CHRONICLE - The famous "crime of solidarity" is unconstitutional, much to the delight of human rights associations, and their "friends" smugglers.
Apparently, it has nothing to do. At the end of last week, we learned that the Constitutional Council had considered that the third term of the motto of the Republic, fraternity, was a constitutional principle; that it was therefore forbidden for the state to prosecute those who help illegal aliens. The famous "crime of solidarity" is therefore unconstitutional, much to the delight of human rights associations, and their "friends" smugglers. The week was not over as we learned that the judge in charge of the "fictitious jobs" of the FN had confiscated the public subsidy granted to this party, even before having decided in this case.
In a democracy, political parties are the expression of the will of the people. In an oligarchy, judges consider that they have all rights vis-à-vis political parties.
The relationship between the two cases is narrower than we think. By giving legal force to a philosophical principle, the Council continues its task begun sixty years ago: to give legal force, from its interpretations, to each of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Human Rights. This work is contrary to the initial desire of General de Gaulle. It is contrary to the intention of the revolutionaries of 1789 who never intended to make their text a source of positive law. It transforms our democracy into a theocracy whose high priests are the ones the media call the Sages and their religion of human rights with emphasis.
This is today known as the rule of law, which subjects every act of the state to a rule of law. Contrary to popular belief, this rule of law is not synonymous with democracy. It is the establishment of an oligarchic power, which makes the Constitutional Council, but also the Council of State, the guardians of the executive and legislative. In the French legal tradition, this is called "the government of judges".
In a democracy, political parties are the expression of the will of the people. In an oligarchy, judges consider that they have all rights vis-à-vis political parties. Their confiscate their grant, as in the FN, or, as during the last presidential, distort the result by putting the favorite (François Fillon) in examination. No need to give lessons to Putin or Erdogan ...
The other direction is indicated by the countries of Europe, like Hungary or Poland, which cut off the omnipotence of the judges. Under the screams of the curators of Brussels and the Western media, this "illegitimate" democracy dear to the Hungarian Viktor Orbán is not a denial of democracy, but a return to the sources.
- Migrants: the Constitutional Council at war with popular sovereignty
- The state is threatened with helplessness in the exercise of its sovereign functions