We’re taking this to the Higher Court: Enderlin responds to the decision at his blog

Charles Enderlin has a terse but sulky comment at his blog in which he announces his plans to take this on appeal. His logic is impeccable, as usual. (I look forward to reading the judge’s decision to see what kind of selective reader CE really is.) In any case, we’ve got more time to drag this through the public’s attention. Thank you, CE. As for the single sycophantic comment, try leaving a comment that’s negative and see if it appears. All mine have vanished.

Les propos de Karsenty étaient diffamatoires
[Karsenty’s comments were defamatory.]

mercredi 21 mai 2008 à 17:20 :: Al Dura

Monsieur Karsenty avait été condamné par le tribunal de Paris pour avoir dit que France 2 et moi-même avons réalisé un faux reportage.
[M. Karsenty was condemned by the tribunal in Paris for having said that France2 and i, myself, produced a fake news report.]

La Cour d’appel de Paris a constaté :
[The Appeals court ruled:]

1 ; Que ces propos étaient bien diffamatoires
[That these accusations were, in fact, defamatory.]

2 Que Mr. Karsenty n’a pas apporté la preuve de cette soi-disant mise en scène et du caractère mensonger de ce reportage.
[That M. Karsenty did not bring proof of this supposed “staging” and the lying character of the report.]

3 La Cour d’appel, en revanche, contrairement au tribunal de première instance, a estimé que Mr. Karsenty était en droit de critiquer virulemment ce reportage, le sujet ayant créé une émotion particulière et, reconnu qu’il avait procédé à une enquête qui permettait à la Cour d’appel de lui reconnaître le bénéfice de la bonne foi.
[But on the other hand, the Appeals court, contrary to the initial tribunal considered that Karsenty had the right to virulently criticize this report, the subject having created a notable emotion, and recognized that he had carried out his investigation that permitted the Court of Appeals to grant him the benefit of doubt in the matter of his good faith.]

Il va de soi que nous ne partageons pas cette dernière analyse et que nous formons un pourvoi en cassation contre cette décision.
[Obviously we do not share this last analysis and we are planning to appeal this to the highest court (Cassation).]

France 2
Commentaires :: Ajouter un commentaire

1. Le mercredi 21 mai 2008 à 19:23, par Albert
Merci Charles de ne pas céder aux attaques charognards et diffamatoires de certaines personnes. Je vous supporte pour le pourvoi en cassation. Et merci pour vous reportages et votre travail.
Bon courage,
[Thank you Charles for not ceding to the predatory attacks of certain people. I support you for the appeal. And thank you for your reports and your work.]

I just sumbitted the following.

    M. Enderlin se trouve coincé entre deux mauvais choix: ou il laisse tomber pour ne pas encourager le monde à mieux connaître ses erreurs de jugements, ou il continue a insisté qu’il na pas fait d’erreurs et continue à exposer le public au tissu d’erreurs qu’il a commis et en diffusant les mises-en-scènes de son cameraman Talal, et en refusant de reconsidérer ensuite. Malheur a tout le monde — francais, occidentale, musulman — qui a imbibé les poisons de Pallywood. Il n’y a que les gens qui aiment la guerre qui en profitent.

Don’t expect it to show up anytime soon.

UPDATE: Still not there. What a wimp. That’s not what blogging is about. I have never blocked a critical comment. (In fact, I’m sorry I don’t get more, especially substantive ones.)

14 Responses to We’re taking this to the Higher Court: Enderlin responds to the decision at his blog

  1. Lorenz Gude says:

    What strikes me initially about Enderlin’s response is its resemblance to Dan Rather’s reaction to his memos being questioned. I believe the level of indignation indicates the enormous sense of privilege that our TV elites have built up since they realized their power over public opinion. Having lived through the TV era I would say that it was during the Vietnam era that reporters realized they had the power to not just inform or influence public opinion, but to actually create and control it. (It strikes me that is exactly what the al Durah footage was intended to do.) Such power is clearly addictive and its loss felt keenly. Enderlin doesn’t seem to understand that by blogging his reaction he is creating a permanent public record of his petulance. Better by far for him to have vented his pique privately.

