During a French TV show, Fenech was asked about the definition of a 'cult' and 'cultic abuse':
"We know what a cult is, in the common sense of the word. We know what it is ... it's a group that detaches itself... Ok. And a cultic abuse, a cultic abuse... today we have identified what a cultic abuse is ... It's a grouping which leads to what? To family breakups, to exorbitant financial demands, to dangerous therapeutic methods. It is organizations which are often in trouble with the law, which have an anti-social discourse. Here you have a number of criteria which allows us to intervene in order to exert an alert signal, and eventually take over the legal authority."Note that the mere existence of a "group" figures largely in Fenech's definition of 'cultic activity'.
Fenech himself was prevented from seeking re-election to the French parliament in 2008 due to his violation of campaign finance laws. He has also been implicated in the 'Falcone Affair' (weapons sales and smuggling to Angola). We believe there is a technical term for individuals who pretend to be crusaders in defense of some segment of society, all the while garnering money and power to themselves: 'snakes in suits'.
On November 10th, 2000, following the 1998 publication, in the Professional Association of Magistrates Review, of an article by Alain Terrail, the latter, as well as Georges FÃ ©nech as the director of the review, were judged guilty of "public racial insults". Terrail had written in the union's magazine: "LÃ ©vy goes to the oven so often, that in the end he ends up getting burnt", an attack against the Magistrate Albert LÃ ©vy. Levy, it would appear, is Jewish, hence the conclusion by the court that Fenech's sanctioning of an article referring to "ovens" and LÃ ©vy getting "burnt" was essentially racist. With the claim that anti-semitism is on the rise in France, it seems strange that French Jewish groups (as representatives of a minority religion) are not more pro-active in voicing concern about the policies of MIVILUDES and the attitude, approach and suitability of its president. One might even wonder about the 'attack' by MIVILUDES on Opus Dei, considering the barely-veiled pro-Catholic position of the former. Playing both sides against the middle perhaps?
The "Interro-Views"
'It's sounds like you're influencing 'Marie'' - 'you sound dangerous' - 'the way you live is strange' - 'is anyone at Sott.net HQ having sex?' - 'I'm Catholic and your meditation technique is blasphemous' - 'you're a cult' - 'people come and stay with you regularly, some people come and go, that's strange' - 'why do you buy gold?' - 'Anyone who buys gold believes in the end of the world' - 'why do you want to review the statement you made' - 'you're taking orders from someone, aren't you'
Given the fatuous nature of the questions and allegations thrown at our editors, we strongly suspect that the only information that the good Capitaine considers of interest to her investigation is the second-hand lies of the jilted Frenchman. Again, the fact that this source of the allegations is a man with a track record of violence against women, diagnosed by a court psychiatrist as having 'obsessive tendencies', is, apparently, of no consequence. And I can understand her position: after all, such considerations might threaten to ruin what has undoubtedly been, so far, a rather enjoyable 'witch-hunt'.
Jail House Rock
At the time of writing, I myself am supposed to be under interrogation, having been 'convoked' a few days ago. Here's the offending document:
The Toulouse police have such a nice way with words.
Do I really need to explain why I am ill-inclined to spend four hours being asked precisely the same questions and giving precisely the same answers that have already been asked of and answered by the four previous interviewees? What normal person would consent to such treatment?
Under the pretext of a 'friendly interview' where I would offer 'eye-witness testimony', I would instead be subjected to what amounts to hostile interrogation concerning allegations that are clearly (and provably) a pack of lies. So, am I really expected, or required by law, to lend the good Capitaine a hand in her apparent bid to 'fix the facts around the policy' - the 'policy' being that we are a 'cult' - hoping that if she just harasses us for long enough, someone will crack and 'spill the beans'? Is that the idea? Am I expected to willingly take part in an 'interview' where I would be challenged to prove negatives until the cows come home? 'When did you join the cult?' 'How many goats did you sacrifice on the altar this week?' 'Oh, and when did you stop beating your wife?'
The bottom line is this: the Police Judiciaire in Toulouse, and the honorable Capitaine, should have more than enough information (both that which they can discover on their own and that which we have already supplied - 8kgs of documentation and 16 hours of interviews) to conclude definitively that we have broken no laws and that the allegations against us are contemptible lies fabricated by a deviant individual. The only reasonable explanation I can think of for the good Capitaine requesting further personal 'interviews' is that, having found no evidence of a crime, she has decided to probe for 'thought crimes' or, in the terminology of MIVILUDES: 'wrong belief'.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
