The eminently political trial made to Georges Bensoussan, by Sarah Cattan

Home"TO THE ONE"The eminently political trial made to Georges Bensoussan, by Sarah Cattan
18 Partages

One day, we lCharged with all the evils and dragged him to trial. For a few words. He had committed crap to generalize, wrote this one, he had essentialized, made a speech worthy of a Drumont, fact use of racist weapons of destructionsaid the friends of the first, assembled at the Tribunal in one unlikely hitch against the historian Georges Bensoussan.

Others echoed that it wasan intellectual counter sense, ofa trial in witchcraft. OFa crime against just thinking. OFan agony of lucidity. OFa hunt for words. OFa frightful intellectual, moral, and political defeat. 

As in a fable of La Fontaine, it was necessary to decide: would he be hung or burned alive?

After a trial that dragged on late in the night, a March 7, 2017, when, confused, we saw him, sitting on the bench that saw appearing a Soral and then a Dieudonné, the release was granted: In its comments of October 10, 2016, the court did not retain the head of provocation to hate with regard to the Muslim community.

Which did not take away anything, Reader, you know me now, to the indignation of my paper: how could it have been possible? How could such a trial have been held.

The time to say with words my indignation, and while I was on the phone with him, the Public Prosecutor's Office appealed the acquittal that had benefited the historian. The Prosecutor's Office, escorted by those we know: SOS Racisme. LDH. MRAP. CCIF.

You surprise me. Such a nice gift. There, deposited in the basket of these married, and perhaps even when they did not hope so much.

We had then reviewed each word, each punctuation of our interview: the test continued. Knock out, we were not going to add to it.

As Georges Bensoussan is a great guy, you know what, reader? We met again, a few days before ... the call. We were never lost. This history was part of my sliders. I had not landed yet: how on earth could all this have been possible? And something answered: Ilan. The victims of Merah. Charlie. Georges. Sarah: the same dark story. The others, they had been executed. His trial at Himit was a bit of a trial for everyone: if we lost it, we were dead.

He told me how tired he was. Stopping the writing. Concluding: they won. We had talked about those of his friends who fail during the event. But this mensch, lucid and direct, he was not the type to settle accounts. Not like this. One day he would speak. After.

The one who had, in the first instance, questioned the Tribunal, asking him if it really was him who was supposed to find in this court and if it was not the anti-Semitism that had led us to the current situation that should have been tried appeared on 29 March at room 2 pole 7 of the Paris Court of Appeal.  

The one of whom I always seem to be expected more from Him than from a Bruckner, a Louizi, a Sifaoui: why go?

3, 4 journalists, only. But Martine Gozlan. But Michel Zerbib. And then his Collectif. Let it be said again and again: He did not have the institutions with him. Accused Bensoussan, it will one day be necessary to tell us who will have shamefully missed you. This silence is reminiscent of Jewish elites during the Dreyfus affair.

A year had passed. Here he is again, the Director of the Shoah Memorial, the respected Historian, again the accused. Alone.

On the left, hilarious faces, a bit arrogant, come as at a party, the CCIF, the LDH represented by Tubiana, and a funny thing : SOS support O undocumented, represented by an oddball who, when pleading interminably, we will all waver between despair and melancholy. That, it was going to be the double punishment of all, that day.

In the middle, you had the General Counsel, for the Public Ministry.

On the right, the Defense. Master Michel Laval. Serious. Surrounded by a dozen young assistants. It must be nice to be trained at Laval school.

From the outset, the Civil Parties, as you might even imagine, call for the broadcast of a sidewalk, and, unexpectedly, arguing on a law passed after The crime committed by the historian, require a requalification of the offense. Because, try to understand: if the defendant, it could be attributed two offenses instead of one, agree that it would be nice. The good joke. For example, it would be defamation and insult. What did the defense call them cowardly : to request a requalification the day before the trial, it was not done.

