The 2003 MIVILUDES Report

The 2003 report of MIVILUDES

Interministerial Mission of vigilance and combat against dérives sectaires

The report to download

A few comments on key extracts from this report. Numerous prejudices are expressed about the movements cited in this text. We have nothing to set against these assertions, not being acquainted with the spiritual minorities incriminated. It may nonetheless be noted that the assessments are systematically negative, as a matter of principle. The doctrines and beliefs which, according to the text itself, are not under attack, are in fact attacked in every line.

Leaving aside considerations about these various movements of spiritual vocation, the comments will be made on the spirit of this report. The extracts from the report are in yellow and in italics, and the comments in white.

By André Tarassi

This report, devoted to the year 2003, will not seek to enumerate movements but will endeavour to point out dérives sectaires. The new approach does not break the consensus that exists in France to protect persons and public order from their harms.

One must regret that, from the introduction onwards, the desire not to break the consensus should be expressed so explicitly by this mission, the consensus being, in this instance, a collective conditioning resting on thirty years of disinformation concerning spiritual minorities.

Before “protecting persons and public order” it would be judicious to define the danger from which one would like to protect them. When it is a matter of a psychosis, it is deplorable to found actions and laws on so hallucinatory a basis.

It stresses that the object of the campaign is not the doctrine but the act, which has always been at the centre of the French conception of public liberties.

Which is false, so far as anti-cult activists such as the ADFI and the CCMM are concerned, the true armed wings of the authorities. Doctrine, belief, the perception of the world, are indeed directly targeted despite the smokescreen of official discourse. It is the spiritual path as a whole that is attacked, by some because it does not seem “very Catholic”, and by others because it does not appear very “rational”. Which defines well enough the real intentions of each. The acts in question are often blown up out of all proportion or created out of whole cloth, and very often bear no real relation to any spiritual movement whatever (see the Aum Shinri-Kyo affair, or the Solar Temple).

By thus attaching itself to reprehensible, risky or dangerous behaviour, MIVILUDES fulfils its first mission of analysis and observation, taking care to avoid the double pitfall of naivety and demonisation (…) The constant concern is, here again, to preserve the appropriate discernment so as to warn without stoking fears.

The intention is praiseworthy and would seem, on a first reading, to contrast with the behaviour we denounce on the part of anti-cult activists. But the rest of the document indicates that passion prevails over this discernment, however necessary, and invoked here for form’s sake.

Finally a chapter addresses the international dimension. The French apparatus appears there as relatively exceptional. It therefore falls to us to defend and illustrate it before our partners, stressing its democratic and balanced character.

An assertion that would be comic were it not tragic. The exceptional character of the French apparatus stems above all from a particularly intolerant attitude on the part of the French authorities, anti-religious by tradition for two centuries and supported by lobbies which have never had any interest in democracy and balance being present in their decisions.

In the absence of specific criteria for designating what falls under the cult phenomenon, the temptation is strong, for some, to contest its existence, while others are inclined to extend its domain and importance abusively.

CICNS, on the basis of its reflection (shared by numerous sociologists and ethnologists) and of the testimonies it has gathered in recent years, contests the existence of a genuine cult problem, which is merely a scapegoat whose absurdity history will record.

The legislator of 2001 did, admittedly, adapt the offence of abuse of weakness by extending it to situations of physical or psychological subjection characteristic of cult hold, but no significant case law has, as yet, appeared to date.

The new demons of abuse of weakness and of physical or psychological subjection are screen-formulas concealing an exceptional void of understanding. Those who have been willing to look seriously into the question know that these expressions could be applied to any individual, at certain moments of his life (in the experience of a couple, for instance) as to any professional group, such as advertising agencies, or even governments. The will to stigmatise spiritual groups with such woolly and hypnotic expressions confirms the underlying desire to pursue the witch hunt.

In France, sociological studies on the question of dérives sectaires are not abundant. Sociologists have been interested above all in the relations between the State and “religious or intellectual movements that are socially contested”, and in everything that might constitute forms of intolerance and discrimination based on beliefs or convictions. As a result, their analyses have borne more on the relative inadequacy of existing legal or institutional models to multiple and original forms of spirituality than on the factual study of dérives sectaires.

