freedom – home

article-EnMarch-Abuse+Genocide

Article: LaREM Complaint on Abuse & Genocide

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

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

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

PoliceMandateCase:HighCourt

Police Mandate Case: High Court

Re: the Legality of mandating vaccines to the “Frontline Employees” (NZDF & police) of New Zealand

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

Dates: Jan 6, 2022 (filed)
Location: New Zealand
Court: High Court
Case #: CIV-2022-485-000001/ [2022] NZHC 291
Plaintiff: Yardley, Wallace & a Defence Force Worker
Plaintiff’s Lawyer: M I Hague & A P Miller
Expert Testimony: Dr Petrovsky

Defendant: Minister for Workplace Relations & Safety, Commissioner of Police, Chief Of Defence Force, & the Attorney General
Trial Type: High Court
Justice: Francis Cooke
Status: Decided (Feb 25, 2022)
Verdict: for the Plaintiff

*updated March 10, 2022

Background

The challenge, put forward by a three Defence force and police employees, questioned the legality of making an order under the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act to require vaccination for frontline employees. [1]

and who face termination if they are not vaccinated by 1 March 2022. [2]

The challenge was supported by a group of 37 employees affected by the mandate, who submitted written affidavits to the court. [1]

Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety Michael Wood, Deputy Police Commissioner Tania Kura and NZDF Chief People Officer Brigadier Matthew Weston filed affidavits defending the mandate. [1]

As it stands, 164 of the overall police workforce of nearly 15,700 were affected by the mandate after choosing not to be vaccinated. For NZDF, the mandate affected 115 of its 15,500 staff. [1]

The Police and Defence Force mandate was introduced by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety by the COVID–19 Public Health Response (Specified Work Vaccinations) Order 2021 in December 2021. It required all Defence Force personnel and all Police constables, recruits and authorised officers to receive two doses of the vaccine by 1 March 2022. It was additional to existing vaccination policies Police and Defence had already introduced internally. [3]

The 25-year police veteran Detective Senior Sergeant Ryan Yardley says the family’s decision to not get the Covid vaccine exposed them all to unfair treatment, unable to work, to go to restaurants and cafes, or to associate with friends. [4]

“And then I watched the mandates rolling for the teachers, and then the hospital staff, and I could see the harm and hurt that it was doing across society. Just from talking to friends and other people and hearing everyone’s stories. And that does not align with my values. And then the fact that people started getting separated and discriminated in society in relation to where they can and can’t go.” [4]
He and his family were not just opposed to the vaccine mandate – they were also personally against being vaccinated. “Everyone has to weigh that up for themselves personally and try and figure out the benefit versus risk scenario,” he said. [4]
“Because obviously, there are some known side effects that are coming out, myocarditis and other ones and I think it’s affecting more of the younger guys. I’m just slightly above that that age bracket, but it’s enough to make me concerned.”[4]

Significance

The landmark case means that the police and NZDF cannot be fired for refusing to take the experimental covid vaccine. This case may be used to overthrow all of PM Ardern’s mandates in New Zealand. [1]

Plaintiff’s Argument

The applicants challenge the Order on four main grounds: [2]

(a) that the Order was not properly made for the purposes of the Act and it is inconsistent with those purposes; and

(b) that the Order is inconsistent with other legislative provisions in the Defence Act 1990, the Policing Act 2008 and other legislation, and accordingly unlawfully purports to suspend the operation of other legislation; and

(c) that the Order fails to meet the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi for being inconsistent with Treaty principles, including because of disproportionate impact on Māori; and

(d) that the Order is unlawful as it involves an unjustified limit on rights protected by the NewZealand Bill of Rights Act, particularly the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment (s 11), the right to manifest religion (s 15), the right to be free from discrimination (s 19) and other rights recognised by s 28 of the Bill of Rights (including the right to work, and of minority groups to enjoy their culture and practice of religion).

The group relied on two aspects of the Bill of Rights – the right to decline a medical procedure and the right to religious freedom. [1]

On the religious freedom argument, a number of those who made submissions referred to their fundamental objection to taking the Pfizer vaccine, given that it was tested on the cells that were derived from a human foetus. [1]

expert testimony

expert evidence from Dr Nikolai Petrovsky. DrPetrovsky is presently the Director of the Diabetes and Endocrinology Department of Flinders Medical Centre, Academic Professor at Flinders University, and Director of Vaxine Pty Ltd, a biotechnology company specialising in vaccine development and formulation. In this latter role he has developed a vaccine for COVID–19 which is presently in use in Iran. Finally the applicants rely on expert evidence from Raharuhi Koia, a Minister within the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa NewZealand. [2]

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

Three judicial review proceedings have been heard in the High Court challenging such orders. [2]

1. In September 2021 in GF v Minister of COVID–19 Response and Others Churchman J dismissed a challenge to an order bought by a former employee of the New Zealand Customs Service who had had her employment terminated. Two arguments were addressed — that the order was ultra vires the Act, and that it was irrational. [2]

2. In October in Four Aviation Security Service Employees v Minister of COVID–19 Response I then heard and dismissed a challenge to the order relating to Customs Service employees of broader scope, which included an argument that the order breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 by being an unjustified limit on the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment as affirmed by s 11.3 I concluded that the order was a justified limit on that right. In doing so I noted: [2]

There is a last point of significance. This case concerns the measure that was introduced when New Zealand had eradicated the virus after the first outbreak, and was seeking to prevent a further outbreak (or delay a further outbreak until a greater proportion of the population is vaccinated, means of treating and managing the virus are better known, and the health system is better organised to address such an outbreak). Since that time it is a matter of judicial notice that an outbreak has occurred in Auckland, and that COVID–19 is spreading. It does not appear that this outbreak can be eliminated, reflecting the greater transmissibility of the Delta variant. Whether the challenged measure would remain demonstrably justified on the basis that it contributes to addressing the spread of the virus in circumstances when the virus is endemic in at least parts of New Zealand is an open question. This question is not before me. I note that under s 14(5) of the Act the Minister and Director–General are obliged to keep their COVID–19 orders under review. [2]

3. Finally in November in Four Midwives v Minister for COVID–19 Response Palmer J heard and dismissed a claim advanced by certain midwives affected by a vaccine mandate, together with the first part of a challenge to the mandate brought by certain teachers and doctors. Palmer J rejected the argument that the orders were not within the empowering provision of the Act notwithstanding it did not explicitly refer to vaccination. Palmer J endorsed the observation made in Four Aviation Security Services Employees that it was surprising that the legislation had not specifically addressed vaccination and the issues it raised. The second claim in the proceedings brought by teachers and doctors that the relevant order is not a justified limit on the right under s 5 of the Bill of Rights is to be heard shortly. That question was not addressed by Palmer J. [2]

Decision

The Order made in the present case is nevertheless unlawful and is set aside. [2]

Justice Francis Cooke ruled that ordering frontline police officers and Defence staff to be vaccinated or face losing their job was not a “reasonably justified” breach of the Bill of Rights. [1]

Justice Cooke agreed with the claim, saying that “an obligation to receive the vaccine which a person objects to because it has been tested on cells derived from a human foetus, potentially an aborted foetus, does involve a limitation on the manifestation of a religious belief.” [1]

However, Justice Cooke disagreed with the claimants’ broader claims that requiring vaccination is inconsistent with holding religious beliefs more generally. [1]

“I do not accept that a belief in an individual’s bodily integrity and personal autonomy is a religious belief or practice. Rather it seems to me, in the circumstances of this case, to be a belief in the secular concept referred to in section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.” [1]

Justice Cooke also agreed with the claim that the mandate impinged on the right to decline a medical procedure. [1]

The judge said that while it’s clear the government isn’t forcing Police and NZDF employees to get vaccinated against their will and they still have the right to refuse vaccination, the mandate presents an element of pressure. [1]

“The associated pressure to surrender employment involves a limit on the right to retain that employment, which the above principles suggest can be thought of as an important right or interest recognised not only in domestic law, but in the international instruments,” Justice Cooke stated. [1]

But in considering the two claims, Justice Cooke also considered whether or not the mandate fell within the definitions laid out in the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act. [1]

The court accepted that vaccination has a significant beneficial effect in limiting serious illness, hospitalisation, and death, including with the Omicron variant. However, it was less effective in reducing infection and transmission of Omicron than had been the case with other variants of Covid-19. [1]

“In essence, the order mandating vaccinations for police and NZDF staff was imposed to ensure the continuity of the public services, and to promote public confidence in those services, rather than to stop the spread of Covid-19. Indeed health advice provided to the government was that further mandates were not required to restrict the spread of Covid-19. I am not satisfied that continuity of these services is materially advanced by the order,” the Judge said. [1]
“Covid-19 clearly involves a threat to the continuity of police and NZDF services. That is because the Omicron variant in particular is so transmissible. But that threat exists for both vaccinated and unvaccinated staff. I am not satisfied that the order makes a material difference, including because of the expert evidence before the court on the effects of vaccination on Covid-19 including the Delta and Omicron variants.” [1]

An additional claim that the mandate would disproportionately affect Māori was dismissed by Justice Cooke. [1]

Aftermath

Nzherald.co.nz reports: The lawyer for the police and Defence staff at the centre of the claim is now calling for the suspended workers to return to their jobs immediately, saying many have given decades of service to their community and are still committed to their jobs. [1]

Response from the Plaintiffs

After overturning Police and Defence vaccine mandates in court, lawyer Matthew Hague, for 200-plus uniformed personnel has written to the Prime Minister today giving her till Friday to remove ‘discriminatory’ vaccine certificates too. [4]

“The Covid vaccination certificates requirement does not prevent or limit the risk of the outbreak or spread of Covid-19,” he wrote. “United We Stand ask that you immediately revoke the order or amend it to remove the Covid vaccination certificates requirement.”
“If the Covid vaccination certificates requirement is not removed by 4 March 2022, United We Stand has instructed us to apply for judicial review of the order.” [4]

He has also written to Police Commissioner Andrew Coster and Chief of Defence Air Marshal Kevin Short, saying it was not enough to just pause the termination processes. Those who have taken leave without pay should now be allowed to return to work, and those who resigned under threat of dismissal should be allowed to get their old jobs back. [4]

“Now that the High Court has determined that the order is unlawful and should be set aside, there is no basis for the ultimatum given to these workers. They must immediately be given the option of being reinstated with backpay.” [4]

Hague and Yardley confirmed there were ongoing discussions about the next steps – which may include the steeper legal challenge of suing the Government for damages. But first, they want an apology for the “enormous amount of harm” done to the officers and their families. [4]

The court heard evidence of 164 police, and 115 defence staff, who were still refusing to be vaccinated at the start of this month. It’s thought the full number of affected personnel (uniformed and civilian) is higher than that, because some simply resigned rather than face dismissal. [4]

Ryan Yardley told Newsroom that for him, a core principle of Christianity was accepting everyone – not discriminating against particular groups like those who refused to be vaccinated. Yardley said the mandates went against everything he believed in – his personal faith, and 25 years as a police officer adhering to the Bill of Rights. [4]

“To have something so fundamental stripped away from you, as that right to refuse any kind of medical treatment, just didn’t sit well. [4]

Response from the Defendant

It’s not immediately clear how many Police and Defence personnel, uniformed or civilian, may seek their jobs back. The police said they had retracted 42 termination letters – but acknowledged there were at least 100 more who had taken leave without pay, and more still who had resigned. [4]

Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Wood said the High Court judgment was clear that it was not questioning the efficacy of vaccines nor the role of mandates per se, but just whether they were justified specifically for Police and Defence business continuity. [4]

“As the decision has only just been released, we will take time to consider it and seek advice on next steps,” he said. “The requests for vaccination mandates originally came from Police and Defence, so before making any decision we will go back to them to assess the implications for their operations. [4]
“No Defence and Police terminations will proceed at this time. Affected staff in Police and Defence are being advised.” [4]