At first it was a picture posted on Monday on Instagram. A swollen face and open cheekbones, accompanied by these few words, which raises the question, without naming it, “Daughter’s Father” 5 years : A year ago my face had a blue and purple discoloration under my eyes, and I saw myself disfigured. A year ago I looked at my face in the mirror and knew I could no longer hide my face. In her posts, actress Judith Shimla said to herself “to the end”. On Wednesday morning, on the France Inter channel, the artist repeated her account of the violence that she attributes to her ex-boyfriend, about which she filed a complaint in July 2021, after receiving a mobile phone in her face. She said that her ex-husband was taken into police custody and then placed under judicial supervision. Then the actress claimed that she was the target of “Four months of severe harassment”, Asking her to file a new complaint.
The man she implicated last May was given an eight-month suspended prison sentence. call him Releaseattorney of the interested party, I am Elise Orfi, deplores a “Execution outside the law” Beside “Cruelty” He asserts that the conviction counts “One act of violence, not habitual violence”which his client admitted. “It’s one fact. Admittedly, it’s quite a number, but he asked for forgiveness and justice. My client is not the sick psychopathic executioner his ex-girlfriend portrayed.It insists that it is studying the possibility of filing defamation suits.
In her testimony, which was widely reported on social networks, Judith Shimla spoke to women victims of violence in these terms: “Don’t be afraid: Never withdraw a complaint you made. Don’t remove it. You will be intimidated. I was intimidated, I felt guilty.” For Ernestine Ronay, co-founder of the Observatory on Violence Against Women in Seine-Saint-Denis, this public speaking can contribute to “consciousness” of the dangers of violent men.
What could be the effect of a public speech for a character like Judith Shamla?
Public speaking is always important: it can contribute to raising awareness in our society about the dangers of violent men and the impact that such violence has on children. In the specific case of this letter, what concerns me is the question of the father’s exploitation of the child, within his visitation rights. It is very common for violent parents to deceive themselves in the eyes of their children, exploiting it by trying to present themselves as victims, when they are the abusers, to put the child on their side, against the mother. One battle that needs to be fought today, in my opinion, is to ensure that the impact of violence on children is better understood by the women themselves, and of course our society. This means that when there is violence between spouses, it is possible, at least for some time, to exercise this right of visitation at the meeting place.
Many women feel a little trapped in a vice, between the need to protect themselves and the fear of “depriving the child of his father”…
It is a common feeling, but it must be said that a child is not deprived of his father when he is in a sheltered meeting place. It is placed, in a way, under the eyes of society, by professionals trained in violence and responsible for preventing the father from exploiting the child. At Seine-Saint-Denis, we have, over a twelve-year period, established a scale of protected accompaniment, based on a judge’s decision, in cases where the direct delivery of a child to the other parent would pose a risk to one of them. So far, nine divisions have been inspired by this system, but it seems to me it is necessary to lead a battle so that these spaces may be generalized throughout France. Our society does not always realize that a violent man is not a good father.
Has society changed regarding children’s place in domestic violence?
Since 2018, with the Schiappa Act, we have obtained that the presence of children in a time of violence is considered an aggravating circumstance. In addition, from now on, when a violent man is convicted of an act of violence, whether it is a crime or a crime, the question of the suspension of the parental authority of the violent husband must be systematically brought up to the time of judgment. Finally, since April, an ordinance indicates that when one parent kills the other, children can file a civil action, directly if they are adults, or through a private official, so that they can receive compensation. So we are making progress in considering the impact of this violence on children.
In her testimony, Judith Shimla also notes the lack of protection…
Despite the fact that the woman did the right thing, and justice was served, this may be insufficient: a certain number of violent men feel above the law. This means that for this type of profile, more restrictive, and even more severe measures are sometimes required, which makes it possible to truly protect women, and thus children. I repeat: when a woman is a victim, so are her children.
What are these more restrictive measures that can be put in place?
First, if we are faced with a suspended sentence, accompanied by a denial of contact with the victim, but this was not respected, the justice system provides possibilities, which can amount to ‘imprisonment’. But this requires the victim to file a new complaint, to indicate that the violent man did not respect the law. There are also measures to prohibit the abuser from contacting the victim, such as a protection order, a “grave danger by telephone” or a non-reconciliation bracelet. There are means in law today, which must now be applied more.
The actress urges women not to back down from their complaint. Are you joining this call?
Rather, I would say: Report yourself when you are a victim, to the justice system, to the police, or to an association. Ask for help to be protected. Complaining is not mandatory: often, women are too afraid, especially since abusers often tell them: “If you speak up I will kill you.” So they will not necessarily file a complaint, but on the other hand, they can get help from social workers and associations, and thus work with someone who helps them with protection until the complaint is lodged.
How do you see these most frequent speeches on social networks? Are they a last resort in the face of a lack of protection?
There, Judith Shamla appears to be addressing other women and encouraging them to report themselves to protect themselves. If you think about it, #MeToo means “me too”. I really like this formula. In short, it means: “I stand in solidarity with all women victims.” This is what Judith Shamla tells us. Social networks are a place where women, in solidarity, can encourage each other to seek protection.