Following the second wave of suicides (and murders) of the Order of the Solar Temple in 1995, and the complaints of some individuals against the activities of some groups that present themselves as religious, the French government has encouraged public caution toward groups that exhibit "sectarian" ("cultish") behavior.
As a consequence, reports on alleged sectes (cults) were published, and legislation making it easier to prosecute crimes committed by these groups was adopted; both the reports and the legislation have been controversial.
See also Cults and goverments.
Background
France, by law, does not grant official recognition to any religion [1], nor does it endorse any theologic point of view. However, voluntary associations organizing religious worship may register as such and get significant tax exemptions set by law. These exemptions are only granted to organizations whose sole purpose is to organize religious worship, and who do not infringe on "public order". Such determinations are covered by an extensive body of jurisprudence which focuses on the activities of the associations and do not take religious doctrine into account. Religious groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses have complained that some of their local groups are granted tax exemptions, while some others were not. [2]
The population of France is largely nominally Roman Catholic; however, church attendance is low, and polls indicate that a significant proportion of the population is atheist or agnostic.
French insistence on the lack of religion in all things public (laïcité) is a crucial feature in the French ideal of citizenship. The French Republic has always recognized individuals rather than groups and holds that its citizens' first allegiance is to society in general and not to a particular group, religious or otherwise; the opposing attitude, known as communautarisme, is generally considered undesirable in political discourse.
The French government, when challenged on the issue of religious discrimination, claims to not to be concerned in any way with religious doctrine per se, but with the concrete consequences of cult affiliation, especially with respect to children, in the light of past abuse committed in some criminal cults, such as (sexual slavery and mass suicide). None of the criteria listed in related government documents on sects discuss theology; they only focus on the actions and the methods of the groups.
Arguments against "cults"
Major concerns listed in parliamentary and other discussions include:
- the well-being of children raised in religious communities that isolate themselves from the rest of society, or, at least, ask their members to avoid social interaction with the rest of society;
- child abuse, especially abusive corporal punishment or sexual abuse;
- the defrauding of vulnerable members by the religious management;
- suicides in doomsday cults ;
- the advocacy of medical practices that are generally considered unsafe, and the prohibition of some "mainstream" medical practices;
- the aggressive proselytizing of minors and vulnerable persons;
- the hidden influence peddling of certain groups in the administration and political circles.
A 2000 poll indicated that a vast majority of the French population considers cults a significant threat to democracy, their family and friends, and themselves.
List of alleged cults and alleged discrimination by ministerial commissions
A 1996 parliamentary commission issued a report (unofficial translations), in which a list of purported cults compiled by the general information division of the French National Police (Renseignements généraux) was reprinted. Were listed 173 groups, including Jehovah's Witnesses, the Theological Institute of Nîmes (an Evangelical Christian Bible college), and the Church of Scientology. Members of some of the groups included in the list have alleged instances of intolerance due to the ensuing negative publicity. Although this list has no statutory or regulatory value, it is at the background of the criticism directed at France with respect to freedom of religion.
The "Interministerial Mission in the Fight Against Sects/Cults" (MILS) headed by Alain Vivien, was formed in 1998 to coordinate government monitoring of sectes (name given to cults in France). In February 1998 MILS released its annual report on the monitoring of sects. The activities of the MILS and Alain Vivien's background as the head of an anti-cult organization raised serious concerns and critiques from several human rights organizations and government bodies (see below). In 1999, Alain Vivien was put under police protection following threats and the burglary of his home (L'Humanité, January 14, 1999; [3]).
Alain Vivien resigned in June 2002 under criticism [4]. The Church of Scientology alleged that MILS under Vivien's management had wasted the taxpayer's money of trips around the world [5].
An interministerial working group was formed to determine the future parameters of the Government's monitoring of sects, called the Interministerial Monitoring Mission Against Sectarian Abuses (MIVILUDES; official site).
