Young girl beaten in anti-Semitic attack; French fine her parents!

The BBQ Pit
41

Where?

FUCKING WHERE??

So the issues are:

  1. The parents filed the case because they were upset with the principal’s lack of sympathy - lack of sympathy does not equal anti semitism, reprehensible though we may find it

  2. The principal does not believe the attack was anti-semitically motivated - holding this belief does not mean she is personally guilty of anti-semitism, it’s hardly holocaust denial

  3. The case generated massive advance publicity, preventing a fair trial - this may have been because the “anti-semitic” angle was a “sexy” or controversial one newswise, however it does not mean or prove anti-semitism was involved

  4. The judge found in favour of the defendant. In addition, it was strongly critical of the extensive publicity. But the case was not thrown out on grounds of publicity, the defendants won, and while the adverse publicity was part of the decision, it was not the sole part. - again, no evidence of anti-semitism either in the judgement, or the comments, or the judge trying to stifle free speech

  5. Michel Zaoui does not see why the publicity should affect the ruling. = Nor quite do I, I could understand if the entire case was thrown out because of the pre-trial publicity, but I am not au fait with french media law or court reporting law.

  6. Mr Zaoui seems to think there is some special case for extra leniency/leeway/relaxation of laws as regards court reporting, because of the current issue of antisemitism. = As a journalist, I do not agree with this. I do not think for any current issue that the rules should be stretched. I do not see that the court at any point is advocating stifling debate, just pre-trial publicity/libel/what have you.

So to sum up: the parents HAVE NOT been “punished” for bringing to light anti-semitism. Firstly because it is not proven anti-semitism was involved (though it is possible/probably it may have been) and secondly because they did not solely lose the case on the publicity element, and thirdly because the problem with the publicity was not specifically that it related to anti-semitism, just that it was adverse publicity. I imagine had they been libelled with pig fucking, the judge would have felt the same.

I see no evidence of anti-semitism in anything except the original attack. I see no evidence that the French courts are trying to stifle freedom of speech specifically over anti-semitic issues. I do not agree that any special allowances should be made because
anti-semitism is a particular problem at the moment.

42

So, basically, december is now complaining that the “loser pays” provisions of tort law that he has championed on numerous occasions should be suspended if the party he sides with initiates a lawsuit and loses?

43

Ooh la la ! Magnifique tomnbedd.

44

And you also, ** istara** (excuse the dyslexia).

45

So, a girl gets beaten up in what you’re assuming is an anti-semitic attack based on the race of the aggressors (if that don’t reek of idiocy, I don’t know what does), and her parents sue the principle for not being nice. They get their asses thrown out of court with a fine for wasting everybody’s time and impugning the character of the defendant. How, exactly, is this wrong? Shit, I wish our court systems worked this well.

46

You’re all missing a very important point: THEY’RE FRENCH!

I suspect that might have something to do with the fact that any of this was posted at all.

47

So now the reason for France not supporting military action in Iraq becomes clear! It’s institutionalised anti-Semitism! Damn their oily hides!

48

You are a complete and total fuckcicle, do you know that?

You majorly owe wring an appology, dicknugget.
I am totally sick and tired of your attempts to paint people who disagree with your weak little spins as bigots. You complain about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson-you are NO BETTER.

And this has to do with the story how? SULLIVAN is an IRISH name, you braindead pusbag.

Fuck off.

49

december: As a Jew and dual American-French citizen who is particularly disgusted at the level of anti-Semitism in France (e.g. Chirac’s comments to the effect that it’s not a problem), I have to say, you are way off base.

The reason for the judgment is given here:

That roughly translates to:

They had to pay because they filed a suit against which the principal successfully defended himself. American conservatives have encouraged this sort of system for a long time, where losing plaintiffs are financially responsible for wasting the defendant’s time and money. Your title is a complete strawman, as the parents were not fined for the fact that their daughter was beaten.

50

Oh, and december, remember this shit the next time you launch an attack on Catholicism.

I sure will. Jackass.

