This story begins with a crime.
The filmmaker Theo Van Gogh
is murdered in Amsterdam
on November 5, 2004.
His killer, an Islamist,
accuses him of denigrating the Prophet.
After the crime comes fear
and what goes with it: self-censorship.
In reaction, Flemming Rose,
chief-editor with Jyllands Posten,
a Danish centre-right newspaper,
launches a competition:
"Show Muhammad as you see him."
The caricatures come flooding in.
Flemming Rose selects 12 of them.
On September 30, 2005, he publishes them under the title,
"The Faces of Muhammad".
Initially, few reactions.
But, in the background, Islamists add fuel to the fire.
They mix the drawings with other photos, such as this one
of a pork festival in southern France.
Or this one, the most insulting.
The result? A thirteenth caricature,
the worst of all for the Algerian daily El Watan,
drawn on the street by the Muslims themselves.
Danish flags trampled and burned
outside Scandinavian embassies under attack
in Syria, Lebanon and Iran...
In the face of this fury,
the European Union disavows the Danish journalists.
To support their isolated colleagues,
part of the French press reacts.
This is the case with Charlie Hebdo.
At our editorial meeting,
Cabu said "There's a problem at France Soir."
The manager had been fired
over some cartoons he wanted to print.
Jacques Le Franc is fired,
fired by the paper's owner,
a Franco-Egyptian businessman.
But Le Franc had time to print the cartoons
in the issue dated February 1, 2006
under the headline
"Yes, we have a right to caricature God."
That's when we reacted. We felt...
it isn't right to fire someone
over some religious cartoons.
We decided to print them.
Not only does the satirical paper print them,
but it goes further.
The 12 cartoons are accompanied
by a cartoon by Cabu
on the front page.
The stakes are huge.
The goal is to denounce the Islamists' excesses
without stigmatizing believers.
Muhammad could deliver a message, you know, cool like,
something huge...
A good-natured Muhammad: "Gotta end the strike, guys."
Muhammad caught off guard.
Muhammad loOKs at the cartoon saying,
"The Danes finally made me laugh."
Let's draw Muhammad.
I don't want some grimacing guy with a beard.
Being loved by jerks...
"It's tough being loved by jerks".
That works.
"Muhammad sick of fundamentalists." Hey, that's good.
Put "Muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists."
And that's when he says:
"It's tough being loved by jerks".
Sums it up.
This issue of Charlie Hebdo goes on sale February 8,
one day before L'Express.
L'Express that under Denis Jeambar
recommends standing up to the Islamists
and has decided to join the movement.
However, at L'Express,
the pill is a more bitter one.
On Tuesday evening, I leave at around 9:15 pm.
When I leave, the magazine is being printed.
Then I get a call from an assistant
to Serge Dassault who was
the chairman of the watchdog committee
at L'Express.
He asks what we're doing with the cartoons.
I tell him that he knows my point of view hadn't changed.
"I'm printing them."
He then says, "Listen,
"you should call Serge.
"He's at home. Call him on his mobile."
I knew what would come next.
I was driving so I pulled over, expecting a long talk,
and I call Dassault.
He gets straight to the point and says,
"You're not printing the cartoons."
I reply, "Oh yes, I am. You know
"my opinion on that matter
"and I think they need to be printed. So I am."
At that point, I hear a panicked "Oh, là, là".
He sounds extremely concerned
and tells me to halt printing right away.
I replied,
"No, I won't
"but I'll say what I've always said.
"A shareholder has every right,
"so you have the right to halt printing.
"It's under way, so the printer needs to be told."
"Call the printer," he says.
I say, "No, I won't call him
"but I'll give you his number so you can call him
"if you want to halt printing.
"Obviously, tomorrow, I'll hand in my resignation
"for reasons of conscience.
"It's not a big deal." I know I said that.
"Since it's so late, the magazine won't come out this week.
"You'll lose a lot of money." I didn't know how much.
"One million, 1.5 million Euros if it doesn't come out.
"And, of course, on top of that,
"you'll have a media blitz to deal with
"to explain why the magazine hasn't come out this week."
I can sense he is worried.
And this is where politics kicks in...
"You don't realize! The President
"is going to Saudi Arabia in two weeks."
A certain number of contracts were hanging on that visit.
Jeambar publishes the cartoons.
A decision that will cause an earthquake at L'Express.
But for now, the strongest reaction is at the Paris mosque,
where there are numerous calls to launch a suit
to halt the infection.
Not against France Soir or L'Express,
a suit against Charlie Hebdo.
Why Charlie Hebdo and not the others?
Who knows?
TOUGH BEING LOVED BY JERKS
You and Mohamed Sifaoui
tried to prevent this trial.
You tried to persuade Dalil Boubakeur,
whom you know well,
to debate the issue without going to court.
What happened?
I tried to tell the rector,
"Knowing you and knowing Philippe Val,
"knowing you both well, I know you can sit down at a table
"and talk frankly. I know you'll never agree
"since you don't have the same view of the cartoons' publication.
"But it would be a positive image for French society,
"which thinks Muslims are intolerant idiots,
"if the rector of the Paris mosque and the editor of Charlie Hebdo
"can meet in a café to have an open debate
"in order to express their views."
I agree since I'm not angry.
It's easy to become reconciled.
But I won't apologize.
I know a religious person
can be offended by a satire
attacking the religion that he believes in.
But the buck stops there.
While Mohamed and I were drinking gallons of mint tea at the mosque,
the journalists at Charlie Hebdo were working away irreverently.
We didn't know what they were drawing.
I saw the magazine on the stands and called Mohamed.
I asked him if he'd seen the latest issue.
He said, "No. Why?" And I replied, "The rector won't debate now."
"Why not?" I told him, "LoOK at page 6."
There was a cartoon by Luz
showing the mosque's rector as a poodle on Chirac's lap.
Chirac was petting him, saying,
"Careful or Bouba will pee on me."
I remember Mohamed on the phone, splitting his sides. "Oh, damn!"
I said, "Forget about the debate." "And how!"
They were due to call to set it up but nothing happened.
A few weeks go by.
Then I discover, in a press agency dispatch,
they're taking us to court.
That happens on July 18, 2006.
Two weeks later, on August 3,
the UOIF, the Union of French Islamic Groups,
joins the Paris mosque and files a complaint.
The plaintiffs are members of the French Muslim Council,
a body that oversees the representation of Islam in France.
The World Islamic League, funded by the Saudi regime,
will join them later.
Of the 12 cartoons printed by Charlie Hebdo,
the plaintiffs object to two:
Muhammad with a bomb in his turban
and terrorists arriving in heaven to whom the Prophet says...
Two cartoons to which they add the front page by Cabu.
Then they sue the magazine
for "insulting a group of people on religious grounds".
End of debate.
The magazine is put under surveillance.
We were
protected by the police.
