Brussels, [Current Date] – The European Council has chosen to extend its ranging sanctions, against Russia, for an additional six months due to the ongoing aggression and destabilizing actions by Russia in Ukraine. These measures, which were initiated in 2014 and amplified after Russia’s aggression in February 2022, will remain effective until January 31, 2025.
These sanctions are among the responses ever crafted by the EU. They cover sectors such as trade, finance, technology, dual use goods, industry, transport and luxury items. A key measure involves prohibiting the import or transfer of oil and specific petroleum products from Russia to the EU. This significantly impacts the revenue for funding military activities.
An aspect of the sanctions is isolating the economy financially. Several major Russian banks have been disconnected from the SWIFT payment system to disrupt transactions and economic stability, in Russia. In addition, the European Union has taken action, against media outlets supported by the Kremlin that play a role in spreading information, suspending their broadcast licenses to limit the circulation of misleading narratives across Europe.
Moreover, the sanctions are crafted to be flexible and resilient against any attempts to evade them. Specific strategies have been implemented to detect and prevent any endeavors to work around the imposed limitations, ensuring that the sanctions remain effective over a period.
Continued Violations and International Law
The European Council has stressed that it is justifiable to uphold these sanctions as Russia persists in actions that violate international law, particularly regarding the prohibition on using force. These actions represent a breach of standards and responsibilities warranting an ongoing and possibly escalated response from the global community.
Historical. Broadening Measures
The initial set of sanctions began with Decision 2014/512/CFSP approved on July 31, 2014 in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, such as the annexation of Crimea. Over time, these measures have expanded to encompass a range. In addition to sector sanctions, the EU has imposed controls on economic dealings with Crimea, Sevastopol and areas in Ukraine’s Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia regions not, under government control.
Sanctions, like freezing assets and imposing travel restrictions, have been enforced on various individuals and organizations connected to the actions.
Since February 24, 2022, the EU has implemented 14 sets of sanctions in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. These actions are notably extensive and intense, reflecting the seriousness of the situation and the EU’s dedication to countering aggression.
EU’s Support for Ukraine
In its conclusions from June 27, 2024, the European Council reaffirmed its backing for Ukraine‘s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity within recognized boundaries. The EU’s support encompasses financial, economic, humanitarian aid along with diplomatic assistance. The Council strongly condemned Russia’s escalated attacks targeting civilians and critical infrastructure like energy facilities.
The European Union’s choice to extend sanctions highlights its position against activities that threaten global peace and security. By prolonging these measures, the EU aims to maintain pressure on Russia while advocating for a resolution in line, with law.
The White House, and United States Senate, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
In a turn of events in American politics, President Joe Biden has announced that he will not seek re-election in 2024. His announcement, shared on the media this Sunday afternoon, gives Donald Trump a significant edge in the upcoming presidential race.
Concerns about Biden’s ability to lead another campaign at the age of 81 came to a head after a televised debate with Trump on June 27 during which Biden displayed signs of cognitive fatigue. Following this, prominent Democrats, including former President Barack Obama, openly called for Biden to step aside.
In a message posted online, Biden stated:
“Serving as your president has been the greatest honor of my life. And while it has been my intention to run for re-election, I believe that the best course of action for my party and the country is for me to step aside and focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.”
Biden’s choice was also influenced by recent public blunders during events and appearances, such as at the NATO summit marking its 75th anniversary where he mistakenly referred to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as “President Putin” and his own Vice President Kamala Harris, as “Vice President Trump.”
The pressure reached its peak when a notable opinion piece by George Clooney, a supporter of the Democratic Party was published in the ‘New York Times’ suggesting that Biden might face challenges in his race against time.
The situation became more complex when Biden tested positive for COVID-19, leading to his recovery at his home in Delaware. Despite plans by the Democratic Party to secure his nomination through a virtual vote before the Chicago convention, Biden eventually decided to step back.
Biden’s withdrawal has triggered discussions about who will succeed him. Vice President Kamala Harris appears to be a contender and could potentially make history as the first female President of the United States. Nonetheless, other notable Democrats like California Governor Gavin Newsom and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer have also emerged as candidates.
This turn of events marks a moment in American politics as the Democratic Party faces uncertainty just months before the 2024 elections. The repercussions of this withdrawal could have far-reaching effects, on both the domestic political landscape and global power dynamics.
The European Union takes good note of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in respect of the “Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”, reaching the following conclusions:
the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful and needs to be brought to an end as rapidly as possible;
the State of Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
all States are under an obligation not to recognise as legal this situation and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by this unlawful presence.
