Analysis of the Law of 12 June 2001 Concerning "Cults"

Analysis of the law of 12 June 2001

concerning “cults”

We reproduce below an enlightened commentary on the ins and outs of this famous law, which opened the door to every abuse in a climate of denunciation, defamation and ostracism.

by Philippe Perollier, lawyer at the Marseille Bar

The exact title of the law is: “Strengthening of the prevention and repression of cult movements infringing human rights and fundamental freedoms”.

Article 1 of the law says that: “The dissolution may be pronounced, according to the terms provided by the present article, of any legal entity, whatever its legal form or purpose, which pursues activities having as their aim or effect to create, maintain or exploit the psychological or physical subjection of the persons taking part in these activities, when final criminal convictions have been pronounced (…) for one or another of the offences mentioned below (…)”.

If one relates the title of the law to the content of article 1, the new law thus now defines “cult movements” as infringing human rights and fundamental freedoms and pursuing “activities having as their aim or effect to create, maintain or exploit the psychological or physical subjection of the persons taking part in these activities”. One begins to form a more precise idea of what a “cult” or a “cult movement” is for the legislator. One consequence, among others, is that to say of a group that it is a “cult” or a “cult movement” now amounts to accusing it of specific acts. These are no longer vague and general accusations. Yet, curiously, the law’s defenders continue to deny having wanted to define what a “cult” is. One must therefore ask why, and we shall try to answer that further on.

It is true that this “definition” contains an element of abysmal vagueness: the famous psychological subjection…

Abuse of weakness, or the return of mental manipulation

In the bill, after its passage through the National Assembly, the offence of “mental manipulation” had made its appearance. Faced with a heap of criticism, both internal and external, the government and Parliament reached an agreement to remove the offence of mental manipulation and to substitute for it a modification of abuse of weakness. The unease has not been dispelled — quite the contrary.

1° The texts in question

Reading the two texts attentively — that of the offence of mental manipulation and that of abuse of weakness as modified by the new law — one cannot help noticing troubling similarities! So that the reader may judge, the two texts are reproduced here:

On mental manipulation (in the bill, which was ultimately not adopted): “The act, within a group pursuing activities having as their aim or effect to create or exploit the psychological or physical dependence of the persons taking part in these activities, of exerting serious and repeated pressures on one of them, or of using techniques liable to alter their judgement, in order to lead them, against their will or not, to an act or an abstention which is seriously prejudicial to them, is punished by three years’ imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 F.”

Abuse of weakness: article 223-15-2 of the Penal Code as adopted: “Is punished by three years’ imprisonment and a fine of 2,500,000 F the fraudulent abuse of the state of ignorance or the situation of weakness either of a minor, or of a person…, or of a person in a state of psychological or physical subjection resulting from the exertion of serious or repeated pressures or of techniques liable to alter their judgement, in order to lead this minor or this person to an act or an abstention which are seriously prejudicial to them.”

“When the offence is committed by the de facto or de jure leader of a group pursuing activities having as their aim or effect to create, maintain or exploit the psychological or physical subjection of the persons taking part in these activities, the penalties are increased to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 5,000,000 F.”

2° The reintroduction of the offence of mental manipulation by way of fraudulent abuse

a) The addition of the notion of fraudulent abuse

In the offence of mental manipulation, defined essentially as the exertion of pressures (…) in order to lead to a prejudicial act, it was the broad notion of “pressure” that caused concern. An application beyond what was targeted was feared. The fact that consent to the act had no effect also raised fears of abuses.

According to the parliamentarians, thanks to the addition of the notion of abuse of weakness, the exertion of these pressures or the use of the techniques would no longer be punishable in themselves. Only the fact of taking advantage of the state of subjection “resulting therefrom” would now be punishable. That would be the essential difference from mental manipulation.

b) The meaning of fraudulent abuse

Abuse of weakness, as it emerges from the new law, presupposes, as we saw above, the existence of the same pressures or techniques. The identity of the terms is perfect and obvious.

“Fraudulent abuse consists in profiting from the victim’s situation” (no. 56, Juris-Classeur, 1996 edition). According to the case law on the matter, it suffices to have knowledge of the situation of weakness and to take advantage of it for the abuse to be established. This element comes down, in practice, to the fact of “leading another person to a prejudicial act”!

Thus, once care has been taken to establish the state of subjection resulting from pressures or techniques (…), the abuse of the state of subjection (the fraudulent abuse) will result from the mere profit drawn, whatever it may be. And this profit will be assimilated to the prejudice.

Here again, and if it were needed, it must be made clear that if a state of subjection truly exists (subject to the difficulties of defining and establishing it!) and someone cynically draws profit from it to the detriment of another, that is obviously unacceptable and one can only condemn such practices!

c) The fraudulent diversion of the notion of fraudulent abuse!

In the offence of mental manipulation, the aim of the exertion of pressures had to be “to lead, against their will or not, to an act or an abstention which is seriously prejudicial to them”, and that did not imply, literally, profiting from it directly and personally. The mere prejudice of the “victim” sufficed.

Yet, beyond the legal subtleties, according to the anti-cult literature, current opinion (common sense!), the parliamentary debates and the spirit of the law, it is the “gurus” who profit from the state of subjection they create. It is they who place their victims in a “state of subjection”. There is no doubt about that. And they do so precisely with the aim of profiting from their victims. And the logic is unanswerable: one does not see the interest for these “gurus” in implementing these techniques or pressures if they draw no profit from them!

Moreover, when there is a prejudice for one party (the victim), at its origin there is necessarily and always someone who profits from it, in one way or another. That is true throughout the immense domain of civil liability in tort, and even in many cases of faults of imprudence. It is all the more true in the domain of intentional offences. The deliberate harmful act, at the origin of the damage, is rarely committed for disinterested motives!

That is why the fact of drawing a profit (the new abuse of weakness) appears perfectly equivalent to the prejudice initially provided for in the offence of mental manipulation — all the more so since the prejudice, as we shall see, is no longer necessarily financial.

Furthermore, an essential word figures in the “new” offence of abuse of weakness: the state of subjection must result from the techniques and pressures. Yet these are, as has just been recalled, exerted, directly or not, by the “gurus” themselves.

Consequently, in convicting those who take advantage of a state of subjection resulting from the techniques and pressures, it is indeed the exertion by the “gurus” of these pressures and techniques that is in reality still targeted and condemned.

Moreover, the enormous advantage of abuse of weakness, besides passing for more “liberal”, is that it is no longer necessary to demonstrate, separately, that the wicked “gurus” themselves exerted the pressures or used the techniques. Very convenient — it will require a little less work. It suffices to observe the state of subjection, the existence of these pressures or techniques, and the profit drawn — which, let us recall, is no longer only material or financial, which greatly facilitates matters.

