Dreadful post coitum in the backstage of power (2)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn VS. Nafissatou Diallo: A case of Comparative Law

A media event on the threshold of the American Criminal Procedure

A brilliant career, stunning accusation · © CNN

Reality is a hard nut to crack.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a major figure who has friends who may be sincere in their affection, no matter how often crossbred with ulterior political motives. Whenever a person is accused of something incredibly serious, his relatives have the natural reflex to refuse to believe that it is just possible.

The first instinct is to protect, to rush to help, sometimes awkwardly, like that wife who thought helping her husband accused of robbery and who found nothing better to say at the bar of the criminal court: « Murderer maybe, but a thief, surely not! »

Clumsy reactions, not to say completely ill-advised have been held. Most of those who did so have retracted or expressed their regrets by realizing the nonsense of their arguments.

It is not herein about demonstrating the guilt or innocence of the IMF’s managing director. No more than trying to prove a hypothetical plot, in one way or another, but to describe and explain the criminal proceedings which he is subject to understand what is happening and what will happen. Note that I do not pretend to be a lawyer practicing in New York and I beg more eminent experts than me to forgive my probable errors and approximations, and I will correct the post if required.

The U.S. procedure, a much more balanced system than the French feedback might suggest.
Let us briefly recall the facts: DSK is charged of having appeared suddenly naked, facing a maid who had entered the room thinking it was cleared out, to put it back in order. After closing and locking the door, DSK would have intended to force her for oral sex, he would have tried to take off her clothes in order to go further, but she managed to escape. The police arrived, reportedly found that he had left the scene, forgetting one of his (seven) mobile phones, and tracked him down in the list of passengers on an Air France flight to Paris.

He was arrested onboard by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey – the local Border Police – and delivered to the NYPD, the Special Victims Unit to be precise.

In the United States like in England, police have broad powers of inquiry and initiative in investigations. Unlike France, where the prosecutor leads the investigation and gives instructions to the police – which are in fact orders –, the district attorney discovers the records when the police bring them together with the suspect. For some serious cases, police officers may have an advisory role, stating the evidence that the DA needs to go further on prosecution. Both authorities are more separated in the U.S. than in France.

The arrest may take place without an arrest warrant in two cases: the crime takes place in the presence of the police officer or if the officer has sufficient evidence to arrest the person (sufficient grounds). In general, a home arrest requires a judge to issue an arrest warrant.

The first stage is booking and it is held at the police station. Fingerprinting, photo identification, judicial collect of criminal record (in New York it is called NYSID report or rap sheet. The person under suspicion may be questioned but he has the right to remain silent (which will never be retained for the prosecution against him unlike in French law). He may be assisted by a lawyer who has the right to intervene during interrogations (the Paris prosecutor shivers in terror at this perspective). The police officer in charge of the case (usually the first on scene) prepares a report – the criminal complaint— which is the basis for prosecution.

Less serious facts give rise quickly to release from custody with straight summons by the judge (Desk Appearance Ticket, DAT). Here we are facing a felony – on top of the scale of gravity, not DAT, but submission to a judge. This arrest should be as brief as possible. The law provides for a period of 48 hours in case of arrest a weekend away, but this rule does not apply in NYC, where hearings are held 365 days a year (from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.). In this matter, DSK agreed that such hearing which could take place on Sunday – as ‘New York city’s justice doesn’t sleep’— might be postponed to allow achieving DNA testing.

Once the booking is completed, the suspect is escorted to the Court Building, the competent court (here, in the case of felonies, the New York City Criminal Court, but only for the preliminary phase). It was there that DSK was featured on May 16: his memorable walking out under the flashes, that most French journalists published by asking if they could do it, and his transfer from police station to Criminal Court.

There, the police officer handling the case – and/or the complainant – is received by a substitute (Deputy District Attorney, DDA) who decides whether to prosecute or not. The DDA does NOT speak to the suspect, since in the United States, they have realized quite a long time ago that he is the opposing party (in France, there is hope it finally occurs all along the XXII century). If DDA considers the record substantial, he should formalize a ‘written complaint’, i.e. the official complaint of public prosecution.

The suspect is then brought before a judge for a hearing called the arraignment. The judge notifies the suspect of charges against him (a copy is delivered to him), of his right to counsel (he must be assisted, if necessary by a court-appointed lawyer at the arraignment), he is entitled to a preliminary hearing (in the case of a felony as it happens to DSK). He will not be asked at this stage whether he pleads guilty or not guilty, only in cases of misdemeanors and minor offenses, the equivalent in France of ‘délit’ and ‘contravention’ (but the suspect is entitled to give it up and, if need be, to plead guilty before the Criminal Court, this option is already ruled out by DSK’s lawyers).

The judge may decide to immediately stop the proceedings if he believes that the offense is not clearly established (case dismissed, French’s ‘affaire classée’)). With regard to alleged felonies against DSK, the indictment is incumbent on the Grand Jury.

The judge will then decide what happens to DSK until the Grand Jury decides. He can be released on his promise of appear spontaneously (Released on his Own Recognizance, ROR), released on bail or exceptionally remanded –i.e. arrested up to 120 hours until the Grand Jury has ruled or a Preliminary Hearing is held if the suspect, who is now the defendant, asks for it; but the prosecution does not bet on it usually).

The essential difference between Preliminary Hearing and Grand Jury is that the former is public and is held in the presence of the defendant while the Grand Jury meets closed-doors in the presence of the sole District Attorney and witnesses brought to testify.

The Grand Jury is composed of 23 people (a quorum of 16 people is required for it to decide). It outlines the evidences gathered and deliberates and it either votes a true bill – 12 jurors at least consider that there is prima facie, and then the case goes to trial (indictment) – or a no bill – i.e. no trial, then the case is dismissed.

In case of indictment by the Grand Jury, a new arraignment hearing is held before the Superior Court competent to try crimes (felonies), here the New York Supreme Court. Thus began the preparatory stage: the parties may negotiate a plea bargaining, ie, a guilty plea, where they have 45 days to submit petitions (motions) to be settled before the trial, eg to exclude illegally obtained evidence, or direct certain actions. Once these motions considered, a trial date is set. The trial shall be public, and judged by a jury who votes only over the conviction. The penalty, under the sole judge’s domain, is ruled at a subsequent hearing.

Finally there are 3 qualifications retained at this point: criminal sexual act, attempted rape, unlawful imprisonment. The penalty system is somewhat complex. Crimes are divided into categories AI, A-II. B. C, D and E. DSK appears to fall into the category B, so a maximum of 25 years imprisonment and a minimum of 1 to 8 years (Criminal Code of New York State. art. 70).

Dreadful post coitum in the backstage of power (1)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn vs. Nafissatou Diallo: A case of Comparative Law

On the eve of the hearing to be held June 6, throughout Dominique Strauss-Kahn will have to plead guilty or not guilty on the seven charges against him, it seems appropriate to analyze the situation – and report progress – from the perspective of comparative law. To be precise, if DSK pleads guilty, there will be no trial but a conviction to several years in prison, whose number will be negotiated with the judge. If he pleads not guilty – as his lawyers have suggested – a trial will take place.

From crime disguised as vaudeville to presumption of innocence

DSK was the favorite candidate for the French presidential elections of 2012

Falling of an idol. After two breathless weeks of one of the most spectacular cases in French politics, with hearings filmed, suspense, shocking images, conspiracy theories – will this century experience a significant event without its conspiracy theory? – and of course sex – which means outselling–, the excitement will drop, so to speak, and a media relief will be imposed from necessity.

But the jurist loves nothing more than the calm and serenity, which are propitious to reflection.

In hindsight, 15 days later, it is clear that the omnipresence of this case in the timeliness will inevitably recess. « At last! » some masochists might say – the same ones who are sick of this case but who still read this article.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn has been released (but is very closely supervised) and I am delighted, beyond any consideration, of his eventual guilt. Everyone expects to be released until their trial, as detention must be truly exceptional. This is not the case in France. This principle is best applied in the U.S. than in France, especially in criminal cases. Not to mention that before 2000 in the French criminal procedure, before a criminal court, the accused was free until he would necessarily become a prisoner on the eve of the hearing.

The conditions under which this freedom has been granted (a deposit of one million dollars, in addition to a 5 million warranty executed if Dominique Strauss-Kahn does not attend the hearing; prohibition from leaving NYC where he ought to live in a CCTV apartment, an armed guard at the door entrance, waged by the accused himself; a permanent electronic tracer anklet… anything at his expense) have prompted comments on Justice of richest (the accused had to raise $ 6 million and spend about $ 200,000 a month to ensure his own 24-hour monitoring). One thing must be understood.

Though a person who’s well off can probably – and in the U.S. probably more than anywhere else among the democratic countries with an independent judiciary – easily put the necessary resources to ensure his defense and will necessarily be much better defended than a person that may not do so, at this point it was not the New York justice who imposed stringent conditions for releasing DSK. It was the DSK defense who proposed what is called a lease package made of reinforced concrete: the defense came with such a turnkey probation, saying « That’s what we propose.» Basically, the judge just alleged: «Okay, I’m fine with this. » Defense brought out the (very) heavy artillery, for it knew that the prosecutor’s office (District Attorney, DA) would do everything possible to keep this very big fish in the fishpond of Rikers Island. Being elected, the NY prosecutor (in contrast to French judges who are appointed by the President of the Republic on proposal of the Minister of Justice, and the opinion of the Supreme Council of Magistracy; if someone could point it out to some know-it-all, thank you) has everything to gain by showing that he’s severe with the powerful, especially if this powerful is an alien. The prosecutor’s office has pushed to the limits the Polanski precedent: the flight risk (under French law, one talks about « lack of guarantees of representation »), stressing that the accused was arrested on an airplane when he was getting ready to leave the territory. The defense did expect this and anticipated correctly: it showed the ticket purchased before the facts occurred and came up with a proposal that no judge would probably have dared to require since it is costly and burdensome. Add to this the argument that the IMF Managing Director may be considered an honorable man, and the decision has been taken away…

Now begins a period that in French law would be called « pretrial » –understand « making the case ready for trial. » Indeed, U.S. law in general and New York in particular ignores the criminal enquiry conducted by a judge, specific to the Anglo-American inquisitorial system. It is an accusatory system, where the Judge is at a retreat – on a temporary basis – and acts as arbitrator.

