Patrick Bruel: media time, legal time. Bruno Jeudy’s editorial

It happens that a song comes back like a boomerang in the news. Who has the right…this melancholy hit which has accompanied several generations, resonates today in a tragically ironic way for Patrick Bruel. Who has the right to continue to go on stage when such serious accusations pile up? Who has the right to judge before justice? Who has the right, finally, to transform a resounding news story into a political issue?

In a few days, the Bruel affair changed its nature. It no longer belongs only to the world of entertainment or even to the legal field. It has become a political, moral, societal subject. As soon as a popular figure falters, politics seizes it. Marine Le…Pen says she is “shocked”. Édouard Philippe explains that he would not go see the singer. Everyone takes a stand. And everyone does not necessarily speak to their side.

The shock is immense. Patrick Bruel has been supporting the French for forty years. His songs and films belong to a collective memory. See him today targeted by thirteen complaints for sexual violence and rape, after investigations published by Mediapart et Ellecauses deep distress. Especially since the artist is preparing to hit the road again – already 145,000 tickets sold. The symbol is cruel: this anniversary tour is entitled So look 35.

So society watches. The mayors of Paris, Marseille, Nantes and Nancy express their reservations. The councilor of Brest found the right words…La décence [commande] to step back while the cases against him are judged. » It’s all there. Decency. Not the conviction. Not the ban. Simply this idea that there exists, above strict law, a moral responsibility.

Because the Bruel affair highlights a contradiction that has become central: the clash between media time and judicial time. The first is immediate. Without journalistic investigations, how many victims would have remained locked in silence? But the second is necessarily slow. A complaint, an investigation, an instruction, a trial: it takes years.

This in-between is uncomfortable. However, we must accept it. Because a mature democracy must hold together two equally fundamental requirements: the liberation of women’s speech and the presumption of innocence. Since MeToo, our society has changed. Definitely. And fortunately. But this conquest would be weakened if it led to expeditious justice. A democracy cannot replace the court with collective enthusiasm.

This is why Patrick Bruel’s responsibility now goes beyond his sole legal defense. The State cannot suspend a tour. Mayors do not have the power. But the artist retains one freedom: that of discernment. Continuing legally does not prohibit moral questions.

This case poses a simple question: what does a public figure owe to exemplary behavior when doubt becomes massive? Montaigne already answered it: “ We must not leave the knowledge of our duty to the judgment of each person. » An old phrase for a hot debate. A matter of conscience.