New setback for Dieudonné. The Paris administrative court rejected Monday for “lack of urgency” the appeal filed in summary proceedings by the polemicist against the ban by the police chief of his new show in the capital. The reason ? “The condition of particular urgency to which the intervention of the emergency judge is subject (…) is not met” in this case, ruled the administrative judge, according to a press release from the court.
“The Zenith company had terminated the contract binding it to the production company of the show and had consequently prohibited access to the room”, added the judge. “It is not up to the administrative jurisdiction” to know the reason for the dispute, “linked to this termination” she ruled. “Consequently and without ruling on the condition relating to the serious and manifestly illegal infringement of a fundamental freedom which would have been brought by the administration, the judge in chambers rejected the two requests”, specified the press release from the court.
An “apology of discrimination, persecution”
Dieudonné, repeatedly convicted for incitement to hatred And antisemitismAnd anti-vax singer Francis Lalanne were scheduled to perform on September 14 at the Zénith in Paris for their new show “The Fool’s Cage”. But the police chief of the capital Laurent Nunez had decided on Wednesday to ban the show, in particular for “serious risks (…) of serious disturbances to public order”.
Laurent Nuñez had specified that it was “common knowledge that the content of the previous shows” of Dieudonné “apologized the discriminations, persecutions and exterminations perpetrated during the Second World War”.
Seeing this as a political decision, Francis Lalanne and Dieudonné had in response filed two separate appeals with the Paris administrative court. At the hearing, Francis Lalanne’s lawyer recalled that the script for the show had been sent to the prefect during the summer. “He replied that pages in the script bothered him,” said Emmanuel Ludot, the singer’s lawyer, specifying that these pages were then removed. The two artists can now challenge this decision before the Council of State.