Thus, not only does one reach the same result with the offence of abuse of weakness as regards the “gurus”, but the offence of mental manipulation has indeed been reintroduced, by way of a somewhat tortuous and convoluted drafting.

To finish and be complete, a final doubt might remain in some minds because of the question of consent.

The offence of mental manipulation, as it had been provided for, used the formula: “against their will or not”. It thus implied that a consented act could fall within the scope of the offence — which, I recall, had contributed to some people’s opposition to this offence.

Yet, by definition, this “consent” was “obtained by surprise”, forced, since it resulted from the pressures or techniques (…). There was a very strong analogy with defects of consent in contract law. And in any event, what was consented to was the act leading to the prejudice, and not the prejudice itself.

In the new abuse of weakness, no mention is made of consent. But abuse of weakness, in its most frequent application, almost always concerns people who “consented” to what they were made to do (signing a cheque or a contract, for example), even if they were not aware of the abuse of which they were victims. So true is this that the victim can equally bring a civil action to have the contract annulled. But we are there in a situation identical to the one supposed by mental manipulation: one “consents” because one does not know that one is being duped, abused!

A ruling of the Criminal Chamber of 31 October 2001, concerning abuse of weakness, even specified that there is no need whatsoever to demonstrate coercion. Which indeed means that there was consent! Once again, it suffices to have abused — that is, to have drawn a profit from the weakness. The offence in no way requires proving the absence of consent, still less now, since it rests on a prior state of subjection.

Thus on this point too the anti-cult camp can be reassured: their offence is safe and sound.

3° The possibility of broader and more severe repression.

As has just been said, with “simple” abuse of weakness it is not necessary to demonstrate that the wicked “gurus” themselves exerted the pressures or used the techniques. It suffices that the state of subjection be observed.

Nor is it any longer necessary to demonstrate that the offence is committed within the framework of a movement (the “cult”) having as its aim or effect to “create or exploit the psychological or physical dependence of the persons taking part in these activities”. It suffices to have abused it, which facilitates and broadens repression.

The aggravating circumstance punishes the leader of a “cult” even more severely than the “simple” offence of mental manipulation did!

Yet the leader of a group whose aim or effect is to “create, maintain or exploit subjection” is necessarily the one who exerts the pressures or uses the techniques (…) — it is necessarily the “guru”!

One might think and object that it will be more difficult to prove that a movement “has as its aim or effect to create, maintain or exploit subjection”. Yet, once abuse of weakness has been established (notably with the existence of the pressures or techniques and the state of subjection) in the person of the “guru”, will it not suffice that the “guru” leads a “movement” for the latter to be characterised as a movement whose aim or effect is to “create, maintain or exploit subjection”?

Indeed, on the one hand, the leader necessarily takes part in the activities of the “movement” — it is even he who invents them, by definition! On the other hand, it is necessarily through the group’s activities that the leader “profits” from the state of subjection (and logically it is necessarily so, above all financially). Consequently, the group will always have, at the very least, the effect of enabling the “guru” to exploit the subjection!

It is hard to see, moreover, how and why a “guru”, if he really is a “guru”, would take the trouble to lead a movement that did not serve him to create or exploit subjection! The logic is implacable!

Thus, despite the parliamentarians’ proclamations, not only has the offence of mental manipulation indeed been adopted, but it is punished even more severely than what was initially provided for!

4° Material elements of the offence that are particularly vague, imprecise, and variable in content

For the offence to be constituted, one must establish a pre-existing state of psychological or physical subjection, itself resulting from pressure(s) or from techniques liable to alter judgement.

a) A state of subjection

Mr BUSSEREAU, during the parliamentary debates of 30 May 2001 at the National Assembly, said the following about the new abuse of weakness: “The question is whether religions and non-cult groups will really be safe from prosecution. Doubt is permitted, and I understand that men of the Church or a great evening newspaper have taken up the problem. What will be the scope of application of the law? What criteria will be used to define the state of subjection or the fact of “altering discernment”? (…) “The risk of arbitrariness is present in any desire to protect individuals against themselves.""

That is revealing: the parliamentarians charged with voting the law do not know what a state of subjection is, or what altering judgement is! The judges charged with interpreting the law are going to have difficulties, especially if they try, as they normally must, to refer to the parliamentary debates! According to those debates, the new text is to apply only to “cults”; yet the notion of “cult” is, in principle, not defined. It will therefore be possible to apply the text according to a subjective and a priori assessment of the notion of “cult”.

Is the patient of a psychoanalyst not in a state of psychological subjection, especially in a phase of “acute” transference?! Is the executive devoted body and soul to his employer not in a state of psychological subjection?! Is the employee’s state of subordination to his employer not, in the strict sense, a “state of subjection”? Is the unemployed person at the end of his benefits, spending a significant part of his meagre resources buying “win millions” tickets or other “scratch cards” at the corner tobacconist’s, not in a state of subjection? From what means, from what facts, will the existence of “activities having as their aim to create, maintain or exploit a psychological or physical subjection” be deduced? No one knows. The lack of precision of this definition is extremely worrying. It is possible (and even indispensable) to assert, as a certain number of parliamentarians have in fact done, that with such a definition, EVERYTHING can be targeted.

If by “state of subjection” one understands a state of abdication of one’s own will, of disappearance of lucidity and free will, is it possible to obtain such a state of subjection? Can a single pressure, even a serious one, or the use of techniques (…) bring about such a state of subjection? Can this state last? The anti-cult associations affirm that it can, since that is their main argument against “cults”. Certain authors, certain psychiatrists affirm it too (which is in no way a guarantee of “scientific” certainty — many psychiatrists long considered, and some still do, homosexuality to be a perversion, a mental illness!). It is also the spirit of the law. Yet it is in principle according to the spirit of the text that magistrates interpret its ambiguous or obscure provisions.

If one wants to defend the theory of mental manipulation, that would imply questioning the otherwise pernicious, and deeper, influences of advertising, education, school, the media on the behaviour of individuals and crowds, etc. Yet this reflection is carefully evacuated. It is necessary to ask why!

How is the state of subjection going to be legally established? Will it be deduced automatically from the mere observation of the existence of pressure or of techniques liable to alter judgement? Will it be deduced from the mere fact that there was a prejudice — which would be properly aberrant (but unfortunately not at all surprising), since the same element of fact would serve twice!

b) Serious or repeated pressures

What is to be understood by “serious pressures”? While one intuitively perceives what the word “pressure” contains, it is so vague that it will permit anything and everything. It is quite extraordinary that in a criminal offence such a general term should be used, leaving the judge every latitude.

