Defaming "Cults" in All Good Faith

Defaming “Cults” in All Good Faith

In March 2000, the Paris tribunal de grande instance convicted the president of the parliamentary commission “Cults and Money”, Mr Guyard, for defamation of three anthroposophist movements, following his televised remarks on France 2 in June 1999. The grounds for the conviction specified that the report of that commission, on which the deputy’s remarks rested, “is not in a position to demonstrate a serious investigation” in support of its accusations, the documents produced being “not relevant” and “without probative value” (“Le Monde” of 23 March 2000). In September 2001 the Court of Appeal recognised the defamatory character of the remarks while holding Mr Guyard to be in good faith and therefore not guilty of the offence of public defamation.

On 20 July 2006 on TF1, Jean-Pierre Brard declared on the television news: “The Jehovah’s Witnesses — I will give you three examples where they are perfect delinquents: evading a tax, condemning people to death by refusing them blood transfusion, or covering up very serious offences such as paedophilia. You can well see that we cannot simply defer to public opinion, but that there are laws which must be applied.” On 11 July 2008, the 17th chamber of the Paris criminal court ruled that these remarks were indeed defamatory, but granted the parliamentarian the benefit of good faith. The court held that the defendant’s statements had to “be considered as having a sufficiently serious foundation” (AFP).

Let us examine a few legal definitions of “good faith”: “A general principle, or at least a directive for the application of the law, which enshrines at the legal level — notably but not exclusively in contractual relations — a requirement of loyalty, sincerity and candour.” (Lawperationnel). “‘Good faith’ is a person’s belief that they are in a situation conforming to the law, and the consciousness of acting without injuring the rights of others” (Dictionnaire juridique).

In the two cases cited, defamation is therefore established. Yet their authors are specialists of the anti-cult struggle. Mr Guyard was rapporteur of the first parliamentary commission of inquiry in 1995, which established (without supporting evidence and without respect for adversarial process) a list of so-called dangerous cults; Mr Brard was its vice-president. In 1998, within the second parliamentary commission of inquiry on the theme “cults and money”, Mr Guyard was assisted by Mr Brard, rapporteur of the report which is not in a position to demonstrate a serious investigation. Can one speak of loyalty, of sincerity, of candour? Do these parliamentarians have the consciousness of acting without injuring the rights of others? Can we believe them ingenuous enough not to know that defamation feeds the rumor, and that it will take years to erase it, in the best of cases?

In December 2002, Mr Brard was convicted on appeal for defamation of … the Jehovah’s Witnesses (note that at first instance in that case he had been granted the benefit of good faith, only for it to be contradicted on appeal; let us add that he has been the subject of other convictions for defamation). That judgment, as well as the violence of Mr Brard’s anti-cult combat, no doubt escaped the sagacity of the judge. The latter invokes the “sufficiently serious foundation” of the declarations. As for the tax litigation between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the State, the case is before the European Court, with a non-negligible risk of the French State being convicted; it seems reckless to pronounce as of now on a serious foundation. Concerning blood transfusions, “the Conseil d’État, in a decision of 16 August 2002, held that the refusal to receive a blood transfusion constitutes the exercise of a fundamental liberty, and the Kouchner law of March 2002 strengthened the right of the adult patient to discuss their treatment” (Hearing of Didier Leschi, head of the bureau of religions, before the parliamentary commission of inquiry “stolen childhood”); as regards children, “the Conseil d’État, in a 2002 interim order, gave precedence to the medical decision over the parents’ refusal of blood transfusion” (Georges Fenech, during the hearings of the same commission); that order forecloses any excess. As for the covering up of acts of paedophilia, it is a reprehensible attitude, one which concerns only a certain number of individuals. The fact of casting this over the whole community, instead of keeping to specific cases, does not seem to trouble the judge. Would his decision have been the same if the accusation of delinquency had been addressed to all Catholics because acts of paedophilia were covered up? Or if it had concerned all the members of a political party whose general secretary committed an offence?

The licence some grant themselves to defame movements labelled cults, with complete impunity, is on the way to being extended, following the parliamentary commission of inquiry on the theme of “stolen childhood”. A new law has been passed on the proposal of Mr Accoyer (President of the National Assembly), granting the witnesses before these commissions the same legal protection as that afforded to persons called to testify before the courts. These witnesses will thus be able to express themselves without restraint; their remarks will be broadcast in forums to which the principal accused (i.e. the “cults”) are not admitted.

Parliamentarians enjoy the privilege of parliamentary immunity. It is necessary to the normal functioning of democracy, but it has to be earned, and when it comes to publishing reports whose content is irrelevant, without probative value and defamatory, a threshold of dysfunction is crossed. The cup runs over when certain deputies confuse (outside the chamber of the National Assembly, no less) “respecting the law” with “having every right”. It is more than time for the leaders of the study group on cults, and their supporters in the Assembly, to come to their senses … once and for all.

Note: CICNS is not linked to any of the movements cited.