English (I) and French (II).
Critical race theory is correct: civil rights legislation is rubbish and the liberals’ record a piece of trash.
Where knowing the law is of no use
British man cleared after being arrested for “offensive” online video. A win for free expression.
A win for free expression? “The court cleared L. after learning he did not make the video, shared it as a joke, and the clip had been quote-tweeted 369 times, and retweeted 47 times, and had 107 likes.”
The police picked up the man randomly among 400 “criminals” and there was a trial and that wasn’t the trial of the police but of the man and you call that a win for free expression? No, it would have been a win if the police had been tried and convicted for harassing a law-abiding citizen.
Why do I say the man was subjected to police harassment? Normally, when police bring a man before a criminal court for trial, if the court, differing from the police, pronounces acquittal, it is based on a difference as to facts. The police thought, according to the evidence at their disposal, that the man was guilty but the court found out the story was another one. They differ on the facts of the case.
But when the court acquits the accused based on the same facts upon which the police and the prosecutor acted to prosecute the accused, how do you call that?
Here the court learnt that L. “did not make the video, shared it as a joke, and the clip had been quote-tweeted 369 times, and retweeted 47 times, and had 107 likes,” but the police investigation, which obviously had reached the selfsame conclusion that L. “did not make the video, shared it as a joke, and the clip had been quote-tweeted 369 times, and retweeted 47 times, and had 107 likes” had sent L. before a court for these –and no other– facts! (Clearly L. had NOT told the police he had made the video himself, in dead earnest, and was the only person to share it, because we will assume he is not suicidal–if he were he would have told the court the same story.)
Therefore the police, having all the facts it needed to leave L. alone, ignored the law and subjected L. to a dire ordeal–out of sadism? one might ask.
With these perverted laws repressing speech, it is always the same and everybody knows it and no one dares speak their mind because a trial’s always possible, it all depens on the subjective appreciation –or even whims– of this or that officer or magistrate. This, I believe, is a strong motive why the U.S. Supreme Court wants none of such insanities, whereas in Britain they are still children living in the days of Blackstone who thought free speech is protected when there was no prior restraint.
In other words they all agree on the facts of the case; yet, based on facts on which they all agree, one demands a conviction and the other acquits. This means no one can know what is permissible and what is not, as knowing the law is of no use then. What is required of citizens is not so much knowing the law as being able to read people’s minds.
Feudalism and Liberty
Since when can anyone not to mention employers, punish anyone for stating their thoughts and opinions? My employer is not my “daddy” and I am not their property so whatever I say or do as long as it is not at work is none of their concern, ever. (Dr Z.)
I agree the situation Dr Z. describes much resembles feudalism. However, if we take the problem as one of freedom maximizing, we probably should leave employers some room to dismiss at will, which remains the default rule in most of the United States (De Geest, American Law: A Comparative Primer, 2020).
To begin with, the U.K. Equality Act, which excludes opinion as a just cause for dismissal (except “discrimination” –read: content that is not politically correct, and you can count on British courts to make the exception as broad –or rather as discriminatory– as they can, and “harassment”), is of 2010, that is, it is a recent creation. Before that, British employers could fire workers based on their opinions and that would be construed most of the time as fitting the employer’s discretion.
In the U.S. there is no federal Equality Act statute and, as I said, the at-will doctrine remains the default rule. How they blend this with fair employment clauses of the civil rights statutes is beyond my knowledge. Be that as it may, one’s opinion is not one of the protected classes covered by the civil rights acts, so if an employee displeases his boss because of his opinions and the boss fires him, probably there is not much the employee can do about it.
An employer might argue his collaborator is undermining his business (which has a public relations dimension) by making his opinions known and sometimes that could well be the case, so I cannot agree 100% with Dr Z. because it is a business owner’s freedom against that of his employee, and both must retain some degree of freedom. Yet we all perceive that employers will bend to outside pressures to dismiss any employee who expresses views unpleasant to this or that community or lobby so long as they cannot reply to such cancel mobs (heckler’s veto) that the law bars them from dismissing the employee based on his or her opinions. So, yes, probably some statute is needed to shield the employees, because that would even shield the employer. The latter would then face boycott campaigns (boycott is protected speech) but –who knows?– he might survive it. However I don’t expect business organizations to support such a policy.
