National Rally president calls for ‘peaceful mobilisation’ after Marine Le Pen convicted of embezzlement – as it happened
www.theguardian.com
Jordan Bardella says in petition there is a ‘dictatorship of judges’ as French far right leader barred from running for public office for five years
  • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.worldEnglish
    151·
    1 day ago

    Good. In my country, a former PM who embezzled 1.6B is on the verge of being set free, with little in the way of jail time, while a construction worker who stole a loaf of bread got 40 years. Wtf.

    Edit: I got the bread story wrong. Not the 1.6B.

    • Jaberw0cky@lemmy.worldEnglish
      31·
      2 days ago

      Sure, but it needs to be because she actually committed a crime, not as a convenient way just to block someone you think might win from running. I am going to assume in this case she is guilty and was found guilty fairly.

      • BrowseMan@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        I don’t know how politicaly motivated the harshness of the judgment was (and not in a “the politics in power wanted her gone”, more in a “the judiciary system realised shit is hitting the fan between US crazyness and Russian influence and decided to take a step and make an example”) but the evidence were damming.

        Proof is: the defense didn’t even try to fight the evidence, rather the interpretation of it and the harshness of the sentence.

        Another point to keep in mind: an ex president is being judged for corruption and the sentence requested by the DA is enormous. Apparently the judiciary system publicly told they wanted to put an end to a perceived leniency on the politics and regain public trust.

        I’m just afraid this will result in an opposite effect.

        • tikifire@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          1 day ago

          It’s 5 years and statutory evidently. This isn’t as bad as you’re making it out to be.

  • robador51@lemmy.mlEnglish
    8·
    1 day ago

    Of course Le Pen’s reaction is that this is politically motivated. I’m not familiar with the ins and outs of this case, but am assuming the verdict is sound. Reactions like this are in my mind more serious than the actual offence; they undermine the rule of law. If found guilty in her appeal they should take this reaction into account and ban her from office forever.

  • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.caEnglish
    38·
    2 days ago

    What? A right-wing politician actually being held accountable for being awful and a criminal?

    Never thought I’d see the day. Good job, France!

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.caEnglish
    89·
    2 days ago

    When convicted for embezzlement, someone should NEVER be allowed to run for government offices ever again

    • Robbity@lemm.eeEnglish
      33·
      2 days ago

      Funnily enough, when the law was introduced a few years ago, her party wanted the penalty to be lifelong ineligibility. They are probably happy it’s 5 years, now.

    • DicJacobus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      91·
      2 days ago

      coincidentally, according to conspiracy theorists and paranoid schizophrenics… Embezzlement is the “fake” charge that The Deep state, The Man, The new world order, the lizard people, etc will always bring against the persecuted patriotic good guy.

      in other words. the European and Russian far right will say the charges are fake and that its a political witch hunt.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.worldEnglish
    20·
    2 days ago

    So presidential! She could be our new president here in the US! Imagine that! First Felon woman president!

    Man! We’re busting glass ceilings!

  • Hikuro-93@lemmy.caEnglish
    461·
    2 days ago

    Good. Still, any real consequences for her? Like prison time? Or will she be granted the usual politician/millionaire+ special treatment and just go on with her merry life minus the extra power?

    Reminds me of Portugal’s former PM (Mr. Socrates), a few years ago, and ‘his’ 20M€. Or the convicted felon running the White House currently.

    • skube@lemm.eeEnglish
      44·
      2 days ago

      “Le Pen, who left the court before the hearing had finished, was also sentenced to four years in prison with two years suspended and and the other two to be served outside jail with an electronic bracelet.”

      She can appeal the prison sentence, but the office part has taken effect even if she appeals.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      73·
      2 days ago

      You’d think “not being president” is pretty life changing, but what do I know. In any case, there is a four year prison sentence in there as well. Presumably pending appeal. I have no idea how the French penal system deals with it after that if it holds.

      • Hikuro-93@lemmy.caEnglish
        17·
        2 days ago

        “Not being president” is not a punishment. Just the absence of a reward for her corruption. If the worst she had was “not being rewarded”, then what stops every other crook from attempting to seize power?

        Absence of a reward is not a consequence for breaking the rules. A consequence for breaking the law is the actual punishment, and that also serves as a warning to any other people wanting to do the same.

        That’s what’s wrong with the system we currently have, and I’m glad at least she got prison out of it. Leniency is what got us here. There’s got to be actual hard consequences for mocking the system. Rules are only as good as the willingness to apply consequences for breaking them. It’s that simple.

        • MudMan@fedia.io
          35·
          2 days ago

          That is some pretzel logic.

          I mean, for one thing there is plenty of proof that harsher criminal punishments do not reduce crime in any way, so there’s that for the US-style “just jail more people for longer” nonsense.

          But also, it doesn’t follow that leniency is what got you here when she has literally been punished with the penalty you were hoping for in the first place. It sure makes it sound like you were primed to think this was too lenient no matter what it was.

          • Hikuro-93@lemmy.caEnglish
            41·
            2 days ago

            So whataboutism, distorting my words to suit your point and strawmen are your answers. Good to know rather early this conversation isn’t going anywhere, since both of us will always be right and wrong at the same time, according to each other.

            One crook or two facing consequences does not excuse all the others that consistently get away. Specially the ones we don’t even know about. She’s just “the one that was caught this time”, with plenty more in line like her waiting for their chance to succeed where she could not. And your willingness to see her “not-reward” as if it was an actual punishment written in the law for her crimes speaks volumes - to the point it makes me wonder what potential role or benefit you’re getting (or hoping to get) from such a system. And before you twist my words to say you’re “not french”, or “not a politician”, know that what I’m saying goes way beyond one person, one position or one nation, so that logic won’t cut it.

            Almost makes me think you’re primed to automatically defend scum like her no matter how corrupt she was. Anyways I don’t think this will be a productive discussion for either of us, so forgive me for not participating further.

            Cheers.

            • MudMan@fedia.io
              23·
              2 days ago

              It’s your prerogative, but I will clarify the point.

              For one thing, her “not reward” is not a “not reward”, it is an actual punishment, codified in the criminal code of many democratic countries, where the penalty is the removal of the right to participate in elections or hold public office. This is a right all citizens have that is removed for a period of time as a punishment for a crime. It is a literal punishment. You are factually wrong.

              Second, naming fallacies doesn’t meant hey happened. I did not bring up anybody else into this conversation, so not whataboutism, I did not misquote or rephrase your argument, so no strawman and the fact that I pointed out an inconsistency in your point doesn’t mean I “distorted” it.

              And finally, I am not primed to “defend scum like her”. I have not, in fact, defended her at any point. She’s been found guilty of a crime, which makes her a criminal. What I am not is a demagogue willing to argue that harsher penalties, and specifically harsher penalties for people I don’t like, are the correct solution when every piece of serious research and information I have says they’re not. If it doesn’t help when the US does it to poor people for racist reasons it doesn’t help when aimed at politicians. Criminal penalties must be dissuasive, but that bar is pretty low and there is no proof that harsher penalties lead to more compliance.