Since the beginning of this process, one thing in particular has struck me: It is the restraint with which the term “Islamist terrorism” is used to describe the crimes of November 13, 2015. As if the term were avoided. As if its use meant placing oneself in a political camp. As if this trial was not primarily there to establish the truth about the facts and thus the responsibility of those on trial.
Last week, before the testimony of former President François Hollande, there was a dispute in the courtroom where some (almost all) defence lawyers protested against the appearance of the former President.
What can be concluded from this? First of all, the will to separate the ideology that led to the crimes from the debates. In a terrorist trial, ideology plays an essential role, since terrorism is the decision to use violence for a political cause, in this case Islamism, which concerns us today. Moreover, the defence would have suggested other experts, but they would have refused to attend, we were told, because they were afraid of being mentally associated with jihadism. Libération
