Tagged: immunité parlementaire

Law 36: The just war, or Free trade and therapeutic chewing gum

EN-FR March 2023


The just war

Both China and Russia agree that an act of “aggression” is not causeless, that an aggression may be provoked, that an attack may be defensive and may even be, in Napoleon’s words, the best defense, that, therefore, an attack is not by itself a breach of international law, and that American precedents buttress this view. Even if American aggressions had all been supported in the past by UN’s endorsement (which is clearly not the case: see Bay of Pigs, etc.), as in Libya, no one is obliged to see this as more binding than the US herself finds the numerous UN’s rebukes of international law violations by the United States’ protégé Israel binding.

The US administration shall be exposed as a duplicitous and irresponsible entity. When Russia strikes, it is an aggression, all of a sudden, after decades of claiming her protégé Israel’s strikes and territorial expansion have a just cause, namely, are defensive. An irresponsible fool cannot be world leader.

Free trade and therapeutic chewing gum

Commercium liberum means that if China doesn’t buy British opium from British India, the English will attack China and with their military power open Chinese harbors to opium imports. This is called Opium War and it’s real. Free trade is a völkerrechtlich (international-law) justa causa of aggression. Recently, Singapore wanted to ban chewing gum from its territory; the US objected, therefore Singapore keeps importing “therapeutical” chewing gum, and this is how everything can be therapeutic if need be. As the states are on a cannabis legalizing spree, prepare for the Cannabis Wars of tomorrow.

Cannabis Wars will be American aggressions against countries that oppose flooding by medical and/or recreational cannabis, this opposition being an impediment to free trade. Hong Kong’s colonial status was a result of the Opium Wars, so it cannot be said that these “free trade” wars are not for territorial gains. They are 1/ aggression wars, 2/ possibly ending in territorial changes, and above all they are 3/ just wars, having justa causa.

It’s in the books. As Iran is currently sailing two ships toward the Panama Canal, the US, according to Hindustan Times, expressed worry that “Iran’s presence may damage trade and the global economy market,” that is, the US is telling us they have a just cause for sinking these ships, as per the Opium Wars and other precedents.

Note. Above, I don’t mention that the two Iranian ships are warships, and one may question this. Here is my answer. It is “Iran’s presence” that is said by the US to be likely to “damage trade.” As I assume the presence of warships from some, probably most other countries does not elicit the same kind of response, the US statement was not elicited by the ships’ being warships but by their being Iranian. Had I included their quality of warships, people may have construed the affair as being elicited by the ships’ being warships, whereas, had the vessels been commercial ships, the US would have made no comment, which is wishful thinking.


Saudi’s “Won’t Sell Oil” warning to US if Biden imposes Russia-like price cap. (Hindustan Times)

Saudis should impose a price cap on American chewing gum.


China tells PLA [People’s Liberation Army] to get combat ready amid Russia’s war (Hindustan Times)

China might also benefit from inviting Taliban advisors. – Talibans’ strategy and tactics expertise is asked all over the world. Großmächte like Russia and China need Taliban advisers to improve the asymmetric warfare component of their military.


“US intelligence warned of NATO-Russia clash.” Allo? The US got intelligence about themselves from their own services? US intelligence warned the US administration that the US planned to support Ukraine “as long as it takes.” Good work!


The thin line between nothing and a promise

Finland backtracks after pledge [to send fighter jets] to Ukraine. (HT)

Apparently, Finland’s prime minister talked without the least clue about the situation, promising things Finland can’t give.

If you actually read what she said, she did not promise anything. Doesn’t matter for smooth-brained Russian lovers.

Of course, these people never promise anything, especially to their constituents. I don’t know why people keep thinking these people’s words have any meaning at all.

But who can tell this interlocutor is not splitting hairs, “technically speaking, this was not a promise in the sense of an oath on the Holy Book,” when there was in the air an expectation of Finnish jets but the Finnish army eventually said “we need our jets, sorry”? What is the point of saying the latter if there was no expectation, and what brought about an expectation if not some statement about Finland’s will to send jets? I don’t care about hair-splitting, that’s what they’re always doing when they let people down.

