french-politics

State Department: No immunity for Dominique Strauss-Kahn
  • what The U.S. State Department declined to give diplomatic immunity to now-former IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who faces sexual assault charges in New York.
  • why According to the State Department, he wasn’t on official business with the IMF when he was arrested. If he were in another country, he would probably have immunity. source
Ayrault a démissioné?!

Ca veut dire qu'on va avoir le droit à Valls? Bah de toutes façons ça sera pas beaucoup mieux…

For my English speaking peeps: the prime minister of my country (France) just quit. So we don’t have a government anymore and are waiting for the President to choose a new one. 

French politics 101 time!!!

Because its always a good time to analyse french politics. (Ps french peeps, feel free to debate my analysis here i might miss some points)

The reason why islamophobia IS a huge problem in France, and why there have been islamophobic attacks as a response to the charlie hebdo massacre, is partly (if not mainly) due to the fact that the discourse on Islam and immigration is ALMOST ENTIRELY HELD BY EXTREME RIGHT WING PARTIES such as the FN (Front National - National Front) (the name of the party pretty much tells you what you need to know about it.)

The issue is that they hold a monopoly on these questions because the leftist government in power at the moment in France never took a clear stance on the rise of extremism/radicalism, islamophobia and immigration in France. Instead, what they do, along most of the other political parties in France, is point fingers and denounce the discourse of opposing parties, such as the FN.

Which has several consequences:
1. Leftist parties never took a stance on these questions because they were afraid of being called racist and islamophobic, because it is always extremely delicate to talk about the rise of extremism as mistakes (amalgames)can be easily made and muslim people can get offended over semantics and vocabulary. So instead of taking the chance, theyd rather remain silent all the while condemning the stinking discourse of the Le Pen (leaders of the FN party) family.

2. This lack of clear stance on the part of the government caused these issues to be dominated by racist, islamophobic arguments since only the FN expressed clearly their views on it.

3. Part of the french citizens that were annoyed by the lack of action of the leftist government turned to the Fn and their atrocious discourse because thats literally all we hear

4. Enormous amalgames and mistakes are being made because of that dominating discourse which results in islamophobic attacks and the FN and other racist shits being like “we told you so” and part of the population actually thinking “well… They actually did tell us so” except what the FN said was that the rise of extremism was due to France accepting too many arab immigrants in the country, thus mistaking arabs for muslim people and extremists for muslim people, creating an unacceptable discourse

5. Our government SHOULD and HAVE TO adress these issues now in light of recent events and my only fear is they wont because the government can be extremely passive on certain questions

SO REMEMBER: THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN FRANCE ARE NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC. BUT IT IS A PREVALENT ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADRESSED BY PARTIES OTHER THAN EXTREME RIGHT WING PARTIES.

Thank you.

THE FACTS

A document from the Libyan secret services establishing the past French president Nicolas Sarkozy had been financed (€50 million) by the dictator Muammar Gaddafi has been found by the journalists of Mediapart after a long inquiry.

(All the details are here
French version: http://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/171114/sarkozy-kadhafi-la-verite-qu-ils-veulent-etouffer?onglet=full
English version: http://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/international/181114/sarkozy-gaddafi-funding-scandal-stifled-truth )

Moussa Koussa, ex-chief of the secret services and a lieutenant of Gaddafi, declared the document was authentic and the financing too, the only reservation was about the signature. Said signature has been proved to be authentic by juridic forensics.

Forensics are a legal process. People are telling us it’s up to justice to decide if there was effective corruption. Well, that’s awesome, for about that, French justice demonstrated there WAS corruption! Or at least, demonstrated the veracity of a document valid as evidence.

A new interesting element which cannot be set aside has been added: the fact the entirety of French mainstream medias are boycotting the information. COMPLETE BLACKOUT. They are not talking about it, they are not contesting it, they are ignoring it.
More than a week after the veracity of the signature has been demonstrated, a French citizen has to search until PAGE FOUR of Google News to find a second article on the affair.

Newspapers do not talk about it. TV does not talk about it. The big news websites do not talk about it. The Agence France-Press do not talk about it. Nobody is talking about it.
Even the right-wing websites, usually quick to mock the mainstream political scene, do not talk about it. Even conspiracy freaks and extremists shut the hell up. Even in this most unhealthy world, the story was merely mentioned, in a brief E&R article, signed by “the E&R redaction”.

There was not even a single TF1 newsflash saying something like “Once again, Mediapart is unfairly accusing an innocent politician”. In mainstream and even fringe French media, it is complete blackout.

The silence.



THE COMPLETE DUD THEORY

Some people say the “scoop” is a complete dud. It is still a possibility. However, at the same time, Nabila or Hollande-Gayet (or even other, more “innocent” Sarkozy scandals) are making the headlines. Why does the other gossip dominate the press while the authentification of Koussa’s signature is magically becoming the universal dud?

Do you want an answer? A clear answer everyone can learn, which is displayed everywhere for the public eye to see?
It is not hidden at all…

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2x2vNaCQAAUYH0.jpg

The boss of the press are Sarkozy’s best friends, that is the answer. He’s publicly their friend (and the CEOs’). They are maintaining a dominant paradigm in which Sarkozy is a “strong man”, maybe not a nice man, maybe not a totally pleasing man, maybe a man who can do mistakes, but a loyal and strong man, who does what he HAS to do. The same fantasy which benefitted much to Vladimir Putin for example.
This Sarkozy, Sarkozy’s public persona, can be a victim to scandals, but not too much. And not this one.
The public Sarkozy can be bling bling. He can be brutal. He can be a womanizer. He can make mistakes. But he cannot be a traitor.




THE SITUATION

Nicolas Sarkozy’s friends surely didn’t gather in a darkness-filled room to laugh maniacally before saying “We’re going to cover up the affair”. They didn’t need to do this. The Omerta (code of silence) traditionally doesn’t need to be decided or recalled to work.
And the deliberate complicity wasn’t alone to do the dirty work of establishing the complete mediatic blackout. The fear of being the only person to talk about it, the indifference, inertia (the famous Bystander Effect applied to the mediatic world)? Probably a mix of everything.

In any case, if the affair is confirmed (let’s not forget presumption of innocence), we are way beyond the “Everything is corrupted” idea, beyond the usual “All politicians are like this anyway”. It is about a President of French Republic who has been bought by foreign money. It would be treason against the State and corruption by another State (a dictatorship!).

Let us not forget, too, what the financing could imply about the war initiated by Sarkozy against Libya and Gaddafi’s assassination. Nothing tells us the corruption affaire is linked to that, but it is a very real possibility.

This affair is serious. Let’s fight the silence.

Please, relay the Mediapart article ( http://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/international/181114/sarkozy-gaddafi-funding-scandal-stifled-truth ) and relay this little explanation. In France, we are very afraid.

What I don't understand - Abortion : USA vs. France

That woman is Simone Veil.

In 1974-1975, the French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing (Conservative party) appointed her to help set a law that would allow women in France to get an abortion.

Basically, the law’s goal was to give women a right of decision over their bodies.

During the debate, that woman, who carried the weight of that law alone, who is a survivor of the Holocaust, got insulted, got threatened. she cried at the tribune, but she never stopped fighting until the law was voted.

Now, since 1975, there has been a lot of changes of government : Conservative, Democrats, there has been a come and go of both parties at the head of the country.

No president since 1975 has ever even thought about repelling that law.

Not one.

Can someone explain to me why some old men in Texas, with no uterus whatsoever, thought that they could take the right to decide what’s going on with their own bodies from the Texan women ?

cause i’m baffled over this fit of dictatorship that took place last night.

youtube

Manuel Valls face à Marion Le Pen : le vibrant discours qui a soulevé l’Assemblée nationale

“Madame, jusqu’au bout je mènerai campagne pour vous stigmatiser et pour vous dire que vous n’êtes ni la République ni la France”.

“Madame, I will carry on with the campaign against you up until the end and tell you that you are neither the face of the Republic nor that of France.”

There are times when I don’t particularly like ol’ Valls here, but when he goes off on one against the FN…well, hats off to him.

Let's upset a trading partner! Just what the French economy needs.

What in the world was the “Assemblée” thinking when they voted their -out-of-this-world- Genocide Law. Does not France have more pressing issues to address, than annoying the Turkish people?? The day before Christmas eve. Hard to believe.

What is France gaining for creating this mess?  May be the “Députés” felt it gives some Grandeur back to France?? Not a fat chance, Folks.

French President Sarkozy declared that France had “principles” and that this Genocide Law was right.
French car manufacturers account for one fifth of the Turkish market - France is currently lobbying hard to build a nuclear reactor on the Black Sea.  French principles may turn out to be costly…

Politicians can easily shoot themselves in the foot - the world around actually.