September 20th, 2007

The France 2 trials: the wheels of French justice grind slow…

..and they don’t grind all that fine, either.

But grind they do.

Regular readers of this blog may remember that about a year ago I had the exciting opportunity of traveling to Paris to cover one of the France2 defamation trials (my posts on the subject can be found by going to the right sidebar under “Categories” and clicking on “Paris and France2 trial” for the links).

These trials featured the interesting spectacle of a government-owned TV station, France2, suing ordinary citizens and bloggers who had accused the station and its renowned correspondent Charles Enderlin of lying in their coverage of the al Durah incident of 2000. It was the equivalent of Dan Rather suing Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs for accusing him of presenting forgeries in the Killian memo controversy (and speaking of Dan Rather suing, take a look at this).

“French justice” in defamation cases may be somewhat of an oxymoron. Between its rules of evidence (spotty), its attention to detail (nonexistent), its burden of proof (on the defendent), and its respect for entrenched power and reputation (astronomical), it’s easy to see why France 2 and Enderlin were so cocky in bringing a suit that in this country wouldn’t stand a chance.

Why care? In the US the al Durah incident was not nearly as influential as it was in Europe (see also this and this), where it greatly intensified an already anti-Israel climate and sparked support for the violent excesses of the Palestinians’ Second Intifada. The France2 footage and stills were used in terrorist and Islamicist totalitarian propaganda around the world, including the video made of Daniel Pearl’s beheading. The incident and attendant publicity solidified the idea that Israeli soldiers are a brutal lot intent on killing innocent Palestinian children.

But the evidence is nearly overwhelming that the video is a fake, and and that the child—if killed at all—was not killed by IDF fire, either purposely or even accidentally. Independent investigators have said as much (see this and this) and the select few outside of France 2 who have seen the raw video footage have all concluded it does not show what France 2 and Enderlin purport (see this, for example).

The France 2 videotape is the linchpin of the case, the most vital evidence available. And yet, shockingly, only a few people not connected to France 2 have been able to view it, and the French court is not one of them. Why? Until now, the judges haven’t appeared interested; after all, why let a little evidence get in the way of a good decision?

Three private citizens had been sued for defamation by France 2 and Enderlin. The first, Philippe Karsenty, was convicted. The second, Lurçat, whose trial I covered, got off on a technicality, while the third, Gouz, received something called a “mitigated judgment” for using the word “misinformation” on his blog in relation to France 2 (a rather mild accusation, you might agree, especially for the blogosphere, but actionable in France nonetheless).

But now comes the astounding news that in Karsenty’s appeal case the court has done the unthinkable and ordered France 2 to produce the tapes for viewing.

Since everyone independent of France 2 who has seen these tapes alleges that they fail to show what France 2 has said they show—the terrible death throes of the boy, too devastating for viewing—and that what they actually show is staged scenes, people strolling past unperturbed, no blood, bullet holes incompatible with having been fired from the Israeli position, and the boy al Durah raising his head and looking around after he is supposedly dead, this should be interesting.

Why the change of heart on the part of the French court? I don’t know, but here are my guesses. First, the Israeli Army has requested release of the full videotapes from France 2 and has tied this to Karsenty’s Appellate case (see the text of the letter, here). In the earlier Karsenty trial, the court had cited Israel’s supposed failure to challenge the tapes (incorrectly; see paragraph 12 here) as evidence that the footage could not be false.

The second change is the election of Nicholas Sarkozy as President of France. In Karsenty’s first trial, practically the only “evidence” the prosecution mounted—or, apparently, felt it needed to mount—was a letter from the esteemed President of France, Jacques Chirac, stating his admiration for the esteemed Charles Enderlin. Somehow I doubt that Sarkozy will be quite as obliging.

Although the entire trial is pretty much off the radar screen of the MSM—who perhaps would dearly love to have the same privilege to sue bloggers accorded the press in France—the issues involved are profound.

