Jump to content

About–Picard law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobblewik (talk | contribs) at 21:51, 16 October 2005 (→‎Government and Religion in France: sentence case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The About-Picard law [abu pika:r] (named after French parliament members Nicolas About and Catherine Picard), is a French law which, broadly speaking, makes it possible to act against organisations (legal entities) when these organisations have been involved in certain crimes. The law was, in its own words, aimed at cultic movements (mouvements sectaires) that, "undermine human rights and fundamental freedoms". The law does not define new crimes, except in association with existing crimes. It never mentions religion.

This law has caused controversy internationally, because of its alleged infringement of religious freedom. Proponents of the law allege, on the contrary, that it reinforces religious freedom, since it aims at protecting people who are in a weak position, including children, from being forced into religious and other activities by criminal organizations. As of 2005, the law has only been applied once, in the case of a doomsday cult leader who had induced his followers to commit suicide.

The full title of the law is Loi n° 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 of June 12, 2001 intended to reinforce the prevention and repression of sectarian [cultic] movements that infringe on human rights and fundamental freedoms").

Template:JORF-law-copy

Vocabulary

There are several misleading false cognates (faux amis), in French and English word definitions, which confuse discussions of religion:

  • The French noun culte means any "(religious) worship", or, in a legal context, "religion" taken in a broad sense. An association cultuelle (not to be mistaken with association culturelle, association promoting culture) is thus an organisation that supports religious worship, not a "cult" in the derogatory sense in English.
  • The French noun secte can have the meaning of the English sect, especially when applied to Buddhism. However in general parlance it has the derogatory meaning of the English "cult".
  • The adjective sectaire ("sectarian") almost always has a derogatory meaning: it designates people or institutions with a narrow-minded outlook on the world, who exclude others who do not share their point of view.

Government and religion in France

Main article: Status of religious freedom in France

Freedom of religion and separation of church and state have been part of the French state idea since at least the French Revolution and in some ways long before, in the 16th century period of the Reformation and the Wars of Religion. Separation of religion and state in France takes the form of laïcité, by which interference by the political power in the sphere of religious dogma, or interference by religion in public policies, are avoided. Freedom of religion is primarily understood as the freedom of the individual to believe or not to believe what any religion teaches. Also, because of a long history of one single dominating church (the Catholic Church), the French state sees its duty less in protecting religion from state interference than in protecting the individual from interference by religion.

With this viewpoint in mind, the French state took a different attitude from some other governments with regard to the rise of new religious movements (NRMs): in light of the various tragedies of destructive cults and complaints from families of adherents of NRMs, it looked for means of protecting the population and especially vulnerable persons from abuses by such cults. As early as 1983, deputy Alain Vivien published a report, upon the request of then-prime minister Pierre Mauroy, entitled, "The cults in France: Expression of moral liberty or carriers of manipulations?".

In the wake of the Order of the Solar Temple murders and suicides, the French parliament established a commission for the investigation of cults. In 1995 the commission delivered a report on cults which caused much controversy, due to an appendix containing a list extracted from a report by the French National Police on purported cults. To this day this list is used as the basis of many accusations against France regarding restriction of freedom of religion.

Following the recommendations of the report, prime minister Alain Juppé created in 1996 the "Interministerial board of observation of sects", which was followed in 1998 by the "Interministerial Mission in the Fight Against Sects" (MILS) which was in turn replaced in 2002 by the "Interministerial Monitoring Mission Against Sectarian Abuses" (MIVILUDES).

Another action of the government against potential abuses by cults was the creation of the About-Picard law.

The About-Picard law

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 upon the draft law), senator Nicolas About (UDF center-right party; his report in French) and deputy Catherine Picard (PS center-left party; her 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").

The law was adopted with broad bipartisan support under the government of center-right president Jacques Chirac and socialist prime minister Lionel Jospin.

Main points

The main new points introduced by the law are:

  • In the case of certain crimes legal responsibility is extended from individuals to organizations (corporations, associations, and other legal entities...).
  • Courts can order the dissolution of organizations if they or their executives have been found guilty of these crimes.