51

I greatly appreciate your input, Fang. You didn’t quite say the attack was almost surely anti-semitic, given what’s going on in France, but I assume you would support that POV.

I had interpreted the google translation to mean that the 4000 Euro fine was because the judge felt the parents had insulted the leaders of the Camus school by raising the issue of anti-semitism. If the fine was assessed only because the suit was totally without merit, then I agree that the OP was off base

But, then why did the newspaper find the judgement “STUPÉFIANT”? Are you certain of the basis for the fine?

Guinastasia, the comment about Solomon and Sullivan was a little joke at my grandmother’s expense. Hence the smiley.

52

Listen you toad…wring is one of my best friends on the SDMB. I’m Jewish. My gut-level feeling to this story (based on the garbled reports I’d heard and the gibberish translation) was similar to yours (though I’ll admit it seems like my reaction was wrong, based on Istara’s translation), but EVEN IF YOU’D BEEN RIGHT, the above comment was beyond vile. I know wring and she doesn’t have an anti-semitic bone in her body.

You, on the other hand, have just (IMO, at least) skipped merrily across the line from “Posters who annoy the hell out of me personally.” to “Obvious troll.”

Calling wring anti-semitic (or, to use your weasel-wording) unsympathetic to anti-semitism is like calling Scotti a rabid hate-monger or calling Monty a Mormon basher.

Fenris

53

No I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t have assumed in the 60’s (were I alive then) that if an attack by a white person on a black person - it did say the alleged attackers were Maghrebi, right? - was racially motivated. The situation in France right now, while very serious, is certainly not as serious as the racial situation in 1960’s America. In any case, as an opponent of hate crimes laws, it doesn’t really matter to me (except as an intellectual pursuit and insofar as it reflects on French society as a whole) what the attackers’ motivations were.

**
Yellow journalism. A look down the site’s home page reveals pretty obvious bias. Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with bias, but then you can’t really trust when their opinion of a judgment is that it’s stupifying. If Z Magazine called the attack on Iraq “disgusting” or some such, would you ask why they called it that and assume that it probably is?

I’m certain of the basis for the fine because it was detailed explicitly in the article, as I pointed out to you before.

54

I didn’t mean to call wring an anti-semite.

wring, I apologize for using words that gave that impression. I withdraw the comment.

55

http://www.proche-orient.info/xjournal_pol_der_heure.php3?id_article=11688

SHOCKING DECISION
The parents of the young girl who was attacked in a Brunoy high school were forced to pay a fine of 4000 Euros to the principal of the high school!

While waiting for judgement to be passed, the parents were reproached for having made a media circus of the affair. The arguments call into question how much of a right the public has to receive information on legal debates.

Guittel's parents have but to bitterly contemplate the promises made by Nicolas Sarkozy. The minister of the Interior said the following on March 31, during a party celebrating the 22nd anniversary of Radio J: "Faced with anti-Semitic acts, the only response that I will bring you are these facts: individuals will be arrested, and individuals will be found guilty."

On June 27, 2002, a young Jewish lady, Guittel, was beaten by several students from Albert Camus high school in Brunoy where she had come to take the tests for her certificate of general education. (Read about this topic in our article from last March 12: http://www.proche-orient.info/xjournal_racism_rep.php3?id_article=10732) For a response, her parents were just found guilty by the correctional court of Evry, and forced to pay a fine of 4000 Euros to the principal of Albert Camus high school and to his assistant for "abuse of the institution of civil action proceedings". Clearly, the court felt that Guittel's parents were wrong in suing the administration of the college for not helping a person in danger. "They knew, each time and without delay, to react as they were," added the judgement which notes that the parents' complaint "includes many errors or inaccuracies; it is also written in a somewhat excessive style lacking in any sort of prudence".

I wasn't deluding myself," declared Mr. Buchinger, Guittel's lawyer. "I did not think that the court would risk beginning the union reactions that would be received by finding the principal of a high school guilty. The discharge does not surprise me. On the other hand, I am alarmed at the fact that one could blame the parents." There was more of the same incomprehension from Guittel's mother: "My daughter was attacked and injured and I have to pay for it! That's just too much!"

