↓
 
Home » The facade: encountering the Palais de Justice

The facade: encountering the Palais de Justice

The New Neo Posted on by

This experience is going to take a while to digest. So please bear with me, and don’t expect today’s post to bring you the definitive and complete reckoning of yesterday’s courtroom events and the larger meaning I draw from them, although that will come. This is more of an impressionistic first take.

First, some photos of the Palais de Justice, where the trial was held. Here’s the impressive gold-gilded imperial facade, even more imposing in person:


There isn’t a courthouse in the United States built in this particular style. That’s because there isn’t a courthouse in the US that could possibly have had this building’s aristocratic legacy. Furthermore, the American conception of the role of a courthouse, and the legal system it contains and facilitates, is quite different, as well.

You may think I’m speaking of architectural esthetics, but I’m not. I’m talking about how architecture can reflect an entire ethos, and symbolize in concrete (get it, concrete?) form the philosophy behind the building itself. And in this case the Palais de Justice seems an almost perfect paradigm of French justice, even though it was originally built for another purpose.

So we have a wonderful and intricate facade that attempts to impress with its splendor and glory (in this case, the aristocratic glory of yesteryear). Carved above the main entrance is the rallying cry of the French Revolution (minus the original “or death” addendum):


Yesterday we entered though a side door after a long wait in the line to have our bags searched. That meant we were a bit late, and so we began racing through the building too fast for me to even think to take photos of the inside of the building.

But I should have. Because despite my mad dash around the courthouse (a maze in which there was no direction, no order, no guide to where the numbered rooms might be, and no one interested in answering directions or expediting matters, as well as no one caring if we wandered in and out of offices and random judges’ chambers) I could still register with shock that the place was a shambles, in disrepair and disorder.

Some of the disorder was the result of the fact that they are renovating. But some of it was just the worn-out shabbiness of an interior that’s been neglected way too long.

Who were this “we” of which I speak? Myself and my interpreter, a young woman who’d graciously offered to translate the proceedings for me by whispering the English into my ear as events unfolded. She was the one who kept asking directions and getting them, as we circled inside the huge structure, raced up and down staircases and down hallways, opened doors and closed them, and came back to our starting point beside a broken x-ray machine that had taken up residence in the hall.

When we finally entered the courtroom it was small, with unattractive but ancient wood paneling and uncomfortable benches. The set-up told a tale, as well. There are three robed judges in a French court, almost never a jury (fraternite, my foot!). The lawyers and the witnesses address them, standing and facing the court with their backs to the proletariat spectators.

A gilded exterior and a hollow heart; that’s my impression of French justice after this trial (more about that, of course, later). And I discovered, while doing a little research, that this building has another history, one that reflects especially ironically on the failed promise of the slogan carved outside its portals.

The Palais was long the residence of French monarchs and aristocrats (and it’s appropriate, as you will see, because present-day French justice is loaded with respect and recognition of the newer aristocrats, those movers and shakers of influence and power).

But the Palais has an even darker (and to me, more relevant) past. It was the seat of “justice” during the Reign of Terror, that post-revolutionary phase that featured purges of nearly everyone who had offended anyone, without much benefit of trial or the ability to mount a defense:

Try to envision a sharply dressed, prosecutor, Fouquier-Tinville, who would arrive daily at 8:00 to his offices located in towers. He would have his daily conference with Sanson, a.k.a. Monsieur de Paris, the executioner. Together they would make up the hit-list du jour, and order the corresponding number of wagons.

The accused would then meet before the prosecutor, plead their cause, and await the verdict. Although a goodly number were acquitted or given lesser sentences, over two thousand were condemned to the “national razor”.

Despite the efficiency, Robespierre, the leader of the revolutionary government, became increasingly impatient and prodded Fouquier-Tinville to pick up the pace. To do so, a few formalities were dropped such as providing for defense. Soon, sentence was pronounced when the prisoner appeared in court.

The French no longer behead people—in fact, capital punishment is a definite no-no. And of course they don’t pronounce sentence when the prisoner arrives; the sentence for yesterday’s trial, for example, won’t officially be handed down till Nov 28. And, of course, this defendant had a lawyer to plead his case, and even if he is found guilty the fine will be very light.

But make no mistake about it: this appears to have been a show trial nevertheless. Everything about the demeanor of the judges and the plaintiff’s lawyer conveyed that thought: the lack of seriousness in the courtroom, the boredom and inattention of the judges, the paucity of evidence (or even interest in what meager evidence there was), the sloppy disregard of detail, the almost palpable absence of a spirit of inquiry.

