contact@forbroundtable.org
https://www.forbroundtable.org
 
A :
Tous les députés français
Tous les sénateurs français
 
Traduction
 
Objet : La proposition de loi française « renforçant la lutte contre les dérives sectaires »
 
Chers membres du Parlement français,
 
Nous vous écrivons en tant que coalition informelle d'organisations et d'individus qui sont des universitaires, des responsables religieux et de la société civile, ainsi que des défenseurs et des praticiens des droits de l'homme, afin d'exprimer nos profondes inquiétudes concernant le projet de loi « renforçant la lutte contre les dérives sectaires », qui est actuellement débattu au Parlement français.
 
Bien que nous ayons des opinions théologiques et des positions politiques extrêmement diverses, nous sommes tous d'accord sur l'importance de la liberté de religion ou de conviction pour chacun. Elle renforce les cultures et jette les bases de démocraties stables et de leurs composantes, notamment l'harmonie sociale, la société civile et la croissance économique. En tant que telle, elle constitue également une arme efficace de lutte contre le terrorisme, car elle permet de saper de manière préventive l'extrémisme religieux. Du cylindre de Cyrus à la charte coloniale de 1663 de Roger Williams, l'histoire et les études modernes montrent clairement que lorsque les gens sont autorisés à pratiquer leur foi librement, ils sont moins susceptibles de se sentir exclus par le gouvernement et plus susceptibles d'être de bons citoyens.
 
Bien que nous sachions que la France a le devoir d'adopter une législation pour s'attaquer aux problèmes de criminalité et poursuivre les crimes commis par des membres de mouvements spirituels et religieux, nous pensons que vous pouvez atteindre cet objectif sans ajouter de nouvelles restrictions à la liberté de pensée, de conscience et de religion ou de conviction dans votre pays.
 
Le projet de loi « renforçant la lutte contre les dérives sectaires », tel qu'il est rédigé, comporte plusieurs lacunes qui le rendent non conforme à la Constitution de la Vème République et aux engagements internationaux de la France, notamment l'article 18 de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme et du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques.
 
Tout d'abord, la stigmatisation des minorités religieuses comme « sectes » ou « groupes sectaires » par les États et les gouvernements est contraire aux normes internationales en matière de liberté de religion ou de conviction. C'est ce qui est abordé dans l'observation générale 22 du Comité des droits de l'homme des Nations unies :
 
L'article 18 protège les convictions théistes, non théistes et athées, ainsi que le droit de ne professer aucune religion ou conviction. Les termes conviction et religion doivent être interprétés au sens large. L'article 18 n'est pas limité, dans son application, aux religions traditionnelles ou aux religions et croyances comportant des caractéristiques ou des pratiques institutionnelles analogues à celles des religions traditionnelles. Le Comité est donc préoccupé par toute tendance visant à faire preuve de discrimination à l'encontre d'une religion ou d'une conviction quelconque pour quelque raison que ce soit, notamment parce qu'elle est nouvellement établie ou qu'elle représente des minorités religieuses susceptibles d'être en butte à l'hostilité d'une communauté religieuse dominante.
 
La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme condamne régulièrement cette stigmatisation par ses États membres (voir par exemple "Tonchev et autres c. Bulgarie", Requête n° 56862/15).
 
Actuellement, les principaux pays qui s'en prennent aux minorités religieuses et spirituelles, qu'ils qualifient de manière dérogatoire de « sectes », sont la Russie, la Chine et l'Iran. Ces pays sont parmi les pires violateurs de la liberté de pensée, de conscience et de religion ou de croyance dans le monde, et nous ne voulons pas voir la France rejoindre ce groupe.
 
De plus, l'article 1 du projet de loi crée un nouveau délit appelé « sujétion psychologique ». Un tel concept, à appliquer aux questions liées aux croyances religieuses ou spirituelles :
 
● Est pseudo-scientifique et n'a jamais été soutenu par un consensus scientifique, alors qu'au contraire certains groupes scientifiques reconnus comme l'American Psychological Association et l'American Sociological Association ont rejeté totalement un tel concept appliqué aux mouvements religieux et/ou aux soi-disant « sectes ». Comme l'a déclaré la CEDH dans l'affaire des Témoins de Jéhovah de Moscou c. Russie (Requête n° 302/02), le 10 juin 2010 : « il n'existe pas de définition généralement acceptée et scientifique de ce qui constitue la "manipulation mentale". »
 
● Est si vague qu'il ouvre la porte à des abus arbitraires, qui peuvent toucher n'importe quelle foi, ou même des groupes philosophiques non religieux.
 
