Refractory Gauls, or the French politics thread

[Grey Fox]

France work places are toxic. Not surprised that no one is looking to have to work 2 more years in them.

[HVC]

Worse then NA?

[Duque de Bragança]

The law making it illegal to insult a President has always been there, apparently, but was abrogated by François Hollande.

Duque would know better than me.

I checked it, and yes it was changed under Flanby following a last use of the law under Sarko (I still remember the incident casse-toi pov' con), which was challenged all the way to the European courts so France had to change it.

No use of that law from after Pompidou (1969-74) and then only once to Chirac included.

Under de Gaulle and the whole French Algeria debacle it saw much use however, though precise numbers are hard to find.

[Duque de Bragança]

Worse then NA?

Off-topic.  Though Macron is probably a toxic person to work with. 

[Sheilbh]

Worse then NA?

Not sure. But speaking to French people who moved to London the big difference they noticed was how much more hierarchical and formal work environments were in France.

I saw a little bit of it in a law firm - I was a junior associate and when we were on an international project I'd often be coordinating responses from different offices. It'd be fine and I'd be writing to partners (and also associates) in the US, Canada, loads of European and Asian countries - except France. It was explained by my boss that the French partner would just ignore anything from me because I was too junior. He'd only respond to emails from whichever partner in the UK I was working for

That's from lawyers and professionals and I'm sure it's different in different industries.

[HVC]

Maybe he was just a dick

[HVC]

Worse then NA?

Off-topic.  Though Macron is probably a toxic person to work with. 

I mean he is a politician lol

[Sheilbh]

Maybe he was just a dick

Fair. It was never the associates who were lovely - and there were some exceptions (I want to say younger partners maybe ) but it was more than just one lawyer where I was basically warned they'd only reply or acknowledge from someone at their status.

[viper37]

The law making it illegal to insult a President has always been there, apparently, but was abrogated by François Hollande.

The same goes for Turkish lese majeste laws, but I know what we'd think when they're used in Turkey. Especially with the context of a lot of police violence and using constitutional powers to force legislation through.

I don't agree with the law.  I disagree that these charges marks a turn toward an authoritarian France.

The law has always been there, it's nothing new.  France has always been more authoritarian than Canada where we don't codify it, resorting to other, more informal means of censorship.

Québec Solidaire's leader is trying is damn best to use the Assemblée Nationale to censor a Montreal radio station and particular commentator that insulted him a couple of weeks ago, calling him a "bastard" and a "hypocrite".  If he ever comes to power, you can bet we will have a similar law as France dealing with insults to politicians, within the limits of Quebec's powers.

As for police violence, I have no idea, really, I haven't been watching all of it.  Protestors aren't known to be peaceful either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP2G1yud3zo

Macron is an idiot, at best (I'm being generous), for pushing his reform by decree when he could not get the vote through the NA, but that does not excuse vandalism by the protestors.

[Sheilbh]

As for police violence, I have no idea, really, I haven't been watching all of it.  Protestors aren't known to be peaceful either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP2G1yud3zo

That's fair - but I'd note that police violence, arbitrary arrests and unprovoked police attacks on peaceful protesters have been identified and condemned by AI, the European Council and HRW. I've also seen this being reported in Le Monde and France 24.

Again I think the context matters. We saw similar police violence against the gilets jaunes, we saw proposals to criminalise recording the police following BLM protests, plus frankly the policing of the Champions League final. Cumulatively I think it creates a picture of the way the state is using the police.

And while it's always true that there's protests and the French police don't have a great reputation, regardless of the President, there is more of a pattern under Macron of politically creating cover and lying for the police who in turn are incredibly repressive to opponents.

Macron is an idiot, at best (I'm being generous), for pushing his reform by decree when he could not get the vote through the NA, but that does not excuse vandalism by the protestors.

I don't totally disagree.

None of this is necessarily agains French law form what I've read. The Fifth Republic has a pretty authoritarian constitution, if the president wants to use it, because it was made in de Gaulle's image. But the sense I get is that Macron is really pushing things and using all of the powers to push his agenda.

Plus, it's right, making temporary state of emergency anti-terrorism laws permanent including fairly vast collection of private messages online and "algorithmic" intelligence gathering.

I think it's bad and should be called out for what it is which is an authoritarian turn/creeping authoritarianism. I also think it's creating risk for the next election. At best it's really difficult to see this as helpful for any potential successor from within Macron's movement (unless President Darmanin ) - at worst it's laying a fairly alarming template for a president who doesn't have a National Assembly majority or much legitimacy to push their agenda.

[viper37]

Plus, it's right, making temporary state of emergency anti-terrorism laws permanent including fairly vast collection of private messages online and "algorithmic" intelligence gathering.

