Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Azar Majedi ✊ A bizarre tale.

On Friday 25th of April a French man stabbed a young Muslim man who was praying in a mosque in a small town in South of France. Aboubakar, who was in his 20s, was cleaning the mosque when the attacker first walked into the mosque. The attacker manipulated the victim, in fact had planned his crime so viciously and deceitfully. He asked Aboubakar to teach him how to pray as he was interested in Islam. Aboubakar innocently believed him. The attacker took his knife, shouted swears at “Allah” and stabbed him over 40 times while he was prostrating, according to the security cameras and a film on the attacker’s phone.

The crime was so obviously anti-Muslim that no one could deny it. The murder has been condemned as a “racist” and “anti-Muslim” attack by authorities, including Macron and the prime minister who has called it “Islamophobic.” However, no one in the media or the government has called it terrorism! Just close your eyes for a minute and change the characters around! A Muslim man stabbing a non-Muslim European while praying in a church or synagogue, what would everyone shout? “Terrorism”!

“Fascination with death”!

It’s become comical! It’s a formula everyone is too familiar with: If the attacker is Muslim, it is terrorism, if it’s White or non-Muslim it is the result of a mental health disorder. We’ve seen it over and over. It is bizarre that the public prosecutor of the southern city of Ales, Abdelkrim Grini, told BFM TV that “the anti-Muslim motivation is the preferred lead,” however, they’re exploring other motives, including a “fascination with death”! Whatever that means!

Less than a year ago a 28 year old Afghan man attacked a crowd and killed a policeman in Germany, shouts of terrorism and Islamic terrorists were all over the media. The right wings including Iranian and anti-Muslims or Ex Muslim called for a mass protest to get rid of Islamist terrorists. In reality this call is nothing short of calling for mass deportation of Muslims, which is on the agenda of not only the German state but the whole Europe and the US.

A short time after the above incident, an Ex Muslim did the same, he was first called an Islamic terrorist, but after being identified as a Muslim hater EX Muslim, he was quickly described as a man with mental health disorder. Another incident again in Germany had a right wing man as the attacker and a Muslim man as the saviour, a brave man who followed the attacker with a great risk to his own life. No mention of terrorism. Rather quietly the incident which if it was the other way around would make hours of TV coverage and calls for anti-Islamic protests were buried!

A similar event in London: A young English man attacked a white European mother and a child, a young security man from Muslim background risked his own life to save the mother and daughter. It only received one day of short coverage, and no statement from Muslim haters acknowledging the bravery and decency of this young man.

Last but not least, the mass killing in Sweden. A young Swedish man attacked a school with many refugee and immigrant adult students. No mention of terrorism: mental health disorder was given as the probable cause of this mass shooting targeting and killing immigrants from Muslim background.

These are five violent incidents in Europe in the past year which received international coverage. There are many others perhaps with less severe consequences. The racism and deliberate false narrative of the Western ruling class and their mouthpiece, the media, has specially become too vulgar in this time of genocide. Lies and fascist propaganda in defence of Israel and in an effort to dehumanise Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims and anyone who looks like they belong to the genocided race have become commonplace. Any word against Israel is punished severely as Anti-Semitic crime, while dehumanising Muslims is a routine everyday occurrence. According to the dominant narrative and current law the former is racism in its highest form and the latter, a trivial issue which is acceptable in the realm of freedom of speech.

Muslim ghettos, pogroms and holocaust on its way!

This is not exaggeration or fear-mongering. The threat is real. How do you think the deep rooted racism of the Nazis against the Jews (not only Jews but also Romani people) escalated to that brutal level? The narratives and the political climate of now and when Nazis gained power in Germany are alarmingly similar. We must take this warning seriously. It is the logical conclusion of political analysis of today and 80 years ago.

However, Muslim haters* are on their hate-missions, and running their idiotic circus.

Last year after the attack by the Afghan man and hate-mongering call of the right wings and Ex Muslims for protest against “Islamists”, (i.e. Muslims) we called for calm and reflection on the consequences of such calls, the rise of fascism and the dangers of it. We pointed to the danger of such hate-mongering propaganda, especially at this dire time. We warned that this time the Muslims will be the main victims. We will be witnessing Muslim Pogroms, ghettos and holocaust. So far these warnings have fallen on deaf ears. Mockery and right wing political propaganda has been their response.

The good news in this sad and worrying time is that two sizable demonstrations were organised by the left in France to condemn racism against Muslims and a call to the government to take these crimes more seriously.

We need to strengthen our progressive movement against racism and the rise of fascism. The left, Socialists, working class organisations, all progressive and freedom loving people, those with conscious who fight for justice must come together in solidarity. We need to push this monster back. Tomorrow might be too late.

(*I use this expression because if at this dire and dangerous time, there are still some activists who under the guise of free speech spread hate against Muslims, ridicule them, dehumanise them, constantly harass and provoke them, they are knowingly or ignorantly promoting hate and hostility and play in the hands of the fascists.)

⏩Asar Majedi is a Member of Hekmatist Party leadership & Chairperson of Organisation for Women’s Liberation.

Muslim Killing 🪶 Terrorism Or “Fascination With Death”!?

Barry Gilheany ✍  Marine Le Pen Barred From Public Office And So For Running For The Elysee Palace.

This week a French court banned French far right leader Marine Le Pen from holding public office for five years and therefore preventing her candidature for the French Presidential Election in 2027 after finding her guilty of embezzling funds from the European Parliament on a “vast scale”. 

