There is no doubt that antisemitism exists in France. It has a long history in the psyche of the French (Alfred Dreyfus affair) and has been growing exponentially due to the rise in North African immigration (Charlie Hebdo). Increasingly Jews are leaving France, their home for generations, because of this.
However, in this case the problem is the law of the land so anyone can claim irresponsibility if their criminal actions were taken under the influence. The culprit has been hospitalised in a specialised mental institution and will not be allowed out anytime soon.
As a consequence of this murder, President Macron has requested that the law be changed. Taking drugs is a choice and should not changes one criminal responsibility.
"Décider de prendre des stupéfiants et devenir alors 'comme fou' ne devrait pas à mes yeux supprimer votre responsabilité pénale. Sur ce sujet, je souhaite que le garde des Sceaux présente au plus vite un changement de la loi",
The testimonies of Sarah Halimi's neighbors revealed that the police arrived at the scene of the murder while she was still alive. The police officers apparently went upstairs to her apartment door, heard her screaming and another voice shouting in Arabic. What did they do? They went back downstairs and waited for reinforcements -- until the victim was dead.
They left the murderer alone with his victim. Why is this not a clear case of dereliction of duty? Yet, no investigation has been carried out to determine what, if anything, was the responsibility of the police.
Reminds me of the Trump caravan in New York organized by Jews for Trump to protest Cuomo. They had things thrown at them. It didn't matter to the press. Why not? They supported Trump. But if they narrative could have been presented the other way around the press would have been on it faster than the Roadrunner.
20 years in a psych hospital is hardly a punishment. With enough meds 3 square and a warm bed he probably will live quite awhile and quite well. Any chance he really takes to it and gets released early...
When I first heard the news, I was as outraged as anyone else, except maybe for the true anti-Semites blooming within the radical left. And yesterday, I came across an article in a French magazine which opened new insights on the case.
Basically, it can be summed up to the following points:
1) Medical expertise (two of them) have concluded that the murderer suffered from delirious breakdown at the time of the murder, and that the drug was not related to that breakdown, since it went on long after the drug's effect was gone. So a case for irresponsibility could be made.
2) Although The Court has ruled about Traoré's penal irresponsibility, it has confirmed that he committed a murder with antisemitic character.
3) Traoré will still spend many years locked in a mental hospital with forced treatment, whereas a judgement in a court of law could have meant a shorter lock-up time due to irresponsibility.
So it is not just about being cleared just for having smoked weed.
I'm confused by the French court's inconsitent position - cannabis intoxication is an aggravating factor in an accident (traffic collision, say), but reduces legal responsibility in the case of a murder - do I have that right? So if I'm a drunk driver who kills someone in an accident, my sentence is increased, but if I'm drunk and I murder someone, my sentence is lessened? Very confusing.
Why does the left engage in antisemitism? Because Jews are a people. People who constitute a nation. The Left simply cannot tolerate allowing national self-determination to get in the way of their naked quest for power. If antisemitism gets them there fast, they're all for it. They're not Matt's tribe. He doesn't bother to argue in good faith. He smears. These people can't be reasoned with.
They hate Jews who dare to be Jewish, - religious or Zionist or both (Just like they hate minorities not totally awash with their ideology like Andrew Yang - someone who is pretty left of center). Trust me, I see it all the time being an Orthodox Jew. The lies posted about us in the left wing media are astonishing, the lengths they go to try to erase our Jewishness is, well...ancient. And the comments section in the Gothamist is always abhorrent. Of course, they've never met us at all. I don't know why I even read all that dribble. It just makes me mad, and then sad. Such naked hypocrisy, it's so normalized in their circles they don't hide it.
Bari - Thanks for all you do. Recently read your book and it should be a must read in our educational system. Was appalled by your departure from the NYTimes. Just subscribed here and look forward to more of your content.
Bari, as a moderator I believe it is your responsibility to allow people to voice their opinions in a civil and respectful manner. I know that you want to honor the principle of free speech and that honoring that principle includes allowing writers to aggressively challenge each other. May I suggest that you post guidelines and standards for civil discourse. I understand that this is a very difficult issue as you do not want to become the very thing that you're challenging. I was on a local leftist news site called the "Patch" recently and they explicitly forbade the use of the terms "all lives matter" and "white lives matter." I found this restriction to be an unreasonable censorship. Where does one draw this line, if they draw it at all, when it comes to holding people to a level of civil discourse. Reasonable minds can differ but you were openly called a liar, and many of use have now been called racists. Perhaps by allowing these individuals to spew their ugly accusations and allowing us to respond to them is the best model of "free speech" that you can offer; or perhaps there must be some standards lest this forum devolve into a free for all of INCIVILITY. Good luck and thank you for taking on this challenge as I know it mustn't always be easy.
Firstly, I think you're misinterpreting something. The victim's family asked if this same logic would be applied to a drunk driver killing children in the street - the implication being that normally it wouldn't. So it would seem that in France, a drunk driver typically would *not* be "let off" for this reason. One would hope not, at least. In America, this is commonly the textbook example of involuntary manslaughter. But if this is also the case in France, it makes this ruling all the more strange.