The tone was given. And it was gone. The President recalled the facts: this program downloaded almost 60,000 times. And all this for a metaphor, that here scholars will call catachresis, a picture what. And another assertion: the historian had evoked two peoples who in France stood, facing each other : short few seconds from a debate for the less violent. And all that took you a magnitude of whew, a little ubiquitous after the funeral of Mireille Knoll and those of Arnaud Beltrame.

The pursued alleged to have held speeches calling for hatred and violence against the Muslim community, although he had been released from the offense, was to repeat here whether his remarks were intended all or part of the said community. Boosted that he had been by us all, still fighting at the beginning of battle, the historian immediately accused that he was essentialized, as racist, and denounced a handling : milk tete within the mother was not about genetics, it was about cultural transmission. This expression was common in Poland and even in Corneille, he defended himself. We tried to manipulate him by pretending to understand that he would have said that all Muslims had it in blood: Smaïn Laacher had said the same thing but the Jew was the only one condemned: I am an ideal prey. The CCIF vows me an unspeakable hatred.

However, he pleaded, far from inciting hatred, warned him, alerted, even invited to integration, all this to prevent a conflict: my remarks were detextualized to make me, the Jew, the Director of the Memorial. The perverse conclusions of the CCIF compared me to the anti-Semite Xavier Vallat who attacked the Jews Leon Blum, Georges Mandel, Jeroboam Rothschild, and Subtle Talmudists. Bensoussan was the Vallat of the Muslims, he who denounced a refusal of assimilation by the Jews.

He refuted this rapprochement which dishonored him, he who, in his work and in the program in question, spoke of Muslims and not of all Muslims, pointed out their anti-Semitism, their homophobia, their violence against women. He denounced this subliminal challenge, which was intended to disguise his work, which did not condemn 4 million Muslims and claimed that it was intellectual terrorism to refuse to acknowledge that in France, in fact, 2 nations were being formed, 2 peoples were now faced, that the Salafists were at work.

He refused to give up telling a disturbing truth. Even though he admitted that she could hurt.

He asked again how remarks extracted from a debate, whose only reason for being should be limited to discussion, could lead to commentary in a courtroom: What does it mean, in France in 2018, this judiciarisation orchestrated by the CCIF, if not to squeeze the debate and to prevent any critical analysis of Islam, any intellectual reflection.

He almost came to justify himself by saying that Jews in Arab countries, which had cost 5 years of her life, had been dedicated to an Arab woman. He added that it was necessary to open our eyes, to see that murderous anti-Semitism was killing only in France and in no other European country: we are an exception: Mehdi Nemmouche targeted the Jewish Museum in Brussels because in France the MAHJ was under too much surveillance. Must we silence it, this anti-Semitism that killed Jews because Jews, all executed by Muslims.

He summoned again Boualem Sansal, Soufiane Zitouni and specified that this hate was well before the Israeli-Arab conflict: of the one million Jews in Arab countries, there are 4000 left. The Arab world is essentially anti-Semitic.

He concludes by saying that naming things would get us out of this pattern. And added his pessimism: the facts proved me right.

Were called his witnesses. Philippe Val attacked, without precaution oratorical, this CCIF which did not defend in any way the interests of the French Muslims. He denounced the shameful silence on the anti-Semitic dimension of many attacks, citing The world of the day that titra From 2013 to 2018, France at the pace of attacks, omitting the year 2012. He spoke abouta question of life and death and says his emotion to see this man whose work was respected in the world accused.