She was also given a four-year jail sentence with two years suspended and two to be served outside prison with an electronic bracelet. She was also ordered to pay a fine of 100,000 Euro (£84,000). The verdict has led to predictable outcries from kindred Alt-Right voices like Elon Musk, Victor Orban and Geert Wilders complaining that it is an example of lawfare being waged by liberal or left wing elite judges who wish to prevent her would be Presidential Election victory and therefore the thwarting of the democratic process. It is a verdict that also drew criticism from radical, left figures such as the Greek economist and politician Yanis Varoufakis and Jean Luc Melenchon leader of La France Insoumise and former French Presidential contender who assert that judicial bodies should have no influence over elections. For defenders of increasingly besieged liberal democracy, the judgement is a welcome pushback against the global advance of the populist far right. But others fear a martyrdom effect Le Pen’s party at the polls.

Le Pen and 24 National Rally (NR) party members including nine former members of the European Parliament (EP) and their 12 parliamentary assistants were found guilty of a vast scheme known as the fake jobs system whereby over many years European Parliament funds were embezzled through the use of money earmarked for European parliament assistants to instead pay NR party workers in France. The swindle covered parliamentary assistant contracts between 2004 and 2016 and was unprecedented in scale and duration, causing losses of 4.5m Euros to European taxpayer funds. Assistants paid by the European Parliament must work directly on Strasbourg parliamentary matters, which the judges found had not happened. Le Pen will be able to retain her current post as a member of the French parliament but will not be able to run again as a parliamentary candidate for the duration of her ban for running for public office.[1]

Bang to rights then. A flagrant attempt to defraud a democratic parliamentary institution; one which Madame Le Pen has never disguised her contempt for but which she was happy to fleece to further her domestic political ambitions. At least Nigel Farage when leader of UKIP and the Brexit Party while milking the European Parliament’s expenses allocations for all their worth and making minimal contributions to EP business, never used this lucre to lubricate his domestic political operations. Where the US judiciary and other gatekeepers of democracy failed in their moral and constitutional responsibility to protect its institutions and guardrails from the depredations of another convicted felon and likely serial fraudster on an even more serious scale, one Donald J. Trump; the French courts have ruled that no legislator can be above the law; that one cannot seek to exercise ultimate power and authority while breaking the fundamental part of the contract between citizen and society – to respect and uphold laws which consensually apply to all in the body politic.

The Brazilian courts have lived up to their guardianship role in the ipso facto prosecution of former President Jair de Bolisanario for his January 6th type coup attempt against Brazilian democracy after his defeat by Luis de Silva in the 2023 Presidential Election. The current trial of ex Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte at the ICC in The Hague for crimes against humanity relating to the mass killing of 30,000 people during his Presidency’s war on drugs shows that there should be no immunity for even democratically elected leaders for violations of basic norms of human behaviour in office.  The appearance of Benjamin Netanyahu at The Hague to answer war crime indictments would send the same message. Another notable example of the exercise of judicial restraint on overweening executives or bad political actors was the UK Supreme Court’s striking down in 2019 of Boris Johnson’s attempt to prorogue Parliament in order to force through a no-deal Brexit.

The exercise of such judicial integrity and independence is a necessary antidote to the global spread of the Triple P virus (Populism, Polarisation and Post-Truth). The courage and risks taken by judges should not be underestimated in such febrile times as we live in today. Virulent threats and insults against the president of the court, Benedicte de Perthuis began on social media immediately after the announcement of the verdict and, menacingly, posts gave the judges full names and photographs and part of de Perthuis address leading to immediate condemnation by French legal bodies. The French Prime Minister, Francois Bayrou has assured the National Assembly of his “unconditional support” for the judges and has rejected the claims that the verdict was “partisan and political.”[2]

The conviction of Madame Le Pen triggered a round of predictable but no less preposterous indignation about the use of lawfare by leftist or liberal elites to thwart the authentic will of the people. In the US, Elon Musk, spear carrier for such “victimised, political prisoners” as anti-Muslim thug Tommy Robinson, said “When the radical left can’t win, they abuse the legal system to jail their opponents… their standard playbook throughout the world.” Hungary’s leader Victor Orban proclaimed in best inverted, narcissistic, faux martyrdom woke fashionista style, “Je suis Marine.” In the Netherlands, the far-right Freedom Party (PVV) leader, Geert Wilders, expressed his shock “at the incredibly tough verdict.” Tom Van Grieken of Belgium’s Vlaams Belang called the decision “an attack on democracy,” while Santiago Abascal, the leader of Spain’s far-right Vox party posted “They will never succeed to silence the voice of the French people” According to Matteo Salvini, Italy’s deputy prime minister and leader of the far-right Legia Nord party, the decision was “a declaration of war by Brussels” and “a bad film that we are also seeing in other countries such as Romania” – a reference to a decision by the Romanian constitutional court earlier this year to bar the far-right presidential election frontrunner Calin Georgescu from a rerun of the vote in May after the initial result was annulled because of suspected Russian interference. But the prize for irony, a property that has apparently survived or being resuscitated after the award of the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger, goes to Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov who opined that “more and more European capitals” were “trampling over democratic norms.” A lottery style win to anyone who can cite a free and fair election this century in Russia.[3]

Not to be outflanked on his right, the Fagash Fuhrer Nigel Farage, bleated on BBC news that:

In France, they cancelled a candidate. A candidate that would without doubt, have won the next French presidential election. And you know what, it looks to me like a very trumped-up charge[4] 

