The Conference of European Churches (CEC) issued a statement condemning Russia’s attack on the Ohmatdet Children’s Hospital in Kyiv. Its chairman at the moment is the archbishop of Thyatira and Great Britain Nikitas (Ecumenical Patriarchate).
The text states that “… CEC unequivocally condemns the horrific attack by Russian forces against the Okhmatdet Children’s Hospital in Kyiv. This horrific act, directed against the most vulnerable members of society, constitutes a war crime and a grave violation of international law and humanitarian principles. The attack is a stark reminder of the horrors of this war and the suffering of Ukrainians.
As a church assembly, we condemn all forms of violence and aggression. Christ’s teaching calls us to love our neighbors, protect the innocent and strive for peace. The brutal attack on a children’s hospital stands in stark contrast to these core values. As part of CEC’s Pathways to Peace initiative, we emphasize the urgent need for a ceasefire in the face of such atrocities. The path to a lasting and just peace requires an end to violent aggression with the withdrawal of the invading army and compliance with international law and human rights. This is the path to sustainable peace.
We call on politicians and church leaders to hold the Russian Federation accountable for its actions. The responsibility lies not only with political leaders, but also with religious communities who must speak out against injustice and work for healing and support for those affected. The Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations rightly holds the Russian Orthodox Church responsible, as it categorically supports the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, incites inter-ethnic and inter-confessional enmity, and preaches the godless ideology of the “Russian World”.
We encourage all European governments to provide the necessary aid and support to Ukraine, ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches those in need and that lasting peace is established.
In these difficult times, we stand with our Ukrainian brothers and sisters in praying for an end to violence and the dawn of peace. May God’s grace and compassion guide us all in our efforts to support and uplift those suffering in this conflict.”
The Conference of European Churches was the first religious Christian organization to respond to the outbreak of the war in 2022. Then-CEC president Dr. Christian Krieger addressed Russian Patriarch Kirill, saying: “Your silence disappoints and frightens.”
CEC was established in 1959, during the Cold War, and has its headquarters in Geneva, as well as representative offices in Brussels and Strasbourg. 126 Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican and Old Catholic churches from all European countries are members of the organization, as well as 43 organizations that have the status of associate members. The Roman Catholic Church is not a member of the CEC, but since 1964 it has actively cooperated with the organization. In 1997-1998 the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the Georgian Orthodox Church, by decision of their synods, have canceled their membership in this organization, as well as in the World Council of Churches.
Every dog has its own unique way of expressing its emotions, but one of the most universal and common gestures is licking or “kissing”. Although it may seem like a simple and instinctive action, there is often much more behind it! Understanding why our four-legged friends lick us can provide valuable insight into their behavior and strengthen the bond you have with your four-legged companion.
One of the most common reasons why dogs lick their loved ones is to express their affection. This behavior begins in the first years of your furry friend’s life – licking is the puppies’ means of communication, by which they attract their mother’s attention. And because dogs are social animals, just like us, they crave interaction and bonding with those they love. When your pet showers you with kisses, you usually respond with gentle gestures like a hug, verbal praise, or even a treat—just like his mom would. This reciprocal exchange of affection forms the foundation of a trusting and loving relationship.
Giving kisses also triggers the release of endorphins – in both dogs and humans. These are hormones associated with pleasure and well-being that reinforce positive feelings and strengthen the bond between dogs and their owners. The next time your dog licks your face or hands, know that it’s not just a random act, but rather an intentional gesture rooted in his instinctive need for social bonding.
Attention seeking
Licking can also be your dog’s way of getting your attention to start a game or get a little cuddle. This behavior is ingrained in quadrupeds from an early age – as mentioned, pups lick their mother’s snout to get attention, food and care. So if your pet is feeling bored or lonely, they may resort to licking as a means of seeking stimulation and company.
And if your pet receives positive feedback or your attention when it licks you, it will likely continue this behavior as a means of seeking affection and approval. This means that over time, giving kisses becomes a learned behavior that strengthens the bond with your pet.