That case you quoted was a public message on Twitter, though.

Using private messages to fight terrorism isn't unheard of.  It was centered on e-mail and text messages in the past, but they aren't the dominant form of communication anymore.

It's better to intrude a little on privacy and prevent terrorism attacks like the Bataclan than to allow total privacy, imho.
I'm ok with some kind of red flag search, like in the past.  Some keywords trigger an automatic surveillance of an individual.

It seems like this is how they caught their latest suspect in Canada a few weeks ago.

[Sheilbh]

That case you quoted was a public message on Twitter, though.

Sorry I didn't mean to imply they were linked. Beyond the fact that they're both in a similar direction.

Using private messages to fight terrorism isn't unheard of.  It was centered on e-mail and text messages in the past, but they aren't the dominant form of communication anymore.

It's better to intrude a little on privacy and prevent terrorism attacks like the Bataclan than to allow total privacy, imho.
I'm ok with some kind of red flag search, like in the past.  Some keywords trigger an automatic surveillance of an individual.

It seems like this is how they caught their latest suspect in Canada a few weeks ago.

Yeah so my understanding is that French civil liberties and privacy campaigners have been flagging that "what France is doing is not normal" in the context of Western counter-terrorism/mass surveillance. It was initially temporary as part of the state of emergency and has been made permanent. For example it's not actually fully clear what the scope is - it's incredibly vague on what the state can surveil and then algorithmically monitor for "red flags" (as decided by the state). And within the European context, French law already had an incredibly large amount of surveillance with relatively limited oversight.

And there is no evidence it's necessarily helpful. Darmanin has made some big claims about this but the government refuses to publish any impact assessment or evidence on this as it's classified for national security.

So the question isn't total privacy v stopping terrorism but a level of surveillance that is unusual in the West, that is algorithmically powered and unclear in how broad it actually is - as I say it's an emergency measure that's been made permanent (and why we should always be highly suspicious of "state of emergency/exception" rules). As with the precedent of passing lots of very controversial laws by decree, using the police to crack down on oppisition with significant force - all of this may be lawful and may even be directed for good ends but is, I think, a real cause for concern.

[viper37]

I'll have to check in the French forum. The guys have been discussing it for a while, but I haven't been paying much attention.  I haven't read a lot about the changes Macron has implemented either.  It seemed more in the vein of what France was already doing, but it seems I was mistaken.

[Valmy]

Yeah so my understanding is that French civil liberties and privacy campaigners have been flagging that "what France is doing is not normal" in the context of Western counter-terrorism/mass surveillance. It was initially temporary as part of the state of emergency and has been made permanent. For example it's not actually fully clear what the scope is - it's incredibly vague on what the state can surveil and then algorithmically monitor for "red flags" (as decided by the state). And within the European context, French law already had an incredibly large amount of surveillance with relatively limited oversight.

And there is no evidence it's necessarily helpful. Darmanin has made some big claims about this but the government refuses to publish any impact assessment or evidence on this as it's classified for national security.

So the question isn't total privacy v stopping terrorism but a level of surveillance that is unusual in the West, that is algorithmically powered and unclear in how broad it actually is - as I say it's an emergency measure that's been made permanent (and why we should always be highly suspicious of "state of emergency/exception" rules). As with the precedent of passing lots of very controversial laws by decree, using the police to crack down on oppisition with significant force - all of this may be lawful and may even be directed for good ends but is, I think, a real cause for concern.

I don't know if this is institutional or anything so I could be way off here. But Macron himself seems to have a weird Napoleonic complex which only works if you are Napoleon. Or Charles de Gaulle I guess. He doesn't have the kind of prestige to pull off these big moves he keeps making.

I mean even de Gaulle had mass street protests against him.

[Sheilbh]

I don't know if this is institutional or anything so I could be way off here. But Macron himself seems to have a weird Napoleonic complex which only works if you are Napoleon. Or Charles de Gaulle I guess. He doesn't have the kind of prestige to pull off these big moves he keeps making.

I mean even de Gaulle had mass street protests against him.

I think it is partly institutional. The Fifth Republic is made in the image of de Gaulle - but he's a fairly singular figure

I think Macron has spoken about this:

"In French politics, this absence is the presence of a King, a King whom, fundamentally, I don't think the French people wanted dead," said Macron. "The Revolution dug a deep emotional abyss, one that was imaginary and shared: the King is no more!" According to Macron, since the Revolution France has tried to fill this void, most notably with Napoleon and then Charles de Gaulle, which was only partially successful. "The rest of the time," said Macron, "French democracy does not manage to fill this void."

So even if it's not fully a thing, it's a thing Macron and I think is part of how he performs the role of president.