Sorry, that disgraceful comment was still out of order. He is from a far right party who are famous for racist rhetoric. He is well known for saying racist comments.
If he was misunderstood, why doesn’t he apologise to the MP Bilongo directly because MP Bilongo doesn’t seem to believe it.
Both of these things are unequivocally true.
But … in this instance , he is not guilty of what he is being accused of. This is being used opportunistically , and dishonestly , by both the governing party and La France Insoumise to discredit and damage the party they both see as their principal threat.
Just think about this for a minute. Do you really believe that a far right MP would stand up in Parliament while a black MP was speaking and just blurt out ‘Go back to Africa !’ ?
His words have been deliberately misrepresented for political advantage. The people who should be ashamed are those pushing this false narrative and basking in their fake outrage.
i.e. Melenchon and Darmanin.
He doesn’t ‘seem’ to believe it because it helps him and his party politically. Furthermore , when the comment was made it wasn’t Bilongo himself who took umbrage with the remark , in fact he appeared entirely unperturbed by it and was continuing with his speech. It was another Insoumise MP sat behind him who actually rose to her feet to voice an objection. Giving her the benefit of the doubt , by not suggesting that she deliberately manufactured the situation , the most plausible explanation is that she simply misheard what de Fournas actually said.
He was misunderstood because he shouted something in the first place instead of holding his council… The guy took his opportunity to garner political brownie points in a similar vein to the way the opposition now are attempting to do the same…
It is a minefield out there, taking one misstep leads to all types of crap being released… these types of people know this better than most
Why would that be surprising? If you believe that racism is prevalent in far-right circles, then it’s not incorrect to think that an individual who socialises within those circles, might use such language.
Have you ever been the victim of a racist attack? Sometimes when it happens, you just don’t know how to react, deny to yourself that it happened, and you keep on going as per normal. Particularly considering it occurred in the context of the French Parliament, where one would not expect it, it’s quite possible that he just didn’t process it.
Have you watched a video of the incident? Unless the video I watched was edited, it’s quite clear that the outrage was immediate, from the other side of the chamber, before the woman behind him gets up. You can see it on the faces of everyone else.
Why are you so keen on defending them anyway?
I see that the racist has been suspended for two weeks, and his wages for the next two months will be halved. It’s the maximum fine the assembly can put on him.
Still a pity that they can’t exclude him for good, as he has shown to be totally unfit for his role as MP.
In a televised parliamentary debate ? You’re both ignoring the context of what he was actually responding to and still repeating something that he never actually said.
I’m not defending ‘them’ , and I’ll ignore the inference.
I’m telling you what he actually said , how it was probably misheard , and how it has been misrepresented and used to gain an advantage by his political opponents.
I live in France, I speak French , and I know what went on here.
Unfortunately , being racist doesn’t disbar you from political office.
Why is that hard to believe? You’re choosing to believe that the many different members in the chamber misheard him instead?
I’m using “them” as a generic pronoun here, specifically referring to de Fournas. I see how I could have been misinterpreted, and I apologise.
Do you have any video that makes the audio clearer? The one in the clip I posted unfortunately makes it quite hard to make out anything but “Afrique”.
Also, has it ever occurred to you that you might be the one who misheard what he said? I could buy that it could have been misrepresentation, if it was just the one MP who expressed outrage at it, even though that must be some seriously quick thinking to twist it that way. But the general outrage I heard in that video suggests otherwise.
I’ll try to explain it the best I can.
Bilongo was speaking about a migrant boat that has been stranded offshore.
de Fournals flippantly (and clearly unadvisedly) blurted out ; " “Qu’ils retournent en Afrique” , meaning “Well let them (the migrants on the boat) go back to Africa then.”
The lady who jumped up first thought she heard ; “Qu’il retourne en Afrique” , meaning “Well let him go back to Africa.” Hence the ensuing outrage.
Both sentences sound almost identical in French , and therein lies the confusion.
But I go back to the point , even an unabashed racist like de Fournals is not going to stand up in Parliament and tell a black MP to go back to Africa , and considering the context of what Bilongo was talking about , that is most definitely not the case here.
I don’t understand French, so I cannot only watch the video with English translation and there it says “Go back to Africa”. So you are saying based on what you heard, the translator had heard wrongly and therefore translated wrongly? What was it you supposed you heard? Because if it was really what it was said, then there is no way to defend it from any angle. So just for balanced sake, what is it you heard that you think it was mistranslated or misconstrued?
EDIT: ah ok just saw your response. So what you are saying is that he did say Go Back To Africa but in the context of like answering a question where the migrants should go then…ok as I am not a French speaker, so from your context, I can understand what you are saying. Not sure whether this guy has a history of racism but on first look and the reaction, it sure did not look good.
To be fair to the lady, I always struggled with this shit in French lessons as well. Easy mistake to make.
Okay vert fair point, saying 'Qu’il or Qu’ils, the pronouns are hard to distinguish him and them unless you hear the rest of the the verb-sentence.
I can’t believe Darmanin is still in a job after the CL final calamity!
And still no apology.
I get the point about how similar they sound, but it doesn’t address the issue that you can quite clearly hear everyone in the chamber murmuring at what he said well before she jumped up. You’re focusing on her when everyone else has already reacted.
And I really would like to hear/see the clip where you can hear what he said, because the one clip I saw did not have very good sound quality on that part.
I wish I could be that confident about it as you are.
Ah right that’s absolutely sound then isn’t it
He didn’t say that nor was he defending his politics. Please don’t be that unfair to him and put words in his mouth and assume he has opinions he probably doesn’t have if you read all his posts in sequence.
I mean I wasn’t trying to suggest he holds similar views at all, my comment is aimed at the parliamentary member who even if the context provided above is correct still made an awful remark and then didn’t have the bollocks to own up to it when challenged by the lady in charge of proceedings.
From that link in your post.
All that still misses the point however that personal finances are a terrible lens through which to view government budgets.
you’re showing statistics comparing the deficit to a period of inflation where the interest rate crisis of the late 1980’s/early 1990’s when mortages hit 18%, but are talking about personal finances to which have nothing to do what the hell we’re talking about?
Not once have I mentioned personal finances. That’s YOU. I’m talking about the countries’ debt load and decision-making towards righting the ship? Balance, the budget? Noooo, let’s just allow 300,000 foreigners into the country when there’s already a housing crisis just so he can increase his tax base and put a huge burden on the failing healthcare system…
let’s just leave this one be, you and I. we’re not going to agree on this.
Right, I get it now. See, the reason why I talk about personal finances so much is because that was the analogy made in the original link that you said summarises everything that is wrong. And the reason why I focus on it is because of the automatic assumption that debt is bad, especially since it was a focus of the author of that original link.
My contention is that not all debt is bad. Debt undertaken to invest or support the economy at a time when it is in recession is (usually) a good thing. Running regular deficits is also not an issue if in the long run it results in additional growth in the economy that outstrips the deficits.
In any case, Canada’s debt to GDP is in fact falling, and you can see prominently when the massive spikes were, corresponding to the relevant global macroeconomic shocks then.
So it is not, unlike your original comment “indebting future generations up to their eyeballs”.
Even the famously parsimonious Germans are at it:
One of the suppositions that debt is a problem is that if you borrow too much, then you risk investors not wanting to lend you any more money, but no one told the Japanese:
Canada doesn’t have a runaway budget deficit:
Inflation is comparable to many G20 economies:
So I’m not sure what in particular Trudeau is doing different to the other countries in the G20 that makes him that terrible?