Unlike the Reign of Terror, the facade of a fair system remains. But, at least to my eyes and ears, the interior of that system—the heart of the matter, which is the dispensation of justice—is shabby, faded, and dysfunctional.

I say “dysfunctional,” but I suppose judgment on that score would depend on what is perceived as the function of the system. If the goal is to defend liberty (freedom of speech, for example), all seems lost: “abandon hope, all who enter here.” Likewise, if the goal is equality.

If the goal, however, is to preserve the status and reputation of those with influence and power—the mandarins of France—then all is well. The facade is intact; on with the show, vive le république!

Comments

The facade: encountering the Palais de Justice — 68 Comments

  2. Yes there is no surprise that the chocolate cake comes with chocolate icing – hearing that the inside is full of worms is astonishing, witnessing what it is is something more . . . duh.

  3. Well the verdict favored Charles Enderlin who won the lawsuit – France2 were awarded 5 euros in symbolic restitution.

    Hardly surprising. With so little evidence offered by France2’s accusers who can easily surmise that the instigators of the right wing attack(linked to Ariel Sharon – “Likuud France”)were following a common tactic of smear and truth through paranoid repetition.

    After the murder of the Palestinian boy by the IDF the IDF apologized, admitting they were “probably” responsible.

    When you consider the IDF’s more common approach to what is, unfortunately, a common occurance in the occuppied territories – denial and distortion – , the statement can be well qualified to be an admission of guilt.

    And of course, the footage of the murder….

    Too bad, so sad Neo.

    But at least you got to see France.

    Oh right, you went all the way there for a trial that noboby gives a rat’s arse about….

  4. “Israeli army chief of operations Giora Eiland said an internal investigation showed that “the shots were apparently fired by Israeli soldiers from the outpost at Netzarim”.

    “This was a grave incident, an event we are all sorry about,” he told Israeli radio.

    The deputy army chief of staff, Major-General Moshe Yaalon, called the boy’s death “heartrending”, but accused the Palestinians of making “cynical use” of children in clashes with Israeli troops. “

  5. What do you call it?

    “Pallywood”?

    So can we, in keeping with tradition, now say “Joollywood”??

    Or would that be anti-semetic?

    Jeez, I’m so confused….

  6. That’s not the point, Captain Brave Anonymous Poster (even if you are wrong). The point is that in France and much of Europe those who would say the equivalent of “Bush lied!” could be sued (or the paper which reports the “Bush lied!” meme) which stifles discussion, no matter how unhinged that discussion is.

  7. “Others noted that the absence of any effort on the part of France2 — no witnesses, no questions for hostile witnesses, no presence of either Enderlin or Chabot — could indicate not a lack of preparation (alone), but a secure knowledge that they need do nothing since they knew they’d win. Several people who claimed to know, informed me and Karsenty independently, that the fix was on before the trial.”

    Richard Landes

  11. Anon, you seem do not know that it is routine to IDF to make apologies for any reported incident BEFORE any investigation done, and later, if nothing undue is founded, to withdraw this apology. Exactly this was done in this case.

  12. “Israeli army chief of operations Giora Eiland said an internal investigation showed that “the shots were apparently fired by Israeli soldiers from the outpost at Netzarim”.

  13. The IDF Spokesman issued an official apology immediately after Dura’s death, but a later investigation into the incident indicated that the army was not responsible for the shooting. “From the investigation it became clear that [Israeli] soldiers did not shoot [at the boy],” said Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yom Tov Samia, who served as head of the IDF’s Southern Command at the time. “I knew the truth all along. The IDF apology was not in my name,” he told Maariv.

  15. Politically motivated verdicts and “fixed” trials are not a big surprise to any Russian citizen; but see it in France is still hard to come to terms with.

  16. Whatever Sergey.

    Lets remember the IDF killed 30 odd children in the first week of the intifada and fired over a million bullets – all because of some stone throwing kids.

    Lets not forget the fact that Israel’s soldiers were breaking the legs and arms of children and forcing their parents to do so at gunpoint during that time – and in fact nothing has changed.

    You can try to blind us all with your rightwing bullshit but it doesn’t change reality…..

  17. Google “Pierre Luré§at” and you will find 148000 hits. It seems, the trial actually draws much attention.

  18. This all is bullshit, usial anti-semitic libel. No such deeds are allowed under IDF Code of Conduct, one of the most stringent in history.