Claim Settlement, or The New Aristocracy
How can you settle claims as prosecution for a crime does not depend on actual claims at all? Even though nobody would file a claim when there is a dead man, prosecuting authorities, if they’ve got a suspect, will send him or her before a court of law. So what does it mean that claims are settled? In theory an injured party has no power to prevent criminal prosecution. Is it settled with the prosecutor then? On what grounds?
Another example: the OJ Simpson trials. There were two trials: criminal and civil (tort suit). As you remember OJ was aquitted by the criminal court and found guilty in the tort trial (due to different evidence rules) but that’s not what interests me now. What interests me is how parties can settle a claim in a criminal trial when they’re not even supposed to be there and it takes a civil trial for them to be represented (in some countries the criminal and tort aspects would have been judged in one single trial)?
My conjecture is that claims are settled when the prosecutor doubts that the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt (the legal standard of proof in criminal trials) and therefore doubts that a criminal trial can thrive against the suspect, so the prosecutor treats the whole matter as a tort case that can be settled between parties. However, on what principle can the pondering of evidence value at the disposal of the prosecution allow the prosecution to make a tort of a crime (or to erase, so to speak, the criminal dimension of an offense that is both a tort and a crime)–while evidence value is the fortuitous result of police work?
The consequence is that rich people, no matter how criminally they behave, will hardly ever have criminal records–rules of subsequent offenses, among other things, will not apply to them. What a privilege.
Tocqueville, a keen observer of the United States, warned about two dangers: tyranny of the masses, which libertarians are fond to recall, but also the tyranny of a money aristocracy.
State Action of Private Platforms
Lawsuit against Twitter reveals how it works with Democrats to censor. (Reclaim the Net, June 18, 2021)
Evidence of state action:
“One of these documents is an email from M., Press Secretary for then-California Secretary of State P., to Twitter employee K. that appears to refer to this dedicated channel as ‘the partner portal.’ In the email, M. flagged a tweet from another Twitter user that was previously reported through this partner portal and stated: ‘We would like this tweet taken down ASAP to avoid the spread of election misinformation.’”
1/ Not only did the state refer the tweets through the “dedicated channel,” which would be the usual procedure, but also and in any case the state, via a public officer, made the alleged usual procedure an unusual one by sending an unsollicited email (“Flagging the following tweet that I reported…”), which can be construed as a threat and command to process the report according to the state’s wish.
2/ If the appellation “partner portal” is a true description, then obviously the nexus is established between the private party and the state and therefore the private party’s action is state action.
Given state action, censorship by the private party is a civil liberties First Amendment case.
À l’occasion de l’enfarinage de J.-L. Mélenchon le 12 juin, j’apprends, dans le journal, qu’un homme a été interpellé pour « violence sur personne chargée d’une mission de service public ». Je suppose que ce sont les députés et autres élus que notre code pénal décrit comme des personnes chargées d’une mission de service public.
La situation est donc la suivante aux élections : un candidat déjà élu est une personne chargée d’une mission de service public, ce qui lui vaut une protection judiciaire spéciale, tandis que ses concurrents qui ne sont pas déjà élus ne sont rien. C’est octroyer à certains candidats un avantage contraire à tous les principes d’un régime électif. (Je ne crois pas que Mélenchon l’ait jamais dénoncé, ni le Conseil constitutionnel mais ça ce n’est même pas un peu étonnant.)
Une justice de bons petits soldats du gouvernement
Je pense que les juges ne devraient plus être inamovibles comme actuellement mais élu par la population locale et notés sur leurs résultats.
Je suis moi-même pour l’élection des juges (ou de la plupart des juges) mais cette personne fait erreur sur le statut actuel du juge français.
1/ Obligation statutaire de mobilité :
“Le juge français est soumis à une obligation statutaire de mobilité géographique ou fonctionnelle qui est exercée généralement tous les cinq à sept ans.”
2/ Un seul pool de magistrats du parquet (hiérarchiquement dépendants du ministère de la justice !) et du siège, avec passage de l’un à l’autre et dans les deux sens, exemple ce jeune magistrat : “Issu du premier concours de l’ENM (celui des étudiants), trois ans de parquet, deux ans et des poussières de siège civil.”
Dans les pays civilisés, l’administration du parquet est staffée par des fonctionnaires administratifs de même statut que les autres fonctionnaires de l’administration centrale, c’est-à-dire de la branche exécutive ; en France, elle l’est par… des juges. (Il n’est pas “juge” quand il est au parquet, car on l’appelle alors un “procureur” ou son “substitut”, mais c’est bien la même personne qui passe de l’un à l’autre.)
Alors parler d’inamovibilité…
Mes cours de droit sont un peu lointains mais je confirme que le juge est inamovible. Les magistrats ne peuvent pas recevoir une nouvelle affectation sans avoir donné leur consentement. Leur indépendance est garantie par le fait que le gouvernement ne peut pas suspendre, déplacer ou destituer un magistrat.
Mon interlocuteur a bonne mémoire mais réciter des cours de droit n’aide malheureusement pas, le plus souvent, à bien juger de la situation.
C’est comme quand, en 2013, le gouvernement pond une loi sur « l’indépendance du parquet », parce que la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme est un peu critique (un peu seulement mais quand même, ça fait tâche) et qu’en 2018, donc après cette loi sur « l’indépendance du parquet », la Cour EDH confirma sa jurisprudence (et ses critiques) dans un nouvel arrêt (Thiam c/ France). Vous voyez le problème ? Je suis certain qu’il y a beaucoup de commentaires élogieux de cette loi et de l’indépendance du parquet.
Mais nous parlons du siège et, citation pour citation, je connais celle-là : « Il est plus étonnant que le Conseil constitutionnel ait estimé que la condition de mobilité imposée aux magistrats du siège par la loi organique du 25 février 1992 ne méconnaissait pas le principe fondamental d’inamovibilité. » (Turpin, Mémento de la jurisprudence du Conseil constitutionnel) Étonnant, voire risible.
Ce que mon interlocuteur dit n’est pas faux, simplement il faut prendre en compte la porosité entre les deux administrations, qui ne peut en aucun cas décrire une séparation des pouvoirs, que l’inamovibilité des juges est censée garantir.
Dans ce contexte, l’élection des juges serait un renforcement du pouvoir des juges et de leur indépendance effective vis-à-vis du gouvernement.
Il y a plusieurs raisons à cela. Je me borne à en citer deux. La première, pas forcément la plus fondamentale selon moi, est qu’il y aurait des juges élus sur d’autres plateformes électorales que celle du gouvernement en place, de la même manière qu’il y a des régions ou des départements et autres de couleurs politiques différentes de celle du gouvernement. Ces juges auraient des comptes à rendre à un électorat, c’est-à-dire qu’ils appliqueraient une politique judiciaire dans leur ressort juridictionnel. De fait, aujourd’hui, c’est le parquet (le gouvernement) qui applique dans les cours une politique judiciaire, tandis que les juges ne sont que des machines à « appliquer la loi ».
Cette première raison n’est pas sans lien avec celle qui me semble plus fondamentale encore et qui est qu’un juge élu ne peut pas être un fonctionnaire anonyme soumis au devoir de réserve, et soumis dans tout son être, comme le juge actuel. Un élu soumis au devoir de réserve ? Absurde. Or le juge français est, dans notre droit, la personne la plus soumise aux restrictions draconiennes du devoir de réserve, de par le statut écrit de la magistrature (le plus draconien à cet égard avec le statut militaire). Cela doit être également pris en considération quand on parle de sa prétendue inamovibilité : en réalité, il est enserré dans un inextricable réseau de chicane statutaire et la moindre prise de parole de sa part équivaut, en fait, à sa mort professionnelle. C’est la forme la plus insidieuse de castration jamais conçue, mais comme elle n’empêche pas de se reproduire je suppose que les intéressés estiment avoir préservé l’essentiel.
On ne peut pas être un bon juge indépendant avec les qualités qui font un bon petit soldat du gouvernement comme le magistrat du parquet, et quand un système prétend, comme le système français, que les deux sont interchangeables, en réalité il organise une justice de bons petits soldats du gouvernement, par contamination.
