One of the main speakers in our conferences, coming from France was Eric Roux (EIFRF). He talked about the laws regarding the so-called manipulation on the European level, and particularly in France, which is not subject to much criticism worldwide. The video footage and his speech is to be found below.
Soteria event 10 December 2013
The subject of mental manipulation is a very touchy issue, as it has been used throughout the ages to decide, most of the time arbitrarily, that someone who is claiming to have certain ideas of his own and based on his free will, is in fact not in control of himself anymore, and that his ideas are not to be considered as his own but as the product of an undue influence by others.
When this concept comes into law, then many problems arise, due to the vagueness of the concept of mental manipulation, whether it is called brainwashing, psychological subjection, mind control or else.
I will not go back further than the 20st century to make a picture of the use of this concept in European laws, as my speech is not a complete historical and philosophical study of this concept, but rather a quick overview that can be useful to understand why this concept should not be used in European law, definitely.
The first instance of this use can be found in Italy. In 1930, under Mussolini, the criminal offence of putting someone in a “complete state of subjugation” was established under the Plagio Law (was called moral Subjugation). The idea of Mussolini, when he inserted the law in the penal code, was that communists were communist only because they were under undue influence, and this law allowed him to put in jail some communists accused of exerting such influence on others that they became communists too. It was an easy way to put in jail the best of his opponents.
Then, after WWII, the law was still in use but then it was used against the homosexuals. Homosexuality was considered to be a way to manipulate people and put them in a state of psychological subjection.
The last scandal of this law was in the 70s, when a Catholic priest has been accused of estranging his young disciples from their families. He was not a homosexual, he was not a communist, and he was only asking strict application of the Christian precepts in the community he was leading, with a great faith and commitment.
Following this scandal, the case has been referred to the Italian Constitutional Court, which repealed the Plagio law in 1981, declaring it to be:
“A mine floating in our judicial system that can be applied to any instance involving the psychological dependence of a human being upon another human being”, in the absence of any clear criteria to measure its intensity.The Constitutional Court’s decision also stated:
“Some typical instances of psychological dependence [...] can also reach heightened levels, over more or less extended periods, as in the case of romantic relationships, or the relationship between priest and believer, teacher and pupil, doctor and patient.”At the same time than Mussolini, another man has had the idea that the state should be able to protect citizen from undue influence of subversive people. This man was Adolph Hitler. Indeed, the 23 February 1933, the Chancellor of the Republic of Weimar, Adolph Hitler, signs a presidential law called Reichstagsbrandverordnung, which was cancelling the democratic principles of the Republic, and was restraining the individual freedoms like never before. In this law was established a list of “cults” that were now forbidden in the name of the “Protection of the people and the State”. The list included Jehovah witnesses, 7th day Adventists, gnostic movements, Anabaptists, theosophy, etc. The justification of this list was an order given by the Nazi Reinhard Heydrich (Chief of Gestapo), that you can find in D59 in the files of the Nuremberg trial, which gives the guidelines to get the rid of these “religious societies and cults” and get followers arrested and deported in concentration camps. The preamble of the order is compelling: “In this struggle for the fate of the German people, it is necessary to protect not only the physical health of our people but also their spiritual health, both individually and collectively. The German people cannot be exposed to occult teachings claiming that the actions and tasks of human beings are prone to mysterious magical forces.”
As you can see, the German Nazi State thought it had to protect the German against undue influence in the field of spirituality, to protect their “spiritual health”. Even if the words “mental manipulation” are not used, the concept is there. “Occult teachings” is a threat, as “mental manipulation” to spread “false beliefs” could be one for others.
But some could say that this is the past, as both the plagio law and the Reichstagsbrandverordnung were abolished in the 40s for the second, and in the early 80s for the first.
However, the concept of mental manipulation appeared to be so useful for people opposed to new religious movements in France, that they started to speak about it not long after the repeal of the law in Italy. And in the early 90s, some plans have been made to lobby the French members of the Parliaments and members of the government so such a law on mental manipulation could be voted. The way they define it is of course a law against what they call “sects”, which is the French word today for “cults”.
Of course the problem these people were bumping into was that they wanted to be able to attack legally the new religious movements, but as for most of them, followers were obviously aware of what they were doing, and that it was not possible to prove that they had been forced, or that any violence had been committed on them, and that in most cases, these followers were claiming that they were happy in their religious beliefs and practices within their movement, the mental manipulation could open the door to convictions despite the non-cooperation of the pretended victim.
Which is to say, finally, that even if you are a very happy follower of a religion, or of a philosophical movement, that they decided to call “a cult” for example, your movement or your religion could be accused of manipulating you. Moreover, that was also opening the door for former followers who would want to attack their former movement, to have a legal ground for it, even if at the time they were in the movement they were adults in very good shape and absolutely aware of what they were doing. It is easy to say that you were manipulated, and quite hard to prove the contrary, as there is no precise objective criteria to establish that.
