Conservative Sarkozy Wins Presidency of France 962
Reader reporter tips us to a story just up at the NYTimes reporting that the tough-talking conservative candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has won election as the president of France. His opponent, Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal, the first woman to get as far as the runoff in a presidential contest in France, has conceded defeat. The vote went 53% to Sarkozy and the turnout was a remarkable (by American standards) 85% of registered voters. Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).
Sarkozy on free software (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Informative)
Pro-software patent, DMCA and voting machines (Score:5, Informative)
Most important for slashdot readers: Nicolas Sarkozy is a lawyer and has a very strong pro-software patent stance and was behind the hardline DADVSI [wikipedia.org] copyright law (our local DMCA). He was also behind the introduction of voting machines without paper trail requirements, and of the "secret" report about their validity (no citizen could get the report.
More in the PDF with his answers to the "candidats.fr" initiative here [candidats.fr]
Hard time for free software in France. There are still the parliament election next month, but last time french voters put the majority behind the president.
Re:Are you sure ... (Score:5, Informative)
In reality, everyone knew since these polls where in, early in the morning, that she'd lose, it's just, they all sorta pretend not to know until it's "official". You see, french law has little influence abroad, so anyone with an internet-connection has been able to read these polls all day. Only in French media are they disallowed.
So, each and every journalist covering the election, and every politician aswell, knew the result (aproximately, but good enough since it wasn't a close race anyway) hours earlier.
In this setting it makes perfect sense to admit defeat at 20:01. It'd have been disrespectful of the law and the voters to do so any earlier, and pointless to wait much longer when the numbers where as obvious as they where.
M$/Corporate Lapdog. (Score:5, Informative)
From the link you gave, he's the worst of the lot:
Except for Sarkozy, the candidates also agreed that consumers should have the right to buy a computer without any preloaded software, ... Sarkozy was also the only candidate who responded with obvious hostility, remarking when talking about DADVSI that "I am opposed to the orientations implied by your questions."
He expresses his support for patent law on the grounds that it "encourages enterprises to innovate, it attracts investments, [and] encourages individuals to ... develop new inventions." In addition, Sarkozy supported the concept of intellectual property, and suggested that it was premature to talk about revising DADVSI before the end of 2007, when a review is scheduled. In answer to the question about open standards and free software, he replied that "it is not the purpose of the State, in my concept of freedom, to impose a model on anyone." Other replies were so general as to suggest that he either had not considered the matter or was avoiding stating his position. As Frédéric Couchet, a director of APRIL commented, Sarkozy's "was the worst response received."
You can read his response yourself [candidats.fr], but the above is bad news.
Not that that's the most important quality in a president, but it would have been nice.
If standing up for French companies and citizens by supporting their software freedom is not important, I'm not sure what is. Your computer is your press, your store of important information and your telcom all rolled into one. No modern state can live without them and their security and ownership are tantamount to independence. Does he want CIA planted backdoors in his office?
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sarkozy, interesting name... (Score:1, Informative)
Say this in the USA, and you'll be instantly labeled a racist.
But then, the USA is the great melting pot, and all that.
Re:Good for the economy, at least (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How do you say... (Score:4, Informative)
Most immigrants do learn the language of the country they move to, if only because of the oppurtunities it opens up for them. However, they will usually keep their home language, and use it among members of their own community. Unfortunately, the natives often get offended or upset when they see immigrants using their language amongst themselves, or see businesses using another language. It mostly has to do with issues of pride and fear of otherness. When natives say "they need to speak our language", they often really mean "stop speaking the other language". It's often just an excuse to keep immigrant communities marginalized.
From a practical perspective, if a group of immigrants are able to make a living using their own language, I see no need to make them stop.
France has certain issues with language that the U.S. does not, such as having French as an official language and not defining themselves as an immigrant nation. Also, although they are officially racially neutral, their culture and government are really white-controlled, more so than the U.S..
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Informative)
The aim of Sarkozy is different :
- increasing debt a lot (both public and private)!
- by favoring the rich people and the big corp.
I had hoped that Slashdot would have definitely forgotten France. Instead of that, this -probably real bad- news is on the first page, one of so few first-page news about France in a year. (sigh).
