The CICNS Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review on France, 2008

Proposal for the Universal Periodic Review of the United Nations

Second Session of the UPR Council, 5 to 16 May 2008

CICNS - individual UPR proposal - France - May 2008 (online at this address)

Key words: Anti-cult fight, excesses of the public authorities and the media, police violence, defamation, calumny, stigmatisation, religious hatred.

A Presentation of CICNS B Excesses of the anti-cult fight in France B.1 Law of exception of 2001 B.2 Violence of the forces of order on the basis of calumnious accusations B.3 Manipulation of the figures by the report of the parliamentary Commission of inquiry “cults and minors” of 2006 B.4 Constitution of lists of cult groups in the absence of convictions B.4.1 Recent revelations on the parliamentary list of 173 cults of 1996 B.4.2 List of cults in Paris in 2005 B.4.3 Project of new subsidised lists in Ile de France B.5 On the official incitement to denunciation and to the deprivation of individual liberties B.6 On the intention of preventing the persons defamed by the parliamentary reports from defending themselves B.7 On the aid granted to plaintiffs in trials against spiritual minorities B.8 The spectre of “the cult” in divorce judgments B.9 Refusal of a hall on the ground of being a “cult” B.10 On the point of view of members of the government concerning the spiritual minorities and their members C CICNS asks for the creation of an Independent Observatory of the Spiritual Minorities in France D Conclusion in the words of a French senator in 2007 A Presentation of CICNS

CICNS is an association born of the observation that spiritual orientations and practices have, in France, for several years, been mistreated by the tendentious amalgams of a discriminatory crusade against the new expressions of spiritual search. The objective of CICNS is to have spiritual search respected in all its diversity and to put an end to the unacceptable association made daily between spiritual movements and criminality or mental manipulation. The term “cult” sums up, for the general public, this odious amalgam. CICNS is linked to no movement qualified as a “cult” nor does it represent any particular spiritual tendency. [1]

B Excesses of the anti-cult fight in France

B.1 Law of exception of 2001

The action of anti-cultism has been deployed since 2001 within the framework of the so-called “About-Picard” law, voted “to reinforce the prevention and repression of cult movements”. (To read also: an analysis by the historian Patrice Rolland at http://assr.revues.org/docannexe2449.html and an analysis by Me Philippe Pérollier at /library/cicns/loi2001/).

B.2 Violence of the forces of order on the basis of calumnious accusations

For about twenty-five years, amid general ignorance or indifference, individuals, families or associations have undergone assaults by the national police or the gendarmerie of great brutality, on the basis of the simple accusation, which generally proves calumnious, of being a “cult” (an accusation generally originating with the French anti-cult associations UNADFI and CCMM or their affiliates). Violent searches are carried out early in the morning, in front of traumatised children, and numerous irregularities come to light each time (see the affairs below). The psychological consequences of this kind of barbarous assault are one of the most painful aspects of these interventions. See the detail of these assaults on this page /library/cicns/assauts/. CICNS has been able to note, through the testimonies gathered, that the members of spiritual minorities lived through a veritable trauma in these brutal situations. The disproportion between the means used by the forces of order and the daily reality of the victims of these assaults produces shocks with persistent after-effects. The police or gendarmerie services are prepared to meet terrorists and criminals when they have before them inoffensive and peaceful people. This mismatch, a direct consequence of disinformation and of the witch-hunt, is at the origin of many dramatic excesses.

B.3 Manipulation of the figures by the report of the parliamentary Commission of inquiry “cults and minors” of 2006

A parliamentary commission of inquiry on the theme of the cults and minors delivered its report in December 2006. In the space of three months, the figures advanced by this Commission varied fivefold without any serious analysis coming to corroborate these declarations. M. Georges Fenech, president of the Commission, estimated on 28 June 2006 “at nearly 20,000 the number of children present in cults” [2]. M. Emmannuel Jancovici, project officer on dérives sectaires at the Ministry of Health and Solidarities and member of the operational executive steering Committee of the MIVILUDES [3], declares at his hearing on 12 July 2006 that “perhaps more than 100,000 young people would be concerned” [4]. Later, M. Fenech “recalls” to AFP on 6 September 2006 that “estimates set between 60 and 80,000 the number of children concerned by the cult phenomenon”. (See here the true figures, which can be counted on the fingers of two hands)