The Belgian historian Joel Kotek defended his colleague whose work was part of the only historico-scientific perspective and spoke of the work of Jules Isaac, who had studied all the prayers of the Catholic Church, to see how which spoke of Jews. Jules Isaac to whom we owe that prayer pro perfidis judaeis do not tell yourself anymore. Joel Kotek spoke of the teaching of Catholic contempt for Judaism subconscious of anti-Semitism, this kind of sacred horror for the Jew broadcast for hundreds and hundreds of yearsand asked if Jules Isaac had essentialized the Christians. Jules Isaac, Bensoussan: the approach of the historian of yesterday was the same as that of the historian of today; Name not to stigmatize but to find a solution. Invite to think together. Intervened by the Civil Parties, Joel Kotek delivered his definition of anti-Semitism: it is the idea that the Jews are responsible for everything that goes wrong in the world. Noëlle Lenoir, a lawyer, insisted that the recent events gave a particular relief to this session. She affirmed revolt, her consternation, to have on this day to be quoted to defend the remarks of a historian, extirpated that they were of a contradictory debate. Whoever opens our eyes, they want to make the puppet of a strategy orchestrated to silence those who denounce anti-Semitism. She questioned the deeper reasons for this trial and wondered if the aura enjoyed by Bensoussan did not explain the presence on the bench of the man who had The territories a premonitory message and sounded an alarm bell. She recalled the freedom of communication, essential condition of Democracy: Proponents of a victim culture want to silence the one who is the epitome of anti-racism. What they want is to question secularism. She finally denounced this dangerous victim ideology that could be fatal to us. 

After deliberation, the dissemination of sidewalk brought by the Civil Parties was served to us: 4 Jews pointed this anti-Muslim racism that rose and denounced the stigmatizing remarks of the offender : must think before speaking! Do not say anything. Especially since everything was going very well. These remarks by Jews were a strong moment of propagandist literature. Shame. Bensoussan, questioning on the representativeness of this sidewalk made of questions inducing the answer, quoted this hadit which stipulated that the Jew was hiding behind a stone or a tree and the stone or the tree said: Muslim! Servant ... Here is a Jew behind me: come and kill him. 

Great moment: the pleadings of the Civil Parties.

I am tired, began Master Tubiana for the LDH, to see these debates come back constantly. He mocked the session at first instance, full of reverence towards an academician. There was a certain arrogance among the accused, who had not changed much: he knows! Others do not knowhe moaned. Tried to ironically deconstruct the interest of Lost territories with his 70 testimonials and the pseudo-caution of an Elizabeth Badinter. He agreed that he existed an anti-Semitism of some Muslims. Would agree thata form of pseudo-Islamism had produced bombings. But punish! Perora with a confusing dishonesty that Tartufe. Adding with contempt: That Georges Bensoussan serve them, his theses! He spoke of this liar took the fingers in the jar of jamThis racist who castigated the clothing of only Muslims, reproached them for not having disassociated themselves from Merah's crimes, which ultimately used a rhetorical image to say that culturally all Muslim families transmitted anti-Semitism.

And there, he shamelessly reaches the point Godwin: recalling the genocidal process of dehumanization and recourse to stereotypes, he accused Bensoussan of having resorted to Nazi methods by saying the Arab families, stigmatizing the whole of a community, exhorting to hate by systematizing a population, insulting, all this between the implicit and the explicit. Ah this perverse Georges. And this traitor of Tubiana ended this way: This intellectual, this historian, who directed ... uh ... what already? Ah yes ! A Memorial ... You've failedhe hatefully told him before leaving the room: he was tired. We were dismayed.

The representative of the Association Support Without Paper, Master Stephen Suffren, offered us a long, too long time when boredom disputed him to the comic and perhaps also the pathetic. What was he doing there, that one? Well ... Without a third association, the too young CCIF would not have had the right to go to court. Did he then play one two three It will be you ? Whatever the case may be, Master Suffren delivered us a boulgui boulga where we drew it that he denounced wrongdoing, that Georges Bensoussan should be punished, write his books but no longer call for violence. From the outset, the courtroom understood that we were all going to suffer. Bored dry. It wavered between melancholy this state of vague sadness accompanied by reverie Agitation before this precious time that escaped us An irrepressible desire to sleep.

What was everyone thinking about the races to be made on the way back to the angina of the little A to his lover? Stephen Suffren, he dared to say thathe had read two Bensoussan but did not understand what he was talking about, accused the historian to demand integration, otherwise they leave, at one time the comic in spite of him spoke of Molière Moi I had to travel Youkali tell me And if it existed The students of Maître Laval remained of exemplary dignity and the judge kept a face impassible, and there, Stephen Suffren pluck us by surprise: there is no more freedom of the press: we no longer have the freedom to criticize the Jews.