As already explained, the legality of the judgement is unassailable, not least because the judge had stated that Le Pen was “at the heart” of the fraud with the court hearing that one party worker – supposedly a parliamentary assistant for four months – had emailed her to say “I’d like to see the European parliament and that would also allow me to meet the MEP I’m attached to.”. Neither is it “without doubt” that Le Pen would have been the victor in the 2027 French presidential election as current polling shows her tied or within of error in a run-off against three potential candidates, Gabriel Attal, Edouard Philippe and Francois Ruffin.[5] Note Farage’s use of the third person plural (or “they”) to describe the supposedly inscrutable and unknowable forces behind this supposedly vindictive judgement. It is a common linguistic device used by populists to attribute all sorts of malevolent power to shadowy elites, cabals or formations be it the Deep State, the liberal establishment, the World Economic Forum, George Soros, the mainstream media, or the various manifestations of the international Jewish/Zionist conspiracy.

Similar linguistic weapons and tropes have been marshalled in the sexual assault trial of the French cinematic colossus Gerard Depardieu by his lawyer Jeremie Assous. Throughout the trial, Assous persistently took aim at the prosecution counsel, dismissing them “as activists more than lawyers” and attacked their claims that questioning the plaintiffs’ testimony was an act of aggression; using words like “abject,” “vile” and “stupid” to describe one of the counsels. In his closing arguments, he laid into the #MeToo movement, describing it as an aggressive feminist campaign and accused the plaintiffs and their lawyers of being part of a larger “organisation” of “angry feminists” who sought to bring down powerful men. Laced with performative misogyny such as his reference to Charlotte Arnould, the actress who had accused Depardieu of raping her in 2018 when aged just 22 and who only attended the proceedings as a silent observer (her case is currently under investigation), as a “pathological liar” and querying “… Do you know many rape victims who show up every day to see their rapist?”, Assoud went into full conspiracy theory mode. He likened the treatment of Depardieu to Robespierre’s Terror during the French Revolution, asserting that the justice system had become part of a mass ideological purge. In remarks to the media, Assoud continued to portray himself as the defender of a man persecuted by an oppressive, politically motivated system, with Depardieu was now a victim like the Russian dissident Alexei Navalny, who died in Russian custody and he as Navalny’s lawyer.[6]

That latter comparison contains no little irony not to mention obscenity because of both the defendant’s and his counsel’s long careers of subservience to Russian geo-political interests. Now a 76-year-old Russian citizen, Depardieu has long been obsequiously loyal to his dictatorial patrons, Vladimir Putin, and Aleksandr Lukashenko of Belarus and as well as being pally with the brutal Russian general and Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov. Assoud has defended Russia Today (RT) in French court cases and has been described as a prominent spreader of Russian disinformation in France.[7] The sickening conduct of the defence in Depardieu’s trial can be seen as the blueprint for that attack dogs of the contemporary Alt-Right; the creation of false persecutory narratives in which dominant groups, be they powerful men or white people, become victims of oppressively “woke” justice systems, be it Depardieu at the hands of angry feminists or young or even middle aged men in Britain’s allegedly “two-tier” justice system in the aftermath of last summer’s anti-migrant riots. The Elon Musks, JD Vances, Le Pens, Orbans, Farages etc all sing from the same songbook as Jeremie Assous; the Deep State wishes to thwart the election of anti-establishment candidates; Europe is experiencing a “free speech” crisis in which anti=abortionists, opponents of mass immigration, gender ideology and critical race theory are afraid to put their heads above the parapet for fear of arrest and imprisonment by the thought police. They portray themselves as the plucky “little people” standing up to the dictates of woke orthodoxy and the secret tyrannical Great Reset agendas of the WEF, WHO and public health leaders such as Anthony Fauci. It does not take long however for the loose fitting masks (not the Covid 19 variety!) to slip to reveal their real concerns and agendas; articulation of the Great Replacement Theory and reversal of its baleful effects through the creation of Christian nationalist theocratic commonwealths jointly sponsored by Putin and a post-Putin Russia and a Trumpian and post-Trumpian USA and undergirded by the surveillance architecture of Big Tech. That is why any reverse for the Alt-Right be it in the courtroom, ballot box or international summit such as Le Pen’s current travails has to be welcomed.

On the radical left Yanis Varoufakis warned that “only France’s neofascists will benefit” from the dive “headlong into a totalitarian pit” by a panicking illiberal establishment across the west”.[8] While this comment can legitimately be seen as a full circling of the horseshoe bend in politics (the convergence of far right and far left populist anti-politics) and while there is an important debate to be had about to what extent modern far right parties like National Rally differ from old-style fascism bearing in mind Madame Le Pen’s determination to detoxify her party’s brand from that of her late father’s National Front, Varoufakis does raise a realistic scenario about the possible boost that the verdict could give National Rally regardless of whether Marine Le Pen makes a fourth bid for the Presidency in two years’ time in the way that Trump’s felony conviction helped to propel him back into the White House. The guilty verdict will serve her victimisation narrative that there is an elite out to thwart her party and end her career. 

The second election of Trump is partial proof of the cult-like nature of support for authoritarian populist leaders. One of Le Pen’s central messages is that she is an anti-corruption figure in a country where prominent establishment personages - like former Presidents Nicholas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac and former Prime Minister Francois Filon - have been convicted of corruption and misuse of public funds and their once mighty Republican Party now fails to cross the 5% voting threshold of eligibility for election candidacy. In the eyes of her party faithful, she may not have been convicted of lining her own pickets but to the wider French electorate she and her party stand convicted of illegally diverting party funds from designated use. Her anti-corruption image should thus be irredeemably damaged. The record of the French courts in holding establishment figures like Chirac and Sarkozy to account for corruption surely gives the lie to claims that the courts are out to “get” radical political figures.