  21. Anonymous:

    Ever read Kafka’s The Trial? I read it in German as “Das Prozess” (BTW, I can’t spell in three languages). The German word has a connotation of a “Political Trial”.

    There’s a good approximation of this trial’s transcript for your enjoyment.

    Back to The Master Race, Herr A. Nony Moose…

  22. Esther Shapiro produced a documentary on the case for German TV. It is called “Drei Kugeln und eine totes Kind:Wer erschoss Mohammed al-Dura?” (Three bullets and a dead child: Who shot Mohammed al-Dura?) The film won a prize atthe 2003 International Film Festival in Moscow.

    I saw the film on German TV, and it was a serious investigative report that pointed out contradictions and unanswered questions about the shooting, including missing film sequences. According to today’s Franfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), the film has not been shown in France. As I recall, Shapira looked at camera angles, firing angles, and positions of Israeli troops. They did not add up to the story that made wordwide headines, and the failure of France 2 to supply missing footage was particularly fishy.

  23. Neo, succinct, vivid evocation of a place many of us have not visited nor, in my case, even heard about.
    You bring the ‘feel’ of ‘French justice’ to your readers.

    The rule of law is indeed a precious thing; and you make us see that our
    ‘lack of’ that rule at times in the US does not mean the rest of the world does better. Here: worse.

    Are not the law and politics (p. agendas) intertwined?

    Please continue to give us your evocative prose.

    (Note: Thanks, Sergey, for refuting the hate from some of the commenters here.)

  24. It’s wonderful your so concerned about law – perhaps you’d consider applying it fairly and equally.

    As far as hate goes – you also do well to consider how hateful it is to wage campaigns aiming to undermine justice and allow crimes of the highest order to continue.

    Is it hateful to point out the embarrasingly selectivity of Israel supporters who have much to say about a piece of Arab ‘propaganda’? Blood libel? What in the hell are you talking about? Do you really believe that without the France2 footage, Israel would be clean as a whistle?

    The Al-durha affair(whether the footage is real or not matters very little) is far more reflective of reality than the fantasy of Israeli moral and physical exceptionalism that it’s propoganda arm have such a monopoly on(U.S media which they have far more access to). Propaganda campaigns far more morally repugnent(i.e the Gaza Beach incident – in which Israel blogs went completely potty trying to blame the Palestinians for killing their own people – and then had absolutely nothing to say when both Israeli and HRO’s sources confirmed the obvious – there are literally hundreds of other unrefutable examples.)

    The Israel lobby and it’s army of hacks, attack dogs, liars and apologists are probably the most succesful and uncontroversial hate group in America.

    But hey – with one, essentially meaningless(now) term word you can apparently remove any serious discussion about killing, lying and stealing.

    Hey- if you can you will.

    Right?

  25. Caroline Glick ‘slams’ the Israeli authorities for not getting involved ithe Al-Durha affair??

    What an idiot. Does she really think that representitives from the IDF are going to involve themselves in something they were probably responsible for and allow all of the other crimes during that time(as well a before and after)to be discussed in a public forum?

    But hey – here’s a chance to call into question all Israeli atrocities committed against Palestinians because they are liars(as well as all human rights groups, charities, the UN, France and your next door neighbor, the local news guy, the Democrats(or Republicans etc etc etc).

    The worst part of it is that the propoganda and fanatism of that lot is making anti-semetism something to be concerned about – a self – fulfilling prophecy if you like.

    And you probably do….

  26. Poor ol Spanky. He’s given up on his various sock-puppets now and is reduced to mere anonymity. Still in there, though, jeering as hard as he can, and you have to give him some credit. He loves the Palestinian terrorists because he sees in them the same spirit of self-pity, impotent belligerence, and general incompetence that he knows all too well are his own dominant traits. He is, in fact, a proto-fascist, albeit too cowardly to do anything about it — but as luck would have it he’s able to kick around what he likes to call the Joos, just like his heroes of yore. Attaboy, Spanks.

  29. “The Al-durha affair(whether the footage is real or not matters very little)”

    If that is truly your opinion, spanks, then *it* matters very little…for it ignores the value of truth.

  30. tanks Shirley.

    Hey, no prob. Anytime.

    Thats a fact, by the way.

    Isn’t that cute? As though Spanky/Anon cares about “facts”!? Or would know one if it bit him. Which, actually, they usually do.

  32. “The Al-durha affair(whether the footage is real or not matters very little)”

    Another example of “fake, but accurate” argument. Such arrogant neglect of the truth became a hallmark of leftist world view.

