Cults, Rumours and the Courts: Laurent Hincker's Case Files

Sectes, rumeurs et tribunaux (Cults, Rumours and the Courts)

Laurent Hincker, éditions La Nuée Bleue

lawyer at the Strasbourg bar and associate university professor

Collective psychosis and the drift of the Republic — an article by CAP-LC (December 2003) The hyperlinks are added by the CICNS

In his book, Laurent Hincker, a working lawyer, denounces the enterprise of labelling and filing spiritual groups — for some, groups in search of a simple fraternity. Through two cases he had to defend, he dismantles the mechanisms which, in his view, constitute genuine derelictions of the fundamental principles of the Republic. Since 1983, the actions of a few French parliamentarians have publicly accused a very large number of the most disparate movements of fanaticism or fraud, relayed in this by the media, which took it upon themselves to feed popular fantasies through emotional manipulation.

While one can respond legally against the media in cases of defamation — though the task is technically complex and the limitation period very short — one cannot, on the other hand, respond to defamation by a parliamentary commission, which enjoys immunity (in France).

What is a secte?

According to the sociology of religions, a secte is “a contractual grouping of volunteers, sharing certain religious or other experiences, the body thus formed drawing its legitimation from the ties created between the members or adherents, and not, therefore, from any external entity.”

Yet this term has taken on a pejorative connotation over time. A number of dramas blown out of proportion (Guyana, Waco, OTS), all of which at the time occurred outside French soil, would serve as the justification for the famous Parliamentary Commission of 1996.

Taking up all the ‘official’ criteria said to characterise a ‘cult’, Laurent Hincker shows that many of these criteria are not in the least specific, or are even inapplicable to the groups targeted. For example, ‘physical violence’, ‘more or less antisocial discourse’ (every progressive movement has been accused of antisocial aims), and ‘disturbances of public order’ — an extremely dangerous criterion, the favourite terrain of arbitrariness, liable to slide towards a police state.

‘Legal entanglements’ could include actions undertaken to defend oneself against defamation, and ‘diversion from traditional economic circuits’ applies just as well to the Jews, to Islam, to organic farming communities, to Catholic religious communities, etc. As for “the infiltration of public authorities”, is that not the very heart of the activity of political groups and parties in our Republic?

Anthroposophy

The author then shares his experience in the legal defence of Anthroposophy, a movement far more widespread in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Certain movements arising from this tendency were cited in 1999 for the first time in a parliamentary report, to the point that some deputies were troubled by it.

In fact, in defiance of the rules of democracy and the separation of powers, a Parliamentary Commission thereby usurped the role of judge, in an inequitable, partial trial without any right of defence.

It should be made clear that anthroposophy is quite remote from the famous governmental ‘criteria’. Thus, it advocates the individual discovery and verification of its teachings. It is not an organisation as such, but a movement of thought. Its schools are integrated into the national examination system, and they include remedial classes.

In its project of biodynamic agriculture, one speaks of an “agricultural organism” and not a “system”, to refuse the analogy with machines. Its medicine, often practised by homeopathic doctors, broadens the vision of medicine and homeopathy, integrating the human psyche. Its doctors are grouped in the association “Mercure Fédéral”.

The attacks on anthroposophy

In 1995, the deputy Jacques Guyard defamed anthroposophical schools and institutions during the television news, following which he was the subject of a defamation complaint. In this court case, J. Guyard would admit to having relied on a few (unpublished) testimonies cross-checked against a report of the Renseignements Généraux.

He states that he does not know anthroposophy and admits to having spoken in generalities about the movement’s profit motive.

The Court held at first instance that he had not provided proof of his good faith (a serious investigation), and in particular that the RG report, unsigned, could not be considered authentic.

It continues: “Furthermore, none of the documents produced by the defendant is therefore relevant with regard to the accusations of mental manipulation, financial pressure, misappropriation of funds and medical practices endangering the lives of patients…”

Yet on 15 July 2000, on appeal, the court declined to rule, considering that J. Guyard’s interview was merely the extension of the parliamentary report, which it cannot judge — while nevertheless acknowledging that the remarks were defamatory and that the deputy was not covered by parliamentary immunity. It acquitted the deputy: a de facto immunity, then.

A Hindu movement victim of calumnious rumours

In 1983, the first Vivien report already classified a certain Hindu movement among the “orientalist movements, which are potentially dangerous because they are inclined to grow and develop”.

In fact, this movement advocates a doctrine of the “middle way”, based on a stripped-down yoga centred on meditation, or Sadhana yoga. One may note in this regard that the yoga teacher IS the Indian guru. The sociologist Bruno Étienne studied this movement and classifies it among the new religious movements, underlining its acclimatisation to the West and a rapprochement with the monotheistic conception.