The lawyer of the CCIF, hilarious without the causes, first tried to show that this trial was impossible. commonplace. That in fact, it tired him, this constant criticism of the CCIF that accused of being the fifth column that would be there to destroy Democracy. And there you know what, he undertakes to read us the statutes of the CCIF. This thing that even a philosophy. Who fights this irrational fear of the Muslim and this French society tense towards the same Muslims. What is judicial jihad? What is intellectual terrorism? Niet: the CCIF is the culture of compromise.

Reader, like me you were wrong: here in the courtroom, the CCIF has become a virgin. An angel : And prove to me that it's something else, you threw this professional inversion victim, before explaining to the Court that this judgment was an aberration: Bensoussan's work is sociology for Dummies. The Lost Territories is nothing but a bunch of friends telling you what the man who saw the man who saw the bear said.

And here, the illusionist, the puppeteer of the CCIF, he suddenly talks to you about a hapax : Salafists, used once in the said radio debate. And he brandishes you the thing you did not expect : the error of the Tribunal. You get a salad like what the report of usher was wrong. Our CCIF advocate was willing to admit that the accused's lawyers are lying about the verbatim, but not the Tribunal. Not that Not that.

You are listening. That's why, explains this other comic, it was about who was this they of the highly reprehensible catachresis. And it was gone again: They. Salafists? Muslims ? Islamists? All Muslims? He treated Bensoussan double liar who claimed to quote Laacher, who claimed that he had never uttered such an ignominy. And he was laughing at the one who was coming cry. It asks, the poor speaker, that one retains moreover a call to hatred or even violence, for the implicit exhortation detectable in these references in the fifth column.

And there comes a funny argument: Smaïn Laacher and Mohamed Sifaoui were not convicted? Well it's like when some people burn a red light: it's random. You can be caught or not taken.

Finally, coming dangerously close to the court a bit like in The Voice, he's having a party with Georges Bensoussan, this racist who is unaware of the worst kind of pro-rhetoric victim, who spoke of exile and wanted to make this case the business of the century : Georges Bensoussan treats terrorist prosecutorhe exclaimed suddenly: All those who criticize him as terrorists, the prosecution, de facto, is a terrorist. And there, he takes you out of his hat what he believes to be the weapon of mass destruction: he also asks for requalification, ending with what he believes to be contempt: Is Bensoussan racist? We will not know it. We do not care. That's what must have been said to be the one who rejected any essentialist interpretation by explaining to the bar that if he had subscribed to a biological anti-Semitism, it is as if he had scratched a pen for thirty years of his life.

The general counsel, in her indictment, did not follow the civil parties on the provocation to hatred but accompanied them in the request for requalification in racial insult, demanding 3000 € by way of sentence.

The floor was in the defense.

Maître Laval, who on several occasions had to refer to this old school, this world before from which he came, nobly used the Poetics of Aristotle, choosing movere docere and never placere. Outraged that it was another that could have been described as small business a trial of this nature, he still blamed manners the Civil Party, which in a case dating from October 2017, had been waiting the day before to change his tune and therefore invoke a new offense, opening the door by which we could escape the disaster that this trial would mean : Civil Parties went astrayhe fumed, they were in a deadlockbut climb this little shot they wanted ardently to obtain at any cost the conviction of Georges Bensoussan: L'Avocat Capitole qualified this failure to intellectual disaster, legal disaster and moral flouting.

It was outraged, this man who had come to bring his own conclusions, that the CCIF dare to ask for the combination of insult and provocation. On behalf of old worldhe asked the Judge not to lend a hand to the pitiful trap that was this impromptu requalification requestwho, in order to be received, needed to be contradictory, and not in a hurry, in a near darkness. He called them cowardly, the Civil Parties. Recalled that the Public Ministry had considered that the offense was not justified. Insisted that the Advocate General had argued for a legal and not an ideological indictment. Made a confidence: I woke up shortly after midnight. As strange as the strange atmosphere in which we bathe. This trial is a-normal. He is dangerous.