  33. Anon, you should work better on your spelling. It spells “anti-Semitism”, not “anti-semetism”. When I have seen it for the third time, I understood that it is not just typo.

  34. “Blood libel? What in the hell are you talking about?”

    If you are so ignorant that do not know what blood libel is, you have no right to discuss any topics about Jews and Israel. So see, for starters, this:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel –

  35. The Israel lobby and it’s army of hacks, attack dogs, liars and apologists are probably the most succesful and uncontroversial hate group in America.

    Who, exactly, is a member of the “Israel lobby”. I’m Irish, born Catholic and I’ve said positive things about Israel. Am I a member of this lobby? Where’s my check?

    There are literally hundreds, nay, thousands of unrefutable examples of the Palestinians slaughtering their own people. The Palestinians are the most successful hate group in the world. Why are you concentrating only on the one or two possibly refutable ones?

    There are thousands of unrefutable examples of Palestinians deliberately murdering Palestinian and Jewish civilians. There are thousands of unrefutable statements in which Palestinians state that their goal is to destroy the state of Israel and, through Sharia laws, to cleanse the area of Christians and all non-Muslims, as well as Jews. Now that’s, unrefutably, a hate group.

    They’re so determined to kill Jews, these poor, poor oppressed people are willing to travel to Argentina. Poor, poor hate-filled Palestinians and their poor, poor oil-rich supporters. They suffer so.

  36. Well, you seem to have colored your hair. Even with the apple obstruction, you look to be 20 years younger.

    Just a hairdresser who stops by now and then. I totally disagree with you about everything – but find your thinking interesting.

  37. “The Al-durha affair(whether the footage is real or not matters very little)”

    Only a cold ignorant fool can come to a forum discussion and write this, certainly not anyone with a tincture of social morality — of which, I hope they aren’t pretending to have any because it isn’t there.

  39. Mary – absolute nonsense.

    What is the Israeli lobby? People who say ‘nice’ things about Israel?

    No.

    Go away dumb-dumb.

  40. Lets say it is faked – though there’s nothing to indicate that it is – would it change the reality that Israel as I say, killed over 33 children during the first week of the intifada and 160 or so Palestinians?

    No it wouldn’t.

    But lets say some well organzied morally defunct individuals make a fuss over some footage that is probably real so as to sow doubts about reality – so as to allow a criminal regime to continue committing crimes under a cloak of moral exceptionalism – while the country in question continues an illegal, immoral occupation of land that isn’t there and despite the law ordering it to vacate those lands.

    So please, losers, don’t talk to me about social morality when you don’t even have a clue what the term means….

  41. “while the country in question continues an illegal, immoral occupation of LAND THAT ISN’T THERE”

    Rather than condemn the Israelis, you should be congratulating them for such a metaphysical triumph.

    You really are pathetic.

  42. “Lets say it is faked – though there’s nothing to indicate that it is”

    I have seen both the Second Draft and the German analysis, and there is good indication that the al-Durah video is a fake. You’ve been shown that the IDF pulled its apology after further analysis, which you’ve ignored. You then change the goalpost from the al-Durah video to the see what else they have done, with the implied “but I’m still right about al-Durah”

    The following quote from Justin Olbrantz to another person with your same issues:
    “The evidence to prove true what the person already believes to be true in their mind will be substantially less than the evidence required to make a person change their mind about something. For a painfully obvious example: you consider testimony of Palestinians to be sufficient or substantial evidence that a given claim is true, while they do not; they consider the testimony of “pro-Zionist” sources to be substantial evidence that a given claim is true, while you do not. You seem to have this funny notion that some of these traits are unique to “neocons”; you obviously have not taken a basic social psychology class.”

    Finally, “So please, losers, don’t talk to me about social morality when you don’t even have a clue what the term means….” further illustrates the Olbrantz quote and its application to you.

  44. The IDF pulling it’s apology means nil.

    Since their propaganda crowd became an apologist for each and every Israeli atrocity it now need not bother – now it simply denies everything, or blames it on the Palestinians.

    You need to ask yourself why it said it was “probably responsible” – after an internal investigation.

    Or don’t.

    Go on and be a racist piece of shit, covering up war crimes.

    At least you know what you are….

  45. Justin’s quote is just hot air.

    It’s not relevant whatsoever to the conflict and it’s reality, and the reality of it’s propaganda arm in the U.S.

    It’s not about trusting “Palestinian” sources soley over IDF.

    That simply is not true.

