article-EnMarch-Abuse+Genocide

article-EnMarch-Abuse+Genocide

Article: LaREM Complaint on Abuse & Genocide

Re: the systematic poisoning & deception of the French Peoples by the governing party LaREM

 

Back to All Cases

English Translation of the francesoir.fr article (Apr 05, 2022)

On Friday, April 1, Virginie de Araujo-Recchia filed a complaint against the association La République en Marche on behalf of the citizens’ associations BonSens.org (of which Xavier Azalbert, director of the publication of FranceSoir, is an administrator) and AIMSIB (The International Association for Independent and Benevolent Scientific Medicine). The plaintiffs accuse Emmanuel Macron’s political party of “sectarian aberrations”, involving facts of “fraudulent abuse of the state of ignorance and of the situation of weakness”, as well as “complicity in poisoning and genocide”. To advance this, the associations and the lawyer rely essentially on the last two years of crisis management, in particular on the liberticidal measures, the control of information and “collective hypnosis”.

Almost ironically, this complaint comes only a few days after Me de Araujo-Recchia was released from police custody on March 24. She had been arrested by the DGSI in the context of an investigation linked to Rémy Daillet, and was finally released without being accused of “anything”. During her interrogation – the content of which she told us a few days later – questions such as

“What is the term ‘conspiracy’?”, “What is the new world order?” or “What do you think of Freemasonry?”

made it clear that she was being accused of a form of drift.

Let’s note that in January 2022, she already filed a complaint, with her colleague Jean-Pierre Joseph, against the parliamentarians who voted the law of August 5 (renewal of the health pass and vaccination obligation).

Two months and an interpellation later, she returns to the charge with this complaint against La République en Marche. BonSens, AIMSIB and Me Virginie de Araujo-Recchia share in a statement the reflection that led them to this result:


the statement:

The associations BonSens.org and International Association for Independent and Benevolent Scientific Medicine (AIMSIB) are once again joining forces in a complaint targeting the association LaREM for sectarian aberrations involving facts of fraudulent abuse of the state of ignorance and situation of weakness, complicity in poisoning and attempted poisoning, complicity in genocide.

Indeed, the five-year mandate granted to LaREM has been punctuated by protests and massive demonstrations. From yellow vest protests to weekly demonstrations in recent months, demanding an end to “Covid-19” propaganda, the restoration of law and order, and the removal of measures that infringe on civil liberties and fundamental rights proposed by LaREM leaders and adopted by the LaREM majority in the National Assembly.

Over the past two years, none of the appeals to reason from world experts, jurists, victims have been able to bend the deadly ideology of LaREM members. On the contrary, instructions have been given so that the platforms and mainstream media censor and stifle the biggest health scandal of all time.

The French people who questioned and dared to question the dogmas and ideology of the members of LaREM were incriminated, discriminated against, subjected to hate speech, censored, lost their jobs, their salaries, their family ties, their social ties, in total disregard of the highest principle of respect for human dignity.

Thus, those who do not adhere to the narrative are “impure” and outcast from society.

The signs of recognition of the followers: the health pass, the QR code, the vaccination pass, the telephone application dedicated to the tracing of the Covid-19 (Certificate of vaccination Identification), the RT-PCR test in replacement of the medical diagnosis, the triple or quadruple dose of injection of experimental genetic substance assured us of being without danger in spite of the absence of studies demonstrating it, the talismanic mask in all circumstances, in short a whole panoply put at the disposal of the transhumanist, eugenicist hyper-class, favorable to social control.

But all these tools supposed to purify or protect are of the order of belief and have absolutely no scientific basis.

Then, we witnessed an unprecedented advertising campaign by LaREM members of pharmaceutical products, for which we have no hindsight and which prove to present extremely serious risks in terms of public health, it is literally a call to collective suicide.

Every day since January 2020, we have been witnessing the establishment of fear, terror and guilt among the population, now traumatized and under collective hypnosis.

