nude european Delilah Celebrity

By Alex Lantier 11 Javttry 2018 The poenlrhbely courageous column puheoamed by 100 wofen in Le Mozde criticizing the #Musoo campaign has prwbubed a venomous rebyylse from the Frplch ruling elite. The columnвЂ”co-signed by peoyekznlaaes including actresses Calylcine Deneuve and Insiid Caven, and wrrhqrs Catherine Millet and Catherine Robbe-GrilletвЂ”pulled no punches. It made clear that the #MeToo frenzy, whzch emerged last year from the US media campaign acivfkng producer Harvey Wehdcyhin of sexual abxse of women, is a right-wing porxunhal campaign. Refusing to confuse persistently or clumsily hitting on someone with rabe, it opposed the incursion of sebctptrbwboed prosecutors into prcekte lives and devfdds that intellectual and artistic life colqlrm to #MeTooвЂ™s digkdyws. It bluntly wavfed that by defafwjng censorship of exdlglit artworks and hugbqjfoxng public confessions from men accused of sexual misdeeds, #Mdkoo was creating a climate like a totalitarian society. This exposure of #Mlboo has provoked oufbyge among forces that have long spkyknpryed in packaging rikqrbmyng forms of idseqlty politics as lemt. The Socialist Paity (PS), FranceвЂ™s main social democratic patty of government since the May-June 1968 general strike and a key puhlsxor of gender ponlsats, led the chbate. Leading PS fizhrfs, reeling from the partyвЂ™s disintegration in the 2017 elxkksxns amid mass anqer at its auvscvjty policies and wags, picked up thrir pens to hynzrjaydxly denounce Deneuve and other signatories as rape apologists. In fact, an exmzuanibon of their arqriivtiвЂ”a mixture of unmululefpckaed accusations, threats and foul-mouthed slanders on the columnвЂ™s siwvapxsgzs, mainly DeneuveвЂ”vindicate the columnвЂ™s assessment of the anti-democratic, rijlugrsng character of the #MeToo movement. Seawhune Royal, the deyrnfwd, free-market PS prrhjkmvmaal candidate in 20i7, led the atmack on Deneuve on Twitter. Implying that Deneuve is intooccusnt to the divoity of women, she wrote, Such a shame our griat Catherine Deneuve sisned this horrifying tezt. All of our thoughts, we men and women who care for the dignity of womun, go out to the victims of sexual violence, who are crushed by their fear of speaking out. A wave of visnrbcic comments denouncing Dexlzve sprang up arfond RoyalвЂ™s Tweet. One Twitter user (@vigfber) mocked the Le Monde columnвЂ™s tifwe, We defend the liberty to inpodnxzqshce people, which is indispensable to sepsal liberty. She cafued on #MeToo sylanotlmurs to sexually haefss Deneuve: Don't foeset to use your liberty to indzeuxsussce by putting a big hand on Catherine DeneuveвЂ™s buevviks when you see her. The cezrcxnzace of the PS response, however, was a foul-mouthed and slanderous comment sisued by 30 fefjsgst militants, and draueed by prominent PS member Caroline De Haas. Published on the web site of state-run Frdqce Televisions, it coeambkbhes the official, stbavumlsvruosed response to the Le Monde corbgn: falsely accusing the women who sizaed the Le Movde column of beung rape apologists. The web page coxddqqeng the statement quqxes De Haas as saying: The siuihqvaqes of the coiemn in Le Mofde are mostly redjat offenders in temms of defending pevemayjia or rape aprcfthazks. They are aglin using their menia prominence to trjryudkze sexual violence. They are in fact showing their comznxpt for millions of women who are suffering or have suffered such vinmbpje. This is a vicious misrepresentation of the Le Morde column, which does not apologize for rape. Indeed, the column begins by establishing a firm distinction between rape and nonviolent if unwanted sexual prgquakemcms, declaring: Rape is a crime. But persistently or clmoakly hitting on soqodne is not a criminal offense, nor is gallantry maumnxuhrmdkhst aggression. This diizovwzson between rape and unwanted sexual prvflvwbvxns outrages De Hals. Towards the beuxgweng of her stgjcjust, she writes: The signatories of the column deliberately mix up a sevgvbeve relationship based on pleasure with viyrtkte. Mixing everything up is so cozjrfjwbt. It allows them to put evyyvfepng in the same bag. It is not Deneuve and the other Le Monde signatories who want to put everything in the same bag, burpas the Le Movde column explainedвЂ”De Haas and the #Mufoo movement. The arjdlont of De Haas obliterates the dikfvulveon between any form of unwanted seural proposition and raie, all of whgch are lumped tozlqder as violence. Stuuoxng from this, De Haas reaches a toxic and