Besides, before calling people “Russian lovers” (with savage expletives), one should consider who is distraught by the news: Russians or Ukrainians? Who is angry? Who is cursing the Finns in their heart? (In general, the disappointed curse.) Who will say this is an about-face if asked? – Am I a Russian lover for scolding the Finnish authorities to let Ukrainians down? Whose brain needs more training?

This lady, Finland’s prime minister, went to Kiyv in quality of head of government and said, in that official position, she’s “open to providing jets.” Was this saying something or saying nothing? Or does it mean, “I’m open to providing jets but it doesn’t depend upon me.” Was the news that some nobody in the remotest parts of the country said he’s open to providing jets to Ukraine but who cares, he’s a nobody? Now a Finnish general says the jets can’t be sent in Ukraine because they are needed at home. If he is correct, then this lady couldn’t materially be “open to providing jets,” because there was no material basis for such a declaration, which would have required available jets in surplus of needed jets, essential at home, and she should have been briefed about this before going to Kyiv, knowing Ukrainians would ask for support and formulate requests. The general is telling her, in her face, something very unpleasant, and he makes it known to the world. He might be a rebel, refusing to obey the government, as he’s not the person to tell the latter how the existing jets are to be used, whether kept at home or sent to Ukrainians. Given the solemnity of a declaration made within an official delegation in a foreign country, I assume the general will be sacked and the jets sent. Otherwise, the government must fall. I retract the term “promise,” however, having learnt from my interlocutor that governments around the world shouldn’t take the words of Finland’s authorities seriously; when this government says they’re “open,” one must add in petto “but that doesn’t depend upon them,” this is no commitment, only meaningless blah blah.

If it isn’t a promise when the government says to be open to something, then the government actually says to be “open but…” So what is the “but” here? Is it a vote from Parliament? Not at all. Is it a national referendum? Not at all. Is it a veto from allies? Not at all. A Finnish general is correcting the Finnish prime minister. The “but” was “I’m open to providing jets but it depends on a general who turns out to be, as a civil servant, under the hierarchical power of the government, that is, he does what I’m telling him.” The government can’t claim it renounces sending jets because its generals are opposed to the government’s idea, because it would be treason for the army to oppose the government. Therefore, no excuse. You send the jets or you never were open to sending them; you were just, for reasons I honestly fail to understand, deceptive with people you call friends.

She was asked by a journalist in a press conference about the jets and she said it could be discussed if other countries think about sending them. She didn’t promise anything.

I left the last word to this other interlocutor. First, I had already taken back the word “promise.” Then, the answer to my question about this lady’s words, namely, “was this saying something or saying nothing?” has its answer: it was saying nothing. Poland is willing to send fighter jets to Ukraine and hasn’t waited for a common position of NATO countries. But again, the material basis for such a declaration by Finland’s head of government was lacking, because, as the general said in the meantime, Finland can’t afford to send jets abroad, no matter what a common position of NATO countries would turn out to be; the army’s position is not dependent on whether other countries can send their own jets.


Arms supply as principal-agent problem

US and UK officials are reportedly worried that Ukraine is firing thousands of artillery shells daily to hold on to Bakhmut. According to New York Times, there are concerns in the West that the pace at which Ukraine is burning through ammunition, is unsustainable (HT)

The arms suppliers worry about how the supplied army is using the material. However, the suppliers didn’t “supply” tactical command. It goes without saying that when you supply weapons you may do something very useless unless you can be sure the weapons will be used efficiently. Imagine the military operations were directed from or by the supplier countries instead to make sure the material is used efficiently: would these countries still be nonbelligerent? In other words, either NATO has no control over the efficiency of its doing as a non-belligerent party or it becomes belligerent.

There is a principal-agent problem (google these words) in the supply of weapons which remains undiscussed. In this kind of problems, suppliers could keep supplying for decades with guns a child who shoots at trees, thinking this is a soldier shooting at enemies. NATO can’t make sure its weapons are used efficiently, that is, make sure its doing is worth it, without taking control, and that means to become a belligerent party.


Video from the US-Mexico border shows chaotic scenes as hundreds of people attempted to force their way into the US, after problems with a new app aimed at processing their asylum claims. (Al Jazeera English)

To condition state decisions upon smartphone usage is unlawful subsidizing of a private sector. I think this administration is corrupt. – What is a public administration that conditions a public benefit upon the purchase of smartphones made by private manufacturers, if not a corrupt agency in the hands of private interests?