Some extracts of the book entitled “The forbidden debate – Language, COVID and totalitarianism”, by Ariane BILHERAN and Vincent PAVAN, published on March 24, 2022, taken up in the framework of this complaint, make the full demonstration of it:

“The methods used are sectarian methods: terror, sequestration, exclusion, mistreatment, loyalty conflict (forcing individuals to make impossible choices), hypnotic suggestion, censorship, persecutions. (…)

The sacrificial logic is constantly invoked, whether to demand it or to deny it: “sacrificing the spring vacations for a radiant summer”, “do we sacrifice the young on the altar of Covid-19”, “the WHO calls not to sacrifice health on the altar of economic recovery”, “the Prefect calls to sacrifice the month of March”, “April sacrificed, May freed? “, “save Christmas but sacrifice New Year’s Eve?”, “the world of culture is afraid of being sacrificed”, “respecting barrier gestures without sacrificing your hands”. Is it not the spirit of sacrifice that is also evoked by the authorities in relation to the Foreign Legion: “Nothing is obtained if nothing is sacrificed”? Why do we constantly demand that the people consent to sacrifices?

The guide of the good citizen is specified: he is the one who must sacrifice himself. Clearly, the individual exists in this discourse only to be sacrificed: he or she must demonstrate “good behavior in the face of the virus”, obedience is demanded of him or her – “be tested at the first symptoms”. Acceptance of all these constraints is considered civic-mindedness, while blind faith in the word of the president is demanded. We must assume that what the government says is TRUE, that we must trust it, “isolate ourselves at the first symptom”. Then the message is clear: the punishment for being positive (without necessarily being sick) is social exclusion – getting out of the group. Therefore, insecurity, imbalance and irresponsibility prevail in this discourse, where the axis of good is presented as the doxa of power. We understand that protection is repression! Protection is achieved through the repression of decrees. The individual is once again absorbed into the fusion with the leader: “we have all consented”; opposition and plural opinion no longer exist, everyone is supposed to have “consented.

The stigmatization of religious events can indeed be understood as a kind of competitive effect to the new world religion of the pandemic, “covidism”, with its rituals.

A cult requires adherence to a religious type of faith. The individual is not asked to analyze, but to believe blindly. Persecution and censorship, as well as intimidation, have fallen upon those who wanted to analyze, not believe.

A sect or a cult always promises the return of a lost paradise. It is the same with the totalitarian system. A sect proposes fetish objects, here the Holy Grail was the injection, supposed to free us from evil.

The totalitarian drift is sectarian and prophetic in nature. “The scientificity of totalitarian propaganda is characterized by the emphasis it places almost exclusively on scientific prophecy, as opposed to the more traditional reference to the past,” said Hannah Arendt.

The collective delusional certainty, of a paranoid type, was based on erroneous first principles, then a construction of the discourse orchestrated on faith, without accepting the slightest doubt. This faith was organized, from the beginning, on three sophisms, not revealed but present in the ideological background of the speeches and the political decisions, and that we will expose as follows:

1. The epidemic justifies a dictatorship.

2. Only a vaccine can stop the epidemic.

3. A vaccine is the only way to save humanity from the great danger that threatens it. (…)

The citizens acquire little by little the habit of having to be authorized for their slightest acts and gestures, a harmful conditioning if there is one, coupled with their infantilization: they are judged irresponsible, underestimated or insulted by the power, which shows a cynical political class and particularly cut off from realities.

It is not science, and even less medicine, but a discourse with religious overtones, with its litanies, and its daily mortifying counting, reducing the complexity of reality to a single reading prism. The construction of a new language, with its new words and expressions, totally disconnected from the reality of experience, is more a matter of sectarian and religious belief – thus of faith in the mass said by the media and politics – than of science.”

Therefore, by propagating chaos, LaREM disturbs public order and only justice is now able to put an end to its sectarian aberrations.

In France, in fact, it is not the sect itself that leads to legal proceedings, but rather the sectarian aberrations that fall under the notion of public order.

In French administrative law, public order is the ideal social state characterized by “good order, security, public health and tranquility”, public morality and the dignity of the human person.

