FRANCE:

NEW PROPOSED DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION INTENDED TO BAN TARGETED RELIGIOUS MINORITIES

Proposed Repressive Measures

 A new, “anti-sect” proposed law dated 30th May 2000 authored by MP Catherine Picard and signed by all French Socialist Members of the National Assembly represents the latest effort of extremists such as Alain Vivien,   the President of the French government's Interministerial Mission for the Fight Against Sects, to pass repressive legislation designed to infringe upon the rights of targeted minority religions by manufacturing a means to ban disfavored minority religions from France.  This repressive legislation, which received no publicity when it was introduced, is being rushed through the National Assembly to avoid debate and scrutiny by international human rights groups and the interfaith community. It is currently scheduled to go before the Law Commission on 14^th June and, provided it is approved there, is intended to be brought up for passage on the 22^nd June in the National Assembly.

 The proposal’s discriminatory intent in contravention of France's human rights obligations is blatantly articulated in the Preamble to the bill, which states that  the purpose of the bill “is to paralyze the activities of sect organizations.” The Preamble also notes that the repressive and anti-democratic measures contained in the bill are designed to be implemented solely against “sects” and are not intended to be implemented against non-profit organizations, political parties, and labor unions or professional organizations.

 No attempt is made in the bill to define the term “sect,” a derogatory term previously applied to improperly classify 172 minority religious communities in a 1996 National Assembly Report. In spite of the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment, and in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights, the French government has determined to arbitrarily classify religious groups into two separate categories: 1) religions which are viewed as law abiding and beneficial to society; and 2) “sects” which are viewed as dangerous to society, which are the targets of oppressive and discriminatory measures, and which the government declares must be “fought” against.

 These arbitrary and improper designations are designed to create a suspect category of religious groups under the pejorative term “sects” as part of a  political  misinformation campaign to convince the public that “sects” should not be treated as religions and instead are dangerous ideologies necessitating criminal investigation and prosecution and requiring excessive control and eventual prohibition by the State.

 The bill consists of eleven articles derived from three previous legislative proposals, including the controversial legislation introduced by Senator About which was approved by the French Senate on December 16, 1999. These articles include the following proposed measures.

 Article One provides for the dissolution of a corporation or association if its activities: 1) "have the goal or effect to create or to exploit the state of mental or physical dependance of people who are participating in its activities" and 2) infringe on "human rights and fundamental liberties,” 3) in circumstances where the corporation or association, its managers (or de facto managers) have been convicted on more than one occasion for offenses such as fraud, illegal practice of medicine, and several other criminal offenses.

 The procedure for dissolution is judicial. A prosecutor or any person with an interest in the matter (including, apparently, anti-sect groups and leaders) can initiate a dissolution action in civil court. The court has the discretion to order the dissolution of a legal entity if it determines that two conditions being met: 1) a finding that there has been more than one conviction of the legal entity or its directors or officers for any of the criminal offenses enumerated in the bill; and 2) a finding that the entity engages in activities that infringe human rights or fundamental freedoms for the purpose of or resulting in the psychological or physical dependence of persons taking part in such activities. The second finding provides a court with virtually unfettered discretion.

 Moreover, Article One provides for expedited dissolution proceedings by requiring proceedings at a designated time and date in the court of first instance, requiring a fifteen-day time limit for entering appeal,  and establishing procedures for an expedited appeal.

 Articles Two through Five are designed to create corporate criminal liability for corporations or associations falling under Article One where only personal liability previously existed.  Moreover, this Article provides that the legal entity may be sentenced to various penalties such as a fine and the prohibition of the activity in the course of which or as a result of which the offense was committed. Article Two thus provides a separate means other than dissolution for a court to prohibit a minority religious organization’s activities.

 Article Six makes it a criminal offense (with a three-year prison term and a FF 300,000 fine for first offenders and a five-year prison term and a FF 500,000 fine for repeat offenders) for any person to participate in the reconstitution of a dissolved corporation or association.  Article Seven calls for the renewed dissolution of a reconstituted and previously dissolved entity.

