Le texte de Mila Wizman publié sur son blog

Mila Wizman’s blog post addressed to Alexandre Farel is a central act of public testimony in the Farel rape case. Written while the trial was unfolding, it rejects Alexandre’s claim that their encounter was consensual and insists that the assault’s consequences cannot be reduced to a disputed account of one night. By recounting the ordeal of reporting and medical examination, and asking Alexandre to recognize the harm he caused, Mila makes the aftermath itself part of the public argument over consent, responsibility, and whose pain is heard.

Composition and Context

The post appeared on a blog Mila had just created, the day before a national newspaper published a manifesto by about thirty intellectuals. Its timing placed her own account beside a broader public response to Jean Farel’s phrase “twenty minutes of action,” which had circulated after his remarks during the trial. Journalists had already shared his words on social media, where hundreds of comments appeared within minutes. The blog therefore entered an argument already moving rapidly between the courtroom, news coverage, and online reaction.

Mila addresses Alexandre directly and contrasts his version with hers. He says they did not experience the same story; she argues that he knows he raped her. She rejects the suggestion that alcohol, drugs, or a misunderstanding explain what happened, and disputes the notion that the case belongs in a “gray area” when, as she states, she did not consent. The post does not treat that phrase as a neutral description: it presents the language of ambiguity as a means by which men can excuse themselves and avoid accountability.

From Complaint to Medical Examination

Mila recounts that she went to a police station to report the assault and describes the questions she faced there, including questions about her clothing, whether she wanted sex, and whether she had experienced pleasure. She then describes going to hospital in tears for examinations. The account details the tests and preventive treatment she received, as well as her fear while waiting for results concerning sexually transmitted infections and HIV. These are not incidental procedural details: the post places the institutional response inside the experience she asks Alexandre and readers to understand.

She also recalls leaving the hospital in clothes supplied to her because her own clothing had been taken for evidence. Staff told her to try to return to a normal life, but she says she no longer knew what normal meant. In the post, the complaint, examination, waiting, and effort to resume ordinary life form a continuing sequence of consequences, rather than a brief aftermath that can be set aside once the encounter itself is disputed.

The Body, Shame, and Consequences

Mila describes the physical and emotional aftermath in her own terms: she feared that no man would come near her again and that she would never have a child. After she was allowed to shower, she scrubbed herself until she was injured and developed a severe skin condition. She refers to photographs Alexandre had seen, invoking visible evidence of distress against his insistence that she consented. The post thus sets the body’s aftermath against the polished language and credentials associated with Alexandre, an accomplished student whose athletic performance was also publicly noted.

Her account connects this suffering to the response she received from Alexandre and his father. She objects not only to Alexandre’s claim that she consented, but to the family’s explanations that alcohol and drugs were to blame and to the emphasis on his ruined future without concern for hers. She says he denied her account throughout police and judicial questioning. The post’s demand is specific: she wants him to acknowledge the harm he caused so that she can have a chance to rebuild her life.

Public Testimony and Its Reception

The post’s direct address gives it a dual form: it is a message to Alexandre and an account made available to a public already following the trial. Its publication sharpened a conflict between Mila’s effort to describe what the process had cost her and the defense’s concern about the effect of media attention on the jury. Alexandre’s lawyer argued on television that the victim was putting herself at the center of the judicial process and influencing public opinion. The post consequently became part of the dispute over whether public speech could make a victim’s experience intelligible or improperly shape the trial.

Mila’s testimony also meets the broader post-#MeToo climate head-on. She observes that many women have spoken about harassment and assault, while men around her do not seem to see themselves as perpetrators. Against that disjunction, she presents her own account as clear and maintains that she did not consent. The post’s force lies not in resolving the trial’s legal question by itself, but in refusing to let the language of uncertainty eclipse the experience and consequences she describes. Its closing request—that Alexandre recognize what he did—frames acknowledgment as a condition of her attempt to recover, not as a substitute for the harm already endured.