Headed by Jean-Louis Langlais, senior civil servant at the Ministry of the Interior, MIVILUDES was charged with observing and analyzing movements that constitute a threat to public order or that violate French law, coordinating the appropriate response, informing the public about potential risks, and helping victims to receive aid. In its announcement of the formation of MIVILUDES, the Government acknowledged that its predecessor, MILS, had been criticized for certain actions abroad that could have been perceived as contrary to religious freedom. In an interview given in March 2003, Mr. Langlais, emphasized that the issue at stake is not to fight "sects" as such but merely "deviances" these might have. However, he also admitted that it is difficult to define the concept of "deviances".
The About-Picard law
The law 2001-504 of June 12, 2001 (approximate translation into English)
is often referred to as the About-Picard law, from the name of its rapporteurs (parliamentarians who report on the draft law), senator Nicolas About (UDF center-right party; his report in French) and deputy Catherine Picard (PS center-left party; report in French). Its full title is Loi no 2001-504 du 12 juin 2001 tendant à renforcer la prévention et la répression des mouvements sectaires portant atteinte aux droits de l'homme et aux libertés fondamentales ("Law number 2001-504 du 12 juin 2001 intended to reinforce the prevention and repression of sectarian [cultic] groups that infringe on human rights and fundamental freedoms").
To summarize its content:
- The law does not cite any particular group, nor does it define what a secte (cult) is.
- The law does not define what a religion is or is not, nor does it provide for the recognition or absence of recognition of religions.
- The law makes it possible to prosecute an organization (legal entity) for some specifically listed crimes, which previously would only have resulted in the prosecution of the organization's management. The crimes in question (illegal practice of medicine or pharmacy, substantially duping consumers, selling alterated products, rape, sexual aggressions, murder, poisoning, torture or barbaric acts, violences, harassment, provocation to suicide, blocking rescue operations, defrauding a person in a state of ignorance or weakness, profanation of tombs, failing to provide suitable education to children) were already criminally punished by law in the case of physical persons.
- The law makes it possible for a court to order the dissolution of an organization that exploits the psychological or physical control it has over people when the organization or its de facto or de jure executives have been definitely convicted of such crimes.
- Nonprofit associations assisting victims or defending personal or public freedoms, and declared of public usefulness, may excercise victims' rights in such criminal trials.
- The law also provides courts with the possibility to pronounce the dissolution of an organization found guilty of criminal behavior as stated in the law.
Most of the law introduces the possibility for a court to find an organization (legal entity), religious or otherwise, co-responsible for severe crimes committed by its employees or management in the course of their duties, knowingly of the organization. This possibility exists in many other jurisdictions. As an example, in the United States of America, victims of Roman Catholic pedophile priests successfully sued the dioceses who employed the priests. As a consequence,
a diocese has applied for bankruptcy and some others consider the possibility. See Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal.
The initial draft of the About-Picard law included the criminalization of "mental manipulation". This disposition was criticized for its vagueness by many organizations (French League of Human Rights, major French religious denominations [6], etc.); justice minister Elizabeth Guigou pushed for the removal of this disposition.
The final version of the law criminalizes the defrauding of a person weakened by illness, old age, etc., but also of a person in a state of psychological or physical subjection resulting from grave or reiterated pressures or techniques able to alter judgment. Some critics of this law assert that this is a merely semantic change and that there are no empirical studies that support claims of use of techniques of coercive persuasion by NRMs[7].
While the law was criticized in some conservative Christian outlets outside of France as being pushed by "leftists" [8][9], it was adopted with broad bipartisan support.
The About-Picard law has been applied in a single case since its adoption: that of Arnaud Mussy , leader of the Néo-Phare cult. Mussy had announced imminent apocalypse, resulting in the suicide of one of his followers and the attempted suicides of two others, severely wounded.[10]
Critiques about alleged violations of religious freedoms
Actions of French organizations
The group Coordination des Associations et Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience, founded in January 2002, requested:
- the dissolution of the MILS as its very purpose, "to fight against sects," is an affront to the French Constitution which guarantees the religious neutrality of the State and the principle of separation of Church and State
- the repeal of any discriminatory law containing the word "cult," "sect," "cultic," or "sectarian" as laws should not specify groups as "sectarian" or "cultic" as, in a democracy, all individuals and groups should be treated equally and in the same manner.[11]
The umbrella association of French Jehovah's Witnesses sued before the (request #53430/99), alleging that the publication of the parliamentary reports citing them and the enactment of the About-Picard law infringed on its civil rights. The court rejected the application. In other cases (#53934/00...), the Court affirmed that the publication of a parliamentary report disparaging to some groups did not constitute an infringement of human rights, even though these groups were not given a legal recourse for the removal of their name from the report.