Examination of the parliamentary debates (and this point also concerns the “techniques liable to alter judgement”) shows that what is targeted are pressures designated by the term psychic rape (National Assembly debate, 30 May 2001, Mrs PICARD). This expression leaves room for the most complete arbitrariness. But above all, it brings nothing precise as to the acts targeted. It goes without saying that “psychic rape” constitutes a pressure! But what does it consist of? What do these words cover? What are we talking about?!

The vagueness of the notion of “pressure”, and the fact that “repeated” pressures suffice (and that starts from two!), risk bringing within the scope of repression solicitations or canvassing such as door-to-door visits, or what is called “proselytism”. This word having today become pejorative, it irresistibly and precisely evokes the exertion of a pressure! The vehement, passionate or indignant expression of ideas, convictions, beliefs also risks being seen as “pressures”. Especially if one sees in a change of convictions or of eating habits, for example, an effect of the exertion of pressure! That is the credo of certain anti-cult associations.

If certain decisions, certain documents are to be believed, “pressures” can consist in the mere “influence” exerted by a “charismatic” person…

c) Techniques liable to alter judgement

When people really are subjected to lasting and manifestly excessive deprivations of sleep and food, to exhausting work rhythms, to financial exploitation, etc., there is assuredly something unacceptable there, even if it is not certain that these elements really have an impact on the long-term commitment of the person who has undergone them.

When these methods are knowingly used to force someone into an act or an activity, whatever they may be, it is inadmissible, whether within a “cult” or within any institution whatsoever! No one can be unaware that these techniques are used in certain interrogations, notably at Guantanamo!

Yet, to avoid any abuse, it would have been necessary to define more precisely what was to be understood by “techniques liable to alter judgement” (even supposing one accepts the idea that these techniques are effective on commitment and thus on the placing in a state of subjection). By “techniques”, should one not understand exclusively the use of drugs, of subliminal images or sounds, of deprivations of food or sleep, or of deliberate disruptions of biological rhythms, etc.? If one wants to avoid any reproach of arbitrariness, reference had to be made to such “techniques”, objectively observable, identifiable, analysable! If they had been thus defined, and if the existence of such techniques were objectively and irrefutably established, then yes, it would have been possible to speak of a “state of subjection”, or at the very least of an alteration of will and freedom. The detour via the “state of subjection” would not even have been necessary.

“They” will object to us that the law cannot foresee everything…

What will the magistrates do, on whom will weigh the heavy task of interpreting and applying the law!? Will they rule that by “techniques” one must indeed understand material, identifiable, incontestable techniques?

With the present law, the danger is great of seeing techniques everywhere, and therefore “cults” everywhere! There lies my main concern. From what point will one speak of “techniques liable to alter judgement”? Will night risings in monasteries, repeated prayers (Orthodox, Buddhist…), Sufi dance, prolonged meditation which, according to its practitioners, modifies perception and consciousness, etc., be considered “techniques liable to alter judgement”?

The anti-cult associations and the Renseignements Généraux see techniques everywhere, for example in the mere fact of advocating vegetarianism, or in the use of discourse (especially when it is subversive!).

Finally, “they” assure us today that religions have nothing to fear (see the parliamentary debates), but is this not “falling back” onto the problem of the distinction between religion and cult, which everyone wants at all costs to avoid (or at least pretends to — we shall come back to it)!!

d) A seriously prejudicial act

The law requires a “seriously prejudicial act”.

Here again, we enter vagueness. Before the anti-cult law, the prejudice was material, financial. It was relatively identifiable, precise. What will it be tomorrow? Commitment to a community? Taking vows of chastity, obedience and poverty? Giving up a promising career? Giving up marriage? What then? Everything becomes possible. The concern on this subject is not exaggerated and it is widely shared, as witnessed by the intervention of Mgr Billé, president of the Conference of Bishops of France, and of Mr de Clermont, president of the Protestant Federation of France. I recall that even Mr BUSSEREAU of DL wonders what is to be understood by “seriously prejudicial act”!

The simple fact of joining a group labelled a cult could very well constitute the “seriously prejudicial act”! Indeed, if one considers, a priori, that it is a “dangerous cult”, it goes without saying that the mere fact of joining it becomes a prejudice, since the “follower” gradually loses their free will there! This can be reconciled with the position of the consultative commission on human rights according to which “followers” are free to enter “cults”! They are free, but they suffer, without knowing it, a prejudice!

Here again, what must be underlined is the total freedom of interpretation left to the magistrates.

The “civil” dissolution of “cults”

Only “cults” are targeted, contrary to the hypocritical assertions of one and all, since these “legal entities” are defined in article 1 of the law as pursuing: “activities having as their aim or effect to create, maintain or exploit the psychological or physical subjection of the persons taking part in these activities”. This definition is identical to the one allowing anti-cult associations to join proceedings as civil parties. It must be recalled that Mrs PICARD herself explicitly explained that this article of the law would allow the dissolution of “cults”.

1° The general conditions

a) The pursuit of activities having as their aim to create, maintain or exploit a psychological or physical subjection

The legal entity will have to meet the definition of article 1 of the law. I shall not return here to the problems raised by the definition of activities having as their aim to create, maintain or exploit a psychological or physical subjection.

One element must be noted which is not at all innocent: a conviction for abuse of weakness can automatically entail dissolution, since abuse of weakness corresponds perfectly to the general condition of the pursuit of activities (…), especially when the aggravating circumstance is present… Thus, after the conviction, the dissolution. Such indeed was the objective.

In the other cases (that is, in cases where a legal entity has been convicted twice for other offences), since the general condition corresponds to the “definition” of “cults”, will it suffice for the judge to refer to the list of 172 in the 1996 parliamentary report?! The parliamentarians, during the debates, did not hesitate to do so!

A significant passage from the Senate debates of 16 December 1999 must be quoted. Under discussion at the time was a bill intended to supplement the 1936 law on combat groups and private militias, to allow the dissolution of “cults”. In the end, it was not this bill that was adopted.

Mr Thierry FOUCAUD had notably declared during that debate: “I recall the mechanism proposed to us. It is by way of an assimilation of dangerous cults to “combat groups and armed militias” governed by the law of 10 January 1936 that the President of the Republic could pronounce, by decree in the Council of Ministers, the dissolution of these movements. An association or a group, once it had been the object of several criminal convictions for offences which give reason to suspect the presence of a dangerous cult — whose list was drawn up in 1996 in the report of the commission of inquiry into cults in France —, would fall under this law.”

