Roger-Luc Chayer (Photo: Ian Langsdon / AFP via Getty Images)
Marine Le Pen, leader of the opposition in the French National Assembly under the banner of the National Rally, is going to prison. Or almost: she will have to remain confined at home for two years with an electronic ankle bracelet, followed by an additional probation period. But the most serious thing for her is that the judgment renders her ineligible for any election for five years. A thunderclap in French politics, as she was the favorite to win the 2027 presidential election.
The National Rally is somewhat the French version of the American Republican Party on steroids — a kind of MAGA French style, with a very similar program regarding immigration, public services, and LGBTQ+ rights, including same-sex marriage. For our communities, her rise to power would represent an existential threat, much like what is happening in the United States, although on a slightly smaller scale for now.
So, why is Marine Le Pen condemned while Donald Trump remains free?
The facts leading to the condemnation of these two political figures are different, but it is especially in the way their accusations and trials have been handled that the difference becomes glaring.
According to AFP, the court sentenced Mrs. Le Pen to a five-year ineligibility penalty with immediate effect and to a four-year prison sentence, two of which are to be served under electronic bracelet surveillance.
The court estimated the total damage at 2.9 million euros (about 4.5 million CAD), with the RN Members of the European Parliament having made the European Parliament pay for people who were actually working for the far-right party.
The independence of the courts in France is a sacred principle. After being accused of a fraudulent crime, Marine Le Pen was judged like any other citizen. The court, considering that her candidacy for the next presidential election posed a serious risk, decided to strike where it would hurt the most: by banning her from running.
One can certainly debate the severity of the judgment, but one cannot say that it lacks consistency. The decision is directly linked to her political activities. It’s a bit like if a pedophile were banned from approaching a primary school — a measure of common sense, logical and proportionate to the risk. The same logic applies to Marine.
Why wasn’t this logic applied to Donald Trump?
Donald Trump has been involved in a slew of civil and criminal trials. Unlike France, where the justice system follows the principle of judicial continuity — limiting appeals to very specific points of a judgment — the American system allows for an almost unlimited number of appeals, even on seemingly insignificant details. Trump has therefore used every possible means to appeal everything… and its opposite, flooding the courts with cross-referenced requests to the point that an actuary would be needed to count them all.
American courts were so slow to act against Donald Trump because the U.S. judicial system allows for numerous appeals, delays, and objections at every stage. Trump used these tools to slow down the proceedings. Furthermore, judges must strictly respect the rights of the accused, especially in such sensitive cases. Since Trump is a major political figure, every decision must be carefully weighed to avoid the appearance of an unfair or partisan trial. This caution, combined with the complexity of his cases, has contributed to significantly lengthening judicial delays in his case.
The justice system has given birth to a dictator
In a matter of months, we have been confronted with two examples of judicial systems with diametrically opposed results. The severity of the courts in France prevented the possible election of a despot, while the laxity and extreme caution in the United States contributed to the election of a dictator who is currently shaking up the current world order.
Humanity will pay the price, because while with Trump, it is just the beginning, with Marine, it is the end!
PUBLICITY