Some Jehovah's Witnesses requested the cancellation of the recognition of public usefulness of the association UNADFI (National Union of the Associations for the Defense of Families and Individuals), a group whose objectives include fighting sectarian excesses, and which, the plaintiffs alleged, persecuted the Jehovah's Witnesses. Both the Conseil d'État and the ECHR (request #44789/98) rejected their claim.
In a child custody case following a divorce, a woman was denied the custody of her children outside of holidays for various motives, among which her belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses; the court of appeals of Nîmes considered that the educational rules applied by the Witnesses to their children were essentially criticable because of their hardness, their intolerance, and the obligation for children to practice prozelytism. The case went before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (request #64927/01), which ruled that the court, in that respect, should have based itself on actual facts regarding the mother's handling of her children and not on abstract, general notions pertaining to the mother's religious affiliation.
Action of international organizations
In an open letter to Alain Vivien about religious freedom in France, dated June 2000 [12], Aaron Rhodes, Executive Director of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHFHR), wrote:
- We question ourselves how such a law can claim to guarantee human rights when it goes against the rights of association, expression, religion and conscience; when it puts in danger the right of minorities and maintains prejudices that are so incompatible with the concept of tolerance intrinsic to that of humans rights. France must deal with its responsibilities and obligations as a signatory for the International Conventions and respect the European laws and its interpretation by the Court of Strasbourg, before one its citizens becom a victim of discrimination due of the law which you propose.
Alain Vivien responded "[The IHFHR] seems today to have passed into the hands of Scientologists and perhaps other transnational organisations.". Aaron Rhodes then acknowledged that the Moscow office of the IHFHR had received funding from the Church of Scientology to print a leaflet about religious freedom in Russia, and voiced his astonishment at the charge. Rhodes voiced his embarrasment "[...]for you and your fellow French citizens by your recourse to methods of denunciations and insinuations that remind us of those sometimes used by totalitarian and backward regimes."[13]
A petition was submitted to the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly by 40 different religious and human rights groups. That petition resulted in a rapporteur (official parliamentary investigator) being appointed to investigate the bill and religious discrimination in France.
In September 2002, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe responding to Recommendation 1412 by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, entitled "Illegal Activities of Sects," issued a declaration as follows:
- Governments are under an obligation, in their dealings with such groups, to remain in conformity not only with Article 9 but with all the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and other relevant instruments protecting the dignity inherent to all human beings and their equal and inalienable rights. This entails, inter alia, a duty to respect the principles of religious freedom and non-discrimination. [14]
In November 2002, the Council of Europe passed resolution 1309 inviting the Government of France to reconsider the About-Picard Law and clarify certain terms in the law.
It however stated that only the European Court of Human Rights could make a determination as to the law's compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. So far, the law has not been successfully challenged before the Court.
In report 9612 of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of Europe (Rapporteur: Mr Akçali), several objections were raised:
- “… the word ‘sect’ has taken on an extremely pejorative connotation. In the eyes of the public, it stigmatises movements whose activities are dangerous either for their members or for society. Today, the world contains dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of larger or smaller groups, with various beliefs and observances, which are not necessarily dangerous or prejudicial to freedom. It is true that among these groups are some which have committed criminal acts. Nevertheless, the existence of a few dangerous movements is not enough to condemn all the rest (…)”.
