Warsaw, 27 September 2011

Warsaw, 23 September 2011 – Some 1000 government representatives and civil society activists from the OSCE’s (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) 56 participating States have been gathering in Warsaw from 26 September for a two-week conference to review progress in implementing the commitments adopted by governments in the field of human rights and democracy. 

The annual OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting is Europe’s largest human rights conference.  

http://www.osce.org/odihr/82627 

The CICNS presented its report on the 27 September 2011: 'France - The fight against sectarian abuse revealed as a vehicle for propaganda'

http://www.osce.org/odihr/82974 

Below is the full transcript of the presentation. The references [.] can be found from the above PDF linked document.

Introduction

Our last contribution [1] to this audience, commenting upon the French policy on so-called ‘fight against sectarian abuse’, took place on the 29 September 2009. Two years later, our critical analysis is even more relevant as we have witnessed a radual intensification of this fight, supported at the highest level of the state. In its nine years of existence, MIVILUDES (the French inter-ministerial mission to monitor and combat sectarian abuse, under the Prime Minister’s authority) has blacklisted nearly all alternative approaches whether spiritual, therapeutic or educational, using a substantial propaganda strategy. Furthermore, this has been enforced in the name of secular values and the defence of individual rights.
We describe the main features of this propaganda in the first part of this document. In the second part we provide examples showing, on a monthly basis, the excesses of the anti-cult mindset.

A well grounded propaganda system

1. A conservative ‘one way of thinking’: After more than thirty years of misinformation, the ‘cult’/‘sect’ issue has become an orthodox mindset. The mere mention of the word ‘cult’ is enough to spur a consensual feeling of rejection, usually without any real knowledge of the groups or people referred to. The integrity of the French fight against sectarian abuse is rarely put under scrutiny, or even brought into perspective, within the broader European context, whether it be in political, media or intellectual circles [2] not even the allocated resources and their effectiveness are discussed.
   Extreme statements are frequently made by journalists, members of government or politicians, along with members of the civil society, afforded media coverage, without any question being raised. For example: “Gurus of all kind show relentless devilish cunning” [3] “What is at stake for year 2010 is to purge vocational training from the cancer of cults” [4] “We wish to see put in place a national campaign against sectarian abuse to be considered as other dependencies like alcohol, drugs or tobacco” [5] and “80 000 children (…) are directly under the menace of sectarian abuse” [6].
     
2. A permanent doublespeak: This ‘one way of thinking’ allows and feeds itself with a set of deceptive arguments and doublespeak intended to give some credibility to an otherwise dubious anticult policy. MIVILUDES is but one zealous perpetrator of such doublespeak:
          
   
   • By claiming not to target ‘cults’ but only their alleged misbehaviours [7] while hypocritically continuing to use the disparaging appellation ‘cult’ or ‘sectarian movement’ against those groups [8].
   • By claiming there are no longer any lists of ‘cults’ in France [9].
   • By claiming the inter-ministerial mission “takes part in the battle against all forms of discrimination, led by Public Authorities, reminding state agents their obligations on this matter, during consultations and training sessions” [10]. It would be very easy to interview socalled ‘sectarian’ groups – and foremost among these, those having undergone intrusive investigation by MIVILUDES or police force raids [11] - to observe that institutionalized discrimination is at work.
   • By claiming to adhere to French secular values when the whole anti-cult policy led in France is an antithesis of secular principles [12].
   • By claiming to provide extensive and pertinent information [13] while spreading all kind of rumours, fear-mongering [14] and unfounded and false information [15]. Notably claiming to use the work of researchers [16] while social scientists contributions are dutifully ignored [17].
   • By claiming there is no attempt to export the French anti-cult fighting model - while France’s stance on that matter is unique and not understood by many other countries which prompts our government to seek supporters abroad [18]. All the more so as the mission claims international organizations to be infiltrated by cults [19].
   • By saying nothing about, or downplaying, the recent condemnation of France, in its opposition of Jehovah’s Witnesses, for violation of European convention’s article 9 on religious freedom [20], a significant decision by the European Court on Human Rights, contributing to discredit of the French anti-cult policy.
       
