Law and History
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Pierre Guillaume Law and History Statement in my defense against those who accuse me of defaming a person or an individual or a group of people because of their origin or their belonging or their not-belonging to an ethnic group, or to a nation or to a race or to a specified religion. Translated by G. F. H. AAARGH Internet 2008 GUILLAUME Law and History Original publication Droit et histoire Paris La Vieille Taupe 1986 Translated into English by G. F. H. 2nd edition, corrected. January 2008 Both the French original and the English version can be downloaded from Internet at the following address: http://aaargh.com.mx/fran/livres/livres.html http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres/livres.html AAARGH The website was founded in 1996 The Yearlies of AAARGH http://revurevi.net Conseils de révision Gaette du Golfe et des banlieues The Revisionist Clarion Il resto del siclo El Paso del Ebro Das kausale Nexusblatt O revisionismo em lengua português Arménichantage Books (380) published by AAARGH on Internet http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres/livres.html http://aaargh.com.mx/fran/livres/livres.html Documents, compilations, AAARGH Reprints http://aaargh.com.mx/fran/livres/reprints.html http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres/reprints.html Free subscribe: (e-mail) [email protected] [email protected] Mail: [email protected] We claim to be protected by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html AAARGH, TO AVOID DYING STUPID. — 2 — GUILLAUME Law and History TABLE OF CONTENTS FIRST PART .............................................................................................................4 The Facts.....................................................................................................................5 The Judicial Consequences.........................................................................................5 The Corpus Delicti......................................................................................................9 The Heart of the Problem...........................................................................................30 APPENDIX................................................................................................................33 SECOND PART.........................................................................................................38 Truth and Falsehood in a Very Singular Civil Argument ..........................................41 The “Acts” of the Conference ....................................................................................55 Serge Quadruppani Referee of Intellectual Elegances................................................62 The Weight of Words..................................................................................................76 A Clarification...........................................................................................................105 AN EXCHANGE OF LETTERS..............................................................................119 BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................123 ILLUSTRATIONS....................................................................................................124 — 3 — GUILLAUME Law and History FIRST PART Statement for the defense submitted by the accused at a public session of the Seventeenth Chamber of the Tribunal De Grande Instance in Paris on November 25, 1985 — 4 — GUILLAUME Law and History [9] The Facts On Saturday May 11, 1985, I personally undertook the distribution of a leaflet to all the people who stood in line at the Logos Theater, Rue Champollion, Paris Ve, where the film Shoah was being shown. This line consisted of about thirty people. A large contingent of police was present: a police van, a driver, two policemen, one officer and two guards equiped with bulletproof vests and submachine-guns. It was the third time that I did this and each time I conducted myself in exactly the same way. Each time, after having peacefully given my leaflet to each person who extended his hand, I gave one or two leaflets either to the chief of the police detachment, or to the driver of the vehicle, or to an armed police officer, while asking them to give a copy of the leaflet to the chief of the detachment. The first two distributions passed without incident. This Saturday May 11, after the distribution had gone on as peacefully as the other two, two people left the line after having read the leaflet, advanced towards me while uttering threats and, having come to within approximately a meter of me, made some aggressive gestures, taken aback—according to my interpretation—by the absence of any apprehensive or defensive reaction on my part, by my calm, and by the fact that I looked at them peacefully in the eyes. Two police officers intervened immediately, and got between us. I suggested myself, at the same time as did the [10] chief of the police detachment, that he proceed to check my identity. It was at this point that from the interior of the theater emerged an individual in a great state of agitation, who presented himself as “responsible for the maintenance of order for the film Shoah, a Jew, and a member of the L.I.C.R.A.,”1 and who professed in the middle of confused threats his intention to file a complaint. Faced with my persistent calm, the chief of the police detachment invited me simply to get into the police vehicle, which I agreed to do while inviting him to also take down the testimony and the possible complaint of the latter individual. The two people responsible for the first incident returned to the waiting line, and I was led, as well as the above-mentioned third person, to the police station of the 5th district where the police officer submitted his report, then to the police station of the 13th district where an inspector from the judicial police conducted my hearing and the checking of my identity and residence, while another inspector recorded the complaint and the deposition of Mr. Olivier-Jacques Friedler, born on June 24, 1952, Paris IVe, living at 108, quoted…. with B… (93). The Legal Consequences I did not imagine that this affair could have any legal consequences. However, on my return from vacation, a registered letter informed me that a suit against me had been filed in my absence at the city-hall of my home town. Indeed, a summons, dated August 12, 1985, invited me to appear on September 23, 1985 before the Seventeenth Chamber 1 L.I.C.R.A. Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme (International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism). — 5 — GUILLAUME Law and History of the Tribunal de Grande Instance in Paris, to respond to a charge of “public defamation regarding a person” (diffamation publique envers une personne). This summons contains numerous oddities, of which the first is that it was issued on August 12. The alleged misdeeds occurred on May 11, and the period for filing a complaint according to the statute of limitations is three months, which thus elapsed on August 11, 1985. Is it a question of a culpable negligence in the pursuit of an offence, or an economic means of giving satisfaction to the self-esteem of a plaintiff and of his friends although their grievances do not appear well founded nor the offence well established? The question is of anecdotal interest. The summons is official. Charges have been made against me by the prosecutor of the Republic, and I do not intend to use formal arguments to flee my responsibilities and to avoid a debate on the basic issue. The matter was brought to trial on September 23, 1985. I was absent but was represented by my lawyer, Éric Delcroix, my father having died the day before. A session for pleading was set for November 25, 1985. I thus received a new summons dated September 26, 1985 and specifying the new date; it was rigorously identical to the first except for one detail: the offence was not defined any more as “public defamation regarding a person,” but as “public defamation regarding an individual” (diffamation publique envers un particulier). The nuance is real although weak. The elements mentioned above appear on the first page of the successive summonses (the blue page) under the responsibility and the seal of Antoine Genna, Bailiff (huissier audiencier) of the Tribunal De Grande Instance in Paris. To this blue page are fastened three pages, under the (illegible) signature and the responsibility of the prosecutor of the Republic: To have committed in Paris on May 11, 1985, in any case on the national territory and over an unstipulated period of time, the offence of public defamation regarding a person or a group of people because of their origin or their belonging or their not-belonging to an ethnic group, a nation, a race or a specified religion, by publishing and distributing the text reproduced below: The complete reproduction of the alleged leaflet follows, then the following sentence: Deeds covered and criminalized by Articles 23, 29, Paragraph 1, 32, Paragraph 2, 42, 43 and following, 47, 48 and following, of the Law of July 29, 1881. Before reproducing and studying what constitutes the corpus delicti, that is, the text of the leaflet itself, let us study soberly [12] and with full attention what merit there is in the austere writings of the public prosecutor. I have thus to answer for an offence allegedly done by me, the offence of public defamation. I am accused of having defamed a person, but which person? I am accused of having defamed