Was the Anti-Cult Machination Losing Its Momentum?

Was the Anti-Cult Machination Losing Its Momentum?

A new commission of inquiry should relaunch it:

http://www.assembleenationale.org/12/propositions/pion3107.asp

Text presented by M. Vuilque in bold italics and CICNS commentary in normal text

Latest news: Read “M. Vuilque’s proposal was adopted unanimously”

Read also the anomalies of a parliamentary commission (pdf document)

Proposed resolution of M. Philippe Vuilque with a view to the creation of a commission of inquiry relating to the influence of movements of a cult character and to the consequences of their practices on the physical and mental health of minors

The indoctrination of children is a major stake for cult groups ; it is indeed when individuals are most malleable that the hold can be complete. Most cult groups are therefore very interested in children. It may be estimated today that one member of a cult group in four was recruited before adulthood.

This proposal rests on assertions without objective foundation. We know that the general public sometimes tends to express its fears in an irrational manner, but we expect better from political leaders, particularly those who seek to resolve the most sensitive questions of society. The demonisation of spiritual minorities makes it possible to assert, through the classic process of conflation, that “the hold” is their objective and that the most vulnerable (“our children!” — the subject is the best chosen to make vibrate the strings that will play the desired music) will be its victims. Where does this statistic “that one member in four was recruited before adulthood” come from? This introduction has all the characteristics of a defamation, which probably has no other objective than to maintain the pressure on the minorities in order to see them disappear from the landscape as quickly as possible and to create a kind of “new order” in the French style.

Regimentation consists in inculcating a doctrine, practices which considerably restrict the flourishing and the development of the child’s personality, his critical spirit and even his capacity to imagine a world other than that of the cult.

These three lines can obviously be applied without correction to this gentleman’s attempt to prevent people from imagining a world other than the one in which he believes.

What difference is there?

And if his world were an example of “the child’s flourishing”, no doubt we could subscribe to it. But who holds the truth about the modes of a child’s flourishing? It is certainly not with so much arrogance and intolerance towards difference that we shall be able to work towards an evolution of this question.

Compulsory instruction in France, the control of which was reinforced by the Act of 18 December 1998, has allowed the disappearance for the most part of schools presenting a cult character. But cult organisations are now attempting to circumvent the law through so-called distance teaching and remedial courses escaping controls.

Are “the schools presenting a cult character” those which offered new experiments, a new outlook, an attempt to solve problems?

It would be necessary for Monsieur Vuilque to offer those who hear him a detailed, scientific and objective description of these schools that he denounces, of the reasons for which they closed and of what qualifies them as “cult” schools. As with all the nebulous accusations concerning “cults” in France, we are dealing with characterised disinformation, playing on the emotional and on commonplaces. The CICNS’s citizens’ commission of inquiry has undertaken thorough work on the reality of the cult phenomenon in France which will be presented to the public authorities in order to propose genuine information on this scapegoat subject. Work that we would have hoped to see coming from people such as Monsieur Vuilque, well before these avalanches of generally baseless denunciations.

Depending on the group, the child is, for example , prevented from associating with comrades of the same age or from doing sport ; he is also compelled to attend prayer groups or to engage in proselytism. Some of them inflict ill-treatment on children going as far as enslavement and sexual abuse. The Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation has recently had to consider and punish such conduct. Their mental and physical health is often threatened. In certain cult groups, children are transformed into “adherents for life” knowing nothing other than the cult . Faced with this alarming situation, it is urgent to carry out studies and investigations making it possible better to grasp the diversity of the situations of children subjected to cult groupings.

If the courts have, genuinely and without influence, convicted individuals, parents or teachers for the acts set out above, what has that to do with spiritual minorities? And if such behaviour is to be attributed to any group whatever (whether of scouts, of Protestants, of Hindus or others), how can one not denounce here a will to conflate, at the very moment when society exculpates itself of everything to which it “subjects” children? Are we dealing with a humanist commission of inquiry which seeks the good of humanity beyond preconceptions, or with a political and discriminatory manoeuvre which seeks to muddy the trail? We do not think that the apostles of the anti-cult cause are blind to the cult-like failings of our own society. There must therefore be other motivations behind these campaigns, abject and painful for many.