The law has six chapters:

  • Chapter 1 says that organizations can be ordered by a court to be dissolved, when they or their leaders have been sentenced for specific crimes. These crimes include endangering the life or physical or mental health of a person, illegal practice of medicine, and fraud or falsification in violation of consumer protection laws, among others.
  • Chapter 2 extends the responsibility for specific criminal offenses to organizations.
  • Chapter 3 specifies that dissolution can only be ordered, if the sentence pronounced for the crime is at least 3 years in prison or a fine of 300,000 FF (now 45000 €).
  • Chapter 4 specifies that organizations that have had legal action taken against them or whose executives have been sentenced several times for the specified offenses, are forbidden to deal with young people and can be fined if they do.
  • Chapter 5 defines fraudulent abuse of a state of ignorance or weakness and gives supplementary punishments for organizations that engage in this sort of activity.
  • Chapter 6 specifies necessary modifications of the penal law.

Specific points about the law which some critics have misunderstood or spoken of in distorted versions:

  • The law does not mention religion, it does not define what a sect or cult is, and it does not mention any particular group.
  • The law makes it possible to prosecute an organization (legally-organized entity) for some specifically listed crimes, which previously would only have resulted in the prosecution of the organization's management. This is also existing law in other jurisdictions. As an example, in the United States of America, several victims of Roman Catholic pedophile priests who have been convicted of pedophilia have successfully sued the dioceses who employed the priests. As a consequence, one diocese has applied for bankruptcy and others may follow suit. See Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal.
  • All the crimes listed in the law (illegal practice of medicine or pharmacy, substantially duping consumers, selling altered products, rape, sexual aggressions, murder, poisoning, torture or barbaric acts, violence, 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 punishable by law in the case of individuals, the law extends these concepts to make it possible to punish the organizations themselves.
  • 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 convicted of certain severe crimes committed within their duties. For all cases of dissolution the crimes involved have to carry minimal penalties indicating that a serious crime has been committed (e.g. three years in prison). This means that dissolution is not a threat in cases where more minor offenses have been committed. Furthermore, dissolution is not automatic, nor is it pronounced by the executive ; as with any criminal matters in France, it is up to the court to appreciate the situation and judge whether it is in society's interest that the organization should be dissolved.
  • Nonprofit associations assisting victims or defending personal or public freedoms, and declared of public usefulness, may exercise victims' rights in such criminal trials. The restriction to associations declared of public usefulness ensures that only reputable and accountable organizations can exercise these rights.

The initial draft of the About-Picard law included the criminalization of "mental manipulation". This clause was criticised by many organizations for its vagueness. Minister of Justice Elizabeth Guigou pushed for the removal of this clause, which was struck out from the final version of the law. However, the law makes it a crime to defraud 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 judgement.

Application of the law

The About-Picard law has only been applied in one case since its adoption: that of Arnaud Mussy, leader of the tiny Néo-Phare (New Lighthouse ) cult. Mussy, who claims that he is the Christ, had announced imminent apocalypse, resulting in the suicide of one of his followers and the attempted suicides of two others, who were severely wounded in 2001. He was sentenced to three years in prison and 90,000 FF damages in November 2004 by the criminal court in Nantes, which ruled that he had "abused fraudulently the state of ignorance and weakness of several persons in the state of bodily or mental dependence" [1] The sentence was confirmed in July 2005 by a higher court in Rennes. [2]

Reactions

See Status of religious freedom in France for concerns about other aspects of French policies with respect to minority religions.

The French government, when challenged on the issue of religious discrimination, states that it is not concerned in any way with religious doctrine per se. The government has taken the position that it will deal with the concrete consequences of cult affiliation, especially with respect to children. This is especially important, the government says, in the light of past abuse committed in some criminal cults, such as (sexual slavery and mass suicide). According to government sources, 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.

Critics of the law assert that this is merely a semantic change and that there are no empirical studies that support claims of the use of techniques of coercive persuasion by NRMs [3].

Reactions inside France

See also: Status of religious freedom in France: Complaints by minority religions

The bishop of Soissons, Marcel Herriot, gave a statement on 25 June 2000 saying among other things: "It is really necessary to protect by law persons, family, society and religions themselves. Too many cults (sectes) are factually violating unpunished fundamental freedoms and human dignity. The Catholic Church doesn't have to fear this law which wants in no case to bring damage to religions and beliefs. " [4]

Some groups claim that the parliamentary reports and the controversy surrounding the About-Picard law have created an unhealthy atmosphere, resulting in minority religious groups suffering from excessively strict, uneven, or even abusive discrimination in the application of other laws by local authorities.