B.4 Constitution of lists of cult groups in the absence of convictions

B.4.1 Recent revelations on the parliamentary list of 173 cults of 1996

Yves Bertrand, Director General of the Renseignements Généraux service from 1992 to 2003, recognises that in 1996 “certain groups found themselves a little hastily saddled with the term cult”. He had collaborated actively in providing “information” to the deputies of the commission of inquiry which produced the famous parliamentary report on the cults of 1996. Although this report has no legal value, it has been much used, and it is interesting to discover the point of view of someone who now occupies a post at the General Inspectorate of the Administration, in his book “Je ne sais rien mais je dirai (presque) tout” (éditions Plon): “It is correct that the Renseignements Généraux contributed to nourishing the reflection of the parliamentary commission of inquiry which, in 1996, delivered a very harsh report on the question, cataloguing no fewer than 172 movements qualified as cult-like…. Beside authentic and dangerous cults, practising the deschooling of children, the abuse of weakness, indeed paedophilia, certain groups found themselves a little hastily saddled with the term cult. The semantics itself ought to be modified. The term cult was forged at a period when Catholicism and Protestantism constituted the dominant norm and when it was a matter, in a way, of stigmatising the Christian heresies. Should it be used so easily today? I sincerely doubt it. (…) One has the right to criticise Scientology or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but must one for all that transform them into the devil? I even think that by placing on the same plane certain societies of thought and authentic cult movements which alienate the liberty of their members, one arrives at the opposite of the aim sought. Under the pretext of protecting freedom of conscience, one prevents citizens from embracing the beliefs of their choice, which is the contrary of a well-understood laïcité…” Raphaël Liogier, director of the Observatory of the religious and university professor at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques of Aix-en-Provence (interview carried out by CICNS in 2006) (Explanations are demanded): “‘But by what right do you say it is a cult?’; ‘It is on the list’; ‘But the list is not legally binding’; ‘Yes, but here, we use it all the same’. By using this list, that means her religious affiliation will not be considered as such, so one has the right not to give her the contract on the pretext that she belongs to this movement. I do not know if you imagine to what point that is discriminating and fundamentally unjust. And she can do nothing. The only thing she can do is wait until all the remedies of our fine country are exhausted - I do not know how many years - to be able to go before the European Court which, obviously, will find in her favour.”

B.4.2 List of cults in Paris in 2005

In 2005, Mme Anne Hidalgo, first deputy at the Paris City Hall, presents her project with pride: “We first of all carried out an inventory of the cult movements in the capital, and I thank moreover the APUR [5], which produced a cartography that we distributed in the arrondissements, to the arrondissement mayors, and which is very useful since it makes it possible to identify the best-known locations of the cult movements operating in Paris.” The fact of offering the general public the localisation of the “cults”, as if they were the lairs of dangerous terrorists, besides being entirely arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of a democracy, is an incitement to violence and hatred. According to a communiqué of the French leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in 2006: “A worrying upsurge in acts of vandalism against the places of worship of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is being observed, 78 Kingdom Halls having suffered acts of vandalism since the beginning of the year.” [6]

B.4.3 Project of new subsidised lists in Ile de France

In order to fight the cults, the Ile de France Region is supporting the drawing up of a census of “groups sheltering behind the screen of gentle medicines”. On the pretext that “unscrupulous gurus, disguised as therapists, Yoga teachers or clairvoyants, prey to the detriment of fragile persons and of professionals. To fight against the menace of the moral, intellectual and financial fraud of these cult associations, it has become essential to catalogue the groups acting on the themes of health and personal development.” That is the work the Association for the Defence of Families and the Individual (ADFI) intends to conduct in Île-de-France. The Region grants it a subsidy of 17,000 € a year for three years to carry out this study, which will make it possible to know better the practices of these groups and their location in Île-de-France. With the assistance of a doctor and a psychologist, the association should manage to list about a hundred groups per programme year.

B.5 On the official incitement to denunciation and to the deprivation of individual liberties

In the advice sheet “Conflict with the cults” of the Ministry of the Interior, one can read: “If no direct action against the cult is possible, or if you do not wish to use it: try to dialogue with the person who belongs to it and who is close to you. If this person cannot be reasoned with, and if she makes a significant financial contribution to the cult, you can have her placed under guardianship, curatorship or judicial protection. If these measures are not applicable, you can have recourse to the protection of the adult of sound mind provided for by article 488 paragraph 3 of the civil code.” In the MIVILUDES Guide “L’entreprise face au risque sectaire” (2007), pages 51-52: The MIVILUDES brought out in 2007 a new guide, intended for all the actors of economic life, to sensitise managers and employees to cult risks. One can read in this work a list of suspect words which the reader is invited to associate with the idea of dérive sectaire. “The list below, non-exhaustive, catalogues terms or words which must trigger an immediate questioning on the part of those responsible for the economic security of companies”:

• self-accomplishment; - energetic impeccability; - atmosphere of enthusiasm; - well-being; - knowledge capital; - coaching; - confidence; - self-knowledge; - awareness of the breath; - mental control; - total conviction; - disinterestedness; - personal development; - devotion; - enrichment; - flourishing; - self-esteem; - avoidance of conflicts; - social evolution; - management of relational life; - psychic heredity; - self-valorisation; - interior void. Such a list of words, objectively positive in themselves, can only engender ever more mistrust and fear towards every alternative spiritual, therapeutic or educational approach, and add to the climate of defamation and denunciation towards the persons practising these approaches.

B.6 On the intention of preventing the persons defamed by the parliamentary reports from defending themselves

The law of 20 July 1991, by making the hearings of parliamentary commissions public, aimed to ensure the transparency of public action, thus giving citizens a right of oversight over the work of their elected representatives. Who says right of oversight says equally the right to contradict and to denounce defamation, insult and outrage. The citizen can then turn to the judicial power if an offence is committed in the framework of a parliamentary commission. But this separation of powers can prove inconvenient. Certain declarations by persons who testified before the last parliamentary commission of inquiry on the cults and minors gave rise to complaints for defamation. These uncomfortable consequences led to a bill, presented on 5 November by Bernard Accoyer (UMP), which would grant witnesses heard by parliamentary commissions of inquiry “a partial immunity having legislative value, since identical to that which article 41 of the law of 29 July 1881 on the freedom of the press attributes to persons called to testify before the courts.”. It comprises a single article, which could “take the form of a new paragraph inserted into article 6 (…) of the ordinance of 17 November 1958”: “No action for defamation, insult or outrage shall lie, either for the statements made or writings produced by a person required to testify before a commission of inquiry, or for the record of the public sittings of these commissions made in good faith.” In wishing to give commissions of inquiry the status of a court, this bill is not without recalling a reflection of Catherine Picard, president of UNADFI: “Another major problem: the judges always ask for proof of what is reported, denounced. That is normal, obviously. Even possessing the leaders’ manuals and the courses given to followers, one sometimes has difficulty bringing proof of what we denounce. Whence the necessity for us of training experts, scientists able to back us up in various procedures.” (Ouest France, Monday 19 November 2007)

B.7 On the aid granted to plaintiffs in trials against spiritual minorities

CICNS has noted that the legal costs of at least two persons were covered by the ADFIs (anti-cult associations subsidised by the State) on at least two occasions: (“The costs of the second phase are covered to the tune of 800 euros by UNADFI.. thank you!)”, for M. Xavier Martin-Dupont (source) and “Let us say I had the great fortune of being supported financially by the ADFI as a victim of a cult” for Mme Dominique Saint-Hilaire (source)

B.8 The spectre of “the cult” in divorce judgments

Twenty years of media hammering have conditioned French public opinion to think that “the cult is evil”. Thus, despite the judgment of the ECHR [7] and despite the absence of proof and of foundation for a legitimate accusation, it is frequent today for a parent to be refused custody of his children on the basis of his membership of a religious minority. The competent researchers and jurists questioned on the subject testify to it: the exploitation of this inexhaustible seam by angry spouses is at the origin of a legal catastrophe on a grand scale. ”(…) Behind this collective phobia, a plethora of trials which have no connection, such as divorces, where one side accuses the other of being in cults. There is the balance sheet, a totally disastrous balance sheet.” (Me Bernard Biro, lawyer) “In case of divorce, the lawyers very often play on the famous list of the cults, which, it seems, has no legal value but is nevertheless frequently used, and use this list of the cults to withdraw, for example, custody of the children from a father or a mother who belongs to one of these groups called cults.” (Anne Morelli, historian) “I looked beyond the classic Churches, at other religious movements. There, I saw innumerable cases of religious discrimination (…). I saw divorce judgments rendered solely on the basis of the report of membership of a cult.” (Pastor Dominique Kounkou, sociologist) “When a person practises a spirituality, the member of the couple who does not practise that spirituality (…) will in most cases attack on that point. Why? Because his lawyer will advise him, saying: ‘There we have a good springboard, we have a fine case.’ (…) And all the emphasis is put on it.” (Christian Paturel, former lawyer) Several testimonies gathered by CICNS reveal the suffering of hundreds of people, victims of a vengeance made easy, as well as the unacceptable complicity of the media and of certain magistrates in affairs that would demand much more circumspection. (see our video clip at http://www.cicns.net/Divorce_Sectes.htm)