French criminal law grants everyone the right to hold the religious, philosophical or moral convictions of their choice, however, it does not admit that, in their externalization, they come into conflict with the requirements of public order.

The imperatives of public morality and public health in particular are not abstract concepts that might be thought to be concerned solely with the satisfaction of society’s needs.

Their primary function is human: their purpose is to ensure respect for the individual’s right to life, to the protection of his physical integrity and health, to psychological balance, to the full development of his physical and intellectual capacities. In short, to the dignity of the person. These values can be seriously undermined by actions or attitudes dictated by exaggerated beliefs or convictions.

If the imperative of neutrality in a secular and democratic State invites us not to stigmatize the extravagance of certain religious, philosophical or moral practices, it cannot lead us to tolerate their excesses. Thus, when public order appears to be threatened, criminal law immediately expresses its hostility by the implementation of multiple incriminations, generally falling under “common” criminal law (Law n° 2001-504 of June 12, 2001, aimed at reinforcing the prevention and repression of sectarian movements which undermine human rights and fundamental freedoms, known as the About-Picard law).

A set of indicators makes it possible to characterize the existence of a risk of sectarian aberration:

  • mental destabilization,
  • a break with the original environment,
  • the existence of attacks on physical integrity,
  • the recruitment of children,
  • anti-social discourse,
  • disturbance of the public order
  • the importance of legal problems,
  • the possible detour of traditional economic circuits,
  • attempts to infiltrate the public authorities.

It is a deviation from the freedom of thought, opinion or religion that undermines fundamental rights, the security or integrity of individuals, public order, laws or regulations.

It is characterized by the implementation, by an organized group or by an isolated individual, whatever its nature or activity, of pressures or techniques aiming at creating, maintaining or exploiting in a person a state of psychological or physical subjection, depriving him/her of a part of his/her free will, with harmful consequences for this person, his/her entourage or for society.

It does not matter whether such a drift is committed by a sect, a new religious movement, a religion of the Book or by a health charlatan. As soon as a certain number of criteria are met, the first of which is subjection, the repressive action of the State is intended to be implemented (Miviludes site).

The action of the judge, the guardian of freedom, goes in the direction of protection against any physical or psychological subjection.

The plaintiff associations therefore believe that it is now up to the judge to examine the actions of the LaREM association and to evaluate their consequences on public order.

See original article in French here

related articles

Grand Jury – Court of Public Opinion

 


Keywords

Abuse of Power, AIMSIB, Arendt, article, Association Internationale pour une Médecine Scientifique Indépendante et Bienveillante, Bilheran, BonSens, Censorship, collective, complaint, conditioning, Consent, Crime, cult, de Araujo Recchia, DGSI, En Marche, Fear, France, Fraud, freedom, Fundamental, Genocide, guilt, Human, human dignity, hypnosis, individual, infantilization, intimidation, Jean-Pierre Joseph, La République en Marche, LaREM, Macron, New World Order, opinion, Pavan, Persecution, poisoning, religion, Rémy Daillet, Rights, sacrifice, terror, Thought, Totalitarianism, trauma, Vaccination, Vaccine, Virginie


Back to All Cases

 

Holocaust Tweet Case

Holocaust Tweet Case

Holocaust Tweet Case

Re: the Legality of comparing the treatment of people due to the Covid measures to those in the Holocaust

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Dec 15, 2021
  • Location: Netherlands
  • Court: Rechtbank Amsterdam
  • Case #: C/13/710651 / KG ZA 21-989
  • Plaintiff: CIDI & Jewish Groups
  • Defendant: Thierry Baudet
  • Trial Type: Geding
  • Judge: Unknown
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict: For the Plaintiff


*updated: Jan 22 2022

Background

Baudet, a member of the Dutch House of Representatives and leader of Forum for Democracy (FVD), was sued for the tweets by 4 Holocaust survivors and two Jewish organizations (Centrum Informatie en Documentatie Israël (CIDI) en het Centraal Joods Overleg). The lawsuit described the tweets as “seriously insulting and unnecessarily hurtful to the murdered victims of the Holocaust, survivors and relatives.” [1]