What is he talking about:
- suppressing inheritance taxes
- easing private borowing of money (i.e. increasing bank profits for short time benefits and lifetime interests for poor people)
- "an ownership society"
- he is glorifying the "France of the Crusades". (discourse in besançon, March 13th 2007)
- "le travail rend libre" (one of the offical videos, first sentence)
- he thought some months ago that "France had been arrogant in 2003" while attempting to stop the Iraq war.
- if he survives two more weeks, he will realise his public lifelong dream: becoming president in place of The President.
- he is a lawyer with a speciality: fiscality. I have not written tax evasion even if you read that.
I love him! I am sure you won't.
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know about France, but here in Germany the equivalent to the Republicans is also called Republicans.
For the benefit of Americans unfamiliar with German politics, this is a dig at the US Republicans, since Die Republikaner are generally considered a crypto-neo-nazi party and enjoy very little electoral support. The major conservative party in Germany are the Christian Democrats (CDU).
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obl. (Score:2, Informative)
Segolene Royal actually often talked of Tony Blair and her admiration for him.
Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative. (Score:2, Informative)
Huh?
First off, liberals don't know anymore what "neoconservative" actually means. It referred to Jews in the 1980s who supported Reagan. They use it today in short form, "neocon," because it sounds evil and war-like.
Second, conservatives in America are opposed to illegal immigration and want to build a big wall, while liberals want open borders and no screening.
Re:French bashing? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Tant mieux pour la France! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:One word (Score:3, Informative)
Did you actually read the wikipedia entry ?
The Captain of the ship himself agrees that it was a legitimate attack. So does the Argentinian Government.
Please read up on your Falklands War history - this would be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War [wikipedia.org]good start. Especially the bits about the carrier 'Vincent De Mayo' and the damage that would have done if it ever got near the Task Force. The sinking of the Belgrano made it very clear to the Argentinian Navy that nuclear submarines where in the area and all enemy warships were targets. It had the effect of keeping the Argentinian Navy out of the war. If Vincent De Mayo had got close enough to launch a strike package against the Task Force then I can guarantee that the UK would have lost the war since I'm sure they would have disabled or destroyed at least one of the British carriers - the Argentinian Naval aircraft were not piloted by morons and had the weapons to do it.
Also, there WERE Argentinian submarines active. I remember reading a report that one in particular managed to fire a salvo at HMS Invincible, but major reliability problems with their torpoedos meant they never got a hit.
The captain of HMS Conqueror was in command of a warship, the Belgrano was a warship of the enemy, and both countries were at war. The Argentinian Navy may have taken casualties, but I can assure you so did the Royal Navy, thanks to the Argentinian Airforce and their attacks.
As a final note, did you know there are numerous reports from Special Forces of them being fired upon from an Argentinian Hospital Ship, in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention ? Read This : http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/sbs.h
Re:French bashing? (Score:2, Informative)
You are so misinformed it's not even funny. France participated in the first Gulf War.
They did refuse US flyovers, but that was several years earlier, when Reagan sent bombers to kill Khaddafi in Lybia.
The French are not nearly as obtructionist on the international stage as the US. It is the US that blocks such things as the international court, the landmine ban, the Kyoto protocol, etc.....
- Anonycous Moward
Re:This guy sounds like Reagan. (Score:3, Informative)
That's the problem. Not the illegal immigration part, but the part about him upending prosperity comes to mind- this time, that sizable "minority" has to upend Sarko. If the country sells out to Asia with his effort, then it will be lost like the US and UK. It will have lost its character, the people losing their prosperity, and the country as a whole as the country that stood up to the evils of globalization.
Re:Are you sure ... (Score:3, Informative)
Here are the links to see major points of his program
First, his ideas on genetics : Suicide, pedophilia and homosexuality are genetic, if one of your parent is pedophile, you are a criminal too.
Sources
http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/politiques/246
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-823448,
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/09042007/202/genes-les-p
http://www.france.qrd.org/actualites/article.php3
On civil liberties, the Human Rights League has announced that democracy is in great danger with Sarkozy
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/26042007/202/la-ligue-de
Since 2 years now (Sarkozy was in the Government), since you are seven year old, the police can take your DNA if you are caught in a fight (even in the school yard) or any reprehensible act. Exemple of new criminal act : be more than 3 people in front of a building (that was to prevent suburbs criminality)!.
