The Steiner Schools Defamation Trial: Botched Investigations and Prejudice

The Steiner Schools

Botched Investigations and Prejudice

An article from the magazine Alternative santé – l’impatient, no. 266

Martine Lagattier

On Tuesday 22 February 2000, deputy Jacques Guyard, president of the parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into cults, found himself in the dock before the 17th chamber of the Paris criminal court. He was being sued for defamation by three institutions: the Federation of Steiner Schools; the Mercure fédéral, which brings together doctors with an anthroposophical orientation; and the NEF (Nouvelle économie fraternelle), a bank one of whose objectives is to finance projects helping the unemployed or recipients of the RMI benefit to start businesses.

The background:

On 10 June 1999, the parliamentary Commission on cults, in its report Les Sectes et l’argent (Cults and Money), designated anthroposophy as a cult for the first time.

On 17 June 1999, the 1 p.m. news on France 2 broadcast a report from Bourbon-l’Archambault, a cantonal seat in the Allier. The report was a manipulation. Several sites (the La Mhotte school, the Ruzière therapeutic home and the finance company NEF) were presented as belonging to a supposed anthroposophical movement. Deputy Jacques Guyard, a guest on the set, endorsed it all and spoke of “indoctrination pedagogy, squeezing people dry, compulsory communal living, etc.”

Those defamed decided to sue Jacques Guyard and France 2. They would drop the complaint against the channel, which, with the programme L’Hebdo du médiateur, gave them a generous right of reply on air.

During the hearing on Tuesday 22 February, the presiding judge questioned the deputy at length; she was repeatedly astonished at his ignorance of the subject, and in particular of anthroposophy, this elected representative even spoke at one point of “anthroposomorphs”. She also questioned the secrecy surrounding the commission. Indeed, after the publication of the report, the commission was dissolved, and the persons accused cannot know who denounced them or what the report’s sources are: “I understand protecting the victims of cults, but in what way do institutions like the Renseignements généraux (RG) or the doctors’ order need protection?” The presiding judge tried to find out more about the supposed testimonies of victims of anthroposophy. The deputy stammered, and it emerged that the main accusers were essentially the RG and the medical order. “When one knows how much credit can be given to RG reports, why were you unable to carry out more thorough investigations?” the presiding judge asked. On the supposed real-estate holdings of the “cult”, the number of errors identified during the hearing was impressive. It was truly without any difficulty, faced with so little rigour, that the presidents of the three institutions (Jacques Dallé for the Federation of Steiner Schools, Dr Kempenich for the Mercure and Mr Bideau for the NEF) were able to speak at the bar and explain who they are and what they do.

Despite their emotion, their sincerity was beyond doubt. The public prosecutor showed obvious interest in what was being said, notably when the NEF’s representative spoke of the loans the bank can grant to the unemployed or to RMI recipients, from investments whose savings “must serve to heal the ills of our time”. In the course of one testimony, it emerged that four doctors from the Hérault, including Dr Seignalet, who had taken part in the Entretiens de Monaco (a meeting on non-conventional medicine) in November 1999, were being prosecuted by the Hérault council of the medical order because an anthroposophical doctor was present at that symposium… When the public prosecutor spoke before the closing arguments, he insisted on the need to take an interest in cults, but denounced the fact that such an important subject had been treated with so much imprudence and carelessness.

The deputy’s lawyer would not plead on the merits (he would have had no chance) but on form, arguing that the complaint was inadmissible on grounds of parliamentary immunity: one can hardly believe it… Would deputies have the right to say anything at all with complete impunity? This hearing was comforting for all those who have suffered from the accusations of the June 1999 report. It made it possible to put on trial a report produced haphazardly, to which little credit can be given. Yet calumny is not cured by a trial. The moral damage suffered by the groups identifying with anthroposophy is considerable. It is very difficult to recover from the accusation of being a cult.