A single remark: Mr FOUCAUD asserts that several convictions are necessary to “give reason to suspect the presence of a dangerous cult”, but he also asserts that the 172 movements cited by the 1996 commission of inquiry are all “dangerous cults”, when out of the lot, an overwhelming majority has never been convicted, not even once!

Should one hope for more and better from the magistrates? Doubt is permitted.

Indeed, the Cour de Cassation itself has already used this inclusion on the list of 172 to uphold court of appeal rulings… Thus, for example, 2nd civil chamber, appeal no. 96-22058, of 25 June 1998. That was, once again, a case of divorce and child custody. The Court of Appeal had based its ruling on “a discipline of life dangerous for a 10-year-old child”, adding “that a character of “cult” was imputed to this movement in a parliamentary report drawn up in 1995”, and drew from this the conclusion that the child had to be removed from any “risk of this type”.

The Cour de Cassation, on the appeal lodged, ruled that “the Court of Appeal took into consideration new elements for assessing the situation” and upheld the ruling.

What is essential in this ground of the Cour de Cassation’s ruling and in this case is that the only new element is precisely the inclusion of this movement in the parliamentary report! The ground of appeal indeed specified that the mother’s membership of this movement was perfectly known to the father, well before the divorce! Yet, to obtain a change in child custody, a new element was needed! It was found!

It is true that since then, the European Court of Human Rights has intervened, specifying that the report was merely indicative…

Will the mere fact of being considered a “cult” by “common sense” suffice?

Another, more technical question is posed: that of the extent of the review exercised by the Cour de Cassation over the application of the law.

The Cour de Cassation does not in principle review the assessment of facts — that is, it will not review the existence and reality of the means identified by the trial judges (with all the subjectivity denounced above) as capable of leading to a state of subjection.

If it decides to review the notion of the state of subjection, it could content itself with ruling that these means can indeed bring about subjection. It must be acknowledged that the question is far from obvious. We have here, once more, an example of the judge’s role!

Even if certain facts are real and uncontested — such as, for example, the practice of rising at night, or prayer sessions of a certain length, or again offering courses or books — there will always be an interpretation of their consequences on the freedom and judgement of those who “take part” in them. This is the more general problem of “the interpretation of facts”.

Moreover, is there not a risk of looking for the facts which, as if by chance, will correspond to the a priori vision of the notion of “cult”? Eminent authors have underlined the choice made by the judge among the facts, according to an a priori, as in physical science: “the measurement defines the quantity to be measured” (Ullmo, “La pensée scientifique moderne”)! This is the notion of the “operational definition”. In the present case, the facts selected may be alternative medicines, yoga, meditation, fasting, African dance, astrology, vegetarianism…, to the exclusion of the multitude of concrete, lived realities whose mass could nevertheless form a counterweight and reduce to nothing any tendentious interpretation of certain isolated “facts”. Anything can now, at the magistrates’ pleasure, become the means of “creating, maintaining or exploiting psychological subjection”.

As we can see, a heavy responsibility weighs on the judges. The parliamentarians have left the judges considerable power. What will they do with it?

b) Two criminal convictions

Two criminal convictions suffice to dissolve a legal entity (article 1 of the law), with all the consequences that entails.

The two convictions can concern the legal entity or its leaders (de jure or de facto).

As regards the legal entity itself, it must be specified that legal entities can be convicted when the offence is committed by one of their leaders on behalf of the legal entity.

This second element does not limit conviction to the sole material profit drawn from the offence. It covers all cases where the offence has been “committed in the exercise of activities whose purpose is to ensure the organisation, the functioning or the objectives of the group” (Juris-Classeur, no. 71, article on the criminal liability of legal entities)! Translation: as soon as the legal entity is concerned, closely or remotely, it can be convicted. Even when the leader has exceeded his mandate or his powers (see Juris-Classeur, 2000, article 121-2, no. 66). It suffices that the offence committed by the leader was committed within the framework of the legal entity’s activities.

Another subtlety must therefore be noted, which no parliamentarian raised (with the exception of Senator CALDAGUES, the only parliamentarian, to my knowledge, who had the courage to oppose the law as it was voted). We are told of two convictions, whereas a single act prosecuted twice could suffice!

Indeed, it is possible to prosecute cumulatively the legal entity (the “cult”) and its leader, who will necessarily have performed the material acts of the offence (since that is a condition for the application of the liability of legal entities). The same act, through the fiction of the criminal liability of legal entities, can give rise to two convictions (notably in the case of abuse of weakness)!

Here again, everything will be a matter of will and expediency. The parliamentarians swore by their great secular gods that only “dangerous cults” were targeted, but, on the one hand, they themselves do not know what a “cult” is and, on the other hand, there is an obvious risk of abuse. Some of them saw and understood this perfectly.

The 1996 list is made up of “dangerous cults”! There are therefore currently 172 potential targets!

2° The offences allowing dissolution

The accumulation of offences is not innocent — we shall return to it further on — and contributes powerfully to making “cults”, their “followers” and their supposed gurus into potential criminals.

a) The case of the leaders of “cults”

In the first place, the law makes no distinction according to whether the offences were committed by the leaders of “cults” within the framework of their “functions” in the “cult” or within the framework of their private life. The consequence is that an association can be dissolved for two offences committed by a leader in his private life (traffic accidents on a journey to the cinema, for example — which can happen even to a “guru”!). That would be a considerable, exorbitant and scandalous infringement of the freedom of association of the “members”!

The law permits this situation. What will the judges do? Will they decide that a link with the legal entity’s activity is required for the leaders’ conviction to be able to entail the dissolution of the legal entity? Will they decide, in the end, that to be able to entail dissolution, the offences committed by the leader must always have been committed “on behalf of the legal entity”?

b) The particular case of non-intentional offences

Among the impressive list of offences concerned figures, in particular, a series of non-intentional offences.

As their name indicates, these are — with different gradations in the fault committed (simple negligence, conscious violation of a law or regulation, manifestly deliberate violation of an obligation of prudence or safety, etc…) — offences for which the result (the damage) was not intended. These offences will also make it possible to dissolve “cults”.

A law promulgated in July 2000 significantly modified, under pressure from mayors and other decision-makers, the elements of the non-intentional offence. In particular, the law now distinguishes the direct perpetrator and the indirect perpetrator. The latter, defined in article 121-3 of the Penal Code, is the one who contributed to the damage without having directly caused it, by having created or contributed to creating the situation which allowed the damage, or again, who did not take the measures allowing the damage to be avoided. However, only the aggravated faults of the indirect perpetrator will lead to conviction.

