French Politician Facing Criminal Charges For Inciting Racism

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22739736

French far right leader, Marine Le Pen, could face criminal charges for inciting racism, the BBC has learnt.

The French authorities opened a case against Mrs Le Pen in 2011 after she likened the sight of Muslims praying in the streets to the Nazi occupation of France.

As a European Parliament member (MEP), she enjoyed immunity from prosecution.

However, this protection was removed by a European parliamentary committee in a secret vote this week.

BBC chief political correspondent Gary O'Donoghue says he has been told that the vote to remove her immunity was "overwhelming".

It will need to be ratified by the full parliament, but that's expected to be a formality, our correspondent says.

When the parliament's legal affairs committee first tried to consider the case, Marine Le Pen, leader of France's far right National Front party, failed to turn up.

This week she sent a fellow French MEP in her place.

The move clears the way for the French authorities to pursue a case against the leader, who steered her party to a record 18% showing in the first round of last year's presidential election.

Mrs Le Pen made the remarks at a party rally in 2010 in the southern French town of Lyon.

She said that Muslims using the streets to pray because mosques were overflowing was an "occupation" of French territory.

Praying in the streets was banned in Paris in 2011 in response to growing far right protests.

By some estimates, as many as six million French people, or just under 10% of the population, are Muslims, with origins in France's former North African colonies.

Their integration has been a source of political debate in recent years, and earlier this year France became the first EU state to ban the wearing of the Islamic veil in public.

The BBC has so far been unable to reach her for comment

Anyone else find her being stripped of immunity via secret vote a little bit curious, as well as the retroactive way she may be charged (i.e. she loses her immunity, and may then be charged for what she said almost 3 years ago)?

**Grey Templar**

And it looks like another case of not liking Muslims means you are racist.

An extreme comparison for sure and an incorrect one, but its a view you are entitled to. Nothing racist about it.

**Dreadclaw69**

It seems like a prime example of religion being conflated with race, it just so happens that it can be used as a political weapon in this instance...... after a secret vote to remove her immunity..... years after she made the comments

**Kovnik Obama**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
It seems like a prime example of religion being conflated with race

In this case the issues clearly overlap, as there is a clear divide in France between the ethnicity of the Muslim majority and that of the Catholic/atheist majority. Also, the comparison she made also invited the 'race' issue.

And it looks like another case of not liking Muslims means you are racist.

An extreme comparison for sure and an incorrect one, but its a view you are entitled to. Nothing racist about it.

She's a public personnality. It's the kind of comment you should be liable to answer for when your at the head of a political organisation, and even more when that organisation flaunt it's facist origins. On top of things, its not like the situation in France is currently perfect.

**Dreadclaw69**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
In this case the issues clearly overlap, as there is a clear divide in France between the ethnicity of the Muslim majority and that of the Catholic/atheist majority. Also, the comparison she made also invited the 'race' issue.

So when did Islam, or being a Muslim, become a racial identity? The only way you could see this as a race issue is to twist what is meant by race.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
She's a public personnality. It's the kind of comment you should be liable to answer for when your at the head of a political organisation, and even more when that organisation flaunt it's facist origins. On top of things, its not like the situation in France is currently perfect.

Unless she had amnesty. Which she did at the time that she made the comments. To strip her of her immunity three years after the fact, by secret ballot, and the to prosecute her for comments that she was legally able to, and immune from punishment, comes across as political opportunism. And this has the very real prospect of blowing up in the prosecutor's face. The prosecutor will be facing arguments that the trial is not being held within a reasonable time (Article 6(1) European Convention on Human Rights), that her words were perfectly lawful when she said them (Article 7 ECHR), freedom of expression, as well as privilege and protection in the form of the immunity that she enjoyed at the time the comments were made.
If you want to hold her accountable do so through the ballot box, and exposing her views to the public and strip away her legitimacy. Instead she and her supporters can now play the victim and claim that they are being unfairly, and illegally, targeted.

**Howard A Treesong**

I'm not sure why so many European countries have immunity from prosecution for their politicians. Over the last few years Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy in France and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy have used their immunity to prosecution to stifle investigations into their illegal doings. No action has been possible until they leave power, so they cling on for dear life.

Does that seem right to anyone? That because you're the president, you're above the law?

