Scientology in the Anti-Cult Hunt in France

Scientology in the Anti-Cult Hunt in France

A CICNS article - September 2008 (updated 03/2009 and 08/2010)

“Judge Jean-Christophe Hullin signed, on Monday 8 September 2008, an order sending before the courts the Spiritual Association of the Church of Scientology (ASES - Celebrity centre), the association’s principal structure in France, and its bookshop, the SARL SEL, for ‘organised gang fraud’. The conviction of the Church of Scientology on this count could lead to the dissolution of the two structures implicated, according to a source close to the case.” (Le Monde)

This news is an occasion to analyse the anti-cult syndrome in France and the particular role attributed to Scientology.

The Scientology scarecrow

Scientology is truly the bête noire of the anti-cult organisations.

It is always delicate to mention Scientology in France today. CICNS even wrote a special page to affirm its independence from Scientology (an independence which equally concerns every other movement), and we felt a hesitation before publishing this commentary.

The subject has become so impassioned that the slightest conciliatory attitude towards this movement - the “cult par excellence” in the eyes of the general public - necessarily makes you “one of them”. It is therefore good form to be “against”, on principle or as a precaution.

Most spiritualist movements, including those undergoing similar persecutions, prefer not to be mixed up closely or remotely with this movement. The simple fact of pronouncing its name can radically change the tone of a conversation.

Certain people seem to have devoted their lives, and entire forums or websites, to attacking this movement which, in other countries, has nevertheless obtained the status of a “religion” (Le Point). That was the case in 1993 in the United States, after a two-year tax inquiry which officially declared transparency and the absence of profit.

Beyond the pretty pretext of wanting to “save the world” from the cults, why so much hatred?

There have, in effect, been no “collective suicides”, no attack, and no more “guru” (Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, died in 1986). There is however much talk of fraud and of “mental manipulation”.

How did we arrive at such a collective phobia? Would Scientology be the proof that “cults” really exist? What can be reproached to it? Has it become the scapegoat of a whole generation? And if so, why?

Enemies from the beginning

The paradox of Scientology is that it began making enemies in the 1950s when it attacked psychiatry and the secret services, presenting both as guilty of “mental manipulations” (the word was in fact not used; the church spoke of a “will to control populations”). It is interesting to note how this accusation has since been turned back on them, to the point of being at the centre of the combat against it.

From the Scientologists’ point of view, it is the psychiatrists who organised themselves to destroy them, seeing the danger which a religion of 8 million followers then presented for their profession, and seeking by every possible means to discredit them.

From the point of view of Scientology’s enemies, the latter is a highly lucrative enterprise which wants to pass itself off as a religion. It is a despotic group with methods borrowed from Nazism, in the most virulent attacks.

For the Scientologists, Ron Hubbard is a genius; for his enemies, an impostor. The latter moreover use a great deal of ink to present an unflattering image of him.

But the inquiries of CICNS have demonstrated that anything and everything can be said about anyone. How, consequently, to decide amid this frightful confusion in which the ordinary citizen is plunged concerning this “incarnation of evil” that Scientology is in the public mind?

The French anti-cult context

We refer the reader to our history of the French anti-cult fight for a detailed chronology. A pertinent history is also offered by Lionel Mariani (IEP Toulouse).

The anti-cult discourse has never addressed itself to the good sense and reason of citizens but placed itself from the outset at an emotional level, using the fear of what is new and different. The historical reasons which led the various protagonists to make this choice are diverse, and a certain number are presented in the contributions of sociologists we have questioned on the subject. The curious reader will therefore find no proof, either legal or sociological, of the existence of a social scourge; quite the contrary (thus, the administrations that testified at the last parliamentary commission of inquiry, “l’enfance volée”, all reported a very small number of complaints for dérives sectaires).

The public authorities (notably through the interministerial missions MILS and MIVILUDES), helped by anti-cult associations subsidised by the State (ADFI and CCMM among others), have applied themselves to fashioning, consciously or unconsciously, a terminology which, in fine, designates an enemy with a diffuse outline (thus extensible at will and without need of factual justifications), making it possible to awaken fear in the listener with a few words. The terms “cult”, “cult movement”, “cult movement sphere” and other derivatives now have this capacity. Moreover, this fear has focused on a few particular entities which, at their mere mention, could immediately arouse rejection.

The groups which have benefited, in spite of themselves, from this palm of horror have evolved over time. At the start of the anti-cult fight, “Moon” (the Unification Church today) held the lead. Then the Mandarom underwent the media and administrative hysteria for several years. Finally an exacerbated ostracism concentrated on Scientology and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. One may nevertheless consider that Scientology acts as the leader of the “scarecrow” cults in France.

