by Massimo Introvigne
Thierry Valle, President of CAP-LC.
Not for the first time, France’s largest anti-cult organization UNADFI (Union nationale des associations de défense des familles et de l’individu), which is largely financed by the government, i.e., by French taxpayers, was caught red-handed publishing defamatory statements, then refusing to correct them.
On December 2, 2024, the Justice Court of Marseille ordered UNADFI to publish on its website an answer by the UN ECOSOC-accredited CAP-LC (Coordination of associations and individuals for freedom of conscience) to an article the anti-cult group had reproduced on February 12, 2014, from the French magazine “Charlie Hebdo.” During the discussion in the French Parliament of the new anti-cult statute, noting the opposition to the law of the majority of the French senators, “Charlie-Hebdo” had attributed it to the campaign of criticism of CAP-LC, which it accused of being a front for the Church of Scientology and other “cults.” CAP-LC asked the UNADFI to publish its answer to the article, but the anti-cult association refused, which led to the lawsuit.
Although financed with hundreds of thousands of euros by French taxpayers, the UNADFI was so unprofessional that it sent to Marseille for its defense a lawyer registered only with the Paris Bar and not registered with the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence, which includes Marseille. The court thus concluded that the legal representation of UNADFI in the case was “irregular” and “the submissions made and supported by [the lawyer] on behalf of the defendant should be disregarded.” One wonders whether French taxpayers’ money was also used for sending the wrong lawyer to the wrong place.
On the other hand, the Court of Marseille examined nonetheless the substance of the matter and concluded that the prejudice to CAP-LC and the latter’s right to answer was “not seriously disputable” in the case. This implied an important legal point, which is often overlooked by anti-cultists in several countries. Just as they hire the wrong lawyers, they often seem to read the wrong legal books. They believe that they cannot be sentenced if they reproduce or quote articles published by others (“Charlie Hebdo” in this case), and these others have not been sued by the victims of defamation. This is not the case. Reproducing or quoting a defamatory article by a third party is a new tort, independent from the tort committed by those who published the offending text in the first place. The victim is perfectly entitled to sue those who reproduce and quote the article without suing the original source.
Accordingly, even if it escaped paying damages, UNADFI was sentenced to publish “within 48 hours of the service of this decision, and pass this delay under provisional fine of 50 € per day of delay” the answer by CAP-LC.
The Justice Court of Marseille. Credits.
The answer reads as follows: “In the article ‘Le Sénat aurait-il cédé à la pression’ of February 12, 2024, the association CAP-LC, Coordination des associations et des particuliers pour la liberté de conscience, is implicated. Contrary to what is stated, CAP-LC is not and never has been ‘a European non-governmental organization close to Scientology, which aims to legitimize the cults as being simple communities of belief.’ CAP-LC is independent and secular. It has consultative status with the UN and defends freedom of conscience in Europe and internationally. It is recognized worldwide as an expert in its field. It has been in existence for nearly thirty years. As regards the movements defended by CAP-LC when their fundamental rights are threatened, the information is readily available online. CAP-LC has carried out numerous actions over the past decade alone to defend the rights of Uyghurs persecuted by the Chinese government, those of Ethiopian Orthodox communities, women’s rights in Saudi Arabia, freedom of conscience in the Russian Federation, the rights of Baluchistan minorities in Pakistan, the rights of Ahmadi Muslims persecuted in Pakistan,the rights of numerous prisoners of conscience in many countries, including Ukrainians threatened with deportation to Russia for their opinions, actions against the death penalty for apostasy which still exists in 13 countries, and dozens of others. Uyghurs, women in Saudi Arabia, and other minorities defended by CAP-LC cannot be considered as ‘cults’ that we would seek to legitimize. Incidentally, the term ‘cult’ (secte) was officially abandoned by the public authorities over twenty years ago, when the Mission interministerielle de lutte contre les sectes (MILS) was replaced in November 2002 by the Mission interministerielle de vigilance et de lutte contre les dérives sectaires (MIVILUDES). As part of its statutory mission, CAP-LC has informed French senators and representatives of its publicly stated opinion on the draft law on cultic deviances, which was then being debated between the two branches of the Parliament, because of its risks for freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. The risk was also identified by the Council of State itself, in its reasoned opinion on the bill, with regard to the latter freedom. CAP-LC has also provided parliamentarians with objective data in its possession concerning the financing of the policy to combat ‘cultic deviances.’ CAP-LC has acted transparently and assertively, without exerting any ‘insidious pressure.’ CAP-LC has almost thirty years of experience in the field of freedom of conscience and the threats to it. As such, CAP-LC intends to share its expertise with members of Parliament and take part in the democratic debate, in which pluralism of opinion must be able to express itself freely without being accused or suspected of ‘insidious pressures.’”