A clarification: the Anglo-American accusatory system has never meant that it was on the accused to prove his innocence. It does not preclude the innocentation scheme, but the inquisitorial system, where Justice leads the investigation and keeps the bulk of the initiatives. The systems are not incompatible: in France, civil proceedings are accusatory, while criminal procedure is inquisitorial, with accusatory parties (such as the procedure before the trial chamber). Both parties – and I mean both parties because under U.S. law the complainant is not a party to criminal proceedings – will present their motions to the judge who will decide essentially on the admissibility of an evidence a party wants to produce and which the other does not want to hear about (Let’s say if a DNA test charges the defendant but the chain of custody was broken, meaning that at some point the integrity of the sample was not preserved with certainty -if  the sample has been forgotten in the police officer car at night, so as that could allow its contamination or its replacement- the Judge will exclude this evidence and the prosecution may not fall back on it). They have 45 days to do so. The hearings will be held in the Office of the Judge without publicity so the jury is not aware of these elements. If the DA had fled the information that a DNA test was rejected the defense may request a mistrial, (which is) to consider that the right of the defendant to a fair trial was irreparably damaged and that case should be permanently dismissed. And for those wondering, if it was the defense that was the source of the leak this would allow the DA to make a point of mentioning before the jury. Proceedings are not messy…

To sum up,at the end of the day,  until the trial begins the case will be prepared secretly, without further hearing or videoed suspense. So goodbye, hilarious scenes of special correspondents from the courthouse live from New York, less well informed about what is happening than journalists in Paris who have access to Twitter. I will miss it.

I have heard the optimistic statements of a DSK’s lawyer, Mr. Benjamin Brafman. I must confess my astonishment. Such statements, even cautious are not common in general and it is a first for this lawyer who has now a lot to loose in the event of a guilty plea or of a conviction. I can only speculate that he has a wild card up the sleeve to be so affirmative.

This leads me naturally to the presumption of innocence. In short, it is primarily a rule of evidence (it is up the prosecution to prove the guilt) to which French law added a protection matter of reputation: it is forbidden to make a person being subject of an investigation or prosecution as guilty until he has not been finally convicted. It is not easy (enough), even a lawyer like President Sarkozy cracks up regularly.

Respect for the presumption of innocence is then both a fundamental principle of trial, a pillar of the rule of law – listed by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, Article 9, since this assumption was far from obvious in 1789 – and a rule limiting freedom of expression.

So to avoid torturing Language, let us clarify concepts so far. Talking about Dominique Strauss-Kahn as a suspect or indicted or accused is entirely correct. Legally speaking, the most accurate perception at this stage is ‘defendant’ since the indictment has been delivered by the Grand Jury. To designate him as « rapist » would undermine the presumption of innocence. But designate him as « alleged rapist » is cumbersome, inelegant and imprecise – as the implicit concept, probably inspired by presumption of innocence, has a sense of « Who is supposed by hypothesis or conjecture. » The opposite of what we mean actually. An alleged rapist is not a presumed innocent.

Where the auditor risks headache is when the victim becomes in turn alleged. Lord! If the rapist is presumed innocent, the victim is an alleged liar? No, of course not, she’s just downgraded to alleged victim category. This makes a lot of suspects, presumed and alleged, isn’t that so?

The French word for « alleged victim » (‘victime présumée’) is « complaining » (‘plaignant’). The concept of « victim » which etymologically refers to the religious as it refers to what is offered in sacrifice to the gods (‘victima’ in Latin) is legally adequate once the crime is established or after conviction. In short, the term victim is inconsistent with presumption of innocence.

This leads me to my second assessment (next week), namely, the French perception of the U.S. procedure –which often forgets the U.S. context and aims to exonerate the alleged abuse of power while forgetting the alleged victim.

War of words

While we wait for history to judge the decision of the Security Council, words place themselves as judges.

The war in Libya is not virtual but very real. Then the outcome depends a lot on the war of words. Prudence dictates to wait for a positive outcome (with a free Libya at the end of the tunnel) or a disastrous issue instead (with a Muammar el-Qaddafi stronger and more upset than ever) for the decision of the UN Security Council to be judged in the light of history … And while we wait for the history words place themselves as judges — words used to judge what is happening in Libya.

The purpose of resolution 1973 of the Security Council was to protect the Libyan people against the tyrant, but as this reality bothers the tyrant he relieves all sorts of conceivable semantic tricks to transvesty reality and attempt to pass for a victim. Seeing is believing. Muammar el-Qaddafi vows to protect his people against the foreign invader when in fact it is about protecting the very people from the aggression of the tyrant. The crasser is the lie the more likely it is to pass through as true. And it would be a mistake to trifle with it because although the colonel’s propaganda is particularly rough and fallacious, his misinformation affects those whom such propaganda is flattering given their self-interest or ideological reasons. Such as in the case of some countries, headed by China (whom Muammar el-Qaddafi has promised concessions in the Libyan oil if they look the other way – thus allowing him to get out of trouble), as in the case of other regimes - Arab or not - who have no desire for the UN interfering in their affairs to ensure compliance or not with human rights in their respective countries.

But there is a category even more revolting: that of narrow-minded and dumb ideologists  for which any intervention involving Western countries is imperialist by nature. These zealous advocates suffer from true migraines because if, by any chance, Westerners were not a horde of unkind and greedy people, then the imposture  would not fit into their lowbrow straitjacket. It has to be particularly indigestible for them to witness how Western and Arab countries assume jointly undeniable risks to save Libyan rebels – including those who are shouting “Allahu Akbar “. The more if you believe upside down in the war of civilizations and that you deem the intervention hides, as usual, other unlawful and guilt-producing interests.

What then is the alternative to doing nothing?
Muammar el-Qaddafi counts on that – unfortunately widespread – ominous approach. That’s why it is essential to avoid falling into the trap by describing this coalition as a typical western one and try on the contrary to associate the largest possible number of Arab countries. It was not easy to reach an agreement and this alliance will not last long, we know that. As soon as the first air strikes took place, the secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, started disassociating oneself. In fact, this former Mubarak minister, greeted by some Egyptians for his hostility to Israel and his support to the revolution, has just one thing in mind: to become the next president of Egypt. And in this case, Mr. Amr Moussa wanted to bet on all winning horses to seduce western countries by giving support to the resolution draft, but without having to accommodate and assume the consequences in the eyes of the Arab citizens in general and in Egyptians’  in particular. The dude in fact bet on Russian and Chinese veto power. But it was not so. Hence his current confusion and hardship, especially having regard to the Egyptian people sensitivity, whose solidarity with the suffering of the Libyan people is more than obvious. The opportunism of Mr. Amr Moussa is currently blamed by Egyptians: he wanted to flatter the people and adulate their demons. He got the wrong war and marched out of step as Libya’s events have nothing to do with the war in Iraq: rebels yell in Benghazi without blushing: “Merci la France, Thak U America” (which for sure would not last long, we know that): indeed, many who now criticize the military intervention would make a great fuss if the United Nations had been passive not facing the massacres of Muammar el-Qaddafi. If the UN would have done so, now Benghazi would have fallen into the hands of the tyrant, the people would have been crushed and probably the Arab spring would have come to an end.

 

While we wait for history to judge the decision of the Security Council words place themselves as judges.

The war in Libya is not virtual but very real. Then the outcome depends a lot on the war of words. Prudence dictates to wait for a positive outcome (with a free Libya at the end of the tunnel) or else a disastrous issue (with a Colonel Gaddafi stronger and more upset than ever) for the decision of the Security Council of UN to be judged in the light of history … And while we wait for the history words set themselves up as judges, words used to judge what is happening in Libya.

The purpose of resolution 1973 of the Security Council was to protect the Libyan people against the tyrant, but as this reality bothers the tyrant he relieves all sorts of conceivable semantic tricks to transvesting reality and attempt to pass for a victim. Seeing is believing. Colonel Gaddafi vows to protect his people against the foreign invader when in fact it is about protecting the very people from the aggression of the tyrant. The crasser is the lie the more likely it is to pass through as true. And it would be a mistake to trifle with it because although the colonel’s propaganda is particularly rough and fallacious, his misinformation affects those whom such propaganda is flattering given their self-interest or ideological reasons. Such as in the case of some countries, headed by China (whom Gaddafi has promised concessions in the Libyan oil if they look the other way – thus allowing him to get out of trouble), as is the case of other regimes - Arab or otherwise - who have no desire for the UN interfering in their affairs to ensure compliance or not tof human rights in their respective countries.

But there is a category even more awful: the narrow-minded and dumb ideologues for which any intervention involving Western countries is imperialist by nature. They suffer from true migraines because the opposing would not fit into their intellectual straitjacket. It should be particularly indigestible for them seeing how Western and Arab countries assume jointly undeniable risks to save Libyan rebels – including those who are shouting “Allahu Akbar “. Even more if one believes in the war of civilizations upside down and says that the intervention hides other unlawful interests.

What then is the alternative to doing nothing?
And the colonel Qaddafi counts on that – unfortunately widespread – ominous approach. That’s why it is essential to avoid falling into the trap by describing this coalition as western one and try on the contrary to associate the largest possible number of Arab countries. It was not easy to reach an agreement and this alliance will not last long, we know that. As soon as the first air strikes took place, the secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, started disassociating oneself. In fact, this former Mubarak minister, greeted by some Egyptians for his hostility to Israel and his support to the revolution, has just one thing in mind: to become the next president of Egypt. And in this case, Mr. Amr Moussa wanted to bet on all winning horses to seduce western countries by giving support to the resolution draft, but without having to accommodate and assume the consequences in the eyes of the Arab citizen in general and Egyptians in particular. The dude in fact bet on Russian and Chinese veto power. But it was not so. Hence his current confusion and hardship, especially having regard to the Egyptian people sensitivity, whose solidarity with the suffering of the Libyan people is more than obvious. The opportunism of Mr. Amr Moussa is currently blamed by Egyptians: he wanted to flatter the people and adulate their demons. He got the wrong war and marched out of step as Libya’s events have nothing to do with the war in Iraq: rebels yell in Benghazi without blushing: “Merci la France, Merci l’Amérique “ (which not last long, we know that): indeed, many who now criticize the military intervention would make a great fuss if the United Nations had been passive not facing the massacres of Gaddafi. At present Benghazi would have fallen into the hands of the tyrant, the people would have been crushed and probably the Arab spring would have come to an end.

France follows a xenophobic logic against Illegal Roma

President Sarkozy has ordered a concentrated effort on illegal camps, calling them a source of trafficking and prostitution.

President Sarkozy has ordered the expulsion of illegal Roma and itinerant immigrants and the dismantlement of their camps in a move that has been labeled by human rights groups as xenophobic and criticized both by his political opponents and even in his own party.

In a meeting late July. Sarkozy ordered the eviction of Roma, with generational roots in Romania and Bulgaria, who had committed public-order offenses and said that illegal camps would be taken down. Legislation would be introduced before the end of the year to facilitate the process “for reasons of public order.”

As a result, Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux said over the next three months he would use decrees to dismantle about 300 illegal camps, of which 200 belong to Roma. These camps are the source of “illicit trafficking, children exploited for begging, prostitution or delinquency,” he said.

Those in France illegally or who have committed public-order offenses will be sent “almost immediately” back to their countries of origin without the possibility of returning, The use of digital fingerprinting technology to ensure this end will be deployed.

He said the government was not stigmatizing the Roma, also referred to as Gypsies, but rather responding to concerns about public safety.

The move follows several recent incidents that have alarmed the population about public security.

