Eight Stand Trial in France Over Beheading of Teacher Samuel Paty

[Social Media]

 

In Paris, eight individuals are now on trial, accused of involvement in the tragic murder of French teacher Samuel Paty, whose beheading by an Islamic extremist in 2020 sent shockwaves through France. The charges include terrorism-related offenses, with the accused being friends of the assailant as well as others who allegedly spread misinformation about Paty’s teaching methods.

🇫🇷 🧑‍⚖️ Who are the people on trial in Paris Monday for the killing of #French teacher Samuel #Paty in 2020?

FRANCE 24's @clairepaccalin has the details on #F24ParisDirect with @DelanoDSouza ⤵️ pic.twitter.com/QkdETHGFdi

— FRANCE 24 English (@France24_en) November 4, 2024

 

Samuel Paty, a 47-year-old middle school teacher, was murdered on October 16, 2020, near his school. His assailant, an 18-year-old of Chechen origin named Abdullah Anzorov, was later shot dead by police. Paty had recently held a class on freedom of expression, during which he showed his students caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad—images that many Muslims consider offensive. This lesson ultimately led to his targeting and death.

 

The individuals currently on trial are accused of varying levels of complicity. Some of Anzorov's friends are alleged to have helped him purchase weapons used in the attack, while others are charged with spreading untrue information online about Paty and his teaching. The trial has garnered significant attention, especially with members of Paty’s family, including his two sisters, attending the court proceedings. Security measures are tight, reflecting the sensitive nature of the case.

 

Five of the accused are currently in custody and appeared in a secure glass enclosure within the courtroom, while three others under judicial supervision were seated separately outside the glass box. A central figure in the trial is Brahim Chnina, the father of a teenage girl who claimed she had been excluded from Paty's class for objecting to the caricatures. Chnina, a 52-year-old Muslim, is accused of sending a series of messages condemning Paty and sharing the address of the school in Conflans Saint-Honorine, the Paris suburb where Paty taught.

 

During investigations, it emerged that Chnina’s daughter, who was 13 at the time, had fabricated her account; she had not attended the class where the caricatures were shown.

 

Based on a report by Sky News 2024-11-07

 

 

 

[Evil Penevil]

Everytime you read of a crime like the beheading of schoolteacher Paty, be sure to keep telling yourself Islam is a religion of peace and the violence of Islam's followers is not inspired by their religion.

[JonnyF]

Good to see the French government are being open about the motivation for this.

 

Unlike the British government in the slaughter of the children at Southport. 

[Homburg]

France is lost.

[mfd101]

The concept of 'freedom of expression' here seems to me both pragmatically wrong and wrong in principle.

 

The daily reality is that everyone everywhere accepts a whole range of limits on their 'freedom of expression'. We don't walk down the street yelling obscenities at passers-by because we would be arrested & charged if we did. It's a form of verbal assault and is treated as such by the law in most countries. And if I carry a placard down the street accusing my next-door neighbour of assorted crimes, I can be prosecuted for defamation. And so on. This is perfectly normal.

 

So on what reasonable basis did a French schoolteacher think it appropriate to show anti-Muslim caricatures to his class of children some or many of whom were Muslims?  His action seems to me wrong in principle, quite apart from the obvious pragmatic aspect (the danger to himself he thus incurred, which in fact became his murder). Did he think it was his teacherly duty to insult some of his students and other members of the local community? Did he think that, as a teacher, he was released from all civic consciousness and caution in his actions? What was he hoping to achieve in a multicultural society where such matters are both sensitive and judicially and politically treated with kid gloves?

[Purdey]

Insensitivity is the reason the west got dragged into this imbroglio in the first place. Colonization - the start of many wars.

[john donson]

religion of peace again

[koolkarl]

Behead those 8 animals.

[Peterphuket]

7 hours ago, Homburg said:

France is lost.

The EU is lost.

[pacovl46]

12 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

Everytime you read of a crime like the beheading of schoolteacher Paty, be sure to keep telling yourself Islam is a religion of peace and the violence of Islam's followers is not inspired by their religion.

It's some of the individuals that are bad, not the religion itself. There's bad apples amongst every single race and religion. But obviously you can't see that.... 

 

Do you tell kids that get molested by priests how much better catholicism is? 

[Nick Carter icp]

3 hours ago, Purdey said:

Insensitivity is the reason the west got dragged into this imbroglio in the first place. Colonization - the start of many wars.

 

   When did Western Countries colonise Chechnya ?

[Dionigi]

3 hours ago, mfd101 said:

The concept of 'freedom of expression' here seems to me both pragmatically wrong and wrong in principle.

 

The daily reality is that everyone everywhere accepts a whole range of limits on their 'freedom of expression'. We don't walk down the street yelling obscenities at passers-by because we would be arrested & charged if we did. It's a form of verbal assault and is treated as such by the law in most countries. And if I carry a placard down the street accusing my next-door neighbour of assorted crimes, I can be prosecuted for defamation. And so on. This is perfectly normal.