That's rare for a cartoonist. For 2 weeks,
I was protected by two very friendly cops.
Cabu protected by two cops, that sounds bad!
And cops who were on our side too.
They knew what we were doing.
They'd say, "Carry on, we'll defend you."
Is it worth risking your life for a thing like that?
Ask a goldfish if it needs water in its bowl
and do you fight to stop someone gargling with it? Yes, you fight.
One week before the trial.
February 1, 2007
They publish this in L'Express.
God is love!
Our Muslim witnesses are under pressure.
Anything to stop them coming.
It's really crazy.
Like Greece under the colonels.
It's mind-boggling.
They'll come their balls as earrings.
This is really too much. It's a real shocker.
You have a hard time believing it.
Richard arrives at the hearing with his list of witnesses...
I felt that it was vital
to have key political figures
to testify in court.
The judge loOKs at the list and he blows his top.
"What? François Hollande? François Bayrou?
"Why not Nicolas Sarkozy while you're at it?"
I told Richard, "Tell the judge to go to hell."
He went to the next preliminary hearing
and the judge asked him, "Well?"
"We'll keep our witnesses."
And from that moment on, the judge was polite and pleasant.
François Hollande was under a lot of pressure.
How can anyone pressure him?
Don't know. That's what he said.
He said, "You've no idea the problems I had coming here."
The Algerian Embassy stepped in to put pressure
on certain witnesses so they wouldn't testify.
The involvement of the Paris mosque
in this trial was imposed
- I'll state this clearly -
both by the Algerian government
and by a number of French officials.
I have
colleagues who talked to people
close to government circles
who said Sifaoui shouldn't testify,
or it would be a pity or he'd be wiser not to.
We had approached another witness,
a leading figure in Islam in France,
who, in the end,
was not able to attend because he had heard
that it would have hurt his career.
It's not my role here to reveal his identity.
I think it's Soheb Ben Cheir, the Marseille Grand Mufti.
You're generally well informed.
The Muslim authorities in France told him,
"If you testify, you've had it. You're finished!"
We need to launch a crusade, start yelling,
waving the flag.
Saïd Sadi says this trial is an insult.
A racist insult.
"They think we're too dumb to understand cartoons!"
Muslims are too dumb to understand.
And then they help them stay dumb by holding this trial.
The Taliban eliminated all humour.
No jOKe. I read something about that.
Humour is eliminated.
Some jerk sees Scream and it's a problem.
Same for the cartoons. Jerks see them... problems!
On pages 2 and 3...
This trial is a racist insult.
With letters and drawings.
Only on that theme.
Don't think all Muslims are jerks.
Basically...
This suit is a racist insult.
This trial is a racist insult.
Don't say this, don't do that, because a Muslim is a pea-brain.
LoOK how they toOK Cabu's drawing at face value.
They'll take it all at face value.
We don't mean Muslims, but jerks.
Clearly separate Muslims and jerks.
Not the same thing.
I'll make that clear in my editorial.
Let's do all the cartoons, we won't be able to do if we lose.
Shit, we'll have so much work.
Thanks a lot.
You're Caroline Fourest? Right?
The Muslims were shocked, OK. Everyone has a right to be shocked.
I can be shocked myself when I hear a sermon at Sunday mass,
if I catch it on TV, but I don't go to the church to beat up the priest.
And I don't go to a mosque to pull a guy's beard
or slap his face or file a complaint.
But I can be shocked
and Muslims and others have a right to be shocked too.
The question isn't can you laugh at everything.
It's why we laugh at everything. Why do I laugh?
Do I laugh to exclude others?
To denigrate them?
To insult them? Put them down?
Or, instead, to integrate them?
Why do you laugh at the Charlie cartoons?
It may sound surprising
but to show Muslims they're part of French democracy.
Two days before the trial
February 5th, 2007
"The climate's getting warmer"
It's a risky job.
I hope I don't fall.
The court has to be a religious one!
Who did this one? You or Riss?
Another endangered species
Really good.
That one's totally racist.
It's absolutely scandalous!
The Islamists have got him riled up
and he's getting nasty now.
- Which ones? - It's between these two.
I'll ask Richard about this one as it's offensive.
This one's a scandal,
maybe not this one.
Richard will have to choose.
Can you laugh with Islam?
Laughter kills
Richard, it's Philippe.
I need to fax you our possible front page.
What do you say to him?
I must have said that the moment wasn't right,
that it wasn't relevant and that we could do better.
We talk it over
and we end up with the idea that it would be good
to have the three religions.
It's funny, the attorney chose it.
He didn't want the Koran shown, linked to the idea of killing.
You seem disappointed.
No, not at all.
A bit disappointed.
It was a funny cartoon, it's true.
But we have to win.
Veil Charlie Hebdo!
The day before the trial...
February 6th, 2007
11:30 AM. Press conference
The drawing is perfectly clear.
Muhammad
is shown in the drawing in tears.
And he says...
The caption with "fundamentalists"
touches the edge of the turban
to prevent people on the Net
from altering it to read
"It's tough being loved by jerks" as if we meant all Muslims.
We don't mean all Muslims, just fundamentalists.
We're not being aggressive with anyone,
just exercising our rights.
When the French President,
referred to the caricatures in Charlie Hebdo as provocation,
I felt I was in another country!
Exercising your rights is not a provocation in a democracy.
Why is Jyllands-Posten
with Charlie Hebdo today?
We knew the diplomatic and political stakes.
But unlike the diplomats with the Foreign Ministry,
we knew the historic stakes that they weren't aware of.
They were obsessed with homeland security,
saying a trial was better than radicals setting off bombs
or killing a journalist.
It was better to have a trial than lose contracts with Arab nations.
Maybe we can avoid a terrorist attack...
Although there are plenty of other reasons for attacks.
Maybe we can save a weapons deal,
but that's not the journalist's view.
However, what we will gain
is a reduction of freedom for the press.
At a time when the only resistance to fundamentalism
lies in that irreverence and freedom,
we were about to bury, in France,
a perfectly secular country,
the last remaining weapons
that we have to fight fanaticism.
We felt it was a bad time.
The Muhammad cartoons, today's debate.
Dalil Boubakeur, Chairman of the French Muslim Council...
People can be shocked
if their religion is criticized.
But, in a democracy,
if we're offended by something,
we talk it over.
That's democracy.
We're insulted
and called terrorists.
You can't agree. We'll let the court decide.
I wanted to meet you. You refused.
What? I knew Mr Vals wouldn't just come to say hello.
There's no "S" at the end.
It doesn't rhyme with waltz. I don't dance.
In any case, your emissaries
weren't very clear about what you were offering.
I'd have been happy to come and...
It'll be hard accusing me.
Get rid of them!
No filming, please.
Boubakeur's bodyguards prevent any filming.
They are upset he speaks to me like that.
Stop him filming in here.