● Fera peser la charge de la preuve sur les psychiatres qui devront évaluer des pratiques religieuses ou spirituelles pour lesquelles ils ne sont pas qualifiés, sur la base d'une notion dépourvue de fondement scientifique.
 
● Criminalisera les croyances en fonction du degré de popularité ou d'acceptation des idées et des croyances des groupes spirituels ou religieux minoritaires.
 
Nous pensons que cela serait inacceptable dans un pays démocratique comme la France.
Nous vous demandons instamment de prendre en compte les répercussions d'une telle loi. Les conséquences sociales comprennent, sans s'y limiter, les protestations indignées non seulement de ces groupes minoritaires, mais aussi de coalitions multiconfessionnelles, ainsi qu'un examen de plus en plus minutieux de la part de la communauté internationale.
 
En outre, l'article 3 du projet de loi permettra aux associations « antisectes » de se porter partie civile dans des procès pénaux contre des groupes qu'elles considèrent comme des « sectes », même si elles n'ont pas personnellement subi de dommages. Considérant que ces associations s'attaquent par définition aux minorités spirituelles et religieuses qu'elles qualifient de « sectes », cet article mettra en péril le droit à un procès équitable auquel chacun a droit. 
 
Nous comprenons que la lutte contre la criminalité est un objectif légitime.
 
Malheureusement, le projet de loi dans sa forme actuelle sera contre-productif et permettra la criminalisation de personnes qui ne sont pas des délinquants mais des croyants sincères. Nous sommes certains que le droit pénal français contient toutes les dispositions nécessaires pour lutter contre la criminalité, et la création d'un nouveau délit vague et arbitraire fondé sur des théories pseudo-scientifiques est dangereuse.
 
En tant que coalition multiconfessionnelle informelle, nous vous demandons instamment et respectueusement de ne pas vous précipiter pour adopter ce projet de loi et de faire appel aux principaux experts du droit à la liberté de religion ou de conviction, tels que le Bureau des institutions démocratiques et des droits de l'homme (BIDDH) de l'OSCE ou le rapporteur spécial des Nations unies sur la liberté de religion ou de conviction, afin d'obtenir des avis et des conseils bien étayés.
 
Il s'agit d'une question cruciale pour l'avenir de la France, le sort de tous les citoyens français et le monde entier, car le résultat de votre travail sera observé et évalué au niveau international. Allez-vous promulguer une loi qui cible et punit les citoyens pour leur foi ou leurs croyances ? Allez-vous stigmatiser les croyances minoritaires, créer un délit arbitraire et accroître les restrictions à la liberté de religion ou de croyance, ou allez-vous défendre la liberté dans le pays des droits de l'homme ? Nous espérons vraiment que ce sera la seconde option, et nous sommes convaincus que vous entendrez cet appel.
 
Nous vous remercions de votre attention.
 
Nous vous prions d'agréer, Messieurs les parlementaires, l'expression de nos sentiments respectueux,
 

contact@forbroundtable.org
https://www.forbroundtable.org

December 17, 2023

To:
All French Deputies
All French Senators
 
Re: The current French bill on “Reinforcing the Fight Against Cultic Deviances”
 
Dear Members of the French Parliament,

We write as an informal coalition of organizations and individuals who are scholars, religious and civil society leaders, and human rights advocates and practitioners to express our deep concerns about the bill, “Reinforcing the Fight Against Cultic Deviances,” which is currently being debated at the French Parliament.

While we hold an extremely broad diversity of theological views and political positions, we all agree on the importance of freedom of religion or belief for everyone. It strengthens cultures and provides the foundation for stable democracies and their components, including social harmony, civil society, and economic growth. As such, it is also an effective counter-terrorism weapon as it pre-emptively undermines religious extremism. From Cyrus’ Cylinder to Roger Williams’ 1663 Colonial Charter, history and modern scholarship make it clear that where people are allowed to practice their faith freely, they are less likely to be alienated from the government, and more likely to be good citizens.

While we know France has a duty to enact legislation to tackle the problems of criminality and prosecute crimes committed by members of spiritual and religious movements, we believe you can achieve this purpose without adding new restrictions on freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief in your country.

The bill, “Reinforcing the Fight Against Cultic Deviances,” as it is written, contains several flaws that make it non-compliant with the Constitution of the Fifth Republic and its international commitments, including Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

First, the stigmatization of religious minorities as “cults” or “cultic groups” by states and governments is contrary to the international standards in freedom of religion or belief. That is what is tackled in General Comment 22 of the UN Human Rights Committee:

The European Court of Human Rights regularly condemns such stigmatization by its member states (see for example "Tonchev and Others v. Bulgaria", Application no. 56862/15).

Currently, the leading countries that target religious and spiritual minorities they distastefully refer to as “cults” are Russia, China, and Iran. These countries are among the worst violators of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief in the world, and we do not want to see France join this group.

Moreover, Article 1 of the law creates a new crime called “psychological subjection.” Such a concept, to be applied to matters related to religious or spiritual beliefs:

●      Is pseudo-scientific and has never been supported by scientific consensus, while to the opposite some scientific recognized groups as the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association rejected utterly such a concept applied to religious movements and/or so called “cults.” As the ECHR stated in "Case of the Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia" (Application no. 302/02), on June 10, 2010: "there is no generally accepted and scientific definition of what constitutes ‘mind control.’"
 
●      Is so vague that it opens the door to arbitrary abuses, which can touch any faith, or even non-religious philosophical groups.
 
●      Will put the burden of proof on psychiatrists who will have to evaluate religious or spiritual practices for which they are not qualified, based on a notion devoid of scientific basis.
 
●      Will criminalize beliefs based on the degree of popularity or acceptance of the ideas and beliefs of minority spiritual or religious groups.
 
We believe this would be unacceptable in a democratic country like France.

We urge you to consider the repercussions of such a law. The social consequences include but are not limited to outraged protests not only from these minority groups but from multi-faith coalitions and increasing scrutiny of the international community.

Further, Article 3 of the bill will allow “anti-cult” associations to be plaintiff in criminal trials against groups they consider as “cults,” even if they have not personally suffered any damage. Considering that these associations are by definition attacking the spiritual and religious minorities they label as “cults,” this article will endanger the right to a fair trial that everyone is entitled to. 

We understand that fighting against criminality is a legitimate aim. Unfortunately, the bill in its current form will be counter-productive and will allow for the criminalization of people who are not criminals but sincere believers. We are certain that French criminal law contains all necessary provisions to tackle criminality, and creating a vague and arbitrary new crime based on pseudo-scientific theories is dangerous.

As an informal multi-faith coalition, we strongly and respectfully urge you to refrain from rushing to pass this bill into law and ask you to engage the leading experts in the right to freedom of religion or belief, such as the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the OSCE or the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religions or Belief, to get well-rounded advice and guidance.

This is a critical issue for the future of France, the fate of all French citizens, and the entire world, as the outcome of your work will be watched and evaluated internationally. Will you enact a law that targets and punishes citizens for their faith or beliefs? Will you stigmatize minority beliefs, create an arbitrary crime, and increase restrictions on freedom of religion or belief, or will you uphold freedom in the country of Human Rights? We definitely hope it will be the latter, and we trust you will hear that call.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
 
Organizations
 
Aido Network International (AIDO)
 
Alliance For Democratic Justice – USA
 
America Sikh Forum Inc.
 
American Sikh Council
 
Association of the Hungarian Romani Police Officers
 
BRIDGES NGO for Dialogue – Bulgaria
 
Center for defence of human rights - Switzerland
 
Center for Studies on Freedom of Religion Belief and Conscience (LIREC) – Italy
 
CESNUR (Center for Studies on New Religions) - Italy
 
Children’s Education Fellowship – USA
 
Church of Scientology National Affairs Office, Washington DC – USA
 
Coordination des Associations et des Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience (CAPLC)
 
Ethnic Debate Forum / Jewish Muslim Platform - Denmark
 
European Federation for Freedom of Belief (FOB) – Italy
 
European Interreligious Forum for Religious Freedom (EIFRF) – Belgium, France
 
FALMIS - Association of Banat Bulgarian
 
Federation of Indian American Christian Organizations North American (FIACONA)
 
FOREF EUROPE (European Forum for Religious Freedom) – Austria

Gerard Noodt Foundation for Freedom of Religion or Belief – Netherlands
 
Human Rights Without Frontiers Int’l
 
Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) - USA
 
International Christian Concern – USA      
 
Law and Liberty Trust – USA
 
Mission Lanka – Netherlands
 
ORLIR (International Observatory of Religious Liberty of Refugees)
 
PARITY (New York)
 
Peacefully Connected – Belgium
 
Soteria International
 
The All Faith Network – UK
 
Udhetim I lire (Free to Travel) – Albania
 
Ukrainian Association of Religious Studies (UARR)
 
UNITED SIKHS UK
 
The World Uyghur Christian Union (WUCU)
 
 
Individuals
With title and organization for identification purposes only
 
Dr Abdul Basit Syed
Founder Chairman
World Humanitarian Drive
 
Dr Adam Klin-Oron
Director, Social Impact
The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute
 
Dr. Adrian Hollaender
Rechtsanwaltskanzlei / Law Office
Rechtsanwalt / Attorney at Law
Vienna, Austria, Europe
 
Alan Murray
Board member
AFAN (All Faiths And None)
 
Alessandro Amicarelli
President
FOB – European Federation for Freedom of Belief
 
Anastasia Aseeva
Executive Director
Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union (UCSJ)
 
Angelina Vladikova
President
Bridges NGO for Dialogue
 
Arvinder Singh
Director
America Sikh Forum Inc.
 
Bachittar Singh Ughrha
Founder and President
Center for defence of human rights
 
Bashy Qurashy
Chairman
Ethnic Debate Forum / Jewish Muslim Platform
 
Bernadette Rigal-Cellard
Professeur émérite
Université Bordeaux Montaigne
 
Prof. Boaz Huss
Aron Bernstein Chair in Jewish History
Chairperson of the Goldstein-Goren International Center of Jewish Thought
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
 
Bryan Nerren
President
Children’s Education Fellowship
 
Congressman Dan Burton
International Association of Parliamentarians for Peace
Universal Peace Federation
 
Ven. Dharmavajra D. Schultze
Buddhist minister
Member of Nätverket för Tro och Tolerans  (network for faith and tolerance) - Sweden
 
David Perry
President
Family Federation for World Peace and Unification France
 
Eileen Barker
FAcSS, FBA, OBE, Professor Emerita
London School of Economics
 
Enrique Miguel Sánchez Motos
Civil State Administrator
Madrid Spain
 
Franco Famularo
President
FFWPU Canada
 
Dr. Ferenc Horvath
President
Association of the Hungarian Romani Police Officers
 
Dr. Habil. Gabor Dániel Nagy
Associate Professor
University of Szeged
IEP de Paris alumnus
 
Prof. dr. hab. Gabriel Andreescu
Center for International Studies, Bucharest
 
Gary Van Kennen
President
New York State Council of Churches (NYSCC) Executive Committee
 
G. Elaina Fowler
Founder/Principal
FWMgroup
 
Gerbrig Deinum
Treasurer
Chevelyns Care Foundation          
 
Gillian Dare, OBE
Member
UK FORB Forum's Working Group on FORB in the EU
 
Greg Mitchell
Founder & Chair
IRF Secretariat
 
Pastor Greg Young
Host
Chosen Generation Radio – USA
 
Hans Noot
President
Gerard Noodt Foundation
 
Hubert Thurnhofer
Chefredakteur
ethos.at
 
H.E. Irenee Namboka
Retired Human Rights Advisor
United Nations
 
Prof. Dr. Istvan Szikinger
Constitutional specialist
Attorney at law – Hungary
 
Jan Figel
European Union former Special Envoy on FoRB
 
Dr Jasbir Singh Puri
Peace Commissioner
Sikh Community - Ireland
 
Jean MAHER
President
OFEDH
 
Prof. Dr. Jelle Creemers
Director
ISFORB (Institute for the Study of Freedom of Religion or Belief)
 
