Judgment against Philippe Karsenty: What Can Explain Such a Reversal?

I have heard from Paris that Philippe Karsenty was found liable for insulting Charles Enderlin and France2 to the sum of 3000 Euros to Enderlin and 5 symbolic Euros to France2. I do not have the judgment and only a vague account of the reasoning, which criticizes Philippe for not having done more research.

The implications of this reversal of Madame le Procureur’s clear recommendations, for what appears to be — we’ll have a translation and analysis of the judgment ASAP — a critique of Philippe that somehow absolves Enderlin of all of his journalistic failings, failings that came out abundantly in court, are deeply troubling.

If these trials are a test of the resilience of Republican culture in France in the face of a challenge to its very core values, then today’s decision is a great loss for the France most people who do love her, love.

More as soon as possible.

21 Responses to Judgment against Philippe Karsenty: What Can Explain Such a Reversal?

  1. French Justice? Stunning Al Dura Trial Verdict

    Contrary to predictions by Pajamas Medias’ Nidra Poller and others, Phillippe Karsenty, founder of Media Bistro, has been found liable and fined for “insulting” Charles Enderlin and France2 in the matter of the controversial Mohammed Al Dura video. …

  2. Eliyahu says:

    this is horrible. It sounds like the fix is in. That’s bad. The best thing to do is for people outside France –and not subject to the absurd French libel laws– to raise hell in print and on the blogs about this revolting miscarriage of justice, Vichy-like in its implications.

  3. France is Lost…

    Richard Landes reports that the France2-Charles Enderlin Trial has produced a ruling against Philippe Karsenty, whose crime was questioning France2’s coverage of the Mohammed Al Durah production. The only explanation I can imagine is French fear of Mu…

  4. Breaking: Verdict in al Dura trial

    Bad news for exposers of fauxtography: Looks like the French TV station has won (hat tip: Ellen). More to come. Richard Landes reports: I have heard from Paris that Philippe Karsenty was found liable for insulting Charles Enderlin and France2…

  5. Jerome Mrozak says:

    Actually, this is the Dreyfus case revisited. The French army officer with the “evidence” was not required to present the evidence to the court, and his word of secret evidence was accepted. Here, the unedited videos were not presented.

    For more on the Dreyfus see William Shrirer’s excellent book The Decline and Fall of the 3rd Republic.

  6. French court rules in favor of Enderlin against Ka

    It may have seemed like it was going positively at first, but now, it looks like the court in France that was presiding over the case of France 2 television went and ruled in Charles Enderlin’s favor, as Richard Landes at the Augean Stables reports.

  7. Breaking in the France2/Al Dura Trial: Karsenty Liable


    Philippe Karsenty has been found liable in the case for relatively token amount. Bad news. Richard Landes has more with details forthcoming: Judgment against Philippe Karsenty: What Can Explain Such a Reversal?

    I have heard from Paris tha…

  8. Abu Nudnik says:

    It’s pretty strange to claim that Karsenty didn’t do enough research since that’s the gist of his criticism of Enderlin. How much criticism of the press, of political figures, of ideas is allowed in nominally free and democratic France? Were I there, would I be liable for making such a statement and “insulting the institutions of France?” Better shut me mouth then!

    Here in North America, you’d have to prove, not that Karsenty was wrong but that he knowingly lied and did it maliciously in order to hurt Enderlin. Enderlin would also have to prove damages. Was he fired from his job, for instance? If Karsenty criticized Enderlin’s decisions and coverage because he felt the story was wrong, that would clearly place him outside the laws of libel.

    It shows how strongly aristocratic France is, despite its democratic pretensions. It’s not just this story: there are plenty of issues where the ruling elite simply ignore the will of the people. The EU constitution is dead, for instance, but the bureaucrats go on, interpreting a no vote as a “yes-if-we-were-only-just-educated-enough-to-understand-it” vote. Who was the Frenchman who said that no-one really understands the whole document? That’s a blueprint for autocracy and we’ve seen its smudged fingerprint today.

    Or perhaps the justice just couldn’t get a particular image out of her head: that of the Jew soldier standing at the foot of the Cross, a nail and hammer in his hand.

  9. Robert Schwartz says:

    Truth of the matter is that France is anti-Semitic. Always was, always will be. Jews who live in France should flee, ASAP. Jews who do not live in France should boycott the French. Don’t travel there. Don’t drink their wine. California Cabernet is better than Bordeaux. Try wines from Australia, New Zealand and Chile.