For example, the group Coordination des Associations et Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience, founded in January 2002, requested, 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.[5] This group, however, has been qualified by an OSCE report as a partisan organisation whose "allegations are essentially anonymous and thus of uncertain provenance and reliability." [6]

The umbrella association of French Jehovah's Witnesses sued the French government before the ECHR in case #53430/99, alleging that the publication of the parliamentary reports and the enactment of the About-Picard law infringed 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.

Statements by the Council of Europe

A petition was submitted to the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly by 40 different religious and human rights groups, which led to a report (Report 9612 of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of Europe) containing an expert paper by Swiss professor Joseph Voyame who concluded:

"On the basis of the foregoing, I conclude that the French Law of 12 June 2001 is not incompatible with the Council of Europe’s values."

Voyame deduces that the law clearly responds to a need, that the measure of dissolution is radical, but also effective and reliable, and that it is surrounded by judicial guarantees. He also discusses the title with its mentioning of "cultic groups", but comes to the conclusion that the uncertainty regarding the definition is of little importance:

"The title is undeniably part of the [Act], but has no legislative authority in itself. Although it may be useful for the purposes of interpretation, it cannot be used in making a ruling that runs counter to a clear legal provision [...] As we will see, [Sections] 1, 19 and 20 of this [Act] identify the targeted incorporated organizations and groups with the greatest possible precision. It is these standard-setting texts that are decisive."

In the report several objections regarding the word sect 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 groups both large and small, all 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 (…)”.

The conclusion of the report was:

"The act for the most part simply reiterates existing provisions in the Criminal Code, the Code of Consumption, the Code of Public Health and the New Code of Civil Procedure and does so for a precise purpose in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights, as we have just seen. Consequently, even if it had been possible to achieve the same objective by recourse to existing provisions, there is nothing to prevent the passing of an act which has the advantage of grouping together all the provisions necessary to achieve that objective."

In November 2002, the Council of Europe passed a resolution inviting the Government of France to reconsider the About-Picard Law and clarify certain terms in the law. It referred, however, to the Recommendation 1412 (1999) on the illegal activities of sects, where it had concluded that it was "essential to ensure that the activities of groups, whatever religious, esoteric or spiritual description they adopted, were in keeping with the principles of democratic societies and, in particular, the provisions of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)." and it stated that "ultimately, should the case arise, it will be for the European Court of Human Rights, and it alone, to say whether or not this law is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights." .

Reactions of foreign non-governmental organizations

In an open letter to Alain Vivien about religious freedom in France, dated June 2000 [7], 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 human 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 of its citizens become a victim of discrimination due to the law which you propose.

Alain Vivien responded "[The IHFHR] seems today to have passed into the hands of Scientologists and perhaps other transnational organizations.". 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 embarrassment: "[...]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."[8]

Reaction of the US government

Some groups sought the help of their governments to fight what they claimed to be religious intolerance in France.[9][10] In the United States, the Church of Scientology utilised pressure groups against the French government, and had some success with the Clinton administration, which repeatedly brought the matter before the French government [11].

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].

According to a newspaper article published in The Guardian in June 2000, American interference regarding religious freedom in France was largely considered in France to be unwarranted meddling by the US government in France's internal affairs. [13] President Jacques Chirac 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 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 (Centre 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.

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 [14],

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.

All texts in French.

Official French government sites and reports

All texts in French.

Council of Europe

Critique

References

Official French government publications

  • Jean-Louis Langlais (MIVILUDES), Les dérives sectaires, année 2004 : rapport au Premier ministre, 2005, page, PDF, RTF
  • Jean-Louis Langlais (MIVILUDES), Les dérives sectaires, année 2003 : rapport au Premier ministre, 2004, page, PDF
  • Mission interministérielle de lutte contre les sectes : rapport 2001, 2002, page, PDF, RTF
  • Jacques Guyard, Jean-Pierre Brard, Rapport fait au nom de la Commission d'enquête sur la situation financière, patrimoniale et fiscale des sectes, ainsi que sur leurs activités économiques et leurs relations avec les milieux économiques et financiers, French National Assembly, page
  • Conseil d'État, Rapport public 2004. Jurisprudence et avis de 2003. Un siècle de laïcité, PDF, ISBN 2110055952

Opinions

  • 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

Opinions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=About–Picard_law&oldid=25687781"