The commission of inquiry will have as its objective to highlight the dangerousness of certain practices harmful to the physical and mental health of children, as well as to their flourishing . It will have to make concrete proposals in order to combat these unacceptable situations more effectively.

No doubt about the fact that this commission of inquiry “has as its objective to highlight the dangerousness”, for they have all done so for 25 years, to the point of giving the impression that it is their sole objective: to instil fear in the population. The situation that the CICNS finds unacceptable is to read year after year the same distressing “literature” from the people who govern the country. These remarks, when they are not simply the fruit of a political desire to obtain a little cheap publicity, whatever the consequences for citizens, rest on a perception of an absolute intolerance on the subject of beliefs and of everyone’s freedom to find the path of flourishing that suits them. From our point of view, the children who are the object of this campaign are subjected to “harmful practices” on the part of society as it is conceived today. Consequently, a genuine concern for young people demands a minimum of humility and less bigotry.

The proposed resolution was presented by the deputies:

MM. Philippe VUILQUE, Jean-Pierre BRARD, Mme Martine DAVID, MM. Georges FENECH, Marcel DEHOUX, Jacques DESALLANGRE, Francis HILLMEYER, Jacques MYARD, Éric RAOULT, Rudy SALLES, Philippe VITEL, Jean-Pierre ABELIN, Mme Patricia ADAM, MM. René ANDRÉ, Jean-Paul BACQUET, Claude BARTOLONE, Christian BATAILLE, Jean-Claude BEAUCHAUD, Patrick BEAUDOUIN, Jean-Claude BEAULIEU, Jean-Michel BERTRAND, Jean-Louis BIANCO, Jean-Marie BINETRUY, Jean-Pierre BLAZY, Serge BLISKO, Patrick BLOCHE, Jacques BOBE, Jean-Claude BOIS, Daniel BOISSERIE, Augustin BONREPAUX, Jean-Michel BOUCHERON, Pierre BOURGUIGNON, Mmes Josiane BOYCE, Françoise BRANGET, Martine CARRILLON-COUVREUR, MM. Roland CHASSAIN, Philippe COCHET, Pierre COHEN, Mme Geneviève COLOT, MM. Louis COSYNS, Jean-Yves COUSIN, Mme Claude DARCIAUX, MM. Olivier DASSAULT, Michel DASSEUX, Lucien DEGAUCHY, Léonce DEPREZ, Bernard DEROSIER, Michel DESTOT, Dominique DORD, François DOSÉ, Julien DRAY, Philippe DUBOURG, Jean-Pierre DUFAU, William DUMAS, Yves DURAND, Mme Odette DURIEZ, MM. Philippe EDMOND-MARIETTE, Claude EVIN, Pierre-Louis FAGNIEZ, Philippe FENEUIL, Jean-Michel FERRAND, Mme Cécile GALLEZ, MM. René GALY-DEJEAN, Daniel GARD, Jean-Jacques GAULTIER, Mmes Nathalie GAUTIER, Catherine GÉNISSON, MM. Alain GEST, Jean-Marie GEVEAUX, Georges GINESTA, Claude GOASGUEN, Jacques GODFRAIN, Mme Paulette GUINCHARD, MM. Michel HEINRICH, Laurent HÉNART, Michel HERBILLON, Sébastien HUYGHE, Mme Muguette JACQUAINT, MM. Édouard JACQUE, Éric JALTON, Armand JUNG, Christian KERT, Patrick LABAUNE, Jean LAUNAY, Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT, Bruno LE ROUX, Mme Marylise LEBRANCHU, MM. Michel LEFAIT, Patrick LEMASLE, François LIBERTI, Bernard MADRELLE, Richard MALLIÉ, Jean MARSAUDON, Mme Henriette MARTINEZ, MM. Christophe MASSE, Didier MATHUS, Christian MÉNARD, Kléber MESQUIDA, Pierre MICAUX, Didier MIGAUD, Mme Hélène MIGNON, MM. Étienne MOURRUT, Alain NÉRI, Michel PAJON, Mme Valérie PECRESSE, M. Jean-Claude PEREZ, Mmes Marie-Françoise PÉROL-DUMONT, Bérengère POLETTI, MM. Didier QUENTIN, Paul QUILÈS, Jean-François RÉGÈRE, Jacques REMILLER, Mme Juliana RIMANE, M. Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Mme Chantal ROBIN-RODRIGO, MM. François ROCHEBLOINE, Serge ROQUES, Jean-Marc ROUBAUD, Max ROUSTAN, François SAUVADET, Michel SORDI, Alain SUGUENOT, Pascal TERRASSE, Philippe TOURTELIER, Mme Liliane VAGINAY, MM. Daniel VAILLANT, Michel VERGNIER, Alain VIDALIES and Michel ZUMKELLER

