Comment:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] No Mr. Joffrin, Alain Finkielkraut did not strike, he thought about and analyzed an intolerable situation in a democratic State which respects a fundamental right: that of the presumption of innocence.
This term is also totally appropriate until the day when an indictment is pronounced by a judge.
Until then everyone has the right to respect for his person.
Moreover, after the indictment, there is no longer any real presumption of innocence but rather a presumption of guilt because let us not forget that an order for indictment by an Investigating Judge is itself a first judgement!
It was only the will to wring the necks of words that, in the 80s, the terminology of “presumption of guilt” was replaced by that of “presumption of innocence”.
However, who could imagine that we could put in preventive detention, for two or three years, or even more, a “presumed innocent”! This would be a serious and unacceptable violation of human rights.
If therefore, from the indictment, the defendant could be considered "presumed guilty", it is clear that before that moment, it is morally inadmissible to consider him guilty, and even less on the basis of a simple complaint or denunciation, thereby forgetting the fundamental right to a fair trial due to every citizen!
Moreover, it should be remembered that in French criminal law testimony is not evidence but only "a presumption of the beginning of evidence" likely to become the beginning of evidence, and this regardless of the number of witnesses.
Thus, like lynching in the past, we throw names into food, we condemn in the media (and therefore factually) and this even before the start of an investigation and on the basis of simple denunciations!
We condemn before having judged, before having investigated and even, without the denounced person being able to defend his case highlighting a serious attack on fundamental freedoms, at the forefront of which is the right to adversarial proceedings.
All this is all the more strange in that one rises with an unexpected vehemence on the fact that when it is a question of terrorists or anti-Semitic criminals, one wants to forbid pronouncing their simple name or their origin; whereas on the contrary, we find it completely normal, even imperatively necessary, to denounce by name “the monstrous bourgeois pigs” liable to abuse!
These denunciations are all the more disturbing as the time passed since the presumed criminal act makes it totally impossible to obtain any evidence, even if, in the case in point, the facts would not be time-barred!
No, Mr. Joffrin, in a rule of law, an accusation must not reflect any desire for revenge, or even worse, any desire for instrumentalization for the benefit of an ideology. No, in a rule of law, an accusation, like the complaint that follows it, must imperatively follow the directives of criminal procedure, which is extremely precise and which we have taken so many centuries to put in place!
So, YES, Alain Finkielkraut is well in his role as a philosopher, a thinker, a witness to our society and a citizen of the rule of law, when he denounces its excesses!
Richard C. ABITBOL
Chairman
[/perfectpullquote]
|
|
Philosophy at the counter
Alain Finkielkraut has struck again. The one that Current values presents himself as a gagged man (he ended up defending himself from it, in a fit of lucidity) gives his 8nd interview to the Figaro to develop his thoughts on current events (“Balance ton porc”, Charlie, Ramadan, etc.), between three television interviews, two webcasts and four radio appearances. He demonstrates once again the ease with which a philosopher of quality takes liberties with semantics, logic and even reality.
Alain Finkielkraut is frightened by the generalized "information" that would characterize the liberation of speech triggered by the hashtags following the Weinstein affair. No one likes denunciation, we will readily agree. But is it that? If an assaulted woman names her aggressor, is she a "whistleblower"? When eight women point to a man who assaulted all eight of them, are they “whistleblowers”? Certainly they publicly denounce a man. But apart from the fact that denunciation and denunciation are two different things (article 40 of the code of criminal procedure, for example, obliges any official made aware of an offense to denounce it to the authorities: is this still denunciation?), it would be necessary to please Alain Finkielkraut that the assaulted women keep silent, or else content themselves with expounding in general on sexual harassment without ever naming anyone…
The philosopher rightly remarks that there already exists a whole penal arsenal intended to fight against harassment, discrimination, sexual assault and, a fortiori, rape. Very just. But the situation that prevails until today is that women often feel that they have more to lose than to gain by filing a complaint. The question is therefore less to strengthen the legal system of sanctions, than to implement it. What is missing is not the law. It is the right to the right. Alain Finkielkraut does not say a word about it.
He then crosses the line of common sense and logic by stating without laughing that “one of the objectives of the #BalanceTonPorc campaign was to drown the fish of Islam” (sic). We would try to “make people forget” the aggressions in Cologne or elsewhere (resic). Apart from the fact that the assertion is neither more nor less than the psychosis of the conspiracy (thus the editors of the hashtag were in fact aiming to make Muslims forget!!??), it is contradicted by a very simple fact: one of the first in question is called Tariq Ramadan, one of the most prominent Muslim personalities in France. This is not philosophy in the boudoir. He's the philosopher at the counter...
And also
• Trotskyism leads to everything, provided you get out of it. Gérard Filoche has already distinguished himself by posting on Twitter an anti-Semitic montage worthy of I'm everywhere which earned him an exclusion procedure initiated against him by the PS. Now he's giving (on television) a perfectly far-fetched explanation of the said anti-Semitism. If there are anti-Semites, he says, it is the fault of capitalism and the social inequality it engenders. Explanation clearly resulting from a badly assimilated Marxism. Anti-Semitism already existed in the Middle Ages, when financial or industrial capitalism was certainly not the dominant characteristic of the economy. We find hints of anti-Semitism in Proudhon, who was hardly a "capitalist", or else we will remember the notoriously anti-Semitic "white coats" trial brought against Jewish doctors by Stalin, a well-known capitalist personality... And if Filoche slipped by publishing this shameful photomontage, is it really the fault of financial capitalism?
• Laurent Wauquiez rejects any alliance with Marine Le Pen. He has just responded sharply, with a clear and clear no to the appeals of the foot made by the head of the National Front. If he takes up the themes of the FN, it will have been noticed, it is not to join the FN. It's to steal from his constituents. Shade…
|
|
Laurent Joffrin
|
|
|
|
|
Follow the news continuously
THE DIRECT |
| You can be removed from our mailing list by visiting this page
If you are not viewing this page correctly, check it online |
|
0 Comments
Bilou
What a great response from Richard Abitbol.
Nobody likes real rapists. But there are fake rapists who find themselves vamped by women who are attracted to light, notoriety, or who play with fire. This was certainly not the case with the Cologne rapists.
When Tarik Ramadan, the real interest was more to unmask his double game, his double face, more than to denounce his turpitudes