- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
French courts have been imposing disproportionately severe sentences for minor offenses, including 10 months in prison for stealing a can of Red Bull and one year for a homeless boy with schizophrenia caught looting a luxury store. The overwhelmed courts rush cases, provide minimal time for defendants, and prioritize punishment under the instruction of the Justice Minister. Furthermore, the French government is censoring social media and justifying it by claiming to protect public order, but it infringes upon free speech and mirrors tactics used by authoritarian regimes. The justice system exhibits a double standard, favoring the privileged, and creates a class divide, leading to unrest. Ironically, the government compares itself to oppressive nations while undermining democratic principles.
The other thing that has become completely discarded in the narrative is the fact that this instability began with Macron’s antidemocratic cram-through of laws dismantling France’s social state.
His increase of the retirement age from 62 to 64, bringing it more in line with its EU neighbors (though still below all but two of them)? France’s constitutional court had no problem with it. A bill to repeal the reform was proposed but failed to pass when a majority of representatives voted against it. This doesn’t seem terribly anti-democratic to me.
Note also that this retirement age increase wasn’t done for no reason. The pension system is suffering from more expenses and less revenue as the demographics of France tilt more toward the elderly. This was done to keep the pension system as a whole in the black.
In Spain the right wing is floating the idea of increasing retirement age from 67 to… 72 or 74.
Basically a “retire never” situation.
The democratic way would have been to submit the bill to increase the retirement age to vote. It wasn’t voted. It was imposed.
The bill to repeal the reform wasn’t passed not because representatives voted against it. That’s not how it works. It didn’t pass because it didn’t gain enough votes. Because you would HAVE to vote AGAINST the assembly, which is not the same as voting against a law.
Then again, it wasn’t done to keep the pension system as a whole. It was done to alleviate corporate social funding. The pension system wasn’t lacking.
Sorry for the lack of sources, I’m on mobile. If you want them I can search for them.