The factual study of dérives sectaires ought to change its name. What is at issue is offences or crimes, without associating them with cults whose reason for being (and the very sense of the name) one chooses to ignore, as the present commission shamelessly affirms note. These dérives can be dealt with quite simply, as they were before the creation of that modern scapegoat which cults constitute, by the competent authorities.

The list of criteria of dangerousness remains unchanged. The favourite themes of anti-cult activism are repeated ad nauseam:

The very famous mental destabilisation (the principle being that a mind stable in its certainties (which does not change belief, way of life or convictions) is a sign of good health!).

The exorbitant character of financial demands (everything is exorbitant, right down to the taxes we pay in part to subsidise the ADFI. But we are doubtless meant to believe that certain expenditures are more justified than others!).

Rupture with the original environment (we all know how delighted parents would be if one lived with them all one’s life!).

The existence of attacks on physical integrity (If they exist, they must be punished. But in what way would spiritual minorities be particularly concerned by this? It seems that the aim is above all to find shock arguments).

The regimentation of children (To satisfy the commission, anyone engaged in a spiritual path would have to be childless; otherwise they are “regimented”. Parents are authorised by law to transmit the values they wish to their children).

Antisocial discourse (Are we to conclude that criticism of a society, in a democracy, should be outlawed? The elections of recent years indicate clearly that the French people aspire to profound reforms of society — is that antisocial discourse?).

Disturbances of public order (…can be punished without making it a cult story. Strikers regularly disturb public order in France, but no one speaks of a strikers’ cult).

The extent of legal entanglements (What a masquerade! The people with the most legal entanglements are not in cults. We also know of anti-cult activists who have a great many entanglements. Let us say nothing of certain leading political figures! But we shall doubtless be told that “it is not the same thing”).

The possible diversion of traditional economic circuits (Here is the commission’s most important confession: the aim of all this would therefore be to control populations so that they do not disturb the economic system in place… which nonetheless deserves to evolve, does it not?).

Attempts to infiltrate the public authorities (The spectre of the Trojan horse. The world must be led by people of narrow, rational and unimaginative mind. The others out!)

Attacks on persons in a state of weakness and ignorance (This is a subject that goes far beyond the framework of cults. Abuses against weak and ignorant persons begin with this kind of disinformation on questions important to humanity).

Mental subjection leading to acts or abstentions that are prejudicial (in the same way, the question of conditioning is a subject that ought to be treated seriously. The cult scapegoat is badly chosen, since several of our spiritual minorities treat precisely these questions seriously. Evidently, these considerations are used by the commission to supply grist to the mill of the campaign against spiritual minorities).

The rejection of others and isolation within a group (one would like the anti-cult camp and those affiliated to it not to reject spiritual minorities and not to isolate themselves in the certainties of their rationalist groups. The world is made of a marvellous diversity and should continue so).

The violation of the founding principles of the Republic (the Republic is currently violating the founding principle of the separation of Church and State as well as the fundamental liberties concerning freedom of conscience and religion).

Non-respect of the international conventions ratified by France (At the time of writing this article, we have no knowledge of such violations. In any case, they call to be studied, like all other offences, without conflation with spiritual practices and beliefs)

One has no judgement to pass a priori on the value or the sincerity of a spiritual or ideological commitment …

Marvellous! but …

… not everything is permitted in the name of freedom of conscience or religion, and judges know, as much as is needed, how to recall the limits that must not be crossed.

CICNS has been able to observe that judges are sometimes the playthings of collective psychoses. The injustices that some of our members have been able to report to us are numerous.

It is by imposing on itself rules of analysis respectful of the law that the administration manages to avoid the pitfall of the a priori stigmatisation of a grouping or a belief, and respects the spiritual or philosophical commitment of its own officials so long as they engage in no proselytism.

We should like to pay tribute to this commitment… which we have not to this day been able to verify on the ground.