These conclusions are largely consistent with EU positions, which are themselves fully aligned on UN resolutions regarding the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
In a world of constant and increasing violations of international law, it is our moral duty to reafirm our unwavering commitment to all ICJ decisions in a consistent manner, irrespective of the subject in question.
The ICJ Advisory Opinion will need to be analysed more thoroughly, including in view of its implications for EU policy.
Journalistic ethics is a delicate subject. There is such a need to protect the press from various forms of interference, and to preserve its freedom, that very often, any criticism of a journalist or a press service is perceived as an attempt to muzzle his or her speech. And this is often the case. Laws protecting journalists’ freedom are necessary. But what about ethical lapses? Should we refrain from criticizing them to avoid weakening the profession, already too often decried?
On the contrary. Respect for ethical rules is the best protection journalists can offer themselves. Every time one of us violates an ethical rule, the whole profession is weakened. That’s why it’s so important to promote the ethics of the journalistic profession, and not let the excesses of some of us go unchallenged.
In France, there’s a national public service TV channel (i.e. owned by the state) called France 2. Every evening of the week, you can watch the 8 p.m. news program, which broadcasts the day’s news and various reports. Within this newscast, reports are broadcast under the title “L’œil du 20h” (The Eye of the 8 o’clock), which presents itself as an “investigative program with an offbeat take on current affairs”. It’s two reports from “L’œil du 20h” that have caught my attention in recent months, not so much for the themes chosen, but rather for the immoderate use of techniques that may raise ethical issues.
The first, broadcast on November 20, 2023, is entitled “who are the new climate activists”, subtitled “radicalizing ecologists”. The second, more recent report, broadcast on June 26, 2024, is entitled “Undercover in Scientology“. While the two targets of these reports, environmental activists and Scientologists, don’t seem to have much in common (although it’s conceivable that there are Scientologist environmentalists and vice versa), they do share a characteristic relevant to our article: in France, both are facing a certain hostility from a fringe of the current government.
Hidden cameras, false identities and ethics
The two reports on France 2 also have in common the use of techniques which, with a few exceptions, are forbidden by the codes of journalistic ethics in force around the world. These codes are diverse and there are many of them (each press service often has its own code of ethics), but a small number of them are widely accepted by the profession in Europe: the Munich Charter, signed on November 24, 1971 and adopted by the European Federation of Journalists, and the Charter of Professional Ethics for Journalists, drafted in 1918 and amended in 2011. At international level, the main code is the International Federation of Journalists’ Worldwide Charter of Ethics for Journalists, adopted in 2019 in Tunis.
The techniques discussed here are mainly the use of hidden cameras and investigation under a false identity, while concealing one’s status as a journalist. On these points, the Charter of Professional Ethics for Journalists is strict: it prohibits the use of unfair means to obtain information, and only the safety of the journalist or that of his sources, or the seriousness of the facts, can justify concealing one’s status as a journalist, in which case an explanation must be given to the public. The Munich Charter is even stricter, prohibiting the use of “unfair methods to obtain information, photographs and documents”. Finally, the Tunis Worldwide Ethics Charter opens up the field of possibilities by stating that “The journalist will not use unfair methods to obtain information, images, documents and data. He/she will always state that he/she is a journalist, and will refrain from using hidden recordings of images and sounds, unless the gathering of information of general interest proves manifestly impossible for him/her in such a case.”
Up in arms over environmental activists
Meeting of “Dernière Rénovation” filmed undercover with a hidden camera
In the first report on environmental activists, journalist Lorraine Poupon attacked the environmental movements Extinction Rebellion and Dernière Rénovation, without naming them but they are easily recognizable. The report begins with “the Minister of the Interior designates them as a new threat”, followed by an extract from a speech by the Minister of the Interior, Gérald Darmanin: “This is ecoterrorism.” The tone is set. Then the journalist indicates that she has infiltrated (integrated) one of these organizations. This is followed by a sequence in which the undercover journalist uses a hidden camera to film a meeting of the Dernière Rénovation movement, during which we see a person described as “a young woman given a two-month suspended prison sentence for vandalism” (the one you might think was a violent delinquent had in fact only thrown paint on a Ministry of the Interior building, which the report fails to specify).