Communication
Contrary to popular belief, licking is not always a sign of affection. Sometimes it can be a form of communication to express discomfort. Four-legged friends have their own personal boundaries and may use licking as a way to establish and enforce them. If your four-legged friend suddenly starts licking you excessively when you pet or hug him, it could be a sign that he’s feeling overwhelmed or uncomfortable with the level of physical contact. In this case, licking serves as a subtle way for your pet to communicate that it needs space.
In conclusion, understanding why dogs give kisses involves decoding their body language and interpreting their intentions. By carefully observing your four-legged companion’s behavior and responding appropriately, you can strengthen your bond with him. So, the next time your furry companion wets your cheek, take a moment to appreciate the deeper meaning behind this gesture!
Illustrative Photo by Bethany Ferr: https://www.pexels.com/photo/dog-licking-the-face-of-a-man-5482835/
The Feast of the Ascension of the Lord is a feast that concludes the work of our salvation. All the events connected with this work – the birth of Christ, His sufferings, death and resurrection – end with His ascension.
Expressing this meaning of the holiday, on the domes of ancient temples, icon painters often depicted the Ascension, completing their decoration with it.
At first glance, it seems that the Orthodox icons of this holiday do not fully correspond to their name. A central place in them is given to the group of the Mother of God, the Angels and the Apostles, while the main acting person – the Savior himself, who ascends, is depicted almost always smaller and as if in the background in relation to the other persons. But it is precisely in this external inconsistency that the Orthodox icons of the Ascension correspond to the Holy Scriptures. In fact, when we read in the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles the account of the Lord’s Ascension, we are left with the same impression: only a few words are devoted to the very fact of the Ascension, and all the attention in the story of the Evangelists is focused on something completely different – on the last commands of the Savior, which establish and define the influence and importance of the Church in the world, its relationship and relation to God. We find a more detailed description of the Ascension in the book of Acts. This description together with the account of the Gospel of Luke gives us those factual data, albeit incomplete, which lie at the basis of the Orthodox iconography of Christ’s Ascension. The center of gravity in the narration of the Holy Scriptures, and together with it in the Orthodox iconography, falls not on the fact of the Ascension itself, but on the meaning and consequences it has for the Church and the world.
According to the testimony of the Holy Scriptures (Acts 1:12), the Lord’s Ascension took place on the Olivet, i.e. The Mount of Olives. Therefore, on the icon, the event is depicted either on the very top of the mountain or in a mountainous landscape. To show that the mountain is olive, olive trees are sometimes painted. In accordance with the liturgy of the holiday, the Savior is depicted ascending in glory (“You have ascended in glory, Christ our God …” – from the troparion of the holiday), sometimes – sitting on a richly decorated throne (“When God was carried on the throne of glory…” (Stichira, voice 1 of the praisers).
His glory is depicted iconographically in the form of a halo – oval or round, consisting of several concentric circles, symbolizing the spiritual sky. This symbolism shows that the ascending Savior is beyond the dimensions of earthly existence, and thus the Ascension acquires a timeless character, which in turn gives a very special meaning to the details, removing them from the narrow framework of the historical event. Halos are supported by Angels (their number varies). They, like the halo, express the Divine glory and majesty*.
* The role of the Angels here is different and changes depending on the liturgical texts on which the image of the icon is based. So, for example, on some icons, the Angels do not wear a halo, but are turned with a prayerful gesture to the Savior, expressing their amazement at seeing “how human nature rises together with Him” (according to the canon of the feast, canto 3). On other icons they are depicted blowing trumpets, in accordance with the words of the antiphon: “God ascended with a shout, the Lord ascended with the sound of a trumpet” (Antiphon, verse 4, Ps 46:6). Sometimes in the upper part of the icon, on the halo, the doors of the Kingdom of Heaven are depicted, which open before the ascending King of glory, according to the words of Ps. 23, repeated in the liturgy: “Lift up, you upper gates, lift up, eternal gates, and the King of glory shall come in.” All these details depicted on the icon indicate the fulfillment of the prophecy of St. King David about the Ascension of the Lord.