**Grey Templar**

No, it is a very bad thing for politicians to be above the law. Not that that particularly applies in this case.

**SlaveToDorkness**

We only have that in Chicago.

**Howard A Treesong**

The point is they shouldn't have these immunities to prosecution in the first place, they cause these issues when people abuse them to incite hate or become corrupt.

The closest we have in the UK is parliamentary privilege, which only allows you to speak openly in the house during debate without fear of reprisal for things that could be considered slander or breaching official secrets, for example. But it only applies within the house and it certainly isn't immunity to criminal prosecution.

**dæl**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The prosecutor will be facing arguments that the trial is not being held within a reasonable time (Article 6(1) European Convention on Human Rights)

The trial would be well within the statute of limitation, so is in reasonable time.

that her words were perfectly lawful when she said them (Article 7 ECHR), freedom of expression, as well as privilege and protection in the form of the immunity that she enjoyed at the time the comments were made.

Her words were not lawful at the time, she was just unable to be prosecuted for them. There is a very big difference, and Article 7 is not intended to perpetuate any previous immunity.

**Dreadclaw69**

dæl wrote:
The trial would be well within the statute of limitation, so is in reasonable time.

What is the statute of limitations in this instance? I've seen criminal cases concerning terrorism charges with delays of much less than this be thrown out by the court because of delays which meant that the accused could not enjoy a fair trial because the trial was not conducted within a reasonable period.

dæl wrote:
Her words were not lawful at the time, she was just unable to be prosecuted for them. There is a very big difference, and Article 7 is not intended to perpetuate any previous immunity.

You're quite right on the distinction, my apologies. I had originally typed something else to that effect but my cack handed editing and lack of proof reading has reared it's ugly head
So do you think that it is right that someone is punished for comments made at a time she was immune from prosecution when her immunity has been stripped three years later? If so could I ask what the point of immunity is then?
You're talking about a very activist court also which has frequently expanded the rights beyond narrow interpretations.

**dæl**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
dæl wrote:
The trial would be well within the statute of limitation, so is in reasonable time.

What is the statute of limitations in this instance? I've seen criminal cases concerning terrorism charges with delays of much less than this be thrown out by the court because of delays which meant that the accused could not enjoy a fair trial because the trial was not conducted within a reasonable period.

France has pretty lax statutes of limitation, used to be 30 years but I think it has been reduced.

Her words were not lawful at the time, she was just unable to be prosecuted for them. There is a very big difference, and Article 7 is not intended to perpetuate any previous immunity.

You're quite right on the distinction, my apologies. I had originally typed something else to that effect but my cack handed editing and lack of proof reading has reared it's ugly head
So do you think that it is right that someone is punished for comments made at a time she was immune from prosecution when her immunity has been stripped three years later? If so could I ask what the point of immunity is then?
You're talking about a very activist court also which has frequently expanded the rights beyond narrow interpretations.

Yes, I think that if you commit a crime you should be charged for it. If anything people who hold public office should receive harsher sentencing rather than immunity. The exception to that would be parliamentary privilege which is a freedom of speech issue, this isn't a freedom of speech issue though. It an issue regarding whether those who hold public office are allowed to use hate speech with immunity and, in my opinion, they should not be.

Have you any examples of the European Court of Human Rights expanding rights beyond what the Convention outlined?

**Dreadclaw69**

dæl wrote:
France has pretty lax statutes of limitation, used to be 30 years but I think it has been reduced.

That would be civil law. Not criminal.
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/BF_RevisedCivilLawStatute_LF_April2009.pdf
My original point stands.

dæl wrote:
Yes, I think that if you commit a crime you should be charged for it. If anything people who hold public office should receive harsher sentencing rather than immunity. The exception to that would be parliamentary privilege which is a freedom of speech issue, this isn't a freedom of speech issue though. It an issue regarding whether those who hold public office are allowed to use hate speech with immunity and, in my opinion, they should not be.

Have you any examples of the European Court of Human Rights expanding rights beyond what the Convention outlined?

