The #metoo movement has been drifting for a long time.
But the return on the history of Julien Lacroix, Wednesday, in The Pressis a terrifying example.
What do we learn there?
That the comedian denounced two years ago in the manner of a predator, a multi-recidivist sexual aggressor … was not one.
Lynching
He was instead the target of a slanderous campaign based on amalgams combining in the same story stolen kisses, heavy flirting, a badly ended love story and a badly digested old story.
Thus, some accusers were pushed to denounce it and to convince themselves that they had been sexually assaulted when they had not been. Others denounced it because they had converted to neo-feminism and wanted to be faithful to their ideology.
One accuser even helped organize the cabal to set an example. He had to pay for the others. A personality had to fall: bad luck had struck him.
There is in this toxic neofeminism which dominates the university and the cultural milieu a lynching temptation, favored by social networks. It drives a hateful and fanatical mass to pounce on an individual simply because an accusation has been leveled against him.
He may well defend himself, explain that what is said about him is false, his word is no longer worth anything.
Because a slogan has taken hold of the minds of the young neo-feminist generation: “we believe you”.
It is enough for a person associated with a “minority” category (basically any category except a white man) to denounce a situation or a person for his word to be accepted as gospel truth. Testimony is proof.
And if he tries to get up, he is trampled on again.
But as this story reveals, testimony can be driven by jealousy, the spirit of revenge, the desire to harm a colleague professionally.
And all this with the complicity of a certain militant and muddled journalism which granted itself, in this story, a license to kill by condemning Julien Lacroix to social death.
We rediscover why the media tribunal cannot replace the courts. It does not serve the cause of women to allow its diversion in this way.
Now, some of Julien Lacroix’s accusers are revolting against the story in which they have been enlisted.
Let’s understand each other: Julien Lacroix is not a saint. He behaved very badly with women and morally had a lot to be forgiven.
Injustice
Some would say he behaved like a bastard.
But he was neither an aggressor nor a rapist. Suggesting it was defamation.
If we are honest, we will say that he was the target of a witch hunt, in a hysterical social context pushing to see behind every man a rapist, and at the heart of our society, a culture of rape to be destroyed.
Let’s be clear: Julien Lacroix was the victim of a real injustice.