Enquête ouverte sur un ex-général, accusé de propos antisémites. (Le Figaro, 18/6/21)
Non, une enquête n’est pas ouverte sur le général Delawarde pour « propos antisémites ».
Une enquête est ouverte pour « diffamation publique et provocation à la haine et à la violence à raison de l’origine ou de l’appartenance à une ethnie, une nation, une race ou une religion ».
Des propos antisémites ou homophobes ou ce que vous voulez qui ne sont ni de la diffamation (diffamation envers un groupe, catégorie totalement sui generis qui ne s’encombre pas de la moindre « exception de vérité » disculpatoire en matière de diffamation) ni de la provocation à la haine ni de l’incitation à la violence ni de l’injure ni de l’incitation à la consommation de stupéfiants ni de l’outrage à personne responsable d’une mission de service public ni de l’outrage à personne dépositaire de l’autorité publique ni de l’outrage aux symboles républicains ni des fausses informations, c’est-à-dire des fake news, ni de la violation du secret de l’instruction ni de la violation du secret médical ni de l’atteinte à la vie privée ni du blasphème (contrairement à ce que prétend la classe politique, il y a de la jurisprudence en 5e République) ni de la divulgation d’informations privées à des fins malveillantes sur une personne chargée d’une mission de service public ni de l’offense au chef de l’État (ah non, pardon, ç’a été abrogé en 2013, au temps pour moi) ni de l’atteinte au droit à l’image ni de la contestation de crime contre l’humanité ni de l’apologie d’actes de terrorisme ni de l’apologie de crimes de guerre ni de l’apologie d’eugénisme ni qu’est-ce que j’ai bien pu oublier ? NE SONT PAS UN DÉLIT.
« Une enquête a été ouverte… »
Bonjour Monsieur. Êtes-vous le général Dominique Delawarde ? – Oui. Avez-vous tenu tel jour sur la chaîne Cnews les propos, je cite, « … » ? – Oui.
Vachement dure, l’enquête… (Oh là là, qu’est-ce qu’on a progressé depuis Sherlock Holmes !)
Dans ces affaires, il y a le plus souvent, peut-être presque toujours, un accord de tous, police, procureur, accusé, juge (tout le monde sauf le jury parce qu’il n’y a pas de jury), sur les FAITS (« machin a dit truc ») et pourtant il arrive que, pour des faits sur lesquels ils sont tous D’ACCORD, l’un exige une condamnation et l’autre acquitte.
« Va comprendre, Charles ! Avec le PMU on joue comme on aime. » Ils ont trop regardé la télé, ma parole… Quand les faits sont établis sans contestation, c’est la loi qui est le PROBLEME si elle permet ces divergences.
Rimbaud inconnu : L’Ascétique
Citations tirées d’Une saison en enfer (c’est nous qui soulignons) :
À chaque être, plusieurs autres vies me semblaient dues. Ce monsieur ne sait ce qu’il fait : il est un ange. Cette famille est une nichée de chiens. Devant plusieurs hommes, je causai tout haut avec un moment d’une de leurs autres vies. – Ainsi, j’ai aimé un porc.
J’ai eu raison de mépriser ces bonshommes qui ne perdraient pas l’occasion d’une caresse, parasites de la propreté et de la santé de nos femmes, aujourd’hui qu’elles sont si peu d’accord avec nous.
N’est-ce pas parce que nous cultivons la brume ? Nous mangeons la fièvre avec nos légumes aqueux. Et l’ivrognerie ! et le tabac ! et l’ignorance ! et les dévouements ! – Tout cela est-il assez loin de la sagesse de l’Orient, la patrie primitive ? Pourquoi un monde moderne, si de pareils poisons s’inventent !
Moi ! moi qui me suis dit mage ou ange, dispensé de toute morale, je suis rendu au sol, avec un devoir à chercher, et la réalité rugueuse à étreindre ! Paysan !