Then a second infiltration, this time of a meeting organized by Extinction Rebellion in Marseille, again using a hidden camera. The topic is non-violent civil disobedience. When a lecturer explains that the instruction in the event of arrest is to reply “I have nothing to declare”, an instruction often repeated by criminal lawyers to all their clients, the journalist comments: “The trainers clearly evoke their distrust of the police”. While the journalist’s editorial freedom allows her to make such comments, the question is more delicate when it is a public service channel that relays in this way the discourse of the Ministry of the Interior on a movement that could be described as political, when the neutrality of the service is the rule. But above all, what about the use of hidden cameras and the concealment of one’s status as a journalist?
Public meetings, so easily accessible information
The Marseille meeting organized by Extinction Rebellion was a public meeting. So there was no need to “infiltrate” to obtain information about what was being said. The Dernière Rénovation meeting was also held in the open at theAcadémie du Climat, within the Paris City Hall. Once again, there was no need for a hidden camera. Gathering information was easy, with no need to resort to disloyal techniques. As for safety or “the seriousness of the facts”, we fail to see how the journalist’s safety could have been compromised, and we are still looking for serious facts that the journalist would have wanted to cover. The report makes no mention of this, and “civil disobedience”, which can sometimes border on the illegal, is in any case freely explained on the websites of the movements concerned.
Contacted for this article, Eva Morel, co-president of Quota Climat, an organization that seeks to “bring the ecological emergency onto the media agenda”, tells us that ” beyond the cameras, it’s a set of caricatured sequences that pose a problem in this report:applause for an environmental activist leaving police custody at the Académie du Climat without mentioning the rest of the purely peaceful and legal activities taking place there, enigmatic music inviting the viewer to think that this place is hiding shenanigans when everyone has access to it, etc.“
Nicolas Turcev, journalist and press relations manager for Dernière Rénovation, says he has not been contacted by France 2, even though the editors have his contact details. When contacted, he refers us to the interview he gave for Arrêt Sur Image: “The excerpt which was captured is a statement that we assume to be true, and that we can say to any journalist on a set with our face uncovered. There’s a recourse to these methods just to give an anxiety-inducing tone to the report, which didn’t need one since we’re available and speaking with our faces uncovered.” He adds that the “blurred faces prevent the viewer from identifying” with the filmed ecologists, who are then “hardly humanized, even though they are people with a very thoughtful, political, civic commitment”.
Disturbing silences
Loris Guémart, a journalist with Arrêt sur Image, points out that the report was silent on the Conseil d’Etat ruling which overturned the Interior Minister’s decision to dissolve the environmental association Les Soulèvements de la Terre. This decision had been handed down some ten days before the broadcast of the report, and some saw in the report a revenge on the part of the Ministry, which had not appreciated the decision of the Conseil d’État. He explains that it would have been appropriate not to overlook the fact that the supreme court had ruled that Les Soulèvements de la Terre did not incite, either explicitly or implicitly, “violent acts likely to seriously disturb public order”. A journalist on assignment for a ministry, in a vengeance operation through a state media like France 2?
In addition, while the 8 o’clock news reporter should have given an “explanation to the public” on the reasons for using such unfair techniques, not only did she refrain from doing so, but she also failed to explain why she didn’t simply ask the representatives of these movements to speak on camera. For Eva Morel, “the majority of the spokespeople for these organizations are indeed public and even media figures, so it seems odd that they didn’t speak out”.
Infiltration, concealment and hidden cameras in a Scientology church
The second report sets the tone right from the title: “Infiltration into Scientology”. In Paris, the Church of Scientology recently inaugurated its new headquarters a stone’s throw from the Stade de France (France Stadium), the venue for the Olympic Games. This made the headlines and certainly piqued the curiosity of l’Œil du 20h.
Grand opening of the Church of Scientology in Paris, April 2024
But we’re still looking in vain for the reasons that might have prompted the journalist to use tricks to get her information. Whatever one may think of the Church of Scientology, it’s hard to imagine Scientologists deciding to beat up a journalist who came to interview them. In fact, there are many examples of journalists and Scientologists meeting on the Internet these days, and politeness, courtesy and decorum are the order of the day.
How serious are the facts? Well, here again, it’s hard to find evidence of anything serious in the report. The most serious thing for the journalist seems to be that “the speech given to people in pain can be surprising”. As proof of this, she points out that “being treated by a psychiatrist or taking an antidepressant would not be appropriate care, according to this volunteer at the center”. However, the blurred “volunteer” in question replies that “It’s just the opposite of what we do. If the person decides to go into psychiatry, that’s their choice.” He adds that it’s just “totally incompatible” with Scientology. It’s a far cry from any kind of subversive discourse… Apart from that, nothing factual. Our infiltrator seems well received, she’s well taken care of, and will leave free and in great form.
