My grasp of the French language is limited, but the original article seems to bear out Sullivan’s translation.
Maybe someone who reads French can confirm my impression that the perps have been identified, but not yet punished.
I assume that the fine followed French law in some way or another, but the entire situation stinks. Other sources have indicated that there’s a lot of anti-Semitism in France. E.g.,
It’s hard to disagree with Sullivan’s interpretation that the government is trying to cover up or paper over its antisemitism problems.
From the rough Google translation of the article, I take that the reason for the fine was that the parents impugned the honor of the court by saying that they were antisemitic.
They weren’t fined, people. They wrere ordered to pay $4000 Euros to the principal of the fucking school – who apparently filed some sort of petty lawsuit because the parents were saying bad things about him – namely, that the students had been released, the principal was notably unsympathetic, and the authorities suggested that the parents should just sue, instead of relying on the criminal court to do its job.
At least I think that’s what it says; my French is not that good, and Google’s French is even worse.
december. Here, sit next to me. Have a sip of this. Feel better? Alright, cool. Here’s the thing: none of us are saying that it was right for that child to be beaten; that was totally reprehensible. However… if the judge put a gag order on the situation, and they decided to talk anyway, they should get fined. It’s that whole crime and punishment thing. That’s not a commentary on the beating, it’s a commentary on the parents not following the laws.
The fuck? No, they are talking about if there was a court-ordered ban on revealing the identities of young offenders. That’s not civil disobedience, that’s obstruction of justice.
Thanks, Brutus. I was just about to post this same link. The google translation is not easy to read. I guess it’s all done by machine. But, the situation seems to be even worse than Sullivan said.
I gather that the fine of Euro 4,000 was levied on the parents to be paid to the principal of the school where their daughter was attacked, for what google translates as, “abusive constitution of civil part.” Apparently it’s a something like a fine for slander. There’s no mention of a gag law to protect a minor. (On preview, I see Nametag has already made this point.)
CRorex, if, during the days of Jim Crow, if some white thugs had beaten up a black girl because of her race, and her parents were then fined for complaining about it, would you really not see a problem?
Was there a gag order in Rosa Park’s case? Was there a gag order in the Albert Camus School case? Do you suppose, December, that there is a difference? Or do the facts unduly detract from your position?
When slowly driving a boat across a lake dragging hooks it is traditional to use bait. You are dragging a bare hook here and not likely to land a lunker, let alone get a bite.
On reviewing Nametag’s post it looks as if the parents were ordered to pay damages for defamation and small claims damages at that. Again, proves no institutional anti-Semitism.
I’d like to retract my previous totally uninformed post. I didn’t get a good read of the article. Here’s what’s really going on:
The parents of the Guittel (the girl who was beaten) sued the principal claiming that he had been negligent. The court disagreed with that, and made the parents cough up 4000 Euros. What they said (as a more or less direct translation) was the following: The tribunal was of the opinion that the parents of Guittel were wrong for suing the principal under the claim that he did not help a person in danger. In other words, they were forced to cough up the loot because they wrongly (in the opinion of the tribunal) blaimed the principal. Now, if you think that’s fucked up, it’s a whole other situation. But they’re not being fined because their daughter was beaten.
oh, don’t let facts get in the way of a december bitch fest, please.
And, IIRC, civil disobedience is when one intentionally breaks a law in order to challenge it in court. During the process of civil disobedience, one actually does go through the process (criminal for example). One then uses that experience in order to challenge the law within the court system.
some one misconstruing the facts of a case in order to attempt to lead a charge on ones’ own particular pet cause does not constitute civil disobedience.
Because your first comment seemed to say that the law is all that counts, regardless of morality.
Sqube, on re-reading the translation, I agree with you. The parents sued the school. Not only did they fail to win their suit, but the judge ordered them to pay Euro 4,000 to the Principal and Assistant Principal, because the suit insulted them.
Let’s try a more precise analogy. Suppose some white students in a private school decide to beat up a teen aged black girl in the class, because of her race. The principal is unsympathetic. Furthermore, he refuses to note the racist nature of the attack. The parents sue the school. What would happen?
Very likely, the parents would win. A jury would decide that the school ought to have prevented the racist attack. It had a duty to protect the girl. But, if the parents lost the suit AND they were ordered to pay $4,000 to the school, I think we would all be shocked and horrified.
by the way - this is an example of why absolutely every time some one says “but december is polite” I say “Fuck, no he isn’t.”
If you have a serious challenge to make the case that I’m racist or bigoted, then make the fucking case. Otherwise, retract that insintuation. and stop fucking doing that.
OK. Even if your idea that the parents had violated a gag order was correct, your post would have indicated a lack of sympathy. I am critical of your lack of sympathy for this girl, her family, and French Jews in general during a period of rampant anti-semitism.