3. Complacent mass media: The anti-cult propaganda relies on the active cooperation of mass media [21]. MIVILUDES and particularly Georges Fenech, the mission’s current President, know how to take advantage of the media's addiction to the ‘sensational’, the ‘emotional’, and to excessive statements. The media relishes ‘cults’ and victims stories. The sociological truth, less eye-catching, is of no interest to them because it has nothing to do with the journalistic hype denigrating those groups. For that matter, some journalists do not hesitate displaying their anti-cult views – thereby expressing non-critical support for MIVILUDES work – or to suggest them, quite often regardless of the ethics of their profession [22]. If a sign of the deceptive alleged transition from a ‘fight against cults’ to a ‘fight against sectarian abuse’ was needed, it would be enough to record the proportion of journalists ignoring or discarding the meaning of MIVILUDES acronym [23], a confusion in line with the mission’s doublespeak. Nevertheless, the recent decision by ECHR (condemning France v. Jehovah’s Witnesses) produced a positive change in the media coverage of this group [24] (otherwise regularly bashed by the media). This may indicate that such decisions, if repeated, could help ease France’s blinkered vision regarding the cult issue.
      
4. ‘Mind control’ as a recurring theme: An anti-cult propaganda theme used ad nauseam to discredit so-called ‘cults’ is the notion of ‘mind control’ (‘mental manipulation’) [25]. This notion derived from the Anglo-Saxon pseudo-scientific concept of brainwashing is often refined into two other formulations: ‘loss of free will’ [26] and ‘vice of consent’ [27]. These three notions applied to cults (outside a research environment where they can possibly be studied) are discriminatory and dangerous concepts:
   
   
   • They deny an individual possession of any self-determinism or any responsibility, considering he/she can simply be controlled against his/her will, as a brainless victim.
   • They do not gather consensus in the scientific community, on the contrary, they are seen as pseudo scientific concepts by many scientists [28].
   • They imply that ‘cults’ are using sophisticated persuasion techniques [29] that are seemingly absent from other parts of society, which is at best very naïve and at worst, a blatant show of cynicism [30].
   • They suggest that any offence, any ill-will expressed or ‘strange’ behaviour observed amidst ‘cults’ is the result of ‘mind control’ [31], moreover, this occurs while there are no comparative studies on similar offences or ill-will in the rest of society [32].
   • They lead, in France, to a specific legislation aimed at ‘cults’ [33].
        
5. ‘Raids’ and ‘exit counselling’ as means of operations: We have already mentioned MIVILUDES’ intrusive investigations and CAIMADES’ [34] supervised police force raids in training centres or communities. A new type of intervention has appeared recently in France: ‘exit counselling’, an allegedly non-coercive ‘exfiltration’ technique to get individuals out of a supposedly sectarian community. We question vigorously the legality, conformity to fundamental rights and operational mode of this technique:
    
   
   • If indeed the value of consent of the adult cannot be discarded except on exceptional grounds in the field of private law relationships or in the field of legal right on freedoms [35], the only potential justification for an ‘exfiltration’ operation would rely on the relevance of the three notions: ‘mind control, ‘loss of free will’, ‘vice of consent’. As shown above, such validation is lacking. And if by chance, as unlikely as it may be, it is obtained in the future, the whole of society would be impacted; the ‘exit counselling’ technique would have then to be generalized. This raises a serious question: How would established religions, convents and monasteries, the army, political parties, publicists, corporations, clubs of supporters, etc react? [36]
   • If, in theory, ‘exit counselling’ no longer uses visible violence - abduction, confinement, which rendered illegal its ancestor ‘deprogramming’ [37] -, some anti-cult activists think otherwise [38]. It is also worth noting that some of the journalists who covered corresponding news items mentioned ‘commando-like operations’ [39]. In a country which has legislated on workplace harassment, on psychological violence (in the family environment), on psychological
     subjection (About-Picard law aiming ‘cults’), how is it that ‘exit counselling’ psychological violence cannot be legally questioned? What difference is there between an ‘exit counsellor’ who would succeed in convincing an individual to quit a group through the technique of ‘exit counselling’ and the persuasion skills granted to the ‘guru’ (those one seen as harmful), as in both cases, it targets the same people said to be responsive to manipulation?
   • ‘Exit counselling’ technique supervision is supposed to be certified in the presence of a lawyer and psychologists. Some lawyers and psychologists are actively involved in the virulent French anti-cult fight and do no not hesitate proposing actions and legislation that other citizens consider contrary to liberties; therefore their professional title is not a guarantee. Assuming that legality (in the penal sense) was definitively acquired, the only way to validate the operational mode of ‘exit counselling’ technique – potentially impacting several hundred of thousands of citizens - would be to obtain a methodological consensus on the part of lawyers and psyche professionals (among their representative structures). To the best of our knowledge, this consensus does not exist.

Anti-cult fight on a monthly basis

January 2010: The French national debate on the Muslim face veil (so-called niqāb, improperly named burqa in the French debate) [40] has been used to further extend the anti-cult rhetoric.

January 7, 2010: Police raid at the University of World’s knowledge and wisdoms (Terre du Ciel) [41]. The sectarian abuse hypothesis initially brought up to justify this intentionally intimidating procedure has been quickly put aside, but moral and financial consequences have been significant for university’s staff.

February 2010: MIVILUDES publishes a ten-bullet questions/answers document [42] aimed to parents in order to help them protect their children against sectarian abuse in health matters. Example of question that should arouse suspicion, if the answer is positive, in parents’ mind: “Is the therapist critical towards state services in charge of youth?”.

March 2010: Georges Fenech, current MIVILUDES president, proceeding with his tour of sunny overseas territories, goes to New Caledonia to spread the anti-cult mindset [43].

March 2010: A mayor in the north of France [44] allows himself to invoke the 1996 parliamentary list of cults, although without any legal value and despite a 2005 note by Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin [45] explicitly recommending not to use it, to refuse a public meeting for a group mentioned in that list.

March 9, 2010: A few weeks before the release of MIVLUDES 2009 annual report, a government’s response to a parliamentary question [46] illustrates the absurdity of French anti-cult fight: “For the year 2009, no complaints signalling sectarian abuse have been filed to DJEPVA [47]”.

March 27, 2010: Freemason orders [48], among the main leading anti-cult proponents in France, carry on their lobbying on the subject, a disturbing stand in light of freemasonry’s own highly controversial history [49].

April 2010: MIVILUDES publishes its 2009 annual report [50] . Once again, the inter-ministerial mission asserts a repressive approach, does not acknowledge the discriminations caused by its policy and discard a knowledge acquisition based methodology. This stance is clearly summarized in Georges Fenech’s own words: “The public must be warned: all that which is natural can partly hide sectarian abuse”.

April 2010: Mainstream media [51] fail once again to question the government policy expressed in MIVILUDES 2009 annual report; no contradictory viewpoints are presented to question the report’s content and conclusions.

April 2010: Education, outside public or ‘under contract’ schools [52], is considered by MIVILUDES to be a nest for sectarian abuse [note: as a reminder, schooling is not mandatory in France, only education is].

April 7, 2010: Cults become a good subject for audience ratings in TV series (example: Plus belle la vie, France 3) and in literary production: example, a novel by Sarah Chiche: L’emprise [53] [Stranglehold].

May 2010: The controversial debate around the French law regulating the title of ‘psychotherapist’ [54] is seized by Georges Fenech to further spread the key but fraudulent anti-cult concept of mental stranglehold (mental manipulation) [55].

September 2010: MIVILUDES, architect of the anti-cult psychosis in France, publishes the results of a survey on a sample of 962 French individuals [56] concluding that 42% of them see cults as a menace to their friends and families.

September 25, 2010: Georges Fenech, anti-cult proponent of the early days and proactive supporter of the 1996 list of cults [57], sees no contradiction in stating that: “There is no authority in France giving labels such as: you are a religion or you are a cult” [58]
.
October 2010: MIVILUDES publishes a Guide for the protection of youth against sectarian abuse [59]. The sensitive subject (rightly so) of youth is used in a perverse manner to state ludicrous data on the alleged number of victims of sectarian abuse [60] and to promote ostracism against groups labelled as cults [61].

October 2010: Most mainstream media pass on Georges Fenech statement that 50,000 to 60,000 children would be victims of sectarian abuse, without investigating the absence of proof supporting such a statement.

October 2010: The deleterious anti-cult climate impacts two recent law cases [62].

November 2010: After undergoing an unjustified and destabilizing intrusive investigation (described as a ‘raid’ in the press) by MIVILUDES, a spiritual community (Moulin des Vallées) has filed a complaint in the court of law [63] against MIVILUDES. The prosecutor in charge, seeing no matter for prosecution, closes the case. [Note: in France, prosecutors are hierarchically attached to the ministry of Justice and therefore their independence with regard to the government is always a matter of controversy].

November 2010: Again, some ‘freemason orders’ display a simplistic anti-cult attitude while organizing an internal meeting ‘inadvertently’ programmed in the premises of a group labelled as ‘cult’ in the 1999 parliamentary report. [64].

December 2010: MIVILUDES launches an unjustified and alarmist campaign against so-called ‘apocalyptic’ groups in the perspective of year 2012, in particular in relation with the site of Bugarach in the south of France [65].

January 2011: The French anti-cult mindset is so well established that a Member of Parliament goes as far as to propose legal immunity to members of MIVILUDES, some of whom being sued by minorities or citizens considering they have been defamed or blacklisted [66].

January 2011: On the web site of the Ministry for work, employment and health, one can read [67]: “If you think you have been subject to exorbitant financial pressure, mental subversion, or if you have heard a discourse disparaging conventional medicine, you might have been victim of sectarian abuse”. That type of slogans - nowadays widespread on official websites - encourages the anti-cult mindset [68].

February 2011: The vocational training business is one of the main targets for anti-cult policy as expressed by the secretary of state for employment: “What is at stake for year 2010 is to purge vocational training from the cancer of cults, a situation tolerated for too many years now. The government will lead a relentless hunt on that matter!” [69].

March 2011: Following a testimony, a 70 strong police force besieges a personal development centre; four people are placed in police custody. On what grounds? “A potentially sectarian activity” [70].

March 2011: A ‘spiritual healer’ course is cancelled; the event’s organizer has received an official mail warning her that the anti-cult squad would step in her premises, should this course be maintained. Destabilized by such an intimidating threat, the organizer chose to cancel the course [71].

April 2011: The party in power launches a debate on ‘laicity’. Spiritual, therapeutic and educational minorities are not mentioned. Their arbitrary status of ‘cults’ excludes them from any debated issue in society as the ‘cult’ issue is not to be examined in a contradictory way in France [72].

May 2011: Two recent legal cases show how the anti-cult phobic attitude is used to try to explain unsolved situations [73].

June 2011: MIVILUDES president launches a new alarmist campaign against ‘apocalyptic’ groups on the Bugarach site [74].

June 2011: In the wake of this campaign, MIVILUDES releases its 2010 annual report. The modus operandi remains unchanged: promote reflexes of suspicion and spread rumors of danger on all counts. The main targets this year are: so-called ‘apocalyptical’ groups and alternative medicines, in particular those around cancer treatment [75]. With this report, MIVILUDES once again asserts its role of arbiter on good and bad practices or beliefs, in a secular state supposed to prevent the intrusion of the political into the realm of beliefs and alternative choices of life [76].

June 2011: Once again this year, mass media fail to become a necessary counter-power [77] at the time of release of MIVILUDES 2010 report. No contradictory viewpoints are presented to question the report’s content and conclusions.

Conclusion

In 2009, during the meeting organized between NGOs and the Advisory Council, CICNS proposed to include in the Guidelines for review of legislation pertaining to religion or belief [78] an entry recommending states to not use fraudulent notions like ‘mind control’ (‘mental manipulation’) to discredit groups already labelled as ‘cults’. We reiterate our proposition and also add a new one to the same effect on the use of techniques like ‘exit counselling’.
In addition, if the European Court on Human Rights encourages states to provide information to citizens, it appears necessary to have means for evaluating the quality and outcome of this information [79]. An entry in the Guidelines to this effect would seem appropriate (in many respects state information/communication has often more impact than current legislation). Today French anti-cult information (propaganda) issued by the Government or Parliament is not assessed. We consider that the
creation of an independent and official (meaning funded and supported by the state) observatory on spiritual, therapeutic and educational minorities, as a replacement for MIVILUDES, would be the most democratic and safe option to provide sensible information regarding those groups [80].

 

published 5/11/2011

Back

	Tweet