Interview with Christian Paturel on the Theme of "Sects"

Christian Paturel is a French jurist and author, a Jehovah’s Witness who practised as a lawyer defending religious minorities in France before turning to writing. His self-published 1996 book « Sectes, religions et libertés publiques » drew a defamation prosecution initiated by the UNADFI, and his conviction by the French courts became the subject of Paturel v. France, decided by the European Court of Human Rights on 22 December 2005, in which the judges unanimously found that France had violated his freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this interview he recounts the litigation, the professional and personal cost of the decade-long fight, and what the Strasbourg judgment meant to him.

CICNS interview. (English translation of the interview published on the CICNS YouTube channel on 10 November 2006. The French transcript was machine-transcribed from the video and cleaned before translation; passages the machine could not reliably hear are marked [inaudible].)

[Interviewer]: Christian Paturel’s career as a lawyer was remarkable, first of all for the role he played in resolving a conflict that had for decades pitted the Jehovah’s Witness community against the French State over the question of military service. It was then [inaudible ?] by a series of persecutions directly linked to his religious affiliation. He testifies today to a ten-year struggle that finally restored him to his rights, on 22 December 2005, before the European Court of Human Rights.

[Paturel]: The trouble started as soon as I began pleading cases. At the outset, I had only cases concerning the church of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, to which I belong. In particular, I had cases about places of worship that had been refused by mayors, for more than dubious reasons, which made it possible to obtain rulings against them for voies de fait [flagrantly unlawful official acts], rulings for misuse of power, among others. National service, for the young men who at the time were conscientious objectors: we realized there was a blockage that prevented any evolution of the regime. Also cases involving divorce proceedings, child custody.

When a person practises a spirituality, one of two things happens: either the husband does not make the religious minority the focus of the dispute, or he does. In most cases, he will attack on that ground. Why? Because his lawyer will advise him, saying: “There, we have a good springboard, we have a good case.” And quickly, contact is made with the regional and local structures of the ADFI, which have a ready-made file, and it automatically comes to feed the proceedings. So from that point on, I began to have trouble. From 1989 until the time I stopped, that is to say the end of 1998, I always had the ADFI facing me as an adversary. Besides, at the beginning, I had won — all the cases had been won, they had been victories.

So I found my field, since I saw people from minorities, from other minorities, who came to see me to defend their cases, notably in the Russian community, for individual cases. I had a Scientologist for the national service matter. I mean, after that, I was intervening a little in every domain for religious minorities.

Then, when I wrote the book — the first was « [inaudible ?] de Jéhovah », which went over well. The second was « Sectes, religions et libertés publiques » [“Sects, Religions and Public Liberties”], which came out at the time of the parliamentary report on “sects”, which came out then. And that one too earned me an enormous amount of trouble, because I had afterwards, subsequently, applied to enter the judiciary.

My president of the tribunal de grande instance and my public prosecutor, at the interview, told me: for us, there has to be a very good magistrate. The problem is that they gave me to understand that higher up, things risked getting stuck at that level. I met the first president of the Court of Appeal and the principal public prosecutor: it went very well. And it is a commission that meets — these are, if you like, the lateral integrations [into the judiciary] — and it was a good file. And the commission that met gave no reasons [inaudible ?] to consider: no, I was not taken as… It is not even worth contesting, because it is discretionary. But through the lower echelons, that is to say the Court of Appeal and the tribunal de grande instance, I was given clearly to understand what was going to be the major obstacle to becoming a magistrate: the fact that I myself belong to a minority. That was the stumbling block for that application.

So, I had this book, « Sectes, religions et libertés publiques », published in January ‘96, which could not be available — that is to say, distributed — until the end of August ‘96. Which did not prevent the UNADFI from bringing me before the criminal court for defamation, over a book that was blocked, that was sleeping in the warehouses of La Pensée universelle, which the court-appointed administrator of La Pensée universelle — since it had been placed in receivership — refused to give me, and while the president of the commercial court refused to issue me an order authorizing me to take possession, to retake possession, of my property, since I was its owner. So there, it was truly deliberate and well orchestrated.

The publication director was utterly delighted, because the parliamentary commission was meeting; we knew the parliamentary report was going to be published on 10 January ‘96, so he had arranged, pushing hard with the printer, to bring the book out at the same time, so that the opposing view would be out there. He told me: “With this, we’re going to make a splash, because the opposing view is going to come out.” The book did not come out at the right moment; it was blocked. Now, it was not banned, it was not seized. The process was under way. The process is far more perfidious still. That is where you see the hand at work; you think you can guess who is behind it.

