blog: madic50.blogspot.com / Book: The
Two forms, ed. Amazon
Paris, Wednesday, February 6, 2019
CONTRIBUTION (5) TO THE NATIONAL DEBATE
WISHED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC IN 2019. INGALITY IN FRENCH
LAW ACCORDING TO THEIR CLASS AND THEIR ORIGIN (Continuation of
reflection n ° 27 of 1st February 2019, see: madic50)
The article presented by Le Canard
Enchaîné, January 30, 2019, p. 5, "Long live the well-bred and
stirring couple! Brings up some questions about the unfairness of
justice according to the social and original status of the
plaintiffs.
Part 1: Two social categories of
complainants
1) - The facts
By order of 20 January 2016, the Mayor
of Rueil-Malmaison forbids singing, playing music, throwing reef,
displaying "flags, banners, posters or signs (...) on squares
and adjacent streets" .
On 29 August 2016, 18-year-old Clément
Baillon, apparently a resident of the town, a student at Sciences-po,
lodged a complaint alleging that the decree enacted "general and
absolute prohibitions".
Eight days later, the Mayor, Patrick
Ollier, reconfigures the decree and restricts the prohibition of
music and reis to the only space "inside the Town Hall".
He maintains the prohibition to park on
the adjoining square for the bridal processions.
On January 24, 2019, the Court of
Cergy-Pontoise:
1- Restrict the decree to the only
"good behavior of the public" in the salons of the Town
Hall. 2- On the grounds that the municipality has in no way
demonstrated "the existence of disturbances to public order".
3- Condemns the municipality to pay 210
euros in legal costs incurred by the plaintiff.
2) - Inequality in justice
A- The facts
a- On January 21, 2014, Marc Salomone
filed a complaint for the alleged spoliation of the disabled in Paris
by the Mayor directed by Mr. Delanoe for the benefit of the
construction of a Muslim religious group.
b- On 21 January 2015, the public
prosecutor asks the Judicial Police to hear the complainant.
c- Since then, nothing.
d- It is well known that the religious
complex was built in violation of the 1905 law and that the disabled
never found their funds.
B- Inequality in law
The judicial differences between Mr.
Baillon and Mr. Salomone are multiple:
1- Social quality
a- The first complainant is a retired
worker.
b- The second is a student at
Sciences-po. it belongs virtually to the same ruling castes of the
state as the magistrates.
2- Reports to institutions
a- The worker
aa- In the case of the handicapped, it
is possible that the public prosecutor asked for this summons only to
have a report on the beast. To know if this troublemaker was alone or
accompanied.
ab- As in 2015, Mr. Salomone asked by
fax the Directorate of the Judicial Police for news of the outcome of
the investigation; he received on the telephone, from the inspector
concerned, an injunction not to intervene.
ab- A worker complains about racist
anti-French device in the activities of a state-subsidized NGO and
delegate of a public service,
The first judicial act is to dismiss
the day of receipt of the complaint.
The second act is to bury the call.
This is the same obstruction for
complaints of rapes committed by private and public cadres against
workers and for acts of torture committed by authorities with a view
to withdrawing complaints on this subject.
b- The Sciences-po
He files a complaint on a complex
political subject.
He refuses the evolution of the decree
proposed by the Mayor.
He obtains the judgment, the victory,
the reimbursement of legal costs.
3- Policy
a- The first defends the most
vulnerable populations, the secularism, the indivisibility of the
Republic and the indistinction of individuals because of their race
or religion.
In doing so, he defends democracy.
b- The second participates in what the
journalists Davet and Lhomme have just described in their book "In
Allah" an "Islamization face uncovered".
They specify, p. 13:
"The idea for this book was born
from a question: in this community (Arab-Muslim, note), there-you
indeed a rise of assertive proponents of Islam, which seeks to expand
its territory, to gain whole sections of society? Clearly, to
Islamize a department and more if affinities? "
4- The consequences of the trial
a- After the trial, the populations
concerned, therefore Muslim, will be in the grip of Islamist
militants who will develop under the protection of judges, their
investment policies and domination of public space under the pretext
of celebrate a wedding, a sporting victory, etc.
b- The Mayors are today more and more
confronted with this grabbing of the public space under any cultural
pretexts,
They no longer have any legal tools to
deal with it.
Their moral and legal authority has
been destroyed.
Public order in the Municipality no
longer belongs to them.
c- The right
The magistrates state that the
occupation of the public space by "flags, banners, posters (...)
on squares and adjacent streets" does not constitute a
disturbance to public order.
In other words, magistrates render a
judgment of "general and absolute" authorizations for the
benefit of the users of circumstances.
What is "general and absolute"
is unlawful for the Mayor and lawful for particular fractions of the
people.
Part 2: Identical antecedents
This student of Sciences-po is not the
first to pretend to intervene in the formation and management of
public authorities.
What is characteristic is that they
succeed because they intervene against French people in confrontation
with the Islamization of "a department and more if affinities".
1) - The bus
Around 2010-2012, the Internet produced
video surveillance of a bus attacked by thugs.
One of the passengers, 20 years old,
serene, speaks with the attackers to calm them down. He punches his
face in the middle of the bus and at the front of the bus.
The driver does not close the door
until he keeps open until a thug has come back from outside to beat
him again.
