domingo, 12 de janeiro de 2014

Para virar a página, humorista francês anuncia fim do polémico espectáculo.French comedian accused of antisemitism to unveil new routine.Dieudonné: was François Hollande right to support a ban?


Para virar a página, humorista francês anuncia fim do polémico espectáculo
ANA FONSECA PEREIRA 12/01/2014 – in Público

Depois de tribunais terem proibido o Le Mur por afirmações consideradas anti-semitas, Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala anunciou uma nova performance.

O humorista francês Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala decidiu sábado pôr fim ao espectáculo Le Mur, três vezes proibido pela justiça francesa por afirmações anti-semitas, anunciando em sua substituição uma performance sobre África e as suas tradições, que garante não terá a polémica do anterior. A discussão sobre os limites da liberdade de expressão promete, no entanto, continuar.

“A controvérsia sobre Dieudonné e o Le Mur terminou. Agora vamos ter oportunidade de nos rir ainda mais com o meu novo espectáculo”, disse o comediante numa conferência de imprensa em que surgiu descalço e vestido com trajes tradicionais africanos. “Vivemos numa democracia e tenho de me conformar com a lei, apesar da flagrante interferência política”, acrescentou, numa referência ao ministro do Interior francês, que instruiu os autarcas das cidades por onde passaria a tournée do Le Mur a não autorizarem o espectáculo.

Manuel Valls alegava que o stand-up arriscava causar distúrbios à ordem pública, mas na origem da inédita iniciativa estavam tanto as referências consideradas anti-semitas que fazia durante o espectáculo como a quenelle, gesto que inventou e que dizia ser anti-sistema e anti-sionista, mas que o Governo e associações judaicas interpretaram como uma saudação nazi invertida.

A batalha judicial começou em Nantes, a primeira cidade por onde deveria passar a digressão do Le Mur, onde um tribunal administrativo anulou a proibição do espectáculo decretada pelas autoridades locais. Valls recorreu para o Conselho de Estado, a instância administrativa máxima de França, que lhe deu razão, considerando que Dieudonné proferia no espectáculo declarações “penalmente repreensíveis” e atentatórias da “dignidade humana”. Decisão idêntica foi tomada em Tours, segunda etapa da tournée, e já no sábado o Conselho de Estado repetiu o acórdão, desta vez para Orleães.

Dieudonné, condenado várias vezes por "incitação ao ódio" racial, diz agora querer virar a página, apesar de insistir que “não é nazi, nem anti-semita”. O novo espectáculo, que diz ter escrito “em três noites”, estreará com o nome Asu Zoa (A Face do Elefante, em língua ewondo, um dos idiomas dos Camarões, país de origem do pai do comediante) e, através de dança, música e mímica, falará dos “mitos ancestrais” e das “crenças primitivas” de África. O humorista diz que a nova peça “não terá afirmações como as que foram visadas pela justiça”, nem visa semear a polémica.

A primeira representação da performance esteve anunciada para sábado à tarde no Main d’Or, o teatro que Dieudonné gere em Paris, mas acabou por não se realizar. Cumprindo uma ordem judicial, proibindo os espectáculos previstos para os próximos dias na sala de espectáculos, a polícia manteve o local encerrado. À hora prevista, centenas de apoiantes do humorista juntaram-se no local, cantaram a Marselhesa e insurgiram-se contra a decisão judicial: “Viva a ditadura judaica”, gritou uma mulher de 60 anos, citada pela AFP. Um representante de Dieudonné acabou por se dirigir ao grupo, explicando que a performance, que afinal ainda não estava concluída, tinha sido adiada.

Apesar da polémica sobre a sua intervenção, Valls garantiu que voltaria a agir da mesma forma. “Não deixarei jamais passar palavras que dividem os franceses”, afirmou o ministro do Interior, explicando porque decidiu assumir a iniciativa: “Havia aqui uma forma de impunidade que me revoltava”. Segundo uma sondagem divulgada sábado, 83% dos franceses têm opinião negativa de Dieudonné, mas 74% acha que o Governo dedicou “demasiado” tempo ao caso e uma pequena maioria (52%) diz ser contrária à proibição dos espectáculos.


“I suppose my starting point has to be that there is no doubt that Dieudonné is not so much a comedian but, rather, an attention-seeking racist and an antisemite. He certainly isn't funny any more, if he ever was. He is, however, an expert in provocation, and that's what his latest acts and statements, including the famous "quenelle", are all about. More to the point, what he is really doing is testing the limits of French law – specifically the Loi Gayssot of 1990, the so-called loi anti-négationniste, which, among other things, effectively makes Holocaust denial (négationnisme in French) a crime.”
Andrew Hussey, dean of the University of London Institute in Paris

“I'm glad neither of us is going to attempt to describe Dieudonné as anything other than what he is – a rabble-rousing bigot. Too often in discussions on free speech issues, people will attempt to downplay or deflect attention from the ugly facts, or attempt to rationalise other people's bigotry. I hope I don't fall into that trap.”
Padraig Reidy, senior writer at Index on Censorship



French comedian accused of antisemitism to unveil new routine
Dieudonné backs down after efforts to ban one-man show, saying new material will focus on Africa
Anne Penketh in Paris

The French comedian Dieudonné, accused of antisemitism and hate speech, is to unveil a new routine on Sunday night after backing down in the face of determined action by judicial authorities to ban his one-man shows across France.

The controversial comedian announced he was cancelling his show The Wall at a press conference on Saturday at the Paris theatre where he was due to perform. Speaking after the top French administrative court, the council of state, banned his shows in Nantes, Tours and Orleans, he promised to "spring back" with a new set focusing on Africa. It promises music, mime "and some tai chi movements".

Saying he would "respect the law", Dieudonné – whose father is originally from Cameroon – said the new show, put together in three days, was inspired by "ancestral myths and primitive beliefs". The Journal du Dimanche weekly newspaper described Dieudonné's move as a "tactical retreat".

The interior minister, Manuel Valls, vowed to pursue the comedian through the courts over his shows for their antisemitic content. A ruling by the council of state on Thursday, shortly before Dieudonné embarked on his nationwide tour in Nantes, overturned a decision earlier in the day by a lower court which authorised the show. But the bans triggered a furious debate in France over freedom of speech and led to a spike in the comedian's popularity. His trademark gesture known as the quenelle, which is seen by many as a reverse Nazi salute, was widely shared by his supporters online.

Valls has said that he is considering legal constraints of Dieudonné's appearances online, which have been viewed by more than 2m people.

About 100 supporters of the comedian gathered outside the Théâtre de la Main d'Or in Paris before his press conference, shouting "Valls resign" and "Dieudo for president". The comedian, who denies he is antisemitic, and describes the quenelle as an anti-establishment salute, has called for an anti-government demonstration in Paris on 26 January.


Dieudonné, who is known by his first name, has been fined a total €65,000 (£54,000) stemming from nine convictions of hate speech in his shows. Valls launched his campaign against the comedian after Dieudonné suggested a Jewish French journalist should be put to death in a gas chamber.

Supporters of the French comedian Dieudonné make the quenelle gesture during a demonstration in Paris. Photograph: Meunier Aurelien/Sipa/Rex

Dieudonné: was François Hollande right to support a ban?
Should controversial comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, the man behind the quenelle gesture, be silenced by the law – or by sharper arguments? Andrew Hussey and Padraig Reidy debate France's thorniest issue.
Andrew Hussey and Padraig Reidy

Andrew Hussey, dean of the University of London Institute in Paris

I suppose my starting point has to be that there is no doubt that Dieudonné is not so much a comedian but, rather, an attention-seeking racist and an antisemite. He certainly isn't funny any more, if he ever was. He is, however, an expert in provocation, and that's what his latest acts and statements, including the famous "quenelle", are all about. More to the point, what he is really doing is testing the limits of French law – specifically the Loi Gayssot of 1990, the so-called loi anti-négationniste, which, among other things, effectively makes Holocaust denial (négationnisme in French) a crime. The belief system of Dieudonné and those of his followers is that the "French establishment" uses the memory of the Holocaust to exercise power over the marginalised populations of France and to reinforce Jewish interests. No one is trying to stop him believing this or expressing his views. The Loi Gayssot does, however, place limits on how far an individual can claim that crimes against humanity, as defined at the Nuremberg trials, did not happen – and that is the point of law that Dieudonné is challenging with his propaganda.

One may or may not agree with the Loi Gayssot – there is no such law in England – but from the Dreyfus affair, to the second world war, to the 2012 killings in Toulouse, there is hardly a more divisive, emotive, even lethal, issue in French society than antisemitism. That is why the Loi Gayssot exists, and why I sympathise with the exasperation of the French government, which is trying to act decently, if somewhat clumsily, in the face of the provocations of this rabble-rousing clown.

Padraig Reidy, senior writer at Index on Censorship

I'm glad neither of us is going to attempt to describe Dieudonné as anything other than what he is – a rabble-rousing bigot. Too often in discussions on free speech issues, people will attempt to downplay or deflect attention from the ugly facts, or attempt to rationalise other people's bigotry. I hope I don't fall into that trap.

I don't really doubt that François Hollande's support for municipal bans of Dieudonné's performances is well-meaning. A lot of modern censorious laws are conceived as protection rather than punishment. But you've pointed out the problem with this yourself. Dieudonné and his friends already see themselves as "anti-establishment" and have justified the quenelle salute that has led to this controversy as a gesture against the powers that be. As Mark Gardner of Britain's Community Security Trust has written, this leads to an easy conflation between "the establishment" and old-fashioned antisemitic ideas about "Jewish power", "Jewish capitalism" and more. Dieudonné already has convictions for antisemitism, but it seems to have done little to dent his standing among fans, and may even have enhanced his standing as a rebel. I wonder if the well-meaning law has in fact done more harm than good.