Because even this comparison is far too generous to the offender in this case. Drunk drivers normally kill people by accident. If someone got drunk and then deliberately ran someone over while under the influence of alcohol, calling them a "dirty Jew" in the process, I'm fairly certain that would easily qualify as murder in America, and a hate crime at that. The alcohol may serve as a mitigating factor affecting the degree or the sentencing, but certainly wouldn't shield someone from the overall criminal charges. Yet it would seem that in France, it can.
So to answer your question, this is quite different, and far worse, than a typical drunk driver scenario, which renders the verdict supremely mind boggling.
My (mis)understanding of your comment was that you would expect someone to be let off for killing someone in a drunk driving accident, and thus you'd expect them to be let off here as well. In retrospect, it appears you were saying that, in both cases, you would expect that they *would not* evade criminal accountability. My uncharitable interpretation may have been influenced by other contrary opinions on this article. In any case, my apologies for the confusion.
So......one of the most interesting things on this thread is Matt Mullen. He gets A LOT of the comments section by basically being a troll. He always responds in a conflicting manner, but not too over the top. He gets a lot of the air. Interesting. He seems to understand the algorithm of comment air time. He somehow get people of good faith to argue with him....but because he is operating in bad faith id doesn't matter. It is an interesting thing to observe and study.
Maybe it’s like Europe’s inability overall to confront the ideological chasm between western ideals and Merkle’s millions that Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others have written at length about, for instance recently in Unherd.
Our social contract is being rewritten with many voices which are hostile to our traditions and deeply ingrained beliefs.
I am not Jewish but it can’t be denied there is a strong, frequently violent, institutionally ingrained (religious mantras and school lessons)hatred from the Muslim world for Jews.
It is not a problem that will diminish with inclusion, in my opinion, in truth it seems to be infecting western viewpoints to, for instance, deny the Jewish homo flag in our parades. Despite the truth that there is also a strong, frequently violent, institutionally ingrained hatred from the Muslim world for homos.
I apologize as this comment is not directly related to the story, which I find very important, but it pertains to this community.
I support freedom of speech as I hope most of the people in this community do, though I do not see this right as absolute (not right is). However, I wonder if trolling should be considered free speech, especially trolling with agenda. This is a relatively new phenomenon that emerged with the rise of "comments sections" that, for many people, have become as important as the stories to which the comments pertain. This lead to a phenomenon of individuals who partake in "comments" discussion not to express genuine opinions not to add to the discussion, but for the purpose of hijacking the discussion or sidelining it. There are many examples of individuals and groups around the world that are paid by political parties to do this kind of work. I am not familiar with the media on the right, but I have seen examples of this kind of activity, particularly in the local media in the area where I live, where activist groups have "bots" that tend to take over comments discussions on stories that were critical of their groups and/or leaders.
The reason that I bring this up is because it is becoming apparent to me that we might have examples of this kind of activity on this forum.
It could be argued that the comments for the last two stories have been "hijacked" by the character named "Matt M.". The question is what if anything should be done about it? I do not have a problem with contrarian thinking as long as it is genuine and focused on helping, not hurting. Of course that it is okay to criticize Bari; of course that she has some kind of agenda; of course there is antisemitism on the right... Yet the fact remains that we are a society in a deep, perhaps existential crisis, with threats coming from all sides of the political spectrum and from all sides of the world, so I would says that this is not time for arguing for arguing sake.
Besides, that kind of behavior can be seen as hurtful and I wish it would stop.
I up voted you BUT for the last sentence. Words on a screen can't hurt me; shouting in my face can't hurt me. Only actions can hurt me. If verbal battle isn't your thing, lend your support in other ways. We can all log off or click elsewhere if it gets too much. But doing that for any length of time is just conceding the battle space and is ultimately self-defeating. Which is what our enemies want: total victory. They'll have to work for it I'm afraid.
"with threats coming from all sides of the political spectrum"
Perhaps. Maybe. However, the threat against free speech, with which you opened your comment, is only coming from one side of the spectrum.
I agree with you about trolls. But a big part of this original post is about pushing back. I think it's important to speak out, but not necessarily to engage in a way that feeds the trolls.
I agree with you re-threats as things currently stand. My fear, however, is not just of the current extremism, but also from the almost inevitable backlash that this radicalism could bring. This backlash, of course, does not have to be a negative one. The way I see it, vast majority of us are currently stuck in the middle, surrounded by radicals that are lobbing grenades at each other, over our heads. Those of us in the middle disagree with one another on many issues, sometimes fundamentally, but are bound by certain shared values. We are not represented in politics, in the media, in popular culture, economy, as these radical elements almost completely dominate all these areas, sometimes using trolling aka "matt mullening" in the case of this forum to eliminate any spaces where meaningful discussion is possible, in some cases using our belief in some of these values, like free speech, to undermine them. We are important in this system only as a source of tax revenue - yes, we pay for all this, the schools, the universities, companies that we are supporting with our money. They are counting on our meekness, our unwillingness to go beyond comments on some forum in response to all this. So the question comes down to what do you believe in, and what are you willing to do about it. That would be a positive backlash - more democracy as a response to a threat on democracy.
I just ignore the comments of certain posters once I’ve decided they are trolls. They thrive on responses from others to their insipid comments. Deprive them of that joy, and they soon get bored.
Your comment pertains to all Substack communities as well as every online forum where ideas are exchanged. Trolls are pernicious and can, in one inflammatory post, obfuscate, distract and derail both the conversation and the purpose of a journalist’s post itself.