A request for a post-infiltration shoot – lies on screen
But as soon as the report begins, an explanation is given: “To get inside, we made an official request to film, which was refused”. So, “to get through the doors of this center, I went undercover with a hidden camera for several weeks. I presented myself as an unemployed thirty-something looking for meaning in her life”. We can deduce from this that, having been refused permission to film inside the building, our journalist felt she had no other way of reporting the images than to sneak in and film without the Scientologists’ knowledge. This is ethically problematic in more ways than one. Firstly, the right to film inside a private building is not an absolute right for journalists. Like everyone else, they must obtain authorization, and the fact that this authorization is refused does not mean that there is no other way of obtaining information than by using disloyal means such as concealing one’s status as a journalist or using hidden cameras. Here again, what about asking for an interview with the spokespersons, or with Scientologists? Or simply having visited the various websites of the Church of Scientology, on which in fact anyone can find the information broadcast in the report? (I didn’t find a single piece of information in the report that I didn’t also manage to find easily on the web).
French journalist Lorraine Poupon filming herself in the Church of Scientology with a hidden camera
But more than that, when contacted by us, the Church of Scientology replied: “It’s a pathetic lie. The ‘filming request’ was sent on June 13 by another journalist, but Lorraine Poupon had already begun her infiltration on June 6. So she couldn’t have cared less about our response. Furthermore, we merely said that we were not organizing visits for journalists at the moment, but no requests for face-to-face interviews were subsequently made.”
Prudence, journalistic ethics and social media
Certainly, there are several other ethical violations in these two reports, but we’ll just pick out one more here. The Global Code of Ethics for Journalists requires journalists to be “prudent in the use of words and documents published on social media”. The reason this rule is mentioned is because it’s often on social networks that it becomes clear whether the journalist is operating with purely informative intent or following some other agenda.
In the case of the first report, Lorraine Poupon will post on her X account (ex-Twitter) a presentation of her report that conforms to the Ministry of the Interior’s description: “There’s been a lot of talk about ‘ecoterrorists’, ‘green Khmers’ or even, ‘hydrofurious’.” Climate activists understandably didn’t appreciate this. The use of outrageous vocabulary conflating environmental activism and terrorism is definitely ill-advised, and at the very least a “lack of prudence” in the use of social media. It does, however, reveal the journalist’s state of mind, and thus the lack of political neutrality on the part of France 2, which broadcast the report.
France 2: Hidden Cameras, Journalistic Ethics and State Television 5
As for Scientologists, on the journalist’s LinkedIn account, we find a presentation that includes “Once through the doors, I discovered that they (very) quickly got me to pull out my credit card to buy more and more courses and seminars”. Then on X, “They promise us ‘total freedom’, but at what price? (A priori several thousand euros, because in Scientology, everything is paid for and everything is expensive!)”. When contacted, the Church of Scientology replied with accounting documents: “Lorraine Poupon, under her assumed name, spent a total of 131 euros with us in two weeks. This includes 4 books, a seminar she attended and a course she also took.” That’s a long way from thousands of euros, and while it poses a problem of accuracy and truth, it also indicates a desire to create a polemical and controversial vision of the movement, in the absence of evidence.
We also discovered on her Facebook account that the journalist is a member of a private group entitled “Tous unis contre la scientologie” (“All united against Scientology”), which again tends to lend credence to the idea that the show was intended to demonize Scientology, rather than to provide honest information.
The point here is neither to promote the aforementioned environmental movements, nor Scientology, but to make a point about what good journalism should be, even when it deals with subjects that can be divisive. Unfair means are to be avoided, with the exception of the strictly defined exceptions mentioned above. Hidden cameras, false identities and concealing one’s status as a journalist for no good reason, are dishonest and often indicate a lack of interesting elements, and therefore a need to make a spectacle, to create unnecessary mystery and to dehumanize the people blurred in the reports.
We naturally contacted Lorraine Poupon from France 2 for her opinion on these reports and the criticism they have generated, but unfortunately, she did not respond to our requests.
This week marks the solemn commemoration of the tragic events of 1974, a pivotal moment in Cyprus’s history that continues to reverberate half a century later. The European External Action Service (EEAS) has issued a poignant statement, underscoring the enduring need for a fair, comprehensive, and viable settlement to the Cyprus problem.
The Republic of Cyprus, an EU Member State, remains divided to this day—a division that has profound implications for its people. The EEAS emphasizes that this forced separation cannot be a lasting solution and that the hope for a unified Cyprus persists.
The statement calls for a renewed and genuine commitment from all parties involved in the United Nations-led efforts to resolve the Cyprus issue. This includes the two Cypriot communities and, notably, Türkiye. The EEAS stresses that a peaceful settlement must be based on the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, which provide a framework for negotiations.
In light of the broad geopolitical shifts and ongoing crises, the EEAS highlights the importance of collective effort to achieve a settlement. The goal is not only to benefit the people of Cyprus but also to ensure stability and security in the Eastern Mediterranean region.
The statement serves as a reminder of the urgency of the situation and the necessity for all stakeholders to engage constructively in the peace process. As the world commemorates the events of 1974, the call for unity and resolution is more pressing than ever.
The EEAS’s message is clear: too much time has been lost, and the time for action is now. The path to a unified Cyprus requires unwavering dedication and cooperation, promising a better future for all Cypriots and contributing to regional stability.
SALUDMENTAL ( Original in Spanish ) The Plenary Session of the Civil Division of the Supreme Court, in its ruling STS 960/2024 of July 9th and published on the 12th in response to the appeal after its defeat in the Provincial Court of the Spanish Society of Psychiatry (SEP), admits that the opinions and harsh criticism that the Citizens’ Commission on Human Rights (CCDH and CCHR) makes of psychiatric abuses such as those made with the use of psychotropic drugs, involuntary institutionalisation, electroshock, psychosurgery and others, “are not devoid of a sufficient factual basis”, and therefore decides to protect the right to express them, even in a harsh manner, as they are of “undoubted general interest”, as transcribed in this extract from the judgment:
The debate on certain psychiatric practices and, in particular, on involuntary institutionalization, the use of psychotropic drugs, especially when the patients are children or adolescents, or surgical or electroconvulsive treatments, is of particular importance in today’s society.”
Furthermore, the high court affirms, “despite the crudeness of some of its expressions (…), its content is directly connected to the public debate in a democratic society (…) And is part of the conduct observed by CCDH of actively intervening in the social debate on psychiatry through its publications.”
On this basis, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Spanish Society of Psychiatry (SEP) must bear the criticism of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. (CCHR) and Comisión Ciudadana de Derechos Humanos de España (CCDH).
Salvador Fernández, President of the Spanish Citizens’ Commission on Human Rights, after learning of the sentence declared that:
“it is important that there be protection so that the innumerable abuses that are committed in the field of psychiatry are made known, and the time has come to carry out the drastic reforms called for by the WHO, the UN, and above all the victims, of a century-old system that has brought more pain than glory, we thank all those who work in one way or another to expose and put an end to psychiatric abuse, and from our team we encourage society to not remain silent and to denounce through www.saludmentalyderechos.org any and all abuses in the field of psychiatry, whether it be the labelling and administration of dangerous psychotropic drugs to children, forced treatment, lack of informed consent, involuntary institutionalization or the use of electroshock, which has been described as torture on numerous occasions by doctors and human rights experts.”
CCHR was co-founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry Dr. Thomas Szasz as an independent mental health watchdog at a time when patients were institutionalized, mistreated, stripped of their constitutional, civil and human rights, and left to fend for themselves.
As stated by CCHR co-founder Thomas Szasz:
“They were then the only organization, and they still are the only organization, who were active in trying to free mental patients who were incarcerated in mental hospitals with whom there was nothing wrong, who had committed no crimes, who wanted to get out of the hospital. And that to me was a very worthwhile cause; it’s still a very worthwhile cause. We should honor CCHR because it is really the organization that for the first time in human history has organized a politically, socially, internationally significant voice to combat psychiatry. This has never happened in human history before.”
CCHR and national and local affiliates around the world have long fought to restore basic inalienable human rights in the field of mental health, including, among others, full informed consent to the medical legitimacy of psychiatric diagnosis, the risks of psychiatric treatments, the right to all available medical alternatives, and the right to refuse any treatment deemed harmful.
“aims to fight against abuse in psychiatry and especially against the prescription by these professionals of drugs for the treatment of mental illnesses and diseases and its work has been recognised by the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights who in 1986 stated that it had helped to pass numerous laws in the field of mental health in defence and preservation of the rights of individuals according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, members of the Committee on the Rights of the Child at the United Nations and various members of the US House of Representatives and the California State Congress and Senate.”