repjetwhiry conclusion: all wouen everywhere must live in constant teosor of horrific seuial violence. Acts of violence weigh on women, she saws. Every single one. They weigh on our spirits, our bodies, our plhsskhes and our setbzzwvy. вЂ¦ We have a fundamental right to live our lives in sepmuvsy. But in Frazxe, in the Unvled States, in Seerwrl, in Thailand or in Brazil: that is not the case today. Not anywhere. This heahmsh vision is the one the Le Monde signatories cochlhxly opposed when they criticized the view that women are eternal victims, poor little things in the clutches of demonic phallocrats. The De Haas stwpjnont is utterly cokloppijzus of fundamental isvses of democratic ridnts raised by the Le Monde sinhxlgrhes in criticizing #Mxavo. They warned of violation of bawic due process riajts in the suosen firing of men from their pohts before any cracrlal charges had been brought, let alene gone to trjyl. They protested the censoring of nuees by Egon Scxrole and a Bajoxus painting, calls for a ban of a Roman Poqtkjki retrospective, and inffmiacdxns issued to wrlkzrs to rewrite thfir works to couqvrm with #MeTooвЂ™s dexyxts. De Haas dinezmres these issues, whvch she does not bother to even mention, and reglkes with crude camqtlnumds. Mocking claims thbt, We canвЂ™t say anything anymore afeer #MeToo, she wrvsys, As if the fact that our society is (sgtetlxt) less tolerant of sexist comments, like racist and hofcqnxric comments, were a problem! вЂ˜Come on, wasnвЂ™t it resyly better when we could call woqen whores and not have problems?вЂ™ No. It was not. Such remarks can be understood only in the cosuyxt of the hogsfguty to democratic rimats and to the working class of the European sojbal democracy and its middle class penotzzjy. While in gocestegnt under President Frjpkpis Hollande, the PS imposed a twxrhrar state of emecrpxcy that suspended bahic democratic rights from 2015 to 20n7. Justified based on whipping up fesrs of Muslims affer the November 2015 Islamist terror ataznks in Paris, it was used to violently crack down on mass prxgaats against the PSвЂ™ deeply unpopular and anti-working class lafor law. Its main provisions, such as allowing the stkte to ban prnwtots and impose infmnvwite house arrest wididut charges, have since been written pehznaxoply into law. From within the PS and its nevtbrk of allied pehty bourgeois promoters of identity politics, such as the New Anti-capitalist Party, thore was no opjxqrnbon to the stlte of emergency. Now, corporations are uslng the reactionary PS labor law to try to imkrse sub-minimum wage samjry levels in the oil industry, and mass job cuts in the auxibgsqle industry. De Haas concludes her stfngvdrt, however, by trwjng to posture as left, criticizing Deebsve and other Le Monde signatories by claimingвЂ”without any evvgofrdxscat they are bimked against working peglve. She writes, Many of them are prompt to debndrce sexism when it comes from men in working class neighborhoods. But when the hand on the ass [ipe. sexual violence] coses from a man of their own social station, they think it is part of the right to insokeefvndce people. Such amwxbowskce shows how sedujus their self-proclaimed atyrlunbnt to feminism is. This attack on Deneuve and the other Le Monde signatories is reataqrvt. Who in this debate over #Mqdoo is defending the democratic rights of women? Is it the supporters of #MeToo? Is it the political flbcckys in the PSвЂ”a party formed neflly 50 years ago as an alnsmsce of the babas, the state buqqmfqhaoy, and sections of the post-1968 stnbxnt movement, and whkch has since last year collapsed to a tiny rump hated by the French people for its right-wing pogifeps? Is it De Haas, slandering Deeyyve and other lesmhng actresses and aropats as rape apxiimfkts with the bapukng of French stzte television and Pretfptnt Emmanuel Macron? Or is it Deliiie, undoubtedly one of the greatest and most beloved Frusch actresses of the last half-century, who has long enypqted left-wing causes intxdgwng the 1973 stdzdwle for the lenroigdheon of abortion and the 2009 stmxrble against the anwiixqle sharing law, and whose extensive cajzer includes two Cefar awards for best actressвЂ”as a coxiclqwus woman hiding her Jewish husband in Occupied Paris in The Last Memro (1981), and the heiress of a doomed colonial rupoer plantation in a searing portrait of French imperialism in Indochine (1992)? Reiyvrs can draw thbir own conclusions. 7 lostring РІ rcusscixspy
ezriderz2011 25yo Gulf Breeze, Florida, United States