The plot thickens. After the unexpectedly positive outcome of the Lurcat trial — granted, it was on a technicality — the situation in court realigns.
The case: Enderlin and France2 against a distinguished 62 year-old physician who began a website called Desinfos.com in September 2000 that represents along with Honest Reporting the almost immediate response of some observers to the systematically skewed portrayal of events of the “Second Intifada” by the MSM.
The charges: In 2002, at the time of the (now) famous demonstration outside the offices of France2 (itself a response to France2′s refusal to show Esther Schapira’s movie), Désinfo.com published a piece by Stephane Juffa that argued against the demonstration awarding of the “Prix de désinformation” to Enderlin. Instead he recommended that people ask France2 politely to show the data they have — in particular, Talal abu Rachme’s rushes. In so doing he wrote the following passages to which France2 and Enderlin objected. The defendant’s lawyer A. Weill Raynal has sent me the following texts that France2 and Enderlin made the basis of their suit [MENA -- Metula News Agency -- is the subject of the following phrases] :
« [MENA]… is of the opinion that, as we think, Charles Enderlin commited grave professional errors in the Al Dura Affair, that the whole thing has to be explained publicly, so that people can understand precisely what happened. The important aspect is not to punish anybody, as necessary as it might be; it is to tell the truth, the whole truth, so that it gets known. As known as the lies were known. At least so. »
« [MENA] affirms that grave suspicions of disinformation exist where this affair is concerned, and of the role of the personnel of France2 in the diffusion of elements and affirmations that seem highly contestable. That these elements are of a such a nature that they unduly tarnish the image of one of the belligerents and favor, as a result, popular feelings of of ethnic and racial hatred towards Israelis. »
« [MENA] considers that the repeated refusals of France2 to respond to requests as so many brutal and unacceptable obstructions in the search for and demonstration of the truth.
For having made these opinions available to French readers at a French-based website, the webmaster of Desinfo.com was being accused of having struck at the honor and the consideration of Charles Enderlin.
The Place: Palais de Justice, Paris, Thursday afternoon from 14-19h (2-7PM).
- Excellent witnesses, who laid out a powerful case for the significance of al Durah, the dramatic lack of due diligence on the part of Enderlin, and the stonewalling that followed upon Enderlin’s and France2′s exposure to criticism.
- Mme Bénédicte Amblard repeated her previous preformances: no questions, no witnesses, a very long, whiney, concluding plea that included this gem: “these accustions may seem anodine, but they are all the more pernicious for seeming so…” She must have mentioned the Prix Goebbels a dozen times, even though they had nothing to do with the sentences in question.
- Mme. le Procureur Alimi-Uzan from the first trial was back. She once again expressed quiet astonishment that this had even reached the court, given how anodine the statements, how important the issue, how distant the insult (someone else’s words, on an aggregating website, stated in the conditional), how important for a free society that people be able to express criticism of such prominent figures as Enderlin.
- Aude Weill-Raynal was far and away the most eloquent and dynamic presence in these trials so far. In both tone and body language she dominated the scene from her opening salvo about the striking absence of Charles Enderlin from this courtroom (despite being in Paris only hours earlier), and the continued inability of the public to see the rushes. Repeatedly turning and even gesturing towards Maitre Amblard, she hammered away at the trivial and inappropriate nature of her colleague’s argument. (Amblard spent the entire hour of Weill-Raynal’s summation shuffling papers, constantly.) Towards the end of her remarks, Weill Raynal also noted that Charles Enderlin has been the permanent voice of France2 (and hence for the French public) on Middle Eastern issues for 20 years! No plurality of voices here. Just Charles and more Charles.
- I saw no MSM journalists. After the first trial, the MSM has lost interest. No rush to report the results of the Lurcat trial, no reporters from Figaro, Reuters, IHT, in the courtroom.
- Decision, January 18, 2007.
- Fashion note: Amblard did not flip her hair once that I noticed. Has she been reading Nidra?
What will happen? Interesting question. One informed observer thought he detected smirks on the face of one of the judges during Alimi-Uzan’s summation — as if to say, “on la connaît, la communautariste sioniste”). But the case itself is so risible that it would be hard to find for the plaintiff. And while that didn’t stop the judges in the Karsenty case from deciding for Enderlin, here the case is that much the more risible.
A decision against Gouz would have to stretch the credibility of legal reasoning beyond the breaking point(?). The judges may opt for a technicality which leaves Enderlin and France2 with their victory “sur le fond” (on the substance) and in the media, and hit them for two minor losses on technicalities that no newspaper bothers mentioning.
But one can always hope that the judges, whatever their political prejudices and whatever phone calls they get from on high (does France2 even care anymore?), will find France2′s and Enderlin’s contemptuous use of their courts to muzzle opponents they will not face, a sufficient atteinte à leur honneur et considération, that they will slap them down. And in so doing, they would offer the French public a breath of fresh air in that cognitive prison their MSM has spun around them.
As far as I’m concerned, however, the French court system is far too opaque, at least to me, to predict how things will turn out. As Karsenty puts it: si la France est un état de droit, il sera relaxé [If France is a lawful state, he [the defendant] will be found not guilty].”
There is, of course, the fourth case, about which there is nothing yet in English. And this last one is really bizarre. Not to mention Karsenty’s appeal next year.
Again, as Weill-Raynal put it so eloquently: Where are the rushes? What is France2 hiding?
To which I add: What will be the results on the public — French, European, Western — of seeing the astounding dishonesty of Palestinian camerawork and the equally astounding credulity of our “best” professionals?