The solution is simple: do not feed the troll.
Trolls push our outrage button and provoke an irresistible urge to respond. How can I NOT push back, correct, scold, stand up for all that is true, fair, just and moral in the face of such blatant lies and bigotry? Easy. Ask yourself: is this the post of somebody operating in good faith? Are they seeking to enlighten or inflame?
It’s not hard to identify troll-speak. If you don’t realize it on the first pass, by the second pass you will. Because the troll lives to provoke. But the troll is not worth responding to.
Put your ego on the back burner and starve the troll.
I just reread Bari Weiss's resignation letter from the NY Times again to refresh my memory of it. And if this latest column is a typical example of her writing, I would not hire her at the NY Times. Not because her opinions "go against the narrative", but because it is deeply dishonest and misleading. She is making the dishonest claim that the attacker is "going free" when in fact he was sentenced to a 20 year term in a psychiatric hospital. That's not the kind of fact claim that a NY Times editor would let slide.
And on top of that dishonest claim she claims he is "going free" BECAUSE of French anti-Semitism. It seems clear to me that this is not a story about French anti-Semitism. It's a story about ambiguity and possible short-comings in French law regarding criminal punishment and mental health. Maybe the criticisms coming from her colleagues at the Times were accurate and well-founded, and Bari Weiss simply can't handle constructive criticism. The flaws I see in this piece seem to be of the same kind that her colleagues at the Times accused her of--seeing anti-Semitism where there is none, and making false claims.
And I am not being a troll. I am honestly trying to hold Ms Weiss to account, which she should welcome, if she is the person of integrity she claims to be.
What are your sources stating that he will be locked up for 20 years? Most sources state that security measures where ordered and put in place for 20 years, including a ban on him from contacting the victim’s relatives, returning to the crime scene and attending drug rehab. Are you saying that he will be locked up?
Mr. Traoré was not sentenced to 20 years in a psychiatric hospital. He is currently in a psychiatric ward but will be released. He is sentenced to 20 years of security measures which include a restraining order from seeing the victim’s family.
So let's say there's a white American male with Aryan Nation tattoos and an Oath Keepers sticker on his truck. He lives in Memphis. He smokes a bunch of weed, and then breaks into the apartment of his neighbor, an elderly black woman, who happens to be the only black person in the apartment building, and attacks her. After spending an hour or so beating her bloody, terrorizing her and screaming offensive racial epithets at her, he throws her out a window, killing her, while screaming "White Power!" The DA in Memphis decides that he can't prosecute because the man was not in his right mind, having smoked all that chronic. Do you think that Americans generally would perceive this as a racially problematic incident? Do you think black people in Memphis might be particularly upset and offended?
You are the one being dishonest. A psychiatric hospital is not prison, both figuratively and literally. Also what happens if tomorrow the psychiatric hospital finds him fit and petitions the court for his release.
Lastly with what was allowed to happen in the Ilan Halimi case (I don’t know if the last names are a coincidence or if they were related) we know this is anti Semitism. Also what happened in the Enderlein/Al Dura libel case we know the French courts are anti Semitic.
However without any of the above it’s obvious in this case there was anti Semitic.
The facts surrounding Halimi’s murder clearly demonstrate an anti-Semitic motive as the thug beat her and threw her out the window. These facts do not require twisted characterizations to get to this conclusion.
From France24.com: “France's highest court on Wednesday ruled that the suspected murderer of Jewish woman Sarah Halimi was not criminally responsible and could not go on trial . . . . “.
We all know that he will not spend 20 years in a psychiatric hospital—assuming he spends anytime at all there.
Agree with Judd. You are a troll. If only you could find a way to promote those two books you've been promoting on the other columns, then this would be a real win for you. If Bari were black and the murder victim in this story were black and Bari said that not holding the murderer criminally accountable for the murder indicated racism, would you still be challenging her conclusion?
It's clear from your comments here and your comments on other columns posted or written by Bari that you're indeed a troll. For example, in the previous column written by Rossi, you commented that comments coming from conservatives re: black people - no system racism in America, etc, are deeply hurtful to black people in America and problematic. Yet you have zero qualms denying Bari's own lived experience as a Jew in America, and deny the INHERENT antisemitism in France's outrageous ruling and subsequent silence from "activists" who see microaggressions on a daily occurrence. Someone so sensitive to the feelings and lived experience of other minorities (quote from yourself: "I've heard conservatives say many things on the issue of race that are deeply problematic. Like claiming that there is no structural racism in America. Or that welfare destroyed the black family. Or that black people should be grateful that they were born in America. Or that black people are not systemically abused by the police and our judicial system.") wouldn't be arguing these points unless A. they were actually an antisemite with an irrational hatred of Jews/therefore selectively applying rules, or B. are simply a troll trying to drum up skepticism using bad faith arguments (of the caliber usually seen from the right). You have every right to say whatever BS you want but I will call you out on it. Hold Bari accountable for standing up for Jews, by all means, and I will hold you accountable for your own BS.
Matt's also not persuasive. Feeble straw men, flagrant lies and repeated attempts at ventriloquism reveal Matt to be worm. A venal, mendacious little worm.
Personally consider myself more center right, but there are those on the right who troll using bad faith arguments, or at least someone with such 'liberal democratic views' should see themselves as a hypocrites for using the same tactics
Agree about hypocrisy but....I guess I don't believe in bad faith arguments, any more than I believe in hate speech or intellectual dishonesty. There are arguments, there is speech, and there is honesty. Qualifications are weaselish if not outright dangerous.
I'm trying to connect the dots. Maybe you can help me. So a Muslim man attacked a Jewish woman in a clear act of anti-Semitism, aggravated by a psychotic episode brought on by ingesting marijuana. (I've actually seen a person experience a psychotic episode after inhaling marijuana. BTW. And that person was already mentally unstable.)
And the fact that the French judicial system sentenced the man to twenty years in a psychiatric hospital proves, in your mind, that the French are inherently anti-Semitic. Please explain how that makes the French inherently anti-Semitic. Do you think the sentence would be different if he had attacked a Christian French person? Explain your reasoning.
And Bari Weiss's claim the man is "going free", even though he was sentenced to 20 years in a psychiatric hospital is a fair accounting of the situation? Make that argument, if you can.
Matt very studiously ignores the heart of the criticism that examines his comments to show he is, logically, either an anti-semite or a troll. I gather from his continued posting he doesn't believe he is a troll so that leaves anti-semite. Outing himself as a Jew hater does not seem to bother him enough to address.
WHERE did you get this twenty years in a psych hospital? He has a twenty year restraining order against going near her family or the site of the murder.
Would you think a white man who killed a black man out of racial animus and avoided any jail time for it, would be an example of white privilege and systemic racism? If yes, you are engaging in special pleading here, biased against Jews.
That's a very broad hypothetical. Was the person having a psychotic episode after smoking marijuana? Did it happen in France, where their laws about this sort of thing seem a bit screwy? Was it, given the circumstances, the best solution because the guy is actually crazy, and belongs in a mental hospital? These are all questions that would have to be answered before I could give you a good answer to your question.
Yeah he was so psychotic that actually meant to sit and have tea with Salimi and Allah Akbar slipped out of his mouth after he beat the crap out of her and throw her out a window!
Okay, nothing that I wrote above was addressed here at all - in fact you're going off on your own tangent and in many cases putting words into my mouth (did I say the French were inherently antisemitic? Or do you lack reading comprehension?). But I'll explain my reasoning: There is a pattern of people pleading insanity after committing antisemitic hate crimes in France, and getting off criminal charges on a mere technicality which is known to be unreliable. Let's forget that nothing that you said above reflected anything I mentioned. The case with Halimi is clearly a case where the murderer, who has a history of violence, was fit to stand trial, and the court 'expertise' was seriously flawed in determining that he wasn't, but this is nothing new, it's a pattern. There is no justice for Halimi, or scores of other Jews who've been murdered by extremists who have pleaded 'insanity', knowing they can get off on it, go to a psych hospital where doctors determine whether he is a danger to society and not a court of law, and there is subsequent silence from those who claim to fight injustice. I don't need them fighting for me - but I see them. And I see you: your remarks are disingenuous. They are hypocritical. And you aren't fooling anyone here. But then again, you're not fooling yourself either, you're just a troll.
There is a real issue with characterizing a 20-year sentence in a psychiatric institution as "getting off criminal charges." I wouldn't be surprised if that would have been the length of the prison sentence in France in any case.
A french man high on cocaine who threw his dog out the window faced more prison time than this terrorist. A dog's life is worth more than a Jewish life in France. We know this man is violent, he is a criminal, he murdered a woman while the authorities watched: France - Jewish blood is on your hands again and again
It's very difficult to reply directly to what you're saying because it is rambling and incoherent. You said the ruling was inherently anti-Semitic. Why is a twenty year sentence in a psychiatric hospital INHERENTLY anti-Semitic. The sentence is related to France's laws regarding mental health. You haven't presented any evidence that the sentence would be harsher had the victim been Christian. You say there's a pattern. What are you basing that on?
"Why is a twenty year sentence in a psychiatric hospital INHERENTLY anti-Semitic. "
Because anyone who used a "high on marijuana" defense for any other crime would got to jail for 20 years, as opposed to receiving treatment until psychiatrists say he doesn't have to anymore.
You most certainly are not a troll, if we are talking about those cute ones with funny hairs from the animated movie. By all means go on: I expect no less than 50 more comments from you rehashing the ideas that Bari is dishonest and a shite journalist. I'll go write a play called "Matt Quixote vs. Bari's Windmills of Dishonesty". Or a song called "Matt Joshimi fights Pink Robots of Bari's Dishonesty" for those who prefer Flaming Lips to Cervantes.
There is no doubt that antisemitism exists in France. It has a long history in the psyche of the French (Alfred Dreyfus affair) and has been growing exponentially due to the rise in North African immigration (Charlie Hebdo). Increasingly Jews are leaving France, their home for generations, because of this.
However, in this case the problem is the law of the land so anyone can claim irresponsibility if their criminal actions were taken under the influence. The culprit has been hospitalised in a specialised mental institution and will not be allowed out anytime soon.
As a consequence of this murder, President Macron has requested that the law be changed. Taking drugs is a choice and should not changes one criminal responsibility.
"Décider de prendre des stupéfiants et devenir alors 'comme fou' ne devrait pas à mes yeux supprimer votre responsabilité pénale. Sur ce sujet, je souhaite que le garde des Sceaux présente au plus vite un changement de la loi",
https://www.europe1.fr/politique/pas-de-proces-pour-laffaire-sarah-halimi-macron-dit-souhaiter-un-changement-de-loi-4039480
The testimonies of Sarah Halimi's neighbors revealed that the police arrived at the scene of the murder while she was still alive. The police officers apparently went upstairs to her apartment door, heard her screaming and another voice shouting in Arabic. What did they do? They went back downstairs and waited for reinforcements -- until the victim was dead.
They left the murderer alone with his victim. Why is this not a clear case of dereliction of duty? Yet, no investigation has been carried out to determine what, if anything, was the responsibility of the police.
Reminds me of the Trump caravan in New York organized by Jews for Trump to protest Cuomo. They had things thrown at them. It didn't matter to the press. Why not? They supported Trump. But if they narrative could have been presented the other way around the press would have been on it faster than the Roadrunner.
20 years in a psych hospital is hardly a punishment. With enough meds 3 square and a warm bed he probably will live quite awhile and quite well. Any chance he really takes to it and gets released early...
Was the killer sentenced to a psych ward? If so, why fail to mention he was punished? Please help , as I know you fact check your articles. ????
When I first heard the news, I was as outraged as anyone else, except maybe for the true anti-Semites blooming within the radical left. And yesterday, I came across an article in a French magazine which opened new insights on the case.
Basically, it can be summed up to the following points:
1) Medical expertise (two of them) have concluded that the murderer suffered from delirious breakdown at the time of the murder, and that the drug was not related to that breakdown, since it went on long after the drug's effect was gone. So a case for irresponsibility could be made.
2) Although The Court has ruled about Traoré's penal irresponsibility, it has confirmed that he committed a murder with antisemitic character.
3) Traoré will still spend many years locked in a mental hospital with forced treatment, whereas a judgement in a court of law could have meant a shorter lock-up time due to irresponsibility.
So it is not just about being cleared just for having smoked weed.
I'm confused by the French court's inconsitent position - cannabis intoxication is an aggravating factor in an accident (traffic collision, say), but reduces legal responsibility in the case of a murder - do I have that right? So if I'm a drunk driver who kills someone in an accident, my sentence is increased, but if I'm drunk and I murder someone, my sentence is lessened? Very confusing.
Heartbreaking & disgusting!
Why does the left engage in antisemitism? Because Jews are a people. People who constitute a nation. The Left simply cannot tolerate allowing national self-determination to get in the way of their naked quest for power. If antisemitism gets them there fast, they're all for it. They're not Matt's tribe. He doesn't bother to argue in good faith. He smears. These people can't be reasoned with.
They hate Jews who dare to be Jewish, - religious or Zionist or both (Just like they hate minorities not totally awash with their ideology like Andrew Yang - someone who is pretty left of center). Trust me, I see it all the time being an Orthodox Jew. The lies posted about us in the left wing media are astonishing, the lengths they go to try to erase our Jewishness is, well...ancient. And the comments section in the Gothamist is always abhorrent. Of course, they've never met us at all. I don't know why I even read all that dribble. It just makes me mad, and then sad. Such naked hypocrisy, it's so normalized in their circles they don't hide it.
Bari - Thanks for all you do. Recently read your book and it should be a must read in our educational system. Was appalled by your departure from the NYTimes. Just subscribed here and look forward to more of your content.
Bari, as a moderator I believe it is your responsibility to allow people to voice their opinions in a civil and respectful manner. I know that you want to honor the principle of free speech and that honoring that principle includes allowing writers to aggressively challenge each other. May I suggest that you post guidelines and standards for civil discourse. I understand that this is a very difficult issue as you do not want to become the very thing that you're challenging. I was on a local leftist news site called the "Patch" recently and they explicitly forbade the use of the terms "all lives matter" and "white lives matter." I found this restriction to be an unreasonable censorship. Where does one draw this line, if they draw it at all, when it comes to holding people to a level of civil discourse. Reasonable minds can differ but you were openly called a liar, and many of use have now been called racists. Perhaps by allowing these individuals to spew their ugly accusations and allowing us to respond to them is the best model of "free speech" that you can offer; or perhaps there must be some standards lest this forum devolve into a free for all of INCIVILITY. Good luck and thank you for taking on this challenge as I know it mustn't always be easy.
What is the difference between this verdict and a drunk driver who killed someone being let off for the same reason?
Firstly, I think you're misinterpreting something. The victim's family asked if this same logic would be applied to a drunk driver killing children in the street - the implication being that normally it wouldn't. So it would seem that in France, a drunk driver typically would *not* be "let off" for this reason. One would hope not, at least. In America, this is commonly the textbook example of involuntary manslaughter. But if this is also the case in France, it makes this ruling all the more strange.
Because even this comparison is far too generous to the offender in this case. Drunk drivers normally kill people by accident. If someone got drunk and then deliberately ran someone over while under the influence of alcohol, calling them a "dirty Jew" in the process, I'm fairly certain that would easily qualify as murder in America, and a hate crime at that. The alcohol may serve as a mitigating factor affecting the degree or the sentencing, but certainly wouldn't shield someone from the overall criminal charges. Yet it would seem that in France, it can.
So to answer your question, this is quite different, and far worse, than a typical drunk driver scenario, which renders the verdict supremely mind boggling.
