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

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250331-%F0%9F%94%B4-french-court-convicts-far-right-leader-marine-le-pen-in-embezzlement-trial

by WastedCucumber • 1 year ago

47 30 1 year ago

france24.com

rsynnott2• 1 year ago

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.

lesuorac• 1 year ago

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

rsynnott2• 1 year ago

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.

HWR_143• 1 year ago

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

quitit2• 1 year ago

"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.

lenkite• 1 year ago

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.

zolbrek• 1 year ago

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.

grimblee• 1 year ago

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.

scotty79• 1 year ago

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

lloeki• 1 year ago

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.

captainbland• 1 year ago

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.

karpatic2• 1 year ago

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

Agingcoder2• 1 year ago

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.

greatgib• 1 year ago

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...

sieve2• 1 year ago

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

penultimatename2• 1 year ago

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?

sieve2• 1 year ago

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.

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

Related Stories