ANTI-SCIENTOLOGY RULINGS IN FRANCE (LIBEL AND SUCH)
Nota: les patronymes des accusés individuels et de certaines parties civiles des procès français ont été transformés en simples initiales, afin de se conformer aux recommandations de décembre 2001 de la Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés (CNIL).
Toutefois, en cas de besoin et aux fins de recherches journalistiques ou d'étude, les lecteurs pourront demander les patronymes effacés en s'adressant au webmaster , à qui il faudra toutefois fournir l'URL complète du fichier contenant les initiales demandées.
LIBEL : PLAINTIFFS SUIT DEMISED
[in this one, scientology had sued to have been libelled in a magazine, and by the french CAN -ADFI/UNADFI]
HEARING NOV.24th 1997
N° 1 SUITE [Page 8 - the remaining being only a study of the judicial facts having led the Court to demise the suit from scientologists]]
ON THE RECEIVABILITY OF DEMANDS PRESENTED BY THE SCIENTOLOGY PARIS ASSOCIATION:
Whereas the reading of the wordings sued as being libelling shows that those words do not contain any precise facts against scientology Paris association which is not expressely targeted, neither even recognizable, that it could not pretend having been personnaly and directly been the target of the allegations, those allegations targeting only scientology as a whole,
Whereas moreover no disposition of the Law and from its [own]statutes give it mission to act to defend that doctrine or get any attack sentenced against those who profess it, its social object [what is noted in its own statutes declaration, nt] being, contrarily to what it exposes, exclusively limited to "the exercize of the cult and religion of scientology"
Whereas consequently the action of the association de l'église de scientologie de Paris should be
declared inadmissible as well from the count of libel as from the count of some responsability for fault according
the article 1382 of the Civil Code;
ON THE COUNTER CLAIMS AND ACCORDING THE ARTICLE 700 OF THE NEW CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE [This article gives the right to those having been wrongly sued to damages and costs]
Whereas Janine Tavernier [President of the french CAN] who, in the article of that publication, has
given her opinion on scientology , and that there is here no special harrassment against her from the association
of scientology Paris,
which would confer to this complaint the character of abusing complaint, that Janine Tavernier will get demised from her damages demand on this count;
Whereas demands from the defenders [ADFI members and publisher] will be accepted according the article
700 of the new code of civil procedure, defenders getting each 10000 FF (ca. 1700$), - Didier Lerouge and Janinne
Tavernier and the same to the three other defenders;
FROM THOSE MOTIVES,
Cancels the closing sentence on Sept 23d 1997,
Redates it on Oct 20th, 1997,
Declares the associations suing (scientologists) inadmissible to sue,
Demises Janine Tavernier of her demand of damages,
Sentences the suing associations to pay jointly and severally, according the article 700 of the new code of civil procedure, : 10000 FF to each of the defenders; Janine Tavernier, Didier Lerouge, and 10000 FF to the three other defenders,
Sentences them to pay the costs and accepts Me Arnaud MONTEBOURG, attorney, to the profit of the article 699 of the new Code of Civil Procedure.
Done and ruled in PARIS, on
Nov 24th 1997.
M. MOREAU M.T. FEYDEAU
PAGE 10th and last.
UNADFI [french CAN]...
Judging that the bulletin from ANVAAR named BULVAAR, n° 2 in May 95, in its 3 articles entitled "THE CAN - the deprogrammer Steve Hassan congratulated by ADFI and FECRIS [other anti-sect association] and that the article "Wellspring Clinic: the psy gulag in America" contained wordings damaging its honor and repute, the UNADFI [french CAN] has sued the UNVAAR, which is publishing those issues, and his director C. P., to pay a sum of 250000 FF [ca 61000 $] according the article 29#1° of the July 1981 law.
By ruling on Oct 30th, 1996 which exposes the wordings targeted, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris has sentenced C. P. to pay the sum of 1FF of damages to the UNADFI as well as 8000 FF according the article 700 of the new code of Civil Procedure [for attorney and justice costs].