Actually, the brainwashing issue regarding new religious movements has already been an issue in the United States long time ago, and major studies by the leading authorities in the field and by organizations such as the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association debunk the myth of brainwashing as it applies to new religious movements. The European Court of Human Rights in a recent decision regarding the Jehovah witnesses against Russia has also tackled this concept of mental manipulation. Actually they ruled that there was absolutely no scientific consensus that religious mind control could barely exist.
However, in France, in the 90s and in 2000 there have been a lot of discussions about this mental manipulation and many opponents to a law that would incriminate a crime of mental manipulation. Leaders from all faiths, including mainstream ones, opposed to it, because they knew it could be applied to anyone choosing to follow a religious life.
For example, the representative of the Catholic conference of Bishops of France noted that the rules observed by certain religious groups, or vows of obedience, poverty or chastity were not to be seen as manipulation at the moment, but that this could change in the future. He said that such a law could lead to all religious beliefs being perceived as a sign of deficiency of the individual.
The president of the Protestant Federation of France stated his opposition to creating a criminal offence out of mental manipulation. He said that such a law was going to contribute to the increasing prosecution of society and that the criteria of the offence were much too vague.
The Rector of the Paris Great Mosque declared that making mental manipulation a crime would seriously put at risk the relationship between society and religion.
They all were right. But it is not enough to be right.
The 12 June 2001, the law on mental manipulation, called the About Picard law, from the name of Nicolas About and Catherine Picard who prepared this law, was voted in France, and the only concession they made was to replace the expression “mental manipulation” by… “Psychological subjection”. Ironically, it was almost worst, because it was the exact same formulation that the Mussolini Plagio law.
But then, this law has been the subject of numerous critics throughout the world. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, many Human Rights institutions, but also the US government did strongly criticize this law.
So France tried to gain some allies and started to lobby at various levels to not be the only ones to have such a law. Unity is strength. And actually they started to convince others to follow this path. Belgium has adopted a similar law which has been voted in 2011 and came into force the 2 February 2012. This law is a copycat of the About Picard French law, criminalizing “psychological subjection” as an abuse of weakness. Amusingly, the first complaint (and the only one today), using this law is against the Belgian office of Childhood and birth, by a family whose child has been excluded from the crib because she was not duly vaccinated. They considered that this was an abuse of their sociological weakness and undue pressure from this office.
Then Luxembourg voted also a similar law, which has come into force the 25 may 2012. Still a copycat of the French about Picard law.
So now this French law is also a Belgian law and a Luxembourg law. And these laws are merely modern versions of the Mussolini Plagio law.
Now, and this is anecdotic, to give you an example of the kind of strange things that can happen today with the concept of Psychological subjection, let me talk to you of a criminal case that has been judged in France this year. A leader of a Christian so-called “cult” has been convicted for having conducted sexual orgies with her followers. Some of the followers had done the exact same things than her. So I do not know if she was really guilty of criminal acts, but if she was, then they were too. But as they said that they were under “psychological subjection”, due to the charisma of their leader, and then they have been considered as victims, instead of being condemned too. Easy way to avoid one’s responsibilities…
These laws are real threats to democracy. As they open the door to arbitrary decisions by courts, and who can say against which groups they will be used in the future. The right to convince people of your faith is a human right. It’s covered either by free speech, article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and freedom of religion or belief, article 9. But who can say that when you are trying to convince your fellow, you are not manipulating him mentally. Today, one group is considered as a “cult” (as the Christians were almost two thousand years ago, and as every new religion is, when it starts, if you know your world history), and tomorrow, or even today in facts, mainstream religions are also considered as cults and can be prosecuted for preaching the gospel or their equivalent. Because every religion is a minority somewhere. But it’s not only for religions. Every movement which is considered as an opponent that one must get the rid of, can be labelled as a sect. In France for example, even individuals who preach another gospel than the mainstream one are called a sect. I mean one guy: a sect. And political parties start to call each other “sects”. Which is funny by the way because it’s true that they are practicing mental manipulation.
However, every government which would want to get the rid of opponents and is not committed 100% to democracy and fundamental freedoms, will be attracted by this kind of laws. Even in very democratic countries, you may have people who could try to convince honest politicians (yes this might exist) that cults are so dangerous that this law is very legitimate, due to the harm that cults might do. And if these politicians are not really educated on what it means for democracy, you will see the disease extend throughout Europe. But you are the doctors, and your speech, based on human fundamental rights, is the medicine.
For my conclusion, let’s go back to the first century. I give you a little story, coming from the bible, which could tell us the best way to deal with new religious movements, even if you are in doubt regarding their legitimacy. When the apostles Pierre and Jean went before the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish court in Jerusalem, to be judged (of course, they were preaching the gospel, which was very subversive and considered as a way to manipulate the mind of people), a brave member of the Sanhedrin, Gamaliel the elder, stood up and said to his fellow members of the court: “Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”