Except for legal entities! Except for “cults”, in particular. The modification made by the July 2000 law concerns only natural persons. As regards legal entities, a simple fault, identical to the civil fault of imprudence, will lead to criminal conviction and can therefore allow the dissolution of these legal entities!

To realise what this means, an example must be given.

By transposing a recent ruling of the Cour de Cassation (24/10/2000), one can imagine the following facts: during a visit to the premises of an association (a place of worship or meeting, for example), a person injures themselves falling from a gallery (rest assured, their life is not in danger). This person (or their close relatives, or ADFI) can bring proceedings for unintentional injury (article 222-19 of the Penal Code).

On the morning of the visit, an ordinary member of the association had, by mistake, by negligence, by imprudence, as you will, forgotten to put back a barrier on the gallery in question (he is therefore the direct perpetrator).

The association can be convicted of unintentional injury, by way of indirect causality, if it can be established that the leaders did not warn the members, employees and volunteers of the association about the rules of prudence concerning gallery barriers. Such a fault would suffice to have the association convicted. The slightest imprudence or negligence, the mere lack of overall organisation, suffice (parliamentary report on the July 2000 law).

Certainly, such imprudences must be avoided, but their consequences, when a “cult” is involved, are totally disproportionate to the gravity of the fault! Company directors very often commit this kind of fault and the legal entities are not dissolved for all that! Everyone realises here that the door is open to anything at all.

Here again, the judges will decide.

3° The possibility of dissolving legal entities linked by a community of interest or pursuing the same objective, when each has been convicted only once.

A single conviction will suffice to dissolve an association as soon as it is linked to another which has itself been convicted.

It is true that the artificial creation of legal entities can hide dubious intentions. But how can one fail to see in this provision a considerable risk for the liberties of the ordinary members of these groups? In 1971, the Constitutional Council won its independence by striking down a law restricting freedom of association! It is obvious and incontestable that the dissolution of an association is an infringement of the freedom to associate! But it will be said — and this is the parliamentarians’ argument of principle — that only “dangerous cults” are targeted. They cannot claim freedom, since they violate the freedoms of others. That sounds like a familiar tune! More seriously, what is to be done with the members who belonged to the association and who were exercising their freedom of association? It is true that, since it is a “cult”, they were not free, but placed in a state of subjection! The circle is closed.

4° The procedure

A single judge (the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance) will accept or not, in view of the urgency, to proceed by fixed date — that is, to give the applicant a hearing date, generally within a fortnight.

It would take an extraordinary spirit of independence on the magistrate’s part to refuse the use of this procedure. The Cour de Cassation, ever magnanimous, has ruled that urgency falls within the sovereign assessment of the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance.

If the applicant’s request is accepted, the “cults” will have a fortnight to prepare a defence. In a fortnight, one would have to gather all the evidence demonstrating that the “cult” is not one! In a fortnight, one would have to have examined all the documents of the applicant, who, for his part, has had the time to build his case! One would have to prove a negative fact! How can it be proved that no activity has as its aim or effect to create (…) a state of subjection?!

By the time the proceedings open, the “cult” will already have been condemned — as one might well say… An unfavourable prejudice will hang over the hearing… The public and the media will feverishly await the day of the hearing to witness the kill. At last, the octopus dismantled. Will the court be able to disappoint the jubilant crowd? The court will then have to apply the present law and its article 1.

It is true that some courts, and it is entirely to their honour, do not let themselves be impressed by collective hysteria. I am thinking in particular of the criminal court of Grenoble which acquitted Michel TABACHNIK. I am thinking of the 17th criminal chamber of Paris. But what do a few “just men” weigh against a whole system? It must be recalled here that the Cour de Cassation has dared to use the report of the 1996 commission of inquiry and its famous list to uphold court of appeal rulings!

The disparity of approaches among the various courts of appeal on the problem of “cults” must be stressed here. In divorce matters, for example, some courts of appeal refer to the 1996 list, others do not. For some, the mere fact of belonging to a “cult” constitutes a prejudice unfavourable to child custody. Which should not be possible given the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. But here again, everything can be a matter of drafting…

5° The offence of taking part in the maintenance or reconstitution of a legal entity after civil or criminal dissolution

This offence, punished by 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 F, targets the leaders as well as the ordinary members of the dissolved associations.

Thus, in the case where the members of the association live communally (which has enabled judges to consider that communal life itself was a placing in a state of subjection, or that it constituted an abuse of weakness!!), the dissolution of the association entails a ban on living together!

Here again, we would have to trust the justice of our country! Such a thing can only happen to criminal organisations…

The admission of the joining of proceedings as civil parties by the associations,

1° A scope of application going beyond the ordinary law (article 2-17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure)

No other association empowered to bring criminal proceedings can intervene in such a number of cases. One need only read articles 2-1 and following of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Here, the impressive list of offences for which the anti-cult associations will be able to intervene demonstrates the exceptional character of the legislation that has just been put in place. This is indeed exceptional legislation, contrary to what we are told.

2° A licence to persecute

The associations have a veritable licence to persecute, for — and this is the most important point — it is not necessary for the direct victim to be behind the criminal complaint.

Article 2-17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it now exists, unlike for example article 2-1 which concerns anti-racist associations, contains no mention of the need to obtain the direct victim’s agreement.

By way of example, under article 48-1 of the press law, associations defending the memory of slaves and the honour of their descendants, those which fight racism or assist victims of discrimination (…), have the possibility of intervening in criminal proceedings for offences considered extremely serious by all (the apology of war crimes, denial of crimes against humanity, provocation to terrorism, provocation to crime and offence, provocation to discrimination, hatred or violence…). But the law subordinates their action to the agreement of the individual victims!

The problem of “cults” is thus considered by the legislator as more serious and requiring more energetic means than racism, anti-Semitism, discrimination, terrorism, the denial of crimes against humanity, the apology of crime, of torture, etc. “Cults” are thus deemed, by this means, to make more victims and cause more damage than racism, Nazism, terrorism — and I could go on. That is the subliminal message sent by the legislator.

It must be said and repeated. There is something exorbitant, staggering here, which no one or almost no one has the courage to denounce, so mad has our country become.

It is curious that the anti-racist associations, otherwise so prompt to act when they are directly concerned, have not noted this… discrimination… and the relativisation of their own action.

The fact that the associations (read: ADFI and others…) can act without the direct victim’s agreement is one of the law’s gravest consequences for public and individual liberties. This point must be stressed, for it is fundamental. But it is hardly surprising insofar as the new law was written at the dictation of ADFI and other Renseignements Généraux, who have been working together for more than 20 years precisely to achieve this result.

It matters little whether this article 2-17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applied or not (and let us be sure that it will be). Its mere existence is enough to say that France has become one of the least safe countries on the planet. From now on, no one is safe from repression. No one.

The only conditions imposed on the anti-cult associations: 1° their purpose must be the defence of individual and collective rights and liberties. A fine programme! Totally general and more or less equivalent to the mission of the public prosecutors! And, 2°, they must also be recognised as being of public utility — very convenient, since that was already done for UNADFI!

Yet it seems that UNADFI has a problem with the drafting of its statutes, as ruled by the Criminal Chamber of the Cour de Cassation on 28 September 2004, appeal no. 03-86604, following the inadmissibility of UNADFI’s civil action pronounced by a court of appeal. But the error will soon be corrected! However, the modification of the statutes must be approved by decree or order. No doubt that will be done.

It must be recalled here that the person under judicial investigation cannot contest, at the investigation stage, the joining of proceedings as civil party by way of action (when the civil party took the initiative). While this impossibility can be understood for the civil action of the direct victim, the thing becomes monstrous when the law subordinates the associations’ action to conditions which will only be examined before the trial court, possibly after pre-trial detention (there will be an interesting debate there before the liberties judge) and months and months of proceedings, etc… There is here a licence to persecute given to the associations and to certain investigating judges, and it is to be feared that they will not fail to use it.

The public prosecutor’s office itself cannot contest the joining of proceedings as civil party, when the challenge concerns the conditions of the civil action (article 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

No one, apart from the investigating judge himself, can intervene to contest the action of these associations at the investigation stage. When the anti-cult associations join proceedings as civil parties (by way of action) before the investigating courts, if the latter do not declare their action inadmissible, it will have to be inferred that they will consider the defendant a “cult”. Their impartiality thereafter will be doubtful!

A terrible power. And let no one come and tell us that there are safeguards, that a wrongful and reckless civil action, or calumnious denunciation, can be punished. As long as these associations have the wind in their sails and know themselves to be supported… More precisely, to establish calumnious denunciation, it must be demonstrated that the civil party knew that the facts it denounced were false or untruthful! Which is as much as to say that, apart from very special cases, it is never possible.

As for ordering the civil party to pay damages after a dismissal or an acquittal, it must be demonstrated that the complaint was brought in bad faith or recklessly… That will never be the case of the anti-cultic associations, which are always in good faith… and which, carried away by their missionary zeal, can be legitimately mistaken… The same action can be brought before a civil court. But here again, the game is far from won in advance.

Finally, the investigating judge can himself sanction the “abusive” civil party in the event that he pronounces a dismissal. But the public prosecutor’s office must ask him to do so (new article 177-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, from the law of 15 June 2000)!

3° A curious “condition” for admissibility

The admissibility of the associations’ action is subordinated to the fact that the act was committed “within the framework of a movement (…)”. Should this condition be assimilated to that of having been registered for 5 years, or to that of recognition of public utility? It seems not: it is a condition relating to the supposed perpetrator of the offence and not to the association itself.

Will it be necessary to establish, in order to justify the admissibility of the civil action, how the offence was committed “within the framework of a movement (…)”?

It seems obvious that in the case of abuse of weakness, whose definition corresponds exactly to the condition for the admissibility of the civil action (this is no coincidence!), the judge will have no trouble doing so!!

Apart from abuse of weakness, will the prosecuting association have to demonstrate that the offence was committed “within the framework of a movement” (…)?

It seems that the debate on this question systematically turns to UNADFI’s advantage. Once the offences are upheld by the criminal judge, it suffices for the trial judge to say that the offences were committed “within the framework of a group with philosophical or religious pretensions whose effect and even purpose is” precisely… to exert pressure on the victims of the offence! In sexual offence cases, the conclusion is immediate and without appeal (see Cour de Cassation, Criminal Chamber, 11 September 2002, appeal no. 02-81593, or 28 April 2004, appeal no. 04-80468).

It can be observed that the same element serves twice: to convict and to justify the admissibility of the associations’ civil action.

It therefore becomes quite perilous to raise the question!

Other measures

1° Increased repression of legal entities

a) The extension of the criminal liability of legal entities

The parliamentarians took advantage of the present law to extend the scope of criminal liability to all legal entities (“cults” or not). A convenient alibi to justify the idea that the parliamentarians did not churn out an exceptional law!

I shall not dwell here on this extension, demanded since 1994 by the “doctrine”.

It is true that the State has always been wary of legal entities.

b) The penalty of dissolution

Dissolution also exists as a penalty. It can be pronounced by the criminal judge. The law has lowered the threshold of incurred penalties above which dissolution is possible. From now on, an offence punished by more than three years’ imprisonment suffices. The legal entity must also have been diverted from its purpose, which is, by definition, the case for a cult!

Abuse of weakness with the aggravating circumstance therefore allows criminal dissolution. A single proceeding may suffice.

c) The other penalties specific to legal entities

It should also be noted that among the penalties provided for is the penalty of prohibition of activity. This penalty, less spectacular than dissolution, nevertheless leads to the same result: the cessation of a legal entity’s activities. It is possible that this penalty, under the impetus of the present law, will be more frequently applied. It is also more “surgical” than dissolution, since in principle it targets only the activity in connection with which the offence was committed. In a logic of “reasonable” application of the law, this penalty has the advantage of removing, for the future, the occasion to “sin”, while preserving the rest of the “honest” activities. It corresponds better to the principle of the individualisation of penalties! But here again, the present law, as a whole, does not encourage nuance or the reform of the convicted!

d) The recidivism of legal entities

In this paragraph, even though the present law has changed nothing, a particular point must be mentioned: the rules concerning the recidivism of legal entities allow a fine of 10 times the amount provided for, which for abuse of weakness would mean a sentence of 25 million francs. Recidivism which, as we have not forgotten, allows dissolution!

2° The extension of the investigating judges’ powers

Likewise, a little gift for the investigating judges. They will be able, by way of judicial supervision, to place under the control of a court-appointed administrator, for a renewable 6 months, the activity in which or in connection with which the offence was committed (article 706-45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The anti-cultic associations had, it seems, been demanding this measure for a long time. As nothing can be refused them… This provision makes it possible to ensure that the “cult” can no longer do harm, nor enrich itself.

3° The ban on advertising

“Cults” can be convicted if they engage in “advertising aimed at young people” and if they have been convicted twice. A step no doubt preliminary to dissolution! Yet, to engage in advertising “aimed at young people”, it suffices that young people can see the advertising. It is not necessary for the message to be aimed at young people in particular! In plain terms, that means all advertising! It was by this stratagem that PASQUA had tried to sink certain gay magazines! It is with this method that anything one wants can be censored. “They” will say the thing is justified, since the “cults” will have been convicted…

the “real cult phenomenon”

or the totalitarian drift of society and the State

We shall not pronounce on the existence or not of a deliberate and conscious will to achieve these results. Ignorance, stupidity, fear, an old propaganda, the lack of reflection and even… the failure of the parliamentarians themselves to read the bill (!) largely explain such a situation. One must always avoid giving in to “conspiracy theories”, which are simplistic and dangerous.

To understand these effects better, the means employed must be recalled.

The constant “techniques” of the anti-cult fight

1° “they” associate the word “cult” with a multitude of offences, with crimes, with deaths…

The introduction to the report of the 1996 parliamentary commission of inquiry began by setting out the number of deaths in “cults”. Today, the word is associated with the whole list of offences provided for in article 1 of the law and with the new abuse of weakness.

Mr ABOUT tells us what is to be understood by “cult” (in the general presentation of the initial bill, ABOUT report no. 131): “Today, the term cult clearly has a pejorative character and designates movements perceived as abusing the credulity of their followers. The label of cult is generally attributed to groups or associations considered dangerous”. Moreover, the same Mr ABOUT, at the Senate session of 3 May 2001, does not hesitate to say: “I will vote for this text thinking of those who died, for cults carry out massacres throughout the whole world. They died because they were weak and were put in a state of subjection (…) I think of those sick children, not treated, not educated, taken out of the social system, not sent to school”. Further on: “What I know, what the doctor and parliamentarian that I am knows, is that in cults there are undernourished children, children deprived of care, children kept away from school, subjugated and defrauded adults! Of that, we are sure. If we have a choice, it is between fraud, false advertising, torture, violence, rape, assaults of every kind!”. That is what Mr ABOUT means by “cult”. That is what the public retains: all “cults” commit these abominations.

2° “they” refuse to define the notion of “cult” legally, claiming that a definition would necessarily strike at religious freedom.

According to Mr ABOUT: “Any attempt at definition would lead us to injustices, to calling religious minorities into question”. The implication: there is so close a link between “cult” and religious minorities that wanting to define the one would imply calling the latter into question! Proof if any were needed that “cult” and religious minorities are one and the same thing in the minds of the parliamentarians.

In the report of the 1996 commission of inquiry, this assimilation was already to be found: (pages 99 and 100, in particular) “At the end of its work, it does not however appear desirable to your commission to recommend the elaboration of a legal regime specific to cults (…) Indeed, it would lead to not treating all spiritual movements identically, which would risk infringing not only the principle of equality, but also that of the neutrality of the State with regard to religions.”. Likewise, “Finally, if all spiritual and religious beliefs are not subject to the same regime, neither are they in the same situation, if only because some present dangers and others do not.”.

The juxtaposition of the words is not innocent: cults, spiritual movements, religions, spiritual and religious beliefs, dangers! Here again, that is what the public retains. This is the first step: the equation cult = religious minority.

3° The proclamation of the rejection of exceptional legislation

From the beginnings to this day, all have virtuously proclaimed their refusal of exceptional legislation, in the name of great principles.

Yet the specificity of the object targeted by the law leaves no doubt. The successive titles of the law are eloquent enough. Chapter 1 of the law is entitled “Civil dissolution of certain legal entities”. It goes without saying that these “certain legal entities” are precisely the famous “cults” that they want to demolish!

This exceptional legislation is evident in the definition, analysed above, of the offence of abuse of weakness and its aggravating circumstance.

4° The association of “dérives sectaires” with the “deviances” of religious freedom.

First of all, the notion of “deviance” of religious freedom finds its theoretical justification in the wording, for example, of article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

The attachment of “dérives sectaires” to deviances of religious freedom is manifested by the assertion that “cults” themselves take refuge behind liberties to commit their misdeeds!

This association is explicitly stated, for example, by Mr RUDY-SALLES (National Assembly debate, 30 May 2001): “In all these texts, while the notion of freedom of conscience, of belief, of worship is affirmed, the deviances which might flow from them can on the other hand be punished. That is what the 1995 commission of inquiry tried to do. While it is impossible to define a cult legally, it is on the other hand possible to recognise a cult group by its behaviour. We therefore attempted to identify ten of these deviances which can serve as criteria: mental destabilisation (etc..)”.

Among these “deviances” of liberties thus figures in first place intellectual, pseudo-religious swindling, the will to power, domination, exploitation, personal enrichment, etc., commonly attributed to “cults” or rather to “gurus”. This is the central notion of “religious masks” found in all anti-cult writings and throughout the parliamentary debates — a notion which necessarily supposes a deliberate intention. I do not deny that such behaviours exist. It is even probable. But if they exist, they consist essentially in a use, a diversion, an instrumentalisation, or even a fabrication of the beliefs of others.

Yet, and this is fundamental, these dealings have nothing to do with religious convictions! One must be logical: if we speak of “religious masks”, there can be no abuse of the freedom to manifest one’s belief, since precisely there is no real belief! What is at issue here is the will to “manipulate”, the will to power or might. If one wants to call this will a “conviction”, why not, but it then has nothing specifically religious about it, insofar as it is universally shared!

Consequently, the insistence with which mental destabilisation and “pseudo-religious” swindling are linked to “perverted” religious freedom appears perfectly paradoxical, unless it obeys a conscious or unconscious motivation aiming in reality to compromise, to discredit religious beliefs — and not only minority ones. Every religious belief gradually becomes suspect, because potentially susceptible to the same “deviances”. The recent change of terminology, substituting “dérives sectaires” for “cult”, illustrates this movement. This is what the “official” religions are beginning to perceive — they too risk losing feathers in it! “They” incite the good people to associate religious beliefs with the worst manoeuvres, especially if they are accompanied by a critical — that is, “antisocial” — discourse!

5° The amalgam between criticism of society and cult

A direct link is indeed also created between criticism of society and cult, by the amalgam of mental destabilisation, attacks on physical integrity, etc… with antisocial discourse, or again with the “diversion of traditional economic circuits”, figuring among the 10 criteria still in force, since Mr RUDY-SALLES, again at the Assembly session of 30 May 2001, brings them out for us again: “We therefore attempted to identify ten of these deviances which can serve as criteria: mental destabilisation, exorbitant financial demands, rupture with one’s environment, attacks on physical integrity, the indoctrination of children, more or less antisocial discourse, breaches of public order, the significance of judicial entanglements, the possible diversion of economic circuits, and finally attempts to infiltrate the public authorities.”

The criterion of antisocial discourse is certainly the most staggering criterion of all, insofar as it has been presented, since 1996, as allowing one on its own to say that one is dealing with a “cult” (with the meaning given to the word today, see 1°). This point cannot be stressed too much, for it is capital. This single fact was enough to put groups on a blacklist and mark them out for the opprobrium of an entire country.

Antisocial discourse is again presented as a deviance of the freedoms of conscience and belief by a parliamentarian, on 30 May 2001, as in 1996! Yet it must be recalled that the 1996 parliamentary commission of inquiry had itself recognised that holding an antisocial discourse could not be punished, this by virtue of fundamental freedoms (page 94)! “Antisocial” discourses cannot be punished, but they suffice to make those who hold them pariahs and plague-bearers.

There is an inescapable obviousness here: criticism and antisocial discourse cannot in themselves be a deviance of liberties, since they are recognised as the legitimate exercise of a liberty! Naturally, there can be excesses (defamation, invasions of privacy, etc.), but it is not these excesses that are targeted by the term “antisocial discourse”! It must be recalled that the 1996 commission of inquiry gave as an example of antisocial discourse the criticism of law or morality (page 80)!

Opinions, doctrines, discourses are thus targeted in themselves. Criticism of society, when accompanied by a religious or spiritual vision, has thus officially become an abuse of the freedom of conscience and belief. Criticism and rejection of society have become deviances to be brought down, suppressed, eradicated. And what if that were the real stake of everything that has happened since the mid-1980s?

Among the criteria proposed by UNADFI, three are clearly suspect and terribly worrying, and confirm the permanent confusion between what is actually unacceptable or dangerous and opinions or behaviours which are perfectly legitimate, or which are even the expression of a fundamental freedom. These criteria are the possible diversion of traditional economic circuits, clearly antisocial discourse, and the induced rupture with one’s environment of origin. One sees here what constitutes the background of the fight against “cults” and what characterises precisely its totalitarian character. It is a matter of preventing any calling into question of what Emmanuel Mounier called the “established disorder”.

There is here a striking illustration of a drift of the French State and of society as a whole, since (almost) everyone accepted this enormity without flinching. We are even well beyond the simple opinion offence, which at least allows one to appear before a court to defend oneself and, if one has the talent, to ridicule the law. Here, no trial, no defence — a pure police procedure, and of a very particular police at that, since it is the Renseignements Généraux, authors of the famous criteria! The Renseignements Généraux, created by Vichy, who have had a hand in all the dirty tricks of recent history, and who have sought, among other things, to restore their virginity on the backs of the “cults”.

6° A surprising, absurd and contradictory distinction between “dangerous cults” and… the others.

During the parliamentary debates, notably at the Senate session of 16 December 1999, it was said: “It is not a matter, obviously, of banning cults, all cults, but indeed of dissolving dangerous cults. As Mrs Elisabeth Guigou explained in a televised statement: “It is not the fact of being a cult in itself that is reprehensible, it is the fact of engaging in acts under cover of freedom of opinion that is reprehensible under the law.""

Mr QUEYRANNE, during the debates of the same session, even added, speaking of dissolution: “There is there, probably, an effective weapon for fighting cults which might develop delinquent or criminal activities”.

This surprising distinction would imply that there are “cults” which do not develop delinquent or criminal activities! But then, why call them “cults”?!

In practice, this distinction, which the former MILS had taken up on its own account (see its report for the year 2000, with its three categories of “cults”!), is very convenient because it allows, in fine, all original or marginal groups and movements to be reached, sullied, discredited, by continuing to label them “cults”, even if they escape criminal repression or dissolution (unless one should say: especially if they escape repression…?).

The effects

“Non-official” religious beliefs (that is, those not linked to the major religions) and/or criticism of society (see the famous criterion of “antisocial discourse”) have been amalgamated with the notion of “cult”. From this flow the discredit and denigration of all radical criticism, of all dissidence with a religious or spiritual foundation, and even of any more limited practice departing from the norms imposed by capitalism, productivism, rationalism or scientism (therapeutic, agricultural, dietary practices…) and of course of all communal life and of every minority religious conviction, belief and practice. Everything that departs from majority practices has been made suspect and contemptible. The State, by way of the anti-cult phobia, has entered our consciences, in a manner far more subtle and powerful than it has ever done, taking up on its own account the ceaseless work of the private associations over 25 years.

For the moment, the recognised “official” religions (not legally, of course, but in fact) are still sheltered from the witch-hunt, but as the norm gradually becomes atheism, and even anti-theism, every religion, every reference to Transcendence, to God, risks being denigrated, thanks to the “cult phenomenon”, judiciously used and amplified.

Certainly, social pressure and the implicit but constraining codes of “good conduct”, particularly in matters of morals, have always existed. Contempt, fear and the rejection of minorities, whatever they may be, have raged in every age. What is exemplary in the domain that concerns us is that the State, violating all its own rules (and always beginning by recalling the great principles in whose name it claims to act), encourages suspicion, contempt and mistrust towards minorities.

It must be recalled here, if it were still necessary, that it is in no way denied that offences, faults and abuses are committed within certain groups. Yet it is not useless to quote here a written reply of the Prime Minister to a parliamentarian’s question, published in the Official Journal on 6/09/2005 and concerning children who are “victims of cults”. The Prime Minister replies: “Cases of physical or psychological mistreatment of minors in connection with the membership of one or both parents in a movement said to be of a cult character are exceptional”.

The Prime Minister’s honesty must be saluted here. The problem is that the harm is already done! It is not useless to recall that, in general, cases of child mistreatment have not ceased to increase over the last twenty years.

Finally, it is not useless to point out that, the law having been adopted 4 and a half years ago, there have been, by the anti-cult camp’s own admission, 5 or 6 judicial investigations and one prosecution resulting in a conviction (not yet final, since it is the subject of an appeal in cassation). This was immediately presented as the demonstration of the law’s necessity. Yet, if the law had been so necessary, how is it that there have not been thousands of prosecutions? Where is the real scourge affecting hundreds of thousands of people?! Has the scapegoat, in the meantime, been changed?

The disproportion between the announcement and the result could confirm the assertion that the law was above all made to target those who will never be convicted!

Philippe PEROLLIER, lawyer at the Marseille Bar.

Analysis of the law of 12 June 2001

concerning “cults”

Sources