...[the courts explains here that both parties are asking for costs etc]
ON THE LIBEL:
Considering that C. P. and the UNVAAR are just representing differently their same arguments....
on the libelling phrases:
Considering that it was correct for the first judges to have related that those three articles were done on the same scheme resuming to denounce first illegal practices which could be used by some american assocs struggling against new religious groups or their members, then to evoke the ADFI and UNADFI - which have the same purposes - by allegating links between american and french association (1st publication), either by evocation of a guarantee that ADFI would have given to such practices (2d publication), either by allegating the presence of the ADFI with the person supposed to be performing those illegal activities (3d publication):
That the ruling has exactly exposed the critics formulated against the american methods, immediately followed by questions asked to the UNADFI, lead the reader of such articles to consider that the UNADFI is giving its guarantee to violent or criminal activities denounced by UNVAAR,
On the truth exception: [this could be used in case someone allegates a truth against someone else in a libel case]
Considering that the firsts judges have dismissed the truth exception....
On the good faith:
Considering that the ruling of the firts judges have exactly said that the "good faith" rule could not profit [to UNVAAR and C. P.] as soon as the intention to inform their readers could not allow C. P. and UNVAAR to allegate that UNADFI had illegal practices, or criminal ones, under the alleged pretext that this association has the same purposes as the CAN, and that the deductions it alleged were showing a prejudice without proofs, and therefore excluded any prudency or objectivity,
On the damages:
Considering that the ANVAAR bulletin targets a little audience, pre-coonvinced of the theses of ANVAAR,
That therefore, the damages caused to UNADFI is small and will be correctly repared by the 1 FF damages [symbolic sentence very often used in damages cases in France, where damages are really low in general, but this 1FF is always followed from costs to be paid by the litigant having lost it],
Considering the nature of that complaint, it is correct to attribute to the UNADFI the sum of 10000 FF according the article 700 of the new code of civil procedure related to that appeal case, that sum being granted in bonus of the already correctly granted sum in the first ruling court,
BY THOSE MOTIVES:
Confirms everything of the appealed ruling,
Says that UNVAAR and C. P. are asked to pay jointly and severally to the UNADFI the sum of 10000 FF according the new code of civil procedure;
Sentences the appelants to pay the costs of the ruling jointly and severally and says those sums will be asked according the article 699 of the same code.
By using the unknown (in France) Steve Hassan (and further, the CAN! - now a scieno front...) and attributing him crimes etc, but then using french court's decisions elsewhere in the world, the scientologists can "win" a sort of ruling attributing to an enemy something he has not really done. Indeed, if presented in US by instance, where Steve Hassan is perhaps someone very honorable and never convicted (to be checked out), the french judges are "proving" to US people two things:
-That Steve Hassan is a criminal under criminal justice in France
- that French judges attack people or assocs like the ANVAAR and CAN , who are themselves attacking criminals like Steve Hassan....and therefore, that everybody against the self-called church is criminal, including french justice.
UNADFI /ADFI[french CAN], 10 rue père Julien Dhuit, 75020 Paris
In its issue 3 from May , 1995, the association Ethique et Liberté, the Investigation newspaper of the church of scientology", the page 3 was showing an article entitled: "L'ADFI lied to you - the proofs - Enquiry about an association which is negating to people their freedom of consciousness: ADFI". The article is targeted at demonstrating that this accolation uses public fundings to act only to make campaigns against new religious groups".
The UNADFI assigned Ethique et Liberté and Mme D. B. ... to pay 250000FF damages to repair.
From a ruling on Déc 11th, 1996, the court of Paris decided....
The association Ethique et Liberté and Madame D. B. appealed to the ruling above... (pretending there is nothing about adfi, or that the article is not defamatory)...
...Moreover, on the merits, this association and Mme D. B. pretend that the article's title is not libelous and that the reality of the facts developed in it as well as their good faith come to erase the libelous character of the parts related notably to the kidnapping of C. c., from the Unification Church by her parents in 1982 and also Mme B. B....
(then many things very similar to the appeal ruling above)
On the merits,
Considering that the appealed ruling has correctly stated that the whole of the incrimnated article contains ideas designed to make very clear that UNADFI has been the instigator or, for the least, approved or guaranteed kidnappings, emprisonings or murders of persons by their own family members; that the author writes - under the word of "blunders" some severe facts against persons who, for the author, would be the direct consequence of methods and purposes activated without intelligence by the UNADFI;
That... (there the court adds some facts constituting libel from scientologists against UNADFI)...
That (here the good faith of scientologists is refused, as in above)
Resume of the last pages: the court rules that the plaintiffs sentence to pay 50000 FF to UNADFI is confirmed, that 10000 FF more costs are added, and sentences the scientologists to the new costs in appeal court.
Done in Paris,
(Soon the entire judgements in french, as soon as they'll be scanned).