Three principal characteristics are common to these movements, explaining at least in part the acquisition at one moment or another of the status of “most dangerous cult”:

1. They are founded on an original belief: whether it issues from a particular interpretation of a unique or syncretic historical corpus or is totally new;

2. They have made themselves visible: whether by their doctrine, their proselytism, their outward signs of wealth or of existence (the statue of the Mandarom);

3. They are or have been accused of excesses: principally on the themes of sex, money, power, on the basis of heavily mediatised testimonies of apostates.

It would certainly be interesting to evaluate the relative weight of these elements in the accession to the title of “most dangerous cult”. It is patent that the first two characteristics are considered aggravating circumstances of the third.

What is the objective of the anti-cult activists with regard to Scientology and the other “cults”?

One of the objectives of the anti-cult activists is probably to obtain the dissolution of Scientology in France, even if they are conscious of the difficulty (read the statements of Jean-Michel Roulet in L’Express). This dissolution is moreover mentioned in most of the editorials commenting on the current judicial affair (Le Point, Nouvel Obs).

The demand for the dissolution of a group of this size cannot be made lightly; Scientology nevertheless seems to have the right profile, by its status as an “abominable” cult, but also because many contest its character as a religious group. It would probably be very delicate for those activists who wish it to demand the dissolution of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, for the worship nature of their movement cannot be placed in doubt, doubtless because of its biblical roots (a worship nature not to be confused, as is very often the case, with the “legal worship status”); such a demand would in all likelihood be perceived as too flagrant a violation of the spirit of French laïcité, which is so little respected elsewhere.

It must be noted that Scientology (plus a few other frequently targeted movements) plays the role of the tree hiding the forest which the interministerial missions and anti-cult associations dream of felling. To the question: “What do you think of the order sending two Scientology entities before the criminal court?”, deputy Jean-Pierre Brard answers: “At last! It is good news. At last the magistrates are using the legal means we have placed at their disposal to act against the cults” (JDD).

How to fight against dangerous groups?

In a State of law, the disturbance of public order is sanctioned through the decisions of justice. These decisions ought in principle to suffice for evaluating the dangerousness of a group. That is the position maintained by Didier Leschi (former head of the Bureau of Religions) at his hearing before the parliamentary commission of inquiry “L’enfance volée”: “At the central Bureau of Religions we think that public-order problematics must be approached with the greatest rigour, and that facts must be privileged rather than rumour or the painful word of former faithful who have broken away, once persons and their dignity are called into question. All religious currents are liable to know dérives sectaires. Only the examination of the facts legitimises the notion of vigilance, without which one runs a strong risk of departing from secular impartiality in favour of a cleavage between recognised religion/stigmatised religion”.

Contestable legislative means for fighting the “cults”

The term “cult” is today definitively pejorative (the courts not considering it defamatory despite this change of meaning). To justify in one way or another the appellation of cult for a movement, as the ADFI proposes, is incompatible with the rules of a State of law. As for dérives sectaires (initially the prerogative of the spiritual minorities), they had been defined with the help of ten criteria which it has been shown could apply to any human group. Because it is a fuzzy logic and the notion of the “cult” has extended to other sectors of society, these criteria have evolved randomly. The interested reader can consult the ADFI’s new version or the different one of the MIVILUDES, which ends with the mention “etc.”!

The wish to have a tool facilitating the conviction and dissolution of the cults is a result of the work of the MILS (Interministerial Mission for the Fight against the Cults); this work, taken up by the parliamentarians, led to the About-Picard law: Law no. 2001-504 of 12 June 2001 tending to reinforce the prevention and repression of cult movements infringing human rights and fundamental liberties, whose article 1 specifies: “There may be pronounced, according to the modalities provided by the present article, the dissolution of any legal person, whatever its legal form or object, 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 against the legal person itself or its de jure or de facto leaders”.

This law was elaborated specifically to dissolve the spiritual minorities qualified as cults, even if the wording of the final text targets any so-called “cult” movement. The reader may refer to the article by Patrice Rolland (CNRS-EPHE) for an analysis of the genesis of the law and to the article by Maître Pérollier for an analysis of the text of the law.