 Article Eight forbids the establishment of any offices, seat, church, advertisement or advertising activity by “sects” within 100 meters from a hospital, a retirement house, a public or private institution of prevention, curing or caring, or any school with students  18 years or younger. The Mayor or the Chief Commissioner of Police in Paris may enforce this measure if an organization is deemed to meet the conditions necessary for bringing dissolution proceedings. If this interdiction is violated, the sentence is two years’ imprisonment and a FF 200,000 fine, and the corporation or association is subject to conviction.

 Article Nine prohibits “promotion or propaganda intended for young people" by an association or group deemed to fall under Article One. Criminal penalties for such promotion consist of a FF 50,000 fine, applicable to both individuals and associations. 

 Articles Ten and Eleven purport to create the new crime of “mental manipulation.”  This term is defined as any activity or activities "with the goal or the effect to create or to exploit the state of mental or physical dependence of people who are participating in the group's activities and to infringe human rights and fundamental liberties; to exert repeated pressure in order to create or exploit this state of dependence and to drive the person, against his will or not, to an act or an abstention with is heavily prejudicial.” The penalty for “mental manipulation” is two years’ imprisonment and a fine of FF 200,000.   If the victim is particularly weak due to age, illness, or other conditions, the penalty is five years’ imprisonment and FF 500,000. This crime applies to corporations and associations as well as to individuals.

 The attempt to define and punish“mental manipulation” (also referred to as “brainwashing”) is truly remarkable in light of a host of studies unanimously finding that this theory has no merit.  The academic community, including scholars from psychology, sociology, and religious studies, have articulated an almost unanimous consensus that such “mental manipulation” and “brainwashing” theories are completely lacking in scientific merit. These brainwashing theories have never gained any scientific credibility.  Major studies by the leading authorities in the field and by prestigious organizations such as the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association debunking the myth of brainwashing symbolize the scientific and academic consensus that has emerged over the issue of brainwashing as it applies to new religious movements.  Yet, these studies are ignored by the drafters of this bill in favor of popular ignorance and prejudice in an attempt to create a crime around a scientifically debunked myth.

 The proposed legislation ignores fundamental freedoms guaranteed by international human rights treaties under the pretense of protecting them. The repressive measures in this proposed bill would, if passed, represent a blatant violation of minority and religious rights and result in a serious setback for civil and human rights in France. The extremist nature of this legislation reflects the anti-democratic recommendations and all-out war declared against religious communities designated as “sects”by  Alan Vivien, the President of MILS, who is personally responsible for fanning the flames of religious prejudice and creating the pervading hysteria against new and minority faiths in France.

 Background

 The 1999 Religious Intolerance report by the International Helsinki Federation graphically evidences the current state of religious intolerance in France and details certain discriminatory actions directed at religious minorities by the French government.  The Report finds that: 

“Against this background, a manifold pattern of virtual persecution has developed. Minority religions have been publicly marginalized and   stigmatized, and there have been attempts to hinder their activities--for example, through  denying them access to public halls for their meetings or requiring them to pay higher rent. Authorities have scrutinized their management, and children of minority religious groups have been stigmatized as ‘cult members’ in their schools and  neighborhoods.”  

 France has embarked on a campaign against targeted minority religions which has raised substantial international concern because of the campaign's flagrant disregard for human rights standards designed to ensure minority religious rights. Although the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Religious Intolerance, the Human Rights Directorate of the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, human rights groups, scholars and experts in the field have all called for tolerance toward religious minorities consistent with notions of pluralism, minority rights, freedom of conscience and religious liberty standards mandated by human rights instruments, the French government has instead adopted exclusionary legislation designed to marginalise, ostracize, and stigmatize targeted minority faiths.

 In 1995, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a  resolution to create Commission of Inquiry "assigned to study the cult phenomenon."  The Commission, chaired by Alain Gest, published a  report entitled "Sects in France" which included a  list of 172 religions denigrated as "sects" and which advocated "information" campaigns  and repressive measures against these 172 minority groups.  Beginning in 1996, lobbying by groups opposed to minority religions such as UNADFI and the CCMM   resulted in the adoption of a series of repressive laws and political measures targeting these 172 minority religious groups.

