Good afternoon.
It is the trial that has shaken France to its core, and shocked the world.
Dominique Pelicot, a retired estate agent, is accused of drugging his wife Gisèle and recruiting other men online over nine years to sexually assault her at their home. Pelicot has admitted rape. Fifty other men are on trial for alleged rape alongside him.
But it is Gisèle Pelicot, the victim, who has for many people become the focus of this horrifying story. Thousands have turned out in towns and cities across France to demonstrate in solidarity with her and against “rape culture” in France. Last week, Le Monde published a joint “letter” to Gisèle from four members of parliament, calling her “heroic” and demanding a parliamentary debate on how French law defines rape. Her courage has made her a “feminist icon”, the New York Times said.
Gisèle Pelicot has chosen to refuse the anonymity usually granted in rape cases, and attends the trial sessions in Avignon, in order – she says – to shift the shame and humiliation often faced by victims of sexual violence on to the alleged perpetrators.
Angelique Chrisafis, the Guardian’s France correspondent, has reported on such unspeakably violent events as the Bataclan massacre in 2015 and the Bastille Day terror attack in Nice in 2016. Yet, covering the Pelicot case stood out, she told me, because of the scale of the sexual violence, and because such a trial would normally be held behind closed doors away from the media.
That this case is being heard in public is at Gisèle’s insistence. Why has she fought so hard to have potentially traumatising evidence aired this way?
“Gisèle Pelicot wanted the trial to be public to draw attention to the use of drugs to commit sexual abuse,” Angelique said. “That’s why she called for the lifting of restrictions on the screening of video evidence in the trial. Her lawyer said the ‘shock wave’ of this public trial and public video evidence was necessary to show the true horror of rape. He said for Pelicot herself: ‘It is too late. The harm is done. But if these hearings, through being publicised, help prevent other women from having to go through this, then she will find meaning in her suffering’.”
Angelique, whose podcast Today in Focus interview on the case is worth a listen, explained that the trial is also highly unusual because it can’t rely on the victim’s evidence.
“In most rape trials, the alleged rape would be detailed by the victim’s word against the word of the alleged attacker. But in this case, the victim has no word on what happened because she was drugged and comatose with no recollection. Instead, the main defendant, Dominique Pelicot, has admitted rape and meticulously kept video evidence. It is that video evidence which is crucial – without it there wouldn’t be a trial. So often, in other rape cases, there is no such video evidence.”
The court proceedings have highlighted confusion over what constitutes consent and raised questions about online chatrooms and pornography. Gisèle Pelicot has told the court that she could not have consented as she was in a comatose state.
“Some of the men on trial with Pelicot accept that what they did was rape and have apologised in court. But many argue that they didn’t intend to commit rape, saying they thought Gisèle was pretending to be asleep and that they were pressured into it,” Angelique said. “The courtroom testimony has highlighted how society in general has not yet got a clear understanding of consent. The trial has opened a debate on whether to more explicitly spell out the active need for consent within the law on rape in France.”
***
Ordinary men, monstrous crimes
Could Gisèle Pelicot’s conduct and the extensive media coverage of the case mark a turning point for attitudes in France, and perhaps elsewhere?
“Many French writers have said this case marks the end of a stereotype of the ‘monster’ rapist - or the notion that rapes are only carried out by strangers,” Angelique said. “Instead it has highlighted the dangers women face in their own homes and within marriages or relationships. Some of the accused men had notable jobs in society such as local councillor, nurse, prison warden or journalist.”
Some media have labelled Dominique Pelicot “the monster of Avignon”. But among those people who have turned out to demonstrate on behalf of Gisèle or to applaud her in court, many are appalled by the apparently “normal” profile of the accused men. This is why chants include: “We are all Gisèle,” and “Rapist we see you, victim we believe you.” Angelique noted graffiti in Avignon that read: “Ordinary men, horrible crimes.” In Marseille a banner read: “Shame must change sides,” echoing Gisèle Pelicot’s own words.
And could the case ultimately change how victims of sexual violence are perceived?
“An important aspect of this trial and the feminist icon status of Gisèle Pelicot is that she can be seen in many ways as an irreproachable victim: a grandmother who had no knowledge of the attacks she was subjected to.”
“Yet, as happens with many rape victims in court, some defence lawyers have still questioned her sexuality in court and asked if the men might not have thought she was looking for sexual encounters.”
Angelique added: “Gisèle has said she felt humiliated and under attack in court. That this trial is being held in public has allowed more people to experience how a rape trial is conducted.”
One woman who came to court in support of Gisèle told Angelique that the case was “so beyond comprehension” that she needed to understand it. Her conclusion? “Things have to change.”
Until next week.
The war in Ukraine
Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s “victory plan” summit in doubt after Joe Biden calls off a four-day trip to Germany intended to culminate in a discussion of Ukraine’s proposals for ending the war with western help.
“There is a sense of safety here”: Charlotte Higgins on how war has created a new era of collaboration among artists, poets and curators in Kharkiv.
Trump secretly gave Putin Covid test machines, according to Bob Woodward’s new book. “Please don’t tell anybody”, the Russian president reportedly advised.
Editor’s picks
News
Viktor Orbán would celebrate Trump victory with ‘bottles of champagne’
‘We’re living like wild animals’: Europe’s largest shantytown waits in vain for power
China puts tariffs on EU brandy in escalating trade row with Brussels
Opinion and analysis
Tipping culture is annoying, unfair and American – and it’s coming to Paris | Alexander Hurst
The far right can’t take away our hopes and memories | Milo Rau
Life, arts and culture
Dinard, the French film festival that’s mad for Britain and Ireland
‘Cocomelon taught me Danish!’ The people who learned a new language by watching TV
Beer can artwork accidentally thrown in bin by staff member at Dutch museum
‘Torn down for hotel rooms’: Iceland’s famous music venues swallowed by tourism
In pictures
Listen now
We’re used to hearing about the power of artificial intelligence to spread misinformation – but could it also be a tool for persuading people of the truth? Ian Sample speaks to Thomas Costello, who has published a study exploring the potential for AI chatbots to lead people away from conspiracy beliefs.