One may ask: Is it subsidizing the paper industry, to condition a public benefit on a written letter to the administration? Arguably, yes. However, the difference between the expense for one sheet of paper and a pen or pencil on the one hand and for a smartphone on the other hand, is not insubstantial, so if the administration so far requested a written letter, it doesn’t mean it is not more corrupt by asking to download an app on a phone now.



Les bras d’honneur d’un ministre au Parlement

Il n’y a pas si longtemps, un journaliste eut droit à un procès pour un doigt d’honneur. L’immunité parlementaire pour les propos tenus dans l’hémicycle protège, que je sache, les parlementaires et non les autres personnes présentes, par exemple un ministre. Et je ne crois pas non plus qu’un ministre ait une immunité générale vis-à-vis du code pénal, par exemple vis-à-vis de l’article relatif à l’injure, laquelle serait en l’occurrence facile à caractériser pour ces bras d’honneur dans l’hémicycle puisque le ministre a lui-même reconnu les faits (deux bras d’honneur), une admission sur le ton plaisant et cynique qui a choqué la présidente de séance. Des rappels au règlement, moi je veux bien, mais pourquoi un journaliste passe au tribunal, lui ?

Dans le cas du journaliste, comme son doigt d’honneur était adressé à des CRS, c’était un outrage. Or un député est également une personne dépositaire de l’autorité publique, selon le code : un bras d’honneur à un député est donc tout autant un outrage, c’est-à-dire une injure aggravée. Mais un journaliste passe en jugement et écope d’une amende pénale, tandis qu’un ministre peut se vanter de son délit. Surtout ne changez rien.

Note. S’agissant de l’affirmation selon laquelle « l’immunité parlementaire pour les propos tenus dans l’hémicycle protège, que je sache, les parlementaires et non les autres personnes présentes, par exemple un ministre », on pourrait sans doute répliquer que, si un ministre ne bénéficie pas de la même immunité que les parlementaires au sein de l’hémicycle de l’une ou l’autre chambre, il est désavantagé dans la discussion politique, étant contraint dans ses prises de parole quand les parlementaires ne le sont pas. Or l’immunité parlementaire n’empêche pas le bureau de l’Assemblée de prononcer des sanctions, telles que des suspensions, à l’encontre d’un parlementaire en raison de ses propos, tandis que le bureau d’une chambre n’a évidemment aucun pouvoir de sanction à l’encontre d’un membre du gouvernement. De sorte que si l’immunité s’étendait aux ministres, ce sont ces derniers qui seraient avantagés dans la discussion politique au sein du Parlement puisqu’il n’existerait aucune instance de sanction, judiciaire ou législative, à leur encontre tandis que les parlementaires seraient toujours passibles de sanctions prises par leur chambre. Dans ces conditions, l’immunité parlementaire servirait aux membres du gouvernement et non aux parlementaires, et même aux membres du gouvernement contre les parlementaires, ce qu’il est impossible de supposer pour un dispositif protecteur de la fonction parlementaire.

TW16 Très Grand Débat National

Septembre-Décembre 2018 FR & EN


Pour un technocrate tous les sujets techniques sont des sujets « majeurs » et « sensibles », et c’est en exprimant ce point de vue mesquin que le technocrate prouve son absence totale d’envergure et même d’humanité.



Were technology to create the conditions of limitless affluence, the human milieu would not be competitive. To think that, in these conditions, communism would breed a ‘primitive type’ is to believe that primitive societies lived and/or live in affluence.

What I call “(Jack) London’s illusion” is that the “price tag” attached to a man of status today has absolute value. Yet one’s genes are worth looking for in this but not that milieu. Change the milieu and women’s preferences will change accordingly.

Healthiest is the milieu where status depending on means of livelihood has vanished, as long as there is the slightest discrepancy between gene value and status valuation. Where a genetic cripple can be rich, women still look for status as “price tag.”

1/ By definition, affluence describes a milieu where the means of livelihood cannot entail discrimination between individuals. 2/ For this one reason is affluence the healthiest human milieu. 3/And affluence, by virtue of 1/, means communism.

It is scarcity that makes prices and statuses necessary to orient agents’ choices. If you don’t believe in communism, you simply don’t believe that capitalism is a force of material progress.