A few days later, the press informs us
that this young man is a student of Sciences Po.
He does not intervene to testify to the
brutality of the attack.
On the contrary, he protests against
the broadcast of this video that shows that these thugs are exclusive
to French, or white, "we call them as we please" (see
Georges Pompidou, the Gordian Node.)
For him, the broadcast of this video
has racist intentions.
He intends to file a complaint not
against his attackers but against the officials who broadcast a video
that was to remain secret.
If another passenger had come to his
rescue with whom would he have been?
He seems to have condescended to
retreat. The school management must have thought that its graduates
are hated enough like that.
2) - Clement Meric
In 2013, Clément Méric is a member of
the group "Antifa", specialized in the altercation with the
so-called "racist" or "facho" groups.
In the company of other members
including a leader; he goes into an apartment sale to provoke two
workers belonging to a qualified group of far right.
They are familiar with these customers
of the store since for several months, local Antifa exposes a photo
of one of them accompanying a notice of research about him.
Mr Meric's role is well established in
these attacks.
He is to put forward his weak
constitution to provoke the opponent and allow his comrades to come
to the rescue not to attack an enemy but to protect a weak unjustly
attacked by savages.
That day, the store's watchman formally
testifies that the chief of Mr. Meric will make him play this role
insistently.
The Antifa gang leave without having
made any purchase and giving an appointment to the workers further.
These had come only for purchases.
There they wait for the two customers.
They engage the fight.
A video shows Mr. Meric attacking one
of the workers from behind.
It can not be otherwise because he can
not face anyone in front like a tournament champion.
A punch is enough for his morphological
balance to collapse. He is dead.
It is so obvious that the punch is not
in itself mortal that the prosecution will resort to two inventions
to justify the connection of the blow and the death.
The first invention is that of an
"American fist" of which no one can prove existence.
b- The second will be that of Hitler's
anti-Semitism. We will see it later.
The public process of the case itself
(notably the immediacy of the mobilizations) indicates a preparation,
a major provocation.
It was clearly expected that Mr. Meric
would be in the hospital and that the official maneuvers could
intersect instinctual anger.
Death has stopped everything.
The public learns that Mr. Meric is a
student of Sciences Po and the son of two university professors.
The School is standing up for him.
Mr. Méric continues post mortem to
perform the role assigned to him during his lifetime.
He is fragile and so those who put him
Ko are monsters. QED.
The two workers are put in prison while
the Antifa who led the provocation are not even put in exams.
The trial arrives in 2018.
We learn that Mr. Meric is Jewish. Both
workers are therefore accused of anti-Semitism.
This would explain that and all the
rest.
They are innocent of the facts they are
accused of. They take 11 years and 7 years.
While they were shopping with ease;
they had the misfortune to meet Sciences Po and his friends whom they
did not know and who were looking for him.
Here we have two samples of public
"Sciences Po" commitments.
3) - The detour
These social oppositions doubled in the
Court of an opposition of political commitment.
1- the workers
The fatal incident in the Meric case is
June 2013.
As of September 2013, the two workers
leave their partisan advocate and take a lawyer supposed to do only
the right.
At the Tribunal, they will repeat their
separation from any ideology of justification of personal aggression.
2- academics and Antifas
Here too, M. Méric serves as an
instrument.
All the ideological mechanics of these
so-called far-left groups argue that the death of Mr. Méric
reinforces their analyzes and strengthens their determination.
Not once, they will say that their
stupidity was at least equal to that of their pseudo-enemies.
As it is difficult to justify their
provocative hysteria in the Tribunal, caste academics have developed
the antisemitic detour.
But the confrontation itself is
exclusive of any antisemitism.
Unlike his attackers who knew precisely
who they were looking for; the attacked workers did not know any of
their aggressors.
They have not materially had time to
question the pedigree of each other.
However, the whole trial will focus on
Mr. Méric's membership of the Jewish community. From memory, the
manes of deported Auschwitz will be summoned to the bar.
From the moment when, by successive
shifts, the two workers become figures of resurrected Nazism, the
so-called "anti-fascist" action of the Antifa becomes
legitimate, indispensable, heroic.
It becomes a public service delegation.
This manipulation of the genocide of
Jews committed by Hitler's Germany has become a rule of public
debate.
Mr. Meric's debate on Judaism is a
dishonest substitute for the facts.
4) Inequality before the law
To impute to the wrongs of some to have
gone where they were summoned by others is conceivable only by
imputing to the latter's brink of having waited at the place of the
convocation they had sent.
b) To say that if some had not come,
the others would have had nothing, is conceived by saying that if the
second had not waited, the first would have found no one.
To say that some did not have to fight
back with fists, to those whom they received from others, makes sense
only if one affirms likewise that the latter did not have to give
fists and feet to the first.
It is remarkable that the workers
struck in response to beatings and that the academics struck for
ideological reasons alone.
5) - Conclusion
Justice establishes a judicial truth
constituting a rupture of legal equality between the French according
to the social class or the origin of belonging.
This inequality in law is established
for the benefit of academics, also called "bobo" and
migrants on the one hand, and the constant detriment of the French of
the lower classes.
It is for the purpose of alleviating
the dysfunctions mentioned above that General De Gaulle has enshrined
the President of the Republic's right of pardon in the Constitution.
Marc SALOMONE
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire