Seven Years: Moral Balance Sheet and Perspectives of the CICNS's Action

Seven Years. Moral Balance Sheet and Perspectives of the CICNS’s Action

André Tarassi (March 2011)

In France, for nearly 30 years, it has become just about impossible to make an alternative life choice (spiritual, therapeutic, educational) without being categorised as a “cult”. The situation is at best uncomfortable and at worst catastrophic for thousands of people who suffer a media and police harassment amplified by the arrival of Georges Fenech at the presidency of the MIVILUDES.

According to the latter, supported by all the complaisant media, the minorities of conviction are said to be a scourge for the country. Every well-informed person knows that this postulate is a politicians’ masquerade, firmly denounced by all those who wish to protect fundamental liberties as well as the seedbed of new ideas that most of these minorities constitute in a moribund civilisation.

The CICNS has been keeping an indispensable watch in the domain of freedom of conviction for 7 years.

We draw up a satisfactory balance sheet of our information work, which has contributed to initiating a then non-existent debate and to balancing the allegations of the anti-cult associations, absolutely ignorant on this social question and of a rare crudeness in their discourse. The work of sapping the “spiritual” and the alternative has nevertheless done its work deeply in every layer of French society. The CICNS still suffers the suspicion of a part of the population which has been convinced (“defame, defame, something will always stick”) that we were “in the pay of the cults”.

Even if the MIVILUDES, the ADFIs and the CCMM have had to revise their copy (see the “level” of the annual reports before 2004 or the statements of Roger Ikor, for example, compared with the oratorical precautions taken today), their terrorising posture having become indefensible in the face of our arguments, the fact remains that the French population is globally afraid of the “cults” without really knowing what is at issue or what is being undertaken to resolve this hypothetical problem. There is probably no other social question that is as vague, both at the level of legislation (since legally a “cult” does not exist) and in people’s minds.

Our most dramatic observation, the one that presents the gravest menace in our democracy, is that the prosecutors and judges have undergone the same “brainwashing” on this subject, and that many of them (they hesitate less and less to order violent police raids on a simple rumour) often rule unjustly in disputes where the word “cult” is pronounced.

A pacific orientation, respectful of interlocutors, is a characteristic of our association. We have sometimes had differences with other individuals or liberty-defence groups on this subject, because we hold the conviction that the aggressiveness of certain actions can discredit the causes we defend. Until just before Mr Fenech’s arrival, we had even made the choice of dialogue with the MIVILUDES. We are obviously resolved to maintain this non-violent direction, without which our action would contradict the values we want to promote, but a reflection is under way within our team faced with the too feeble impact of our advocacy with the authorities (our campaign for the creation of an independent and competent observatory of the spiritual, therapeutic and educational minorities has received no reply from the government, not even an acknowledgement of receipt). The CICNS, though clearly an object of surveillance, seems to us to be tolerated principally because our pacific choice presents no real menace to the established disorder.

It is rather sad to observe that a revolution cannot come about through dialogue alone. Current events confirm it to us, moreover, in the Arab countries rising up in blood and tears. We would like it to be otherwise, and we know this wish is shared by a large part of humanity, but it seems inevitable that a group defending rights flouted by an authoritarian system radicalises its positions when it observes its impotence in acting on the plane of dialogue alone. How to reconcile a pacific orientation with a more assertive action while avoiding going to war? How to challenge a government that does not feel obliged to answer those who carry no weight in political lobbying?

It is evident that we are called to pass to another mode of action.

A sociologist said to us one day: “Stop complaining, file complaints!” That little sentence rang a bell announcing a new direction. We will certainly be told that we were naive to believe that denouncing injustice would suffice to see it disappear. We wanted above all to wager on a humanist awakening of the authorities and the population. But it did not happen. The authorities reason only in terms of interests, and the population is kept on a leash and conditioned to Pavlovian reflexes of self-defence every time it is spoken to of “differences”.

So we are going to have to file complaints, and do it again and again until the voice of reason and tolerance takes back its place. But this formal “complaint” cannot come from the CICNS alone either. There are today enough groups and individuals who have suffered the violence, the ostracism and the sanctions of the system to reveal the scandal. We also know a certain number of very competent lawyers who are ready to commit themselves to such actions. Finally, we will do everything so that those who commit themselves to this legal combat are supported morally as much as financially (on this last point, our idea being to gather support funds so that actions in the courts are not slowed at any stage by lack of means).

It seems to us today that this action is the one that makes it possible to reconcile our pacific commitments with the necessity of a more assertive and concrete approach.

We know few people engaged in alternative paths who are enchanted at the idea of rubbing up against the judicial machine, and this reality is doubtless also at the origin of our timidity in this regard, but if our action is solidary[1], if we support one another (through contact, discussion, the opening of specialised forums on the Internet, the centralisation of actions), the task will be less heavy and the impact greater, without our losing our soul and our energy in it.

We therefore expect the people concerned by this message to come forward quickly (at the address [email protected], by post to CICNS BP7 82270 Montpezat de Quercy or by telephone) so that we can coordinate their actions, offer advice and at last put an end, with them, to this tragic French orientation against the minorities of conviction, which shows no sign of progress. The years to come must hear our voice, for we have a place to take in the process of improving our societies. So let us stop complaining and file complaints, with in our hearts the assurance of our good right, the strength of our solidarity and the enthusiasm of those who work not only for themselves but for a project of civilisation.

André Tarassi was born in 1961, he is the founder of the CICNS. An independent researcher, he has studied the “New Spiritualities” for 30 years. He studied journalism and television in the United States. He has published, under another name, several works on the spiritual path.

[1] A movement of solidarity is the first appeal I launched in 2004, at the creation of the CICNS.