Judged Wednesday for “Individual Terrorist Company”, this former military and security guard did not know how to explain at the hearing its radicalization process.
by
His voter card was barred from a swastika and the registration “the Republic under bullets”. Even on the form of his housing tax, he had scribbled “paid to the Jews”. Aurélian hat, spotted by cyberpatrollers for his anti-Semitic and threatening remarks on social networks, was arrested at his home, in Limoges, by the DGSI on May 26, 2020. The investigators discovered three weapons, an automatic pistol, a Revolver and a Steyr military rifle, with two chargers and hundreds of ammunition, a quantity of neonazie propaganda, supregist, anti-Semitic and violent, leashed grenades of mitraille and hundreds of fireworks or artifice mortars, including some surrounded by bolts.
indicted for “individual terrorist enterprise” at the end of its custody, Aurélien Hat was referred to the Criminal Court for this charge, as well as “infringement of the legislation on weapons in relation to a terrorist company “. He appeared on Wednesday, January 26, detained in a glass box, in front of the e Chamber of the Paris court. Shaved blonde hair, black shirt molding his trapu chest, a steep neck, he would like to see him as the former soldier he was for seven years, before becoming a security officer. At the first question, he answers “negative”.
Is it the prototype of the French “lonely wolf”, the activist of authorized ultradroite and on the point of attacking Jewish targets in Limoges, in Strasbourg and Ile-de-France, of which he had posted Addresses on extremist forums? It is the second ultradroite activist judged for “individual terrorist enterprise”. In 2019, Guillaume Malaval had been sentenced to seven years of detention for explosive attack velléities against mosques and synagogues.
Obsessional anti-Semitism
It is always difficult to judge the intentions of a man who has not passed into action. Aurélien Hat, today 38 years old, was he in a mortifying spiral that could only lead to an attack, as the Crown estimates? Or was it only one of those innumerable trolls found on social networks, where they spill their bile into immonations? Recognizes propaganda, drift, weapons purchases, but “not intending to kill”. He talks about “making buzz”, “bluff”, “blabla”, “provocation”, “immature tricks”, “disgusting ideology”, but never explains what seduced it in this speech despite the insistent demands of the judge. “I was caught in something toxic but I knew I was not really dangerous,” he says.
You have 61.1% of this article to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.