He represents secular Muslims,
democratic Muslims,
who know this trial is total bullshit.
That's what is being said
and those guys know it's bad for the trial if that is filmed.
It's evidence.
The plaintiff saying, "I don't want a trial."
That's what he's saying.
30 minutes late, that's OK.
What really shocks me about this is the President's attitude.
I realize he wishes to unite the different communities
but he's also there to safeguard this country's basic freedoms.
The secular Muslims are telling us
not to give in, not back down.
Why is Charlie being sued?
Why not L'Express or France Soir? They printed the cartoons too.
In the high place where this trial was decided,
someone probably thought they could kill
Charlie Hebdo without a fuss.
You won't be killed, just fined 22,000 Euros.
You're implying that the decision
was taken at the Elysée?
I don't know.
You seem to be saying that.
But I think the Elysée had to have approved it.
If Charlie ends up losing,
which I don't think will happen,
it will mean that from then on,
we're going to have a hard time doing our job properly
when it comes to religious issues.
We've had e-mails from listeners...
A lot of e-mails in support of you.
The day of the trial...
February 7th, 2007
(Laurent Joffrin, Libération)
- Tell us everything. - About Chirac?
Jeambar will testify.
Jeambar, the boss of L'Express.
When he printed the cartoons,
he had a call from Dassault...
By the morning of the trial, I have spent a month shut indoors.
Under maximum stress,
huge responsibility in a trial beyond my scope
and beyond the scope of my client, which is pretty rare.
It's a hugely important case with high stakes
that deals with all the major issues of our time:
the East-West relationship,
Islamism, terrorism, laughter in Islam...
If Charlie Hebdo
had wanted to say
that fundamentalists are jerks,
I'd agree because they flout French law
and preach a radical form of Islam.
But saying Muslims are jerks is different.
So you're bothered by the Muslim-terrorist equation?
That's what bothers us.
Showing the Prophet as a terrorist makes us terrorists.
What is racist and insulting about these cartoons?
If it isn't obvious, I can't help you.
If you find it normal
to equate a whole category of people
with terrorism, if Islam means terrorism for you,
if that's not racist, I don't know what racism is.
There are 300 reporters waiting.
We have to push through the crowd.
It sets your heart pounding.
It is the lions' den. We have to fight.
When I say I want to win
it's to make a statement.
Not personally, but with Charlie and our attorneys
and everyone in France who supports us.
To make the Republic say something.
Philippe Val's testimony
Djemai, attorney for the World Islamic League:
"Aren't you blowing on the embers?"
Blowing on the embers?
What embers? What are they?
The embers are the ruins of the World Trade Center.
The embers are the ruins of Madrid's central station.
The embers
are those of the London bombings.
Those are the embers.
It means we're afraid and because of it
we can't make fun of those who scare us? What is this?
That's intolerable.
It's like saying
we're responsible for those who terrorize us.
We have to stop that right away.
That's why this trial was important.
It was a way of saying no and of rejecting this madness.
It's as if someone published a cartoon
denouncing those who use Islam
to carry out terrorist attacks.
The cartoons denounce that.
Blowing on the embers?
It's scandalous to say a thing like that.
It's outrageous!
Then Djemai says,
"According to you, a terrorist act is provocation.
"You'll confirm what you just said?"
Of course, it's provocation.
They're people who don't want us saying
what we think.
It's totally incredible!
People claim to follow a religion
and, in that religion's name, commit mass murder.
And we can't say what we think
about how they live their religion?
It's totally absurd
to allow ourselves to be confined like that.
It's true that in editorial offices...
That's what happened at Le Nouvel Observateur
with their pathetic article on the trial.
They said, "It's provocation. Let's not add fuel to the fire."
Things like that, the idiotic idea we can't say what we think
about the ties between religion
and those who attack in its name.
Surely we can make a mockery of that.
Can't we make fun of it?
I've been linked to terrorists, I'm suing!
Philippe Val and his advisers
want people to believe
that what's on trial here is obscurantism,
that in the land of Gilles de Rais, Voltaire and Calas,
we wish to reinstate the crime of blasphemy.
That's not what's on trial here.
We have gone to court to say
that, among these drawings,
there are two or three,
and a particularly significant one for us,
that equate Islam with terrorism.
In answer to the question, "Can all Muslims feel so equated?"
I may sound blunt and a little harsh,
but if they do, it's their problem.
It's easy not to be. You just need to condemn it.
You just have to say...
For instance, Christians have excommunication.
If one commits mass murder in the name of Christianity
you're excommunicated.
The first part of a trial
is like in a symphony. You reveal the main theme.
Philippe did that very well.
And then, at once, the prosecution interrupted
with an extremely trivial question.
Mr Mebarek, the attorney for the UOIF:
"What is your paper's sale price?"
It's crazy how people who deal in transcendence
and metaphysics
are obsessed with money matters.
So you answer, "2 Euros."
Do you remember how he kept at you? "The usual print run?"
And you say, "I can see where this is leading."
Instead of declaring that defending freedom of speech
attracts the support of numerous readers,
even those who are casual readers,
they ask how much money you made.
Val: "I'll give you the total number of copies sold:
"450,000."
Mebarek: "What is the total turnover for this issue?"
Kiejman: "How many Muslim readers read it?"
Mebarek: "That's not my question.
"Have I ever asked a single question in Mr Malka's place?"
It all becomes so trite.
When there was that huge uproar
back in 1905
over the separation of Church and State,
satirical papers flourished.
Those supporting the separation of the two
printed plenty of cartoons about it
and were accused by parliament and by the other papers
of making money off the controversy.
Progressive groups have always been accused of trying to get rich
by defending a popular cause.
Let me piss in peace!
I have to go. I'll be right back.
However agitated Mr Val becomes,
the court will still have to examine
the facts that motivated this summons.
Chirac's counsel has dirty hands.
He didn't wash them after!
The ideal place to read Charlie Hebdo.
The whole staff was there.
Only a couple of people were at the Charlie offices.
At 8:30 or 9 that morning, a fax arrives.
Liliane Roudir, Philippe Val's assistant, reads it,
realizes it is really important,
brings it to court but can't get in
because of the crowd outside the courtroom.
No one else is being let in.
Luckily, she bumps into an old friend who's an attorney.
As an attorney, she's allowed in.
So Liliane gives her the fax,
my friend brings it in
and I realize right away it's something important.
I read it and pass it to Georges.
Like an old ham actor, I don't hand it back.
I know the letter has to be read right away,
even if it upsets the schedule.
I ask for permission to read it.
When I see him with a letter that arrives out of the blue,
I know it is someone...
I see the mischievous gleam in Georges' eye
and I say to myself,
"OK, he's sending us a Scud."
"Dear Editor
"With the lawsuit
"against Charlie Hebdo due to begin,
"I wish to clearly state
"my support for your paper
"that, in its own way,
"expresses old French traditions:
"those of satire, derision
"and insubordination.
"Your paper's humour is grotesque,
"extreme and occasionally uncalled-for.
"That cannot be denied.
"I have often myself been a favoured target.
"That allows me to speak now
"in the name of those irreverently sketched
"but who accept it with a smile in the name of freedom of speech.
"I understand perfectly
"that certain cartoons in accusation here
"may have offended the religious convictions
"of certain Muslim French citizens.
"Denying that would be unfair in respect to them.
"It would disregard their deep spiritual beliefs.
"However,
"I prefer an excess of caricature
"to an absence of caricature.
"The strength of a democratic society,
"like the strength of a religion as brilliant as the Islamic faith,
"is judged by their capacity
"to accept criticism and impertinence
"however excessive they may be."
And it is signed Nicolas Sarkozy.
Not too tough being loved by Sarko?
Shut your mouth!
I want to win, like I said.
I want to win. It's vital.
At all costs.
You use everything in a pig but its whistle.
We have to win.
That's all I think about.
So, "Fine, come on in, welcome.
"You want us to win too?
"No problem.
"We'll fight this battle together, then we'll see."
Do you remember how you managed
to get around your opponents?
I ask about the nature of the document
and Malka, who is a skilled attorney,
says, "It's a document."
He knows he has to remain cautious
and use the most neutral term possible.
I keep insisting
until Georges Kiejman says, "It's a testimony."
My colleague Szpiner,
after analysing all that and trying to find a way to counter-attack,
stands up and says,
"This isn't a testimony in due form.
"Moreover, Mr Sarkozy is a minister.
"He cannot testify in this manner.
"I demand that this testimony be removed from the debate."
So Georges Kiejman stands and says,
"Fine, no problem,
"the court didn't hear it and the press won't report on it."
Yes, doctor.
I'll spare you the details.
There's some important news.
Nicolas Sarkozy just sent a message in support of Charlie Hebdo.
He meets with Muslims,
"I'm your brother and friend, a friend of Islam."
He must have done it for an opinion poll for the elections.
I say the CFCM has to break up.
We shouldn't meet within the CFCM
and be the minister's service Arabs.
He'll continue the trial.
Who wanted the CFCM disbanded?
Their attorney.
Hell and damnation!
Following Sarkozy's letter,
the CFCM attorney wants the CFCM disbanded.
Can't be true.
That's incredible!
That's good news, right?
We'll blow the CFCM apart.
They shouldn't have messed with us.
People understand very well
that this last-minute letter
proves that opinion is shifting to Philippe's side.
I bet the agencies received it at the same time.
The Sarkozy team can't be beat.
We should do a paper with them.
They're always on top of it.
Nothing slips by them.
He always comes out on top.
Everyone knows how smart he is.
Plus he says nothing new.
He said it all before publicly.
Very few people take a clear stand.
It would be hilarious if it was a hoax.
Abdelwahab Meddeb's testimony
You testify for Charlie Hebdo
but in court you criticize
the most controversial cartoon with the bomb in the turban.
Why is it Islamophobic?
Actually, it's not so much to do with the bomb.
What shocks me in this image
is the profoundly racist depiction of the facial features.
I love Meddeb. He's perfect.
He is the witness subpoenaed by Charlie
who is there to condemn the legitimacy of the CFCM
but who explains that, as a Muslim, there is no ambiguity.
The way of presenting
Islam's prophet, an Arab,
with the features
of a lustful, lecherous man,
a man who...
A belligerent man?
Yes, that's traditional. With the bomb, I mean.
But the bomb didn't shock me. I found it amusing.
But the facial features seemed to me to fit in
with a tradition of anti-Semitic caricature.
You ask if he finds the cartoon offensive or despicable.
I'd like him to say no.
But an academic can never simply say no.
A belligerent bomb and a lustful face.
Do you see it differently?
We don't see it that way at all.
That's very strange.
He looks like a lecherous man
with these huge eyes,
a potential rapist.
That's very interesting.
You are aware of the huge gap in interpretation?
Yes, I realized
that there was a major issue there
that I almost missed.
- You felt that way? - Yes, I did.
So I had to state it
with a very firm and clear-cut position.
He called me to say he hadn't been clear.
He felt awkward.
He wanted to be reassured. He wanted to know
if he'd harmed our case.
I'm absolutely delighted.
The first Charlie Hebdo witness that we've heard
tells us how shocked he was
by one of the cartoons.
I'm delighted that even their witnesses
admit that at least one cartoon
poses a problem.
He dropped them in it.
Georges wasn't pleased.
Mehdi Mozaffari's testimony
There are 12 cartoons.
Only one shows the turban with the bomb.
Given the current situation over the last few years
with bombs here and there...
There have been attacks in New York, Washington DC,
London, Paris,
Bali, Riyadh, Cairo, etc.
All these attacks were carried out by Muslims
or, if you prefer, by people
claiming to be Muslims or with Muslim names.
So why shouldn't a Danish cartoonist,
in a distant land,
in the depths of Denmark,
reach the conclusion
that there is a link between terrorism
and Islam or Islamism.
There's a genuine conflict that had come about
because Bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and other preachers
find that the words, perhaps not the spirit
but the words of Muhammad,
provide an opportunity to show
that their faith
must not hesitate to use violence.
I believe there are very few religions
that lend such great importance
to violence as a means of persuasion.
Let's consider a hypothesis.
If the Prophet were alive today,
since he has given himself
the mission of spreading
Islam throughout the world,
as stated in the Koran,
then he would wage war.
I'd say even atomic war or war in outer space
because his mission
was to spread Islam throughout the world.
I think he goes too far. We didn't say that.
But I find it reassuring to hear a Muslim say it.
Showing that some Muslim intellectuals
go much further than Charlie Hebdo
or than the cartoonists went
was not a bad idea at all.
Showing just how excessive some people can be
showed just how reasonable Charlie Hebdo was after all.
This cartoon is a stupid idea.
And I think it's something that... Listen to this lady.
They're Iraq's suicide bombers.
We can talk with him. He brought us water.
I'm for peace on earth, that's all.
I am in the hallway.
I try to listen in on the debates outside the courtroom.
It's fascinating.
It's like a marketplace
with discussions going on
with Islamists, with Muslims who feel offended,
teachers, schoolgirls... They argue, but talk.
Cabu showed Muhammad dismayed by his followers.
I don't like the bomb.
Did you see the front page?
I don't like him with a bomb and I'm tolerant.
They should have shown two images of the Prophet:
the fundamentalist view and the non-fundamentalist.
They could have printed an image supporting peace.
It's manipulation but we don't care.
They'll go to hell while we'll go to heaven.
Father Lelong's testimony
I don't like
the way in which Charlie Hebdo is aggressive
and arouses in French people, notably the young,
a sense of caustic criticism and systematic use of mockery.
Ideological debate brings joy. That's what pisses priests off.