In October 23, 2003 the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) held a conference on Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion in where the foremost critics of France and the About-Picard law were the representative of the US government, a representative from the Church of Scientology and a representative from the Raelian religion.[15]
Action of the US government
Some groups sought the help of their governments to fight what they claimed to be religious intolerance in France.[16][17] In the United States, the Church of Scientology utilized pressure groups against the French government, and had some success with the Clinton administration, which repeatedly brought the matter before the French government [18].
According to pastor Jean-Arnold de Clermont, head of the French protestant federation and himself a strong critic of the first draft of the law, the complaints originating in the United States concerning religious freedom in France, were largely based on biased, poor information [19].
According to a newspaper article published in The Guardian in June 2000, American interventions regarding religious freedom in France were largely considered in France to be unwarranted meddling of the US government into France's internal affairs:
[20]
- President Jacques Chirac has told Mr Clinton that religious freedom will no longer be a subject for bilateral presidential talks, in the light of what has been officially described as "shocking" White House support for Scientologists and Moonies.
- The French government has also complained that Congress's introduction of laws protecting religious freedom internationally is "an unacceptable intrusion into internal affairs".
- Alain Vivien , former chairman of the French ministerial mission to combat the influence of cults (MILS) and the president of the Centre Contre les Manipulations Mentales (Center Against Mental Manipulation), said many observers believed that Mr Clinton was making his peace with big religious movements "because they offer an indispensable source of political financing" and that with the help of Scientologists, cults were infiltrating UN and European human right associations and collaborating on virulent reports against France's policies.
While French law was not altered following these requests, the claims and actions of the US government regarding the religious situation in France largely ceased with the Bush administration.
Other controversies between public institutions and minority religions
Some groups have alleged that the parliamentary reports and the controversy surrounding the About-Picard law have created an unhealthy athmosphere resulting in minority religions suffering from excessively strict, uneven or even abusive application of other laws by local authorities.
Allegations of selective applications of existing legislation
Some groups have complained that, following from the publications of those reports and the enactment of the law, they have suffered from discrimination by public authorities, private corporations and individuals. In most cases, the issue seems to have been an over-zealous and selective application of existing laws to certain groups. In the words of pastor Jean-Arnold de Clermont, president of the French Protestant Federation (FPF):
- Some officials are looking more carefully and zealously at any domain that involves religion. It's not very serious and it's marginal but it's very annoying. [21]
However, some Christian leaders declared that freedom of religion was actually well protected in France. Jean-Arnold de Clermont declared:
- I have no time for the idea that we live in a country that represses religious liberties. We continue to enjoy total freedom in setting up religious organizations as long as the existing legislation is known and applied.
Stéphane Lauzet, the Nîmes-based general secretary of the French Evangelical Alliance (part of the World Evangelical Fellowship ), declared:
- Christian groups encounter problems mostly when they misunderstand or ignore the complex technicalities of French law. Even aggressive evangelists can work without any real problems as long as they stick to the law.
Most Christian leaders agree that harassment usually occurs when local officials sanction individuals, groups, and institutions that fail to comply with tax, employment, safety, and zoning rules. But such sanctions seem unfair when other groups frequently ignore these rules without penalty.[22]
Legal actions
- On December 18, 2002, the Court of Appeal of Versailles reversed a decision by a lower court and convicted Jean-Pierre Brard – a French deputy, Journal 15-25 ans, and the director of publication of this magazine, of libeling the Jehovah's Witnesses. The court ordered that a communiqué drafted by it be published in Journal 15-25 ans as well as in a national daily paper and that the defendants pay €4,000 to the Christian Federation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The verdict related to a September 2001 report on sects published by Journal 15-25 ans, where Brard accused the Jehovah’s Witnesses of employing the same methods as international criminal organizations. In March 2003, Brard appealed the verdict to the Court of Cassation, which is the highest court in the country for such matters. [23]
- On November 6, 2002, the Auch court of large claims ordered the dissolution of an organization that had been explicitly created to prevent Jehovah’s Witnesses from constructing a place of worship in Berdues. The court found that the organization’s goal was to "hinder the free exercise of religion". [24]
- On October 17, 2002, the administrative court of Orléans annulled a municipal decision issued by the mayor of Sorel-Moussel, which granted him the pre-emptive right to purchase a plot of land that the local Jehovah’s Witness community had intended to buy and use for the construction of a house of worship. The court considered that the mayor had abused his right of preemption, since he exerced it without having an urbanization project prior to preemption. [25]
- On June 13, 2002, the administrative court of Poitiers annulled a municipal decision issued by the mayor of La Rochelle, which refused the use of a municipal room to the Jehovah's Witnesses on grounds that the Witnesses were listed in the 1995 parliamentary report; the court ruled that, while a mayor may refuse the use of a room for a motive of public order, the motive that he used in this case was not a motive of public order. [26]
- Associations of Jehovah's Witnesses have lost and won court cases regarding their tax-exempt status. See main article.