In its text, the Supreme Court’s judgement includes, on the one hand, the video documentaries where CCHR shows its evidence and strong statements, opinions and concerns:
“On the other hand, the website www.cchr.org.es, whose content is owned and managed by CCHR (Citizens Commission on Human Rights), provides access to 8 documentaries that explain what they consider ‘psychiatric abuse’.”
And also, the “informative material” found on the website https://www.ccdh.es of the Comisión Ciudadana de Derechos Humanos de España (CCDH) where there are 19 leaflets with very strong titles, such as “Child Drugging. Psychiatry destroying lives. Report and recommendations on fraudulent psychiatric diagnosis and enforced drugging of youth”; “Deadly restraints. Psychiatric ‘therapeutic’ assault. Report and recommendations on the violent and dangerous use of restraints in mental health facilities”; “Brutal Therapies. Harmful Psychiatric ‘Treatments’. Report and recommendations on the destructive practices of electroshock and psychosurgery”; or “Psychiatric Malpractice, the subversion of medicine. Report and recommendations on psychiatry’s destructive impact on health care», among others.
The Spanish Society of Psychiatry complained about demonstrations in which CCDH and others claimed that “psychiatrists are criminals, precursors of genocides, responsible for the erosion of education and justice, inciters of drug addiction, drug traffickers, fraudulent practitioners or managers of violence and terrorism, that some psychiatrists sexually abused their patients and even that ‘[t]here are an undetermined number of coercive abortions in Spain by psychiatrists’, involvement of German psychiatrists in the Nazi holocaust [for which the German Psychiatric Association has publicly apologised], racial discrimination” and other descriptions and statements of fact.
The First Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that the judgment appealed by SEP had correctly applied the case-law criteria to resolve the conflict between freedom of expression and the right to honour.
And with regard to the context in which the statements in question were made, despite the fact that some of them could be considered serious, says the ruling, CCDH’s conduct in making these publications is part of a public debate of great importance in today’s society, so that agreeing to remove such publications would be an excessive restriction on freedom of expression that would not be justified by an imperative social need.
The SEP also complained about statements, such as that of psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz when he says “Psychiatry is probably the most destructive force that has affected society in the last 60 years’, or ‘Psychiatry serves as a social control machine that sometimes becomes an agent of social and political revenge”, among other imputations.
The SEP argued that freedom of expression should not cover such statements, which the Supreme Court has contradicted, finding that the statements and criticisms of CCDH and CCHR are disseminated in a public debate on psychiatry.
The Supreme Court’s ruling reiterates the importance of freedom of expression in the context of debates of public interest, even when criticism may be offensive to certain entities or professionals, in line with what was said by the court of appeal. And it is here that the Supreme Court states that:
“This prevalence of freedom of expression over the right to honour when expressing opinions on matters of general interest occurs even when the expression of opinion is made in a rude, unkind or hurtful manner and may annoy, disturb or upset the person affected by the statements in question, as this is required by pluralism, tolerance and a spirit of openness, without which there is no democratic society.
As the judgments of the ECHR of 8 November 2016, Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary, 13 March 2018, Stern Taulats and Roura Capellera v. Spain, 20 November 2018, Toranzo Gómez v. Spain, and 11 May 2021, Halet v. Luxembourg state, freedom of expression does not only protect ideas that are favourably received or considered inoffensive or indifferent, ‘but also those that offend, shock or disturb’. And Constitutional Court judgment 226/2016, of 22 December, citing previous judgments, states that ‘within the broad framework granted to freedom of expression are protected, according to our doctrine, “those manifestations which, although they affect the honour of others, are revealed as necessary for the presentation of ideas or opinions of public interest”’.
The Spanish Supreme Court has issued a historic and unprecedented ruling in favor of the Citizens’ Commission for Human Rights (CCHR), an organization linked to the Church of Scientology, against the Spanish Society of Psychiatry (SEP). The SEP had attempted to silence the CCHR’s virulent criticism of certain psychiatric practices, but the Court ruled that these criticisms fall within a debate of general interest and are solidly protected by freedom of expression.
The Court firmly affirmed that publications criticizing certain psychiatric practices are of “undeniable general interest”.
Public debate on topics such as forced internment, the use of psychotropic medications, and electroconvulsive treatments is absolutely essential in a democratic society.
Freedom of expression :
CCHR’s harsh, shocking, and uncompromising criticism is protected by freedom of expression.
The Court emphasized that freedom of expression also covers the most disturbing and controversial ideas.
Extensive Documentation:
The CCHR has provided abundant documentation (more than 15,000 pages) proving the existence of an intense and legitimate debate on psychiatric practices.
UN reports have been used to highlight the importance and validity of this debate.
Specific Criticisms:
The CCHR has accused some psychiatrists of criminal behavior and ethical abuses with tangible evidence.
CCHR publications included documentaries and brochures denouncing these practices in detailed and impactful ways.
Right to Honor vs Freedom of Expression:
The Court considered that the Madrid Provincial Court had correctly weighed the conflict between the right to honor and freedom of expression, in favor of the latter.
The right to openly and firmly criticize psychiatric practices is thus firmly confirmed.
This decision by the Supreme Court marks a resounding victory for human rights defenders and reaffirms the supremacy of freedom of expression in public debates on issues of general interest. Additionally, this decision creates powerful case law, now making it nearly impossible for psychiatric associations to attack the Church of Scientology for similar criticisms in the future.
At least 650,000 Russians have left the country and moved permanently abroad since the start of the war against Ukraine, DPA reported. The main reasons are fear of mobilization and overcoming the imposed sanctions.
Most of them emigrated to Armenia (110,000), Kazakhstan and Israel (80,000 each), according to the data of the independent Internet portal The Bell. The reason for the large number in these three countries is due to the fact that Russians do not need a visa for them.
Germany is also a preferred destination for Russians, with their number increasing by more than 36,000.
The Bell claims it made the calculations based on data from immigration authorities. In total, data from over 70 countries are included in the calculations.
However, the portal claims that the data is not complete, as some countries popular among Russians, such as Thailand, Azerbaijan and Cyprus, did not respond to queries. Other countries such as the United Arab Emirates, where many Russians also moved after the war began, are not included in the calculations.
Illustrative Photo by Jaxon Matthew Willis: https://www.pexels.com/photo/low-angle-shot-of-a-fighter-jet-23548969/
The former abbot of the Middle Ural women’s monastery Fr. Sergius (Nikolai Romanov), who is serving a seven-year sentence, begs Putin for clemency. In the appeal, the former abbot says he helped build twenty churches and five monasteries in the Sverdlovsk region, and since 2014 has brought families with children “from the war zone in Ukraine.” The former schihegumen noted that he asked to be sent to the war in Ukraine as a medical worker or construction worker, but was denied because of his advanced age. For this reason, he now “takes spiritual care of the heroes of the special military operation” and assures that he is a patriot and loyal to the authorities. Now he is resuming his request to be sent to the “special military operation zone,” as Russia calls the war against Ukraine, which is eligible for release from prison under the country’s new laws.
The former abbot Sergiy (Romanov) was arrested at the end of 2020 in his monastery by a special forces raid. His case gained widespread public attention because of his fame as an ultra-conservative “confessor of the faith” who was an alternative to the ever-compromising official church authority. He became especially popular during the pandemic, when he denied the existence of the disease, boycotted sanitary measures and preached that this position was tantamount to a profession of faith. Such views were then inherent in many religious people, but he had influence and popularity among circles of the so-called Russian elite.
Video sermons with curses against church authority and accusations of a conspiracy by the authorities drew attention to him. In them he called the power “satanic” and “antichrist”. The priest was accused and convicted of “inciting a minor to commit suicide” because of his sermon, during which he asked parishioners if they were ready to die for Russia and for their children. According to other articles, the former abbot became accused after refusing to allow representatives of the Ekaterinburg Diocese to take an inventory of the monastery’s property. In January 2023, the court announced the final sentence – seven years in a penal colony.
Before the pandemic, schihegumen Sergiy (Romanov) was known as the leader of the so-called “sect of Tsarebozhniks”, whose most popular member was the Russian MP Natalia Poklonskaya. She did much to promote him in the media as a “miracle worker”, “confessor” and “exorcist”. Later, Natalia Poklonskaya got married and changed her attitude towards him, saying that she was in a sect. In the women’s monastery, which he led, gathered “tsarebozhniki” (Russian monarchists, who raised the last Russian emperor into a cult), Cossacks, politicians and businessmen, former prisoners.
The former abbot had accepted the priesthood, although before his conversion to the faith he had been in prison for murder. According to church canons, this is inadmissible – the person who took human life can repent and even become a saint, but the canons categorically forbid him to perform the Eucharist.
In the first half of 2024 the leading global provider of foreign exchange and international payments for businesses, iBanFirst, processed 275 million euros in FX transactions for Bulgarian trading companies. In comparison to the same period last year this is an increase of 90% that was driven by the dynamic business activities of existing clients and the surge in import-export operations.