The first version of the law was so excessive that it was substantially reworked and, as a backlash, led to the dissolution of the MILS (Interministerial Mission for the Fight against the Cults), replaced in 2002 by the MIVILUDES (Interministerial Mission of Vigilance and Combat against Dérives Sectaires). This was therefore the passage from the “fight against the cults” to the “fight against dérives sectaires”, a precaution of language ignored by all the anti-cult activists (see M. Brard’s statements above). The MIVILUDES kept up the illusion for a while but, rapidly, its action, in particular under the impulse of its last president Jean-Michel Roulet, became similar to that of the MILS. (See our commentaries on the MIVILUDES reports)

It is not useless to recall that Jean-Michel Roulet, whose mandate ends in October 2008, had given himself as an objective of satisfaction to bring 2 or 3 landmark trials (source: http://www.cicns.net/france-discrimination-35.htm). The About-Picard law terribly lacking case law to make it effective (the only existing case law being that obtained with the Néophare affair), it is clear that its application against Scientology would give it a new youth and would be a great motive of satisfaction for Monsieur Roulet. “In 2002, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a resolution (1309) criticising the law and inviting the French government to reconsider it. Human-rights lawyers nicknamed the law an opinion offence” (Cesnur).

The bulimia of a few parliamentarians for having specific legislation against the cults did not begin and did not stop with the About-Picard law. In the course of the three parliamentary inquiries on the theme of the cults (1995, 1998, 2006), the deputies systematically demanded adaptations of the law. During the parliamentary commission of inquiry “L’enfance volée”, Georges Fenech (president of the commission) even mentioned a modification of the notion of public order (see the hearing of M. Machelon). Lately François Fillon (Prime Minister) entrusted to this same Georges Fenech a mission of evaluation of the “judicial arrangements conceived to fight more effectively against dérives sectaires” (La Croix).

The roundabout means of fighting the “cults”

We grant the executive and the parliamentarians the right, and even the duty, to inquire into important facts of society. The emergence of new forms of spirituality is one. But when this subject is amputated so as to be broached only from the angle of dangerousness, when proscription lists are published, when the adversarial principle is never respected, when every approach of knowledge is banished, notably by rejecting academic expertise, it is fitting to question the legitimacy of these actions.

The attitude of the parliamentarians and the interministerial missions has had a disastrous effect on the public and on the quality of the debate of society which has developed in parallel.

In a democratic country, where expression is free, it should be possible to dialogue constructively on any subject whatever. Criticism of a given group, for example, can be severe provided the adversarial principle is respected (all parties having the right to express themselves with equity) and the presumption of innocence is preserved (no defamation, no gratuitous accusations). Balanced information through well-documented reports could have a constructive pedagogical effect.

On the theme of the cults, one is forced to note that these fundamental ethical principles are blithely and systematically flouted by the principal media. The debate is rarely balanced and defamation a common practice (see our commentaries on televised and radio debates), not to mention the complete ignorance of the subject shown by most journalists, who privilege the hidden-camera mode of operation and alarmist montages.

If Scientology represents such a danger, why is a genuine study not carried out on this movement, financed by the State, allowing a pluralist expertise to give an informed opinion? Instead of that, the only testimonies highlighted are those of the apostates, as is the case moreover for all the other spiritual minorities. This approach is partial in both senses.

A website whose webmaster “Bernie” is an apostate criticises Scientology but also offers a critique of the anti-Scientologist sphere. His approach illustrates the waywardness of a debate which has moved to the extremes.

By adopting this same extreme position, the French public authorities have encouraged a closed attitude on the part of the spiritual minorities, an attitude they use in return to justify their own. In the same order of ideas, the media lament not being welcomed with open arms in these groups when they have been discrediting them indiscriminately for more than 25 years.

What are the accusations brought against Scientology?

It is not a matter for us of being exhaustive, the criticisms available on the anti-Scientology sites being plethoric, but of synthesising the principal accusations. Our source of information is the Internet.

In commenting on these general accusations, we do not pronounce on particular cases which have led or could lead to legal action.

Scientology kills, confines, etc…

A certain number of statements allege that Scientology kills, confines, etc… If that were the case, there is no doubt that a significant number of convictions would have been pronounced in court. Is that the case? The convictions of Scientologists and of Scientology in France are listed in the following section.

Mental manipulation

Mental manipulation, also called “brainwashing”, is henceforth named “mental hold” by the MIVILUDES, which associates it with every dérive sectaire. Although the most complete works on the subject have concluded that the “marketing” or “persuasion” methods employed within certain spiritual groups were no different from those used in the rest of society, the MIVILUDES persists in pushing pseudo-scientific theories on the notion of mental manipulation. This will is coherent with its vision of the cult world: there are on one side the victims of the cults who have managed to escape the hold of their guru or their group, and on the other the supposedly consenting followers who do not realise the abuses of which they are the object. This stripping of the individual’s responsibility (moreover in the name of freedom of conscience), who would no longer be responsible for his choices, whether he is satisfied or whether he is disappointed and finds he was mistaken, is characteristic of the current victim politics. At the minimum these assertions would need to be supported by solid adversarial studies, which is not the case either for Scientology or for any other group to our knowledge. The sole testimony of the apostates can in no case be the basis of a global conclusion.