 

So on what reasonable basis did a French schoolteacher think it appropriate to show anti-Muslim caricatures to his class of children some or many of whom were Muslims?  His action seems to me wrong in principle, quite apart from the obvious pragmatic aspect (the danger to himself he thus incurred, which in fact became his murder). Did he think it was his teacherly duty to insult some of his students and other members of the local community? Did he think that, as a teacher, he was released from all civic consciousness and caution in his actions? What was he hoping to achieve in a multicultural society where such matters are both sensitive and judicially and politically treated with kid gloves?

If I remember correctly, these were not caricatures but drawings and paintings depicting Mohamed, some of which were drawn by Muslims. The class was warned beforehand that they would be shown, as the class was about Islamic depictions in art, any one who might be offended was given the chance to leave.

[Keeps]

7 hours ago, Homburg said:

France is lost.

And France would be even worse if they weren't turning a blind eye and shuffling tens of thousands over to the UK.

 

Can't say I blame them, why would you want murderous scum on your own doorstep?

[saakura]

6 hours ago, mfd101 said:

The concept of 'freedom of expression' here seems to me both pragmatically wrong and wrong in principle.

 

The daily reality is that everyone everywhere accepts a whole range of limits on their 'freedom of expression'. We don't walk down the street yelling obscenities at passers-by because we would be arrested & charged if we did. It's a form of verbal assault and is treated as such by the law in most countries. And if I carry a placard down the street accusing my next-door neighbour of assorted crimes, I can be prosecuted for defamation. And so on. This is perfectly normal.

 

So on what reasonable basis did a French schoolteacher think it appropriate to show anti-Muslim caricatures to his class of children some or many of whom were Muslims?  His action seems to me wrong in principle, quite apart from the obvious pragmatic aspect (the danger to himself he thus incurred, which in fact became his murder). Did he think it was his teacherly duty to insult some of his students and other members of the local community? Did he think that, as a teacher, he was released from all civic consciousness and caution in his actions? What was he hoping to achieve in a multicultural society where such matters are both sensitive and judicially and politically treated with kid gloves?

Sure, he did not do the right thing and you have rightly disagreed with what he did. But did he deserve his head cut off? You do not make any comment on this?

Edited November 7 by saakura

[mfd101]

50 minutes ago, saakura said:

Sure, he did not do the right thing and you have rightly disagreed with what he did. But did he deserve his head cut off? You do not make any comment on this?

Of course he shouldn't have been murdered. You'ld be a nut case to think otherwise.

 

What I was interested in pointing out was something that noone else seems to have thought of, namely that the rights & wrongs of his behaviours before he was murdered are or ought to be more complex than what the commentaries in the French-language & English-language press allow. As usual, the simplistic use of political slogans ('freedom of expression') is unhelpful in understanding an endlessly complex world.

[proton]

Give them a sharia trial, behead in public, then as a detergent bury them in pig skin.  

[Rampant Rabbit]

why waste time, an eye for an eye.... I don't care if they're  all  blind

[Rampant Rabbit]

17 hours ago, Social Media said:

images that many Muslims consider offensive

Makes the woke brigade  look pathetic, either way get over yersleves muslims........christians and any other mindless fantasy

[JonnyF]

Just be glad this didn't happen in the UK.

 

Labour would be telling the CPS to stop prosecution in case it upset their community leaders. Focus on anyone who tweeted about it instead.

 

I never thought I'd see the day when the French have bigger gonads than us. Even with Macron.

[candide]

10 hours ago, mfd101 said:

The concept of 'freedom of expression' here seems to me both pragmatically wrong and wrong in principle.

 

The daily reality is that everyone everywhere accepts a whole range of limits on their 'freedom of expression'. We don't walk down the street yelling obscenities at passers-by because we would be arrested & charged if we did. It's a form of verbal assault and is treated as such by the law in most countries. And if I carry a placard down the street accusing my next-door neighbour of assorted crimes, I can be prosecuted for defamation. And so on. This is perfectly normal.

 

So on what reasonable basis did a French schoolteacher think it appropriate to show anti-Muslim caricatures to his class of children some or many of whom were Muslims?  His action seems to me wrong in principle, quite apart from the obvious pragmatic aspect (the danger to himself he thus incurred, which in fact became his murder). Did he think it was his teacherly duty to insult some of his students and other members of the local community? Did he think that, as a teacher, he was released from all civic consciousness and caution in his actions? What was he hoping to achieve in a multicultural society where such matters are both sensitive and judicially and politically treated with kid gloves?

It is quite relevant to show these caricatures to illustrate freedom of expression, in particular in respect to the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo. He actually proposed that Muslim students could look elsewhere or shortly go out of the class if they felt offended.

 

It is absolutely legal in France to criticize or mock religion and the main target has always been the Catholic Church (for centuries).

 

Of course, false rumours have been diffused on social media, in particular that he would have showed a picture of a naked man and said he was the prophet.