The actual state of a race is represented above all by the male individuals. Women have a tendency to manifest the traits of the anterior state; they evolve more slowly because, as a result of sexual selection which distributes hereditary traits according to the result of males’ competition, males are more subject to variation. As a consequence, in a country like the United States of America, which original immigrant stock is predominantly Nordic, blondness is more a woman’s trait, and blonde women in general are blonder than blond men (from my observations). [For an account of this fact from a slightly different perspective, see my essay Eyes of Blue & Comment #1 here. FB]
According to the count of Boulainvilliers, an early (17th century) French racialist and aristocratic opponent to royal absolutism, the French nobility of Frank ancestry, blue-eyed and blond, racially differs from the core population of France. Boulainvillier’s theory was utilized by Cardinal Richelieu to denounce and oppose as mongrelization marriages between aristocrats and rich bourgeois.
Count Arthur de Gobineau, another early racialist (or you may want to call him a racist as he disserted on the inequalities among races), said the same of Germany. He thought the German aristocracy was Aryan whereas the rural masses were Slavic. Actually, he thought the European aristocracies were an Aryan ruling class over populations ethnically different.
Later, Georges Vacher de Lapouge, a Social Darwinist (and Socialist), considered France and Germany almost equally poor in Aryan blood. He considered as the only Aryan nations of his time (end of 19th century) the Scandinavian countries, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Yet, as the following letter will show, a historical dichotomy between Saxons and Celts, apparently based on anthropological differences and akin to that between Frank noblemen and Gauls in France and that between German noblemen and Slavs in Germany, seems to have been overlooked by this scholar in the case of the British Isles.
A Controversial Letter on Celts
A couple of days after I had published in a paper some considerations on the use of the Celtic cross by people calling themselves ‘white nationalists,’ questioning the symbol’s relevance as the Celts were only a part of the white peoples and not the whole of them, I received a letter from a distant relative who took the opportunity of his having read my paper to air his ideas on the relationship between Saxons and Celts through the ages up to our day. The perusal of his letter provoked such a strong impression on my mind that I could not stop thinking about it for days. Eventually, I asked him if he would allow me to share it on my blog.
He agreed with two provisos. First, his identity would be given through his title, Lord of Saxy-Beaulieu, and the following true biographical elements made public: “A member of the highest Saxon and Norman nobility with relatives in the U.S. and the British Isles (including Jersey & Guernesey, the Isle of Sark and the whole of France since Joan of Arc, who was burnt at the stake as everyone knows).” Second, he asked me to apologize in his name if his English was found faulty: He has stopped practising modern English because Celts are speaking it as a language of their own, and he now only uses a local old Saxon that he learnt in family registries from the early Middle Ages. He has no social life any longer, being satisfied with giving orders to his Celtic servant by hand signs in the family manor of Saxy-Beaulieu.
Here’s the letter:
Despite the fact that you have been neglecting a relative for an unduly long time, especially with regards to my quality, I take the opportunity that is given me of reading your public prose to share with you the thoughts that have been the substance of my soul for the last decades, on the particular topic that you touched, namely the relationship between the Celts and us.
You are right to stress that we Saxons and Normans will never place ourselves under a Celtic banner of any sort [I never stressed this, actually]. However, you are wrong not to acknowledge publicly your own ancestry, as you are wrong to have anything to do with Celts at all. ‘Tis your parents’ mistake not to have taught you with due clarity the rank that was ascribed to you in this life, and each time you and I met I did my best to correct the pernicious influence of that modern education that is levelling everything, but that was only from time to time and unfortunately not enough to root sound principles in a young soul bewildered by a machinery of perversion.
Celts have always been our slaves and servants. They have been given us as such by God, as is clearly laid down in the Scriptures. To every place we came, spreading from the Womb of Nations, we found them, along with other species. They seemed to us the most suitable people for serving us, and we chased the others away.
Every European nation is no nation in the meaning that you and your so-called white nationalist acquaintances ascribe to it. There is no nation, only households, with masters – the Saxons – and servants – the Celts. In the same way that they deceive you with their idea of nation, they deceive you with their idea of a white race and civilization. These people say they want to save the Western civilization, but before talking like this they should learn that Western civilization has always meant for them to serve us. Only their rebellion has been the cause that others came to do their task. They have undermined the foundations that our benevolence as masters had provided them, and now they whine that the world is upside down. They have never been upside but always down, where they belong.
Celts are now living in a Cosmopolis of debauchery and treachery. Is this our fault? We have not changed a single thing in our habits and customs. We see the world going asunder but we will not join their motley, discordant movements. They are not our equals. We know that our time will come again when things get too bad, because we are the only ones who can rule and bring order in this world. In the mean time we will ignore the madness around us and enjoy the company of our genealogical trees and books. We will never be reading a book younger than 215 years of age. We will never walk in a crowded street. We will never talk to no one who does not master old Gleeshire Saxon. If we do not find enough of our good people, we will make more of them with our own sisters. We have always done that in the past. The only television noise that will ever reach our ears is at our French Riviera villégiature: It is the Celtic neighbour’s television heard through modern-manufactured partitions – ah, those French would have learnt what a partition is at the Manor of Saxy-Beaulieu! Let that neighbour spend his whole life before his Celtic mirror, that is, television. We do not live in the same world. This is not the same world we are talking about at all.
Always will you be welcome at Saxy-Beaulieu.”
Yet the lord of Saxy-Beaulieu has not always been an old crackpot. On the contrary, he used to be young and learned (I mean in other things than Saxon feudal law). Here’s a story he once told me.
“Many years ago, my dear friend X. was involved in an amorous flirt with the Duchess of W. As things became serious and he, as an educated man, worried about the consequences, he told me that he wanted to break off and wished to know the most appropriate way to do so.
I remembered having found in Kierkegaard the solution to his problem. As the philosopher says, there is a philosophical way to break with one’s lover when the circumstances demand it. In order to depart her without her falling apart, it was necessary to act in such a manner that she could not keep any esteem for him; she would thus believe that her eyes had been opened on the true nature of a man unworthy of her sentiments. Otherwise, if he did not disappoint her and she kept her sentiments for him, she would suffer, and he would be a rascal.
One way to attain this goal, I suggested, was to act in a cynical way regarding her marriage (for she was still married at the time). If he made her an indecent proposal, adding: “Are you ready to cheat now?”, she would definitely think him to be an unrefined person of limited outlook, deserving not the emotions she had thought she had felt for him; she would leave him on her own initiative, a little bit shocked maybe but spared much of heart’s ache. He would thus keep his mind at rest that his conduct had been chivalrous.
He agreed with my plan, thanking me profusely for the good idea. Unfortunately, English was not his mother tongue and, as the moment came, due to his faulty pronunciation he actually said: “Are you ready to sh*t now?” The perversity of the demand was for the Duchess, as the degenerate lady she was, too charming a trait to be resisted, and his attempt to break off failed miserably.”
This being said, the lord of Saxy-Beaulieu has always had peculiar ideas. This from another of his letters:
“Were it not for the social pressure that makes the adolescent feel compulsory to look for a sweetheart even though, in reality, it is not at all aimed at sexual relief in most cases, he would ignore such compulsion to wasting his time and devote his energy to more fruitful activities. Petting is that form of intercourse that is fit for female nature and unfit for male nature. That it has so developed among young people is proof that our culture has become womanly.”
Recently, a Harvard black professor was arrested in his home by a white policeman who had been called by a neighbor alarmed at seeing the black man break open a door. It turned out the Harvard professor had left his keys somewhere and the house he broke in was his.
As the professor saw the police coming, he became angry and offensive, so the policeman manacled him and took him to the police station. Later, president Obama said the Harvard professor was a friend of his and the police had been stupid. The professor said America was racist and the four residents of the White House (the president and his family) the only persons living in a post-racial America. Newspapers around the world told the story of the Harvard professor victim of white America’s bias and prejudice. (I too lost my keys one day: I called a locksmith.)
A so-called specialist in American affairs told the story on French TV. Describing the events, he said the professor “touched the door” and the neighbor called the police. The specialist even illustrated his words with a rapid gesture imitating a man grasping the handle of a door. I guess this is only because it would have been difficult on a TV studio to render the behavior of a man breaking a door open, with shoulders and all – or is it because it would have made the neighor’s alarm appear more understandable and the professor’s behavior less rational? (November 2009)