THE LAND OF DE SADE

Could the shocking Pelicot rape trial help to finally change French attitudes to sexual violence?

Katherine Butler, associate editor, Europe
Wed 9 October 2024 

The story of Gisèle Pelicot has mobilised people in France.Photograph: Berzane Nasser/ABACA/REX/Shutterstock

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.”