In July, there was rioting in a suburb of Grenoble, in southeastern France, after the death of a local man as he fled the police, allegedly after holding up a casino. There was also violence in the small town of Saint-Aignan, in the Loire Valley, after Roma attacked a police station following an incident in which a gendarme shot and killed a traveler who had driven through a checkpoint. As interior minister under President Jacques Chirac,. Sarkozy had a reputation for talking and acting tough against delinquency. In 2005, as he sought to counter an explosion of youth violence in the suburbs, Mr. Sarkozy fueled anger by referring to the culture of “racaille,” a derogatory term variously translated into English as “scum,” “thugs,” “rabble,” “scoundrels,” “lowlife” and “riffraff.”

President N. Sarkozy

The IFHR (International Federation of Human Rights), said the steps would “reinforce negative repressive measures.” The government is “mixing up the situation of the European Roma with the travelers who have French nationality” and, “as a result of a few cases, developing the idea that there is an ethnic solution to the problem of delinquency.”

Amnesty International estimates that there are 400,000 itinerants or travelers with French nationality, and 20,000 Roma, in the country. They are mainly more recent immigrants with roots in Central and Eastern Europe.

The crackdown on travelers is not in itself new. Since last year, a number of camps have been dismantled. In October 2009, 200 to 300 Roma were expelled by riot police officers from their camp north of Paris on the orders of a judge. The interior minister, said 9,875 Romanian and Bulgarian Roma were expelled from France last year.

Communes with more than 5,000 inhabitants are obliged by law to set aside areas for travelers. According to Amnesty International, fewer than half of them actually do so. As a result, many travelers set up illegal camps, usually on top dirty or waste land on the suburbs of towns. Such camps are a common sight in small towns in the Paris region and beyond.

According to advocacy groups, many legitimate travelers already suffered discrimination before this latest crackdown, for example regularly having to present themselves at police stations, facing steps to deny them their voting rights and having difficultly educating their children.

Compounding the sense of discrimination, representatives of French Roma said that they were not invited to the presidential meeting in July.

Throughout Europe, Roma were persecuted by the Nazis during World War II, with many rounded up and sent to concentration camps. 200,000 were killed in this way; some estimates are many times higher.

Romania has an estimated one million Roma, the most of any other European country.

Bulgaria and Romania joined the European Union in 2007, ensuring free movement of people. But citizens from Bulgaria and Romania are subject to transitional provisions in France, requiring them to obtain a permit in order to work in certain professions.

Roma Camps Dismantled

More than 40 illegal Roma camps around the country have been dismantled in the past two weeks, Interior Minister Hortefeux said Thursday 12th. He said that 700 residents of the camps would be returned to Bulgaria and Romania. His announcement coincided with the expulsion of Roma, also known as Gypsies, from a camp in Choisy-le-Roi, outside Paris.

UN Body Raises Rights Issues

A United Nations human rights body strongly criticized France this week, denouncing what it deemed a marked growth in racism and xenophobia. Meeting with French representatives on last week, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, based in Geneva, expressed particular concern over a government-led “debate on the national identity,” Sarkozy’s proposal to withdraw citizenship from certain foreign-born criminals, and a recent decision to dismantle 300 unauthorized Roma encampments. “It’s time you made your dreams of equality and fraternity a reality,” said the committee’s vice chairman, Pierre-Richard Prosper, Le Monde reported. On Thursday, Pierre Lellouche, French minister for European affairs, said the government’s actions were meant to guarantee the “first of human rights, which is the right to safety.”

Other related posts: The Debate on French National Identity, an off-topic nationalist manipulation.

Do not let a crazy driver pushing the button

Administration to propose and implement tax on large banks to target risk-taking.

>> Click here for the French version

French Parliament voted last October an outweigh tax on bank profits …

An amusing story: conservative deputy Jean-Francois Lamour, a former Olympic fencing champion, said he pushed the “wrong button” by voting in favor of the Super 10% tax on bank profits.

And if Mr. Lamour had committed a slip? If he had, somehow, despite himself, voted the outstanding contribution of banks in the state budget?

And why would he do?

Because there’s obviously something wrong. We are facing a big crisis, the biggest since 1929. A crisis even stronger than in 1973  — when one could say whether it was the fault of bad luck, or because oil price was increasing over and over again, or because of geopolitics …

But this time this is different. The present crisis is the responsibility of banks. Millions of people lost their jobs, thousands of businesses were destroyed, other than the banks who still earn profits! Worse, they have returned to their speculation business. The next crisis is on the way already, before our eyes.

This situation reminds me that of a crazy driver, who cause a huge accident, would not pay … and would recover the next day to ride at breakneck speed!

How to avoid further accidents?

The real solution would be to remove driver’s licenses to mad traders, or remove vehicles too dangerous from circuit, that is to say, the financial products that cause disasters.

But as it is complicated, administrations might require banks to pay a share of state expenses – as states must spend more on unemployment and welfare as a result of banks’ behavior.

This is what the Belgian Government — in shock by the collapse of Fortis Bank — achieved when it taxed banks for € 500 million per year. € 500 million is roughly the same as what would bring the French super-tax.

In the US as well, Ben Bernanke wants to tax banks further. In the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown also intends to involve the banks — as it had been done before him (oh surprise) by the very liberal and very anti-tax Margaret Thatcher in 1981 on the way to reduce her budget deficit, very affected by the 1979 downturn.

€ 500 million is too much? No, just extremely insignificant to BNP Paribas who paid late 2009 € 1 billion in bonuses to its traders. For Société Générale, we talked about € 2 billion, € 7 billion for Santander and HSBC … I do not say it because I am in shame …

French conservative MP Jean-Francois Cope said contrite in opposition to the super-tax: “We are in an upturn, we will not tax the banks when they are better. “

France is Living a Conservative Revolution

Conservative Morals in the country of human rights
Paid holidays, May 68, abortion rights, PACS (1) … social progress in France was plentiful in the 20th century and this country has long been a leader in Europe. Today this no longer seems to be the case. In its place, family, work, authority and pride of being French values are currently intensifying. So therefore, some point the finger at a come back to traditional fractures, particularly since the coming to power of Nicolas Sarkozy. What is it really? Does France going through a conservative revolution? Overview on topics discussed in public opinion.

When gay marriage?
Ten years after coming into force of PACS, marriage gateway to homosexual couples is still in discussion in public opinion — while five European countries have already approved it (Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway and Sweden). Mayor of Montpellier Mrs. Hélène Mandroux, launched a formal appeal in favor of gay marriage for the sake of “equal rights”. She has received support from several mayors, such as Pierre Cohen (Toulouse), Bertrand Delanoë (Paris) or Martine Aubry (Lille). Cécile Duflot on behalf of the Greens and Marie-George Buffet on behalf of the Communist Party have also rallied to the cause.

Adoption, always restrained.
If nine European countries now allow it, France still refuses to allow adoption by homosexual couples. Law is very restrictive: in order to adopt you must be either married or unmarried heterosexual and in fact the preferred profile is a couple married under 40, childless, and with a comfortable financial position. The Court of Besancon has ordered, however, the General Council of Jura region to issue an approval for adoption to Mrs Emmanuelle B., a homosexual teacher who fought for this for over ten years. France has in fact been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008 for sex discrimination. Do we head towards an adoption gap to homosexuals? Nothing is less certain, government has just  reaffirm its opposition to any change in the law.

A very restrictive law on assisted reproduction.
Medically assisted procreation (PMA), relating to all the techniques (artificial insemination, fertilization in vitro…) designed to help unfertile couples to conceive outside the natural union and obtain a successful pregnancy, is extremely restrained in France. It is reserved to heterosexual couples only, married or not. France is one of the most restrictive in this area: Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom allow it for homosexual couples and single women; these countries also provide PMA forensics, i.e. after the death of the companion who has previously done frozen semen and given his consent. Is this a sign of real ethical concerns or a certain conservatism of morals?

Surrogate mothers have no legal existence in France.
Surrogate motherhood is still banned in France. As a result, every year between 300 and 400 infertile couples go abroad, in countries where it is permitted to apply for a surrogate angel. But children born of this practice have no civil status in France … The Mennesson couple, whose twin girls were carried by a Californian woman in 2000 and who still do not have a civil status in France, are moving their fight from the field of media to the political field. Attitudes begin to evolve already: according to a recent survey, 65% of French would think positively on it; and the Senate had even suggested it in a report issued in 2008. Will surrogates then soon be recognized in France? Wait and see… revision of the laws of bioethics in 2010 for an early response.

Legalization of cannabis far from the agenda.
Daniel Vaillant, socialist MP and former Minister of Interior, has just reopened the controversy on the legalization of cannabis — saying he supports it. He suggests a control of production and import to reduce consumption, as currently done with alcohol. President Sarkozy’s UMP ruling party, immediately retorted saying the proposal was “totally unacceptable”. Currently the French law is one of the strictest in Europe since it not only proscribes production and selling of cannabis. It also punishes personal consumption even for soft drugs. If legalization issue is regularly on public debate, it seems that we are still far from a legal endorsement.

Elected representatives, fully representative of the people?
MP Representatives and senators elected by the people are representatives thereof… Do they? In fact, they are sometimes far from resembling the citizens who elected them… Thus, if French population counts on 52% women, the National Assembly (House of Representatives) only trusts 18.2% of them – putting France on the 62nd in the world rankings, just after Venezuela and Nicaragua; almost the same percentage of women in Parliament than Sudan (18.1%), while women’s status is extremely different!

And France does not differ either on the social origin background of MPs … While employees and workers represent more than half the working population, only 1% of representatives come from their ranks.

Women and the glass ceiling (2)
In general, women are underrepresented in all the dominant positions both in companies as in public life (they occupy only 15 % of senior management positions in the civil service). It is customary to say that they are trapped under a glass ceiling that prevents them from reaching the summit. They are also victims of various inequalities at work: all work time together, they earn average 27% less than men. And they suffer extra part-time occupation, more than their male colleagues: 8.6% compared to 2.4% of men.

Immigrants and discrimination.
French of foreign extraction keep on facing discrimination in hiring. Thus, on average and equal skills, a French applicant with a French name (and surname) has 1.5 to 3 times more interview proposals than a French-Moroccan.
Unemployment affects much more foreign than French: on average, over one-fifth of the active EU non-nationals were unemployed in 2007, compared to 8 % for the workforce as a whole and to 7.5 % of French.
High Authority against Discrimination and for Equality (HALDE), annually receives thousands of complaints about it.

____________
(1) The Pacte Civil de Solidarité (PACS) is a legal alternative to marriage, a civil union which gives ‘pacser’ couples many of the same legal rights of a traditionally married couple.
(2) i.e. gender gap

The debate on French national identity: an off-topic nationalist manipulation

>> Cliquez ici pour la version française

Who does not perceive that the French government, especially the president and his namesake minister on ‘organized evictions’, is engaged in a great manipulation!

Pétain and Hitler meet at Montoire

First recovering (recovering trends and recuperating far-right voters, this is not brand new), then diverting classic emotions through woolly smoker screen approaches, in the absence of the real deal with economic and social problems (crisis, employment deficit, housing, etc..), instead of facing — together with national representants — local and international challenges of all kinds.

No surprise, of course, we never expected anything from them. Not to speak of those — the government and other relatives — who condone the worst. But the opposition Socialists? Opposed so little that they endorse this false debate, a shameful nationalist manoeuvre, symptom of an opportunist and reactionary policy, rather than strengthen Europe and think and act more internationally yet. French leaders not only go on sinking at high speed into the economic wall but they mostly precipitate the disastrous consequences by a nationalist suicidal policy –worthy of their own incompetence. Promising tomorrows, even if we yet know the song.

By dint of whipping the undocumented, this eternally frustrated France is questioning itself whether it is in order too, and probing if it is able therefore to exhibit the evidence of its identity. M. Sarkozy, have you ever heard of egotism, this narcissistic tendency to be analyzed and to talk about oneself? (Unless you think you are God’s gift to mankind…)

Being myself son and grand-son of Spaniards, I can say that this debate makes me want to vomit because with such approaches, this dear country sinks deeper into the darkest mess conservatism.

The US economic revival just (provisionally) around the corner

>> Haga clic aquí para la versión en castellano

The US economy yesterday offered a robust data that, at least temporarily, allowed closing the world’s largest economic downturn since the Second World War.

Budget deficits, 2001-2010, by EU region · Déficit presupuestario 2001-2010 por región UE (Source: Ronan Lyons Economic Analysis, Oct. 16, 2009)

American GDP growth in the third quarter was 3.5% after four consecutive quarters’ drops. The positive data was expected by analysts, but the strength of the US economy stunned – and pleased – the world stock markets and particularly the Dow Jones index, which rose above 2%. The turnaround from the Q2 (-0.4%) suggests that the incentive plans of the U.S. government, an interest rate of 0% practice, the takeoff of the upturn in private consumption and housing are sufficiently solids to undertake corrections in a few months which would put the economy outside the ICU. If so, we would not be far from a very modest increase in interest rates by the Federal Reserve, an assessment that, sooner or later, should be followed by the European Central Bank, especially if consolidating the growth in Germany and France. In the case of Spain, data also released yesterday show the fifth consecutive quarter of economic decline, although it is true that the deterioration has been moderating in the last three quarters we have moved from -1.9% (Q1) and -1.1% (Q2) to -0.4% in Q3. We are, according to the Bank of Spain, in an “incipient recovery” that entails a great deal of risks: the worst unemployment rates, intolerably increasing next to18.2%, deficit escalating close to 10% of GDP and an upward  lack of credit to businesses and individuals.According to the latest figures in relation to countries under the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP) of the European Commission, the general government deficit of the euro area lay at 6.1% of GDP in 2009.As a result, the EU-15 public debt the will increase as of 69.3% GDP in 2008 to 78.4% in 2009. By 2010, however, it is expected to further increase on average 6.6% of GDP.At disaggregated level, most euro area countries in 2009 recorded a deficit exceeding the 3% of GDP, while all euro zone countries will infringe the maximum allowable deficit in 2010, according to latest IMF estimates.

Thus deficit cuts jump out over 0.5% per year, mostly in countries with higher deficits.

And what are these countries? Ireland, Greece and Spain showed the highest euro area’s gap budget, both in 2009 and 2010. In particular, Ireland’s public deficit will reach a rate close to 13% of GDP, according to recent estimates. Greece exceeds 12%, while Spain recorded a deficit of 9.5%, along with the IMF.

In 2010, these three countries will continue to be leaders in fiscal imbalance: Ireland (13.3%), Spain (12.5%), while Greece will approach 10%, given its public accounts inaccuracy, only just admonished by the Eurogroup Chairman Jean-Claude Juncker.

A pedagogy on carbon tax

Carbon tax on the way back to Welfare Economics

>> Haga clic aquí para la versión en Castellano

>> Click here to translate this page to French

Designing a tax for everything that contaminates incites people to preserve environment, the atmosphere in particular, which is in serious danger. The idea is to penalize polluting energy in transport, housing and personal consumption. Every time we consume less fuel but this is not enough to achieve the goals set at the last conference on climate change: hence the idea to programme a compulsory tax (to be paid per tonne of fossil fuel issued). This in order that the world decrease to half the emissions of greenhouse gas (2050) and limit Earth warming to 2 degrees – which causes climate change.

Global warming due to greenhouse gases from the combustion of carbon dioxide is 49,000 million tons of CO2 emissions. Enough is enough, this must be punishable. Its effects could lead to an overall increase of 3% of the temperature within approximately 100 years. The cost of global warming is estimated at 5,500,000 million (Nicholas Stern) [1]. While the concept of a tax on CO2 emissions comes from Arthur Pigou (Economics of Welfare) [2] who, in 1920, first established the polluter pays principle.

Now …

• Should we tax the product itself or the energy consumed?
• What about taxing imported products?
• How do we avoid the risks of inequality?
• What can we do with the tax revenue?

The solutions adopted by each country are different.
France, with about 50,000 million of environmental taxation laid up, shows a certain delay. The structure of French environmental taxation is so unwise by voluntarism emphasis that it will not generate benefits in the sense of net contribution or revenue – but only more taxes on water, on garbage, on the consumption of hydrocarbons (TIPP) which are not reversed in any improvements (infrastructure, citizen responsibilization); on the contrary, it is the umpteenth patch covering the phenomenal public deficit hole. The pedagogy turns into a demagogic fatalistic verbiage as to mislead the common man – because it ignores the virtues of consensus that in all the surrounding countries is originated in the parliamentary debate, which is where popular sovereignty revives up and where such taxation should be decided, not in the halls of the presidential palace – a very usual symptom in the French Republic whose skin politicians refuse to change. These rates represent 3% of GDP … thrown away. Unless considering France as the cleanest country in Europe thanks to its huge nuclear program, which on the contrary converts this country in less safe by the obvious potential for nuclear incidents due to its atomic central park and may involve in quantity of radioactive wastes concerned – the highest per capita in the world. The rhetoric continues, forward flight, too. The only positive point is that hydroelectricity accounts for 93% of energy resources … with the aggravated disadvantage that the driving force’s the nuclear cell. Who do we kidding? If the decrease in CO2 emissions must involve the breakneck growth of the nuclear beast, then where do we go? Stripped from one mouth to feed another.

Moreover, the tax on CO2 emissions in a country is not really quantifiable to impact CO2 emissions at the global level. Global policies are needed to internalize environmental costs and act on the behaviour of firms and households. That is the healthier principle. France is wrong in the way of carrying it out: confusion over the extent rate itself (cheerfully going from 20 to 32 for up to 100 euros / TN emitted by 2030, then left who can say where?) over the exemptions, over its operation. The increased cost of living is set: estimated at 10% the additional costs of household heating in French homes by 2010, from 5 to 10 cts. for a liter of fuel at the pump now. Another consequence is that the tax, as is, will ruin the remaining local industry (current bleeding is the largest ever seen in France) and as usual,  only a few (large) groups will afford to face such additional costs in the midst of an industrial desert. Who will invest in a country that overtaxes 100 euros each emitted CO2 TN? As for the wicked 35h law, nor study or reflection has been implemented and no effort tryed to coordinate with other European countries. The devil is in the details, French say …

The topic of compensation is often talked about, but what about inequality between consumers? What to do with the € 8,000 million that the government is supposed to enter through the concept (e.g. fatten the coffers of the ministry of finance)?

Swedish pedagogy against French demagogy
Other countries as Sweden have also established a carbon tax, even more substantial, but with a very different modus operandi: e.g. Swedish tax implies a graduated scale for companies that invest more in technological innovation to improve production processes in CO2 emission – now that is pedagogy. It’s bad times in terms of economic crisis situation but action is credible in Sweden and demagogic in France where nobody knows whether the tax will be redistributed or yet another ‘neutral’ tax – that is, outside of Pigouvian incitement, which has the favour of Prime Minister Fillon.
Because the environment policy can not be summarized to raise the level of taxation or implementing new taxes, unless you’re old tricks again and increase unemployment and public debt. Two years back here it was the bonus / malus tax on car CO2 emissions (an onerous  marketing device that ruined much of the automotive industry, with a fall of 40% of French production, forcing car manufacturers to abandon the profitable manufacture of sedans to engage in small cars’ on which the profit margin is zero or nearly zero), last year was the tax on diapers for newborns turn, this year it is the time of a tax on CO2 emissions … a joke (or better yet, a shortsighted policy).
The temptation to tax the super profits of the oil industry (Ségolène Royal) would only have negative repercussions in the pocket of the consumers. Better a tax that changes that behaviour and not simply going to fatten the coffers of the state and its lifestyle. Report and well communicate with citizen, having a little patience not changing everything at a stroke or by decree.
Taxation reforms are essential throughout our countries. We talk about tax incentive and not subsidies e.g. car industries so that they manufacture a kind of cars that they would have made anyway. Let’s face green taxes; it is just and necessary, but mostly to help us getting out from the unending virtual crisis of rampant capitalism, far from the real economy. No green custom duties at European borders, a trend advocated by some, in their eagerness, to lead us into a new protectionism; but rather concentrating on comprehensive policies, at least in Europe, better globally. It is useless to establish national policies not coordinated with the rest of countries, giving way to protectionist policies more or less latent: have a look on the global trade drop of 12%, if you want to add more crisis to crisis just add the perversion of protectionism to all the difficulties we face today. The environment is a global public good. To be honest we do not know how to deal with externalities steadily i.e. when China or Brazil pollute, they do not so in their respective territories only but in the entire world. Enforcing tariffs however is theoretically a nice building, but in practice it is just about regression. Also do not forget that China’s censure is unfair: the PRC is making genuine efforts to drastically reduce pollution in its industries – and it still does not occur in most of developed countries.

One of the biggest questions is to identify what the US attitude will be. So far the US had no concern on the Kyoto Protocol; the position is changing but it all depends on the type of changes that comes about there. Scenarios abroad are in my opinion: the role of the G20, the Doha WTO round re-launch and the climate meeting in Copenhagen. All three turn around the same concern: the need for global economic governance to meet challenges.

Pedagogy missing in the US and UK.
The increasing size of speculative capital flows, mainly in US and UK, is the pending business. I mean speculative capitals and hot money outflows are bigger now than a year ago – in the worst moment of financial-mortgage crisis. Hot money is tossed into the emerging economies as the first symptom relief crops up. Thus, the central bank of China is increasingly doomed to buy huge reserves to support a sick dollar (thus some $ 70,000 million per month, are beyond the circuit of productive investments in order to prevent the US currency to collapse again), deflecting precisely investment in productive economy. That is, in essence, we have not yet altered the global imbalances, and even we are somewhat higher than before the crisis. The issue of executive bonuses and allowances is less significant than the required dismantling of the opacity in the banking investment -something impossible in the most key European financial center, the City of London, since the future PM Cameron opposes to it. This, in US terms, is yet unimaginable. So far the best indicators of the City and NY – queues at the best restaurants – behave well as table reservations vary from 2 to 3 months … bonuses, windfalls, luxury cars, stratospheric contracts are just around the corner again. To pin a button: flows exchanged in the derivatives markets reached a record of vertigo – almost 10 times world’s GDP. So how can David control Goliath?

