Three ongoing investigations, in France and Belgium. Facts which span between 1997 and 2015. Around twenty women who accuse Patrick Bruel of sexist and sexual violence. Several complaints, some potentially prescribed, others still under investigation. And yet, her career doesn’t seem to be slowing down. In Salon-de-Provence, at the Château de l’Empéri, the singer is still scheduled this summer. In Paris, the artist is currently performing at the Théâtre Édouard VII, in the play “Second part” by Samuel Benchetrit. Elsewhere either, no major deprogramming has been announced, while feminist collectives are calling for cancellations.
This sequence is not anecdotal. It says something broader: about the functioning of the music (and entertainment) industry, but also about its limits. Because far from causing immediate exclusion, the accusations seem to be part of a now well-identified mechanism: revelation, debate, mobilization of collectives… then maintenance. So, can Patrick Bruel be deprogrammed?
A festival, a castle… and someone accused of sexual violence
For several weeks, the Salon Féministe collective has been trying to obtain the cancellation of Patrick Bruel’s visit to the Château de l’Empéri. The steps are multiplying, without response: “We started locally to challenge the mayor Nicolas Isnard, we tried to challenge the festival itself, the organizers,” explain Julia and Marie, members of the collective. But despite these attempts, nothing changes.
Contacted by 20 Minutesthe teams of the mayor of Salon-de-Provence, Nicolas Isnard, explain that the city is contractually linked to the festival producer. As such, she “has no room for maneuver and cannot denounce the contract which binds her to the producer”. When contacted, Daniel Devoux, director of the V & D production company which organizes the event, leaves no room for ambiguity: “Today, our position is that there is the presumption of innocence. To date, we have no official information indicating that Patrick Bruel could be deprogrammed. The concert takes place 100%,” he explains before adding: “Which doesn’t mean that we can’t hear what’s being said. »
The absence of a legal conviction is the argument that comes up when we talk about calling into question the programming. “A judge, if necessary, will judge,” he insists. Benjamine Weill, philosopher and author of “Who benefits from the dirty? “, faced with the presumption of innocence and the wait for a judgment, explains that “If we wait for justice to happen, we will wait a long time. »
But beyond this argument, another element comes back insistently, that of the personal experience with the artist. “I have produced Patrick Bruel several times and I have never had any problem, it is even the opposite, he is an artist who is courteous to the teams”, he affirms, claiming a “factual” position. For Jean-Michel Aubry Journet, co-founder of #MusicTooFrance and ambassador of #Metoomedia, these responses reveal a blind spot: “These facts remain extremely minimized by those who do not want to see that these are offenses, or even crimes, and that this can represent something very serious for the people likely to be put in contact with him. »
No precautionary measures
Faced with this position, the Salon Féministe collective opposes another reading, which shifts the question from the judicial field to that of responsibility. “Canceling Patrick Bruel’s tour does not amount to judging him and fully respects the presumption of innocence,” explain Julia and Evelyne, both members. “On the other hand, this decision can be seen as a precautionary measure aimed at protecting possible victims.” Where the producer awaits a court decision, they propose to act upstream. “There remains a doubt: that it could represent a risk, particularly for women in a professional setting,” they say, recalling that concerts involve the presence of numerous teams.
Beyond the question of risk, it is also that of the signal sent which is raised: “This situation raises the question of the support given to the 19 women who spoke, whose testimonies cannot be ignored without arousing a feeling of abandonment”. For the collective, maintaining programming amounts to making these stories invisible, or relegating them to secondary importance in the face of organizational and economic imperatives.
A system that absorbs rather than excludes
For Jean-Michel Aubry Journet, the mechanics are well established. “We will immediately go to the side of criminal law and say: he is presumed innocent,” he explains. A way of sending the decision back to justice, and therefore suspending all action. However, in cases of sexual violence, the procedures are long, sometimes limited by the statute of limitations. As a result, nothing moves. “Look, even someone like Slimane, who was convicted of sexual harassment, he still does concerts. He may not have had a media promo, but he has a fan following. The venue did not cancel. The orchestra is happy to play with him,” he explains. For Benjamine Weill, this blockage is structural: “The industry, by definition, absolutely does not care about people’s safety. What she wants is profit,” she analyzes. “These are products that bring in too much money.” Deprogramming an artist is not only a moral choice, but involves breaking contracts and taking an economic risk.
“Sexist and sexual violence is still one of the only crimes for which we claim the presumption of innocence. I think that if Patrick Bruel were accused of having caused a deadly road accident, the question of maintaining his concert would not even arise,” concludes Jean-Michel Aubry Journet.
Leave a Reply