The Wikipedia article has "deprival of the rights of individuals and parties from running for election" listed as a method. So I assume the prison/fine part of the sentencing wouldn't really be defensive democracy but barring her from office is. (Don't think I would feel positively about that in the U.S. but nonetheless the concept is there.)
Hehe, now let’s wait and see how they grapple with the fact that you can’t have both! It‘s either criminal use of EU funds or defensive democracy, unless you’re drenched in kool-aid.
Excuse me but what in the hell? To come in here and redefine a corruption investigation as being in that camp is not only an insult to the reader but it an insult to everyone who both cares about civil rights and government corruption at the same time.
Defensive democracy is just marketing spin on exactly the sort of civil rights violating process that gives the establishment huge advantage over any challenger and exactly the sort of crap totalitarian regimes love and leverage to great effect.
The wikipedia page that you linked lists the following examples of "defensive democracy".
>Surveillance by the security corps (especially military and police intelligence) of activists who are considered dangerous, or after entire associations outright;
>Restrictions on the freedom of movement or action over bodies suspected of endangering democracy;
>Deprival of the rights of individuals and parties from running for election
>Outlawing of organizations considered a danger to democracy;
>Cancellation of elections as a last resort ""
Does that sound like the kind of stuff that fair, well run by rule of law, stable democracies with lots of buy in from the populace do to you? Because it sure doesn't to me. It's basically a list of stuff unpopular governments use to stay in power a little longer.
To come in and lay claim to the credibility of of something that everyone can agree is good (prosecuting corruption, equality under the law) and siphon some of that off onto a subject that is highly controversial (selective violations of civil rights, nominally for a good reason) by just falsely claiming the good thing is a subset of the controversial thing is dishonest and morally reprehensible.
You are just confused because you bought the democracy fairy tale. There is no "real" democracy. There are nation states and in this case it is the French nation state. Politicians come and go but the state (also known for some reason as the deep state) made of bureaucrats, military personal, intelligence, etc... are not going to let some random dude rule over the country just because he got 50%+ of the population electing him. That's the pipe dream of democracy but not the reality.
>Does that sound like the kind of stuff that fair, well run by rule of law, stable democracies with lots of buy in from the populace do to you?
...Yes?
Or are you saying politicians can just barge in and say "the rules don't apply to me because I'm popular"? Because that's how you don't get stable democracies. What you get is Trump, or the Red Brigades, or the Brown Shirts running things to the ground. Because the motto of those orgs is "one man, one vote... One last time"
The Romania-ization of European democracies has just begun. Once Brussels sends „democracy-protecting“ tanks into the capitals of its member states, the „EU-SSR-meme“ will have successfully completed the „conspiracy“ life cycle we‘ve become so adjusted to lately (conspiracy > meme > reality). Just remember to, in the meantime, de-humanize every complainer as „Putin-Puppet“ because how else can we protect democracy if not by eliminating dissent, eh?
profstasiak|11 months ago
condensedcrab|11 months ago
Seems like a reasonable policy we should adopt in the US…
Boldened15|11 months ago
Tostino|11 months ago
woodpanel|11 months ago
potato3732842|11 months ago
Excuse me but what in the hell? To come in here and redefine a corruption investigation as being in that camp is not only an insult to the reader but it an insult to everyone who both cares about civil rights and government corruption at the same time.
Defensive democracy is just marketing spin on exactly the sort of civil rights violating process that gives the establishment huge advantage over any challenger and exactly the sort of crap totalitarian regimes love and leverage to great effect.
The wikipedia page that you linked lists the following examples of "defensive democracy".
>Surveillance by the security corps (especially military and police intelligence) of activists who are considered dangerous, or after entire associations outright;
>Restrictions on the freedom of movement or action over bodies suspected of endangering democracy;
>Deprival of the rights of individuals and parties from running for election
>Outlawing of organizations considered a danger to democracy;
>Cancellation of elections as a last resort ""
Does that sound like the kind of stuff that fair, well run by rule of law, stable democracies with lots of buy in from the populace do to you? Because it sure doesn't to me. It's basically a list of stuff unpopular governments use to stay in power a little longer.
To come in and lay claim to the credibility of of something that everyone can agree is good (prosecuting corruption, equality under the law) and siphon some of that off onto a subject that is highly controversial (selective violations of civil rights, nominally for a good reason) by just falsely claiming the good thing is a subset of the controversial thing is dishonest and morally reprehensible.
csomar|11 months ago
eclecticfrank|11 months ago
aredox|11 months ago
...Yes?
Or are you saying politicians can just barge in and say "the rules don't apply to me because I'm popular"? Because that's how you don't get stable democracies. What you get is Trump, or the Red Brigades, or the Brown Shirts running things to the ground. Because the motto of those orgs is "one man, one vote... One last time"
woodpanel|11 months ago