Anyone may criticise, if he wishes, the proselytism of certain groups in relation to his own vision of what a spiritual approach should be, but there is no justification for stigmatising them. If it is a matter of studying attempts at abusive persuasion or indoctrination in our society, contenting oneself with studying the “cults” is a way of diverting attention from far more glaring homes of it.

Scientology is not a religion but a purely commercial enterprise

Scientology is said to usurp its title of religion (of worship) to mask a purely commercial enterprise.

It is undeniable that it is a flourishing group which takes care of its marketing with the support of several show-business stars and displays its financial success without detour. This display is generally ill-regarded. Nathalie Luca specifies in Le Monde: “France is hostile to the fact of a group charging for its so-called religious services”.

Each is free to appreciate and criticise the business associated with personal-development services according to his own scale of values. “Making money” is however not a crime in a society which glorifies, to the highest point and with so little morality, profit in all its forms.

If one takes an interest in Scientology’s bank account, why does one not take an interest in that of the “recognised” religions?

Charlatanism

This accusation consists in saying that the Scientologist doctrine has no value (the use of the E-meter, the auditing techniques, the science-fiction theory of Xenu, etc…) and that, moreover, the services are sold at a price of gold using excessive commercial pressure. The followers would thus be abused and cheated.

It does not fall to us to pass an appreciation on the Scientologist doctrine. We note however that even critical former followers (in English) recognise certain positive results in their lives. There again, the sole testimony of the apostates cannot be the yardstick of judgement. The accusation of charlatanism takes on a particular weight, of course, if one adds to it (which is implicitly the case) the notion of mental manipulation which we commented on previously.

This accusation also covers, in the public, the rejection of what is different, unusual. Raphaël Liogier describes it as a conflict of aesthetics, a judgement of taste with regard to practices considered bizarre, eccentric or delirious.

To say that the prices are exorbitant is to assert that the value of the service rendered is not in relation to its price. At first sight, the prices may indeed seem high, but that is a subjective appreciation which would deserve a statistical study on a set of Scientologists: active members, apostates, former followers. Is that statistic available?

Concerning the internal commercial pressure, it does indeed seem to be an element of the Scientologist curriculum. This pressure forms part of a set of rules of functioning which appear too strict to some (see the following comment).

Separation from the social milieu

The rules of life of a Scientologist are judged too severe, indeed abusive, with the risk of a cut-off from his social milieu if that milieu is not favourable to Scientology, or in the case of a rupture with the Scientologist milieu.

We shall not take sides on the soundness or otherwise of these rules. Nor do we place in doubt the difficulty certain followers may have felt in following these rules and possibly in suffering the consequences of a rupture with their social milieu (A testimony in English). However, we invite the reader to compare these rules with those of monks in certain monasteries, with those of certain top-level sportspeople, of dedicated political militants, etc. The choice of adopting particular rules of life, even hard ones, is a personal choice. That choice also implies the possibility of finding afterwards that one was mistaken.

The question is therefore not: are the rules of life of a Scientologist too hard or not (insofar as they respect the law)? But: do the persons exercise a free choice? If serious doubts exist among certain political leaders, why do they not carry out an inquiry among Scientologists and former followers (we obviously set aside the inadmissible theory consisting in saying that those who expressed their free will would be unconscious of the manipulation of which they are the object)? Some might answer that Scientology is in any case too closed an organisation and that one cannot know everything that happens there. It so happens that the controversy over this movement is so intense that practically everything concerning it has been published on the Internet.

The infiltration of the spheres of power

“Infiltration” means “lobbying” for a group considered “dangerous”. Is there lobbying by Scientology of the spheres of power? Probably, just as there is lobbying by the Catholic Church, the Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist communities, Freemasonry. Lobbying is part of the agenda of every group of a certain size in our society.

One thus comes back to the question: is Scientology a dangerous group?

Judicial relentlessness

This accusation concerns in a general way all the spiritual minorities. It is certain that Scientology has developed a judicial expertise and that it uses it, perhaps abusively in certain cases. It is possible equally that the anti-Scientology climate strengthens a will to return blow for blow in a group where the notion of success is central. Nevertheless, faced with the campaigns of calumny that have overwhelmed these groups for some thirty years, recourse to the courts is the only means of defence, since public debate is totally biased. The MIVILUDES and all the anti-cult activists would assuredly like to be able to publish accusations without proof with impunity. Let them be reassured: that impunity is the case for most groups, which do not have the resources for legal recourse. Some, on the contrary, because they can, have chosen to defend themselves.

