About–Picard law

Following the second wave of suicides (and murders) of the Order of the Solar Temple in 1995, the French government has encouraged public caution toward some minority religious groups that it may consider to be cults. 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.

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

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) was formed in 1998 to coordinate government monitoring of sect (name given to cults in France). In February 1998 MILS released its annual report on the monitoring of sects. Alain Vivien, the president of MILS resigned in June under criticism [3] and an interministerial working group was formed to determine the future parameters of the Government's monitoring of sects. In November the Government announced the formation of the Interministerial Monitoring Mission Against Sectarian Abuses (MIVILUDES), which is 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.

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.

The initial draft of the About-Picard law included references to "mental manipulation"; in its final version these were replaced by references to "techniques likely to alter judgment". 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[4].

While the law was criticized in some conservative Christian outlets outside of France as being pushed by "leftists" [5][6], 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.[7]

In report 9612 of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of Europe (Rapporteur: Mr Akçali), several objections were raised:

• It appears to indicate that the purpose of the legislation which are derogatorily referred to as sects. Also the fact that sects - the object of the report – have not been defined.
• “… 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 (…)”.

Concerns outside France about violation of religious freedoms

Some groups sought the help of their governments to fight what they claimed to be religious intolerance in France.[8][9] 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 [10]. According to a newspaper article published in The Guardian in June 2000, these interventions were largely considered in France to be unwarranted meddling of the US government into France's internal affairs: [11]

• 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 ceased with the Bush administration.

The law raised concerns of violation of religious freedoms; some groups declared their intention to sue in the European Court of Human Rights to have it declared in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. 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 [12].

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. [13]

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 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.[14]

Other consequences

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 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. [15]

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.[16]

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 [17],

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 has also erupted in France regarding the security measures that the French government has deployed for official visits of Chinese officials, including the exclusion of pro-Tibet and pro-Falun Gong protesters from the path of the Chinese officials [18] [19] [20]. It is to be noted, however, that:

• France had deployed similar measures for the visit of US president George W. Bush against organizations protesting Bush's foreign policy at a time when the French government, itself, largely opposed the said foreign policy.
• Falun Gong, Tibetan Buddhist groups and other organizations regularly hold protests, sit-ins, distributions of leaflets, and other activities critical of the China government, without any interference from the French government.

External Links

Documents

• The 2003 report of the French Mission on Cultic Deviances MIVILUDES. (PDF - in French)
• Chronological account of the Anti-Cult law in France. Documents, reports, etc. In Italian, French and English

Critique

• "Under Suspicion: Faith in France" by George Thomas "CBN News," July 25, 2003
• Council of Europe Objects to French Anti-Cult Law. Full Text of the Resolution of November 18, 2002 and of the Corresponding Report
• "No sects, please - we're French" by Prof. Susan Palmer ( Dawson College and Concordia University)

Bibliography

• 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