[G_Money]

1 minute ago, candide said:

It is quite relevant to show these caricatures to illustrate freedom of expression, in particular in respect to the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo. He actually proposed that Muslim students could look elsewhere or shortly go out of the class if they felt offended.

 

It is absolutely legal in France to criticize or mock religion and the main target has always been the Catholic Church (for centuries).

 

Of course, false rumours have been diffused on social media, in particular that he would have showed a picture of a naked man and said he was the prophet.

 
Nice to see you posting again.  
 

Been rather quiet lately.

[candide]

19 minutes ago, G_Money said:

 
Nice to see you posting again.  
 

Been rather quiet lately.

I'm keeping my posting energy for next year! There will be much more opportunities! 😀

[G_Money]

1 minute ago, candide said:

I'm keeping my posting energy for next year! There will be much more opportunities! 😀

Oh, OK.

 

January 20th most likely.  Inauguration Day!

[Purdey]

15 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   When did Western Countries colonise Chechnya ?

Uh, you think Russia is Asian? 

Anyway, which countries were the biggest colonizers?

Edited November 8 by Purdey

[Nick Carter icp]

11 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Uh, you think Russia is Asian? 

Anyway, which countries were the biggest colonizers?

 

   What does this story have to do with colonisation ?

[Purdey]

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   What does this story have to do with colonisation ?

The result of colonization is that it comes back one day to bite you in the a$$.

Talking about causes.

Edited November 8 by Purdey

[Nick Carter icp]

2 minutes ago, Purdey said:

The result of colonization is that it comes back one day to bite you in the a$$.

Talking about causes.

 

   The killer in this story were Chechnyaian, when did Chechnya get colonised and by whom ? 

[Ben Zioner]

17 hours ago, Peterphuket said:

The EU is lost.

The US fell two days ago..

[Purdey]

2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   The killer in this story were Chechnyaian, when did Chechnya get colonised and by whom ? 

Oh come on.1859, by Russia, which was seen as a western country at the time. 

 

[Evil Penevil]

 

On 11/7/2024 at 4:10 AM, pacovl46 said:

It's some of the individuals that are bad, not the religion itself. There's bad apples amongst every single race and religion. But obviously you can't see that.... 

I don't know how you judge between "good" and "bad" religions.  I'm not trying to label Islam as a "bad" religion.  I am calling attention to the fact that use of violence to achieve religious  and secular goals- such as punishing what Islam considers blasphemy- is one of the core tenets of Islam.   The killer of Samueel Paty wasn't a "bad" Muslim, he was a "good" Muslim acting as his faith commanded him.

 

This isn't the right thread (or board) for lengthy quotations from the Quran, Sunna and Hadiths.  But here's what a mainstream academic type says about violence and Islam.   Dr. Tina Magaard -- a Sorbonne-trained Danish linguist "specializing in textual anal­ysis -- published detailed research findings in 2005 (summarized in 2007) com­paring the foundational texts of ten major religions. Magaard con­cluded from her hard data-driven analyses:

"The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with."  LINK

 

You can find extensive proof of Islam's inherent advocacy of violence in these books available from Amazon:

 

 

On 11/7/2024 at 4:10 AM, pacovl46 said:

Do you tell kids that get molested by priests how much better catholicism is? 

 

That's an absurd comparison.  Catholic priests who molest children are acting AGAINST the tenets of Catholicism and, according to Church doctrine,  will burn in Hell for eternity for their sins.  Muslims who behead blasphemers are acting IN ACCORDANCE with their faith and will be rewarded in Paradise.

 

xxxx

On 11/7/2024 at 12:45 AM, mfd101 said:

The concept of 'freedom of expression' here seems to me both pragmatically wrong and wrong in principle.

 

It's not at all wrong, pragmatically or in principle.  In a secular country like France with both freedom of religion and freedom of religion, Muslims are free to obey and venerate the Prophet Mohammad.  However, they can't force their beliefs on others.  The prohibition against images of the Prophet is part of Islamic dogma and doctrine which non-believers don't have to honor or follow.

Muslims have to accept that it's perfectly legal in France to criticize or caricature any religious figure.  If they don't like it, they should live in a country which does prohibit such caricatures.

 

On 11/7/2024 at 12:45 AM, mfd101 said:

So on what reasonable basis did a French schoolteacher think it appropriate to show anti-Muslim caricatures to his class of children some or many of whom were Muslims?  His action seems to me wrong in principle, quite apart from the obvious pragmatic aspect (the danger to himself he thus incurred, which in fact became his murder). Did he think it was his teacherly duty to insult some of his students and other members of the local community? Did he think that, as a teacher, he was released from all civic consciousness and caution in his actions? What was he hoping to achieve in a multicultural society where such matters are both sensitive and judicially and politically treated with kid gloves?

 

Paty was following a lesson plan that had been approved by school authorities.  He gave Muslim students the opportunity not to look at the images of the Prophet.  He did nothing wrong.

Edited November 8 by Evil Penevil