If someone wants to establish a dictatorship in France, let him do it between July 20 and August 15, he has every chance of succeeding. No one will disturb their vacation for so little. With the exception of an editorial here and a forum there, no one was moved by the villainous disposition adopted by the Assembly on the night of Friday to Saturday, with the rest of the stupid law "trust".
What to say, in fact, of a text by which the deputies agree to place themselves under an infantilizing tutelage because the moloch of public opinion demands to see their expense reports and that since I am obliged to do so why not they gnagnagna , and which also prohibits them from working with the people they trust the most, because the Duck et Mediapart are on the lookout? This law manifests in truth a dismaying enslavement to the spirit of the times and to the sacred cows of an era which no longer tolerates that we have something to hide. People will say that if members want to get naked, that's their problem. Sorry, but since they represent me, me the sovereign people, it's a bit mine.
Fire on freedom of expression!
However, the most scandalous is not this new and grotesque advance in transparency, but the package against freedom of expression, therefore, against democracy, contained in article 1 of the law, modified during the debates by amendments 572 and 621, of which Alain Jakubowicz, the boss of the Licra, absolutely wants to let urbi et orbi know that they have been inspired by his association. It is actually a sugar released to the ultras, all those who intend to wash whiter than white (especially the laundry of others), to make them swallow dropping the requirement for a clean criminal record for all the candidates, an idea which, in addition to its outrageous robespierrism, shows the confidence we have in the redeeming capacity of our Justice, but which, it seems, was not constitutional, what a pity.
The scarlet letter will follow you for ten years
We will therefore be able to elect a convict, unless he has committed one of those crimes of opinion that our associations, armed arms and even doped with the thought police, make it a point of honor to track down and which they call " skids”. If the text is not modified during the debates, any conviction for defamation or insult of a racial, anti-Semitic, homophobic nature or showing any form of discrimination, will in fact be accompanied, unless the judge decides otherwise, by a ten-year ineligibility sentence. Basically, if you've done shit, you can represent the sovereign people, but if you've said or written it, no forgiveness, the scarlet letter will stick to your skin for ten years, and, for the media court, to perpetuity. We should wonder about our growing sensitivity to these offenses which are committed with the pen or the microphone in hand. Is it because we are no longer able to argue against ideas that displease us that we seek to make them disappear by pinching our noses or, more and more often, by judicial intimidation?
In terms of principles, this article 1 is problematic on several counts. First of all, it doesn't really seem kosher from a separation of powers perspective. Judges should only intervene in the electoral process by handing down sentences of ineligibility when it is indisputably legitimate, for example to prevent a drug trafficker from standing for election. But the rule should be that the voters choose. Once informed of the turpitudes committed by a candidate, the latter having served his sentence or paid his debt, it is up to them to decide. You may find it deplorable that Patrick Balkany be re-elected. You can't make a law to force people to be intransigent about the past honesty of their elected officials.
The Encyclopedia would never have existed
But if the case is serious, it is because it concerns the " free communication of thoughts and opinions”, which we commonly call freedom of expression, and which is, according to the drafters of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, “one of the most precious human rights”. Of course, this freedom cannot be without limits. Moreover, any society is defined by what it is not permitted to say. Only, under the joint influence of the judge and the legislator, this limit, in France, does not stop being moved and the field of freedom restricted. Never the Encyclopedists would not have existed in this climate of ideological prudishness where one brandishes one's judge as soon as one feels offended or shocked. This Republic of the sissy and susceptible is not only politically unbreathable, it is intellectually hopeless because it prohibits any real debate. (To get an idea of what is called "debate" today, you have to listen to the daily newspaper of France Inter called "The Midday Debate", where there is never, precisely, the shadow of a debate because the host rolls out the red carpet to all the clichés of the moment without ever expressing an ounce of distance or contradiction, it looks like a sketch on washing brain)
Embastill the racists?
I hear the protests. Should racists be allowed to go free? But yes, and moreover that's what we do because with the exception of a few Holocaust deniers who are repeat offenders, we are not yet imprisoned in France for “thought crimes”. And moreover, forbidding Dieudonné or Le Pen to present himself is to deny the benefit of our freedoms to those who do not think like us. And that's politically far more damaging politically than letting them take an election beating. Ah yes, but Hitler, we will still say. Sorry, but by the time Hitler comes out on top in the elections, it's already too late. And then we don't have any on the shelf.
The Licra and the CCIF arbiters of elegance
What makes Article 1 much more worrying still is the context in which it was voted on, when the word racism today has such a broad back that it can confuse anyone who has the nerve to see cultural differences other than to celebrate them, and that it even serves to wrap up remarks by General de Gaulle taken up by Nadine Morano. Thus we succeeded, for years, in designating as such all those who worried about migratory flows (and it is true that there were racists among them). While this concern is shared by 75% of French people, it is more difficult to criminalize it. Today, associations like the Committee against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) and its auxiliaries of the Licra, make a specialty of prosecuting all those who dare to see and describe the misdeeds of radical Islam which is progressing on our territory.
The easy legal trigger
This is how, in a few months, Pascal Bruckner, Georges Bensoussan, Eric Zemmour, Robert Menard; to cite only the best known, had to answer for their words in court. Let us recall that, in the case of Georges Bensoussan, prosecuted for having mentioned the widespread anti-Semitism among some Muslims, it was the Public Prosecutor's Office, that is to say us, who appealed against the acquittal pronounced by the judge. . This does not bode very well for the way Justice will be keen to protect our freedoms.
The craziest thing is that it all went like a letter in the mail. In the media, the few journalists who have not yet given up their place to trainees are of course asking for more. It's true, when will we prohibit from election any man who makes a saucy joke?
The rebels subject to political correctness
At the Assembly, the usual brawlers did not flinch. It is not surprising that the rebellious, who are at the forefront of political correctness, found nothing to complain about. The FN deputies, however covered by the law, were out. Only Emmanuelle Ménard, (related to FN) courageously stepped up to the plate during Wednesday's session, speaking of a "Sword of Damocles above freedom of expression" : “You open the door to arbitrariness, to the blackmail of these associations which multiply the lawsuits, transforming them into a real business. Farewell Voltaire, hello Torquemada ! I say this to my colleagues of the Republic on the move: be careful not to taint your beginnings with a text that undermines this freedom of expression which is one of the foundations of our democracy. Be careful not to be always more givers of lessons, more moralizing, more demagogues too. » Needless to say, she received little applause. It therefore remains to be hoped that the senators (or the Constitutional Council) will make common sense prevail. It is not a detail. If this article 1 is voted, we will get used to a new impoverishment of the democratic debate, already undermined by the invasion of conformism.
We see all the less why the censors would be embarrassed when public opinion is as if anesthetized. It seems that the French are addicted to their smartphone on vacation. Well, it's not to follow parliamentary debates. We love playing the Revolution, and even more the Resistance. But we look more and more like those calves that Mongeneral made fun of. Or even more to those men in bermudas whom Muray showed were the future of the species. Vote for us and let us tan. After all, the thought police don't make a noise.
Source: © Law of moralization – Elisabeth Lévy – Talker