B.9 Refusal of a hall on the ground of being a “cult”

“The association Ami is refused a hall at Guillaumes after those responsible for the venue consulted the anti-cult sites recommended by UNADFI. The association AMI asked ‘CAP Vacances’ of Guillaumes for a hall to organise a yoga course. CAP Vacances finally refused, invoking articles describing AMI as a cult on the sites of UNADFI, Antisectes and Prevensectes. The association AMI asked Me Jean-Pierre Joseph for advice on having these allegations removed from the sites concerned, and says it is ready to file a complaint. It has no animosity against the CAP Vacances centre, which it considers simply a victim of the ambient disinformation, and wishes solely to file a complaint against the sites which diffuse calumnies about it.” (at http://www.cicns.net/spiritualite-reaction-10.htm)

B.10 On the point of view of members of the government concerning the spiritual minorities and their members

According to the secretary of State for victims, the spiritual minorities are a “delicate pathology”. (http://www.cicns.net/PathologieDelicate.htm)

C CICNS asks for the creation of an Independent Observatory of the Spiritual Minorities in France

See http://www.cicns.net/Observatoire_Independant_des_Minorites_Spirituelles_Projet.htm.

Note that CICNS does not wish to become this observatory and will withdraw from the project as soon as it is created. CICNS has, moreover, initiated a citizens’ commission of inquiry (CEC) in order to evaluate the real criminality of the spiritual minorities in France (See the page of our site devoted to it http://www.cicns.net/CEC.htm). Our association has assembled a voluminous file of 251 pages of testimonies of excesses submitted to it in recent years. To support our proposal, this document can be sent in paper format to anyone wishing to consult it.

D Conclusion in the words of a French senator in 2007

Written question no. 02438 of M. Jean-Louis Masson (Moselle - NI) published in the JO Sénat of 08/11/2007 - page 2018:

M. Jean-Louis Masson draws the attention of the Minister of the Interior, Overseas Territories and Territorial Authorities to the share of subjectivity that exists in the difference between the notion of the cult and that of religion. No legislative or regulatory provision specifies this difference. Historical examples and current comparisons from one country to another confirm moreover this subjective dimension. Thus at the origin, the first Christians were considered a particularly dangerous cult which had to be repressed. Likewise today, many European countries consider that the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Church of Scientology are religions (Spain has notably just conferred the status of religion on the Church of Scientology). Now in France, many politicians make the fight against the cults an electoral stock in trade. He would like to know whether, given the criteria of public liberty retained in the framework of the international agreements signed by France (International Convention on Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights…), there is not a risk that one day France will be prosecuted by reason of the excesses of the anti-cult fight. In particular, these excesses risk sooner or later leading to certain religions being arbitrarily assimilated to cults and made victims of various retaliations in total contradiction with the great principles of freedom of religion and freedom of thought inherited from the French Revolution. More generally, certain religions can lead as much as the cults to grave attacks on persons (abuse of minors on the part of cults, but also the application of sharia by Muslim fundamentalists…). He asks whether, rather than drawing up blacklists or creating an arbitrary and imprecise distinction between cult and religion, it would not be preferable to repress excesses in the objective sense of the term, while for the rest leaving believers, and notably adult believers, totally free to adhere to and practise the belief that suits them. [8]

Annex

Hearing of the representatives of the ministries before the parliamentary commission of inquiry on the cults and minors

From June to December 2006

A parliamentary commission of inquiry on the theme of the cults delivered its report in December 2006 [9]. It aimed to evaluate “the influence of movements of a cult character and the consequences of their practices on the physical and mental health of minors” [10]. In the space of three months, the figures advanced by the Commission to justify its existence varied fivefold without any serious analysis coming to corroborate these declarations. M. Georges Fenech, president of the Commission, estimates on 28 June 2006 “at nearly 20,000 the number of children present in cults” [11]. M. Emannuel Jancovici, project officer on dérives sectaires at the Ministry of Health and Solidarities and member of the operational executive steering Committee of the MIVILUDES [12], declares at his hearing before the commission, on 12 July 2006, that “perhaps more than 100,000 young people would be concerned” [13]. Later, M. Fenech “recalls” to AFP on 6 September 2006 that “estimates set between 60 and 80,000 the number of children concerned by the cult phenomenon”.

Here however is the reality on the ground as it was presented during the hearings (but not reported by the media):

M. Joël Bouchité, central director of the renseignements généraux of the Ministry of the Interior and Territorial Development (record of the sitting of 4 October 2006): “In any event, 60,000 children across the whole national territory seems to me a lot. In our relations on the ground, in the prefectures, with national education, the DDASS, the holiday centres and all the bodies dealing with youth, we never have to do with 60,000 reports, nor even 30,000, but at the very most a few dozen…”

M. Michel Rispel, head of the bureau of international civil and commercial mutual assistance at the Ministry of Justice: “There is to this day no open file, among the some five hundred files in stock, in which there are allegations of ‘cult’ membership.”

M. Michel Gaudin, director general of the national police (record of the sitting of 11 October 2006): “I have the feeling that the phenomenon, though worrying in certain individual cases, where children are concerned, is not a form of delinquency of a scale that should generate too much worry.” General Guy Parayre, director general of the national gendarmerie (Record of the sitting of 4 October 2006): “The associations interested in the ‘cults’ sometimes advance that 20,000 minors could be under the influence of ‘cult movements’. The absence of a norm for delimiting with precision the situation from which it is reasonable to speak of the involvement of these minors in the movements obliges one however to take this figure with precaution. In any event, even if they constitute only the emerged part of the phenomenon, the affairs treated by the gendarmerie stand at a level far below these estimates: since 2004, only thirty-seven proceedings have been instituted by the gendarmerie units.”

M. Thierry-Xavier Girardot, director of legal affairs at the Ministry of National Education, Higher Education and Research (record of the sitting of 10 October 2006): M. Thierry-Xavier GIRARDOT: “The cell for the prevention of ‘cult’ phenomena prepared a quantitative assessment for the most recent period: number of controls carried out, number of formal notices to school, etc. I do not know whether we have data for the whole period since the promulgation of the law, but over the past year, we counted a little fewer than 3,000 children instructed in the family, carried out 1,119 controls of which 23 ended in a formal notice to school the child in an educational establishment, generally not for motives linked to dérives sectaires, but quite simply because the education dispensed by the family did not answer the requirements of the 1999 decree, now codified in the regulatory part of the education code.” M. George Fenech, President: “Of these twenty-three children, how many exactly were concerned by the ‘cult’ phenomenon?” M. Thierry-Xavier GIRARDOT: “I am not sure there was a single one…”

M. Didier Leschi, Head of the central Bureau of religions, Ministry of the Interior: “I therefore asked, at a MIVILUDES steering committee, that an inquiry be launched among the regional hospitalisation agencies and the hospitals in order to catalogue, as the case might be, the facts constituting disturbances of public order linked to the refusal of blood transfusion. The representative of the Ministry of Health within the bodies of the MIVILUDES indicated to us, at the time, that this census was impossible because, for fear of proceedings, hospital officials would hesitate to report the disturbances of public order. This explanation seems flimsy to me, especially if the lives of thousands of children are at stake. The figure of 45,000 children of Jehovah’s Witnesses has sometimes been advanced. Hospital officials are protected by their status and have the obligation to report criminal facts to the public prosecutor. With a view to this hearing, I asked the prefectures to catalogue, over the last three years, the incidents linked to transfusion. A small number of incidents came back, often settled by discussion. No incident calling into question children, or the vital prognosis, was recorded.” Source: Report no. 3507 registered at the Presidency of the National Assembly on 12 December 2006. Summary of the hearings - page 446

Hearing of Jean-Yves Dupuis, Inspector general, Ministry of National Education, Tuesday 10 October 2006: “In preparation for our hearing by your commission of inquiry, we very rapidly carried out an inquiry among all the academy inspectors. During the past school year, the academy inspectors or the rectors made 19,000 reports to the public prosecutors, concerning children considered to be in danger, for various reasons. When we asked the academy inspectors which, among these children in danger, were so because of ‘cult’ movements, they answered us that there were eight.” Source: Report no. 3507 registered at the Presidency of the National Assembly on 12 December 2006. Summary of the hearings - page 348

Hearing of Mme Sancy, bureau of judicial affairs of legislation, director of the judicial protection of youth, Ministry of Justice, Tuesday 3 October 2006: “Three years ago, we carried out, among the children’s judges, an inquiry so as to be able, we too, to grasp somewhat statistically what the cult problematic could represent in the work of the magistrates and educators, and we noticed that it was very marginal compared with all the other problems our directorate is led to manage for these same minors, namely the problems of violence, deschooling, professional insertion, family difficulties.” Source: Report no. 3507 registered at the Presidency of the National Assembly on 12 December 2006. Summary of the hearings - page 288

Hearing of Etienne Madranges, director of youth and popular Education, Ministry of Youth, Sports and Associative Life, Tuesday 18 October 2006: “The ministry has put in place, at national level, a cell, which is coordinated by an inspector general. He regularly brings together representatives of the directorates of youth, sports and associative life. He hears experts, summons departmental directors, and makes sure the ministry’s prevention policy is properly implemented. At local level, we have put in place in each department a correspondent. These correspondents pass information up. But that does not suffice. We regularly bring together the regional directors of youth and sports.(…) The passing up of information goes through the correspondents, but also through our inspectors, who inspect sports establishments, holiday centres and leisure facilities. Statistically, in the youth field, we have very few pieces of information coming up. (…) But we go and inspect. Statistically, over the last three years, we have not had a case where we could demonstrate a deliberate endangering of minors.” Source: Report no. 3507 registered at the Presidency of the National Assembly on 12 December 2006. Summary of the hearings - page 459

Hearing of Françoise Le Bihan, deputy director of the service for French nationals abroad and Foreigners in France (DFAE), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tuesday 17 October 2006: Mme Françoise LE BIHAN: “Our service is in charge of everything concerning the consular protection of French nationals abroad, and therefore of children. So it is within the whole perimeter of our actions that I sought those that could interest your mission. For that, I distinguished illicit removals of children, forced marriages which can concern minors, the aid we are led to bring to French children in distress residing abroad. In this vast whole, I found trace of only two cases presenting a link with ‘cult’ behaviour: the first, which is situated in Canada and which made headlines, is that of Mme Getliffe and her children; the second, for which I do not wish to give a name, concerns the father of a child whose mother took him to Switzerland. (…)” M. le Président: “You have not been seized of reports of children removed to ashrams in India?” Mme Françoise LE BIHAN: “No. For the two services together which compose our directorate, one of which concerns itself with the invocation of judicial cooperation conventions and the other with strict consular protection, there have been no cases other than the two I have just cited.”

[1] See the CICNS charter at http://www.cicns.net/Charte.htm [2] Report No. 3179 of the National Assembly at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/rapports/r3179.asp [3] Interministerial Mission of Vigilance and Combat against Dérives Sectaires [4] Le Monde, 17.07.06 [5] Atelier Parisien d’Urbanisme. [6] http://www.temoinsdejehovah.org/page.aspx?REF=6138a6aa-16d3-401a-833e-e83ff3be0aa8 [7] In 2003, the European Court of Human Rights had ordered the French State to pay 10,000 euros in moral damages and 4,125 euros for costs and expenses for having refused a mother custody of her two children because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. http://www.cicns-news.net/communiques_presse_sectes_divorce_114.htm [8] http://www.senat.fr

[9] Parliamentary report no. 3507 at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/rap-enq/r3507.asp

[10] According to M. Geoges Fenech, quoted by AFP: “Our aim is to inform the public authorities and opinion in general, and probably to make proposals for legislative reform.” (Georges Fenech to AFP, 6 September 2006)

[11] Report No. 3179 of the National Assembly at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/rapports/r3179.asp

[12] Report No. 3179 of the National Assembly at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/rapports/r3179.asp

[13] Le Monde, 17.07.06

---