Now if Le Pen had appealed, the appeal had been refused and the issue was over that would be different. But a lot of people across the political spectrum in France have expressed concern about the consequences of a sentence (not a verdict) that is much harsher than many were expecting, and could have a major, destabilising effect on French politics.
I appreciate the contribution, thank you. I could have expanded more on the specifics of the ruling but my focus was simply on how the three outlets reported on it. Even taking that concern into consideration, their coverage would still be lacking for the reasons mentioned
Hello ! You don’t give all the elements in the judge decision : 1.this disqualification with immediate effect was decided and voted by the different political parties in 2016-2017. So she is just following the law that was decided but those that now are shouting about the «harshness»
2.she has clearly said why she chose to apply this immediateness : neither of the convicted and certainly not Marine, at any moment said they did something wrong or that they didn’t know : on the contrary, they said that it was perfectly legal. That means that they could easily continue to do it therefore the judge chose to make it impossible for her or her party to never even try fraud the people’s money.
And let’s be fair : Jordan Bardela is a good plan B for racists, antisemit, islamophobist, anti transgender (tick the one you want) who really want to vote for the RN. They can even organise themselves as Putin and Medvedev did a decade ago…
That’s helpful context to understand why French voters who don’t support RN would concerned. But why do you think they not be able to find another candidate (e.g. Bardella?) before 2027?
Overall, seems like a no-win scenario for the judge: either people accuse him of being soft on Le Pen because she is a famous politician, or people accuse of politicising the law.
Partly it's because the law as I understand it provides for immediate ineligibility for two reasons. One is the likelihood of re-offending, which seems unlikely given that Le Pen is no longer in Brussels, the other is a "threat to public order." In the second case, the judge's argument apparently was that if Le Pen were to stand for President when she was still appealing against the verdict and the sentence, this could cause a threat to pubic order. I think most people find these arguments unconvincing: you could equally argue that the real threat to public order would come if she were forcibly prevented from standing.
This one summarises it relatively well, and indeed, the issue lies in the sentencing rather than the verdict.
My own hunch is that her appeal will allow her to run and what the whole process will have done ultimately (judgement and media response, etc) is normalise the misallocation of public funds in contempt of the law. Which of course, also serves ‘the establishment’.
https://open.substack.com/pub/tfazi/p/le-pen-ruling-lawfare-european-style?r=h29ig&utm_medium=ios
Feels like a relatively straightforward case of law vs politics.
If we take the law/justice perspective, then it makes sense to prevent someone who abuses the rules to reach office so as to further abuse the rules. That is why the judge can even bar a candidate from running in the first place.
But this obviously doesn’t stand if you take the politics perspective which would argue that the law is dictated by the legislative and applied by the executive.
Either way, all of it, the ruling and the reactions to the ruling, is just a symptom of liberalism crashing.
I'm not sure how you could securely argue that if Le Pen were to stand for President while still appealing a verdict and sentence that it wouldn't threaten public order. The very idea of a convicted and sentence grifter threatens public order. I think we've all been watching one reality of this idea in the US.
On this point I agree with the previous comment that the judge was in a no-win scenario. Which is in some ways is where a judge might often find themselves if they are actually trying to make just decisions. The role of judge is another conversation.
Even considering the implications that this kind of ruling might have on the democratic process-- and I don't disagree that there's also a threat to order in her not being allowed to run--the argument that there is any real threat to democracy at all hasn't been substantiated. Her party has to find another candidate. One who doesn't take advantage of the system and embezzle funds. If they can't find that by 2027, those are deeper issues that only they as a party can address.
French politics can actually explain rather well why The Guardian is so pathetic on this (clickbait and economics of attention aside).
The way the French presidential election’s two rounds works means that it is strategically advantageous for the establishment to focus all its bile on its left (while appealing to realism and neutrality of course) so as to be able to count on that same left in the face off with the hard right in the second round.
I stopped my subscription to The Guardian when they disgustingly piled on Corbyn with what amounted to slander, rather than any factual reporting.
They are the establishment that works so hard to undermine any popular needs and will go out of its way to berate its own base. Consequently, they prop up the actually racist and antisemitic right so as to legitimise and justify their own thoughtless smugness.
It’s an economic positioning as well as a political positioning that only works because it riffs off the status quo. If it were to actually formulate an explicit positioning, it would fall apart under the contradictions.
It cannot think too hard, as that would push them out of the space they’re trying to occupy. Like everyone else, they know that that space is disappearing fast so instead of starting to think, they instead feed that cycle ever harder and produce the problem they claim to fight.
*We all do it, it’s as much a self-critique as a critique of The Guardian but still they have been so incredibly disappointing of late. But I guess the liberal media cannot do too well when it is liberalism that is nose diving.
**that ‘contradictory yet beneficial’ relationship (we need to coin a term for this)makes me think of the relationship between Zionism and antisemitism, on one level they are polar opposites, enemies, but in practice they actually seem to get along rather well and feed off each other.