  10. Peaktalk says:


    Contrary to expectations, the French courts have ruled against Philippe Karsenty. More details from Richard Landes and PJM….

  11. Shtetl G says:

    In 1937, my Grandmother had a layover in France on her way to America from Slovakia(she left just in time. Her parents were not so lucky). While in France she visited the 1937 World’s Fair. I found this fascinating and asked her what she thought of France. Without hesitation she replied, “They are all anti-semites.” Good to know some things never change. The State Media produces a modern blood libel and the guy who calls them out is sued for defamation?!?!?!? Perhaps they can exhume Dreyfus’s body to kick around while they are at it. I would be suprised but then I remember my grandmother’s words and I am just mad….and grateful that I live in America.

  12. Robert says:

    This was always what we knew to expect but nevertheless is disappointing. France is the real loser, the western world is the real loser. The barbarians are at the gate. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum

  13. Rudi says:

    This is exactly as the 2nd Dreyfus trial after Zola’s J’accuse: Dreyfus was again judged guilty without any punishment just to cover up the French army and state. Here it is the same. From what I read about the case and as the plaintiff did not bring any decisive material the case was decided beforehand by the French government. I leave it to other to expand on this idea that is imho the main lesson from this trial. Karsenty will go into appeal. He might even have to go further up to the European court to gain… but he should!
    The Al Dura case has created a lot of antisemitism in the world exactly as the fake Dreyfus case.

    I agree with you. It’s interesting to think about what would have happened to France in the early 20th century had Dreyfus lost and Zola, found guilty by this same statute, ended up in British exile.

  14. igout says:

    You tell me. In matters touching the reputation of the establishment, isn’t “France would look ridiculous” the decisive consideration? Karsenty’s oie was cooked from the get-go.

    it’s the job of the blogosphere (absent a MSM that doesn’t do its job) to make the French look ridiculous. The secret of honor-shame cultures is that as much as they act arrogant and contemptuous, they are extremely vulnerable to humiliation. If this decision becomes the source of international ridicule, the judges in the next case will think twice (as will the people pulling their strings).

  15. Sissy Willis says:

    No more (French) cheese!!!

  16. Colin Meade says:

    This is so sad. I lived in France for some years and worked with French people for several more, so I wanted so much that the Republic would show its mettle. Clearly there’s nothing left there. This is Dreyfus, but worse – the anti-Dreyfusards are going to win – in France, but not in Anglo-Saxonia I hope.

    I have several friends who don’t like the analogy to Dreyfus. But the biggest contrast, to my mind, is that Dreyfus was small-fry stakes compared to the international impact of the al Durah libel.

  17. […] the plaintiff neither turned up in court nor offered any evidence to support his case, and have ruled against Ka […]

  18. Eliyahu says:

    Maybe Richard could go more deeply into the fact, that he mentions, that the same statute was used to prosecute Emile Zola 100 years ago.
    Fortunately, there is much more freedom of press in the USA than in France. In America, such a case could never come to court. However, in the case of Jonathan Pollard –who admitted spying– there was a secret letter from the secretary of defense of the time, Caspar W, to the judge which was described in the press as proving or alleging that Pollard had caused immense damage to US national security through his epionage. It seems that on the basis of that letter from the sec’y of defense, Pollard was sentenced to an especially long term –to life, in effect, whereas other spies convicted around the same time as he was [mid-1980s] were sentenced to terms of a few years. Check Christopher Boyce, and others.

  19. Eliyahu says:

    again, I want to stress that the letter has never been made public.

  20. Philmon says:

    Could this be more French dhimitude? Afraid of more riots, maybe? Or are they really that anti-semitic? Er — anti-Jewish, I guess since there are those who will howl that all Arabs are Semitic.

    Definitely afraid of more riots. I consider the French who dislike Jews and Israel to be mostly anti-Jewish, and right now the Arabs are the anti-semites. But that’s because I define the two differently from the more common usage (that conflates the two). As for the idea that the Arabs are semites and can’t be anti-semitic, it’s pure facetiousness which the inability of our politically correct intellectual elite to reject illustrates the pathetic nature of our intellectual elite.

  21. […] re Al durah Richard Landes reports that the France2-Charles Enderlin Trial has produced a ruling against Philippe Karsenty, […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *