Danièle Gounord » Blog Archive » Jett Travolta : une polémique indécente: "Enfin, il convient de souligner que la Scientologie n’a jamais été condamnée pour exercice illégal de la médecine, ni en France, ni dans aucun pays dans le monde."
Daniele Gounord, spokeswoman for the Church of Scientology in France, claims in this blog entry that "Scientology has never been convicted for practicing medicine without a license, either in France or any part of the world".
I don't know if true or not but guess she would not report such a thing if it could be proven false.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
As far as I know that's true. I'm pretty familiar with the various cases involving Scientology and I cannot think of one where Scientology was convicted of practicing medicine without a license. The Lisa McPherson case came the closest since that was one of the charges and there was some pretty damning evidence presented in that case IMO, such as the logs and the photos, but there was no conviction. The only other case that comes to mind was Wollersheim, which he won, but the charge in that case was not practicing medicine without a license; it was intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Scientology was convicted for practicing medicine without a license in Bashkortostan.
http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/russia/20050704.htm
The Russian Supreme Court upheld the 9 February verdict by the Bashkir Supreme Court banning the Church of Scientology in the republic, RIA-Novosti reported on 24 June, citing the Bashkir court. During the trial in the Bashkir court, prosecutor Florid Baikov said that the organization practices unlicensed educational and medical activities that "negatively affect the thinking and psychology of trainees" and "threatens public health." The Scientologists have been in Bashkortostan in 1994 and over 2,000 people have undergone training by them since then.
I posted your message to Daniele Gournord blog asking her to comment on it but her response was only to delete my comment. No good...
The case is a bit too long for me to read and it does not seem to me at first sight that the conviction was directly related to the subject, more like a comment, but I may be wrong. I'll just give in to your view for now. The attitude of Daniele (a tad dishonest, she could have made a quick comment on it) may further indicate that you may be right.
Hmmm... Sorry, I see that my comment is still awaiting moderation on her site so I don't despair getting a response.
Post a Comment