Anything but white males
Here is the story of another very influential and wealthy Frenchwoman, who is working against the traditional white society. The article by Louis Chagnon is posted at Bernard Antony's blog. (Areva is a major nuclear and mining industry):
Anne Lauvergeon, president of Areva, distinguished herself during the Women's Forum Global Meeting on October 15 - 17 in Deauville. For the occasion, 1200 women from the world of business and politics gathered for a few days of "discussions and reflections" around the theme: "Tomorrow!" Judge for yourselves the level of thinking of Madame Lauvergeon, who said of the hiring process: "All things being equal, well, sorry, we would choose, uh, the woman, or we would choose the person who, uh, is anything but a white male, to speak frankly."
So tomorrow holds no future for white males, according to Anne Lauvergeon. Those are sexist and racist remarks from the mouth of a "great French industry leader", remarks that should be condemned by the Rocard-Gayssot law (against racist speech, holocaust denial, etc...)! And so, according to her, no "white male" would ever again be hired by Areva! Through her words, she brings discredit to her own company. We would advise all "white males" who work for Areva, or who hope to work for Areva to take their case to HALDE at the slightest hint of sexist or racist discrimination that emerges from the hiring policies of Madame Lauvergeon.
It is sad, but also fascinating, to examine the suicidal tendencies that are cropping up in our society nowadays. We assume that Madame Lauvergeon reproaches her father for being a "white male". As for her son, another horrible "white male", she has just doomed him to unemployment, unless her words only apply to lackeys, from whom she excludes herself and her relatives! We should like to point out that racism and sexism are perfectly acceptable when they are used in a context of anti-white racism, since no so-called anti-racist lobby has ever raised the slightest word of protest against such remarks.
When racism and imbecility, which go well together, come out of the mouth of a "great female executive" it is serious enough, but when this executive is at the head of such a sensitive enterprise as nuclear energy, it becomes unquestionably a problem of national and international security. This is why Anne Lauvergeon must no longer exercise her function as head of Areva, and as a further precaution, we demand the nationalization of Areva, considering that the chairmanship of the French nuclear enterprise must not fall into the hands of just anybody.
In a sequel to the above, Bernard Antony, as head of AGRIF, a legal association that defends ethnic Frenchmen and Christians against discrimination and persecution, announced his intent to file a lawsuit against Madame Anne Lauvergeon for her "astounding sexist and racist remarks" relevant to her hiring policy at Areva.
Success is not assured.
We wish him well but if he fails, or if the case is thrown out of court, it will be very interesting to hear the court's reasoning on the issue, since Lauvergeon has made explicit remarks that are theoretically illegal by French law. But the court will very likely do what it has done before.
Some of you may remember a similar case at l'Oréal in 2008, when the CEO of the cosmetics giant, Jean-Paul Agon, admitted that a job seeker with a foreign name had more of a chance of being hired than a person with a French-sounding name. Then, as now, AGRIF sued. The case against l'Oréal was thrown out of court on grounds that, by showing favoritism towards those who are ordinarily victims of illegal discrimination, Agon was merely attempting to re-establish a balance that was compromised.
Shortly before the judgment was rendered by the court, Yves Daoudal expressed the opinion that it would probably fail simply because affirmative action (in French "discrimination positive") is the official ideology, via Brussels' directives, which in turn, dictate French laws. Therefore, to condemn l'Oréal is to condemn French (i.e., European) law.
After the judgment, Daoudal wrote:
(...) This judgment, that is radically opposed to the rule of law, presages the next European directive on the subject, and is in accordance with what has already come to be called "balancing", most notably with regard to facilitating the building of mosques in order to "balance" the Muslim religion with the Catholic religion.
And this anti-French and anti-Christian ideology encounters no opposition. Not only is AGRIF kicked out, but it must pay a fine of 2500 euro in damages and interest to the CEO of l'Oréal for frivolous lawsuits...
The mosaic below is from the Wikipedia article on Rule of Law, which also provides this food for thought:
Generally speaking, law is a body of rules prescribed by the state subject to sanctions or consequences. The predominant view is that the concept of "rule of law" per se says nothing about the "justness" of the laws themselves, but simply how the legal system operates. As a consequence of this, a very undemocratic nation or one without respect for human rights can exist with a "rule of law" — a situation which may be occurring in several modern dictatorships. The "rule of law" or Rechtsstaat may be a necessary condition for democracy, but it is not a sufficient condition.