Either you are making the same case I am but a lot stronger or I don’t understand your point.
Either way I don’t see how I misinterpreted anything.
My (mis)understanding of your comment was that you would expect someone to be let off for killing someone in a drunk driving accident, and thus you'd expect them to be let off here as well. In retrospect, it appears you were saying that, in both cases, you would expect that they *would not* evade criminal accountability. My uncharitable interpretation may have been influenced by other contrary opinions on this article. In any case, my apologies for the confusion.
Now you have what I meant correct. Thank you.
So......one of the most interesting things on this thread is Matt Mullen. He gets A LOT of the comments section by basically being a troll. He always responds in a conflicting manner, but not too over the top. He gets a lot of the air. Interesting. He seems to understand the algorithm of comment air time. He somehow get people of good faith to argue with him....but because he is operating in bad faith id doesn't matter. It is an interesting thing to observe and study.
Stunningly barbaric. I read about it at the time.
Maybe it’s like Europe’s inability overall to confront the ideological chasm between western ideals and Merkle’s millions that Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others have written at length about, for instance recently in Unherd.
Our social contract is being rewritten with many voices which are hostile to our traditions and deeply ingrained beliefs.
I am not Jewish but it can’t be denied there is a strong, frequently violent, institutionally ingrained (religious mantras and school lessons)hatred from the Muslim world for Jews.
It is not a problem that will diminish with inclusion, in my opinion, in truth it seems to be infecting western viewpoints to, for instance, deny the Jewish homo flag in our parades. Despite the truth that there is also a strong, frequently violent, institutionally ingrained hatred from the Muslim world for homos.
I apologize as this comment is not directly related to the story, which I find very important, but it pertains to this community.
I support freedom of speech as I hope most of the people in this community do, though I do not see this right as absolute (not right is). However, I wonder if trolling should be considered free speech, especially trolling with agenda. This is a relatively new phenomenon that emerged with the rise of "comments sections" that, for many people, have become as important as the stories to which the comments pertain. This lead to a phenomenon of individuals who partake in "comments" discussion not to express genuine opinions not to add to the discussion, but for the purpose of hijacking the discussion or sidelining it. There are many examples of individuals and groups around the world that are paid by political parties to do this kind of work. I am not familiar with the media on the right, but I have seen examples of this kind of activity, particularly in the local media in the area where I live, where activist groups have "bots" that tend to take over comments discussions on stories that were critical of their groups and/or leaders.
The reason that I bring this up is because it is becoming apparent to me that we might have examples of this kind of activity on this forum.
It could be argued that the comments for the last two stories have been "hijacked" by the character named "Matt M.". The question is what if anything should be done about it? I do not have a problem with contrarian thinking as long as it is genuine and focused on helping, not hurting. Of course that it is okay to criticize Bari; of course that she has some kind of agenda; of course there is antisemitism on the right... Yet the fact remains that we are a society in a deep, perhaps existential crisis, with threats coming from all sides of the political spectrum and from all sides of the world, so I would says that this is not time for arguing for arguing sake.
Besides, that kind of behavior can be seen as hurtful and I wish it would stop.
I up voted you BUT for the last sentence. Words on a screen can't hurt me; shouting in my face can't hurt me. Only actions can hurt me. If verbal battle isn't your thing, lend your support in other ways. We can all log off or click elsewhere if it gets too much. But doing that for any length of time is just conceding the battle space and is ultimately self-defeating. Which is what our enemies want: total victory. They'll have to work for it I'm afraid.
"with threats coming from all sides of the political spectrum"
Perhaps. Maybe. However, the threat against free speech, with which you opened your comment, is only coming from one side of the spectrum.
I agree with you about trolls. But a big part of this original post is about pushing back. I think it's important to speak out, but not necessarily to engage in a way that feeds the trolls.
I agree with you re-threats as things currently stand. My fear, however, is not just of the current extremism, but also from the almost inevitable backlash that this radicalism could bring. This backlash, of course, does not have to be a negative one. The way I see it, vast majority of us are currently stuck in the middle, surrounded by radicals that are lobbing grenades at each other, over our heads. Those of us in the middle disagree with one another on many issues, sometimes fundamentally, but are bound by certain shared values. We are not represented in politics, in the media, in popular culture, economy, as these radical elements almost completely dominate all these areas, sometimes using trolling aka "matt mullening" in the case of this forum to eliminate any spaces where meaningful discussion is possible, in some cases using our belief in some of these values, like free speech, to undermine them. We are important in this system only as a source of tax revenue - yes, we pay for all this, the schools, the universities, companies that we are supporting with our money. They are counting on our meekness, our unwillingness to go beyond comments on some forum in response to all this. So the question comes down to what do you believe in, and what are you willing to do about it. That would be a positive backlash - more democracy as a response to a threat on democracy.
I don't really think of myself as being in the middle. I pray for a resistance to mounting oppression, but so far it looks like sheep are gonna sheep.
I just ignore the comments of certain posters once I’ve decided they are trolls. They thrive on responses from others to their insipid comments. Deprive them of that joy, and they soon get bored.
Your comment pertains to all Substack communities as well as every online forum where ideas are exchanged. Trolls are pernicious and can, in one inflammatory post, obfuscate, distract and derail both the conversation and the purpose of a journalist’s post itself.
The solution is simple: do not feed the troll.
Trolls push our outrage button and provoke an irresistible urge to respond. How can I NOT push back, correct, scold, stand up for all that is true, fair, just and moral in the face of such blatant lies and bigotry? Easy. Ask yourself: is this the post of somebody operating in good faith? Are they seeking to enlighten or inflame?
It’s not hard to identify troll-speak. If you don’t realize it on the first pass, by the second pass you will. Because the troll lives to provoke. But the troll is not worth responding to.
Put your ego on the back burner and starve the troll.
true, alas.
I just reread Bari Weiss's resignation letter from the NY Times again to refresh my memory of it. And if this latest column is a typical example of her writing, I would not hire her at the NY Times. Not because her opinions "go against the narrative", but because it is deeply dishonest and misleading. She is making the dishonest claim that the attacker is "going free" when in fact he was sentenced to a 20 year term in a psychiatric hospital. That's not the kind of fact claim that a NY Times editor would let slide.
And on top of that dishonest claim she claims he is "going free" BECAUSE of French anti-Semitism. It seems clear to me that this is not a story about French anti-Semitism. It's a story about ambiguity and possible short-comings in French law regarding criminal punishment and mental health. Maybe the criticisms coming from her colleagues at the Times were accurate and well-founded, and Bari Weiss simply can't handle constructive criticism. The flaws I see in this piece seem to be of the same kind that her colleagues at the Times accused her of--seeing anti-Semitism where there is none, and making false claims.
And I am not being a troll. I am honestly trying to hold Ms Weiss to account, which she should welcome, if she is the person of integrity she claims to be.
What are your sources stating that he will be locked up for 20 years? Most sources state that security measures where ordered and put in place for 20 years, including a ban on him from contacting the victim’s relatives, returning to the crime scene and attending drug rehab. Are you saying that he will be locked up?
I appreciate you filling in those gaps. That is a concern that she did not mention that.
Mr. Traoré was not sentenced to 20 years in a psychiatric hospital. He is currently in a psychiatric ward but will be released. He is sentenced to 20 years of security measures which include a restraining order from seeing the victim’s family.
So let's say there's a white American male with Aryan Nation tattoos and an Oath Keepers sticker on his truck. He lives in Memphis. He smokes a bunch of weed, and then breaks into the apartment of his neighbor, an elderly black woman, who happens to be the only black person in the apartment building, and attacks her. After spending an hour or so beating her bloody, terrorizing her and screaming offensive racial epithets at her, he throws her out a window, killing her, while screaming "White Power!" The DA in Memphis decides that he can't prosecute because the man was not in his right mind, having smoked all that chronic. Do you think that Americans generally would perceive this as a racially problematic incident? Do you think black people in Memphis might be particularly upset and offended?
What kind of jerk pays 5 dollars a month just to hate on the substack author and harass people in the comment section.
You are being a troll!
You are the one being dishonest. A psychiatric hospital is not prison, both figuratively and literally. Also what happens if tomorrow the psychiatric hospital finds him fit and petitions the court for his release.
Lastly with what was allowed to happen in the Ilan Halimi case (I don’t know if the last names are a coincidence or if they were related) we know this is anti Semitism. Also what happened in the Enderlein/Al Dura libel case we know the French courts are anti Semitic.
However without any of the above it’s obvious in this case there was anti Semitic.
The facts surrounding Halimi’s murder clearly demonstrate an anti-Semitic motive as the thug beat her and threw her out the window. These facts do not require twisted characterizations to get to this conclusion.
From France24.com: “France's highest court on Wednesday ruled that the suspected murderer of Jewish woman Sarah Halimi was not criminally responsible and could not go on trial . . . . “.
We all know that he will not spend 20 years in a psychiatric hospital—assuming he spends anytime at all there.
Agree with Judd. You are a troll. If only you could find a way to promote those two books you've been promoting on the other columns, then this would be a real win for you. If Bari were black and the murder victim in this story were black and Bari said that not holding the murderer criminally accountable for the murder indicated racism, would you still be challenging her conclusion?
It's clear from your comments here and your comments on other columns posted or written by Bari that you're indeed a troll. For example, in the previous column written by Rossi, you commented that comments coming from conservatives re: black people - no system racism in America, etc, are deeply hurtful to black people in America and problematic. Yet you have zero qualms denying Bari's own lived experience as a Jew in America, and deny the INHERENT antisemitism in France's outrageous ruling and subsequent silence from "activists" who see microaggressions on a daily occurrence. Someone so sensitive to the feelings and lived experience of other minorities (quote from yourself: "I've heard conservatives say many things on the issue of race that are deeply problematic. Like claiming that there is no structural racism in America. Or that welfare destroyed the black family. Or that black people should be grateful that they were born in America. Or that black people are not systemically abused by the police and our judicial system.") wouldn't be arguing these points unless A. they were actually an antisemite with an irrational hatred of Jews/therefore selectively applying rules, or B. are simply a troll trying to drum up skepticism using bad faith arguments (of the caliber usually seen from the right). You have every right to say whatever BS you want but I will call you out on it. Hold Bari accountable for standing up for Jews, by all means, and I will hold you accountable for your own BS.
Matt's also not persuasive. Feeble straw men, flagrant lies and repeated attempts at ventriloquism reveal Matt to be worm. A venal, mendacious little worm.
