From: jensting@imaginet.fr (Jens Tingleff) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: LYON TRIAL French Press Report 9/10 [Xenu] Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 19:20:08 +0100 Organization: ARSCC Operation Clean the Planet Lines: 146 Message-ID: [Summary/piecemeal translation of article of the day in connection with the trial in Lyon of 23 clams. From Liberation, liberal/leftish French daily French original in single quotes. Comments/unclear points in square brackets. Apologies for my French, gotta get a dictionary one of these days... For 'sect' you may want to read 'cult'. Copyrights stated as being Liberation, by default (i.e. there are no explicit copyright notices with the articles] 2/3 page again, one article on the trial, one an interview with a sociologist who feels the trial misses the point 'La scientologie plaide non coupable' Scientology pleads not guilty [I bet you're all as surprised as I am ;-) ] Bernard Fromentien Liberation, 5/10 -96, page 13 Copyright 1996 Liberation [Picture of Mr Leborgne - defense laywer - and a laywer from the civil parties] ======================================================================= For the seventh and last day of the trial against scientoloigists in Lyon, it was the turn of the defense laywers. "Don't let yourselves be caught up in the question of whether scientology is a fraud or a religion" Benoit Ducos-Ader - one of five laywers for the two national church leaders on trial - attempted to sum up ['croyait resumer']. During six hours, the defenders of the 23 accused pleaded for dismisssal of all charges ['relaxe']. All had first revealed what they considered "heavy and serious imperfections in the case ['dossier']." Each illustrated, in their way, "the refusal to differentiate ['l'amalgame' - no idea..] between depraved and mad people who drag ['entraines'] their adherents into collective suicides and people of the church of scientology who are motivated ['habites'] by a belief." [A reference to the 'Ordre de Temple Solaire' which sparked off suicides/murders in France and Switzerland.] The defense of the Tedeschi couple by Serge Pasta was based ['cantonee'] on fact. The couple, co-founders of Manhattan Languages, a living language perfection service ['enterprise'] appear charged with breach of trust and fraud. They are accused of having taken 230000 FFR from the till in 1989 to finance their advanced studies in scientology. Serge Pasta pleads for "forgiveness for this error" and claim benefit of the doubt for his clients who commited the error to "finance a religious knowledge where the cost is without compare to the benefits which they claim to have received." With stentor voice and ample gestures, flowery rethoric, the pleads of Yves Leborgne claims to be anticonformist. J-J Mazier's laywer "refused to be contaminated by the diabolic describtion given of the accused ['diabolisation qui pese sur les prevenus']." In the name of his catholic convictions, he admonished the court "not to park this case in the "religiously correct" zone, outside which there are only guilty parties ['mefions-nous de ne pas situer cette affaire dans le park de "religeusement correct" en dehors duquel il n'y aurait que des coupables']." His arguments became more libetarian to warn against "the spontaneous rejection of those who do not think as you do, because they don't have the same vision of God as you." The client of Me Leborgne answers to his role in the suicide of Patrice Vic, a 31 year old adherent. His laywer claimed that this accusation was "fabrication ['romanesque']." He attributed the depressed state of this father of two to an unease ['mal-etre'], to an old suffering. According to him, "outside the walls of this courthouse, one can condemn scientology morally, sociologically, religiously, but one cannot condemn them in terms of penal law." Judgement ['jugement'] on Nov 22nd ======================================================================= 'Jugeait-on les croyances ou les agissements?' Is judgement passed on belief or actions? Interview with Martine Cohen, sociologist, by Francois Devinat [Long discussion of the ambiquities of the trial: the trial has waived between criminal discussion and religious considerations; should judges be called to judge such complex sociological phenomena?; why has media attention to the parliamentary report centered on "cults" and stayed away from the catholic group identified in the report as a sect?] Q: Isn't this legal-religios fluffiness ['flou'] the best weapon of the sects? A: Scientology hass, in effect, wasted no time in turning the accusation, draping themselves in a veil of indignation, mounting the couter-charge: "This is a heresy trial!" In their defense they have celled illustruous sociologists ho, haviong read the writings of the founder and observed their practices, conclude that they're dealing with a "religion." But, what is the purpose of such a testimony? Do these sociologists believe that "religions", by freedom of belief, can escape the legal consequences of common law? [....] People with good sense, or common sense, are confused and forget the case in question. Many others affirm that the scientology lebliefs are no more absurd than the belief of the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. So what? Is this a cse of judging beliefs, which are not revealed in any other way than intellectual debate, or the actions of a group? [Discussion of the limits of legal intervention in the lives of individuals who chose to follow non-mainstream beliefs/groups/whathaveyou.] Martine Cohen: I also ask myself: if the thesi of teh founder of scientology, Ron Hubbard, seem to be a tissue of inteliectual ineptitudes, as described in Russel Miller's book ["Ron Hubbard, le gourou demasque", Plon, 1993 - must be BFM] why do numerous media attempt ['acharnent'] to "debate" with "discibles"? The perveasion of language whic serves to communicate, there's the first problem. Is it then necessary to know whether scientology is a religion to take into account that scientologists are people of bad faith ['sont des gens de mouvais foi']? Does democracy require that we enter and re-enter into theser unintersting questions? This question burdens ['deborde' - I'm guessing..], we see, heavily the case of scientology ======================================================================= Comments: Last day, for now, phew! Seriously; it's hard to tell what the effect of the defense pleads are (untill the verdict..). If all the defense laywers found serious errors in the case, there might be a problem. (Naturally, the space of one small article does not permit an in-depth analysis; indeed, it's the job of the defense to proclaim the case faulty and the job of the prosecution to proclaim the case water-tight; the verdict will sort that out..) My hope for guilty convictions come mainly from the failure of the defense to address the issues raised by the prosecution. Certainly, the defense has done a good job of presenting their clients as religious believers who are persecuted for heresy - the problem with that is that the prosecution appears to have presented a clear connection between hard-sell techniques, huge profit motive, financial fraud, and mistreatment for members (to the extent of driving someone to suicide) to form a picture of both a bunch of individuals and an organisation which are criminal (regardless of their beliefs). The sociologist sure raises a lot of questions ;-) The interview just doesn ask any questions I havent asked myself, and does not offer any insight into anything. [Comments about sociologists removed by ARSCC legal office] Until later Jens ------ No PGP signature, no authenticity. Vive La France!! ---------- Scientology[tm] ?? Check it out at http://www.scientology.org *and* http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html Report interesting conclusions to alt.religion.scientology ;-)