“On the part of a President of the Republic, it is totally irresponsible”, denounces the journalist and editor-in-chief of Médiacités Lille Clémence de Blasi on Wednesday December 8 on franceinfo, while Emmanuel Macron said in the Council of Ministers a week earlier that he did not want “of a society of the inquisition” even if he wanted “facilitate” the liberation of speech. Clémence de Blasi, whose complaint against Patrick Poivre d’Arvor was dismissed, signed a column in The world with 13 other victims to deplore the president’s remarks.
franceinfo: Why do you blame Emmanuel Macron for having used the word “inquisition” when speaking of denunciations of sexual violence?
Clémence de Blasi: I really have a hard time understanding that word. We are looking for a peaceful debate. We are dozens of women who want us to finally tackle this subject. The word “inquisition” means something specific, it refers to a period in history that has absolutely nothing to do with what we denounce today. Words have a meaning. When you are President of the Republic, you must know it. I do not understand the relationship between the word that is released and the inquisition. It’s really making a connection between two things that have absolutely nothing to do. I find it hard to understand how you can say both “we can hear you, it’s good to talk” and “be careful not to speak too loud”. For me, it is a contradictory injunction. The word “inquisition” has stuck in my throat ever since it was spoken. On the part of a President of the Republic, it is totally irresponsible. It’s hard not to see it as a mark of contempt. There are terms which are unnecessary and which add nothing to the debate. Obviously we are careful. Obviously we do not denounce just anyone in any condition. There is no witch hunt. We use these terms to actually stifle the debate, to avoid looking at ourselves in the mirror. The word has perhaps been heard, now we need actions, we have to move on to the next step. It’s not enough to just listen and then it’s over.
The president also says he wants to facilitate the release of speech. Is this not a pledge of its commitment despite the use of the term “inquisition”?
It’s hard not to see this as an end of inadmissibility. “It’s good girls, we are listening to you, but beware”. There cannot be a “but be careful” not at this point. If we are listened to, we must really listen to us and not move on for the next two minutes. (…) It’s very difficult in this area to provide proof, we are aware of that, but it should also be difficult to act as if there was nothing when there are dozens of us talking and talking. proof that there is a common operating mode. We all tell the same story. There is a procedure.
“Whether it is Patrick Poivre d’Arvor or Nicolas Hulot, the operating mode is the same each time and it is not possible to act as if it did not exist.”
Clémence de Blasi, journalist and editor-in-chief of Médiacités Lilleto franceinfo
Have you, or has another accuser, been contacted by a member of the government since the revelation of the cases concerning Nicolas Hulot and Patrick Poivre d’Arvor?
Minister Elisabeth Moreno has met some of us. She heard too, but then what do we do? It is not enough to just hear. There must be actions, there must be awareness, we must move on to the next step, that is to say, think about what we can put in place to prevent such situations of impunity from continuing for decades. Each time we hear this leitmotif “everyone knew” but nobody wanted to take their responsibilities because it makes them uncomfortable. Obviously, we have never seen with his eyes, we guess things so sometimes it’s more convenient to act as if we don’t know, we are not sure, we prefer to look elsewhere. Now it’s becoming difficult to look elsewhere because there are dozens of women for Patrick Poivre d’Arvor, dozens for Nicolas Hulot, maybe hundreds, we will see in the coming months. It becomes difficult to look elsewhere but to sweep everything away with the wave of the hand saying “attention, attention no inquisition” what does that mean?