It is from the link existing between the individual called into question and the structure he claims to belong to that the real nature of the movement in question will be judged.

It is by clearly separating an individual’s actions from his possible affiliations that all stigmatisation, ostracism and witch hunting will be avoided.

Dérives sectaires must be sought wherever individuals or groups create or maintain a physical or psychological subjection in their faithful, their followers or their clients, so as to lead them to acts or abstentions gravely prejudicial to them. These situations of unconditional allegiance to a person or a group, which lead to the loss of all critical spirit or autonomous thought, become cult-like as soon as the follower cannot freely put an end to them.

This paragraph presents the clearest definition of what the commission judges a dérive sectaire to be. It calls to be deepened and, therefore, taken out of the reductive framework of cults. Questions about physical or psychological subjection, about allegiances and about critical spirit or autonomous thought will remain pretexts for as long as there is no real intention to study these phenomena from a sociological angle, and not as realities belonging to narrow enclosures one would call “cults”.

A movement such as that of the Order of the Solar Temple, on account of the degree of submission the followers had reached there…

As noted in the introduction to this commentary, the commission bases its judgement on prejudices where the many movements cited are concerned, and on obscure affairs strewn with judicial errors and media outbursts (see our dossier “the myth of cults” and particularly “the Solar Temple”).

Faced with the manifestations of cult risk, the public authorities have a legitimate duty of assistance towards potential victims and of informing the public. It falls to them to legislate so as to bring those seeking care increased security in the face of possible dérives.

The public authorities, if they remain in the spirit revealed by this commission, are incompetent to deal with this question. CICNS offers itself as a partner for the future.

Healing groups, with unconventional or unproven practices, are growing in number. Therapists resorting to charlatanesque procedures (divine healings or miracle potions) to overcome the gravest illnesses are regularly brought before the courts.

The judgements concerning medical practices are among the crudest one can find. Modern medicine ought, though we know this is today only a somewhat naive dream, to have a little more humility with regard to the notion of healing. To affirm without nuance that divine healing is “charlatanesque” is a judgement on doctrine and beliefs. We live in a world where uncertainty ought to be the foundation of a “new look” at the essential questions of humanity. Modern medicine kills far more people than “miracle potions” do today. It would be right to leave the door open to innovation or to new discoveries. Errors are possible, but repression is not the right means of controlling them.

The discretion, indeed the clandestinity, of certain groups, their mode of functioning (confinement, family ruptures or demonisation of the outside world), the hold exercised over followers, do not facilitate the reporting of the most worrying activities.

We read here that the commission calls for the “reporting of activities”. This invitation to denunciation, disguised as a work of public health, ought to alert the most aware among us. A certain part of the population likes denunciation and does not deny itself. Today, the word cult is an effective weapon for attacking neighbours, parents, spouses and winning a lawsuit without great difficulty.

Many of these new groups borrow from the new age, which permeates society with ideas or behaviours often at odds with established values. (…) the efforts aimed at discrediting the State’s action in this matter, both nationally and on the international stage (…) recall that the slightest relaxation of vigilance would very quickly be exploited by those who ask only to free themselves from the values of the Republic.

Rupture with, or emancipation from, the values of the Republic is the commission’s fundamental reference. But we are speaking here of a democratic country, France, which promotes freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Yet the field of repression against spiritual minorities is now so broad that it is the anti-cult movements, supported by this commission, that have freed themselves from the values of the Republic.

One of the objectives assigned to the Mission is also to develop the exchange of information and to promote that of the general public. A newsletter, an information leaflet, an Internet site, contacts with the various media all contribute to it. The constant concern is, here again, to warn without stoking fears.

MIVILUDES is encouraged to associate itself with organisations such as CICNS, and will thus demonstrate that the concern is real.

In Great Britain, neither public opinion, nor successive governments, nor a fortiori the media, are apparently interested in the cult phenomenon. Religion enjoys total freedom and anyone may create a “cult” or “a new religious movement”. There are said to be about 1,700 of them in that country.

