I would rather have them as martyrs. Let them all be martyrs.

Better than not doing anything and allowing them to become actual leaders.

I'm okay with this outcome. Especially if a jury of peers reviews the evidence and stops the far right-wing (fascist) politician from further compounding crimes or marrying their criminality with state power, often abusing the rights of people a democratic government is established to protect.

It is a brave thing to do, to hold popular people accountable for their actions (especially things like leaking secrets to geopolitical adversaries resulting in the deaths of intelligence personnel, or, other things like what Le Pen is guilty of), but it is necessary. Once you let it go, your country becomes ruled by authoritarians.

No, when a martyr becomes popular (elected), the "jury of peers" is likely be composed of the believers as well. They are not going to hold the martyr accountable, but rather their oppressors.

Which is not what happened here. Fascinating.

Is your suggestion to grant legal immunity to any and all far-right politicians so you can avoid their followers' ire just in case they become popular enough for election at some point in the future?

There was no jury in this case. In France jury trials are only in "Cour d'Assises", which deals with the most serious criminal cases.

Factually you can't call her or her party "fascist", either. This is really one of those terms that is over-used to an extent that is not useful at all.

We should all identify far right with fascism. In every case they have taken control, they exercise authoritarianism to the point of removal of dissent -- which is a hallmark of fascism.

I therefore reject your claim this is improper labeling.