CIDI released a statement at the time of the lawsuit’s filing, saying that “with these comments, Baudet puts the horrors of the Shoah on the same level as the measures against the coronavirus. He is minimizing the importance of the Holocaust.” [1]

One of Baudet’s tweets compared being unvaccinated to being a Jewish person during the Holocaust. “The unvaccinated are the new Jews, those looking away are the new Nazis,” Baudet tweeted in November. [1]

  •  

In an interview with Ilana Rachel Daniel on CHD-TV’s online show ‘The Jerusalem Report’, (see below) the Jewish Israeli host agreed with his comparison and noted that many Israelis have made the same comparisons, including holocaust survivors.

Holocaust Survivors also filed a suit with the International Criminal Court in the Hague making this same analogy.  They write:

“If 80 years ago it was the Jews who were demonized as causing infectious diseases, today it is the unvaccinated who are accused of spreading the virus,” they write. The Holocaust survivors concluded their letter as follows: (2)

 

Significance

This case challenges the free speech of a politician to make comparisons to the Holocaust.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

The judge ruled that lawmaker Thierry Baudet needs to delete four tweets he made comparing coronavirus measures and the Holocaust. [1]

“The right to freedom of expression for a representative of the people is not unlimited,” said the judge during the ruling. For each day that the tweets remain online, an additional €25,000 will be imposed on Baudet as a fine. [1]

“By equating in the messages, without any nuance, the situation of unvaccinated citizens with the fate of the Jews in the 1930s and ’40s, you make a comparison, as I said earlier, that is factually wrong and you wrongly use, in other words, you instrumentalize, the human suffering of Jews in the Holocaust and the memories of them,” said the judge during the trial. [1]

Baudet has 48 hours to remove the tweets before the fines begin accumulating. [1]

“The comparison you made in the contested posts goes beyond what can be justified in the interests of robust public debate,” the judge hearing the case said. The judge’s name was not immediately available. [1]

 

Aftermath

In a reaction on Twitter, Baudet called the judgment “Insane, incomprehensible.” [1]

“We are angry and combative. And of course we will appeal,” he tweeted. [1]

The Jewish groups that started the civil case against Baudet welcomed the ruling, saying in a statement that it “made an important contribution to indicating the limits of the public debate.” [1]


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:

 

Media


Holocaust Survivor Compares today to then

source: Ron Paul Liberty Report


Holocaust Survivor: This is Worse!

source: ….


Vera Sharav Interview

source:Virus Waarheid


Baudet & Plantiffs Reacts to Ruling (Dutch)

source: Omroep PowNed


Baudet on Court Case (12:50-23:33) -English

source: CHD-Jerusalem Report Ep 10


Baudet Banned Speech (Dutch)

source: notanotherbrick

 

References

  1. Dutch Lawmaker Thierry Baudet Ordered to Remove Tweets Comparing Unvaccinated to Jews
  2. Holocaust-Überlebende fordern Ermittlungen wegen «Verbrechens gegen die Menschlichkeit» und des «Völkermords»
  3.  

 

Keyword

Censorship, CHD, coronamaatregelen, Crimes against Humanity, Den Haag, Dutch, Forum for Democracy, FvD, Holocaust, ICC, Ilana Rachel Daniel, International Criminal Court, Jerusalem, Moshe Brown and Hillel Handler, Netherlands, Nuremberg, Parliament, Politician, social media, The Hague, Thierry Baudet, Tweede Kamerlid, Twitter, UK government, Vera Sharav


Back to All Cases

 

YouTube Censorship Case

YouTube Censorship Case

YouTube Censorship Case

Re: Legality of Censoring videos on YouTube, esp. those that question the Covid narrative

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Oct 11, 2021
  • Location: Cologne, Germany
  • Court: Regional Court of Cologne
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: allesaufdentisch
  • Defendant: YouTube & Google
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge:
  • Status: End
  • Verdict: For The Plaintiff


 

Background

Dozens of prominent German actors have banded together as part of the “allesaufdentisch” (everything on the table) freedom of expression campaign to demand a more open discussion on the Corona virus and the controversial government policies, rules and regulations. Their statements were posted in the form of short videos on YouTube. (4)

the group of leading actors, performers, artists state: “We are watching the development of political action in the Corona crisis with increasing concern. Many experts have not yet been heard in the public Corona debate. We would like to see a wide-ranging, fact-based, open and factual discourse and also an equally wide-ranging discussion of the videos.” (4)

Each actor posted a YouTube video criticizing the current suppressive policies. (4)

The site was started in September by actor Volker Bruch and others (3)
 
Two videos were deleted by YouTube for allegedly spreading Covid “misinformation”. (1) and reasons such as “violating community guidelines.” (4)
 
Specifically, it is about the videos with the titles “Fear” and “Incidence”. In “Angst”, the actor and cabaret artist Gernot Haas speaks with the neurobiologist Gerald Hüther. For several years, Hüther was on the advisory board of the online magazine Rubikon, which is criticized for spreading conspiracy ideologies. In the second video concerned, the singer and songwriter Jakob Heymann interviews the mathematician Stephan Luckhaus, who left the National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina in the course of a rejected critical contribution to the lockdown.  (6)
 
German national leading daily Bild below reported on YouTube’s controversial removal of the videos: “YouTube is not a truth commission that decides what is right and what is wrong,” (4)
 
According to attorney Steinhöfel, who is part of the campaign himself in conversation with actor Wotan Wilke Möhring on the subject of freedom of expression, legal steps were taken on Monday morning. The deletions are unlawful and “a new dimension in the violation of the law by YouTube”. (6)

 

Significance

This is a case that challenges whether a private company may censor the the right of people (and in this case experts) to freely express their views and opinions. It also challenges the assumption that opinions against the official covid narrative, even those from experts may be called “misinformation.”

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information needed…

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information needed…

 

Decision

  • The court ruled that YouTube must restore the 2 deleted videos. (1)
  • YouTube did not tell the channel operators precisely enough which passages in their opinion violated which provision of their guidelines, a court spokeswoman said on Monday when asked. (3)
  • The Cologne Regional Court issued an injunction, ruling that YouTube’s deletion of the videos was illegal,” reported Bild, which has a copy of the court order.(5)

“According to the court, the deletion of the videos in which the artists interviewed Leipzig mathematics professor Stephan Luckhaus (68) and neurobiologist Gerald Hüther (70) was ‘unjustified’.” (5)

  • According to Bild: “YouTube did not explain which specific statements were classified as problematic” and that “the artists were not informed which passage of the video is said to have violated the guidelines”. (5)
  • YouTube is obligated to specify precisely what the problem is, and cannot rely on vague reasons, the court rules. (5)
  • Bild adds:

Even more: YouTube was only allowed to delete videos in the case of ‘an obvious, at first glance recognizable medical misinformation’ without naming concrete problematic passages. In the case of the deleted videos of #allesaufdentisch, however, it is a matter of ‘longer videos’ that ‘also contain a large number of clearly permissible statements.’” (5)

 

Aftermath

  • The platform company is now filing an objection.
  • Lawyer Joachim Steinhoefel was delighted by the Cologne Court ruling, and told BILD: “The Civil Chamber 28 of the Regional Court of Cologne has made it clear to the censorship machinery of the monopolist YouTube within hours that constitutional boundaries have been crossed here.” (5)
  • Some members of the group of actors spoke to Bild on their motives behind the government critical videos: “We are trying to talk to people. That’s democracy. To erase our voices is the sad opposite of that.”(5)

 

Further Research

…More information needed…

  1. allesaufdentisch
  2. Bild Tweet Report

 

Media

Bild reports on Youtube Censorship

source: ..

Deleted Video of Math Prof. Luckhaus

source: allesaufdentisch


Back to All Cases