Beside being unusefully loaded of cases that have nothing to do here, like explanations about a whole affair which
has been normally judged and sentenced with a strong 12 years jail, normal case for the country, US report deals
with bizarreries. Are they paid by the word?
That report looks like a long list of cases documented by press, but very few involve real violations of human
That a crazy policeman kills a prisoner, or drunkard prison wards beat some prisoners is not a matter of governemental
influence, unless it is a general tendency. Right? Moreover so, when such guilty ones are then sentenced to ...or
revoked. What has to be taken as a violation, when both pro and contras are mixed here?
see by instance :
"The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the over 6-year delay in the processing of Selmouni's complaint
(some aspects of which are still being considered by the French courts) violated his right to a hearing within
a reasonable time. "
But the US report does not protest when scientologists are able to delay their indictions for frauds, extorsion,
illegal medicine practice, homicide and so forth, for more than 15 years sometimes. That's because the victims
here are anti-scientologists, or am I wrong?
Besides, the stupid burning by gendarmerie of a provisory restaurant of a corsican perhaps linked to corsican terrorists
is quoted. What human rights have been violated here, we can ask: the restaurant was an illegal one, and its destruction
had to be done in october in any case.
Later, Corsicans are quoted again: "bombings" done by separatists from corsica: what has this
to do in such a report about human rights? For sure, the State was no part of such destructions of public buildings.
What's the matter of human rights?
"As part of heightened security concerns during the visit of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami to Paris
at the end of October, police briefly detained and then released several dozen Iranian activists, including members
of the Mujahedin-e Khalq organization, which had been responsible for previous violent incidents in France. "
What's the problem here. Does the govt need to let such dangerous individuals free to kill or hurt the iranian
diplomat? Is there any violation of human rights? Better see what they are doing in Clearwater when they are painting
lines to forbid critics to speak...
"The six resident non-French Muslims detained in 1994 by police on suspicion of supporting Algerian terrorists
are believed to have been tried in the "Chalabi network" case in October 1998, or released.
What's that? a totally imprecise "are believed to have been tried...", and no human rights violated.
Are the reporters paid by the word? Or was it necessary to get a certain amount of such eventual possible "critics"
"Attorneys for the accused, as well as the NGO League of Human Rights, continued to criticize the fairness
of the proceedings due to the "circus" atmosphere of the mass trial. "
the "circus" atmosphere wording has been used by scienos in Marseille. But the govt or
justice do not have any part of the circus... created in that specific trial by the number (some 150 co-accused)
of indicted (many of them having been relaxed).
US reporters did - the same ol' rants about the french decisions to observe and act against dangerous cults...
obviously, scientology favourite lies are quoted.
A great passage: the french mission issued its report on feb 10th 2000 or so. What says the american report? :
"The Interministerial Mission continued to carry out its mandate during the year. However, publication
of the Mission's 1999 report was delayed. " [see also on bottom]
But the US don't say their own is 1999 US report was more "delayed". Why did they say "delayed"
fro the french one?
another error, as far as i Know:
"The Government currently does not recognize Jehovah's Witnesses or the Church of Scientology as qualifying
religious associations for tax purposes, and therefore subjects them to a 60 percent tax on all funds they receive.
But scientology has not been taxed at 60%; and only part of the self-called donations of jehovas have been so.
What the report says:
"The authorities previously took similar action against the Church of Scientology. Tax claims asserted
in 1994-95 against several Scientology churches forced them into bankruptcy. "
Wrong: scienos had 90 millions F overdue, for only 7 millionsF in taxes! That's not what precipitated them into
bankruptcy, but the fact that they paid enormous sums (tax exempt in US) to US and DK orgs. US orgs precipitated
french orgs to bankruptcy. French org precipitated itself into bankruptcy. That's the way it is.
- the totally scieno chanting:
"In July 1997, a Court of Appeals in Lyon recognized Scientology as a religion in its opinion in the conviction
of Jean-Jacques Mazier, a former leader of the Scientologists, for contributing to the 1988 suicide of a church
member. In response the Minister of the Interior stated that the court had exceeded its authority and that the
Government does not recognize Scientology as a religion. The Government appealed the Court of Appeals decision,
but on June 30, the Court of Cassation rejected the Government's appeal, but the Court stated that it lacked the
authority to decide if Scientology was a religion."
But what the US report forgets here, is 1/ that no court could have decided to add the small short phrase saying
almost that scientology could be considered a religion (but not saying that) and worse, 2/ the cassation was done
almost exactly as what was hoped: discarding the phrase that was illegal for the judge. 3/ that JJ Mazier was not
alone on the bench, and not alone to be sentenced.
The General Court would have liked to get the three execs from Paris as well under jail, true, but the appeal court
had done a correct job here, and as no witness could say the truth about the relationships between scienos in paris
and lyon, the court could not sentence them.
and now the best part about "religions":
"The Interministerial Mission [against cults,not] continued to carry out its mandate during the year.
However, publication of the Mission's 1999 report was delayed. According to press reports, this delay was due to
government reservations about the content of the report, which reportedly advocated new legislation aimed at abolishing
a number of so-called "dangerous sects." The Prime Minister's office, as well as some prominent government
figures, publicly opposed such measures, citing concerns about the constitutional provision for "freedom of
This is entirely false, and is purely an invention of US dept and or their scieno friends. No oppositions
have been done by Prime Minister's office or proeminent govt figures.
Conclusion: the laziness and lack of precision, the total disdain whith which that report has been done lets us
learn how the govt commissions run into USA.