Mr. Horny, the lawyer of the principal and his assistant, admits that the judgement can appear shocking, but emphasizes the fact that the case did not concern the anti-Semitic nature of the attack, but whether it was the responsibility of the principal and his assistant. "It is intolerable to insinuate that my clients deliberately refrained from intervening, knowing that there was a fight in progress, under the pretext that the young lady being attacked was Jewish," explained Horny. "The parents' approach showed itself to be counterproductive. "It's dramatic for the young lady (Guittel), because she ended up finding herself in a position to be considered guilty."

The court was sensitive to the argument of the defense's lawyer. It is not enough to say that their attitude was beyond reproach. It is necessary to add that "their personal and professional honor was adversely affected by half-cocked accusations of racism, while there are no affirmations that the

defendants had one word, one thought, or one action inspired by racism." Undoubtedly, this is what motivated the court to force the parents to pay damages, in addition to the costs of the proceedings.

From the beginning, the case was poorly planned. Initially, the parents sued the individuals who attacked their daughter. In front of police officers, the young ladies in question recognized salient facts,  but the case was filed without a suit. The prosecutor feels that a simple reminder of the law is enough. The parents then return with another case, this time against the administration of the high school. They felt that the principal and his assistant did not take the proper precautions, particularly since the minister of Education at the time, Jack Lang, sent a letter telling the leaders of schools to be particularly vigilant concerning problems with international contexts.

Horny felt that the parents committed an error in attempting to sue his clients. "Despite the classification without continuation, they legally had the means to go after the authors of the agression, whether by filing a complaint in a civil court, or whether by starting a legal proceedings to obtain damages for the prejudices that their daughter was subjected to, or whether by (if the agressors were not solvent) receiving compensantion for the victims of infringement." How, therefore, can one explain the decision to bring suit against the administration of the school? According to Horny, "they made use of a brawl between two girls to try to make people believe that Republic does not try to protect it's Jewish students."

However, what shocked Guittel's parents the most was the lack of compassion on the part of the principal. "If she had just called us after the fight to give me the news about my daughter, we would never have filed suit," assured the father of the attacked adolescent. Far from showing the least amount of sympathy, however, the principal denied the racial character of the attackthroughout the trial: "I never thought that this was an anti-Semitic act. As of this day, I am not persuaded." she stated at the hearing. However, lack of compassion is not a criminal offense. The principal's lawyer adds that her clients "had a hard time living through the trial and the media circus that was given by the opposing side".

The court did not appreciate the media circus either. They made their displeasure known. A passage from the judgement adds that *"nothing was done to respect the presumption of innocence, the court noticed in addition that this business was the object of a very important mobilization of the press (there were 20 journalists present... at least at the beginning of the trial) which is certainly not the doing of the court or of the defendants".*

This decision was so shocking in light of the line of argument that "proche-orient.info", for its part, asked Mr. Zaoui for a commentary on this affair. "Surprise", "shock", these were his first reactions. Michel Zaoui, most of all, "does not see the correlation between the media circus and the content of the justice's decision. Especially since 'this media circus' is nothing but the expression of the freedom of opinion". This calls into question, he emphasizes, "the information publically available concerning legal debates." This is particularly necessary in the current drifts which are particularly unhealthy and anti-Semitic.

Guittel's parents can not argue against the decision, since the judgement came from a subpoena*. On the other hand, they can dispute the fine levied by the judge. According to their lawyer, they plan to do so. Just as they plan to continue their suit against those who attacked their daughter.

** Sorry, but this sentence is almost certainly wrong and I can’t think of how to translate it. A literal translation yields the following: “The parents of Guittel cannot make call of the release because the judgement followed upon a direct quotation.” Since I don’t know about French law, this may be more accurate than what I have put. I therefore submit the direct quote in case someone more versed than I would like to have at it.*

56

Thank you very much, Sqube!