That's why they won't debate.
It can be fun but they don't want us to laugh at "things like that".
"We don't laugh at that." You bet we do.
There can still be respect.
I want to talk about respect in relation to every religion,
Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the others.
When it was my turn to speak,
I asked him if he was the Father Lelong
who had defended the TV station Al Manar
and its broadcasting system
when the station was banned in France.
He answered yes.
So I said, "If I understand rightly,
"you want to see Al Manar broadcast in France,
"an openly anti-Semitic channel.
"You also defend Father Garaudy..."
"You also defend his revisionist theories.
"They can freely express themselves
"but Charlie Hebdo should be banned."
Malka's question surprises me.
He supports the freedom of the press
yet there has been huge pressure in France
from the political and cultural world
to ban Al Manar.
If Charlie Hebdo is free, Al Manar should be too.
I'm for the freedom for both.
You put Al Manar and Charlie Hebdo on the same plane?
I'd place Al Manar higher than Charlie Hebdo.
So the organ of a group...
The Hezbollah, yes.
Listen, General Aoun...
The Hezbollah, you say.
You rate the organ of the Hezbollah higher than Charlie Hebdo?
Father Lelong is pretty incredible.
He makes no concessions.
He finds justification for the worst extremes.
I don't approve the Hezbollah's acts.
I think one can criticize
and even condemn certain acts.
Their calls to murder are...
The Hezbollah makes no such calls.
It's a very powerful military group.
A political and military group.
And military.
So, on your scale of values,
this military and political group is superior to Charlie Hebdo.
Forgive me,
but I see a sort of imbalance somewhere
rather than equal treatment.
I judge men before I judge ideas.
You present just one witness,
this priest?
It wasn't us.
The UOIF chose him.
Why no other witnesses?
We don't present any
because we feel it is a simple legal debate
and we don't want to turn it into a sort of forum.
So we decide to avoid...
You don't perceive the public debate? You don't sense it coming?
I do, I do.
François Hollande, one question. We've waited 3 hours.
Is there a political dimension?
Sarkozy believes so.
I won't complain if some people turn up now.
I won't complain if people today
support the Republic and say there are principles
that cannot be questioned or haggled over.
Mr Szpiner?
Are you worried to see presidential candidates here?
First, I'm not the worried type.
Second, if people campaign here
in the courts,
it highlights the quality of their campaigns.
I simply observe that Mr Val,
tangled up in this case,
is trying to shift the focus.
He's fielding a full team to try to say
that freedom of speech is under threat.
François Hollande's testimony
Mr Szpiner: "I'd like to know
how this trial in a French court,
"under French law, undermines free speech."
It undermines free speech when a court case is used
to try to intimidate,
hamper or, ultimately, punish.
It requires responsibility
and each author is aware of the principle of responsibility.
But if the fear of a trial,
public pressure,
or threats mean that this responsibility
is limited in its exercise,
if one prefers self-censorship
to the expression of an idea or an opinion,
to a cartoon or an article,
then that's not the Republic as I conceive it.
Caricatures and excess
are something I see as the Socialist leader.
It's true, at times,
there can be lies, subjectivity,
denunciations, confusion
and even excess in relation to Socialism.
Some say it's behind the worst dictatorships.
If I myself
were to go to court each time,
there'd be no public debate in France.
No Muslim should feel threatened for being a Muslim.
However, we condemn terrorism and fundamentalism.
That's what should unite us within the Republic.
I'm for freedom of speech. It improves life,
makes us free.
It doesn't legitimize this.
It doesn't legitimize racism.
This is France, not the USA. I believe in democracy.
If we carry on this way, it'll be even worse.
We'll see racial hatred, outright racism...
You'll be criticized
for being white,
brown or black.
If we legitimize this now,
we legitimize racists.
Excuse me, are you a jurist?
You're getting wound up.
The debate is in the courtroom, not out here.
I'll have to ask you to leave.
You're bothering people.
Denis Jeambar's testimony
The whole business is incredible.
Even I find it hard to believe.
That scene on the phone,
I'll never forget it.
Maybe you could accept it in a movie,
but you don't expect it in real life.
What does he say?
When Dassault heard...
Dassault, the owner of L'Express.
When he heard he was going to print
the pages from Charlie Hebdo that showed the cartoons,
Dassault called him
to say he couldn't do it.
Who would he sell his planes to?
He was off with the President
to the Emirates and this dumped him in the shit.
Jeambar says, "I warned you L'Express was a bad idea.
"I said it wasn't a magazine for you."
I ask him at that point
what happened next.
And he says, "Well, Dassault sold L'Express."
It's not my problem.
It's not your problem
but it highlights the pressures the press can be subjected to.
What am I supposed to do, Mr Leconte?
Tear off my robes and say,
"Jeambar's proved it, we're living in a banana republic!"
When Jeambar got to that point in his testimony,
some of the reporters in the courtroom
left to call their offices with the scoop.
They called right away to say,
"Here's what Jeambar said."
But there wasn't a single article.
The indifference of the press,
not just because it was my testimony,
seems pretty incredible looking back.
Someone had just related what had happened.
It touches the heart of our work,
the vital issue of independence that is raised each day
by every newspaper.
Yet no one goes with it.
Not a word on the trial in Le Journal Du Dimanche.
Nothing. Not a word!
Is that because the paper belongs to Lagardère?
I believe that's the reason.
I can't confirm it but I think that's it.
Lagardère doesn't need to say,
"I don't want it mentioned."
It's natural, I think.
I'm just saying what I think!
I'm as French as you are.
I'm as French as you are!
I saw a fez that showed the Prophet...
- peace on him, the world and his family -
with a bomb on his head.
But, in the movie The Messenger, the Prophet forbade violence.
Mockery isn't allowed in Islam. We can't do it.
I can't mock my brother.
If you mock my religion...
I said you'll see.
I'll sacrifice my life for France. I have nothing to lose.
They tortured me in jail for being a Muslim.
I'll be a suicide bomber for France.
Let them imprison me for your images.
The situation is already rotten.
It's time to say,
"That's enough."
Fear is starting to spread through society.
Elisabeth Badinter's testimony
I asked her, "What would it mean to you if we lose?
"Why is this case so important and crucial for you?"
This case is fundamental for me
because I have the impression
that the papers that printed these cartoons
and so exercised the right to freedom of speech
are the last rampart of my freedoms.
I heard Philippe Val on the radio saying we mustn't give in
and it came as a huge relief to me.
I'm defending my cause.
If, by chance, the court decides in their favour,
we won't be able to speak,
we'll be too terrified to speak
and silence will fall
over an apparently democratic society
that will be gripped by fear.
That was it. She said it all.
In other words,
the silence that accompanies
the death throes of freedom.
She did it with words
and exceptional intensity in her testimony.
I was so shocked to see politicians
and the European authorities lie down, so to speak,
and more or less put the blame for the troubles
on the cartoonists and their supporters
that I felt scared and thought no one would support them.
The press did its job, whatever the cost.
For me, they're heroes.
They show courage, you know.
They know what can happen.
Something bad can happen and we know it.
It's not a fantasy.
A moment of grace.
It was just like a little bubble
of intelligence, emotion and purity in this trial.
To the extent
that the other side didn't dare ask anything.
It was so powerful. It didn't last long, 10 minutes maybe,
but it was so powerful there was nothing to add.
10 PM. End of the first day
"Good luck with the trial. Ségolène Royal."
Across the board.
From Sarkozy to Ségolène.
Behind you all the way.
A text message. That's pretty cautious support.
I have to say I didn't take that very well.
I found it...
- I found it... - Discreet?
The French left dismays me.
Luckily, Hollande turned up, of course
but the candidate for the left
in the presidential election did very little
and expressed her support in a very laconic way.
Second day of the trial...
February 8, 2007
After Nicolas Sarkozy yesterday, who will it be today?
We've had another letter.
We'll see later. It's not from Chirac.
Benedict XVI then!
It has to get better each time.
After Sarkozy!
Freedom of speech!
Sarkozy's fax was hard to take
but then Dieudonné turning up, that's too much.
I support you doing what you do.
You can spit on Muslims.
That's a right in France. The right to spit.
He wasn't supporting us, despite what the press wrote.
My sketch on an Israeli colonist
unleashed a 3-year controversy.
I won every appeal and every trial.
I'm for total freedom of speech.
People can be sentenced for anti-Semitism
but Islamophobia isn't a problem,
despite being an Islamophobic act.
Charlie Hebdo has to be able
to spit in the faces of Blacks and of Muslims,
while allowing Blacks and Muslims to spit on others.
Freedom of speech cannot be on just one side.
Freedom of speech!
Mr Lanzmann, how do you feel
about the passions unleashed here?
This case unleashes passions for a very good reason.
If ever this trial were won
by the plaintiffs, France would not be the same.
It wouldn't be the same country.
Claude Lanzmann's testimony
What interested me with him
was to say to him, "You're a man of images.
"When you recall the pre-war caricatures of Jews,
"what is the difference between the pre-war caricatures of Jews
"and the caricatures today?"
Charlie Hebdo couldn't be compared
with the anti-Semitic papers
such as the Nazi Stürmer,
Drumont's La Libre Parole
or Russian anti-Semitic papers.
Those papers had a single subject:
the Jews, nothing else.
Charlie isn't inspiring hatred, Charlie is fighting those
who inspire hatred.
On the one side, people are condemned
by being caricatured with big noses,
as trying to dominate the world in the infamous "octopus" cartoon.
On the other side, it isn't a human community under attack,
it isn't a group of people, it's a religion.
I assert my right to criticize every religion
be it the Pope, Moses or the Prophet.
You can caricature Moses,
you can caricature Christ,
what you can't do
is incite hatred towards groups of people.
When the other side tries to put on the same plane
a historical fact and a belief,
that sums up its philosophy. It's asking us to renounce
all the foundations of the West
and Cartesianism
that tell us a historic fact isn't a belief
and cannot be equated.
God's existence
cannot be considered an established fact.
We have the right not to believe, to contest it
because, until proof of the contrary, it hasn't been proved.
Would you step back please or I won't speak.
If you won't step back, I won't speak.
We're stepping back.
François Bayrou's testimony
By then, it's obvious
that Charlie Hebdo is applying pressure
by saying to the court,
"Anyone who counts in France,
"the next French President, Mr Sarkozy,
"Mr Hollande, prince consort at the time,
"and Mr Bayrou are all on our side."
Szpiner: "I'll ask you this:
"Do you accept the equation of a religion with terrorism?"
You reply, "Sorry to contradict you.
"I have nothing to reply."
A witness is supposed to answer questions.
They witness nothing.
They can answer what they want.
No, their role is to answer.
A witness can try to avoid an attorney's traps.
The trial is about freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech
is defined by an article
that is sacred in French law:
the declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen.
The fact that this freedom of speech
should be defended today in French society
is important because it means we haven't forgotten
what formed the roof of our home.
The roof of the home of the French
is that believers, and I am among them,
and non-believers
accept each other
so that freedom of speech
may exist openly,
even when it harms
things precious to us.
And that's important because today
there are millions of French Muslims
who of course feel
extreme sensitivity in relation to the way Islam is spoken about.
And I felt it was important
for the Republic to define its fundamentals in relation to them.
I was shocked last year by what De Villiers said.
"If mosques are being built, French purses
"are being emptied."
I'm not French but do the French know
my taxes pay for the upkeep of their churches?
Churches from before 1905.
That's not true.
Look into it. I know what I'm talking about.
Not true!
Only churches dating from before 1905!
That's a lie. You're telling a lie.
Churches that receive public funds date from before 1905.
I love this country.
Mohamed Sifaoui's testimony
Mohamed Sifaoui, an emotional moment for you.
An Algerian journalist,
his colleagues killed by Islamist bombs,
a political refugee in France fighting Islamist terrorism,
a writer of reports and books on the subject,
threatened and under constant police protection...
He had things to say.
The prosecution tries to discredit him,
like the other Muslim witnesses.
I don't like the word "discredit".
Or refute their testimony.
Rumours were spread about Sifaoui,
saying that maybe
he was linked to Algerian intelligence.
You say to Sifaoui,
"You testified for General Nezzar, the Islamist killer,
"you have the same bloody hands."
He has bloody hands, yes.
That's appalling!
He can't go back to Algeria.
He couldn't go back for a family funeral.
It's a totally sick accusation.
The Stasi did that.
You discredit people to avoid discussion.
You remember the part of his testimony
in which Sifaoui talks about the threats,
the words that accompany the threats that he receives.
Yes, always in God's name.
Always in the name of Allah and Muhammad.
That was a very emotional moment.
It was the heart of the matter.
There have been articles on Jihadist web-sites
very close to the terrorists,
sites that are the organs of terrorist groups,
in which I am presented as a traitor,
with death promised for me at every corner.
He brought the threats he receives daily, his e-mails.
There were plenty and I defended him.
He told us,
"I'm threatened every day
"in the name of Islam, the Prophet and God,
"by people who clearly pervert Islam."
It proves it's a reality.
He quoted from the threats.
"A traitor dies a traitor.
"May God curse you, heretic, with days of worry and disease.
"No one could stop the Twin Towers from falling
"just as your head will fall."
The association of these violent words
this desire to kill, to take life
from an individual
by exploiting religion and the Prophet's words,
is not made by non-Muslims.
It's made by Muslims.
It's very difficult to face that fact.
Why is it hard for a Muslim to say that?
