Monday, May 21, 2012

The UMP Will Violate the Parity Rule

J.-F. Copé assume, mais sans "gaité de coeur":

"Je plaide coupable avec regret, c'est un arbitrage que nous avons eu à rendre et qui était difficile dès lors que nous avions 317 députés sortants [en réalité 305 en fin de législature] et qu'une bonne part d'entre eux se représentent", a reconnu le secrétaire général de l'UMP sur BFM TV et RMC. Citant l'ancrage local des candidats sortants, il a ajouté qu'"il était extrêmement difficile de les sacrifier".
"Voilà pourquoi j'ai pris avec mes amis de l'UMP cette décision qui nous coûtera en termes d'amendes. Chacun doit comprendre que dans la période qui est la nôtre, il nous faut absolument avoir le maximum de députés et que cela passe par le poids, l'ancrage local de beaucoup d'entre nous", a-t-il ajouté."Ce n'est pas de gaité de coeur. Je pense que cette loi est bonne", a-t-il poursuivi.


bernard said...

Serbie : Tomislav Nikolic, le "fossoyeur" devenu président

a little while ago, I put in a comment reminding people of the genocidal war that took place in the middle of Europe in the early nineties, and which likely none of us would have anticipated 10 years ealier. To be sure, some ignorant commenter ranted at my use of the term genocidal and I did not bother to respond in the knowledge that, surely, another commentor would set the record straight, which someone did (Mladic is not in front of the international court for stealing a bicycle, you know).

This makes the point that, 15 years later, it appears that many have forgotten what exactly took place in the middle of Europe. One might think that, at least, the Serbs, have not forgotten. Well, take a look at the news title at the top. The charitable comment is that they have forgotten. The more realistic comment is that they have not.

My comment is that when "individual" UMP candidates ponder making a deal with FN candidates, and they are many, they would do well to remember what took place 15 years ago, and how dangerous it is to stoke nationalist pulses in a disenfranchised population.

Anonymous said...

I repeat, get a hold of yourself.

You characterized the conflict as a "genocidal war" and it most certainly was not. One atrocity committed with genocidal intent does not make a war genocidal. The ICJ said as much in its 2007 decision.

When we misuse the word genocide we debase its meaning. So if you're interested in maintaining its moral valence I suggest you use it advisedly.

Anonymous said...

I'm not confident that valence is worth protecting. It's not just that in recent years the language of (stopping) genocide has been used to clothe acts of military aggression. It has also been used to construct a hierarchy of suffering where those who invoke genocide receive greater attention than the victims of crimes against humanity. So now everyone yells genocide. Worse still, from a purely legal standpoint the threshold for a genocide turns on a finding of intent (no deaths are required). So a genocide involving few or no deaths can still get more attention than a crime against humanity that involves hundreds of thousands of deaths, simply by virtue of being a genocide.

Ultimately, these labels are unhelpful and obscure the sober examination of facts that is so badly needed in these situations. So it's very troubling when people yell genocide or "genocidal war." When they do so they help circumvent the facts and prime the public for military intervention as the only possible solution.