It sounds like you are grounding your argument on ideology here (that she shouldn't have it), rather than the facts of the matter (that she did have it at the time it was committed). There is an argument that could be made that as a representative of an international body she enjoyed functional immunity - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_from_prosecution_(international_law)

Functional immunity arises from customary international law and treaty law and confers immunities on those performing acts of state (usually a foreign official). Any person who in performing an act of state commits a criminal offence is immune from prosecution. This is so even after the person ceases to perform acts of state. Thus it is a type of immunity limited in the acts to which it attaches (acts of state) but will only end if the state itself ceases to exist. This type of immunity is based on respect for sovereign equality and state dignity.
The offices usually recognised as attracting this immunity are Head of State or Head of Government, senior cabinet members, Foreign Minister, and Defence Minister.[1] Such officers are immune from prosecution for everything they do during their time in office. For example, an English court held that a warrant could not be issued for the arrest of Robert Mugabe on charges of international crimes on the basis that he was a presently serving Head of State at the time the proceedings were brought.[2] Other examples are the attempts to prosecute Fidel Castro in Spain and Jiang Zemin in the USA.
However, the moment accused leaves office, they are liable to be prosecuted for crimes committed before or after their term in office, or for crimes committed whilst in office in a personal capacity (subject to jurisdictional requirements and local law). Pinochet was only able to come to trial because Chile and the UK had both signed and ratified the UN Convention Against Torture through which such immunities were waived.
It may be the case that personal [should read functional?] immunity is itself being eroded. In 2004 the Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone held that indicted Liberian president Charles Taylor could not invoke his Head of State immunity to resist the charges against him, even though he was an incumbent Head of State at the time of his indictment. However, this reasoning was based on the construction of the court's constituent statute, that dealt with the matter of indicting state officials. In any case, Taylor had ceased to be an incumbent Head of State by the time of the court's decision so the arresting authorities would have been free to issue a fresh warrant had the initial warrant been overturned. Nevertheless, this decision may signal a changing direction in international law on this issue.
Recent developments in international law suggest that this type of immunity, whilst it may be available as a defence to prosecution for local or domestic crimes or civil liability, is not a defence to an international crime. (International crimes include crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide). This has developed in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, particularly in the Karadzic, Milosevic, and Furundzija cases (though care should be taken when considering ICTY jurisprudence due to its Ad-hoc nature). This was also the agreed position as between the parties in their pleadings in the International Court of Justice Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium). The reasons commonly given for why this immunity is not available as a defence to international crimes is straight forward: (1) that is genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are not acts of state. Criminal acts of the type in question are committed by human actors, not states; and (2) we cannot allow the jus cogens nature of international crimes, i.e. the fact that they are non-derogable norms, to be eroded by immunities.
However, the final judgment of the ICJ regarding immunity may have thrown the existence of such a rule limiting functional immunities into doubt. See in this respect the criticism of the ICJ's approach by Wouters, Cassese and Wirth among others, though some such as Bassiouni claim that the ICJ affirmed the existence of the rule.
Regarding claims based on the idea that a senior state official committing International crimes can never be said to be acting officially, as Wouters notes “This argument, however, is not waterproof since it ignores the sad reality that in most cases those crimes are precisely committed by or with the support of high-ranking officials as part of a state’s policy, and thus can fall within the scope of official acts.” Academic opinion on the matter is divided and indeed only the future development of International Customary law, possibly accelerated by states exercising universal jurisdiction over retired senior state officials, will be able to confirm whether state sovereignty has now yielded partially to internationally held human rights values.
In November 2007, French prosecutors refused to press charges against former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for torture and other alleged crimes committed during the course of the US invasion of Iraq, on the grounds that heads of state enjoyed official immunity under customary international law, and they further claimed that the immunity exists after the official has left office.[3]

Just to clarify so we don't end up at cross purpose the phrase " expanded the rights beyond narrow interpretations" means that the did not apply the rights narrowly, but gave them a wide meaning. Not that they created law. Just to prevent future confusion.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/76393196/The-Rise-of-the-Strasbourgeoisie--Judicial-Activism-and

**Ratbarf**

Her words seem pretty tame actually... Europe is really weird, and the weirder it gets the less I want to visit.

**purplefood**

This is more a political thing than a 'she was super bad and a racist thing' considering that she wasn't that outrageous...
People have said far worse and gotten away with it...