To be continued …

.

[1]  The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is a report on the impact of climate change and global warming on the world economy. Written by economist Sir Nicholas Stern, commissioned by the UK government, the report was published in October 2006. The report represents a milestone by becoming the first government report commissioned by an economist rather than a climatologist.

[2] Arthur Pigou is considered the founder of welfare economics and the main precursor of the environmental movement to make the distinction between social and private marginal expenses and advocate for state intervention through subsidies and taxes to correct market failures and internalize externalities. Welfare Economics is his most emblematic book.

Roman Polanski Revisited

Why talent is not above justice.

The French-Polish filmmaker was arrested in Switzerland upon a US request due to a sex scandal back in the late 70s.

The legal issue on the case.- Roman Polanski was arrested under an international warrant of arrest issued by a US court. Many international conventions, bilateral or multilateral on judicial cooperation, get involved to require the execution of the warrant by the requested State. These agreements are not signed with any state: e.g. France has no extradition treaty with Iran or North Korea. In this occasion, we witness the execution of the extradition treaty between the United States and the Swiss Confederation, signed in Washington on November 14, 1990 (pdf here).

The warrant is notified to the country’s authorities where the person comes into (if he is registered in the international database of Interpol). When a person comes to the border the police check on the base. If the answer is positive, the person must be arrested, police officers have no choice. In all Western legal systems the warrant leads to provisionally incarceration, typically a few days, the time for authorities to notify the warrant to the individual, so he is able to identify who ordered his arrest and why. This is crucial for the rights of defense and the non-compliance with this condition leads to prisoner’s immediate release. The detainee has right to a counsel (i.e. a lawyer). He is then presented to a judge who will ask him if he agrees to be returned to the requesting state. If he refuses, the judge decides on possible release supervision – and he can appeal the warrant of arrest.

Finally, there is a fundamental principle: a State never extradites its nationals. This is contrary to the protection it owes to its citizens. That does not mean they are immune from prosecution in their home state. And I think it necessary to add that no law or international convention provides immunity for artists, Oscar-winning or not.

Mr. Polanski is French and Polish. He is the target of an international warrant of arrest issued by a Californian court of justice for an issue dating back to 1977. At that time he had sex with a minor aged 13 after making her drink alcohol and consume drugs. Mr. Polanski presumption of innocence did expire as soon as the illusions of this girl broke down – since Roman Polanski admitted facts by pleading guilty. In the legal sense, Roman Polanski guiltiness is no longer on discussion. After a few days in jail, Mr. Polanski was released in hold of the sentence hearing. He took the opportunity to clear out LA and has carefully avoided the U.S. for thirty years. Initially, the indictment contained five charges, including rape . Following an agreement with prosecutors – as California law allows it – Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to a single chief of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” (i.e. child sexual abuse, California Penal Code Section 261.5.), offense punishable by 4 years.

The warrant seeks to summon for sentencing – hence the appearance of the convicted person is required in California law. The victim has been formerly compensated and she withdrew her complaint. This was probably part of the agreement with the prosecution (the victim is not party to the criminal trial in American law). This does not preclude further prosecution. While he resided in France, Mr. Polanski was confident: France does not extradite its nationals. And he could not be prosecuted in France, although being French national, as the facts have already been tried in the United States. This is the rule non bis in idem (no matter can be judged twice).

Vanity catch out our filmmaker: he was invited to Switzerland to receive a reward for all his career, and then he came visit the pleasant federal confederation. Fatality: at the airport, when checking the passport, custom bell gave a loud ‘bang-bang’:  “Mmm, this man is the subject of an international warrant of arrest issued in 2005″ thinks the policeman. “Mr.Polanski is not Swiss,so he can be stopped”… and here he tasted the wet straw of Helvetian dungeons, where he is in individual cells, confined 23 hours a day. Does it shock you? Please take note that prisoners in France are treated the same way in jail, except that in addition, they are in an overcrowded cell.

Finally, I found two shocking things in the barrage from the artists’ world.

Notwithstanding Mr. Polanski has long suffered throughout his life – an unhappy childhood in the Cracow ghetto; then as an orphan whose parents were deported and killed by Nazis; the awful murder of his wife, actress Sharon Tate, by Manson’s sect – this does not grant him a leeway to commit a crime and escape the law. One’s to bear in mind that this is a crime. It is a matter of rape in the person of a minor.

I find it shameful to hear artists – who a few weeks ago vowed to pillory French downloaders (Hadopi law on censorship over Internet) and approved the repressive legislation against constitutional rights to punish the illegal downloading of their works – make now a fuss when it is one of them whom the law applies in its entire rigor. When you know that a lot of downloaders are in the 13, we draw the impression that minors are good for their eyes only to spit their pocket money and serve as sex objects. As if their image needed it. And after that, we treat judges as corporatist.

It makes my blood boil when I hear the French minister of culture Mitterrand  pointing “the America that fears.” Oh, how we know America badly. Tocqueville had already identified 170 years ago, the passion for equality in this country. It has not changed. It is inconceivable there to treat an individual differently because he belongs to aristocracy, even THE artistic aristocracy. Even if it permanently weakened the executive, ten years ago, America has seriously considered the possibility of overthrowing the President because he lied under oath before a Grand Jury.

A justice that does not spare the powerful and those protected by the powerful? I understand now why a minister of the French Republic – a republic who has carefully put his president and his ministers safe from justice – finds that America is frightening.

French Police to Turn into an Occupation Army

Does the French police behave like an occupation army in the suburbs?

In 2005, just after the urban riots while he was head of the Ethics and Human Rights in Geneva police, a Swiss policeman spent several weeks in a police station located in the ‘93’, the Seine-Saint-Denis county (northern suburbs of Paris, «the most violent county» in France in words of Le Temps, from Geneva; not too far from truth). He looked over the French police and came to the conclusion that it was «an army of occupation. »

Yves Patrick Delachaux, turned into a novelist and screenwriter today, just wrote «Grave Panique» (Severe Panic) to put in picture his experience. The title was found one night when a patrol cop from the anti-criminal brigade was about to run over an old lady while he was driving too quickly and he exclaimed: «Je l’ai grave paniquée la mémé» («I’ve seriously terrified the granny. »)

His book speaks volumes about the state of strain existing between young people and police in the French suburbs, says Sylvain Besson, Le Temps correspondent in Paris. As well as the – now admitted without having to spell things out – complete failure of the policy implemented by Nicolas Sarkozy since his arrival at the Ministry of Interior (Home Office) in 2002.

On the ground, the healing is still far. Two days after his meeting on the theme «learning to live together» between youth and police, the Interior Minister, Brice Hortefeux, filed a complaint for defamation against two young people who accused police of having hit a pizza deliveryman last August 9, in Bagnolet, in the neighborhoods of Paris. Aged 18, he died trying to escape a police check control when he drove a cross motorcycle – prohibited on public roads. In the suburbs, the dialogue of the deaf between youth and police continue to kill.

Yves Patrick Delachaux understood the problem at the first glance at the police station:

«A square blockhouse, everything is barricaded, wired. It is an occupation army. [...] An atmosphere of barracks, toil, suffering, says the Swiss policeman. We feel that it weighs on their shoulders.»

Policemen hide their function. No sooner have they arrived, than they just call for transfer elsewhere, and they never dwell in Seine-Saint-Denis itself. Delachaux declares that policemen reported him that saying hello to a group of young people means « go in search of clash», in the words of French policemen:

« The Swiss request to see the 4000 City of La Courneuve, become legendary since Nicolas Sarkozy proclaimed he wanted to flush out and get rid of all the trash in the suburbs with a Kärcher [1]. On the way ahead, the tension goes up: it is said to be aware of objects launched from the rooftops, to be ready to call for help … Coming out of their car, policemen deploy themselves in skirmish, ‘as in Afghanistan’. »

When meeting a group of young people of African origin, the atmosphere is icy. Not a word, just dreadful looks. At back of the pack, Yves Patrick Delachaux launches a loud «hello» to the teenagers, which does not receive any reply. Back in the car, the blame rains from policemen: «Never redo it. You’re going to confrontation! »

The culprits in this system are not the policemen themselves, but «the immense organizational immaturity» of a structure where «all the weight and responsibility are placed on 22 years old guys», entangled in a policy of figures imposed by the government (The more they arrest, the better for the government).

The sad thing about this is that this doesn’t happen in France only (a country that proudly proclaims itself «homeland of human rights»). The welcome of customs police in many US airports is really humiliating – I would almost say violent. Not to mention the treatment given to Mexican «wetbacks». Or the discretionary raids by the Spanish police in Basque households.

[Read the full article on LeTemps.ch] in French only.

Related Posts:

Amnesty International reports the impunity of the French police
The road to nowhere

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[1] Kärcher is a well-known German cleaning machine using high pressure water. A Kärcher cleaner is therefore supposed to be powerful for removing dirt. This is quite the reason of the controversy, as Mr. Sarkozy compared some young people to dirt.

In France, debt and loans, as usual

In late June 2009, before the French Parliament convened in Congress at Versailles, President Nicolas Sarkozy announced the launch of a government bond issue aimed at individuals and not just at banks. It was “intended for finance investment for future”.

President Sarkozy's take office in May 2007

Here are my personal views on borrowing through French records.

Revenue, resources and bond issues

Initially, it sounds appropriate to consider the key differences between “revenue” and “resources” for a private company or a State, as well:

• The “revenue” is the annual turnover achieved by a company or the overall taxes collected by a state, from which “expenses” or “charges” are deduced to calculate the yearly profits or the balance due, if that event.

• The “resources” are made up of new loans and profits (if positive); they ensure financing the company or State needs, i.e. the refund of loan encountered, investments… and the potential deficit.

This recall of vocabulary may well figure out some evidence often mishandled by a regularly empty and specious political rhetoric:

1. A sound financial management should start from the deficit. Deficit comes from too low revenue or too high expenses, in order to deduct the amount of resources to find with the view to finance this deficit and to meet other needs. Doing otherwise, ie fixing the deficit depending on resources that could be gathered, is a rash fool policy!
2. If the financial markets have enough capacity to lend resources to the company or the State, there is no need to have a bond debt directly from individuals –which is always done in costlier conditions: individuals expect an interest rate higher than which is offered by banks (or they look ahead for a tax benefit). Alternatively, placing the bond debt with hundreds of thousands of people is inevitably more expensive than with a few dozen banks.