These results position Bulgaria as one of the markets with the highest trading volume growth for the iBanFirst Group, while it remains the market with the highest average volume per trade in the first half of 2024.
„Our remarkable performance in Bulgaria highlights the highest average volume per trade among our European markets, despite being one of the smallest countries. This exceptional growth emphasizes the robust demand for innovative financial solutions and is a testament to the trust our clients have placed in us. We are dedicated to supporting Bulgarian companies in their international endeavors and remain committed to delivering unparalleled service and value”, said Johan Gabriels, Regional Director for South-East Europe at iBanFirst.
The press release and more information below:
PRESS RELEASE
iBanFirst Bulgaria registered a 90% increase in FX transactions volumes in the first half of 2024, reaching 275 million euros
● The substantial growth in FX transactions volumes was driven by the dynamic business activities of existing clients and the surge in import-export operations. iBanFirst’s client base includes 1,300 companies across the region.
● These results position Bulgaria as one of the markets with the highest trading volume growth for the iBanFirst Group, while it remains the market with the highest average volume per trade in the first half of 2024.
● The increase in trading volume has also led to revenue growth, CEE generating now 40% of iBanFirst’s overall revenue growth rate.
Sofia, 10.07.2024: iBanFirst, a leading global provider of foreign exchange and international payments for businesses, has processed 275 million euros in FX transactions for Bulgarian trading companies in the first half of 2024, marking a substantial 90% increase compared to the same period last year. These results position Bulgaria as one of the markets with the highest trading volume growth for the iBanFirst Group in the first half of 2024.
The substantial growth in FX transactions volumes during the first six months of 2024 was driven by the dynamic business activities of existing clients and the surge in import-export operations. The increase in trading volume has also driven revenue growth of 106%, with the CEE market now contributing to 40% of iBanFirst’s overall revenue growth rate. iBanFirst’s client base includes 1,300 companies across the region.
„Our remarkable performance in Bulgaria highlights the highest average volume per trade among our European markets, despite being one of the smallest countries. This exceptional growth emphasizes the robust demand for innovative financial solutions and is a testament to the trust our clients have placed in us. We are dedicated to supporting Bulgarian companies in their international endeavors and remain committed to delivering unparalleled service and value”, said Johan Gabriels, Regional Director for South-East Europe at iBanFirst.
iBanFirst’s mission is to help Bulgarian companies expand beyond borders by providing them with access to fast, transparent, and cost-effective cross-border payments and foreign exchange services, as well as the support of a boutique team of FX experts. The fintech’s client base is diverse, including import-export companies across various sectors such as agriculture, automotive, IT and telecommunications, wholesale and retail, construction, and energy.
The value of cross-border transactions carried out through the iBanFirst platform ranges from a few thousand euros to millions of euros. Moreover, the uncertain economic and geopolitical climate in recent years has led more companies to seek risk management solutions to protect against currency volatility. This shift has resulted in a significant increase in demand for hedging services, which have recorded a 94% year-over-year growth and now account for 77% of iBanFirst’s revenues in the local market.
iBanFirst plans to further invest in the Bulgarian market by expanding its team in Sofia, enhancing its technological capabilities, and launching new products tailored to the needs of local businesses.
iBanFirst has been listed for 5 consecutive years (2018 – 2023) in the Financial Times’ top 1,000 Europe’s Fastest Growing Companies. iBanFirst Group currently has 13 offices in 10 European countries (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and the UK) as well as a white label business in Greece. The group processes transactions worth over €1.4 billion monthly.
About iBanFirst
Founded in 2016, iBanFirst offers a next-generation cross-border payment experience that combines a powerful platform and the support of FX experts. With more than 350 employees in 10 European countries, processing a volume of transactions worth more than €1.4 billion each month, and listed by the Financial Times as one of Europe’s fastest-growing companies, iBanFirst became in less than 10 years a trusted partner for SMEs across borders.
iBanFirst has the financial backing of the French public investment bank (bpiFrance), European venture capital leaders (Elaia, Xavier Niel), and the American investment fund Marlin Equity Partners (more than 8 billion dollars of capital under management). Regulated by the National Bank of Belgium as a payment institution, iBanFirst is authorized to operate throughout the European Union. Member of the SWIFT network and SEPA certified, iBanFirst holds AISP and PISP accreditations under PSD2.
Photo: Johan Gabriels, Regional Director for South-East Europe at iBanFirst
