A PDF version of this official release is available here
OFFICIAL RELEASE – Soutenons Le Mur
http://supportthewall.org, Twitter : @SoutenonsLeMur
Released: December 9th 2011 – 2:30 PM UT
Corrections: December 10th – 12:00 AM UT
Please read « Autistes Sans Frontières » instead of « Autisme Sans Frontière »
Summary of the court opinions:
- The court has seized the rushes (dailies) – follows a previous decision,
- The court will examine the rushes (dailies),
- The court said that the trial is not about autism care,
- The court reminded that the condemnation of France on autism care by the Council of Europe is outside of this legal dispute,
- The judge reminds that the fact that the movie is urgent and a pedagogic tool is not the problem of the court,
- The court postpones its decision until January 26th 2012,
The following is a blog Post originally published by Isabelle Resplendino on December 8th 2011 at the following address: http://desmotsgrattent.blogspot.com/2011/12/jai-teste-pour-vous-le-proces-du-mur.html
Translation by David Heurtevent, member of Soutenons Le Mur
I was there for you … ‘The Wall’ (‘Le Mur’) on trial
I arrived from Belgium. I was the first there as I left early fearing some traffic delays (but none).
I was there with the picture of my son around the neck, the badge with my name and the title on the left side of my coat. You could not miss the other crocodile moms arriving: some with a big plastic crocodile on their back, others with signs…
Then many others, parents, non-profit organizations, professionals, some famous, all supporting Sophie Robert.
The police of the court room in Lille asked me what I was doing there. “This is a support meeting, not a protest march” (I said it with a large naïve and confident smile, not on purpose given my nature). “Ok, it’s alright then” he replied.
Then we went through security screening. Open the coats, the bags, empty the pockets. The moms would do not want to leave their signs had to stay outside.
We sit down. No seats are left vacant. As I have two walking braces […] a kind man asks others in the first row to make room so that I can sit down. That’s a positive benefit of my disability, if you are jealous, have my Ehlers-Danlos syndrome for a day before complaining and then tell me what you think.
I could admire the beautiful sketches of my neighbor on the left, a Dutch speaking Belgian who just opened his notebook in which you could seen his previous work. He was drawing the court room. I asked him: “Bent U journalist ?” (Are you a journalist?). He replied: “Worse than that” “Lawyer ?” “Worse than that, psychoanalyst”. I bit my lips not to ask him if he was making extra money with
his drawings. We could clearly see he had a lot of experience, maybe gained on the other side of the divan, maybe when the patient is autistic, as we know since ‘The Wall’ was released. In ‘The Wall’, a psychoanalyst said “with an autistic we don’t do much, we are waiting for something to happen.”
The session starts extremely loudly. A violent argument occurs between the judge and the clerck who has changed the order of hearings. We see a first service including a complex family problem with a dispute on a sale.
Then, starts the main court hearings we came for. Everybody is there … even the damned moms. They won’t die anytime soon, at least it’s not planned anytime soon, do not believe everything Aznavour sings.
My notes of the trial (these quick notes are not necessarily the exact say nor expressed in their entirety, but the rough details are there. No legal action please and sorry for the telegraphic style sometimes):
1) The attorney of the plaintiffs:
- This is not the trial of autism, nor about care, it is about “droit à l’image” (image reproduction rights),
- Sophie Robert came to my clients through her company “Ocean Invisible Productions” to make a movie that would be titled “Voyage dans l’Inconscient” (“Travel into subconscious”)
- The sequence on autism is the second of the records,
- The plaintiffs have been respectively recorded during 3 hours, 2 hours, 1 hour,
- They did not view the movie before it was released,
- The movie has been since re-titled “Le Mur, la Psychanalyse à l’épreuse de l’Autisme”,
- Political movie, editing, distorted talk,
- First hearing : bill to seize the rushes (dallies), accepted by the court,
- Resistance on the other side – partial retranscription, they assert that they want to protect their source, but the source are the interviewees,
The court will examine the rushes (dailies),
- This type of release is based on a tacit editing agreement, that must respect the overall spirit of dailies, without cuts that would denature the words,
- When Ms. Solano-Suarez (one of the plaintiffs) asked to see the movie before its release, the answer of Ms. Sophie Robert was that it was a typical feminine request,
- The speech of Sophie Robert was that “your voice will be put together next to others to make a choral” – mix – impossible to know the truth
- The goal of Sophie Robert was to make them say that mothers are guilty but psychoanalysts never said it.
The judge call the lawyer to order: This is not what today’s trial is
about, it is not about autism care.
- A question was juxtaposed next to an answer to another question, and the same technique is used over and over again,
- The cognitive-behavioral therapies are about training chimpanzees,
- We are not requesting a symbolic 1 euro in tor, but as Leon Blum said in his speech about the suicive of Roger Salengro, we request a large amount so that this trial will be dissuasive: 270 000 EUROS (note of translator: $360,000).
This is the very basic idea of the psychoanalytical therapy in autism to say that the relationship with the mother is problematic: the mother is either too cool or too close, etc…
If the cognitive-behavioral therapy is about training chimpanzee, and yet it allows to give more autonomy to my child and to be brilliant whereas he was disabled, then I would prefer to do chimpanzee training every day. It will be better than the torture of packing.
Here it is a trial, not about making scapegoats. This trial is not about being dissuasive. It is about justice and justice is that Sophie Robert did not slander them.
2) The attorney of Sophie Robert
- We too have read the complete transcriptions and we don’t have the same interpretation,
- The interviewee is participating – spontaneous response to an information, thus interviewees are not co-authors,
- Opposition between cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychoanalysis: Yes, planet earth is round,
- Trouble in the relationship between the mother and the child leading to autism. The movie respects the speech of 2 plaintiffs. The speech of the third plaintiff is shorter but not denatured,
- France has been condemned by the Council of Europe for its Autism care,
The judge reminds that this is outside of the
- This movie is urgent, a pedagogic tool
The judge reminds that it is not the problem of
- No remarks were denatured
3) The attorney of the non-profit organization “Autistes Sans Frontières”
- The organization did not create the movie. We have decided to broadcast it after we viewed it,
- No copyrights for the interviewees: the movie maker is the author,
- This movie only is the first part, that’s why it is cut (two more parts are in editing pending stage),
- The authorization is valid – It is the very words of the interviewees that are contained in the movie,
- Autistes Sans Frontières has broadcasted it to help parents finding the good methods,
- Is it a polemical movie? YES
The attorney of the plaintiff request this
sentence about polemic style to be recorded
- Even though the words were edited, these words are extremely violent and chocking
The attorney cites two sentences from the
movie. The attorney of the plaintiffs objects: “these sentences are from other
interviewees”, not from the plaintiffs. Finally, one sentence is found to be
from one of the plaintiffs.
- The court will see which words have been said and which manipulations have been made,
- “Chimpanzees” – Shocking
- Tort claim amount – Shocking
- With 270 000 EUR, one could send 30 kids to a school for a year.
- It is demanded to a non-profit organization
The judge rules that the decision of the court
will be given on January 26th 2012.
A emotional note to Amandine who seated next to Crocodile Geneviève in the court room.
Hugs to the other moms, my sisters in this fight.“