In 1995, Jacques Guyard reproached it, among other things, for its use of volunteers. (What of Catholicism? Of trade unions? Of political poster-stickers?) Very quickly, one of the most open of the Hindu-type movements found itself accused overnight of child abductions and of preparing collective suicides (see Myths).

The wildest inventions then found their way into the press.

In an article entitled “Cults and illuminati under close surveillance”, Le Figaro wrote that the members of the movement had withdrawn to the Jura to ward off the eclipse of the moon (there was nobody in the buildings in question except the caretaker). In December 1999, the same Figaro asserted that the members were under close surveillance, 32 of them having attempted suicide in Tenerife (pure and simple invention!).

The group’s doctrine totally condemns suicide, and there has never been either a member or any activity whatsoever in Tenerife! It would take two years for the defamation action to succeed, with the damage and secondary consequences one can imagine, against the modest sum of 3,000 euros in compensation.

Two months later, an article appeared about a father whose child had allegedly been “abducted” by this movement. The rumour began to take effect: a politician, whose wife belonged to the movement, then had to give up standing for election and move to another region.

A town hall ‘at fault’ for not having used its right of pre-emption!

When the movement requested and obtained a hall in Nice, the signal was given. The affair was presented as a veritable Nice “Watergate”, and the local newspaper went so far as to suggest that, if the town hall had not used its right of pre-emption (thereby openly advocating religious discrimination), it was because it was an “accomplice”.

A television programme in the “entertainment” style — Roman-arena style — citing the parliamentary report of 1995, invited this same father to recount how his children had been taken from him, with every supporting cliché about depersonalisation, etc., all without adversarial debate, in defiance of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Conviction of a false victim

Now, on 13 November 2002, the court of appeal upheld the conviction of the father in question. It was in fact the courts themselves that had withdrawn the father’s visiting rights, after a psychological assessment — a detail the father had completely concealed by a reversal of the facts. However, the court did not see fit to have a statement broadcast on television, which renders the judgment ineffective against the defamatory campaign.

Thus, on the strength of a mere rumour, civil servants or academics have been shelved, often out of pure enmity or professional rivalry.

In the light of the texts

The Rights of Man of 1789 were incorporated into the Constitution of 1958. Numerous texts “protect” or have protected the convictions of citizens: the Constitution of 1946, the law of 9 December 1905, notably through its article 31, which establishes a criminal offence for non-compliance.

But with the About-Picard law of 12 June 2001, by creating the notion of psychological subjection, one touches the very foundation of what a belief professed by a collectivity is. Thus, certain religions speak of “unconditional faith” or of “subjection to God”. This law, in fact, would permit the immediate dissolution of the Catholic Church. One could also mention sports clubs and the obligation to dope in order to remain competitive.

Europe, often the only recourse

With the State itself displaying cult-like behaviour, one must turn to Europe to compel the French State to apply its own principles of laïcité.

The Council of Europe has, among other roles, that of upholding the rule of law and the primacy of law in the member States. The diversity of the 45 States confers great legitimacy on the decisions of the Council of Europe. It insists on the protection of members of all confessions, notably in point 7 of report 8373 (13 April 1999):

“It is essential to have reliable information on the said movements that comes neither exclusively from the cults themselves, nor from the associations for the defence of victims of cults, and to disseminate it widely to the general public, after the persons concerned have had the opportunity to be heard on the objectivity of such information.”

Conclusion: legal action brought against the French Government

Noting that article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights implies a right of recourse against persons acting even in the course of their official functions, and that the 1996 parliamentary report enjoys total immunity and permits no recourse, Laurent Hincker has taken action against the French State for violation of this article of the European Convention.

The European Court in Strasbourg has therefore questioned the French State on the compatibility of the jurisdictional immunity of parliamentary reports. Case pending.

Laurent HINCKER: Lawyer at the Strasbourg bar, specialist in criminal law, the law of persons, community law and European law (notably before the European Court of Human Rights), he is also an associate university professor, teaching legal and criminal sociology. A specialist in questions of violence and insecurity, he is an expert for numerous public institutions and has moreover founded, in Strasbourg, an association for helping victims.

Published work: Sectes, rumeurs et tribunaux — la république menacée par la chasse aux sorcières ? (Cults, rumours and the courts — the republic threatened by the witch hunt?)

He argues for a society that refuses the witch hunt and media stampedes, a society in which one is not pilloried at the slightest rumour.

Publisher: La Nuée Bleue, 10/2003

Read also: The judge faced with cults Read also “The sacrificial rumour” Read also Here lies the presumption of innocence