Depardieu convicted of sexual assault
French film star Gérard Depardieu has been found guilty of sexually assaulting two women on a film set and given a suspended jail term of 18 months. The court in Paris also placed him on a list of sex offenders and ordered him to undergo psychological treatment. The media discuss France's shortcomings in the moral and legal assessment of sexual assaults.
Is the tide turning?
The ruling gives cause for hope that attitudes will change in France, observes journalist Giulia Foïs in a guest article in Libération:
“At a time when France is being accused of similar acts before the European Court of Human Rights, this is an additional note in a melody that is gradually beginning to resonate. ... Perhaps the French state is not fulfilling its obligations, perhaps it is not offering victims adequate protection, perhaps it is too lax towards the perpetrators. Perhaps the justice system is not really fair. ... Perhaps this should finally be addressed. Perhaps one day the women who do this will be better treated. And perhaps those who harass, those who rape, those who are brutal will be convicted.”
Far too lenient
The lenient sentence sends the wrong message, The Independent complains:
“Where is the sentence that would send a message to others who feel they can harm women with impunity? Are we supposed to feel grateful that Depardieu - who is estimated to be worth around 250m - was fined £24,414 [roughly 29,000 euros] and will be placed on the sex offenders register? How meaningless that feels ... Anyone who imagined the Pelicot case had shot down the tropes that still exist around sexual assault in France ought to think again. Depardieu's lawyer employed every sexist stereotype under the sun, calling his victims 'liars' and 'hysterical', as well as saying they were working for the cause of 'rabid feminism'.”
No consent means assault
The actor is hiding behind the alleged consent of his victims, philosopher Michela Marzano rails in La Repubblica:
“'He lacks any understanding of what the word consent means,' the judges explained. ... This is perhaps precisely where the problem lies: in that misunderstanding that keeps repeating itself, stubbornly and violently, especially when the perpetrator is a famous, powerful man who for decades has been accustomed to not being held accountable for his actions. Once again, the crux of the matter is consent. This is by no means an obscure or controversial concept, as many would have us believe. It's quite simple: without consent, there is only subjugation.”