Reply to Mediapart from Fabrice Delinde, lawyer for Philippe Gensou
“As I said in my closing argument, the last terrorist I saw who truly deserved that label was the Syrian president Al-Sharaa/Al-Julani, a former senior figure in Al-Nusra Front/IS, standing on the steps of the Élysée Palace, and who I wouldn't confuse with the heated bar-room talk of the ‘nutters’ in our case.
“As for the real or supposed ideology of certain individuals, I refer you to the attached documents on which I based my arguments. The [anti-terrorism prosecution unit] PNAT has, in fact, revived the methods of its Vichy predecessors, when ideology - in that case, communism - served as an aggravating factor in the mass convictions of Resistance fighters for acts of terrorism.
“As for the elements relating to World War II, my client worked on Ubisoft video games where one had to recreate the maritime and aerial dimension of this conflict. Supporting documents were filed in the judicial proceedings.”
Reply to Mediapart from Marc Bailly, lawyer for Thibaud Rufra
“To simplify the arguments by portraying Mr R as a neo-Nazi activist is to miss the point that this case arose in the wake of the 'gilets jaunes' [yellow vest] movement [editor's note, a social protest movement in 2018 and 2019], which exposed social misery and which gradually turned into social anger.
“Above all, the hearings showed that Mr R was neither a far-right activist nor at the ‘heart’ of a plan to attack a Masonic lodge (that term was never once used in discussions about him).
“In any case, that supposed plan was never precisely defined and amounted only to online exchanges reflecting the fantasies of conspiracy theories. In the end the real plan was more of a survivalist project.
“Mr R. didn't initiate the discussions and soon distanced himself from the influence of his alcoholic, idle father-in-law, an influence which had admittedly led him to a kind of fascination with Nazi symbols.
“It's probably for that reason, and because the exact nature of the ‘project’ could never be clearly defined, that the court did not issue a detention order but instead preferred a mixed sentence, part-suspended, part-custodial, to cover Mr R’s time in pre-trial custody.”