  2. Soccer Dad says:

    More On The Al-Dura Verdict…

    The written verdict has not yet been handed down, but HonestReporting–has some of the observations of someone who was in the courtroom and spoke to some of the lawyers who saw a copy of the judgement: WHAT DOES IT MEAN? At the time of writing, the ful…

  3. AT says:

    Why does it seem that only CE has access to the written appeals ruling?

  4. Chaim says:

    Is it just France2 that has the original and uncut 27 minutes of Al-Dura rushes? I thought countless other media outlets that ran the story in Sept/Oct 2000 also had the same 27 minutes. Am I mistaken?

  5. oao says:

    sounds like i was right with my doubts about how this will play.

    if i had to bet, I would bet on the supreme court reversing the appeals court. people were too quick to admire the french system of justice.


  6. […] The Augean Stables – We’re taking this to the Higher Court: Enderlin responds to the decision at his blog […]

  7. judith rosay says:

    Cher ami,bravo,kol a kavod,mais,s il vous plait,corrigez ces petites fautes qui genent dans votre superbe blog:Mr Enderlin laisse tombeR,pour ne pas encourager le monde A mieux connaitre ses erreurs de jugement.Encore bravo pour votre opiniatrete,votre
    courage,il y a eu l affaire Dreyfus,appelee aussi l affaire Zola,du nom de l ecrivain qui s est battu pendant des annees pour la verite,il y a maintenant l affaire Metula,Karsenty,Landes,enfin!

  8. I tried leaving a comment (in French) and it never even appeared. I am the one who asked him (at the Nouvel Obs, when he offered to answer submitted questions) whether knowing what he does today he would have acted in the same way (a way out, of sorts), and he said yes… So we should not be surprised at his odd read of the verdict, or his silly decision to to appeal.

  9. expat says:

    I tried to leave a comment too, it never appeared, and it was actually pretty ‘gentil’ – I’ve just read the PDF version of the Court’s decision (sorry, it’s too legalistic for me to translate into English). I HIGHLY doubt that F2 and CE will appeal, it would be suicidal! The judgement is ‘accablant’. I think they’re hoping it just dies a quiet death… Well, I am blogging like crazy (go to Marianne’s web site) to try to get people talking about this. I might even send an email to emmanuel Beretta from Le Point; someone from the MSM NEEDS to do a full report on this.

  10. Naibed says:

    I myself made a try here (before I read this !) :)

    Traduction :

    Le jugement est disponible ici, Monsieur Enderlin : l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de Paris (format PDF)
    [The judgement is available here, Mr Enderlin: ]

    Pouvez-vous me montrer, dans les commentaires de la Cour où elle aurait dit que les propos de Monsieur Philippe Karsenty étaient bien, en l’espèce, diffamatoires ?
    [Can you show me in the comments of the Court where she would have said that what Mr Philippe Karsenty have said was well, in this case, defamatory?]

    En vous remerciant
    [Thank you]

  11. Soccer Dad says:

    The Al-Dura Verdict–And Enderlin’s Version Of It…

    Richard Landes of The Augean Stables has provided a rough translation of the actual court decision that dismissed the libel charges against Philippe Karsenty. He sums it up nicely: Generally speaking, I think this is a devastating decision. The judges …

  12. Soccer Dad says:

    The Al-Dura Case: OUR Next Step…

    While France2 has indicated they will take their appeal to the Cour de Cassation, Philippe Karsenty writes in an email about the next step that we have to take: The next battle will be political; we will have to ask the French government to demand that…

  13. […] his personal blog, Enderlin characterized Karsenty’s defense as not bringing any proof of hoax or staging: But on the other hand, the Appeals court, contrary to the initial tribunal considered that […]

  14. […] is Charles Enderlin’s and France2’s reading. It’s one thing for a lawyer defending his client, or the client, to so […]

Leave a Reply

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