For non-French readers, Noir Désir is a well-known rock band in France, with strong lefty political views, often expressed int their songs (including the last one we hear over the wee-end) - but their lead singer, Bertand Cantat, has only recently coming out of jail for killing his girlfriend, actress Marie Trintignant, in a fight (which happened in Lithuania) a couple of years ago.
My wife is outraged that this guy would find it normal to come back on stage, and to pontificate about the current crisis in a new song, rather than making himself forgotten after beating up his wife.
what do you think? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
And at least his crime is not wholly relevant to his domain of activities - compare to, say, Carignon becoming president of the Grenoble UMP again after going to jail for corruption... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
I have no problem with him coming out of jail, and starting his life again - but giving lessons about society in public?? That's a bit different. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Let's also say that quite a few top world politicians are responsible for far more deaths than a single one (and were hopefully not drunk nor drugged up when they took their decisions) Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Now, lessons about society -his fault had nothing to do with "society". He was not a fraud. He was violent. This has nothing to do with politics or the economy. Would you say that an Enron trader should be banned from writing a book about making a marriage work despite a heavy workload? I wouldn't feel that his actions invalidate his political opinions. And, hopefully, not merely because I mostly agree with him. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
If he had been a banker, should he have been prevented from re-entering banking as a career following his jail term?
As for the question of political content being related to personal integrity - that's a complicated one, but I personally think that we cannot expect perfection from political commentators.
He did pay his dues (had he been tried in France he would probably have got a shorter sentence). I don't for a moment think that he has forgotten what he has done. I don't have a problem with him resuming his activities. He happened to be a singer, and a singer is a public person. It's not like he is using his fame from killing Marie Trintignant to suddenly release a record.
No, I don't have a problem. But I expect he'll face questions and I would hope that he replies humbly, with a message that one should stop one's own violence from the start because even a "mundane" blow can become tragedy. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
And I'm not so sure he'd have got a shorter sentence in France. I have the (maybe wrong) impressions that Central and Eastern Europe doesn't have harsh penalties (like life without parole, or even life terms) for murders and the kind. I might be wrong on that, though. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Now, he doesn't need to speak about the crime proper to deliver a message of rehabilitation, of no-one being above nasty impulses, of the need to adress your weaknesses lest they take control of you... Besides, I doubt he'd be sent back for saying something like "not a day passes when I am not terribly sorry", or "there is no greater horror that a man can do than hurting someone who trusts him fully". The problem with Rouillan was that, while not allowed to speak about it, he very strongly hinted that he'd happily do it again (having said that, I believe that he should be allowed to say it -but then he should also respect the terms of his parole). Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
If he was a right-wing yahoo, I would be disappointed that he is back. But generally, I would give anyone a shot at learning and redemption.
Good luck to him. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
On the other hand, one might be interested in what he has to say about what happened. But knowing nothing more than you say, these fact in isolation would not have me condemn him to public shunning in addition to the formal justice already metered out by the justice system.
And yes, Cyrille, violence, especially domestic violence has to do with politics! "Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
So I think there will be issues with the audience not wanting to associate. A popular comedy performer in the UK had his career destroyed by by a rape allegation. Even tho' the charges were eventually dismissed, there was too much doubt and dubious circumstance and the public never quite forgave him enough to laugh at his jokes anymore.
I personally thinnk that being stoned is not a mitigtating factor but a compounding one. Killing somebody in a car in the UK is dangerous driving, killing someone while drunk is moving towards murder in the eyes of the public. Being stoned is still a crime. So there are two crimes here and they add, not divide.
But William Burroughs shot his wife while stoned, and most arty people (not reliable witnesses imo) seemed to think it just mde him more edgy and interesting. so what do I know ? keep to the Fen Causeway
Now, you may also take him to court for drug abuse, but surely the loss of the thought process (on both: she probably wouldn't have died but for the drugs that weakened her) means something with regard to the intention of killing, and somewhat mitigates the gravity of the crime. There are cases where people are hallucinating so much that they kill someone without any realisation of the fact. They should be treated (and punished if you will) for their drug addiction, but surely don't deserve as much jail as a murderer who was in full possession of his mind, in full command of his actions, at the time.
Anyway, the fact remains that in France it is a mitigating circumstance, which is relevant to the fact that he served more than he would have, had he been tried in France. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
But he chose to get wasted and damage his sensibilities enough to make him a danger to those around him. This is the drunk driving analogy. I understand that public sentiment in France is different from the UK where we have become sick of drunks killing friends and family and have no patience for it anymore.
So, yes he was out of it. But he chose that condition over sobriety and thus remains responsible for the outcome. Murder.
that's a british view and I was asked for my opinion. I accept that france has a different one. keep to the Fen Causeway
"I understand that public sentiment in France is different from the UK where we have become sick of drunks killing friends and family and have no patience for it anymore."
It's not about public sentiment, it's about the use of reason. Just because people have lost patience with something does not mean that the rules of logic and reason change. Otherwise, that's how you get mobs. To claim that it is murder as opposed to manslaughter is laughable. He hit her without the intention of killing, and indeed would not even have injured her if she had not been stoned herself. Abd even that he did not set out to do (unlike driving when you are drunk). He failed to contain his violence. That's all he did and it is bad enough, especially given the consequences. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
To the UK way of thinking if you volunteer to get out of your head and then commit a crime, your choice to become dangerous is not a mitigating factor but an additional fault.
you are arguing from another viewpoint. That's your privilege. It doesn't make either of us right or wrong, in this we are simply prisoners of our respective cultural backgrounds.
I return to the point I made earlier : I was asked my view and I stated it. Arguing with me isn't going to convince me. I think i have made it clear that I am not susceptible to persuasion on this point, any more than you are to mine. It's different. I now know I can get wasted and create mayhem in france with impunity, but don't you do it in the UK, you may find yourself disappointed by the lack of judicial sympathy. keep to the Fen Causeway
It CANNOT be an additional fault on the charge of murder, since it invalidates the definition of murder.
This has nothing to do with cultural background, except if we consider that the statement "Black is White, War is Peace" is simply a cultural perspective. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