A worm that exists at the highest levels of our society: neoracist ideology with antisemitic underpinnings (and oftentimes overtly antisemitic).
" using bad faith arguments (of the caliber usually seen from the right)"
judd, you had me until this line.
Personally consider myself more center right, but there are those on the right who troll using bad faith arguments, or at least someone with such 'liberal democratic views' should see themselves as a hypocrites for using the same tactics
Agree about hypocrisy but....I guess I don't believe in bad faith arguments, any more than I believe in hate speech or intellectual dishonesty. There are arguments, there is speech, and there is honesty. Qualifications are weaselish if not outright dangerous.
I'm trying to connect the dots. Maybe you can help me. So a Muslim man attacked a Jewish woman in a clear act of anti-Semitism, aggravated by a psychotic episode brought on by ingesting marijuana. (I've actually seen a person experience a psychotic episode after inhaling marijuana. BTW. And that person was already mentally unstable.)
And the fact that the French judicial system sentenced the man to twenty years in a psychiatric hospital proves, in your mind, that the French are inherently anti-Semitic. Please explain how that makes the French inherently anti-Semitic. Do you think the sentence would be different if he had attacked a Christian French person? Explain your reasoning.
And Bari Weiss's claim the man is "going free", even though he was sentenced to 20 years in a psychiatric hospital is a fair accounting of the situation? Make that argument, if you can.
Matt very studiously ignores the heart of the criticism that examines his comments to show he is, logically, either an anti-semite or a troll. I gather from his continued posting he doesn't believe he is a troll so that leaves anti-semite. Outing himself as a Jew hater does not seem to bother him enough to address.
I'm afraid he's quite proud of it.
Please provide the link showing his 20 year term.
WHERE did you get this twenty years in a psych hospital? He has a twenty year restraining order against going near her family or the site of the murder.
Would you think a white man who killed a black man out of racial animus and avoided any jail time for it, would be an example of white privilege and systemic racism? If yes, you are engaging in special pleading here, biased against Jews.
That's a very broad hypothetical. Was the person having a psychotic episode after smoking marijuana? Did it happen in France, where their laws about this sort of thing seem a bit screwy? Was it, given the circumstances, the best solution because the guy is actually crazy, and belongs in a mental hospital? These are all questions that would have to be answered before I could give you a good answer to your question.
Yeah he was so psychotic that actually meant to sit and have tea with Salimi and Allah Akbar slipped out of his mouth after he beat the crap out of her and throw her out a window!
Okay, nothing that I wrote above was addressed here at all - in fact you're going off on your own tangent and in many cases putting words into my mouth (did I say the French were inherently antisemitic? Or do you lack reading comprehension?). But I'll explain my reasoning: There is a pattern of people pleading insanity after committing antisemitic hate crimes in France, and getting off criminal charges on a mere technicality which is known to be unreliable. Let's forget that nothing that you said above reflected anything I mentioned. The case with Halimi is clearly a case where the murderer, who has a history of violence, was fit to stand trial, and the court 'expertise' was seriously flawed in determining that he wasn't, but this is nothing new, it's a pattern. There is no justice for Halimi, or scores of other Jews who've been murdered by extremists who have pleaded 'insanity', knowing they can get off on it, go to a psych hospital where doctors determine whether he is a danger to society and not a court of law, and there is subsequent silence from those who claim to fight injustice. I don't need them fighting for me - but I see them. And I see you: your remarks are disingenuous. They are hypocritical. And you aren't fooling anyone here. But then again, you're not fooling yourself either, you're just a troll.
There is a real issue with characterizing a 20-year sentence in a psychiatric institution as "getting off criminal charges." I wouldn't be surprised if that would have been the length of the prison sentence in France in any case.
A french man high on cocaine who threw his dog out the window faced more prison time than this terrorist. A dog's life is worth more than a Jewish life in France. We know this man is violent, he is a criminal, he murdered a woman while the authorities watched: France - Jewish blood is on your hands again and again
He literally got off criminal charges.
Exactly. These two individuals make no mention of this thug facing no criminal sanctions—no punishment whatsoever—for his murder of this woman.
It's very difficult to reply directly to what you're saying because it is rambling and incoherent. You said the ruling was inherently anti-Semitic. Why is a twenty year sentence in a psychiatric hospital INHERENTLY anti-Semitic. The sentence is related to France's laws regarding mental health. You haven't presented any evidence that the sentence would be harsher had the victim been Christian. You say there's a pattern. What are you basing that on?
This guy should be ignored, period.
His reply was coherent and succinct.
"Why is a twenty year sentence in a psychiatric hospital INHERENTLY anti-Semitic. "
Because anyone who used a "high on marijuana" defense for any other crime would got to jail for 20 years, as opposed to receiving treatment until psychiatrists say he doesn't have to anymore.
Are you some kind of an expert on the French legal system? Or does that just feel right to you?
You most certainly are not a troll, if we are talking about those cute ones with funny hairs from the animated movie. By all means go on: I expect no less than 50 more comments from you rehashing the ideas that Bari is dishonest and a shite journalist. I'll go write a play called "Matt Quixote vs. Bari's Windmills of Dishonesty". Or a song called "Matt Joshimi fights Pink Robots of Bari's Dishonesty" for those who prefer Flaming Lips to Cervantes.