The disqualification from Marine Le Pen from public office and from another tilt at the French Presidency is significant and heartening at deeper levels. Throughout the period of the embezzlement, Rassemblement National/National Rally was heavily in debt to a Kremlin-connected Russian bank. Would the party have been able to disavow suspicious links to Putin’s inner circle without the misappropriated funds? Would it have been as competitive in the elections it contested without the unfair advantage of these illicit finances?[9]

As for those on the left like Jean-Luc Melenchon who proclaim that the “impeachment” of a politician should be “left up to the people”, the rest of the French left, the Communists, Greens and Socialists, have upheld in no uncertain terms the importance of the rule of law and judicial independence. While it is a definite unknown if the US justice system had not completely failed at protecting the rule of law against the attempted coup on 6th January, we know the actual factual of the consequences of not acting: the fastening erosion of democratic norms and practices since the return to office of the chief coup conspirator and his band of far right insurgents; the undermining of the rule of law and the hollowing out of state capacity the creation of a parallel system of prerogative and privilege from proximity to political power[10]; the arbitrary violations of the Constitution to deport visitors to the US with a legitimate right to be there for exercising freedom of expression on Gaza and the policies of the Trump administration. The resilience and backbone shown by the French judiciary (and their British counterparts) over Le Pen embezzlement case gives one confidence over the strength and efficacy of the guardrails of French democracy.

The verdict forces the far right to face its own contradictions. National Rally and its kindred nationalist rail about corrupt elites and claim that immigrants are stealing benefits. Yet here they are convicted of stealing public money. It is on this terrain that democrats can defeat NR; commitment to probity in public life and genuine patriotism as opposed to NR’s subservience to Trump and Putin. By getting the backs of reactionary right-wing forces across borders, they present defenders of liberal democracy the ideal playbook – pan solidarity between progressives and democrats headed up by a type of “anti-Trump” like Mark Carney, Canadian PM.[11]

Vive La France! Vive la Democracie!

[1] Angelique Chrisafis Furious Le Pen rails against ban on running for French presidency. The Guardian 1st April p.1, p.4

[2] Kim Willsher Threats to French judges in Le Pen condemned by ministers as ‘unacceptable’. The Guardian 2nd April 2025 p.24

[3] Jon Henley ‘Je suis Marine’ Populists ‘shocked’ by court ruling. The Guardian 1st April 2025 p.5

[4]“Rats in a Sack. LIE of the WEEK.” The New European 3rd April 2025

[5] Ibid

[6] Emma-Kate Symons Red Card. Gerard Depardieu’s sexual assault trial was a ‘hellish nightmare that speaks volumes about him – and how alleged victims can be treated in French courts. The New European 3rd April 2025 pp.29-30

[7] Ibid

[8] Henley, op cit

[9] Alexander Hurst, It takes courage to beat the far right. France has shown that.  Guardian Opinion, 1st April 2025 p.3

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid

⏩Barry Gilheany is a freelance writer, qualified counsellor and aspirant artist resident in Colchester where he took his PhD at the University of Essex. He is also a lifelong Leeds United supporter.

Sorted 🪶 When Courts Uphold Democratic Probity

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ It was on Monday 31st March 2005 I heard on the news that the leader of the French far-right party, National Rally Party, formerly Front Nationale leader Marine Le Pen had been banned from public office for five years with ‘immediate’ effect. 

She had also been sentenced to four years in prison with two years suspended, though it is unlikely Ms Le Pen will spend any time behind bars as she intends to appeal according to the BBC. It would appear the French Judiciary are more concerned about her not being able to stand for public office for five years thus making her illegible for candidacy in the French Presidential Elections in 2027. Her crimes of embezzlement, using European Parliament funds to finance the National Rally Party, are what the judiciary sentenced her for. The ban from public office will take immediate affect and this is the bit that will hurt Ms Le Pen. She was also fined €100,000 which no doubt will be taken care of and is the least of her cares. 

The National Rally Party opposes immigration, and it advocates significant cuts to ‘legal immigration’ along with the protection of French identity and much stricter controls of ‘illegal immigration’. They support France leaving NATO’s integrated command and support reform of the European Union. The party has been accused of promoting ‘xenophobia’ and ‘antisemitism’. Marine Le Pen once claimed the party as being “neither right or left” something the German Nazis once claimed when designing the Swastika. Hitler claimed when designing the flag; “the red symbolises the socialist aspect of our party while the white the German nationalism angle” with the truth being, there was no “socialist aspect” just far right nationalism. Marine Le Pen’s “neither right or left” categorisation sounds uncannily similar in content.

French legislators, which she is one by virtue of her being a member of the National Assembly for the 11th constituency of Pas-de-Calais giving her a position in the legislating body, passed a less tolerance for law breakers bill instigated in no small way by the National Rally Party. So, her far-right policies on law and order may have come back to haunt her. It was the National Rally who called for “zero tolerance for breaches of law and order”! Reaction from the parliamentary theatre in France from the far-left socialists and enemies of Ms Le Pen to the far-right supporters of her has been for once - and if reports can be believed - one of shallow unity singing from similar hymn sheets though no doubt for different reasons and beliefs. The far-left party of Jean-Luc Melenchon, La France Insoumise (France Unbowed or France in Revolt), whose aims are to implement the eco-socialist and democratic socialist programme, L’ Avenir en commun (a Common future), through the French parliamentary system is one of the leading opponents of the verdict. Although he is the antithesis of Marine Le Pen, Melenchon argued against the verdict claiming he wanted to beat her in the polls not “through the judiciary.” He further claimed this verdict and subsequent banning of Ms le Pen was an attack on “French democracy” (which is liberal democracy, a far cry from real democracy). The French far-right are echoing the arguments of their adversaries on the left. They too claim the verdict is an afront to “French democracy”, a democracy they, if history is anything to judge the fascist right by, may well abolish should they ever be elected. 

The National Rally President, Jordan Bardella said; “Today it is not only Marine Le Pen who was unjustly condemned, it was French democracy that was killed” The right-wing US President Donald Trump and his push to collapse the global economy could well play to Le Pen's advantage. In 1929 the US, not intentionally, collapsed the world economies with the Wall Street Crash thus giving Adolf Hitler and the Nazis the electoral fertile ground they needed. Donald Trump, through his tariffs, may well implode the global economy once again playing into the hands of various far-right, scapegoating parties including the National Rally Party in France. Could this be Trump's long term political goal, preparing the ground for far-right parties around the globe? White House advisor and far-right advocator – seen giving a Nazi salute on stage – Elon Musk said; “when the radical left can’t win via the democratic vote, they abuse the legal system to jail their opponents”. Once again, a case of the far-right, neo-Nazis in the case of Musk, painting a picture of thuggish behaviour by the far-left while behind the scenes it is they who cause all the disruption and mischief they can. It was Hitler who blamed the communists for the street violence while all the time his Brown Shirt thugs were causing mayhem on the streets of Germany.

The likes of Marine Le Pen are useful to the French bourgeoisie only when required usually to oppose socialism and communism if all else fails often through street violence. Marine Le Pen’s policies are beginning to connect with the French electorate and groups of the ‘lumpen proletariat’, and she was strong favourite to win the 2027 French Presidential election. The French establishment and bourgeoisie are not ready or not in need of such radical far-right policies yet! One day they may be and for this reason they keep the fascists in their back pocket as an insurance against socialism and communism. Marine Le Pen is such an insurance policy! The French ruling class probably felt that if Marine Le Pen swept to power in 2027, they may be unable to control her and the fascist racist policies she pursued. This offence of misusing money, embezzlement, and corruption must have been a Godsend to them. They could shaft her without too much of an outcry because she has broken the law. Just as the Nazi Party were banned for a few years in Germany after Hitler was imprisoned, so too is Marine Le Pen out of the way for a few years. Who knows after that the French establishment may need her style of far-right policies? It happened in Germany!

So, what could happen next? Could she organise a Trump style protest of street violence in true fascist style? Or a Hitler Bier Putsch style uprising like what happened in Germany 1923? Could she use the appeal court, assuming she does appeal, and if she does not then she will have a good reason why not, as a stage to launch her political programme? After all, did one of her mentors, Hitler, do exactly that in 1923 finding the judges very sympathetic to his cause? Could Marine Le Pen act out her performance on the stage of French Court of Appeal for the same purpose? 

The opposition to this verdict handed down to Ms Le Pen coming from the far-left is not out of sympathy but moreover as a tool to attack the French establishment. This in many ways was to be expected but such a cynical attack on ‘French democracy’ by the far-left could one day come back to haunt them. If, after this five-year ban, and again if it lasts the full five years depending on circumstances, Marine Le Pen and her National Rally Party eventually come to power it is a possibility all other political parties and organisations could be banned, including the trade unions. What would Jean-Luc Melenchon reaction be then? Would he, while still alive, complain about the same judiciary who he cites now as killing ‘French democracy’ for later allowing this fascist to take over resulting in his imprisonment? Or would he, under such circumstances, be asking the judiciary to lock Le Pen and her henchmen up again before it’s too late to save ‘French democracy’? - the opposite of what he is saying now! Perhaps the voice of the parliamentary left should give a little more clarity behind their arguments, not just ‘they are killing French democracy’. They might find that Le Pen is better out of the scene and while they are at it get some of their own people inside the National Rally Party, under cover, to find out what the fascists plans are once the ban is lifted! 

The French fascists, relative to their development, will be at their most dangerous while the party leader is banned from public office and the far-left should be aware of this. They could in all probability be planning their future strategy and possibly deciding whether to up the ante on immigration, possibly secretly promoting street pogroms against people of different skin colour? 

The constitutional avenue for now is closed to Marine Le Pen and at times like these the fascists resort to less savoury tactics! Anti-fascists in France should be preparing for confrontation both ideologically and physically with the fascists! One thing is for sure: this five-year ban if indeed it runs its full course will not make Marine Le Pen go away, preferable as that may be. All it will do if not countered properly will strengthen her support among those who are looking for easy answers in fascism to the vagaries of orthodox capitalism, which they will not find in the National Rally Party and Marine Le Pen. All they will be encouraged to do is continue blaming red herrings like immigration for the problems faced by the French economy and particularly the working-class. The National Rally Party will never point the finger at the capitalist class and their greed for the problems faced by the working-class after all, why should they? Capitalism needs a far-right, even fascist party, which is why elements within big business fund them. The National Rally Party are not going to blame the hand that feeds them and this ban certainly will not make them go away!
 
Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

French Fascist Leader Banned For Five Years

Sarah Kay ✊ once ran into Manuel Valls in a shopping centre in Evry-Courcouronnes in 2008. She’s been struggling ever since

2024 challenged democracy and modern institutional status quo like very few years did before. Some would show you the responsible planets for it, others would refer to the inevitable and cyclical nature of extremist politics. What France brings to the table is stereotypical but always gravity-defying political spectacle.

Unseen under the Fifth Republic, the vote of no-confidence (motion de censure) in the Michel Barnier government feels like a brick thrown at a window. It is not just a reflection on Barnier himself but very specifically of President Macron, delegitimised since his anticipated dissolution of the Assembly earlier this year, but seemingly delegitimising himself. This vote was a long time in the making, but it was clearly aimed at the President. Unfortunately, the Constitution only allows for the use of this parliamentary procedure to target the Prime Minister. And so Macron remains, a much hated figure that now clearly rang the death bells of the Fifth Republic.

The Centre-right struggled to emerge from this spring’s elections. Little to sell, with a lot of pre-existing baggage from Macron’s chaotic and controversial first mandate, they only took leadership out of principle. But familiarity brings contempt, and constant flirting with the demands of an empowered far right was never going to yield stability. One thing always leads to another, and unacceptable compromises reached their apex. The reactionary challenge to an indifferent government is one that will burn more than bad lawmaking. On the day of the vote, led by Le Pen’s formerly-known-as-the-National Front RN party and drafted by whatever is La France Insoumise (far-left pre-Potemkin? Nationalist socio-anarchism? Loud noises?) unions and collectives asked parties to vote against axing the government, insisting on the need for political stability for the purposes of negotiations and planned reforms. So, what now?

Well, France has made its constitutional bed and is very likely to keep Michel Barnier. Macron has already exhausted his get-out-of-this-government dissolution free card and would now have to wait two more years to announce parliamentary elections. As of Macron himself, he is extremely unlikely to go. Nevertheless, he persisted with his (ab)use of executive powers, such as the very Gaullist 49 (3), allowing for the President to force legislation through both Chambers. Austerity politics announced with very little mitigating measures as well as constant nods to Le Pen on immigration, borders and EU foreign support was never going to be the thriving pluralistic influence Macron begged for with his dissolution gamble. The truth is, there is no turning around that ship. Macron is headed for the iceberg but pretends he can outrun it.

Le Pen herself is in a predicament. Facing several counts of corruption and embezzlement, she could face 5 years’ imprisonment if found guilty in an ongoing trial. She could also be hit with an electoral ban, meaning she would not be allowed to run in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Her absence would be a breath of fresh air, but it is a medium term goal. As of today, France is heading toward the inevitable end of the road crash, a test of institutional resilience I am not sure it is quite ready for.

Growth is always uncomfortable, but the country does not know government suspensions the way we do here in Northern Ireland, and it might have to find a quick solution to this perennial problem of political legitimacy: do people get the government they deserve?

➽ Sarah Kay is a human rights lawyer.

Tout Est Chaos, À Côté

Anthony McIntyre ☠ Besides following the British general election while in Majorca, we also took a keen interest in how the French legislative elections were working out.

Prior to setting out on our journey, which took us over France, the far right Rassemblement National (National Rally) party of Jean Marie Le Pen, backed by many wealthy entrepreneurs, led after the first round. There was great concern that France would once more fall into the hands of the Vichy. We know how that turned out in the 1940s. With Germany, Italy, and Austria all experiencing far right surges, France was watched with bated breath.

A long time ago I had studied French politics as part of a degree course. It amounted to a comparative analysis with the US political system. The French model, I didn't find all that stimulating despite having an interest in the country's philosophers such as Camus, Sartre, Foucault and Derrida, its Marxist theoreticians in the mould of Althusser and Poulantzas (originally from Greece), and of course its gifted writers à la Voltaire, whose quips and acerbic wit I first became accustomed to during the blanket protest while reading a religious magazine - when they were still allowed. Martin Livingstone still quotes Voltaire to me from that magazine almost fifty years later.

What attracts me most about France is its laïcité, the country's secular culture about which much ado was raised when it went full throttle during the Olympics opening ceremony. Laïcité should have infused French society with a culture of safety for a wide range of beliefs and lifestyles that would have ensured nobody was murdered for their beliefs, including the journalists and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo who regaled France and further afield with their mocking irreverence. When they were murdered by the Islamic equivalent of the Ku Klux Klergy, we headed to Dublin to stand in solidarity with French nationals at the Spire. Today the loyalists of 'Coolock says no' would throw petrol bombs at the French 'invaders.' igniting their Molotov cocktails with incendiary touch paper from the pages of books by Renaud Camus on the Great Replacement theory.

When in Paris a few years back we paid a visit to the then closed Charlie Hebdo offices where the massacre occurred. I was later interviewed by one of its journalists who seemed to drink more than he talked or wrote.

While favouring the prohibition of any facial covering in public life including the burka, KKK hoods, balaclavas or whatever, I feel laïcité has acquired a serious blemish as a result of targeting the burkini. That is simply to have a go at Muslims and is in large part pandering to the country's far right which had for years been threatening to make serious inroads in French political life.

In our hotel room we watched in amazement as the same far right was forced into third place. There was no stunned silence - my wife's whoops of delight ensured silence was off the menu. The bottles of champagne ready to be popped at National Rally HQ, if they were uncorked at all, served only to drown sorrows. I downed victory Tequila.

Defeated by a left wing Popular Front alliance standing on a platform which, unlike that of the British Labour Party, proposed taxing the rich, huge public investment and a substantial increase in public sector wages. Even today in Belfast Hilary Benn reaffirmed Starmer's commitment to Tory economics when he ruled out financial investment as a means of tackling the far right. Hilary Benn is an apple that fell quite far to the right from his father's tree.

In calling a snap election in response to National Rally success in the European elections Emmanuel Macron had played a card similar to the one used by David Cameron that sparked the Brexit debacle. Macron had calculated that the Left would be so fragmented that the electorate would see sense and vote for his party over the far right.  He risked the French electorate possibly asking for Barnabas. As it turned out the man on the middle cross didn't make the cut. The Popular Front guy on the cross to the left of him stole the show, and not in the sense that US presidential idiot Donald Trump would use the term.

Macron has been outmaneuvered and the far right humiliated. Stalingrad Square in Paris seemed the most symbolic of sites in which to sing the Internationale, conducted by the leader of the Popular Front. It was in Stalingrad that the rout of the Nazis began. Yet the broader fascization of French political life has certainly not been halted let alone sent scurrying back along the road to Berlin. In the sombre words of Bertolt Brecht: for though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again. Fascism is breathing fires of hatred that will need much more than songs and a love extinguisher to douse them.

⏩Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

Hatred Humiliated

Matt Treacy ✒ On Tuesday, France became the latest country to scrap its television licence.


Following on an election promise from President Macron, the Senate approved the proposal to scrap the tax by 170 votes to 57. This means that it will also be certain to pass through the National Assembly.

Macron had basically stolen the idea from Marine Le Pen’s National Rally manifesto, and it proved to be a popular one, and comes as part of a series of measures designed to address the cost of living crisis that is impacting on households across all of Europe.

The French fee was €138 per year, a revenue of €3.2 billion in 2022. The state now proposes to fund public service broadcasting through VAT. Not surprisingly our own state broadcaster RTÉ seems to have missed this story.

Irish contributors to RTÉ will also probably not realise that the legal requirement to have a TV licensc is in very much the exception among the nations of the world. A mere 15 Europe states have such a thing, and beyond that only seven other countries on the planet require that you have a piece of paper in order to own a television.

Not only that, but the trend has been for countries that did force its citizens on pain of fines and imprisonment to have a TV licence to scrap it. Since 2000, that has included Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Romania and Sweden.

Poland, where evasion rates are around 65%, is currently considering doing away with it, as are the British where the current Minister for Culture Nadine Dorries supports a two-year freeze, with possible abolition in 2027.

The political divide on TV licences is interesting. The British Tories clearly have an issue with the BBC which is regarded as biased towards the left. Likewise in France, where National Rally and the more conservative Republicans support not only scrapping the license but privatisation. In Le Pen’s case this is clearly not anything to do with opposition to public services whose protection is a key part of National Rally policies, but a dislike of the fact that public broadcasting has clearly constituted another battle decisively won by the French left in its “march through the institutions.” Indeed, Mélenchon’s far left alliance NUPES and the Communist Party are the most vociferous opponents of abolition.

The main opposition party here, Sinn Féin, has had its own issues with RTÉ having been banned in the past under Section 31 and is still claiming a certain bias when it comes to coverage. It has never, however, made abolition an election promise and in general it’s overall left liberal stance on issues such as abortion which they share with the other establishment parties are clearly favoured by RTÉ.

This was evident in RTÉ’s coverage of the referendum on the 8th amendment and is reflected in its daily content on a whole range of issues. The public broadcasting service claim – as in providing any sort of meaningful cultural content – is moot when you look at their schedule which is pretty much wall to wall imported soap operas and American talk shows. There is certainly an argument for supporting Irish language media but TG4, apart from a few exceptions, differs little from the two RTÉs in its overall standard of content.

The fact that the Irish state was considering broadening their take from what people watch was signalled by the Fine Gael/Labour proposal to introduce a charge that would allow them to basically tax people for watching stuff online on their phones and laptops. That seems not to be completely dead in the water and would be a true return to the days when the state taxed people for having windows and fireplaces.

The current evasion rate here was estimated at 12.8% in 2018. I, for one, am not apologising for being one of that band. I do admit to having some lingering reservations with regard to what I believe is an onus on the state to set some sort of cultural level, but that is perhaps nothing more than intellectual snobbery on my part and a quick glance at the TV and even radio schedules indicate that that ship has by and large sailed.

In any event, my willingness to pay a few euro for TG4 is outweighed by the knowledge that it is mostly going to support ideologically motivated overpaid broadcasters who represent most of the things I disagree with, and broadcast content that I would not watch nor listen to unless you were to tie me to a chair and staple my eyelids to my forehead.

Matt Treacy has published a number of books including histories of 
the Republican Movement and of the Communist Party of Ireland. 

France Latest Country To Scrap TV Licence

Following PM Boris Johnston’s ‘car crash’ CBI speech, its not a visit to Peppa Pig World which will save his premiership, but Boris leading British troops on the sands of Calais in a war against the people traffickers, according to contentious political commentator, Dr John Coulter.

Who is really running the country, Labour voters (and even a few Tory backbenchers from the powerful Conservative 1922 Committee) might be asking following PM Boris Johnston’s recent debacle during his CBI speech.

If ever there was a ‘car crash’ delivery of a keynote industrial speech, this was it! Labour’s Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves, the MP for Leeds West, branded it a “bumbling” address which saw ‘Bumbling Boris’ lose his place in his notes, impersonate a car, and talk about a visit to Peppa Pig World!

