french-politics

cbc.ca
Elections Canada falls short in bilingual services, audit finds
Commissioner of Official Languages launched audit after 26 complaints last federal election

Elections Canada needs to do “a lot of work” to make sure voters receive the same level of service in French and in English “at all times during electoral events,” an audit released Friday by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has found.

Read the full audit here.

The audit made nine recommendations, including that the agency develop a new official languages policy, create closer ties with French and English minority communities, recruit bilingual returning officers in all 338 ridings and commit to bilingual services at all polling stations during operating hours.

There were more than 15,000 central polling stations during the last general federal election.

“We’re very aware of the challenges that would represent,” said Commissioner Graham Fraser, who launched the audit after receiving 26 language complaints about the last general election.

Continue Reading.

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

i got an ask wondering what i was talking about re: my tag ‘rmbr when mathieu kassovitz wrote that incendiary letter to sarkozy?’, so -

in november 2005, a group of youths playing football in the poor banlieue of clichy-sous-bois were broken up for id checks and questioning by the police, something that apparently happened frequently and was, as you might expect, not a pleasant experience.  several of those youths ran, and two of them, who were muslims of north african descent (i believe the whole group was, though i’m not sure) hid in a power substation; they were electrocuted, and died.  this sparked large and lengthy mass protests and riots throughout paris and its suburbs over racism and police brutality.  in the midst of this, kassovitz, who had directed la haine, a film dealing with racism and police brutality in the parisian suburbs in 1995, wrote this on his blog (translated from the french by the guardian):

November 8, 2005

As much as I would like to distance myself from politics, it is difficult to remain distant in the face of the depravations of politicians. And when these depravations draw the hate of all youth, I have to restrain myself from encouraging the rioters.

Nicolas Sarkozy, who has appeared in the media like a starlet from American Idol and who for the past years has been showering us with details of his private life and political ambitions, cannot prevent himself from creating an event every time his ratings go down. This time, Sarkozy [who last week described the rioters as “scum”] has gone against everything the French republic stands for: the liberty, the equality and the fraternity of a people.

The minister of the interior, a future presidential candidate, holds ideas that not only reveal his inexperience of politics and human relations, but which also illuminate the purely demagogical and egocentric aspects of a puny, would-be Napoleon.

If the suburbs are exploding once again today, it is not due to being generally fed up with the conditions of life that entire generations of “immigrants” must fight with every day. These burning cars are [in direct response to] the lack of respect the minister of the interior has shown towards their community.

Sarkozy does not like this community. He wants to get rid of these “punks” with high-pressure water hoses and he shouts it out loud and clear right in the middle of a “hot” neighbourhood at 11 in the evening.

The response is in the streets. “Zero tolerance” works both ways. It is intolerable that a politician should allow himself to upset a situation made tense by years of ignorance and injustice, and openly threaten an entire segment of the French population.

By acting like a warmonger, he has opened a breach that I hope will engulf him. Hate has kindled hate for centuries and yet Sarkozy still thinks that repression is the only way to prevent rebellion. History has proved to us that a lack of openness and philosophy between different communities engenders hate and confrontation. Sound and fury are the only means for many communities to make themselves heard.

Sarkozy wants to become the president of our republic and nobody will get in his way, as he dramatically puts it. If this man does not fail at least once in his initiatives to win the presidency of this country, nothing indeed will get in his way, and his desire for absolute power will finally be fulfilled.

Does history repeat itself? Yes. It always has done. A desire for power and the egocentricity of those who think they hold the truth has always created dictators. Sarkozy is certainly a little Napoleon, and I do not know if he has the potential of a real one, but it will be impossible to say tomorrow that we didn’t know.

sarkozy responded to this with a longwinded letter that includes these three relevant paragraphs, which anyone who’s followed any of the coverage of any of the protests, youth movements, and riots that have been happening across the world the last few years will find familiar in tone:

Reading your blog, the first point that struck me is that it gave me to understand that the current crisis sprung up suddenly, like some unfortunate accident. You linked it to myself and to a few of my words in a shortsighted and Manichean fashion… I assume the straightforward, frank tone of these words, because they are based on the reality that a majority of our fellow citizens experience daily in the suburbs. Moreover, I consider that political cant and correctness, which have prevailed for decades, are connected to the rise of the National Front, against whose ideas and leaders I have always campaigned.