Stay tuned.

13 Responses to “The France 2 trials: the wheels of French justice grind slow…”

  1. r4d20 Says:

    But the evidence is nearly overwhelming that the video is a fake, and and that the child—if killed at all—was not killed by IDF fire, either purposely or even accidentally.

    It looks that way to me too. Still, I generally have a problem with “proofs” based on a handful of still photos – look no further than the 9/11 truthers.

  2. Lee Says:


    For more than “stills” go to:

  3. njcommuter Says:

    It make me glad that (most of) the USA has a legal system derived from English Common Law and not the Code Napoleon.

  4. r4d20 Says:


    Been there, read that, seen the videos, and did, indeed, find the arguments against the simplistic, “official” version compelling.

    But the truth is that its a circumstantial case and people who claim that circumstantial evidence “proves” anything beyond doubt are the kinds of suckers that conspiracy-minded propagandists love.

    The tape is coming out. We will soon see if we are right or if we are just the victim of an even better PR campaign than Pallywood.

  5. nyomythus Says:

    I remember; and with much interest; thank you for the follow up!!

  6. nyomythus Says:

    Speaking of inverted justice, and though the case is multifaceted, look at how many people are not ashamed to stand in solidarity with the loathsome so-called ‘Jena Six’. Al Sharpton protecting his steak-n-potatoes; pitting the stupid and gullible against the stupid and gullible. It’s amazing how one can combine the low-life entrepreneurial skills of a used car salesman and a reverend to make a living.

  7. njcommuter Says:

    At least the used-car salesman has a good which may have some value; the race-baiters offer only the orgy of envy, at the price of power and treasure.

  8. strcpy Says:

    It will be interesting to see how far France2 goes in protecting the video.

    If it shows what they say then I expect it to be handed over quite quickly and with little fan fare – however I suspect that isn’t so much the case if for nothing more than they way they have been acting so far.

    If it shows what the people outside of France2 says they saw I suspect there will many attempts at hiding it. If this were the US there would have to be multiple court orders with little bits here and there released and it would be years before the tape is seen if it wasn’t just declared “lost” (better to loose the judgment than allow the video out).

    I don’t know how their legal system handles things, but given what we have seen so far I’m not going to hold my breath on getting the full tape. But then, their courts may have greater jurisdiction to punish things people do to get around some laws than ours does. We would have to prove that things were intentionally lost and that is near impossible to do so the people get a much lesser sentence by doing so (and is why many also “forget” things that they shouldn’t – good luck proving that a lie). If their laws run along the lines of the defamation case then France2 would have to prove their innocence or get the harsher ruling – I don’t know if that is the case or not.

    If it does turn out to show what their detractors say I hope the courts fully release it, I for one would like to see it.

  9. sergey Says:

    The main difference between Code Napoleon and British Common Law is that the first was proposed with main intent to defend society, in tradition of French Revolution (“national razor”, etc.), while the second to protect individuals. So the first is inherently statist, and the second inherently liberal. The same applies generally to difference between Latin and Anglo-Saxon civilizations.

  10. Ymarsakar Says:

    The incident and attendant publicity solidified the idea that Israeli soldiers are a brutal lot intent on killing innocent Palestinian children.

    All the negative consequences of extermination poilicies with none of the positive rewards. Ah, such is the way of war, since after all, this actually did happen in the past. People would accuse their enemies of atrocities and such and often they would manufacture such atrocities and blame it on their enemies. This kind attack would cause psychological shock damage and thus stun the enemy for just long enough to perhaps advance other plans and attack avenues to take and hold ground, territory, or something else of relevant benefit.

  11. nyomythus Says:

    I was hasty on prehap some of my tone on commenting on the Jena, LA situation; it looks like a clear case of injustice for just about everyone involved; especially for the African-American kids (the six) and their families; what a mess. My apologies.

  12. superdupont Says: Worth the visit….

  13. site Says:



Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge