The ongoing case in a Paris court, against Philippe Hategikimana, on charges of crimes of genocide, tell us as much about the world’s attitude to the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi, as it does about the case itself.
Particularly instructive is the calling of British journalist, Michela Wrong, on behalf of the defence. Her appearance cements her position as among the most ardent of Western supporters of Rwanda’s genocidal establishment. She now firmly joins the rogues’ gallery that includes, another journalist, Jude Rever, and the father of all genocide denying journalists, Pierre Pean.
Beyond a grasp of the general information about the Genocide Against Tutsi already in the public domain, Wrong has no particular knowledge, that would add to the understanding of the case. In almost every case heard in French courts, against the accused in the planning and perpetration of the Genocide Against Tutsi, the defence’s tactic has been to deflect from the facts of the case, and instead go on the attack against the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) led government.
And few have been more ready than Michela Wrong, to distort the facts about Rwanda, in an effort to demonise the country’s government. She has also adopted the disingenous, genocide denying weasel words of “there was a genocide, but it’s more complicated…” Words that inevitably end in unabashed claims of double genocide, then full blown genocide denial.
In the Parisian court, she was true to form, with no cliched attack on Rwanda left unreprised. Diatribes about lack of every kind of freedom in Rwanda, were scattered about like confetti.
Genocide survivors and any other witness in a trial could not be believed because according to Wrong, the government of Rwanda will have “manipulated” them. Asked if she knew any of the survivors who had been called as witnesses, she admitted that she did not, but whoever they were, she knew that they must have been manipulated.
So active was the accused during the genocide, and in the hate speech and persecution that preceded the murders, that the evidence against him has included testimonies from genocide survivors from all backgrounds, and from different parts of the country. A relatively junior member of the gendarmerie at the time, Hategekimana’s influence and apparent power went beyond his low rank.
The source of his power, it is alleged, was his deep hatred of Tutsi, which he broadcast to all and sundry, but in particular to the leadership of the genocidal establishment, as he traversed the country, in the company of the Interahamwe militias, on their murderous rampage.
It tells us much about the attitude to the Genocide Against the Tutsi, in France, that most of the cases against the many genocide suspects who have made France their safe haven, have been brought by activists, anti-racist, and human rights groups, rather than the state itself.
And what of Michela Wrong? Can there be any further doubt that she is in real danger of losing any decency she ever possessed, prepared as she is to defend a man who is almost certainly guilty of the most unspeakable crimes, all because of her inexplicable malice against Rwanda?
Can there be any more pretence that she is even capable of summoning up any journalistic integrity, when it comes to Rwanda, or any question that there any depths below which she is not prepared to sink, in her seemingly relentless anti Rwanda campaign.
If, as the Bhuddists warn, holding on to anger, is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die, what danger does Wrong bring upon herself, in her holding on to the even more deadly sin of her apparent hatred of Rwanda?
And can there be a surer sign of resignation to defeat for the defence, than apparently depending on Wrong’s anti Rwanda diatribes, to divert attention away from the facts that point to their client’s guilt?