In the foreground of the icon, the Mother of God is depicted in the center between two groups of Apostles and two Angels. Here the role of the Angels is already different: they are heralds of the Divine providence, as we know from the book Acts of the Holy Apostles (Acts 1:10-11).
The Mother of God was present at the Ascension of the Lord, which is categorically confirmed by St. Tradition, through liturgical texts, for example, in the Virgin’s Troparion of the ninth canto from the canon of the feast: “Rejoice, Mother of God, Mother of Christ the God, whom you gave birth to and whom, watching together with the Apostles, ascend today, you have glorified”. St. The Mother of God has a very special place in the Ascension icon. Depicted just below the ascending Saviour, She becomes, as it were, the center of the entire composition. Her silhouette, extremely clean, light and clear, stands out sharply against the background of the white robes of the Angels. Her austere, motionless figure contrasts even more strongly with the animatedly gesticulating Apostles on either side of Her. The distinctiveness of Her image is often emphasized by the pedestal on which She stands, which further accentuates Her central place.
This whole group, together with the Holy Mother of God, represents the Church acquired through the blood of Christ the Savior. Left by Him on the earth on the day of the Ascension, she will, through the promised descent of the Holy Spirit in the upcoming feast of Holy Pentecost, receive the fullness of her being. The connection of the Ascension with Pentecost is revealed in the words of the Savior: “If I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; if I go away, I will send Him to you” (John 16:7). This connection between the Ascension of the Savior’s deified human flesh and the coming Pentecost, which is the beginning of the deification of man through the descent of St. The spirit is also emphasized by the whole service of the holiday. The foregrounding in the icon of this group, depicting the Church, is a visual expression of that importance that is assigned to its foundation according to the Holy Scriptures in the last commandments of the Savior.
That the whole Church is meant here in the person of its representatives, and not only the persons historically present at the Ascension, can be seen from the presence of St. Apostle Paul (to the right of the viewer, next to the Virgin Mary), who historically could not is present at the Ascension together with the other apostles, as well as from the special place of the Mother of God in the icon of the feast. She Who received God into Herself and became the temple of the incarnate Word, here personifies the Church – the body of Christ, the Head of which is the ascended Christ (“And He set Him over all Head of the Church, which is His body, fullness of Him who fulfills all in all” – Eph. 1:22-23).
That is precisely why, as the personification of the Church, the Holy Mother of God is depicted on the icon immediately below the ascending Christ, and in this way, as if they complement each other.
The gesture of Her hands corresponds to this meaning of Hers. On some icons, it is a gesture of Oranta – an ancient prayer gesture with raised hands, expressing her role and the role of the Church embodied by her in relation to God, a prayerful appeal to Him, intercession for the world. On other icons, it is a gesture of confession, expressing the role of the Church in relation to the world. In this case, the Holy Mother of God holds her hands in front of her, palms facing forward, as the martyrs-confessors are depicted in the iconography. Her strict immobility seems to want to show the immutability of God-revealed truth, whose guardian is the Church.