 In October 1998, the Prime Minister issued a decree establishing a new inter-ministerial body under the direction of a President appointed by decree and a General Secretary appointed by the Prime Minister. The purpose of this body, according to the decree, is to "contribute to the information and training of civil servants to fight against sects".  Indeed, the official title of this inter-ministerial group is the "Mission Interministerielle de Lutte Contre Les Sectes (MILS). MILS serves as an operational arm for public and semi-public authorities in order to "inform" the public about the "danger" of sects and to "limit" their activities, calling for the dissolution of minority religious groups targeted by the government. Numerous repressive measures have been passed to fight" so called "sects", including prosecutions designed to criminalize the practices and beliefs of disfavoured faiths, measures which directly interfere with the rights of minorities to educate and raise their children according to their own religious beliefs, and "sect enlightenment" and "sect awareness" programs designed to stigmatize minority religious groups.  

The Proposed Bill Represents a Flagrant Violation of  the European Convention of Human Rights

This proposed repressive legislation cannot withstand scrutiny in light of France's human Rights obligations. For example, as detailed in the France section of the International Helsinki Foundation’s 1999 human rights report released 1^st June 2000, the Council of Europe unanimously adopted a recommendation on 26^th June 1999 which notes that “major legislation [regarding new and minority religions] is undesirable” because any legislation passed in this area “might well interfere with the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

 Moreover, on December 14, 1999, the European Court of Human Rights issued its decision in Serif v. Greece in which it reiterated its mandate for states to observe minority religious tolerance, noting that repressive measures directed at minority faiths in the name of the public order can "hardly be considered compatible with the demands of religious pluralism in a democratic society"and are therefore in contravention of the rights to freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by Article 9 of the Human Rights Convention.

 Likewise, just a few days earlier, on December 8, 1999, the Human Rights Court decided OZDEP v. Turkey, which found that government efforts to dissolve minority organizations because the government happens to be opposed to targeted minority ideologies constitute a violation of the right of minorities to freely associate as guaranteed by Article 11 of the Human Rights Convention. The case reaffirmed the principles the Court articulated in Sidiropoulis v. Greece that the right to form and operate a minority association "is an inherent part" of the right to freedom of association, "without which the right would be deprived of any meaning." The Court noted that the government may not hide behind vague notions of public order and national security to dissolve minority organizations as minority organizations represent the "essence of democracy," as a democratic society should not only tolerate but protect and support minorities according to the principles of international law.

 The Court noted that it would exercise "rigorous European supervision" over attempts to dissolve minority organizations. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), in its September 1999 Review Conference publication entitled Freedom of Religion or Belief: Laws Affecting the Structuring of Religious Communities, endorsed the principles in these decisions, noting that "if citizens have the right to form a legal entity for politically controversial type of cultural or political organizations [before the European Court] they should a fortiori have the right to a legal entity for a religious association that can claim protection under both Articles 9 and 11." 

 The proposed legislation stands in direct defiance of these unequivocal recent legal pronouncements of the Human Rights Court which have also been endorsed and applied to minority religions by the OSCE.

 Conclusion

 The French government's recent repressive laws and measures against minority religions, the proposed legislation to dissolve targeted faiths, and current actions to "fight" minority religious groups flagrantly violate the principle of non-discrimination and equality before the law as enshrined in the French Constitution and national laws; the right to nondiscrimination on religious grounds protected by Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights   in conjunction with other rights specified in the Convention such as the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion guaranteed by Article 9; the right to freedom of association, including the right to form minority organizations guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention,  Articles 2, 18 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the 1981 UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief; the principles of religious liberty enunciated in Principles 16 and 17 of the Concluding Document of the Vienna Follow-Up Meeting of Representatives of the Participating States of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe; and Section II, Article 6 of the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

 The oppressive measures which are currently implemented along with the new legislative proposal, if enacted, seriously erode the fundamental freedoms of religious minorities and will have a corrosive effect on the entire system of civil rights in France.  Such oppressive measures  have no place in a democratic society. Moreover, the explosion of recent cases of discrimination directed at individuals and organizations associated with religious groups denigrated as "sects" is chilling and does not auger well for minority rights and religious freedom in France. Under these circumstances, international assistance is necessary to ensure that the oppressive and illegal actions of the French government targeting members of minority religions simply due to their associations and beliefs cease.

ooOOoo