Concerns about links to non-democratic countries
Some critics of French legislation have voiced concerns that this legislation may be emulated by countries which do not have the same legal safeguards and constitutional rights as France. In the words of a US official [27],
- Yet the law itself remains problematic not only because of the threat the language carries in France, but because it is even now being considered for emulation by countries that lack France’s commitment to rule of law and human rights. Such a model serves only too well as cover for those nations who persecute under the guise of law enforcement.
According to the CESNUR, French anti-cultist organizations such as the CCMM (Center Against Mind Control), the European federation of anti-cult movements FECRIS and Alain Vivien (president of the French governmental Mission to Fight Cults, now disbanded) attended a colloquium organized by the Chinese government on the topic of cults. Some interpret this as assisting the Chinese government in what some consider is state-persecution of religious minorities in China.
Controversy continues in France concerning alleged religious discrimination regarding the security measures that the French government has deployed for official visits of Chinese officials and for festivities organized in collaboration with China, including the exclusion of pro-Tibet and pro-Falun Gong protesters from the path of the Chinese officials [28] [29] [30]. The International Federation for Human Rights denounced the warm welcome of president Jiang Zemin in France, which it denounced as being motivated by economic prospects of trade with China [31].
Many French politicians have denounced what they considered to be an over-zealous security apparatus in those visits[32][33]
Similar controversial security measures have been implemented for the visit of controversial US president George W. Bush.[34]
Falun Dafa umbrella groups contend that the Chinese authorities spread disinformation in Western countries in order to portray Falun Gong in a bad light and to get the help of their governments in fighting it.[35]
French Falun Gong, Tibetan Buddhist groups and other organizations regularly hold protests, sit-ins, distributions of leaflets, and other activities critical of the Chinese government.[36]
In 2004, the French Falun Gong association, asked president Jacques Chirac to convey a message to the Chinese authorities asking them to stop the repression of Falun Gong.[37] Members of Falung Gong have filed criminal charges in France against some officials of the Chinese police apparatus.[38]
External links
Official French government sites
Religious or spiritual groups in France
Documents and Reports
Critique
Bibliography
- Baker, Eileen, Religious Movements: Cult and Anticult Since Jonestown, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 12: pp.329-346, 1986
- Introvigne, Massimo & Richardson, James T., Western Europe, Postmodernity, and the Shadow of the French Revolution: A Response to Soper and Robbins, Symposium on Government Policy Toward Unconventional Religions in Europe, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 40 I.2 p.181, June 2001
- Introvigne, Massimo. & Richardson, James T., "Brainwashing" Theories in European Parliamentary and Administrative Reports on "Cults" and "Sects, Symposium on Government Policy Toward Unconventional Religions in Europe, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 40 I.2 p.43, June 2001
- Palmer, Susan J. The secte Response to Religious Discrimination: Subversives, Martyrs, or Freedom Fighters in the French Sect Wars?, article published in the book edited by Phillip Charles Lucas & Thomas Robbins New Religious Movements in the 21st Century published by Routledge (2004) ISBN 0415965772
- Wybraniec, John & Finke Roger, Religious Regulation and the Courts: The Judiciary's Changing Role in Protecting Minority Religions from Majoritarian Rule, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol.40 I.3 p.427, September 2001
Last updated: 08-24-2005 01:32:59
