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.
 |
“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
theguardian.com, Sunday 12 January 2014 / http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/12/french-comedian-accused-antisemitism-new-routine
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
The Observer, Saturday 11 January 2014 / http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2014/jan/11/dieudonne-quenelle-francois-hollande-support-ban-comedian-france-debate
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
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:
Enviar um comentário