Are “limitless needs” bound to thwart affluence? Needs are limitless in a “red-queen race” only, where variations in relative status are detrimental in absolute terms. In consequence, where there is no status as price tag, limitless needs is a meaningless notion.

By the way, that Sir Matt Ridley, the very exponent of red-queen race, regularly praises capitalism for the ‘absolute’ rise in purchase power over the last decades, is amazing, as if he had never read the books he wrote: Under capitalism this absolute rise is absolutely thwarted by variations of relative status!


It is a logical statement and no irrational bias that vested interests (i.e. conservatives) are deficient in prognosis (as they only see the future as the present perpetuated).


“Resist” is the cry of people confronted by an overwhelming force.


Une dictature n’a pas de leçons à recevoir de régimes qui interdisent Mein Kampf.


Imam Al-Kartland

Le Comité des grands érudits d’Arabie Saoudite : « L’Islam est une religion propageant la paix dans le monde, elle préserve la vie, les biens, l’honneur de l’être humain et interdit fermement tout ce qui va à l’encontre de ces trois principes fondamentaux. » (Saudi News FR)

Que c’est beau, on dirait du Barbara Cartland : « Le baiser qu’il lui donna rouvrit toutes grandes les portes du paradis, là où leur amour trouvait cette perfection qui vient du cœur, de l’Âme, et de la bénédiction de Dieu. »

Libérez les érudits saoudiens emprisonnés ou personne ne prendra plus jamais au sérieux les « grands érudits » d’Arabie Saoudite. Je le dis pour votre bien.

Imam Al-Kartland (إمام الكارتلنض) d’Arabie Saoudite


La polémique sur les migrants entre le ministre italien de l’Intérieur, Matteo Salvini, et le ministre luxembourgeois des Affaires étrangères, Jean Asselborn, s’est aggravée au cours du week-end, le second ayant traité le premier de « fasciste ». (24hinfos)

Le point Godwin ne représente jamais une escalade (une aggravation) mais au contraire l’embourbement infini qui caractérise le débat démocratique.


Les socialistes réformistes sont obligés de faire croire que les réformes socialistes sont bénéfiques à l’économie capitaliste. Ce qui est choquant pour un socialiste. À bas le capitalisme !


Une Maison du peuple dans le 7e arrondissement de Paris

Maison du peuple, l’Assemblée nationale, dans le 7e arrondissement de Paris, l’un des deux ou trois quartiers les plus bourgeois et les moins populaires ? Maison du peuple, mon col !

Comment ? C’est du populisme ? Du moment que c’est pas du bourgeoisisme…

La « Maison du peuple » (nom que certains donnent à l’Assemblée nationale) est dans un arrondissement comptant 603 logements sociaux, le nombre le plus bas de Paris. Avec 57.000 habitants, et une moyenne de 2,3 habitants par logement en Île-de-France, cela fait 24.780 logements, soit 2,5 % de logement social. Il en faudrait dix fois plus pour respecter la loi SRU !

Le 7e arrondissement de Paris, où se trouve la Maison du peuple, n’a plus qu’à construire environ 5.500 logements sociaux pour respecter la loi SRU sur le logement social votée en 2000 par la Maison du peuple…


By calling oneself an Antifa one takes no risk, because the people who call themselves fascists aren’t influential and the influential people you might want to call fascists aren’t likely to take it amiss, so absurd will the label sound to everyone.


By calling U.S. imperialism ‘fascism’ you’re fooling yourselves: While U.S. imperialists were embargoing Cuba, Cuba had diplomatic relationships with Franco’s Spain, the closest regime to fascism I can think of.

[Source : « Pour La Havane, peuvent s’instaurer des relations bilatérales, économiques et culturelles, entre États de régimes politiques différents. Le cas bien connu des relations, jamais interrompues, entre la Cuba castriste et l’Espagne franquiste en est un exemple frappant. » (Jean Lamore, Le Castrisme, Presses universitaires de France, 1983)]


Aujourd’hui ciel dégagé, température extérieure 15°C. 29.9.2018


Novembre 2018

Legalize It (i)

It’s time the Netherlands lobby for tolerant laws among their European neighbors or that European legislation allow national courts of law to grant European citizens the freedoms of the most advanced laws among European countries on any subject.

“Freedom is the rule, restriction the exception.” Dutch citizens having legal access to substances, European courts should not tolerate that other E.U. citizens be deprived of the same freedom. We are all equal European citizens entitled to the same freedoms, as freedom is the rule.

European citizenship is inscribed in the E.U. Treaty and common citizenship has always meant that citizens enjoy the same freedoms. Hence I can claim Dutch freedom against French national law, as Dutch and French share E.U. citizenship.

Correct. (Wholecelium)

Yes, unless one’s to understand that the Treaty is filled with empty words.


Legalize It (ii)

This debating of legalization [of cannabis, psilocybin…] as medicinal is bunk, submission to the control freaks who want to decide who’s to be allowed to use it. I’m against linking legalization with medical issues. It’s a freedom issue, and in secular states it’s a religious freedom issue (prohibition being proof that so-called secular states discriminate against some religions).

During Prohibition (Volstead Act) U.S. authorities granted Catholics and Jews quotas of wine for their rituals. Yet they never granted quotas of weed to Rastafarians nor of shrooms to Shamans! (Because those are religions of coons and spics, no doubt…)


– Je suis indigné.
– Indigne et quoi ?


On Twitter, using English, international cosmopolitan language, and then shifting back to one’s own (French) is like when you live in the city and go spend a few days in the small village where your grandparents live. You just don’t want to stay there.


Impartial ne veut dire ni sans opinion ni centriste.


La #proportionnelle ne peut pas avoir l’effet que les Gilets jaunes en attendent car il faut une majorité pour gouverner, et en proportionnelle un programme de gouvernement ne se construit pas sur des propositions électorales mais sur des accords entre groupes parlementaires.
– Comme aujourd’hui, quoi !
– Je n’osais pas le dire…


Pas d’#Acte5 ! Sois citoyen français et tais-toi.


Le meilleur moyen pour qu’un gouvernement devienne auteur de complots, c’est de criminaliser les « théories du complot ».


La liberté d’expression a été inventée par et pour des gens capables de penser et notamment d’avoir de l’esprit critique. Le larbin n’en fait pas grand cas et ce n’est pas à lui que l’on pense quand on défend la liberté d’expression.


Le JT de France3TV efface tranquillement une partie du slogan d’un manifestant pour ne garder que le « Macron » et non pas le « Macron dégage ». 16 décembre

Compte tenu de la politique répressive du pouvoir depuis les dernières élections, FR3 a sans doute craint d’être poursuivie pour « offense au chef de l’État » si elle montrait la pancarte telle quelle.

Sinon la loi de liberté de la presse on en parle ?

Peut-être pas assez, quand des manifestants restent 12 heures en garde à vue pour « offense au chef de l’Etat », un délit tombé formellement supprimé en 2013. (Le Canard enchaîné du 21.11.2018)


Le délit d’« offense au chef de l’Etat » ayant été supprimé en 2013 à la suite d’une condamnation de la France par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH), qui peut prétendre que le délit d’« injure au Président de la République » s’applique toujours ? C’est la même chose avec des mots différents !


Très Grand Débat

#GrandDébatNational [en réponse au mouvement des Gilets jaunes] dont 5,7 millions de fonctionnaires sont exclus en raison du DEVOIR DE RÉSERVE !

Tu es fonctionnaire et tu souhaites participer au grand débat national ? Pas de problème : crée-toi un compte Twitter ANONYME et tweete comme un malade, le tour est joué !

Qui a le droit de parler au pays des droits de l’homme ? Pas les fonctionnaires : devoir de réserve. Pas les salariés : le patron pas content trouve un prétexte pour licencier. Tous anonymes sur Twitter.

On doit voter dans un isoloir pour éviter les pressions et représailles du pouvoir. Le grand débat national se tiendra-t-il en isoloir ?

Aux Gilets jaunes qui veulent participer au grand débat national : vous n’avez pas d’immunité parlementaire et vous avez vu que ce gouvernement engageait des poursuites pénales à la moindre critique. Attention danger ! Pas de débat sans immunité !

Convocation au rectorat de Dijon d’une enseignante pour avoir critiqué Macron sur internet… (Article L’Humanité 19.12.2018 : « Au rectorat de Dijon on peut croiser Big Brother »)

Le #GrandDébatNational s’annonce ouvert et décontracté… 😦