Sarkozy wanted a law to drug to calm restless children, since they are 3 years old. There was too much opposition at the time and the law was temporarily abandoned, but in an interview he said his delinquency prevention laws will be activated if he becomes president (http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl05-433.html/ [senat.fr]).
Wish us good luck, no more civil or human rights in France.
Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative. (Score:2, Informative)
Neoconservatives, Walls, and 6 Years in Power (Score:5, Informative)
It's interesting that you say "liberals" don't know what "neoconservative" actually means, then you say it is a term referring to "Jews in the 1980s." Although several top neocons are Jewish, not all of them are. They didn't just spring up in the 80s, and their story is far more complicated than your reductionist analysis makes it seem. That makes it difficult for anyone (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) to figure out exactly what the term means. Here's what Irving Kristol, one of the leading lights of the movement, says about neoconservatism [weeklystandard.com]. Note that he uses the term "neocon" a few times in the article. Maybe he does that because he thinks it makes him sound evil and war-like.
As for the bit about conservatives wanting to build a wall and liberals wanting no border at all, you may want to check in on that more thoroughly. The Republican Party had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House for almost six years and didn't change American immigration policy. One of the iron laws of politics is that when you have that degree of power, you use it. Look at the sweeping range of laws the Republican Party enacted over those same six years, covering every aspect of American life. If the party was truly unified in wanting to thwart illegal immigration, it would have done something.
Re:Obl. (Score:2, Informative)
He and his minions - many of them have been in far-right organizations before - took the party from the inside.
Most media are in the hands of Sarkozy's friends, so he has a far-right politic, but without the disrespectability of the far-right.
Clever.
However I wouldn't say it is dog-whistle politic, or it is with a twist. It is not intended to nazi supporters (I don't think there is much of them), but to the uneducated masses who ignore(*) history (and has in that sense quite an orwellian meaning), while scaring others.
Most of his campaign strategy relied on polarizing the debates, then stopping to do that for only two weeks betweens the two turns of the vote and set himself as a victim when others argue (IMHO rightfully) that he is a fascist for such kind of statements.
BTW, at the time he took the UMP, he used the same tactics of victimizing himself when he encountered internal opposition...
(*) or forgot, as it seems only people 65+ are voting in their majority for Sarkozy, but at a majority of 75%... My guess is that that score is also due to older people not conceiving to see a women at the head of the country...
Re:Obl. (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting example, one that I fully agree with. I'm guessing by your username and post that you're French (and living in Paris). Here's another example that you may have heard of and that you might agree with. What happens when you inherit the house that's been in the familiy for generations.. But that house is, say, on the Ile de Ré where property prices has sky-rocketed? The state will no doubt attribute to the house a market price well over what the inheritant could pay (again, htis is an example), and the inheritant could find themselves in the situation where they must sell the house to be able to pay the inheritance fee induced by the house. Does that sounds sane to you?
If you read the French papers you must know that this type of situation is not unheard-of at all.
Re:French bashing? (Score:3, Informative)
When you say "but they wouldn't have stood a chance if the other Allies weren't there, also fighting", what exactly do you mean? France was occupied, Spain was neutral, Italy was one of the Axis powers -- who exactly was fighting? The French resistance? The UK was sitting on their island, getting shelled by Germany and occasionally shooting down planes over the Channel, although most of the shooting down was done by the Germans -- they didn't open the Western Front until D-day. That was in June 1944. The USSR, on the other hand, turned the tide against the Wehrmacht in the Battle of Stalingrad, which was -- wait for it -- in late 1942. By April 1944, still before D-day, Soviet troops had pushed Germany entirely out of Soviet territory and had entered occupied German territory; Germany was already collapsing in on itself. The Allies fighting on the newly opened Western Front several months later would encounter relatively little resistance. Nazi Germany was essentially finished by this time.
This is not to say that the US did nothing, far from it: but the idea that the USSR wouldn't have kicked Germany's ass on its own is completely incorrect, Germany was running for its life by the time D-day rolled around and there's no reason to believe that that would have changed. Of course, then all of Europe would have been Communist.
My grandfather, who was only 17 at the time, ran from the Red Army to surrender to the Americans, because he'd heard that the Americans were nicer to their POWs than the Russians. Small wonder -- the life expectancy of a Russian soldier at the Battle of Stalingrad was less than a day, can you really blame them for hating the Germans? We suffered comparatively little.