by E.W. Police Officer, Australia
I have been a serving police officer for over 17 years: during this time I have worked within Metropolitan, State and Federal jurisdictions. I have had experience in policing some of the most culturally and socio-economically diverse communities. I have also had considerable experience in criminal investigations (including domestic violence, hate crime, clubs and vice) as well as the usual engagements associated with general duties.
As an experienced investigator, I wish to refer to the widespread press allegations that Universal Medicine constitutes a cult.
In order to accuse a group of individuals or an organisation of being a cult, one would have to establish the facts that would be typical of a cult – and not merely base the accusation on a supposition, or on the perceived habits or behaviours adopted by that group.
Even if some behaviours are difficult to accept, it is disingenuous and extremely prejudicial to attach a harmful label to some people simply because they have adopted a certain (in this case ‘healthy’) lifestyle. This does not constitute evidence of a cult; it is simply a biased distortion, propagated under the guise of a moral cause.
A cult, if one is seeking to define it, is not necessarily bound to a particular figurehead, but rather rests on the fanaticism of the participants: this being an essential ingredient, the label can therefore be applied to any organisation, institution or even a loose collaboration between individuals, where a common fixation exists. This application, of course, would prove very uncomfortable for those who find themselves obsessed with mainstream religion, political or ideological movements, certain football clubs, or even obsessive fan-based clubs. Certain elements in these groups have been known at times to defend or promote with extreme violence what they see as the sanctity or divine purpose of their ideology or belief… hypocrisy abounds.
The fact that Universal Medicine (UM) is not a cult has already been comprehensively detailed by others: the continued arguments become circular and eventually non-productive. Bear in mind that the convenient marginalising of a group through false or exaggerated claims by a supposedly investigative media is itself a sign, as history demonstrates, of an ailing system.
It is interesting to note that the police ‘Right to Silence’ caution derives from 16th century English ‘Star Chamber’ courts that were set up to hear appeals or petitions of redress, but through abuse these courts eventually degenerated into a tool of tyranny that was then used to make false accusations, particularly against perceived religious dissenters.
Being an accuser does not imply virtue or possession of innocence.
Let us remember that in every country, region or society throughout the world, many people adhere to beliefs and practices – whether they are religion-based or cultural habits – that are seen as challenging, incompatible with, or unacceptable to other segments within that society. However, this does not justify the use of hostile finger pointing or malicious ridicule. As a society we all hold a duty of tolerance: the law guarantees, to a point, a level of tolerance for non-mainstream, but acceptable lifestyles and practices.
For the mainstream media to attack UM by throwing ‘mud’, hoping that some will stick, is an exploitation of press liberty. Press freedom is a mandate granted with the responsibility of acting impartially and with integrity. This attack is nothing short of staggering, given that we are in a supposedly modern first world country, with supposedly responsible institutions.
Attempting to smear those who attend UM with a ‘cult’ label is a clear and deliberate means of attempting to portray what is a free will choice, as manipulation and coercion: it is slanted as though anyone associated with Serge or UM is merely a ‘lemming’. This is simply cheap and prejudicial name-calling – a sly, underhand method to open the back door for what is nothing less than a modern form of persecution – simply because others choose to hold a different perspective.
I will say that I for one (and I being one of many I’m sure) have never witnessed any practice or behaviour at UM that would compromise the personal integrity, or independence of thought and action, or prey on the vulnerability, of anyone. And as for myself, I would without hesitation step up and challenge directly any such act, anywhere. In the nine years that I have attended UM presentations this has never ever come close to being a consideration.
I do not spend my time with manipulators, halfwits, gurus or evangelical preachers – I would find it torturous! I certainly do not, and would not tolerate, not even for a second, any cult leader lording over me, telling me how to live and where to spend my money to save my soul!
Nor do I have the patience to suffer fools, or keep company with those who think themselves important or special. I am for what is real – even if self-honesty reveals my own shortcomings (particularly belief patterns).
Universal Medicine’s only perceived ‘crime’ is the unique stance it takes in promoting personal responsibility in a society where it is all too common to blame anyone or anything else for whatever happens, when really the outcome is a result of our own choices or adopted habits.
Serge Benhayon is no cult leader! Anyone can attend UM sessions and leave without ever feeling obliged to comply, or believe anything. I would borrow from Shakespeare to sum up my experience with Serge Benhayon and his presentations:
“This above all, to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.”