John Redman
Executive Director
Communities in Action
 
Jonathan K. Ammons
President
NGO Committee on Freedom of Religion or Belief
 
Koshy George
Chairman
Federation of Indian American Christian Organisations of North America (FIACONA)
 
Larry Moffitt
Sec. Gen.
UPF North America
 
Laslo Trencsenyi
assistant professor
Wesley János Lelkészképző Főiskola, Budapest
 
Lauren B. Homer
President
Law and Liberty Trust
 
Lotfi Amine Hachemi
President
Peacefully Connected
 
Prof. Luigi Berzano
Università di Torino
 
Lyudmila Filipovych
Vice-president
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences
Head of the Department of Philosophy and History of Religion, Institute of Philosophy, NASU
 
Marco Respinti
Director in charge
Bitter Winter – a daily magazine for religious liberty
 
Rev. Dr. Marian Edmonds-Allen
Executive Director
PARITY
 
Martin Weightman
Director
The All Faith Network UK
 
Massimo Introvigne
Managing director
CESNUR (Center for Studies on New Religions)
 
Dr. Michael Jenkins
President
The Washington Times Foundation
 
Miranda Mansaku
Executive Director
Udhetim i Lire
 
Morgana Sythove
Global Trustee
URI (United Religions Initiative)
 
Nadine Maenza
President
IRF Secretariat
 
Naoufal El Hammoumi
Vice-President
International League of Young Journalists
Activist in freedom of religion in North Africa       
 
Nasim Malik
General Sec.
IHRC – International Human Rights Committee
Kalmar- Sweden.
 
Navleen Kaur, MBE
Sikh Faith Minister
UK
 
Dr Opinderjit Kaur Takhar, MBE
Director
Centre for Sikh and Panjabi Studies (UK)
 
Patrice J. Pederson
President
First Freedom Foundation
 
Patricia Duval
Attorney at law
Paris
 
His Excellency Paul Eganda
President
Ateker International Development Organisation
 
Peter Cook
Executive Director
New York State Council of Churches
 
Peter Zoehrer
Secretary General, Editor in chief
FOREF EUROPE
 
Apostle Dr. Precious Toe
Pastor
Restored To Ignite Minister
 
Puneet Ahluwalia
Executive Director
Alliance For Democratic Justice
 
Raffaella Di Marzio
Psychologist of Religion
Director
Center for Studies on Freedom of Religion Belief and Conscience (LIREC)
 
Rosita Šorytė
President
ORLIR (International Observatory of Religious Liberty of Refugees)
 
Satoshi Nishihata
Bureau Chief
Happy Science Washington Bureau
 
Scott Morgan
President
Red Eagle Enterprises
 
Senge Sering
President
Gilgit Baltistan Studies – USA
 
Shantha Dalugamage
Chairman
Mission Lanka
 
Sheik Rahman
President
Wilmbledon Association of Ahmadiyya Moslems
 
Sheik Ramzy
Director
Oxford Islamic Information Centre
and Imam
Oxford Brooks University
 
Prof. Silvio Calzolari
Storico delle Religioni
Istituto Superiore di Scienze Religiose
Facoltà Teologica Italia Centrale – Firenze
 
Simran Stuelpnagel
Global Affairs Advisor
SSSC Trust
 
Svetlana Karadzhova
President
FALMIS
 
Thomas J. Ward
Professor of Peace and Development
HJ International Graduate School for Peace and Public Leadership
 
Tiar Rkia
President
European Women of Faith Network - EWFN
 
Tomer Persico
Scholar
Shalom Hartman Institute
 
Vilmos Hanti
President
The international federation of the resistance fighters (FIR) - association of the anti-fascists – Germany
 
Willem Koetsier
President
UPF NL
 
Copies to:
The Honorable Emmanuel Macron, President of the French Republic
The Honorable Antony Blinken, US Secretary of State
Susan Kerr, Special Advisor on FoRB at ODIHR/OSCE
Nazila Ghanea, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief
Eamon Gilmore, EU Special Representative for Human Rights

FRANCE: BILL “TO REINFORCE THE FIGHT AGAINST CULTIC DEVIANCES”
 
A REAL THREAT TO FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE, RELIGION AND BELIEF
 
 
Executive Summary

The draft law "aimed at reinforcing the fight against cultic deviances", presented to the Council of Ministers on November 15, 2023, and immediately forwarded to the Senate Law Commission under accelerated procedure, will be discussed in plenary session in the Senate on December 19 [1]. Comprising 7 articles, if passed into law, it would seriously undermine basic principles of freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and poses real problems of conventionality and conformity with the French Constitution and international law on fundamental freedoms.
 
- Article 1 of the bill creates a new offence of "placing or keeping in a state of psychological or physical subjection" in the penal code. Psychological subjection" (or mind control) is a pseudo-scientific concept repeatedly rejected by scientists the world over, which application in criminal law, and in particular to the religious and spiritual sphere, represents a danger to democracy and fundamental freedoms. The ECHR itself has already ruled that "there is no generally accepted and scientific definition of what constitutes 'mind control’ ".
 
The adoption of this article would lead to the criminalization of many religious practices, which could easily be considered as "techniques capable of altering judgment" leading to psychological subjection. It would also lead to a worrying trend in criminal law, allowing psychiatrist to interpret vague legal definitions, since in the end, it would be the appointed psychiatrist who would be called upon to decide on the validity of a religious or spiritual practice, and the validity of a devotee's consent to a particular faith and practices.
 
- Article 3 of the draft law would enable associations antagonistic to minority religions, some of whom may be entirely financed by the State and known for their discriminatory practices towards religious minorities, to act as civil parties (plaintiffs) in lawsuits that would otherwise not concern them at all, thus seriously undermining the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
 
- Article 4, against the advice of the Conseil d'Etat (French supreme administrative court which has also a role of advisor to the government when it comes to draft laws), creates an offence of "provocation to abandon or refrain from following a therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment". The Conseil d'Etat considered that this article would allow "the criminalization of challenges to the current state of therapeutic practices", endangering "the freedom of scientific debate and the role of whistle-blowers. It considered that "such provisions constitute an attack on the exercise of freedom of expression", and advised the government, in vain, to withdraw the article. Whilst this article may only affect some peripheral religious practices it shows the intolerance of the drafters and intent to maintain a kind of “orthodoxy” with regards to medical treatments as it would potentially criminalise many areas of alternative medicine practice.
 
- Article 6 is designed to enable MIVILUDES (Interministerial Mission of Vigilance and Fight Against Cultic Deviances, a French governmental agency based in the Ministry of Interior, also known for its intolerance towards minorities) to be called upon by public prosecutors or the courts in the context of criminal proceedings. The Conseil d'Etat, in its November 9 opinion on the bill, considered "that a State service, not specially empowered as an expert before the courts, could not intervene on its own initiative in legal proceedings without infringing the right to a fair trial guaranteed by articles 16 of the Declaration of 1789 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights."
 
It is of special concern that this law is being proposed at this current time when the social and political climate in France makes it difficult to oppose such legislation due to such proponents being pilloried as would be tarred in the media as "cultists” or “cult apologists” without any regard to the basic principles of freedom of religion or belief. 
 

***
 
Further explanation

 
Article 1
 
Article 1 of the draft law creates a new offence in the penal code of "placing or maintaining a person in a state of psychological or physical subjection resulting from the direct exercise of serious or repeated pressure or techniques designed to alter his or her judgment and having the effect of causing a serious deterioration in his or her physical or mental health, or of leading this person to an act or abstention which is seriously prejudicial to him or her" (new article 223-15-3 of the penal code). While this offence appears to be modelled on the one created by the About-Picard law in 2001, which was already highly contested at the time of its adoption, it differs from the latter in several respects, and goes much further in terms of interference with freedom of religion and belief. Under the About Picard law, it was the offence of "fraudulent abuse of a state of weakness created by psychological subjection" which was punishable. It was therefore necessary to identify an abuse, a fraud, a "psychological subjection" (an indefinable pseudo-scientific term), all of which having to lead to an act or abstention seriously prejudicial to the person.
 
The About Picard law already heavily criticized at the time
 
Even back then, the law was heavily criticized. As Professor Patrice Rolland (An eminent jurist, university professor at Paris and member of the École pratique des hautes études) wrote in 2003 [2] : "In September 2000, the National Advisory Commission of Human Rights and the Human Rights League issued a negative opinion, which Parliament and the government took into account. The public commitment of the churches and representative bodies of the various religions was overwhelmingly critical and negative. The Council of Europe expressed strong mistrust of the law. Without concluding that there had been a clear violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Resolution adopted referred to the possible judgment of the European Court, and invited the French government to review the law".
 
However, the new bill goes much further. It is no longer fraudulent abuse that is punished, but simply "maintenance or placement in a state of psychological or physical subjection", with all the vagueness that this notion leaves (Patrice Rolland writes: "How can we define, for example, what has the effect of creating psychological subjection? Can't a political party or a trade union also fall within the scope of such a question?) And it is no longer necessary for this placement or maintenance to result in "an act or abstention seriously prejudicial to the person", but only that "serious or repeated pressure" or "techniques likely to alter his judgment" have had "the effect of causing a serious deterioration in his physical or mental health".
 
It is easy to see how the continued insistence of a minister towards individuals to pray for forgiveness of sins, could also be characterised as psychological or physical subjection by a former church member. And what of monks and nuns who submit to a strict regime even more intensely that a normal parishioner? All that is needed is for an ex-parishioner to complain about how he was forced to pray when he did not really want to for a sin, which he no longer considers a sin,, or did not really think it was at the time but was so in the eyes of the minister; or for a nun to assert that she had been subject to a harsh physical/psychological treatment regime, after leaving the order – these examples could easily lead to a criminal action under the present law proposal.
 
All the "victim" has to do is obtain a psychiatric report which determines that there has been "psychological subjection" and that this subjection has created a serious deterioration in his or her mental health, for the offence to be characterized. Thus, the conclusion of the criminal case will rest solely on the arbitrariness of the psychiatric expertise, which alone will determine the outcome of the legal debate. When you consider that a not inconsiderable current of psychiatry considers religious belief to be the manifestation of a psychotic delusion, you can see the danger of leaving the conclusion of the trial in the hands of the "expert".
 
Psychological subjection: a pseudo-scientific concept
 
This is all the more dangerous given that the concept of "psychological subjection", interchangeable with those of "mental manipulation", "mind control" and "brainwashing", applied to "cults" or religious movements in general, has long been widely regarded as pseudo-science internationally.
 
This notion of "mind control" originated in the USA in the 50s, but was applied to new religious movements in the 1980s by psychiatrist Margaret Singer. Singer set up a task force on "Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control" by minority religions, and submitted a report to the American Psychological Association (APA). On May 11, 1987, APA's Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology formally rejected Singer's notions of "coercive persuasion". The APA Council declared that "in general, the report lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach needed for APA imprimatur". In May 1989, the APA, the American Sociological Association, the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and individual sociologists reiterated the APA's position in an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. They asserted that Singer's theories on religious brainwashing had "no scientific validity". Since then, American courts have consistently rejected these theories as applied to new religious movements.
 
Fascist Italy at the forefront of "mind control”
 
Closer to France, in Italy, an offence of mental manipulation known as "plagio" existed in the Penal Code, inherited from the Fascist period. Its use against minorities - first homosexuals, then Catholic charismatic priests, who were unpopular in the 1970s - led to the elimination of the article from the Penal Code by the Constitutional Court in 1981. “Plagio" was considered by academic psychiatry to be so vague and of such dubious existence that it constituted a danger to democracy.
 
ECHR confirms lack of scientific basis for mind control
 
More recently, the European Court of Human Rights, in its final judgment of June 10, 2010 CASE OF THE JEHOVAH WITNESSES OF MOSCOW AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. RUSSIA (Application no. 302/02), noted in recital 110: "The Court observes at the outset that the term “coercion” in its ordinary meaning implies an action directed at making an individual do something against his or her will by using force or intimidation to achieve compliance", which effectively excludes the notion of "psychological subjection", which does not require any force or intimidation. Then, in response to the fact that "The Russian courts also held that the applicant community breached the right of citizens to freedom of conscience by subjecting them to psychological pressure, ‘mind control’ techniques and totalitarian discipline", the Court replied: "there is no generally accepted and scientific definition of what constitutes ‘mind control’".
 
The criminalization of beliefs and the psychiatricization of law
 
With the bill "aimed at reinforcing the fight against cultic deviances", any religious practice could be considered as "techniques capable of altering judgment". What about prayer, confession, mantra recitation, meditation practices, spiritual exercises like those of Loyola, or rigorous monastic practices? Obviously, with such vague wording, all these practices could fall foul of the law. It would be enough for a former devotee to claim that he has suffered psychologically, that these practices (which we know can be demanding) have altered his judgment, and to convince a psychiatrist of this, for the offence to be characterized.
 
What's more, such a formulation could lead to the situation where a faithful believer who is still practicing could be considered to be under psychological subjection, and thus have his or her consent considered vitiated. In this way, free will, the essential foundation of our democratic vision of society, would disappear in favor of a paradigm in which the State decides, through psychiatric expertise, who sincerely believes and who is not capable of freely deciding on his or her beliefs.
 
This is a criminalization of religious practice, a psychiatricization of criminal procedure, and an unprecedented attack on fundamental freedoms.
 
Article 2
 
Article 2 makes "psychological or physical subjection" an aggravating circumstance for the following crimes: murder, acts of torture and barbarism, violence and fraud. This article does not call for any particular comment beyond what has already been said about the pseudo-scientific notion of "psychological subjection".
 
Article 3
 
Article 3 of the bill opens up the possibility for anti-cult associations to act as civil parties in criminal cases for "cultic offences", once they have been approved by the Ministry of Justice. While the article may seem trivial, it is far from it. Whereas, as a rule, there are exceptions allowing a legal entity to act as a civil party, even when it is not the direct victim of an offence, so that civil society can compensate for the State's failure to prosecute, here we have associations which are merely an extension of Miviludes (Mission Interministerielle de Vigilance et de Lutte Contre les Dérives Sectaires - Interministerial Mission for Vigilance and Fight against Cultic deviances) and have no vocation whatsoever to act as a counterweight.
 
These anti-cult associations are almost exclusively funded by the State (often in a very dubious way: several criminal complaints have recently been lodged concerning serious offences allegedly committed in connection with the funding of these associations, notably UNADFI and CCMM, by Miviludes). They can be considered a quasi-State service. It was precisely as a result of lobbying by these associations, which have to justify their existence, that this bill was drafted and submitted to parliament. Anti-cult associations almost exclusively target the religious minorities they loathe, and the blank cheque they would be given to act as civil parties in lawsuits that do not directly concern them would have a deleterious effect on the right to a fair trial.
 
Article 4
 
Article 4 creates a new offence of "incitement to abandon or refrain from following a therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment, when this abandonment or abstention is presented as beneficial to the health of the persons targeted when, given the state of medical knowledge, it is clearly likely to have serious consequences for their physical or mental health, given the pathology they are suffering from".
 
In its opinion on the bill, issued on November 9, the Conseil d'Etat considered that this article did not "guarantee a balance between constitutional rights, in particular so as not to jeopardize the freedom of scientific debate and the role of whistle-blowers by criminalizing challenges to the current state of therapeutic practices. It considers that, insofar as they aim to prevent the promotion of so-called "unconventional" healthcare practices in the press, on the internet and on social networks, such provisions constitute an infringement of the exercise of freedom of expression." The Conseil d'Etat therefore advised the government not to include this article in the bill. This advice went unheeded by the government.
 
Article 5
 
Article 5 aims to facilitate disciplinary sanctions against deviant practitioners, particularly in the field of cultic deviances, by including in the code of criminal procedure the obligation for the public prosecutor's office to transmit to the professional orders concerned the convictions of these practitioners for offences linked to cultic deviances. We have no particular comment to make on this article.
 
Article 6
 
The purpose of article 6 is to enable government departments, including MIVILUDES, to be called upon by public prosecutors or the courts to provide them with any general information they may require, thus introducing the amicus curiae mechanism into criminal proceedings.
 
In its opinion of November 9, the Conseil d'Etat "considers that a State agency, not specially empowered as an expert before the courts, cannot intervene on its own initiative in legal proceedings without infringing the right to a fair trial guaranteed by articles 16 of the Declaration of 1789 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights".
 
Article 7
 
Article 7 extends to New Caledonia, French Polynesia and the Wallis and Futuna Islands the application of the provisions of the Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure amended by the bill, and calls for no comment on our part.
 

***

 

---