It may be decided –for purely reasons of corporate communication or political view– to borrow a modest annual funding requirement from individuals, although it is far more expensive. For instance, Electricité de France-EDF –a public energy supply company– borrowed €2 billion from the French individuals on a yearly overall bond debt of € 10bn roughly. And the State, through the voice of the president himself, plans to borrow round about € 10bn from individuals on an annual basis program loan of € 150bn…140 of which are made by markets, which could easily go up to 150.

Time is gone since the financial markets did not have enough capacity to accommodate the needs of some important EDF or public bonds in the 1980s: the Lepercq’s loans during the post-war years, the Pinay’s in 1958 or Giscard’s in 1965 then in 1973 could still appear justified. On the contrary, the Balladur bond debt in 1993 was no longer acceptable and that of Sarkozy in 2009 will not either: their sole function is political, in spite of the extra financial cost.

Claiming that such borrowing “brings new revenue to invest” [1] is a nonsense: we merely substitute an expensive outline of financing by another costlier. If by this we mean that the state will increase its capital spending proportionately to the amount of resources provided by this particular loan, we have to admit that the State has decided to increase the budget deficit as much –which points to an inveterate laxity again.

Finally, the insistence that the resources of this bond debt will only finance “productive” expenses is simply childish: the remaining loans will finance more widely the unproductive expenses –as it is true how money is “fungible.” Both in private companies as in the state budget, the pre-allocation of resources is a figment of mind.

Rigor, laissez-faire and Euro

After recovering from the late 1990s, which enabled France to qualify for the Euro, the period 2002-2008 has witnessed a creeping deterioration of the fiscal deficit and external accounts, which in total is equivalent to that of early years of François Mitterrand in 1981-1982. Although any turnaround plan equivalent to that of 1983 has come back on course, while public debt has doubled since then and despite the defiant words required in this regard on the campaign trail …

The truth of the matter is that, first, the external obligations linked to the risk of French franc crisis disappeared with the creation of the Euro. Conversely, the French government refused the forced substitution of “Maastricht criteria” (the deficit accounts should not exceed 3% of GDP) as evidenced by the constant postponement of the date of return to balance (in 2010, then 2012, then 2015…) –more often than not since the election of President Sarkozy in 2007…

In 1983, by denouncing the policy of restraint, the Communists and some Socialists in the movement of Jean-Pierre Chevènement, elaborated a scholarly quibbling about the difference between the “chosen” (or “virtuous”) deficit, which “prepares the future” by the investment, and “suffered” deficit that would increase the debt [1].

The same retractions are now ran again in President Nicolas Sarkozy’s preach and his finance minister Christine Lagarde, in an attempt to evade European strain of returning to financial balance by making a scholarly distinction between structural, crisis and activity support deficits.

These quibbles were no more selected in 1983 by the fiscal authorities (President François Mitterrand and his Finance Minister Jacques Delors) than they are today by European leaders, responsible for the accuracy of fiscal policies of each State acceding to the Euro. At the most, the neo-lax of 2009 will try to delay a little the maturity date of austerity policy –such as lax did in 1982 when they delayed it a year. Even though it is pleasant, in the meantime, to spot their discourse converging with those of former radicals as Marchais, Chevènement and so…

The financial reality will retrieve its rights within a year or two –let nature reclaim! Then the economic recovery will allow European authorities to require a reorganization of the French management of public finances. As a result, France would then be punished by an increase of 3 percentage points of VAT orthrough the social tax called CSG. As Germany did in 2005, when its situation deteriorated as that of France, a situation that led Chancellor Schroeder to take corrective measures (that French President Chirac had refused to endorse). Predictable in the short term, this increase would also bridge the gap of current € 30 billion in Social Security; whose mere existence, next to deficit of state budget, should be an intolerable scandal for those who have campaign saying that the debt was unsustainable, and its transfer to future generations unjustifiable.

The future government bond is a substitution “resource”, an undeniably ordinary one. As it does not represent a new “revenue”, which can only come from taxes that will inevitably join to cost savings in order to balance the public budget in the mid term.

French version over here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1] Nicolas Sarkozy veut rassembler autour de l’emprunt, Le Monde, 23 June 2009

Bongo Kicks the Bucket: Calm, Luxury and Consternation

President Omar Bongo of Gabon died  on Monday in a  a hospital in Barcelona, Spain, where he was reportedly being treated for cancer. He was 73.

The man was endowed with a prodigious memory, a real political intelligence and cynicism enough to ensure him the necessary longevity to become a true dictator. He has hold forty-one years.

With Bongo, Gabon turned into a strategic oil emirate for France and a stalwart heavyweight pillar of the “Franceafrique“. So, when crude prices quadrupled in 1973, Omar Bongo converted to both Islam and finance.
Money flowed like water. He had therefore the intelligence to protect the money of unhealthy lusts  by diversifying his investments. That is, putting the money aside, I mean at HIS side.

In 1975, he founded three banks:
* The Bank of Gabon and Luxembourg (BGL) in Libreville
* The International Bank (Siba) in Luxembourg
* The French Intercontinental Bank (Fiba) in Paris, the largest one.

The latter will be THE Bongo’s bank and will be chaired by one of his trusted men, Pierre Houdray, until 2000.

Let us continue…

The Head of State had a personal account and a sub-account in which his stepfather, Congolese President Denis Sassou Nguesso, had a proxy. Those accounts were fueled by (partly public) ELF French oil company by at least $40 million per year. FIBA served as a nest egg to the clan of Libreville: family, relatives, counselors and so.

This opulence is reflected in the Bongo’s real estate assets. For several years, NGOs Sherpa and Transparency International lead a court battle against the money diversion by African heads of state.They had inventoried these dictators’ “ill-gotten gains”, including their real estate in Ile-de-France (Paris region). The President of Gabon and his family figure prominently.

But the Fiba is also the tank which Omar Bongo draws from to “help” his french political friends. The ritual is immutable: when he stops in Paris, at the  Hotel Meurice, it is compulsoty to seek an audience and get the approval from the boss. A phone call to Pierre Houdray and the case is resolved.

Afterwards, one just need to report to headquarters, (avenue Georges-V in Paris) to take delivery of the grant, in cash. Bongo has actively supported Gircard d’Estaign and Jacques Chirac in the 70s, but François Mitterrand’s election in 1981, as well.

According to the men of Elf, including Andre Tarallo, the “Mr. Africa” of ELF Group, all political parties have benefited from this assistance (you know… France & Gabon, brothers in arms), with the exception of the far right National Front.

During the 90s, the proliferation of laws on the financing of political life, the system becomes more complex. More opaque too, using the resources of many tax havens (Liechtenstein, the Caribbean, Bank of New York …) which earned him the wrath of money laundering committee  from the US Congress.

The engineers of power will also be advised to take care of the ethnic balance within the country. For the time being, his family, including his children Ali and Pascaline (candidates for the succession), stand ready to defend the heritage (there’s a big money involved), even at the cost of a war of succession.

Concerns, as in old families plenty of secrets, are left to heirs. Hence, Pascaline’s Missi Dominici would be better-advised to turn into philosophers. (Ali, Pascaline, you must also be aware of the harassment and intimidation that threaten those Gabonese who dare to oppose the corrupt practices encountered there. You know of course that the massive misappropriations of state revenues contribute towards impoverishing the citizens of Gabon and prevent the emergence of normal democratic institutions.)

And Mr Sarkozy would also be well advised not to forget that “the worries of Gabon are also those of France.” Same old stuff…

Constitutional Court knocks down Hadopi

The French law that allows disconnecting Internet-users has crashed against the Constitutional Court today at 18.00. The highest authority on constitutional law condemned late this evening the controversial legislation passed a month ago by the parliament on the grounds that “internet is a component of freedom of expression and consumption” in the Declaration of Human Rights, and that justice is the only who can punish illegal downloads -not an Administrative  authority.

The European Parliament provided the same evidence, by approving an amendment that rejected an administrative authority who could decide, as provided by law now condemned, to  punish users. The text, approved with the objections of the Socialists, allowed an administrative authority so called Hadopi, order off recidivists for a period ranging from three months to one year.

It’s been a great blow to president Sarkozy. The Constitutional Court verdict means a severe blow to Nicolas Sarkozy, who defend the project tooth and nail to make it a personal matter. The law also has earned the support of a majority of artists.

The Government, which must comply with the ruling, argues that when establishing an administrative authority its target was not to overburden the courts. Immediately this evening, the French minister of culture, Mrs Christine Albanel, has just reiterated her desire to push the project even if the Government has to reform a so basic issue as the way to apply the sanction.

In short, this is the first time in many years, that the highest court setbacks so harshly the government in France. Specifically, the high court has made clear that the government has not respected the right to three fundamental principles: the trias politica separation of powers, the presumption of innocence and the freedom of internet access. It seems that Mr Sarkozy’s Government forgot that these are -and still remain- general principles of law.

And whether some like it or not, Montesquieu’s tripartite system is the model for the governance of democratic states.

Related Posts:
· Hadopi Law to Constitutional Court
· European Parliament Gives Support to Internet Freedom

The American vs. French economy

A lot of people on the far left are quite happy claiming that American-style capitalism has failed. They miss out a few facts. First, this is just the flip side of the business cycle. The American economy will be back to normal before you know it. Second, it was a quasi-governmental agency, the Federal Reserve, that is primarily responsible for the housing bubble, and thus the housing bankruptcy. Third, even in this downturn Europe’s economy is doing worse than America’s.

The benefit of the American economic system is that it produces greater economic growth (and thus greater overall wealth) in the long run, but in return you get greater economic disparity.

In the video, she claims that “the American way makes everyone better off.” This overstates the case. The American way makes most people better off. In general, Americans are better off in the middle and top of the economic and social scale, but worse off at the bottom.

I predict however that when all is said and done, and we look at the performance of the French and US economies from, say, 1970-2020, the French will trounce the Americans. The US economy right now is a total sham, and it’s in for a massive depression. While we’ll no doubt drag the rest of the world down temporarily, the issues in the US are structural, and will take a very long time to resolve. Frankly, we’ve yet to even acknowledge what those issues are, much less craft solutions.

France -and Europe to a large extent-  is certainly not without its problems, but unlike the US, it does have a solid industrial base; sound, productive, high-tech, high-value industrial firms; an intelligent, well-educated workforce possessing a wide range of skill-sets; much lower dead-weight in terms of military spending and the cost burdens of an overseas empire; and an assertive, socially-aware working class which makes the ruling class continually justify their position by demanding positive social outcomes.

But France has a severe fondness to decline. And if reforms are required, they are not necessary because of a supposed French lack of adaptation to globalization, but because it is mandatory that their leaders reconsider their abusive lifestyle and the incompetence that follows (from both right and left wings). It was often claimed that social protection was mainly responsible for the endemic unbalanced financial situation, as if social care was a scapegoat. The way political leaders communicate the deficit is used on a regular basis for the purpose of political marketing and in fact it subsidizes further deficits, i.e. at the present time 9 billion deficit, including 5 billion from government vs. social care admin. Is this the only government public spending? Also you never talk about Europe financing and its Mexican army of civil servants, and so …

One wonders if it is not time to leave the ship, because the captain is crazy!