Because we were raised in a society
in which we were mistakenly
taught, let's say,
that we were in a sanitized society
where there was only good and evil lay elsewhere,
not among us but elsewhere.
I say that the Muslim world is one of denial,
where people have no critical spirit
because they are instilled at the same time
with infinite arrogance.
The idea,
in Arab and Muslim societies,
in Muslim communities
is to make people self-important.
I see that regularly
and I find it hard to bear,
including in people who are truly anti-fundamentalist.
For instance, with non-Muslims,
they have a hard time speaking clearly...
and criticizing other Muslims.
After that demonstration, you say,
"That's why Muslims must clarify their position." With an example.
Madrid.
Could you explain about that?
Imams
and men of the faith,
religious leaders,
decided to meet to declare
that Osama Bin Laden was not a Muslim. They excommunicated him.
Mr Sifaoui, you showed the court a Saudi flag.
Could you show it to us?
I showed this flag
in relation
to the equation between the profession of faith that says,
"There is one God and Muhammad is his prophet."
Here it says, "There is one God and Muhammad is his prophet"
and the profession of faith is linked to weapons,
namely a bomb in the cartoon.
We find it again here, with a sword this time.
I also showed the flags
of terrorist groups like the GSPC
or the Muslim brotherhood
where you have two swords and a Koran.
So the association of a weapon and religion
was not made by the Danes
who simply reacted to a state of affairs
that wasn't always favourable to Muslims.
It was made by Muslim extremists.
A case like this should have been brought,
symbolically at least,
by religious groups
against those who unjustly use
this religion's symbols to spread hatred, terror and obscurantism.
That's what should be on trial here.
You explained to the court
that cartoons and jokes some find offensive
are easily found in Cairo or Tunis.
Of course!
You think Muslims have no sense of humour?
That they cannot laugh or mock things?
That they don't understand satire?
That's absurd. Fundamentalists don't laugh.
They can't even smile.
Fundamentalists are too uptight to laugh.
I think they're too stupid to,
to state things clearly.
And to refer back to Charlie Hebdo, they're jerks.
They don't laugh, they're jerks.
A jerk doesn't have the intelligence to appreciate humour.
- A photo, please. - With me?
- I admire you. - You're very kind.
Let me shake your hand.
I appreciate it.
- You're a beacon. - Thank you.
Anne de Fontette's summing-up
I felt it might have been wiser
not to incriminate Cabu's cartoon,
which wasn't the initial object of this suit
and which could genuinely be defended
in the name of a certain humour.
I never knew if Charlie Hebdo or Cabu
had foreseen a possible suit but the headline
ruled out any criminal proceedings.
It was obvious Muhammad was crying
because of the fundamentalists that he calls jerks.
I was surprised to see her
on our side. I'm not used to it.
I've been sued 11 times
and I've lost 10 times.
I'm used to having the prosecutor against me.
For once, she was on our side.
Second demonstration with the second cartoon:
the suicide bombers in paradise.
Three or four suicide bombers arrive in paradise,
still smoking.
These four little men are clearly terrorists.
Now,
it is obvious that one cannot assert
that the whole Muslim community in France
can recognize itself in these four men.
If that were so, that's a social debate
that the press must be able to criticize.
Finally, Muhammad with the bomb in the turban,
the most controversial one during the trial.
It isn't a caricature. The features aren't distorted.
There's the bomb, true, but the Prophet's face
was not comical. Far from it.
It worked with Philippe Val's editorial
that explained,
I believe in a genuine manner,
that the cartoon could only be seen as an insult
to Muslims by those who were insulting it.
The only ones who could recognize themselves
in this Prophet with a bomb
were those who acted in his name with bombs.
Following your summing-up, you request an acquittal.
The law says that a religion may be provoked within reason.
The Muslim religion as such
was not attacked or insulted
but rather a deviant form of it:
fanatical and violent fundamentalism.
I don't blame her for requesting an acquittal.
I condemn the way she did it.
Why?
I think she didn't consider
a part
of the legitimate request
of the plaintiffs.
A public prosecutor is totally independent.
He or she isn't there to hand out good marks and bad marks.
I believe the interests of society must come first.
She embodied something at that point.
She expressed it in fact.
These aren't her words but she more or less said,
"I'm the public prosecutor, I represent the Republic."
To see the Republic side with you at Charlie Hebdo
must have been gratifying.
True, but to see the Republic side with itself
touched me even more.
My parents died for France!
My grandfather died in the trenches.
He died for France in the trenches.
Look how his grandchildren are treated now.
Look how we're treated!
My grandfather died for France!
And look how his grandchildren are treated now by racists!
I am calm. I'm completely calm.
We're involved in a trial as plaintiffs...
Let me speak.
We're here in a courthouse and we can't get carried away.
So calm down and we can talk.
Your grandparents died in the war for France, fine.
People understand that or they don't.
It's over now.
It's finished.
This case requires serenity.
Speeches for the plaintiffs
You overdo it a little as far as I remember.
I recall hearing you say,
"We're no longer the Republic's native troops."
- Yes. - That's a bit strong.
- It wasn't really relevant. - It was.
It was relevant.
How can you pretend to believe, Mr Leconte,
that colonial history has not resulted,
where some French people are concerned,
in scorn and racist attitudes
towards French Muslims?
I don't know if I drew the parallel
in court but I wanted to...
It was the parallel with cartoons from the first half of the century.
The happy African on cocoa tins,
the hooked-nose Jew...
That's a racist form of caricature.
- It's a generalization. - Not at all.
I'm just saying that some people
think France is a white, Christian country
and are blind to her diversity.
You even add, just as strongly,
"This generalization leads to racist attacks."
Of course.
What justifies racist attacks?
How can you say that about Charlie Hebdo?
The accusation is so outrageous
that no one believes it.
You're wrong. In the course of the trial,
I received more insulting letters than for any other case.
And many of those insulting letters
would not make Mr Val very happy.
You had the French working-class racists
supporting Mr Val.
That's awkward.
Even Mr Le Pen felt we were being unfair with Charlie Hebdo.
When you say
that a religion is a hotbed of terrorism,
those who want to get revenge
will use it as an excuse for racist attacks.
It you can't see that, you worry me.
Szpiner was so annoyed by my testimony
that called his legal strategy into question
that he felt obliged to use his speech to call me a racist.
Gratuitously, out of the blue, he called me
a post-colonialist
displaying paternalistic and racist scorn for Muslims.
I don't know where he got that.
Why you?
I have no idea. But right after the trial
I simply told him
that if he called me a racist again he'd need to do it in court,
where I couldn't sue him,
because I'd sue otherwise
and he'd have to prove it and say what he based it on.
She has a high opinion of herself.
I don't know what justifies
such a high opinion.
She seems to be the conscience and guardian of the Republic.
She is very fond of herself and if Mrs Fourest
committed a crime of passion, it would be her own suicide.