Judicial decisions against Scientology and/or French Scientologists

We obtained this information by an Internet search:

1978: Lafayette Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, deceased in 1986, is sentenced in absentia by the Paris court to four years’ imprisonment and a 35,000-franc fine for fraud. (AFP source in Le Point)

3 February 1995: The Paris Court of Appeal, 3rd chamber, confirms the judicial receivership of the Association Church of Scientology. This receivership will lead to a judicial liquidation (source).

18 December 1996: Tribunal de Grande Instance of Lille, 7th Chamber, criminal judgment no. 96-10728, prosecution 92-070: A Scientologist is sentenced to a fine of 100,000 francs for breach of the law on information technology, files and liberties (source).

28 July 1997: the Lyon Court of Appeal sentences the former president of Scientology in Lyon to three years’ suspended imprisonment and a 500,000-franc fine for involuntary homicide and fraud, for his responsibility in the suicide of a follower. Eight months to one year of suspended imprisonment and 10,000 to 20,000-franc fines are imposed on five other followers, but nine others, prosecuted for complicity, are acquitted. (AFP source in Le Point)

4 September 1998: Registry of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of PARIS - 17th CH - Case no.: 9632404373: A Scientologist is sentenced to a fine of 15,000 francs for breach of the law on information technology, files and liberties (source)

15 November 1999: five members or ex-members are convicted of fraud at Marseille, for having used fraudulent methods between 1987 and 1990 at Marseille and Nice to recruit new followers. A former regional executive is sentenced for fraud to 2 years’ imprisonment, of which 18 months suspended, and a 100,000-franc fine. Four other Scientologists are sentenced to suspended prison terms of six months to one year. (AFP source in Le Point)

17 May 2002: Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris - 13th chamber - Case no.: 9909023622: The spiritual association of the Church of Scientology IdF and a Scientologist are sentenced to a fine of 14,500 euros for breach of the law on information technology, files and liberties (source).

13 October 2003: the Paris Court of Appeal sentences the spiritual association of the Church of Scientology of Île-de-France (Asesif) to a 5,000-euro suspended fine for having kept computer files on former members of the group. It imposes the same penalty on the association’s president Marc Walter for violation of the information-technology-and-liberties law and obstruction of the functions of the agents of the National Commission for Information Technology and Liberties (Cnil). (AFP source in Le Point)

Elements of conclusion

The reader will have understood: it is not a matter in this article of defending Scientology as a particular movement, but of inviting, from this emblematic example, the re-establishment of conditions for a dispassionate study of the spiritual minorities.

In view of the current convictions and the available information relating to the principal accusations brought against Scientology, can one reasonably conclude that Scientology in France is a dangerous group whose dissolution must be envisaged? It seems to us not; an independent sociological inquiry into this movement reaching the opposite result would be necessary to modify this appreciation.

Justice will take its course on this recent accusation of “organised gang fraud”. If a judicial decision were to lead to the dissolution of the associations cited in Le Monde’s article, on the basis of the About-Picard law, we would raise legitimate questions about the cumulative gravity of the various judicial decisions against these associations and about the “serious” sociological, anthropological and other sources of information which would have made it possible to arrive at the definitive dangerousness of these structures for all their followers and for society.

Such a decision would moreover not be without risk; since it has been observed that these associations are familiar with judicial procedures, it is probable that they will go as far as the European Court. That would be to take a new risk of a scathing annulment of the French judicial decision (the other emblematic affair being the tax dispute between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the French State, which could, short of an amicable agreement, lead to another condemnation of France).

When a society demonises groups or persons, it leaves the democratic field, since dialogue is replaced by hatred. The Law must be able to apply without prior lynching, abusively justified in the name of laïcité, the defence of human rights or other great principles now so often debased.

The French anti-cult fight is a bad answer to a badly posed question. It is all the more urgent to recreate a serene framework of reflection as the hunt for cults and dérives sectaires is invading the whole social fabric (see our previous communiqués).

We advocate the creation of an independent observatory of the spiritual minorities. This observatory, piloted by recognised academics and professionals, would have the mission of constituting a legal and sociological knowledge base on the spiritual minorities. To leave the current politics of fear and offer reliable information, the result of crossed and pluralist inquiries, is the best means of understanding and making understood the place of the spiritual minorities in French society, and of preventing possible excesses.

See our commentaries on the developments of the judicial affair in progress.

Argument

Frequently, when we set out our point of view on the question of the cults, our interlocutor ends by answering: “yes, but Scientology!”. We invite the interested reader to consult our argued answer to this type of remark, equally frequent in spiritual circles.