No Mr. Joffrin, Alain Finkielkraut did not strike, he thought and analyzed an intolerable situation in a democratic state that respects a fundamental right: that of the presumption of innocence.
This term is moreover fully appropriate until the day when an indictment by a judge will be pronounced.
Until that moment everyone has the right to respect for himself.
Moreover, after the indictment, there is no more real presumption of innocence but rather a presumption of guilt because let us not forget that an order of indictment by an Examining Magistrate is itself a first judgment!
It was only the desire to twist the neck of words that in the 1980s replaced the terminology of "presumption of guilt" with that of "presumption of innocence".
But who could imagine that one can put in preventive detention, for two or three years, even more, a "presumed innocent"! This would be a serious and unacceptable violation of human rights.
If, therefore, from the beginning of the investigation, the defendant could be considered as "presumed guilty", it is clear that before that moment, it is morally inadmissible to consider him guilty, let alone on the basis of a simple complaint or denunciation, forgetting by that same fundamental right to a fair trial due to any citizen!
Moreover, we must remember that in French criminal law the testimony is not a proof but only "a presumption of beginning of proof" likely to become a beginning of proof, and this regardless of the number of witnesses.
Thus, such as once the lynching, so we throw in name graveyards, we condemns media (and therefore factually) and this even before the beginning of an investigation and on the basis of simple denunciations!
One condemns before having judged, before having investigated and even, without the person denounced can not defend his cause highlighting a serious attack on the fundamental freedoms, foremost of which is the right to contradictory.
All this is all the more strange in that it is unexpectedly vehemently raised that when it comes to terrorists or anti-Semitic criminals, we want to forbid their mere name or origin; while on the other hand, it is quite normal, even imperatively necessary, to denounce by their name "the monstrous bourgeois pigs" susceptible of abuse!
These denunciations are all the more disturbing as the time spent since the alleged criminal act makes it totally impossible to obtain any evidence, even if, in this case, the facts would not be prescribed!
No, Mr. Joffrin, in a state of law a charge must reflect no hint of revenge, or worse, no desire to instrumentalize in favor of an ideology. No, in a state of law, an accusation, like the complaint that follows it, must imperatively follow the guidelines of the criminal procedure which is extremely precise and that we have taken so many centuries to set up!
So, YES, Alain Finkielkraut is well in his role of philosopher, thinker, witness of our society and citizen of a State of law, when he denounces the excesses!
Richard C. ABITBOL