The article leaves me confused as to the justification for the 4000 Euro fine. It gives three different reasons:
[ol][li]The suit was totally without merit.[/li][quote]
“Abuse of the institution of civil action proceedings”. Clearly, the court felt that Guittel’s parents were wrong in suing the administration of the college for not helping a person in danger…“the parents’ complaint ‘includes many errors or inaccuracies’” Horny felt that the parents committed an error in attempting to sue his clients. “Despite the classification without continuation, they legally had the means to go after the authors of the agression, whether by filing a complaint in a civil court, or whether by starting a legal proceedings to obtain damages for the prejudices that their daughter was subjected to, or whether by (if the agressors were not solvent) receiving compensantion for the victims of infringement.” How, therefore, can one explain the decision to bring suit against the administration of the school?
[/quote]
[li]Too much publicity.[/li][quote]
parents were reproached for having made a media circus of the affair…The court did not appreciate the media circus either. They made their displeasure known. A passage from the judgement adds that “nothing was done to respect the presumption of innocence, the court noticed in addition that this business was the object of a very important mobilization of the press (there were 20 journalists present… at least at the beginning of the trial) which is certainly not the doing of the court or of the defendants”.
[/quote]
[li]Unsupported accusation of anti-semitism.[/li][quote]
“It is intolerable to insinuate that my clients deliberately refrained from intervening, knowing that there was a fight in progress, under the pretext that the young lady being attacked was Jewish,” explained Horny…The court was sensitive to the argument of the defense’s lawyer. It is not enough to say that their attitude was beyond reproach. It is necessary to add that “their personal and professional honor was adversely affected by half-cocked accusations of racism, while there are no affirmations that the defendants had one word, one thought, or one action inspired by racism.” Undoubtedly, this is what motivated the court to force the parents to pay damages, in addition to the costs of the proceedings.
[/quote]
[/ol]

57

IMHO, the fine was probably because of a combination of all three. I don’t think that any one, or even any two, of those reasons really could have led to such a fine. However, the combination of claims of racism, frivolous lawsuits, and purposely turning the case into a media circus instead of letting the courts (and the courts alone) handle it was probably what led to the fine.

[slight hijack]
While I can’t quote any particular phrases, just reading this over made me feel it was at least as editorial as it was informative in nature. Actually wait… here’s what did it:

That makes it sound like they paid for the privilege of having their daughter beaten.
[/slight hijack]

58

Yes, I’m reading the posts! Let us review the bidding here.

We start off with December posting an excerpt from somebody named Sullivan (who the hell he is I have no idea) from which December concludes the French government is anti-Semitic and is trying to cover-up the whole incident. Please note, no facts in December’s post, just excerpts from this Sullivan, whoever he is.

We follow that with posts from wring and from Twist of Fate raising the gag order question. To this December responds with his own version of WMD, a Rosa Parks analogy. At this point there is a flurry of posts, one of which is mine, the one you, 5-HT take exception. All of this takes place between 3:20 PM, the Rosa Parks post, and 3:45PM, my post. At my posting it looked to me as if the Court had sanctioned the parents for violating the gag order.

It was not until Istra’s post at 6:50PM that we got something that was close to an accurate translation of the French newspaper article that seems to be the source of this whole brouhaha. That article reveals that the parents were sanctioned, not for violation of a gag order, not for losing the law suit, but for abuse of process–starting a baseless law suit.

This is a far cry from December’s initial contention–couched, as usual, as passing on someone else’s opinion, not his own. The whole thing is typical of our friend.

And you 5-HT may bite me.

59

Do I have this right, Spavined Gelding? You didn’t read the linked article in the OP about the judgement. You don’t read French. You didn’t read the other linked article in the OP about French anti-semitism in the schools. You don’t know who Andrew Sullivan is. You ignored the post which had already pointed out that there was no gag order.

But, your mistake was my fault. :dubious:

60

… and by which manoeuvre, december turns the heat away from himself. Standard tactic; If the topic or the thrust of a thread doesn’t suit, focus on another poster.
Btw, your OP is still full of unsubstantiated and misleading drivel.