Latest news:

The proposed resolution of M. Philippe Vuilque with a view to “the creation of a commission of inquiry relating to the influence of movements of a cult character and to the consequences of their practices on the physical and mental health of minors” was therefore adopted unanimously by the deputies present on 28 June 2006, two days before the summer closure of the National Assembly.

Everything was done so that, under the pressure of one deputy, M. Philippe Vuilque (PS), who, in the words of Mme Martine David (PS), succeeded in “wresting the creation of this commission of inquiry” and “spared no effort to carry conviction”, this resolution, adopted in haste, to the point of “disrupting the Assembly’s order of business”, should be voted unanimously, “a unanimity of which we are sure, deep down”, according to M. Guy Geoffroy (UMP).

We do not know how many deputies were standing in the chamber. For fifty minutes, ten took the floor, and one is bound to note the total lack of substance in the arguments advanced to justify the creation of this new commission of inquiry:

M. Jean-Pierre Brard (PC) reproaches the “cult organisations” with “their capacity to adapt, to bring pressure to bear”. The single example found does not fail to convince his colleagues: an association for the defence of freedom of conscience took the liberty of writing a letter to M. Jean-Louis Debré on the subject of this proposal for a commission of inquiry. “This letter bears witness to the methods that these criminal organisations use. I should like in this respect to salute the role that you have played, the President of the National Assembly and yourself, Mr Chairman of the Law Committee, so that we should meet this morning and take the decision to constitute this commission of inquiry”

The audacity was too great and does indeed necessitate “an adaptation of the policy implemented to combat the reprehensible practices of cult organisations.”

M. Philippe Vuilque, for his part, rejoices at the non-partisan character of the debates surrounding the question of cults. “This commission of inquiry, which is awaited by the Miviludes and by all the associations fighting dérives sectaires, is dreaded by the cult organisations. As the Outreau commission recently showed, a commission of inquiry conducted in a non-partisan spirit does honour to Parliament. I therefore ask you to adopt this proposed resolution unanimously.” Note the subtlety, used also by Mme Anne Hidalgo, first deputy mayor of Paris, during the “Cults and Childhood” day on 30 March 2006 at St Priest, who praised the “non-partisan” character of the debates surrounding the question of cults within the public authorities of the city of Paris. Where academics (sociologists, ethnologists, historians) and all the minority spiritual movements have been asking, for many years, for the possibility of an adversarial debate within Parliament, our “representatives elected by universal suffrage” boast of the total absence of contradiction and of the unanimity imposed on the debate.

Mme Martine David assures us that the use of blacklists is not over, contrary to what some had hoped: “It is therefore necessary to reinforce publicity and to make the list of organisations presumed to be cults easily accessible”.

There is also talk of preventing spiritual movements from assembling: “Likewise, one cannot let certain movements engage in propaganda without constraint. As Jean-Pierre Brard emphasised, we shall have to examine the situation of mayors confronted with gatherings on a very large scale, such as the one the Jehovah’s Witnesses are organising in three weeks at Lens. Since that town’s stadium is a private enclosure, the mayor is deprived of effective means of action to prevent this vast campaign. Now the consequences of such events are always very serious for vulnerable minors.”

The citizens’ commission of inquiry created by the CICNS will answer the questions raised as to the alleged delinquency of spiritual minorities.