Read on Twitter
Piff! Puff! Pouf! “An acute delirious puff”: a licence to murder Jews in France – the case of Sarah Halimi
A thread
http://marilynherman.blog/2021/04/21/piff-puff-pouf-an-acute-delirious-puff-a-licence-to-murder-jews-in-france-the-case-of-sarah-halimi/
A thread
http://marilynherman.blog/2021/04/21/piff-puff-pouf-an-acute-delirious-puff-a-licence-to-murder-jews-in-france-the-case-of-sarah-halimi/
In France, with just one puff of marijuana, you can claim you experienced an "acute delirious fit" when you kill a Jew, and not stand trial. (If, however, you instead kill a dog, you will stand trial and be sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment.)
Sarah Halimi's flat was broken into, and she was tortured, murdered, and her body thrown out of her window by her neighbour, Kobili Traore, who had previously been subjecting her to relentless and severe anti-Semitic harassment.
Her murderer has been exempt from standing trial as he has been judged as not responsible for his actions at the time of the murder – a judgement upheld by Court of Cassation’s Supreme Court of Appeals.
He nevertheless had the awareness at the time to flee the scene of the crime.
Now he is in psychiatric care, instead of in prison awaiting a criminal trial. Why should this be? Having an adverse effect from smoking marijuana is not a mental illness, so why is he in psychiatric care?
Psychiatric diagnosis is based largely on the patient's own description of his feelings/experiences. There is no other witness to the internal subjective state of one’s mind.
The witness to how he presented at the moment of murder was murdered by him - so she cannot verify that he presented as having a delirious fit or otherwise.
The basis on which he is being excused from trial must be based entirely on his own account or allegation of his subjective state as affirmed by 2 out of 3 psychiatrists. What about the statement of the third psychiatrist? Psychiatry presents itself as scientific!
It is not supposed to rest on a vote of 2 out of 3. Science does not rest along the lines of democratic election! Which assessment is scientifically most valid? That is the question that needs to be asked. What is the relative experience and specialism of each psychiatrist?
How can we measure the extent to which he was having a delirious fit? Were huge quantities of marijuana found in his blood stream? Exactly how soon after the act of murder? Where is the science in this?
Marijuana is legal in the Netherlands.
I don’t think this would be the case if the medical establishment in the Netherlands considered that a puff – nay – an “acute delirious puff” – of the substance could lead to delirious fits, which could induce its legally-complying marijuana-smoking citizens to commit murder.
In fact, from my own personal observations and experience, marijuana is not an activator but the opposite.
As an undergraduate at Manchester University, I did know someone who – having gone to no lectures whatsoever – revised someone else’s lecture notes while constantly smoking marijuana, and managed to get a 2:1 in her finals.
I, on the other hand, had to forget about doing any study if I shared or smoked a joint.
All I, and most people I observed, were capable of doing under the influence of marijuana was to recline, listen to music (on one occasion, appreciating two different cassettes played simultaneously on a double deck) and eat 6 milk chocolate flakes in a row.
On one occasion, a friend managed - extremely slowly and carefully - to drive herself and a couple of friends home after smoking marijuana – which was quite a feat of concentration! Marijuana acts as a relaxant, and if anything, it suppresses physical activity.
It seems inconceivable to me that a puff of marijuana – however “acutely delirious” – and however paranoia-inducing - could give someone the strength and motivation to break down the door of an apartment, murder a person and throw her body out of a window.
There don’t seem to be many voices making this point. Is it that no-one wants to admit that they have smoked marijuana? Oh Dutch people – join the conversation!
How many of you have been motivated to break into an apartment, murder someone and throw their body out of a window under the influence of marijuana?
Piff! Puff! Pouf! An "acute" delirious puff" ....and a licence to kill a Jew with impunity! In France.
Piff! Puff! Pouf! An "acute" delirious puff" ....and a licence to kill a Jew with impunity! In France.
What if when the murderer is discharged from psychiatric hospital (which can be at any moment, since he cannot have been sectioned with a mental illness - in fact, what treatment is given for an "acute delirious puff" of marijuana?) he then has another "acute delirious puff" of…
…marijuana and kills another Jew? Same again? And again?
And what if the person he kills next time isn’t Jewish? What if, the next time, the person is a judge? Or a psychiatrist? But it won’t be – unless the judge or psychiatrist is Jewish.
Because the intention to murder a Jew was there – in his historic behaviour as well as in his behaviour surrounding the murder. Isn’t that what constitutes murder? The act of murder governed by the intention and premeditation to murder?
France – during WWII with its Vichy government – puppets to the Nazi regime. Its own police willingly rounding up Jews for mass murder.
And in Paris, there is a delightful garden dedicated to the memory of Anne Frank – ignoring the fact that 11,400 French children were zealously rounded up by the French police to hand over to the Nazis for mass murder.
Now its own judiciary has established its own exclusive criterion for the determination of murder in the case of Jews. It has set a precedent licensing the murder of Jews with impunity.
France is back to 1939-45 era – but this time its determination of the legality of the murder of Jews is more specifically home-grown.
In short, France is not a country where it is safe to be a Jew.
In short, France is not a country where it is safe to be a Jew.