It is a pity that no comment is made on the real dérives sectaires in so liberal a country, compared with those France deplores as though it were suffering an uncontrollable scourge. There is nothing on the subject. Is this due to a lack of research, or to results that might discredit the rest of the commission’s work?

In 1999, a second circular instituted “the units for combating the reprehensible activities of cult movements”, which would become “the vigilance units”. In all, since their creation, fifty-six departments have set up a vigilance unit (…) The Renseignements Généraux and the Gendarmerie contribute their knowledge of the movements and of possible dérives.

Everyone was able to appreciate the rigour of their work in 1996 with the list of 172 cults!

The presence of the associations is very useful, whether the departmental associations for the defence of the family and the individual (ADFI), family associations such as the departmental union of family associations (UDAF), or the centre for documentation, education and action against mental manipulation (CCMM). These associations bring a very concrete knowledge of the ground. Their action is decisive in coming to the aid of victims. The participation of these associations in the functioning of the units therefore deserves to be valued and reinforced …

CICNS judges this passage highly alarming. It discredits all the apparently good intentions found elsewhere in the commission’s document. The ADFI and the CCMM have demonstrated their partiality and the nature of their intentions for many years. It takes a certain blindness, or a will to do harm, to wish to make partners of them, at any rate in the absence of opposing partners such as CICNS.

The field associations which have committed themselves to the defence of the family and the individual, or to the struggle against mental manipulation (…) directly receive the greatest number of complaints and provide those around former followers, and the former followers themselves, with the most tried and tested advice and support.

The situation as we know it is the following: these associations have developed on the opportunity — offered, and widely seized, for many citizens to complain about anyone at all using the pretext of cults, whence the great number of complaints. They have also made it possible to absolve “former followers” of responsibility for their past choices, by offering the possibility of an easy criticism, often fuelled by these associations themselves, in order to incriminate the movements in their sights.

Assuredly, the law of 12 June 2001 (About-Picard) appears as a balanced text, respectful of fundamental liberties inasmuch as it aims to prevent and punish the reprehensible behaviour of any natural or legal person, and thus avoids the trap of specificity.

It opens a door to abusive convictions because of the terms used, whose vagueness makes it possible to legalise a repression that has grown ever more disquieting since this law was passed.

In a more repressive perspective, the units also coordinate the action of the services with the will to exploit every avenue liable to lead to a criminal conviction of movements to which dérives sectaires would be imputed, or to prevent their establishment: combating undeclared work, checking declarations of assets, prohibition of construction or of occupation of premises for environmental harm or for non-conformity with the rules for receiving the public, etc.…

Here we find the application of Mr Vivien’s advice, which demonstrates the will to make use of laws and regulations capable of harming the very existence of spiritual minorities. Our archives show that it is very easy to prohibit construction and to find non-conformities with the rules for receiving the public, without anyone being able to defend themselves, whatever the absurdity of these sanctions, too often motivated by the affiliation of the persons concerned.

The public services thus encounter, from certain movements, obstacles to their action. Thus the Jehovah’s Witnesses have issued to their members instructions on how to conduct themselves in certain situations, in the field of justice and in the field of health. The Church of Scientology, for its part, through two associations, exercises the right recognised to every user of a public service to obtain the communication of administrative documents, in conditions that sometimes verge on harassment.

Without prejudging the worth or the possible offences of these two movements, these remarks verge on the ridiculous when one knows the harassment spiritual minorities undergo today, and whom the commission seems to be asking to be more docile and to refrain from defending themselves.

Note: “The Commission does not claim to succeed where all those who work on the question of cults, often for many years, have not succeeded — that is, in giving an “objective” definition of the cult, capable of being accepted by all.”

“The difficulty of defining the notion of cult led the French parliamentary commission of inquiry into cults to (…) adopt the common sense that public opinion attributes to it”

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/rap-enq/r2468.asp

André Tarassi was born in 1961. He is the founder of CICNS. An independent researcher, he has been studying the New Spiritualities for 25 years. He studied journalism and television in the United States. He has published, under another name, several works on the spiritual path.

Read also “the Miviludes seminar on cults and laïcité”