The current recession in context

In France, the ultra-pessimistic are frequently claiming that another Great Depression is right here. Many of the most pessimistic economic commentators have happily been comparing the current recession to the Great Depression. To give readers a sense of how not awful the current recession is, here is the decline in GDP of several major recessions vs. the Great Depression:

By dint of comparing the current recession to the early 1980s recession (1981-1982), I come to the conclusion that the early 1980s recession was worse. The graph above makes the current glance worse. Though, the graph above seems to be a peak-to-trough measurement. The early 1980s recession was the fourth in a series of recessions in which the unemployment rate didn’t fully recover before the next recession hit, resulting in a peak unemployment rate that was significantly higher than the current unemployment rate. (And before the conspiracy theorists out there claim we can’t compare the current unemployment numbers to those of previous decades, you’re wrong.)

So to speak, it seems very probable that the recession in progress will be the longest lasting since the Great Depression. Even supposing the current recession seems to be at the end, the unemployment rate may very likely achieve the second highest level since 1948, and could maybe go higher than that of 1982. It would definitely be the worst recession since the Great Depression —But it would be a far from what our grandparents and great-grandparents experienced during the 1930s.

So to speak, it seems very probable that the recession in progress will be the longest lasting since the Great Depression. Even supposing the current recession seems to be at its end, the unemployment rate may very likely achieve the second highest level since 1948, and could maybe go higher than that of 1993. It would definitely be the worst recession since the Great Depression —But it would be a far from what our grandparents and great-grandparents experienced during the 1930s.

Please note that in economics, the term recession generally describes the reduction of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) for at least 2 quarters. The usual dictionary definition is “a period of reduced economic activity”, a business cycle contraction.

Article in French can be read over there

Sarkozy’s Basket

… or the French way against economic commonplace topics

French investments might have seemed like a dreadful idea for the first two years of French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s term. After his election in May 2007, Sarkozy looked like a huge disappointment – unless you really enjoy tabloid stories. He divorced his wife, married the dramatically old fashioned ex-model Carla Bruni, and went on an enviable honeymoon in Egypt – but appeared to do nothing useful about France’s economic problems.

But now there’s some good news for French investments. As many good Frenchmen, Sarkozy might prefer first to concentrate on his private life when elected President. Once his private life is now complete, he’s been able to spare some time for France’s economic problems. And the results for France’s future economic performance and French investments are quite positive.

First, Sarkozy got rid of the 35-hour week. This economy destroying measure, by which companies were forced to set up a maximum 35 hour workweek, was brought in by Lionel Jospin, Premier Socialist in 2000, and has embedded itself throughout the French economy, increasing labour costs, dropping productivity and damaging French investments. Removing it will not make much difference for big business – as one union leader said “nobody wants to renegotiate the 35 hours and reopen Pandora’s box,” but it will make a huge difference for medium-sized and smaller businesses, which will be able to match their workforce with the demands of their business, without being forced to get into the rigid models by the state.

Sarkozy has also passed reforms freeing up France’s retail sector to increased competition with longer operating hours, tighter regulation of unemployment benefits, and autonomy for firms to negotiate directly with employees rather than deal with a union.

In addition to these economic reforms, Sarkozy has pushed through constitutional reforms, limiting the president to two five-year terms and giving the legislature more power to introduce legislation. That is not the big reform formerly announced, but just a first step in the way for.

The remarkable feature of Sarkozy’s split of reformism is that the French unions have been unable to connect and rely with the streets of Paris with major demonstrations, as they had done to stand several previous bursts of reformism in the last decade. A Day of Action protest in 19 March had only half the expected audience and the May nationwide strike had only 4% support. Point barre, end of discussion.

But Sarkozy’s tactic has been to move forward with reforms on several fronts at once; this seems to have worked during 2007, and Sarkozy’s opinion poll numbers have recovered from lows hit till late autumn of 2008, when the financial breakdown started. Yet, it is true that his attractiveness has endured since, similar to several of his colleagues in the European neighbourhoods.

Facts and figures to Sarkozy’s advantage

The benefits of these reforms will be seen most clearly in France’s next period of economic expansion, which may not be immediate because of the general global slowdown. France’s gross domestic product [GDP] is expected to decrease by 0.7% in 2009, according to the Economist, a bit better as the average for the 15-nation Eurozone as a whole.

On the bright side, inflation is expected to be only -3.2%, below the Eurozone expected average and well below U.S. inflation rates. The balance of payments deficit is only 1.6% of GDP, well below both the United States and Britain, in spite of the current high valuation of the euro. Euro short-term interest rates are currently 3.55%, above France’s inflation level, and French long-term government bonds yield 2.8%, well above inflation, so there is no danger of an inflationary spiral. A deflationary situation is yet possible in early autumn 2009,

French economy handicaps

It is a mandatory to get out the French companies off public handouts: a sort of usual public allowances run between companies, authentic availability of free / cheap working force, trainees and complete dependant underdogs, lack of competition in many sectors, lack of penalties for corporate officers, abusive tax exemptions / reductions, volunteer lack of judges at labour assessment and safety inspectors. The french are among those of the OECD who work most for a grotesque wage related to the cost of living. It is most necessary to get effective control over the business and tax them only on their real add value and their employment rate. It is time enough of all these banks, estate agent or other telephone vendors that serve no purpose except to increase inflation and delay the French competitiveness. Investing in university research and development instead of distorting the economic market by offering it to a band of idle heirs.
Also, get out of the dichotomy between a left which would defend assistantship (giving out benefits) and a right who supposedly takes on all of the hard work.

Guru of protectionism Emmanuel Todd urge us to protect and survive

(Translated from my French blog  “Résident de la République” )

The financial crisis is convulsing politics in unexpected ways. The triumph of an inexperienced black liberal senator in the US presidential election may yet be counted as the first surprise of many. What else could be in store?

Emmanuel Todd, the French historian, made a name for himself by predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union. He has been canvassing into his crystal ball again. In his latest book, Après la démocratie (After Democracy), he brings to mind the alarming possibility of a post-democratic Europe reverting to ethnic disasters and dictatorship.

The author’s starting point is incredulity that a politician as “vacuous, violent and vulgar” as Nicolas Sarkozy could ever have been elected president. As interior minister, Mr. Sarkozy proved he was ill-suited to high office by inflaming social tensions during the riots in France’s troubled suburbs, Mr. Todd argues. Mr. Sarkozy’s first months in power have only confirmed this judgment. As incompetent in economics as in diplomacy, the hyperactive Mr Sarkozy is going nowhere fast, the author contends, rather like a cyclist pedalling away on an exercise bike.

Yet Mr. Sarkozy’s election is a symptom of the sickness of French democracy rather than its cause. Once, French politics was neatly defined by its ideological divisions: the Communists represented the secular, internationalist, working class; the Gaullists represented nationalist, conservative, Catholic values. But the collapse of religion and ideology has destroyed that framework, leaving behind a politically atomized society wide open to manipulation by the likes of Mr. Sarkozy or Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. Tough economic times will only tempt such populist politicians to stoke public fears of immigration and to adopt ever more authoritarian ways.

However, the author is equally scathing about France’s opposition Socialists, a party of cosseted bureaucrats who have betrayed the workers they once represented. French civil servants do not have to worry about the corrosive effects of globalization because their own jobs cannot be sent offshore.

Mr. Todd paints a picture of a collusive political-media elite that benefits from globalization while being disconnected from the people who suffer from it. As arrogant as the aristocracy on the eve of the 1789 revolution, this elite blithely ignores the views of voters whenever it suits them. French voters rejected the European Union’s constitutional treaty, but a modified version was later adopted by parliament. Britain’s voters protested massively against the war in Iraq, but the government sent in the troops regardless.

Ordinary workers blame cheap-wage China for killing jobs and compressing wages. Instead, France’s leaders scapegoat Muslim immigrants and target militant Islam, justifying an unpopular intervention in Afghanistan. Employees want Europe to protect their jobs but, in spite of his increasingly protectionist rhetoric, Mr. Sarkozy – and the opposition Socialist party – still adhere to the free-trade dictates of the EU and the World Trade Organization.

In Mr. Todd’s reductionist view, globalization is simply the exploitation of cheap workers in China and India by US, European and Japanese companies. He is therefore an unabashed champion of European protectionism. Erecting trade barriers would increase European wages which, in turn, would increase demand and boost trade, he argues. The “social asphyxia” that is sucking the breath out of democracy would disappear.

The British, whose very identity is wrapped up in free trade, will never buy protectionism, Mr. Todd suggests, but Germany and the rest of the EU could be persuaded.

At times, Mr. Todd’s anger outstrips his analysis. Too many questions are left hanging. Does globalization not benefit western consumers? Why would Germany, one of the great exporting nations, turn its back on free trade? Has Mr. Sarkozy not performed well in the crisis? But there is no doubt that the intellectual assault on free trade is intensifying. Mr. Todd’s book is a passionate assault in that war of ideas!

A tip: Do not run to buy it at the bookstore. Although some assumptions are attractive at first sight, the overall analysis, on an anthropological and demographic basis (Emmanuel Todd’s “primary business”), confines often to correlations too hastily constructed and argued quickly. Todd’s argument boiled down to something like: After democracy = “After sarkozysm” too simplistic to my liking. If you are interested in the future of democracy, rather try Wendy Brown, professor of political science at the University of Berkeley (Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics Out of Politics and History). This time, the analysis is all the more exciting and not a French framed one. Of course, keep in mind Colin Crouch’s classic Postdemocracy.

Related Posts: “After Democracy,” Emmanuel Todd: French Society in Crisis.

Hadopi Law to Constitutional Court

Tuesday 19 May, French Socialist MEPs have lodged an appeal to the Constitutional Court, aimed to annul the Hadopi law against illegal downloading  –adopted 13 May.

Most of Communists and Green party have given support to the appeal. In a long argument, published by Les Echos website, the opposition representatives point out eleven points they consider unconstitutional.

Three main points were raised by the MPs opposed to the Hadopi law during the Parliament debates and they appear on the appeal:xxxxxxx

• “The introduction of a presumption of guilt” and “a serious infringement to the respect for defense rights and the right to an effective review on appeal” as well: In case of dispute the law provides that it is the user’s duty to prove his innocence revealing that he has ensured all necessary measures to secure his connection, i.e. installing security software agreed by the Government. MEPs consider these measures are contrary to Article 9 of the Statement of human rights and citizen, who defines the presumption of innocence.

• The “vague and blurred nature of the breach instituted by law”: Hadopi does not punish the downloading as such, but the “lack of security of Internet access”. Any line holder may be punished, even if he is not downloading himself,  but a third party (as a relative, or sb else who uses his wireless network without his knowledge). Too vague, say MPs Socialists, whom the text does not follow the Constitutional Court caselaw. The latter pointed out that the lawmaker should define very clearly the deficiencies established by law, in order to “exclude arbitrariness in sentencing.”