As if by chance, there was a convergence. I had problems with the bar: they caught me on details that were blown out of proportion, which earned me a one-year ban on practising. That coincided with a car accident I had had previously, so I was in a state of incapacity. I went before the disciplinary board: complete violation of the rights of the defence, procedural defects that piled up. There was notably a procedural step that was annulled. And notably — it comes back to me now — the report that had been drawn up against me, in which my religious affiliation is mentioned: it was supposed to be in the file made available to the lawyer being prosecuted; it was not in that file. It was my two colleagues, who were tasked with providing something of a counter-view, who showed it to me for the first time, a few days before I went before the disciplinary board, who had me read it, and who were embarrassed given the mention of my religious affiliation.

The bâtonnier [president of the bar] prosecuted and, at the same time, presided over the Bar Council and took part in the vote. The two rapporteurs I had, two Freemasons, literally assassinated me by continually bringing up my religious affiliation, and one took part in the deliberation as well. Conversely, those who were tasked with providing some counter-argument were in fact able to present their views but could not take part in the vote.

So I had appealed, and that is when I was subjected to absolutely deplorable blackmail. The bâtonnier called me and said: “Listen, you have put your practice up for sale; we have to rule on that. I really cannot see the bar — or rather the Bar Council — ruling favourably as long as you maintain your appeal. So either you withdraw your appeal, or things stay as they are.” So, pressure for me to withdraw my appeal — a sine qua non condition for being authorized to sell my practice. Given my situation at the time — no work, no income, six dependent children, a physically disabled wife — I gave in; I withdrew my appeal. I regret it today, but at the time, necessity knows no law, as they say.

The bâtonnier, in my opinion, violated professional secrecy, since he informed my personal banker that I was banned from practising for a year. As a result, the banker’s reaction: immediate withdrawal — which is prohibited under the banking law of ‘84 — immediate withdrawal of all my lines of credit. I was left with a good ten, fifteen cheques deemed unfunded which I had to honour very quickly, and at times I was placed under a banking ban.

The same day, the bailiff came knocking at my door, presenting me with an order to pay at the request of the UNADFI, which was enforcing the ruling of the Paris Court of Appeal upholding my conviction for defamation and obliging me to pay 45,000 francs at the time.

So, I can say that, on the human level, it hurts a great deal. You feel like a boxer who has gone down on one knee, who is dazed. My wife has still not recovered: as soon as this period is mentioned, she bursts into tears. And at the family level, it was a genuine family dislocation. My children did not turn, I mean, to delinquency. At the time, I nevertheless had two who were volunteer firefighters, devoting themselves to the national community, as they say — absolutely disgusted at the workings of the French institution, of French democracy. They were disgusted; for a while they had stopped their volunteer service. Afterwards, they pulled themselves together; I would have explained that it had absolutely nothing to do with it. But, I mean, the family suffered enormously on the human level. There are still scars.

So, cassation: it was swept aside in three lines. At each of the stages, I realized that the pile of supporting documents I had submitted, in the form of 70 files, had not been examined. So, I went up to the European Court.

So, the European Court: I began it in December 1999, and it took six years, since the French State was not exactly quick to respond to the submissions. So, 22 December 2005: judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, published on the website of the European Court of Human Rights the very same day, condemning France, by a unanimous vote of the judges, on the one hand to pay me nearly 15,000 € in damages. And as the basis, the reasoning: violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights on freedom of expression. It was held that by convicting me of defamation for the publication of this book, there had been a violation of that fundamental liberty which is freedom of expression.

The judges of the European Court, to whom I had sent the book, took the trouble — they did — to read it, which the French judges had not done; they moreover took the trouble to go back over all my supporting documents connected with this book, to show that it had a basis. That enabled them to say that the sentences had been taken out of their context and that, moreover, there was sufficient evidence to justify the book; that, furthermore, the French judges had shown discrimination, by ultimately convicting me mainly because of my religious affiliation, putting me on trial over my presumed intentions by saying: which explains the animosity towards the ADFI, the UNADFI. In passing, they said that the UNADFI, from the moment it chose to intervene in public debate, was required to show tolerance. Why? Because you cannot attack people without their defending themselves.

And I believe that the fact that this book was self-published, that I pointed out that I had sent this book to numerous publishers, all of whom refused, shows clearly that in France there is now only one channel for shaping opinions, for shaping mentalities — there is only one channel — and that minorities find themselves barred from that channel of expression.

It is a judgment that is going to open the way, because the French judges are going to look at this differently, and are going to see that European justice was not barred. So, European justice did not hesitate to condemn French magistrates through — when you read the [inaudible ?] carefully, I mean — there is a very harsh criticism made of the way the French judges proceeded. So, that is going to lead some — that, plus cases that have nothing to do with it, like the Outreau affair — it is perhaps going to lead many judges to reconsider their point of view and not to yield to outside pressures, in particular.

It did us a great deal of good; it truly lifted our hearts, to say to ourselves: good. And what is more, by a unanimous vote of the judges. So that is a vindication — that is to say, judges belonging to different European legal systems who, unanimously, including the French judge, hand down a decision that vindicates us. There, I mean, it was a moment, a state of nirvana: we felt truly well, we savoured it.