Richard Malka's speech
We were caught up
in the plaintiffs' arguments that said,
based on ideas that they kept wheeling out
and that infuriated me,
ideas that said not everyone was treated equally.
I wanted to show that everyone was treated equally and fairly.
In fact, on the contrary,
they wanted special treatment.
So I summed up the relations that Charlie Hebdo has
with other religions, especially Christianity,
to ask if they really wanted equal treatment.
"Is that really what you're after?"
"Do you want equal treatment?"
"If that makes you happy, you'll get it."
When Richard got out the cartoons
on religion and fundamentalists that we did 10 or 15 years ago,
when I saw those cartoons,
I thought, "What the hell is he doing?
"Where's he taking this? It's a disaster."
I reminded them that for the Pope's visit,
Philippe Val's editorial read,
"Welcome Pope Shit".
I asked them, "Do you really want the same treatment?"
- You had no idea? - No.
I didn't know he'd use them.
They're so violent. Outrageous!
I reminded them that Riss, in a two-page spread,
had protested against the pro-lifers
by urging the paper's readers
to do the same thing
and shit in churches
by showing people defecating in stoups.
I showed the front pages of Charlie Hebdo
of the Pope and ecclesiastics
shown castrating children during the debate on Catholic schools.
He brought out a cartoon of Jesus
with a nail up his ass.
"And Muhammad with a nail?
"You want equal treatment?"
It was an incredible moment.
"You want this?"
I showed cartoons of baby Jesus with a gun to his head,
with his brains blown out.
I was thinking, "They're not going to take this."
There were cartoons with sodomy and stuff...
I showed cartoons of the Pope
after his death, shown as Popeye
with the line, "No more spinach."
I showed cartoon of the Pope
in gay bar backrooms.
The Muslim attorneys on the other side
looked very shocked
but, all of a sudden...
They burst out laughing. It's fantastic.
I heard the whole courtroom burst out laughing behind me.
I was worried for a second thinking I'd screwed up.
The judge was splitting his sides
and I thought I must have said something really terrible.
It wasn't evil laughter, a bastard's laughter...
It wasn't vindictive laughter.
We were laughing and it wasn't about Muslims or...
It was something else. It was all to do
with blasphemy.
We can blaspheme and, look at you, you're laughing too.
Then I said, "Maybe in addition to Islam-haters,
"we're Christian-haters too.
"Let's see what we can do with Buddha."
I showed articles and drawings
in which Buddha was accused of blowing a fuse.
So we were Buddhism-haters too.
Then I showed similar stuff on Sikhs, Orthodox Jews, etc.
Malka wasn't told to calm down.
The judge told the public to breathe deeply to avoid choking.
I asked them, "What are you after by demanding equal treatment?
"That's not what you want.
"You're actually asking for special treatment for Islam
"to make it the only religion
"that could not be caricatured or mocked.
"I'm sorry, that's not possible
"because that would be
"tantamount to discrimination."
Their riposte should be along the same lines.
Mr Boubakeur should learn to draw
and do cartoons of atheists to make us laugh.
We're learning to draw...
Not so easy!
Georges Kiejman's speech
How do you gain people's attention
at 10 or 11 in the evening
when everyone is tired?
You start by saying you'll never manage it.
It's like Fred Astaire receiving an Oscar when he was 80
and saying, "One thing I regret at my age
"is that I can no longer do this,"
before doing a brilliant tap-dance.
He is almost impertinent with the judge.
He says it all.
"It'll be bad for your career if you screw up."
Downright impertinent
but with such intelligence
that he wasn't interrupted.
The judge even...
It was a great moment, not a theatrical moment
but almost.
It was a great speech and the judge clearly appreciated it.
At one point, whatever the strategy employed,
you have to go for it.
I know who you are, Mr Kiejman!
You know more than I do then!
I wanted to show the huge debate behind all this.
Is a certain way
of thinking, living and producing,
a way that we can call Western since it was born in the West,
threatened or not
by the desire to impose a religious law on the whole world?
The debate is almost serious.
When I feel things are too serious, I always tend
to ease the tension with a joke.
And that joke could be
of a sexual nature.
The idea of sex is also important in another way.
There is a form of puritanism
in fundamentalist Islam
and the way in which homosexual are treated, say.
I'm floored
when I read articles in which the writer
cannot decide whether to impale the active or passive homosexual first
and kills them anyway.
He continually brings in a human element.
And that's necessary
because the tension was so great
that if we wanted a certain intellectual level,
a decent intellectual level, we needed these moments
to let off steam.
It was no longer a question of power.
The issue was how to live in society
while respecting each other.
We had to persuade the judges
and get them to defend the people
who were opposed to this regression.
If we lose, it'll be scandalous.
After the trial,
what do you think the verdict will be?
I feel it's going to be
hard for the judge to rule against them.
But, at the same time, he's there to apply the law.
And so, if he does that,
I feel I have a chance in this legal debate.
I had no idea
what the verdict would be.
You could tell that the witnesses had had a certain influence
that could lead to an acquittal
but I couldn't be sure.
Like the attorneys, until the very end,
I was waiting for March 8 or 10 for the ruling.
Coming?
Let's go.
The team arrives at the restaurant
to fête Philippe and Richard.
Richard calls all the witnesses to thank them.
The verdict is due on March 15.
Lia, Philippe's assistant, joins us.
We have just had death threats on our own mobile.
"Philippe Val, look behind you.
"By the holy Koran, your head will fall before the verdict."
"Here we go!"
"With these people, you talk, you die,
"you don't talk, you die,
"so talk and die."
Tahar Jahout,
Algerian journalist,
three weeks before his murder.
The day of the verdict...
March 22, 2007
The court states that we took part in a legitimate manner
in a social debate.
It's impossible to say more clearly we were right
to take part in this debate and print the cartoons,
and the court acquits Philippe Val completely.
It's a victory for Muslims,
secular and republican Muslims
who don't feel represented by religious leaders
who can be fundamentalists.
For them, I think this will launch
a debate that was necessary and that they had trouble starting.
A chapter has closed.
A chapter that began badly in England and in Germany
and in Europe in general where people backed down in fear.
Here, at least,
we can be happy France gave a clear reply.
Whatever happens
to us at Charlie Hebdo,
it sets a valuable precedent for the press,
artists, painters,
filmmakers, journalists,
choreographers, everyone.
Long live free speech!
Thank you, Val!
Thank you, Charlie!
I feel like crying.
Gentlemen, thank you.
You can thank us too, we worked for you.
Several Arab papers were banned for printing the Muhammad cartoons.
8 Arab journalists were arrested and imprisoned.
2 in Algeria, 2 in Jordan, 4 in Yemen.
The UOIF and the Islamic League lodged an appeal.
The ruling was confirmed with the following comments:
"The incriminated cartoons, through their publication,
"contributed to the public debate on the freedom of speech."
Subtitling: C.M.C.