[...] Fideliter: Since the beginning of the summer of 2003, in your newspaper Légitimiste, you have been carrying out a veritable international police investigation. What did you discover? Daniel Hamiche: At first I was surprised by the incredible hatred this film was the object of. Who hated and why? **I then realized that the Episcopal Conference of the United States had issued a statement of apology to Mel Gibson on June 12, 2003. This press release asked academics who had done a fiercely critical analysis of a script of The Passion (the film's title at the time) to return this script to lcon Productions, MeI Gibson's production house. I did not quite understand the meaning of this press release. As I investigated further, I discovered that this script, a simple working document written five or six weeks before the start of filming, had been stolen from Icon's premises in Los Angeles, then mysteriously transported, in the first fortnight of April, to the doormat of the home of Yehiel Poupko, an East Coast rabbi**, and finally to the Episcopal Conference in Washington, where it was photocopied and distributed to **four Judaizing Catholic scholars** (who some American Catholic authorities squarely suspect of heresy) and three Jewish scholars selected by Abraham Foxman's AntiDefamation League (of B'nai B'rith). At best, this troubled affair had taken place without the knowledge of the leaders of the Episcopal Conference (this is what she will affirm in June). At worst, the Conference would have given a vague endorsement to the "scribes" responsible for sacrificing Met Gibson on the altar of "dialogue with Judaism". But, in the face of public outrage and threats of legal action from Icon, the Conference changed its mind, performing a somewhat elegant U-turn. It wouldn't be the first time in its history. Fideliter: But why was the Episcopal Conference so interested in this Mel Gibson film? It is only a film, after all, and our dear bishops are not used to being passionate about cinema. Daniel Hamiche: On March 7, 2003, a paper by Raymond Arroyo, news director of EWTN (Eternal World Television Network), a Catholic audiovisual company whose programs reach 75 million homes worldwide, appeared in the Wall Street Journal. . This journalist had gone to Rome in March 2003 and had been received by Mel Gibson in studio number 5 of Cinnecittà, for an exclusive interview. However, the publication of this estimable paper did not arouse any particular reaction in the other press organs. The affair, in fact, broke two days later, on March 9, in the Sunday supplement of the New York Times, when an article by freelance writer Christopher Noxon appeared on the film project. This paper was written in an extremely vicious fashion, seeking to underhandedly exaggerate the “integral” Catholic faith of Mel and her father Hutton Gibson. In fact, as early as January 14, 2003, on a Fox News talk show interviewed by William O'Realy, Mel Gibson revealed that "people are looking to dig up dirt (on me), on the movie and on (my) family " . Christopher Noxon had come to Rome on the set, but the director had given him no interview, nor had the main actor. Fideliter: How exactly does Noxon go about harming Mel Gibson? Daniel Hamiche: He mainly uses Mel's father, Hutton. The latter is, like his son, a devout Catholic, but he has a clearly sedevacantist tendency. So Noxon goes to Hutton, Texas, on January 17 and 18, 2003, and pesters him with questions during those two days. During these interviews, Hutton reveals his own ideas on religion, also exposes his views on the world, on the attack of September 11, 2001 in New York, on the role of contemporary rabbinical Judaism and Freemasonry in the last council, and on his doubts about the number of Jewish victims of the extermination camps. Sensitive subjects… The article, which appeared on March 9 in its paper version, could be found the day before on the internet, and was announced on the 6th in the New York Post. **It was therefore on March 8 that Rabbi Marvin Hier, of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, launched the first major attack against the film and its director, relayed from March 24, on the East Coast, by the Anti Defamation League (of B'nai B'rith).** Fideliter: Why blame Mel for the (supposed) “faults” of his father Hutton? Daniel Hamiche: **We cannot, indeed, help noticing the difference in treatment between Mel Gibson and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The latter, whose father was a proven National Socialist and a member of the Austrian S.A., is at best with the Simon Wiesenthal Center. It must be said that he has always had the prudence to make substantial and regular donations to this organization, which, of course, did not fail to support him during the last campaign for the election to the position of governor of California.** Mel Gibson, meanwhile, reserves his liberalities to many Catholic works: well-ordered charity begins with oneself. I don't believe he ever paid a cent to the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Thus, for the American Jewish organizations mentioned above, Hutton Gibson being a “denialist” (which is already debatable), his son, Mel, can only be anti-Semitic. The (supposed) fault of the father must necessarily fall on the son. We know the thesis, which seems to be applicable only to some, since these same organizations will lead an implacable campaign so that the famous sentence of the Gospels be removed from the film: “May his blood be on us and on our children!“ [...]