Given the seriousness of the Covid pandemic, the ongoing looming crisis in Northern Ireland over the Protocol, the general bad feeling between the EU and the UK over Brexit, not to mention the unfolding tragedy of the Channel migrant catastrophe, folk may be wondering if Mr Johnston is actually in full control, not just of the Tory Party, but of his Cabinet and even the country itself?

Even the so-called Iron Lady of Conservatism, the late former PM Maggie Thatcher, faced a coup in her own ranks which eventually forced her out of office. At what point do rumblings within the 1922 Committee become an open revolt against the PM?

At what point do the Tory backbenchers during the Christmas recess from Parliament, instead of discussing Brussels sprouts, rather discuss ‘Boris Out’?

Ironically, Boris needs to take a leaf out of the Thatcher manual for handling rebel Tories. In 1981, it was perceived that Thatcher had caved in to the demands of the IRA and INLA hunger strikes in the Maze prison.

She had created 10 new martyrs for the republican cause when in reality she could have given in to the demands after the deaths of the first two hunger strikers - Bobby Sands MP and Francis Hughes. Then again, did the other eight prisoners who died on that death fast actually need to die or were the leaderships of the Provisional republican movement and republican socialist movement merely sacrificing their prisoners for propaganda purposes - but that’s a debate for another day.

Thatcher desperately needed to save face in 1982 after the 1981 hunger strike debacle for her premiership. Then Argentina invaded the Falklands.

Thatcher’s reaction was to send a full-blown British task force to the islands in the far away south Atlantic to liberate the islands. The net result of scenes of Thatcher in full-blown combat gear secured her a landslide election victory the following year in the 1983 Westminster General Election.

What Boris needs in 2022 to face down any perceived Tory revolt that Downing Street is totally disconnected from not just the Conservative party, but the entire UK, is a major propaganda boost.

It is said a good general picks his battle fields carefully. Boris will need to pick a fight on a topic on which he can clearly win, not just score a few brownie points. It has to be an outright crushing victory - and it has to be very, very public.

Its no use making another speech from behind the comfort of the lectern in 10 Downing Street as if it was the daily Covid briefing; nor is touring a successful factory bedecked in a high-vis jacket and hard hat any use. It has to be a PR coup which clearly gives the strong impression of a PM that is firmly in control of the leadership of his nation.

In today’s media-driven world of politics, perception can be as persuasive as reality.

So who can the target be that can guarantee this outright PR victory? The pandemic with all its variants is so unpredictable in direction and impact, it would be foolhardy to claim that the various deviants have been medically defeated.

Unless Boris can stand up in the House of Commons in the New Year and claim the Northern Ireland Protocol has been entirely axed, any threats about what the UK Government will do will come across as empty rhetoric.

So with Brexit, the Protocol and the pandemic ruled out, that leaves only one avenue - declare war on the people traffickers forcing migrants to cross the English Channel. The brutal solution against the traffickers - British boots once again on French soil!

Imagine the propaganda coup for Boris - prancing along Calais beach in full combat gear, accompanied by armed British bobbies and squaddies, giving a Churchillian-style speech about fighting the human traffickers on the beaches? It would show Boris in control of the situation in which people are currently losing their lives trying to reach the safety of British waters and shores.

And Boris can score a double whammy in any retort to French President Emmanuel Macron if the latter issues a flat ‘Non’ to British boots on French soil - well, you were glad of British boots in 1914 and 1944 when your country was occupied by the Germans, firstly under Kaiser Bill and then by Nazi tyrant Hitler.

The latter sentence may come across as patriotic sabre-rattling, especially as the French are mighty angry at the UK leaving the EU, but it will give Boris the unique perception that he is actually in charge of the UK - ‘Bumbling Boris’ becomes ‘Beachhead Boris’.

The real serious political danger which Boris faces is that he is relying too much on his Commons majority. He does not find himself - as yet - in the same precarious situation as his predecessor as PM, Theresa May, who needed a ‘confidence and supply’ arrangement with the DUP MPs to prop up her Tory Government.

But Boris should remember the fate of the Iron Lady. That 1983 General Election returned Thatcher to Downing Street with a massive majority, something similar to Boris’s current majority. But within the decade, the political wolves in the Tory party had savaged her and she was gone.

If there is one bitter pill which every Tory PM needs to swallow, its don’t take the blessing of the backbench 1922 Committee for granted. Now get that ticket to Calais beach booked ASAP, Boris!

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online. 

British Boots On French Soil ➖The Only Way To Save ‘Bumbling Boris’

National Secular Society ✒ Keith Porteous Wood says France's deference to the Catholic Church has obstructed justice for hundreds of thousands of abuse victims.

An inquiry commissioned by the Catholic Church into clerical abuse in France has just concluded that victims of both clerics and laity (teachers, for example) totalled around a third of a million since 1950.

In no country in the world has such a high figure been included in an official report. Nearly all victims were minors or vulnerable adults.

The commission, to its credit, held exhaustive hearings in every major town in France. But listening to so many harrowing testimonies took its toll. The president of the commission was not alone in needing psychological assistance.

At the public launch of the inquiry report, abuse survivor François Devaux told Church officials:

You are a disgrace to our humanity. In this hell there have been abominable mass crimes...betrayal of morality, [and] betrayal of children.

The report concluded: "The Catholic Church is, after the circle of family and friends, the environment that has the highest prevalence of sexual violence." Its president accused the Church of "sometimes knowingly putting children in touch with predators."

Continue reading @ National Secular Society.

Only Secular Law Can Bring Justice To Victims Of Mass Clerical Abuse In France

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)