How to defend your image when you have been found guilty of damning facts? This is the dilemma facing Jérôme Peyrat today. We remember that on Wednesday, on franceinfo, Stanislas Guerini, the general delegate of La République en Marche, which became Renaissance, had had all the trouble in the world to defend his candidate. He eventually withdrew, but not without giving his own version of the case. Jérôme Peyrat spoke Thursday morning on France Bleu Périgord. For him, we would have made a lot of noise for little things: “I took the measure that there was a misunderstanding, certainly a lack of appreciation. It is far from being comparable to the absolute dramas which we regularly have to face in this matter.
“A simple misunderstanding, a little lack of appreciation, nothing to do with an absolute drama” : all these are euphemisms, figures of reduction of reality. Note, moreover, the skill of Jérôme Peyrat: he says “the tragedies that we regularly have to face in this matter”. In this matter, it is a paraphrase to avoid having to pronounce the words “conjugal violence” or “violence against women”, which would have crudely given to understand the reality for which he was condemned. This is proof that we are in the presence of a carefully controlled communication: let’s not forget that Jérôme Peyrat was an adviser to Emmanuel Macron at the Elysée.
This is not the only process used by Jérôme Peyrat. During this interview with France Bleu, he offered us an anthology of sophistry, questionable, even unfair argumentative processes: “There has been, on the part of the opposition, a use of all this, politician, in my opinion malicious and self-interested.” So it’s the fault of the opposition, which would have exploited the case: it’s a classic tactic, we call it the sophistry of the red herring, which consists in diverting the debate with an off-topic point. In this case, whatever the intentions of the opposition, this does not change anything in the responsibility of Jérôme Peyrat.
And that’s not all : “I remind you that this case is a court decision, in the context of a dispute qualified as marital, says Jérôme Peyrat again. My accuser was also sentenced to a firm fine.” OHere we find a desire for euphemization. His companion was given 14 days of ITT all the same, it’s been a hell of a fight… As for the continuation of the argument, it is what is called a sophistry of double fault: the condemnation of Jérôme Peyrat would be attenuated by the fact that his companion would have been condemned herself. With two nuances all the same: one, she was sentenced for malicious calls and SMS, not blows. Two, she does not present herself to the deputation: that makes a slight difference…
But it’s not over yet: Jérôme Peyrat also says that “the fight against violence against women, and more generally against intra-family violence, the freedom of women to speak on all this, is obviously a fight to which I subscribe. I do not want to weaken this fight, this cause. I will continue to defend them.”
He too, he says, fights violence against women, and he will continue to lead this fight. Perhaps, except that this is precisely what he is accused of. Once again, this is a sophism, in this case a petition of principle: Jérôme Peyrat uses as the starting point of his reasoning, what he should precisely succeed in demonstrating.
A word, only one, but which was not pronounced by Jérôme Peyrat, nor by Stanislas Guerini: exemplarity. This is the virtue that has been put forward by Emmanuel Macron since his entry into politics. Emmanuel Macron who, moreover, has made the fight against violence against women the great cause of his two five-year terms. And of which one of the candidates for deputy was condemned for violence on his partner? Let’s be frank: no sophistry in the world could suffice to resolve such a contradiction.