• The “double punishment” jeopardy and the “disproportionate punishment”: Having sent a first warning by e-mail, then a second by registered letter, Hadopi may sentence the holder with 1 year of Internet access suspension. However, the user must keep on paying his subscription while the suspension length runs, and may also be subject to criminal prosecution. Socialist MEPs consider that it hold concurrently “an administrative sanction of financial nature and a criminal punishment”, in violation of the Constitutional Court legal precedents.

Without commenting on the overall points on appeal, the conservative UMP spokesman Frédéric Lefebvre -a shy Hadopi promotor-, said that “the arts and creative world will judge the Socialists harmful intent to damage this protective text (…), whereas we show our determination to defend a lower VAT on CDs and DVDs, along the lines of what we obtained for food industry”.  The Constitutional Court now has a month to decide. Veredict expected on 19 June.

Myths (and old habits) die hard

Opening Beast is the president Sarkozy’s natural penchant to embezzle leading figures from the French left-wing opponent ranks. Once he has cut back Bayrou’s centre-left of significant figures, Sarkozy’s Opening Beast is hungry over again.

Mr Sarkozy’s know how.
The Beast asks now on a regular basis, to be fueled by a few shovelful of Socialist coal. For the reason that, once former socialist officers (i.e. current ministers Besson and Bockel), become more right-wing than the UMP(*) entire section of the very chic 16^th district in Paris, the effect inevitably blurs.
But Opening Beast can not eat whatever she wants. It is imperative that the fruit is ripe. An unripe candidate or a hopelessly idle applicant or a fossil in search of ego. Preferably in the banks of the Socialist party, if possible quite desperate by the inertia of this party, but not quite disgusted by PS infighting. A bit young still to be distressed by the biological clock that runs on top of politicians (the pendulum of Jacques Brel, “saying yes, saying no”, “qui dit oui, qui dit non”). Or finally, when the president’s biological clock stops on you because you are considered a thinking headlight (otherwise look at 70 years foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, 70 former culture minister Jack Lang, or the closely to become minister ,72, Claude Allègre).
These characters are much useful for the war machine of French state capitalism. This very mildly euphemism is usual in French journalist language, a sort of cache-sex for the ambitious Colbertian elites –the right-thinking and old fashioned establishment of this Bonapartist Republic (ah! state interventionism, this very French obsession appreciated by both right and left camps). From former PM Laurent Fabius till present’s Fillon –not to mention Chirac, Balladur, and… Jospin of course!– they all dreamed of and managed interventionism to point the country towards modernization and industrial technology (another favourite subject among our elites, the so called coherence of the empty shell syndrome, in other words the ego-trip speech, with no other goal but to last in time.)
But the very mission of Sarkozy’s Opening Beast is to increase the PS depression through feeding the impression of brain drain, whereas stimulating media debate by the use of President’s grand gesture (coups d’éclat), i.e. escaping forward. So he occupies the breathing space with iconoclast announcements –pretending break taboos and making speak journalists. The height of vanity.
All this allows the current French elites (that is, the 50-70 years old) to occupy the espace and permanently prevent the coming of new and younger recruits (30-45 years), so as to renovate the leadership. French youth is increasingly unmotivated because they are set aside from prebendas and other allowances or, on the contrary, highly active and getting around the antisystem opportunist tactics (a somewhat exclusive phenomenon to French culture). Potage is set and diner is ready for extremes (including FN-extreme right and NPA-extreme left). But not only.
A struggle underlies between generational change-over advocates and determinist statu quo supporters. What about the low opinion the baby boom generation have on young people? These oldies, are, even to this day, in power or close to retirement –they were blessed by gods, greedy, passing through wars, grew up in economic growth, borrowing in times of high inflation, found love in full sexual liberation before AIDS, profited from the huge influx of modern comfort (as Boris Vian sang in “La Complainte du progress”) and what is more, the pampered generation arrive now at retirement at a time when there are still good retirement funds. For the first time, their children would be entitled to return to their parents and show them the state of the planet and other misdemeanours and then to tell them, talking from the future: “when I was young, I wouldn’t have certainly all the facilities you have gathered”.
In France, everyone is scared by youth. But the older ones are the most fearful. As middle-aged bourgeois were frightened by the plebs from suburbs, this fear translates into a distance – i.e., the shameful youth unemployment rates in the French workplace, the willingness in replacing the judge for children with a juvenile justice as if the childhood or adolescence were an administrative status to be monitored, instead of a vulnerability period to be protected.
Facing the common excesses of youth, we no longer say “youth must have its swing”. We no longer look at with benevolence because fear dominates and the images disturb –recurring violent events take us back to suburbs reality and schools annoyance. I recommend review the film by Yves Robert, War of the Buttons (“La guerre des boutons”), shot in 1961: two bands of kids from two villages are fighting, harassed, smoking, drinking alcohol, beat their prisoners from the adversary band. Lebrac, the hero, is a rebel gang leader. Bertrand Rothé (**), a teacher in Sarcelles, Paris suburbs, focussed on the War of the Buttons, has just drawn up a novel where he renders all the petty crime, small fights, even immorality exposed in the film to present times. Therefore, he brings them to our time, just to show up. And that is certainly enlightening: the repressive machine, its files and controls, would led Lebrac in detention these days, in 2009, before he could come of age.

(*) Presidential party, formerly Gaullist-conservative
(**) “Lebrac, trois mois de prison”, Bertrand Rothé. Editions du Seuil

The road to nowhere

Seen this morning at the railway station from where I live (15 km far from Paris), while I accompanied my stepson. Seven police officers were posted in a rather narrow underground tunnel, the strangling narrow effect was achieved indeed, and curiously only the black and Arab citizens were the object of their solicitude. Officers were looking for illegal immigrants obviously, since no caucasian was controled. Three more hidden agents were on plant at a corner staircase which goes up towards the quay. With a unique purpose: to catch those who could escape, those who could pass across the fishnet.
Isn’t it violent? Mostly for these frightened foreign citizens. For any sensitive man as well.
Where is the civil society in France? Where are their opinion leaders to get French citizenship onto the realization of the necessary awareness?
I fear that Halil comments below are quite accurate, the French revolution ideals are at a deadlock, in a road to nowhere.

Amnesty International reports the impunity of the French police

“Unlawful killings, beatings, racist abuses and the excessive use of force on behalf of police officers are prohibited by international law. But in France they seldom make the object of efficient investigations and their authors are not driven in front of justice “. These are the conclusions displayed in a report introduced on Thursday by Amnesty International. This situation had as result an “unacceptable de facto impunity “, according to David Diaz-Jogeix, the manager of program for Europe and Central Asia.
AI assures of an increasing tendency to the fact that the victims or the witnesses of these police ill-treatments should end up being charged with defamation or insulting a police officer. “The huge majority of complaints come from citizen immigrants or foreigners “. “Internal disciplinary investigations are not independent or impartial, meaning the odds are stacked against complainants” as well.

According to informations got from  French authorities  – and that the organization qualifies as “incomplete ” since French government did not facilitate further accurate data—   only 16 out of 663 cases arising from complaints in 2006, got responsible dismissal. In 2005, the ratio was 8 out of 639.
Most cases are “frequently closed without investigation”. Emphasize is made to enhance the French citizenship to recover confidence on police officers. Prior to that, French authorities have to put an end to this impunity.

“After Democracy,” Emmanuel Todd: French Society in Crisis

I have just read the book. And it is a rather surprisingly pessimistic  –and surprisingly (to my mind) reactionary–   assessment of the state of politics and society in Europe.  In particular, Todd apparently emphasizes the socially stabilizing value of religion and calls for protectionist trade barriers.

Democracy is on the road to ruin. Religious values (Christianity, Communism …) have collapsed. Free-marketism and its corollary, globalization, are slowly destroying society. And to make matters worse, the French have elected as their leader a president who is “incapable of exercising power”. A man who, once in power, immediately aligned himself with the United States, like “a rat rushing to scurry onto a sinking ship”.

That, in a few words, is the thesis of this fulgent, fulsome, and flat-footed book, as Emmanuel Todd was caught flat-footed by the financial crisis that would “re-presidentialize” Nicolas Sarkozy. Nor did he predict that the “Bushist America” he curses would elect Barack Obama.

At once independent-minded and upset (emporté), Emmanuel Todd is not any more lenient towards the Socialists. He accuses the Socialist Party (PS) of having betrayed the values of the left by converting to capitalism. In Ségolène Royal’s popularity he discerns signs of “rot [décomposition]” in the politic body. And he blames “cynical careerism” for the promotion of the Socialist Pascal Lamy to the head of the World Trade Organization as well as that of Dominique Strauss-Kahn as director of the International Monetary Fund.

This is a point to which he comes back often: the Socialist elites are of the same ilk as Nicolas Sarkozy. Historian, demographer and sociologist, he sees in their patent complicity the explanation for the ideological void that France has sunk into. With “a rise in the power of antidemocratic forces” as the consequence.

The exploration of this ideological void is at the heart of his exposition. The crumbling away of the great religious faiths, explains Emmanuel Todd, aggravates the decline of politics. But this decline is also due to a rise in the level of knowledge — a disturbing statement for those who believe that education automatically improves democracy. That was true yesterday. But times change. The increasing number of graduates with higher levels of education, notes Emmanuel Todd, has reshuffled the deck by creating a category of individuals impervious “to the strong affiliations that used to structure the nation, the public, the social domain”.

Add to this gloomy picture the temptation to fill the religious and ideological void he denounces with calls to reclaim identity: the castigation of Islam, the creation of a ministry of national identity, the “ethnicization” of a national myth… One begins to understand why this book is titled After Democracy.

Which democracy is supposedly at risk of disappearing. Emmanuel Todd does not rule out a “coup d’Etat”, the temptation to which he perceives in Henri Guaino, Nicolas Sarkozy’s special counsel. Similarly, he suspects the Socialists of wanting to “withdraw the right to vote from the people, or to at least to seriously limit its practice”.

At times one wonders if he is joking, but he is not the type. Emmanuel Todd is convinced that the free market and globalization, considered by France’s elite to be a foregone conclusion, have disintegrated French democracy.

The solution flows from the source: abandon globalization and institute a salvational protectionism at the borders of Europe. Thanks to such a reasoned protectionism, French wages, pulled down to the bottom by Chinese workers, will rise again. National cohesion will come out of it re-strengthened. And democracy —at last! — will find its colors again.

Sprinkled with cutting judgments, this exposition often vacillates between essay and satirical tract, in the process losing its force. Above all, Emmanuel Todd is too presumptuous. If the solutions that he argues for were the panacea, we would follow them without hesitation. Unfortunately…

Related Posts: Guru of protectionism Emmanuel Todd urge us to protect and survive.