    I know you lot need to simplify things to a level consistant with your kindergarten analysis, but thats not the reason why I know that the IDF covers up it’s crimes and why it’s amen corner have a comprehensive guide for dealing with the PR fallout of Israeli crimes in the occuppied territories….

  46. And it’s not about telling the truth for your crowd, either – thats a definite.

    You can easily go through Neo’s archives(do it yourself) and find her opining that the Gaza beach slaughter was a hoax(and find nothing when it predicitably was another Israeli atrocity).

    And you can go further and find her suggesting that all crimes reported by sources other than official Israeli sources are probably fake – “turtles” apparently.

    She, like you, is a fraud, a liar and is in desperate need of a therapist to deal with issues of ‘social morality’ and compulsive lying…

  47. Steve (anonynous–yeah, right!) from Toronto, you’re getting tiresome and foulmouthed, as usual. One of the reasons I tolerate you here (at least so far, until I get the motivation and time to do otherwise) is that you are such a wonderful, classic, and truly embarrassing (to yourself, whether you know it or not) example of your genre, the multi-culti, terrorist-enabling, leftist troll.

  48. Steve, spanky, whatever,

    Neo’s right about you. “racist piece of shit”, “kindergarten analysis”, you’ve built a wall which nothing can or will get through.

    Justin’s quote is of course hot air to you, how can you be so morally superior if it’s possible you have the same traits you say others have?

    I did not address other acts of the IDF, that was my point. It’s not applicable to the veracity of the al-Durah film. And you immediately went on a smugly dismissive, name-calling rant rather than address the point.

  49. Terrorist enabling – that’s rich moron.

    I’m not the dick who traveled by plane to see a trial about the murder of a child in the occuppied territories by Israel so to excuse it and obscure the truth about what happens there.

    Terrorist enabling – whatever….

  50. As I wrote, an unassailabel wall And everyone else has motives so base that they continually buttress your purity. Nice, very self-referential.

    Notice you still haven’t offered refutation of the German and Second Draft analysis. And you never will.

  52. Neo,

    One of the things to remember about French justice- their Napoleonic Code is the opposite of ours. They believe in “Guilty until proven innocent”- not the other way around.

  54. “moron”, “fraud”, “liar”, “dick”, “racist piece of shit” — not bad, Spanky, but not great either. The “Go away dumb-dumb” line was pretty good, but I’m a bit concerned about that “whatever” a while back — you’re not getting tired are you?

    Look, here’s a line you can copy-and-paste until you get your feeble malevolence back: “you lot are all stupid and bad, and I am not ha ha”.

  56. Yet another sad, insipid thread. Anon is no doubt some offspring of one of the usual jerks. Trout has to weigh in with vacuous nonsense. Neo, your blog will go to poop if you don’t moderate the comments.

  57. The housing bubble sprung a leak in November and now it’s hissing like a komodo dragon. The median sale price for existing homes just had the biggest year-over-year drop in 36 years. It was a whopping 9.7% year-over-year drop in September (15.5% drop since its peak just 6 months ago!).

    Middle America officially goes into fear mode today and Bush and the repugs will get the blame. Big time!

    I smell a double impeachment. I smell a religious right mass suicide. Shouldn’t have drank the KoolAid.

  59. Better to go next door to the Conciergerie, anyway. I noticed that people takes tours of the Palais de justice. Heaven only knows why.

    Better yet, go to the quiet little square/littel park BEHIND the side of the building shown. There’s a nice bookstore there, and a few nice spots to collect oneself and read.

    Place Dauphine, I think it’s named.

  60. Nah, your not completely morally/intellectually vacuous, Sally….

    But a some intensive therapy wouldn’t hurt at all…..

  64. I have a home in France, and your observation of the ridiculous lengths the State will go to to protect itself is entirely believable. If you have the benefit of a ‘de’ before your surname the more craven the attitude. 80% of all graduates want to ‘work’ for the state, and to be an ‘enaque’ is the top of the tree. La France is an oligarchy down to the last village.

  65. How many of you people have actually been to Israel/Palestine?

    How many of you people have walked through the Palestinian areas of Jerusalem?

    How many of you people have been to Rumullah? And seen with your own eyes?

    How many of you people support the Kurds?

    An Palestinian Christian friend of mine told me once, ‘You can go and see and feel, but you don’t know what it is to live there, what it feels like to live under them, to be treated like that.’

  67. Gutless like the Arabs threatening to stab us in the back when are alone in an alley sometime in the future?

    Don’t worry, it is cultural, try and be a little more multi-cultural and understanding. That way the enemies of freedom will leave you alone, hint hint.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