You seem to be acquainted with the suburbs well enough to know, deep inside you, that the situation has been tense there for many years and that the unrest is deep-rooted. Your film La haine, shot in 1995, already showed this unease that right-wing and left-wing governments had to deal with, with varying results. To claim this crisis is down to the Minister of the Interior’s sayings and doings is yet another way of missing the point. I attributed this to an untimely and quick-tempered reaction.

The second thing that shocked me is that you seem to clearly speak up for the minority, made of looters, rather than for the majority, made of families and young people who live in the suburbs too and who are sick of seeing the culture of violence and of power struggle undermine our legally constituted state. Why not speak up for those whose cars were burnt, and who are now deprived of a hard-earned tool, synonymous with work and freedom? Why not mention the young people whose gyms were burned down and the children whose schools were destroyed? Moreover, why not write a single word about the 110 injured policemen, the firemen hit by stones, the insulted doctors? Your emotional affinity with the suburban youths is understandable and respectable, but I feel that it leads you to accept the unacceptable. To make common cause with a minority whose actions are reprehensible, or even murderous in some cases, is not helping the situation in the suburbs. I even believe it has the reverse effect. To live in a working-class district or to be the son of immigrant parents or grandparents gives you no right to throw Molotov cocktails at the police and stones at firemen. To intimate the contrary is, in my opinion, to insult all those who behave as responsible citizens in similar living conditions.

kassovitz responded like this, and i’ve got hearts in my eyes all over again, rereading it:

Dear Minister of the Interior,

This letter, which was not directed at you, but which you promptly answered, is neither praising the looters nor insulting the firemen at whom stones were thrown or the injured policemen. The very fact that you perverted my comments in order to avoid dealing with the real issues underlines your blindness towards your responsibility in these events. Whatever you might say, the French suburbs truly exploded a few hours after you had inopportunely uttered those harsh and cutting words after the trauma caused by an accident that provoked the deaths of two teenagers in atrocious circumstances. A tragic accident, highly symbolic of the living conditions in the French suburbs.

You accuse me of not caring for the burning gyms, cars, and schools that I was already talking about ten years ago in La Haine, which you mention even though I do not think that you saw it. I do not need to live in those suburbs or to be an academic to understand that the authorities are representative of a state which refuses to face the problem and whose successive administrations keep on blaming each other, like you do so brilliantly.

You say you are not responsible. The policemen and the firemen who courageously covered up for your blunders are the unfortunate victims of your aggressive policies, along with the inhabitants of the suburbs who lost their vehicles and, for some of them, their means of subsistence. Do not blame a situation, whose history is known by all, for the consequences of your words. If you are not the only one responsible for the suburbs’ crisis, you are its political symbol, and your comments sparked off a revolt that has overcome you. The fact that criticism offends you surprises me and makes me question your capacity for reappraisal.

You are right to say that “republican order is not the enemy of progress, but its ally,” however, in order to restore Republican order in the suburbs, it is critical that the Republic’s representatives are above suspicion. You have, as usual, cleverly handled the treatment of the impact of these riots and of the images by the media, and fortunately, you have instructed the police force to stay calm, but do not lead the world’s media to believe that the police has always acted as it did over the last four weeks. You are well aware of the fact that the respect issue between the police and the youths is not a recent one. Left-wing and right-wing administrators come and go, but this issue has remained a daily problem for many generations now.

The brutal death of Malik Ousekine, followed by Charles Pasqua (one of your predecessors)’s inhuman remarks, date from 20 years ago. The history of present-day France is stained with the blood of Makomé, shot down in cold blood in a police station of the 18th arrondissement, and of many other victims of the decline of the Republican values you defend. This history, full of injustice, fuels our present. I am only asking you not to forget, even if you are not directly responsible for this. We need to reeducate people, and not manipulate them. The dissention between forces of law and order and the suburbs’ young people is a deep-rooted problem, which can only be solved by serious effort to educate both parties.

I am not opposed to the police; on the contrary, I am in favor of a better-respected, better-educated, and more human police… A kind of police I can trust over my personal and my children’s security, regardless of social condition, skin color, age, or belief… When you mention a return to the Republican values, don’t forget that you have to command respect before you can expect it in return. Since the police has lost the respect it should command, then once again you should ask yourself what the real problems are. You claim to be turned towards the future, yet your methods are repressive and obsolete. You panicked and voted the return of a military law dug out from some of the darkest days in the history of our country . The choice of this highly symbolic law is a disgrace to our country and its politicians. Yet, as usual, you are not responsible.

You end your letter by a cold and terrible statement, like a director in front of a negative balance sheet: “For so many years, state and local services have injected a lot of money and undertaken a lot of efforts in these areas. The results did not live up to our hopes, and we all share the responsibility.” Do you think you can manage France like any multinational company? The results did not live up to the hopes of France, whose reality you, politicians from all parties, have refused to face for too long. Do you think you can make the young people who cast a shadow on your policies “redundant”? Or get rid of them like some rubbish on the pavement? Democratic balance was never achieved through repression, and you know that if a solution exists, it is to be found in social assistance and in the understanding of the issues. What is going to happen if you stop the dialogue?

It is the French authorities’ as well as your duty to react to the violence in an intelligent way in order to not lose all contact with young people who could, for some of them, turn to more extreme and truly dangerous forms of violence. You are not responsible. Indeed, I think you are irresponsible. When you took a walk in Argenteuil at 11 p.m., surrounded by policemen and journalists, you probably wanted a taste of the life in the suburbs, like any other citizen, instead of causing an unavoidable confrontation. As regards to your “few words,” when you trumpeted that you were going to “clean up the suburbs with a high-pressure hose,” perhaps you meant: rehabilitate and clean up those dilapidated buildings where children fall down the lift shafts because of lack of maintenance, and help these families, who pay taxes like everybody else, regain the respect and the decent environment they have been deprived of for so long. When you threatened to get rid of “the scum,” maybe you meant: send the few really dangerous individuals—known to the police—to prison for a long time, and offer a majority of these young people the possibility to envisage a better future through coherent and generous social assistance to help them get out of delinquency.”

Like many other French people, I must have misunderstood. The battle you want to fight, dear Minister, we all want to fight it with you. Apart from a few real gangsters who fuel the violence through the drug networks and who poison everybody’s life in the suburbs, all the others, including the baseball cap-wearing youths you call “scum”—some of them are locked up in your overcrowded prisons—share a common wish: they want a future, standard living conditions, respect, identity… With all due respect to you, I do not want “to continue this dialogue face to face,” as I object to meeting with you. I appreciate your commendable wish to communicate with your opponents, especially when they are well known to the media, but please allow me to stick to my status of critical citizen with no political ties.

Despite what you say, I only speak for myself, not for a political party, not for the suburbs, and even less for the looters. However, your invitation shows that you are open to dialogue, and I hope you will use this quality with the people who are directly concerned. Instead of meeting me, let me ask you to meet the various actors of suburban life, and particularly the thousands of nonprofit local organizations who do all they can to keep in constant contact with millions of people. Offer them your help; they desperately need it.

I would like to end this brief exchange by assuring you of my profound attachment to the culture and to the values of our country. The debate is that inflamed because we are all concerned. Our open-minded culture is specific to us and unique, and our social policies are praised as an example by all the other nations, even if the reality shocked the rest of the world.

We are French, and whatever our politics, we are rebels to the core, always ready to fight of a cause we deem honorable. Those are the values you defend through your acts; please try to understand that some other people do the same thing, even though their means might be inadequate and unjust. They are the only means for them to make themselves heard. The thousands of burning cars and the complete loss of political authority are more than simple explosions of violence—they are a symbol. Remain attentive. The future of a multicultural and antiracist France depends on that. The extreme right rhetoric is already echoing within your party. I am sure this makes you feel as sick as me.

This extract from an anonymous comment posted on the site in reaction to your letter sums up, I believe, the concerns of many French people, and mine: “…The greatness of a statesman is not to be found in his capacity to spread fear within the people for electoral reasons. The greatness of a statesman is to be found in his capacity to transcend the Nation with conviction and personal disinterestedness. Your ‘gift of the gab’ will probably enable you to gain the support of the undecided voters of April 21 [April 21 refers to the date of the first leg of the 1995 presidential elections when Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the extreme right party ‘Front National’ defeated the Socialist Lionel Jospin to go through to the second leg against Jacques Chirac, causing a massive stir on the French political scene], who have fallen prey to the politicians. Your personal interest will prevent you from transcending the Nation, (…) Until now, everything is ok, until now, everything is ok… you are topping off the opinion polls…”

To finish this letter, I would like to quote my father—a Hungarian, like your father—who fled the Russian communist regime to arrive in France, a country of refuge and birthplace of the Human Rights, in 1956. This is not philosophy, but just a piece of advice coming from a man who survived wars and revolutions: “to rise up the social scale, move up one level at a time, so that it’s not so bad when you take a spill.” This is worth pondering over.

Wishing you the best of luck for your irresistible rise to the top, I remain, dear Minister of the Interior,

Yours faithfully,

Mathieu Kassovitz

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.