AH Well, I think you've hit the nail on the head. One of the fundamental contradictions of the Loi Gayssot is that it gives someone like Dieudonné something to kick against, and when the government kicks back it legitimises all his arguments that he is a victim, a leader of the dispossessed, and so on. That's why the show (Le Mur) he has been running in Paris has been packed out every night, with a mainly male audience, often from the banlieue, who love his anti-Jewish jokes, his attacks on the French state. Most importantly, he flatters his audience, saying that by coming to see him they risk breaking the law and being "complicit with crimes against humanity''(that's a quote from Dieudonné). That's a direct challenge to the Loi Gayssot and his audience love it.

But that doesn't mean it's entirely a bad law – it was the Loi Gayssot that enabled the French government to root out the "negationist cancer" at the heart of the Université de Lyon 3 in 2001. The place was riddled with "negationist" students and academics, including Bruno Gollnisch, a leading figure in the Front National. This was like having David Irving and his mates in charge of Manchester University. No government could possibly tolerate this level of academic fraud and malice. Gollnisch ended up with a prison sentence (eventually suspended). Dieudonné may well end up the same way. Both of them are made martyrs by the law (Gollnisch has backed the quenelle, incidentally). But Hollande has to back the ban. No president of the republic indivisible, of right or left, can do otherwise.

PR Technically, in the context of Dieudonné's tour, the reasoning given for a ban is not a breach of the law on hatred and Holocaust denial, but a potential threat to public order. The invocation of a threat to public order as an ad hoc censorship tool is not exactly ideal, is it? But of course, the Loi Gayssot forms the backdrop and the intellectual and legal justification for everything that follows. So apart from the moral argument about censorship, the questions are: what is the purpose of the law? And has it worked? If the purpose of the law is to discredit Holocaust "revisionists" then I would suggest it has not achieved its aim. Dieudonné sells out shows; the aforementioned Bruno Gollnisch is elected to the European parliament.

Is the aim to prevent the rise of the far right? Again, it's arguable that it has failed. The Front National has maintained a percentage of the vote in the teens, about the same as it did when the law was introduced.

One could say that without the law, Holocaust revisionism and antisemitism might be even stronger, but the fact is, this isn't a lab experiment: there's no "control" where we can see what alternative outcome might be. What we do know is that we have hundreds of young French people getting transgressive kicks by posting pictures of themselves giving "inverted Nazi salutes" at Jewish sites.

AH I think the law obviously has its limits here. The reality is that antisemitism lies deep at the core of French history and society and no legislation is ever going to change that – it's damage limitation at best. But I don't buy the argument either that French law has created this situation, or that it's making it worse. I'm thinking here of the example of LF Céline – arguably the greatest French novelist of the 20th century, and a vicious antisemite whose pro-Hitler tracts were so virulently anti-Jewish that they shocked the Nazi authorities. These books have quietly not been reprinted since the 1930s – or sell at inflated prices in dodgy editions at rightwing meetings across Europe. The point I'm making here is that, in a sense you're right – no law will ever control this mindset. I think Sartre gets it right in his essay Portrait of an Antisemite, when he says that French antisemitism (including Céline) comes from a sense of "inauthenticity" – unconvinced of his own place in society, the antisemite finds comfort in the reality of Jew-hatred. This is what is happening in the banlieue – cut off from and humiliated by the perceived French establishment. The way out of this is hard and complicated – bringing those who feel excluded back into the centre of political and cultural life. It's even harder to do this when the likes of Dieudonné, who thrives on division and disposession, is obviously working against this, evoking all the old ghosts of the French past. I'm not really making the case for censorship, just sounding a note of caution. In the end it may well be that what France needs is not political or legal solutions, or even psychiatry, but an exorcist.

PR A good psychiatrist, and even a good exorcist, would say that one has to flush out a problem and look it square in the eye. The problem with the laws used to prosecute Dieudonné, Faurisson, Gollnisch and their diabolical kind is that it can, in a peculiar way, diminish our ability to argue against them. It is certainly exhausting to argue with antisemites and Holocaust revisionists – they tend to be both unpleasant and obsessive – but argue we must. If we rely on legal censure to defeat them, we may find that the intellectual weapons we need to counter them in open discussion will quickly dull.

Next week sees the anniversary of the assassination of Hrant Dink, the Turkish-Armenian journalist who campaigned for open dialogue about the Armenian genocide (in Turkey, it is acknowledgement of genocide, not the denial of it, that is taboo). When the French government proposed applying a similar law to the Armenian genocide as it does to the Shoah, Dink said he would fly to Paris in order to break the law, believing, as I do, that strict regulation about what people can and cannot say eventually diminishes us all.


It may be true that antisemitism runs deep in France, and I would certainly not suggest that it has simply been created by this law. But banning Dieudonné's tour, will, I suspect, do little to weaken him and his fellow travellers. They wear their outlaw badges with pride. We won't stop antisemitism by banning it. We need to sharpen our arguments and start fighting.

Sem comentários: