French Court bans far-right leader Marine Le Pen from running for office | Hacker News Reader

French Court bans far-right leader Marine Le Pen from running for office

france24.com

> which has seen her hit with a four-year prison sentence, to be served with an electronic tag, and a five-year ban from running for office

Arguably burying the lede a bit.

Meanwhile, with absolutely no apparent irony:

> "More and more European capitals are going down the path of violating democratic norms," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in a briefing when asked about the decision.

I hadn't realised it was a democratic norm to just allow politicians to do random crimes because they're so special.

Also:

> Matteo Salvini, Italy's far-right deputy Prime Minister said that the ruling against le Pen was a "declaration of war" by the EU that would not dissuade her far-right allies.

In which the EU somehow controls the French courts.

> I hadn't realised it was a democratic norm to just allow politicians to do random crimes because they're so special.

You must've not been paying attention to the US ...

I'm not even talking about the president. Lower level things like Bridgegate [1] resulted in everybody involved receiving no punishment (eventually).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal

Ah, well, that's America for you, they've always been weirdly okay with criminal politicians.

But more broadly, no, it is not a democratic norm that politicians should be allowed to commit multi-million euro frauds with no consequences.

Seems like this is the true meaning of "american exceptionalism".

It used to be the case in France too.

For a truly incredible version of it see the helicopter affair : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Toubon?wprov=sfti1#Con...

In many ways, sending high profile politicians to prison or semi-prison ( Sarkozy, now Le Pen ) is new.

Bridgegate resulted in no punishment, but not because politicians are special. It was because of their lawyers attacked legal nuances of their specific convictions.

In a sense, I guess, but the legal nuances are part of a general pattern that politicians are special. The Supreme Court has essentially legalized political bribery, for example; after McDonnell v. US you can accept bribes for setting up a meeting or scheduling an event, and after Snyder v. US you can accept bribes for anything at all so long as you do the thing you're being bribed for first. (These cases were based, yes, on legal nuances of the specific convictions: McDonnell's actions didn't constitute an "official act", and Snyder's after-the-fact bribes were technically not bribes at all but "gratuities".)

These legal nuances don't seem like that. The court held that creating a traffic jam between states did not violate a civil right to travel between states (because that right does not exist). And that it wasn't fraud because it just made people's lives miserable as opposed to depriving them of something physical.

What crime do you think was committed?

Intentionally interfering with emergency services, for one.

Try blocking a major bridge in your home town for a day and see what crimes you're charged with.

In Canada as long as it’s in support of a sufficiently left-wing cause you won’t be charged with anything.

I think that it was fraud. Any non-politician who submitted false documents causing the Port Authority to close a bridge lane would be easily convicted of fraud, making knowingly false statements with the intent and effect of preventing the Port Authority from making full use of its valuable property. The Supreme Court ruling is pretty explicit that Bridget Kelly's status as a political aide is why she could not be convicted; because her boss had regulatory authority to close the lanes for honest reasons, the Port Authority has no property interest in any closure she orders, even if it was ordered for dishonest reasons.

No animal of "normal" levels of equality ever escapes punishment to such a degree unless the technicality is something so egregious that it would set a bad precedent and be egg on the court's face.

It's disgusting and enraging the degree to which there is a two tier justice system in this country, one for agents of the government and those who curry their favor, and a neither separate nor equal one for the peasants.

Looked it up and it was a unanimous Supreme Court decision to overturn their convictions because 'they had not obtained "money or property"'

That's just great.

That's the way the law was written but doing something that your boss wants or you think your boss wants that results in harm* should be punishable.

* "This led to major delays for school transportation and police and emergency responses within Fort Lee, both during and after the peak hours of travel."

"In at least one instance, emergency medical workers were forced to leave their ambulance and respond on foot because traffic congestion was so heavy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal

They weren't guilt of fraud because they had not intended to obtain money or property. Maybe they should or could have been charged under another law. Which law do you think they broke?

> "More and more European capitals are going down the path of violating democratic norms," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in a briefing when asked about the decision.

Sounds like they're upset that their investment just went up in smoke.

If Marine Le Pen was found guilty of embezzlement of using EU funds, so should a swath of other politicians. So should the prime EU candidate for embezzlement: Ursula von der Leyen! She awarded expensive contracts to many external consultants without any bidding. A formal parliamentary inquiry even found evidence of nepotism but no charges were brought since she is the champion poster girl of the EU bureaucracy.