In turn, he redid the history of what is now called The Bensoussan case. Ironified many times over the arrogant smiles of CCIF. Referred to the role played by the Mediapart pharmacy. The police of thought who started on their way. The petition brought by Pierre Nora denouncing the treatment inflicted on the historian, treated in the mud like a vulgar racist. Revint on the person of Smaïn Laacher, this man highly estimable and prominent sociologist who, after a courteous exchange with Bensoussan, had agreed to not to take judicial time to settle a debate of ideas that they approached in civilized and urban beings. He accused the CCIF and its usual associates of wanting to make the dreadful Georges Bensoussan. Spoke of fierce gangrene, mocked the Association SOS O undocumented who had inflicted one of the worst pensum he ever had to read: 55 pages of torture : I thought of the Jews who were deported during the Occupation, and I found great audacity to explain to me that the status of Vichy was not that bad.

Concerning the inadmissibility of the CCIF, Maître Laval affirmed that the Collectif had found a boon in the fact that the Public Prosecutor took the relay in an action that he could not lead: CCIF? So now you have a recurring team: the SOS O Sans Papers Association, with an O, he liked to point out, blaming the CCIF that had qualified Sifaoui Algerian Service Agent, this CCIF Follower of approximations, lies and other defamations to silence the detractors of political Islam. This CCIF refused to condemn terrorism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and to which it advised be modest and refrain from teaching. He again recalled the explosive theme of the violent debate that confronted Pangloss-Patrick Weil and Bensoussan-Cassandre: Cassandra or alarm bell. To look at the debate in its entirety, the Court will accept that the essentialization, this rhetorical darling that serves us the world of the civil parties, does not hold: the French fracture, that is what the historian names in deploring it, in a report worried and sorry. As to the expression antisemitism breastfeedingit is only an image: that of the transmission and not this artificial construction that we would like to serve. The historian, obviously, did not target all Muslims: at the 29.12 minute, he specifies: I did not say it all, I said a part. That is what characterize or not the offense. Georges Bensoussan is not there by chance: by his work and his functions, he was the ideal target, delivered for you to punish him.

Here. Georges Bensoussan, invited to conclude, was sober, afflicted that he presented himself by this scorn for his work, these slanders, this accumulation of lies : And I would have even incited genocidehe said, saying his deep sadness. He came back on the temptation of exile that he had already mentioned and to which 52,000 French Jews yielded, recalling that if he yielded, he would capitulate, repeating his immense sorrow and conclusive Those who sound the tocsin are put in prison and the incendiaries are rewarded.

The sadness of the historian, his despondency weighed on the hall. The deliberation was set for May 24 at 1:30 pm, and, while a multi-recidivist hate merchant had just been released despite the spread of nauseating images and under the pretext that this montage did not represent all Jews, we could not think of Gramsci, imprisoned in 1927 by Mussolini for 20 years, to prevent his brain from functioning, or at Joseph Anton of Salman Rushdie who evoked, in 2012, what Something new was happening, the rise of a new intolerance, which was spreading on the face of the earth, but which nobody wanted to agree: a new word had been invented to allow the blind to remain blind , Islamophobia.

Sarah Cattan

Source: © The eminently political trial made to Georges Bensoussan, by Sarah Cattan

18 Partages

2 Responses to "Le procès éminemment politique fait à Georges Bensoussan, par Sarah Cattan"

  1. Natalie Belhassen
    Natalie Belhassen   2 April 2018 at 15 h 27 min

    Extremely sad to read all this. They won….

  2. Alain Rubin
    Alain Rubin   2 April 2018 at 17 h 24 min

    I do not know.
    If they (Muslim brothers and his allies mrap ...) the constitution would be violated.
    It would be a judicial coup d'etat. Freedom of conscience and words would have been murdered. The offense of blasphemy - under cover of the fight against racism - would be restored in accordance with the Istanbul Process and the requirements of the Conference of Islamic States

Comments are closed.

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By: