Here is my rough translation of the 12 march 2003 article. If there are mistakes, they have been unintentional. I’ve tried to make an objective translation.
Here we go.
Trial.
A head teacher of the college is accused of not assisting a person in danger: a jewish student has been harrassed in her building.
By Ilana Moryoussef contact@proche-orient.info
This has happened 27 June2002 at the Collège Albert Camus in Brunoy (Essonne). Two other comrades of the young firl were equally hit and insulted. The principal kept her calm: she denies the seriousness of the act. Story of a trial that has taken close to seven hours. “Almost a trial of the assize court”, stressed the president of the correctional Tribunal of Évry. The judgment will be given april 1st.
The facts go back to 27 june 2002. On that day, three young schoolgirls of the jewish school Beit Rivka de Yerres, coming to pass the diploma exams at the collège Albert Camus de Brunoy, have been agressed by other students, verbally and physically, within the boundaries of the school. The parents of the girl most seriously hit, Guittel, have posted two complaints: one against the instigators of the agression, has been filed without continuation, the lawyer considering that a simple reminder of law would be sufficient. * [I’m not sure whether this means a civil case that was not set through, or was filed without asking for pleadings, or a complaint in criminal law] The second complaint aimed at the principal of the collège and her vice-principal, who have been heared by the court yesterday.
Two versions of the facts have been posed against each other during the trial. For the pedagogical staff of the collège Camus, this history can be summarized as a simple
cat fight between girls, nothing worth making a drama about. For the parents of Guittel, on the contrary, the facts are extremily serious: their daugther has been victim of antisemitic violence. Their advocate has spoken of the ‘lynching’ and has blamed the principal of the collège, Mme Borde, and her vice-principal, Mme Nicolas, of having done nothing to prevent the situation from getting out of hand. Furthermore, at no moment has Mme Borde recognized the antisemitic character of the agression. When the day after the facts the father of Guittel had called indignant to complain about his girl being attacked « by Arabs » within the walls of the collège, she cut short the conversation: « these are racist statements ». (In fact, the adolescent actors of the agression were young people of maghreb and african origin. The advocate of Guittel remarks: in her statement, Mme Borde describes a teacher who came from the school Beit Rivka of Yerres (private under contract) for surveillance of the diploma exams of the collèges : « a man in clothing typical of orthodox jews », as she said to police officers.
What happened 27 June 2002 at the collège Albert Camus of Brunoy ? On that day, as each year for 18 years, 22 girls of the next-door school, Beit Rivka, came to pass the diploma exams of the collèges. From the moment of their arrival, remarks rose up: « They are wearing dresses. They are jewish ». Some time later, the girls of the collège Albert Camus explained to police officers the reason of this attitude. They were nervous because of an incident that happened several days before: 15 june, when they passed before the school Beit Rivka, girls appeared behind the windows: « Dirty black/nigger, with your ass behind ! ». As 15 june was a Saturday, day of shabbat. The school was closed and the students were absent. Only remaining in the school were several interns. None of the girls coming to pass the exams were interns.
But in the logic of the clans that prevails henceforth in the suburbs, this precision was not of a kind to appease the spirits. Before starting to compose [the exam], the students of Beit Rivka heard saying that « if there is no war before the end of the day, that would be a miracle ». The morning nonetheless passed without further problem. The afternoon, contrariwise, the climate hardened. Certain students, having finished the exams early, came down in the school yard. The harrassment recommenced. « What are you doing here ? Get out, you’re not at your place ! This is not Gaza ! » Liora, 15 years old, tells, intimidated and blushing : « They told as these words… these words one hears in the streets ». She looks at the president, with an air of asking whether she must repeat these words before the tribunal. « It’s allright, says the president, we know these kind of words ».
Liora had received a slap and several fist hits. The young Haya witnesses too: « One girl approched me. She told me to close my eyes. She slapped me ». The president read the deposition of M., the young girl who started the agression: « I’ve seen a young jewish girl. She stared straight at me. This aggravated me. My friends have told me above all never to make allusions to her religion, since that could cause me trouble. My hand has struck out ». Haya ran away to warn the vice-principal, Mme Nicolas. At that point the witnesses diverge. According to the students of Beit Rivka, Mme Nicolas remained saying: « I do not want to have an assembly in the school yard. That will end in a riot. Disperse ». With respect to the slap that Haya received, she had inspired the vice-principal a simple comment: « I have seen nothing. I couldn’t do anything ».
The vice-principal denies this version and assures to have taken more vigorous measures. She affirms having crossed, when returning to her office, the head counselor of education, Mlle Sekko. Informed about the slap, she responded: « I know who has done that. I will occupy myself with that ». Mme Nicolas had given instruction to accompany the students of Beit Rivka to the entrance of the collège, and to send a group of five adolescents of Albert Camus, the agitators, in the permament hall… « How did it happen, asked the president that at the moment of the riot, all the students were in the school yard ? » Answer of the education counselor: « Between that what they have been told to do, and that what they do in reality, there sometimes are surprises. I’ve done what I could do ».
With respect to the principal, Mme Borde, when brought abreast with the incident of the slap, she was not alarmed out of measure. « These kinds of incidents, she assures, we have them several times per week. We live in violence ». « You have nonetheless received, in april 2002, two months before the facts, the circulaire in which Jack Lang, then minister of Education, invited the heads of institutions to take the greatest vigilance with respect to resurfacing of racist and antisemitic acts ? », ask Maître Buchinger, advocate of the civil parties. « Yes », answers Mme Borde. « And knowing that, that day, the students of the school Beit Rivka came in your institution for passing the exams, you did not judge it useful (utile) to take specific precautions ? » Mme Borde believes not to have failed at any moment in her responsibilities.
See by the way how she relates the gravest agression, the one against Guittel, the third victim : « She was at my office, with my vice-principal. We were busy recounting the exam copies. We heard yelling. We went out. When we arrived, it had terminated. I wanted to add that it is insulting to say that a responsible of an institution can remain passive before a lynching. »
What has passed in the school yard while Mme Borde was busy counting the copies with her vice-principal? Outside, the tension continued to increase. The secretary of the school Beit Rivka, arrived, with a surveillant, M. Fleischer. They were alerted by a desparate telephone call of the mother of Liora, who had been warned by her daughter : « I don’t know what happens at the collège Albert Camus. Liora has received a slap. I am very anxious. I beg you, do something ! » In the absence of the director of Beit Rivka, who corrected at that day copies in another building, the secretary and her surveillant have driven to the collège Albert Camus. They found two groups of students, highly excited, and tried to calm them. When one of the adolescents threw herself on Guittel, who grasped her hair, M. Fleischer intervened in vain, because other adolescents started to hit Guittel, who found herself on the ground. According to testimonies of students of Beit Rivka, five or six girls were on their comrade, while a dozen others hit her with feet, fists, or bags.
A version that is contradicted by the pedagogical staff of the collège Albert Camus. All aussre not to have seen than a riot between two girls and talking of « hits exchanged ». Intrigued, the president asks to read the depositions of students of Albert Camus. Several among these have acknowledged, before the police, to have given Guittel kicks by feet, fist and bags, while Guittel fought, within the hold of her principal agressor.
Another point of divergence: the students of Beit Rivka are formal (?), no-one else but their surveillant, M. Fleischer, has intervened to stop the riot. The testimony of Yohevet, another student, is overwhelming. Standing straight at the bar, the adolescent, thin silhouet, fluid expressoin, weak timbre, firm voice explains calmly : « I was there from beginning to end and I have seen no-one with respect to M. Fleisher. I have simply seen a young man, with a white sweater, with crossed arms… » The president: « These are serious accusations. Are you sure of what you say ? » Yohevet signals ‘yes’. « Do you recognize among the two surveillants who are here those who you say remained with crossed arms ? » She again signals ‘yes’. The young man denies and protest : « I have intervened ! ». His surveillant collegue assures too that he tried to stop the riot. « You were with three men to separate two 15-year old girls who were fighthing ? », astonishes the president.
When the riot had ended, M. Fleischer took his students outside the collège. They were followed by two or three students of Albert Camus, who shouted : « Don’t come back tomorrow, we will exterminate you ! ». The next day, two of the three girls did not want to come again to the college to pass the last exams. The others were escorted by policemen. Following this episode, one of them prefered to leave France. She since pursues her education in Israël. Guittel, examined by a registered doctor (?), has an interruption of work of four days in full, which are transformed, after the ‘examen approfondi’, in a rest of six weeks, with head and chin brace (?).
At the stand, the director of Beit Rivka is astonished by the behaviour of the principal of the collège. « I have called her so we could reflect together about what we could do. She refused all dialogue. She layed the blame on my students. She told me, in her college, there has never been a problem. » The lawyer of the defence, Maître Horny, asks : « Your school is an institution Loubavitch ? » « Yes », answeres the director.
In his pleadings for the civil parties, Maître Buchinger does not neglect to point out the strangeness of this question : « I’ve heard on the benches of the other party a remark that made me shiver. I have trouble understanding this insinuation. or rather, I fear to understand it too well ! ». And the advocate pointed out also the attitude of the procureur (*) during the previous hearing that was held in october. The procureur had demanded a deposit of the civil parties (this is the sum of money a plaintiff deposits to guarantee the seriousness of his complaint). He had even threatened to follow the parents of Guittel for abuse of procedure. « Is it, thunders maître Buchinger, that there are citizens who have the right to appeal to justice, and others who don’t have or no longer have that right ? » Besides that, on 5 décembre, the procureur has given an order of ‘classement sans suite’ (filing without continuance), with a simple reminder to the law for the instigators of the agression. [I’m not sure about this part]
(*) This looks to mean the State’s attorney-general/prosecutor, not the attorney of the other party (procureur has several meanings in French law).
Then Buchinger denounces the attitude of the principal and vice-principal. For him, the delict of non-assistance to a person in danger has been proven: « No precaution was taken when they knew that 22 students of a jewish school came to pass the exams ! During the trial, they have belittled the facts. The students of Albert Camus have been more honest than the responsibles of their institution. They have acknowledged that it was not a simple cat fight between two girls but that Guittel was attacked by several of them ! » Maître Buchinger is astonished that after the attack the principal did not judge it useful to make a signalement to the prosecutor of the State. To the contrary, he continues, when the next day the father of a student who was hit arrived at the college, agitated, and said : « My girl has been raised in a cocoon. If something happens to her, I’m going to set the college on fire ! », Mme Borde has filed charges. « If there had been the smallest objective treatment on the side of the principal and her vice-principal, we would not be before this tribunal », exclaims maître Buchinger. Finally, the advocate of the civil parties hackles « the outrageous and cynical demand » of the responsables of the institution. They demand in effect 15 000 euros each (100 000 francs) of damages by way of damage to good name (préjudice moral) that they estimate to have suffered.
Henceforward, the students of Beit Rivka will pass the finals in a private catholic school. With respect to the judgment, that will be given April 1st.