**Kovnik Obama**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So when did Islam, or being a Muslim, become a racial identity? The only way you could see this as a race issue is to twist what is meant by race.

The term 'race', based of 'roots' means many things, and that is today its only saving grace. 'Race' and 'culture' have often been used without much distinction, although I agree that we could lose that usage entirely. Regardless, the raciologist use of 'race' was still warranted, because it is clearly used in this context to designate the semite immigrants.

Unless she had amnesty. Which she did at the time that she made the comments. To strip her of her immunity three years after the fact, by secret ballot, and the to prosecute her for comments that she was legally able to, and immune from punishment, comes across as political opportunism. And this has the very real prospect of blowing up in the prosecutor's face. The prosecutor will be facing arguments that the trial is not being held within a reasonable time (Article 6(1) European Convention on Human Rights), that her words were perfectly lawful when she said them (Article 7 ECHR), freedom of expression, as well as privilege and protection in the form of the immunity that she enjoyed at the time the comments were made.
If you want to hold her accountable do so through the ballot box, and exposing her views to the public and strip away her legitimacy. Instead she and her supporters can now play the victim and claim that they are being unfairly, and illegally, targeted.

The amnesty you refer to is more akin to a parliamentary tradition (privilege) observed. That she had the expectation that she would not have to face a judge for what would be otherwise the case for any other citizen doesn't constitute for me a legitimate reason to disregard her actions. Its akin to a plea by ignorance ; it's just not a good enough reason. The Parlement is sovereign, it can decide, to a certain degree, on how it operates, and when to make exceptions.

Again, this is opportunism in targetting a person who is an afront to the democratic political process. Political backstabbing it might be, but for once, it's for the right cause.

**rubiksnoob**

If she had murdered someone, but had immunity at the time of doing so, would it be wrong to prosecute her once her immunity was gone?

**Valion**

Man, Europe sure does love overbearing, asinine political correctness.

**Kovnik Obama**

Valion wrote:
Man, Europe sure does love overbearing, asinine political correctness.

The difference being that in the States the KKK doesn't register nearly 20% of the vote.

**purplefood**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Valion wrote:
Man, Europe sure does love overbearing, asinine political correctness.

The difference being that in the States the KKK doesn't register nearly 20% of the vote.

I'd imagine even the far right parties of Europe haven't gone as far as lynchings... not that they might not want to...

**Valion**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Valion wrote:
Man, Europe sure does love overbearing, asinine political correctness.

The difference being that in the States the KKK doesn't register nearly 20% of the vote.

The KKK isn't a political party, though its members have served in the Senate and the House before. I also think the comparison is more than a little unfair. I'd tell you to be careful about expressing potentially libelous opinions, but you're writing from the left, so you're safe.

**Zathras**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Valion wrote:
Man, Europe sure does love overbearing, asinine political correctness.

The difference being that in the States the KKK doesn't register nearly 20% of the vote.

The KKK would be on the opposite side of the PC argument.....the party holding the White House and Senate on the other hand.....

**Ahtman**

Zathras wrote:
The KKK would be on the opposite side of the PC argument.....

They want to control what you say and do more than the government, the only reason they can't is that they are marginalized, and rightfully so. You think PC is bad, put facist/racist/ect in charge. Libertarians would be a better argument.

**Valion**

Ahtman wrote:
Libertarians would be a better argument.

Always are!

**Kovnik Obama**

purplefood wrote:

I'd imagine even the far right parties of Europe haven't gone as far as lynchings... not that they might not want to...

Not the far right parties themselves, but the core supporters? It might not be lynching, tho, which is a pretty specific kind of murder.

Edit ;

German Neo-Nazis committed 20,000 Crimes in 2009

Zee News, India/March 24, 2010

Berlin: Members of the German extreme right have committed about 20,000 political crimes in 2009, reported the Secretary of the Interior Thomas De Maizire on yesterday.

This is the greatest figure since 2001, when De Maizi ?re began keeping records of the political crimes.

According to deputy of the Die Linke (the left) party, the figures demonstrate that the government's campaigns to combat the extreme right have failed.

The parliamentary also criticized De Maizi ?re for comparing neo-Nazi groups with left-wing organizations. The government of Christian-Democrat Angela Merkel has criticized anti-fascist initiatives many times, and now we need a broad alliance against fascists, told Jelpke to media.

According to Jelpke, criticisms against those demonstrations only increase the alleged political crimes committed by German left-wing activists.

Valion wrote:The KKK isn't a political party

Yes, that's what makes the racial issue more delicate in Europe in general and in France right now in particular.

I'd tell you to be careful about expressing potentially libelous opinions

And I wouldn't listen.

**Mannahnin**

Valion wrote:
Man, Europe sure does love overbearing, asinine political correctness.

This is the kind of statement which doesn't help the discussion. It just annoys people, and causes them to form opinions about the person writing it.

**Hordini**

Mannahnin wrote:
Valion wrote:
Man, Europe sure does love overbearing, asinine political correctness.

This is the kind of statement which doesn't help the discussion. It just annoys people, and causes them to form opinions about the person writing it.

To be fair, comparing European political parties to the KKK doesn't really help either.

**Kovnik Obama**

Hordini wrote:

To be fair, comparing European political parties to the KKK doesn't really help either.

Why so? The 2nd Klan had at least 3 millions members, that wasn't 3 millions lynchers. The 3rd Klan is much smaller, but its a neo-fascist organisation anyway. FN is a neo-fascist party. The difference is political representation, that's all.

My point is, the (hypothetical) day the KKK becomes a political party in the States, you would be a fool not to be happy at every and all occasion its cause suffers. Marine is a much better politician then her father, which makes her infinitely more dangerous. This is a good thing, if it pans out.

**Mannahnin**

Hordini wrote:
To be fair, comparing European political parties to the KKK doesn't really help either.

Maybe, but if you're familiar with the political landscape in Europe right now it's an understandable comparison. Many European countries have explicitly xenophobic/nationalist and/or fascist political parties. Like the BNP in Britain, or Ataka in Bulgaria, or the Golden Dawn in Greece. Historically (at least since WWII) these parties have usually been pretty marginal and tiny, but with the passage of time and recent economic uncertainty and concerns about immigration in many countries, these kind of racist and reactionary parties have been growing in prominence and actually taking a scary number of elected seats in places.

In that context, where parties which are not very far from the KKK in political policy (especially since the KKK isn't nearly as violent as it used to be) are actually winning seats, European policies on restriction of fascistic or race-baiting speech become more comprehensible.

Which, I though, was KO's point. If the KKK had members winning elected seats here, running as The KKK Party, Americans in general might feel that the issue was a bit more nuanced and complex. Rather than always defaulting to "Let's never restrict anyone's speech".

**Witzkatz**

Mannahnin wrote:
Hordini wrote:
To be fair, comparing European political parties to the KKK doesn't really help either.

Maybe, but if you're familiar with the political landscape in Europe right now it's an understandable comparison. Many European countries have explicitly xenophobic/nationalist and/or fascist political parties. Like the BNP in Britain, or Ataka in Bulgaria, or the Golden Dawn in Greece. Historically (at least since WWII) these parties have usually been pretty marginal and tiny, but with the passage of time and recent economic uncertainty and concerns about immigration in many countries, these kind of racist and reactionary parties have been growing in prominence and actually taking a scary number of elected seats in places.

In that context, where parties which are not very far from the KKK in political policy (especially since the KKK isn't nearly as violent as it used to be) are actually winning seats, European policies on restriction of fascistic or race-baiting speech become more comprehensible.

Which, I though, was KO's point. If the KKK had members winning elected seats here, running as The KKK Party, Americans in general might feel that the issue was a bit more nuanced and complex. Rather than always defaulting to "Let's never restrict anyone's speech".

I generally agree, extremist-leaning parties gained some followers over the last year. Here in Germany, a new discussion is going on right now on whether the NPD - a party as close to the NSDAP as you can get these days - should be forbidden completely. The bavarian ministry of the interior classifies the party as inherently unconsitutional in their views, something that is directly based on the post-WW2 anti-nazi political laws we established to prevent something like the NSDAP's rise to power in the future. It's one of these laws that are maybe not easily accepted or understood in the US because of the overwhelming support of absolutely free speech. In my opinion these laws are mostly sensible, though, especially when extremists try to abuse the democratic system in an attempt to gain political power and influence while harboring unconstitutional views quite openly.