The EU has fully lost the right to lecture the third world about democracy since it has now transmogrified itself to a self perpetuating, corrupt cabal. There will always be something propped up and selectively applied to cancel any so-called right-wing politicians who have a favored chance of winning elections. All anti-establishment politicians are auto-applied the "right wing" category. They will also be labelled Russia-bot/Putin-bot for the icing on the cake.

I would very much like to know the contents of VdL's Signal messages with Pfizer's CEO for one. I don't think we ever got any transparency on that particular issue.

Though in this case its not "so called right wing" but straigth up neo-nazis, so good ridance.

Give me a thousand corrupt liberal over even one fascist in power, thanks.

Welcome to the world as seen from the eyes of decades long russian psyop target.

An important detail: in France a "first instance" ruling can be appealed ("second instance"), and appealing is suspensive. That is whatever sentence has been decided gets temporarily suspended until the appeal concludes.

In this case the five year ineligibility sentence has a provisional execution clause, which means appeal will not be suspensive and the sentence must be carried out immediately.

This last part is the one creating a heated debate around the 2027 presidential election.

It does seem like it would be a severe constitutional loophole to allow somebody who is appealing a sentence to run for president and then just pardon (which is also a presidential power in France) themselves, even though they've already been found guilty in a court.

If a jury can rule against the law, why shouldnt the voters.

Because juries (in some countries, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror's_oath ; however, includes France) take an oath to examine the evidence presented and judge impartially to the best of their ability. Voters don’t.

At the presidential level I would say the law should follow the (will of the) people and not the other way around. After all, those irrational voters are the ones who created the law in the first place, in so many ways. As an aside, the more I think about someone being able to truly be impartial, the more I giggle. Myself included, of course.

The main idea here I think is that having someone who’s been embezzling money run for president would greatly undermine democratic institutions and the public’s faith in French institutions. However, the far right will claim it’s a political conspiracy and this will mostly have the same effect.

French politicians have a long history of accusing judges who sentence politicians of being enemies of democracy - the idea being that crooks or not, the people should decide.

And for the one that will shout conspiracy, the main part of the sentence is jail time even if she will do it at home...

And losing your citizen rights (voting and be elected) is actually quite common with some crimes, and not specific to her case. I think I saw that at least 2000 other persons were sentenced to it the previous year.

And if you ask me, the sentence is light. For me, embezzlement of public funds or corruption is great treason and so should result in execution in public place to set an example. Because of this kind of person manage to get enough power, the will abuse if it to protect and serve only themselves like Trump and Poutine...

In last year's national elections, two people that the Indian government has jailed under various national security and terrorism laws were allowed to participate and actually won their respective contests.[1][2] While they were allowed to take their oaths in parliament, they continue to be in jail due to the charges against them.

The trials will take place, eventually. Or some other accommodation will be arrived at. After all, 50m court cases are pending in Indian courts at various levels and these things take their own sweet time.

The point is, people were allowed to vote for their preferred candidate in elections in spite of the security apparatus of the State considering them to be terrorists. This is democracy.

If prominent politicians in Europe are prevented from standing for elections while the European Union lectures the developing world about the lack of "democracy," why should anyone take these clowns seriously?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Abdul_Rashid

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritpal_Singh

These are not similar situations. In your example, they were merely charged and arrested. At that point, nothing has been proven. The case in question has already resulted in a conviction.

It’s a pretty clear cut case of someone misusing governmental funds to further their political aspirations. Another way of phrasing that is corruption. Is a role of the courts not to prevent this? Is allowing proven corrupt individuals to hold office positive for a democratic institution?

Anyone serious about democracy should think hard before they prevent people from standing for elections.

The courts might think they are doing their job, but disqualifying a major political figure from standing for elections based on charges related to 10-20 year old cases gives a very specific message, whether you like it or not.

The last instances of impropriety took place seven years before charges were brought. I think that’s in a reasonable time period considering it’s was a conspiracy and had to be investigated.

Government officials should be held to a higher standard, let alone a minimum standard of “don’t steal from the people.” A few years of house arrest and a suspension from politics is a light sentence when one violates that bare minimum standard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com