At the correctional court in Paris,
Before even getting to the heart of the matter, the president of the 16th chamber of the correctional court in Paris, Thomas Jouck, wanted to make a point: “Here, we do not do religion, politics or morality . Here, we simply do law. I say this because, sometimes, it evokes fantasies of political justice that have no place. It must be said that the case is sensitive: since Tuesday and for three weeks, thirteen ultra-right activists have been tried for criminal association. They are suspected of having, to varying degrees, fomented an attack on Emmanuel Macron in November 2018, but also of having considered attacking migrants, burning mosques or even kidnapping “rich people”. to get a ransom.
On the benches, most of the defendants are between 50 and 66 years old. All or almost are dressed in black or anthracite gray, listen to the magistrate – particularly pedagogue – arms folded, staring. Nine of them had never had any dealings with the law before. Starting with the only defendant who appears detained: Mickaël Iber, 43 years old, but seems to have ten more as his features are marked. Justice fears that he will not appear at the hearings if he is released. But finally this Tuesday, it is not so much the political aspect as the social coloring of this file that is obvious.
“It’s a purebred cat”
Although they face up to ten years in prison, many give the impression of not understanding the stakes of the trial. Like this defendant Julien C., who asks, through his lawyer, to be excused from attending the trial – with the exception of his hearing – because of the state of health of his… cat. “He’s a purebred cat, no one else can approach him,” insists his lawyer, brandishing the animal’s health record in front of the somewhat amazed gaze of the president. “Between your cat’s insulin dose and the legal issues for you and the other defendants… It seems to me more important anyway,” sighs the magistrate. Even the man with the thick black beard, suspected of having provided recipes for making explosives, will not reconsider his decision: he will only go back and forth from Brittany for his interrogation.
His co-defendants, for many, highlight the cost of such a trial: too far, too expensive, too time-consuming. All live in the provinces, many are unemployed or hold precarious jobs. For the youngest, the court as the public prosecutor does not oppose it. This 26-year-old man, whom the leader of the group, Jean-Pierre Bouyer, presented as his “right arm” has a mental handicap. He says he understands the president “vaguely” when he reminds him of the offenses with which he is accused. At the time of declining his identity, he cannot repress sobs, thrusts his hands into his pockets to try to control his tremors. “Blow, blow”, slips him, benevolent, the president.
“We are not at the hair salon”
For the others, on the other hand, the magistrate is more firm. If he understands the constraints, he explains the importance of attending the debates, of being able to respond if you are called into question by other defendants. The need for the “contradictory”, in short. But at the helm, Nathalie C., in her fifties, salt-and-pepper hair, pink sweater, doesn’t want to hear anything.
She fulminates against the “hallucinating” prices of Airbnb in the capital, explains not having the means to make daily round trips between Paris and the Moselle. “Anyway, I hate Paris, it worries me,” she blurts out without really taking into account what the president tells her. “We are not at the hairdressing salon”, replies the latter. And to insist: “If you are not there, it puts you in difficulty. »
“A political thought is not an offence”
Nothing helps: the defendant will ignore the trial, except for her hearing. More than the penalty incurred, she fears above all to lose the two clients with whom she cleans. “I work with a general practitioner, if he finds out, I’m fired. “It has already happened to her when the affair broke out: one of her clients called her a “terrorist” every day, she ended up resigning. “It’s my job or a business that’s been going on for four years. Well, I choose my job,” she explains with a certain casualness. And what does it matter if it is “penalized”.
How many defendants will still be present on Wednesday when the court gets to the heart of the case? Mystery. This is perhaps what emerges from this first day: the respondents – many of whom the investigation showed had conspiratorial inclinations – will they be present enough to understand the springs of justice, to see its independence at ” 200%” in the words of the president, and understand why they were fired? “A political thought is not an offence,” insisted the magistrate.