What is the exact responsibility, in fact and in law, of Brahim Chnina in the spiral which led to the assassination of Samuel Paty? This question was at the heart of the interrogation, Monday February 2, of this 52-year-old father who, by deciding to publicize the lie of one of his daughters, Z., about the progress of a course given by the professor, had started the hate campaign that ultimately cost him his life.
Read also | Article reserved for our subscribers At the trial for the assassination of Samuel Paty, the “papa hen” and the Islamist agitator
Read later
Concerning the facts, Brahim Chnina admits his fault: “What I did is irreparable and unforgivable. » Regarding his criminal responsibility, this man who faces thirty years of criminal imprisonment for “terrorist criminal association” is less categorical: “I am not part of a terrorist criminal association. It’s true that I made messages and a video that went wrong, and I regret what I did…”
The question that occupies the court is why. In other words, what was the motive of this online cabal? During this calming interrogation which stretched over a day, the accused did not sketch the slightest beginning of introspection likely to shed light on his behavior. He preferred to dilute his responsibility in that of Z. (“I made the mistake of believing my daughter”) and the principal of the college: “If she had told me that my daughter hadn't participated in the class, none of this would have happened”he said.
Victimisation
In his words, the assassination of Samuel Paty appeared as a sinister accident, the result of a butterfly effect with a common thread: victimization. Victimization of Z., first, who preferred to tell his parents that he had been “discriminated” rather than confessing his behavioral problems to them. Victimization of Brahim Chnina, then, duped by his daughter and convinced of a plot hatched by the management of the college. Political victimization, finally, on the part of the Islamist agitator Abdelhakim Sefrioui, who had presented this affair as a desire of the State of “to fight” Muslims.
Why did Brahim Chnina embark on this online campaign which would last nine days until the assassination of Samuel Paty? The underlying reason for this outburst is central to measuring the ideological dimension of his behavior. Did he post his messages on social media to ” defend “ his daughter, according to him unfairly excluded from her college for two days? Because she had been “discriminated” by Mr. Paty? Or because the latter had shown a caricature of the naked prophet in class?
You have 60.54% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