The movements of the entire group from the foreground of the icon, the gestures of the angels and the apostles, the direction of their gazes, the poses – everything is turned upwards, towards the Source of the life of the Church, its Head residing in the heavens. Thus, the image conveys the call with which the Church addresses its children on this day: “Come, let us stand up and lift up our eyes and thoughts, gather our feelings …, stand mentally on the Mount of Olives and look towards The deliverer Who floats on the clouds…” (Ikos on the Kondak, voice six.). With these words, the Church calls the faithful to join the Apostles in their urge to the ascended Christ, as St. Leo the Great says: “Christ’s Ascension is also our ascension, because where the Head is crowned with glory, there is hope for the body as well.” (St. Leo the Great, Word 73 (Word 61. dedicated to the Feast of the Ascension)
The Savior, ascending, leaving the earthly world with His Body, does not leave it with His Divinity, does not separate from His possession – the Church, which He acquired with His blood – “in no way separates, but abides unyieldingly” with it (Kondak on the holiday). “And behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the world” (Mat.28:20), He says. These words of the Savior refer both to the entire history of the Church and to each individual moment of its existence, as well as to the life of each of its members until the very Second Coming of the Lord. The icon conveys this connection of His with the Church by depicting Him always blessing with the right hand (very rarely He is depicted blessing with both hands), and usually in the left hand holding a Gospel or a scroll – a symbol of teaching and preaching. He ascends while blessing, and not after having blessed His disciples, according to the words of the Gospel: (“And when He had blessed them, He departed from them and ascended into heaven” Luke. 24:50:51) and this blessing of His remains unchangeable upon the Church after His Ascension. By depicting Him blessing, the icon clearly shows us that even after the Ascension He remains a source of blessing to the Apostles, and through them to their successors and all those whom they will bless.
As we have said, in His left hand the Savior holds a Gospel or a scroll. With this, the icon shows us that the Lord who resides in the heavens leaves behind Him not only a source of blessing, but also of knowledge – gracious knowledge, which He transmits to the Church through the Holy Spirit.
The inner connection of Christ with the Church is expressed on the icon through the entire construction of the composition, connecting the earthly group with its heavenly Head. Besides what has been said so far, the movements of the whole group, its orientation towards the Saviour, as well as His gesture addressed to it, express their inner relationship and the inseparable common life of the Head with the Body. The two parts of the icon, the upper and the lower, the heavenly and the earthly, are inseparable from each other and without each other lose their meaning.
But the icon of the Ascension has another meaning. The two Angels, standing behind the Virgin Mary and pointing to the Savior, announce to the Apostles that the ascended Christ will come again in glory: “This Jesus, who ascended from you to heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go to heaven” (Acts 1:11). In the Acts of the Apostles, as St. John Chrysostom says, “two Angels are mentioned, because indeed there were two Angels, and they were so many, because only the testimony of two is unquestionable (2 Cor.13:1) (St. John Chrysostom , Word on the Acts of the Apostle, par. 3).
Depicting the fact of the Ascension of the Savior and the teaching of the Church, the icon of the Ascension is at the same time a prophetic icon, an icon of the Second and glorious Coming of Jesus Christ. Therefore, on the icons of the Last Judgment He is depicted as on the icons of the Ascension, but no longer as a Redeemer, but as a Judge of the universe. In this prophetic sense, the group of Apostles with the Mother of God (in the center of the icon) depict the Church awaiting the Second Coming of Christ. And so, as we said, the icon of the Ascension is prophetic, it is an icon of the Second Coming, because it reveals before us a spectacular picture, beginning with the Old Testament and reaching the end of world history.
We should note that despite the multifaceted content of the Ascension icon, its distinctive feature is the extraordinary tightness and monumentality of its composition.
The iconography of this holiday, as adopted by the Orthodox Church, is one of the most ancient iconographies of church holidays. The earliest, but already established, images of the Ascension date back to the V-VI century (the Ampoules from Monza and the Ravula Gospel). The iconography of this holiday has remained unchanged to this day, except for some minor details.
Source: From the book “Theology of the Icon” of Leonid Uspensky, translated from Russian (with abbreviations) [in Russian: Богословие иконы православной церкви / Л.А. Успенский. – Переславль: Изд-во Братства во имя святого князя Александра Невского, 1997. – 656, XVI с. : ил.].
Illustration: Ascension of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:1-12, Mark 16:19-20, Luke. 24:50-53). One of the most ancient images of the Ascension of Christ, in the Syrian Gospel of the monk Ravbula (Rabbula Gospels) – 6th century, Antioch Church.
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.
