by Human Rights NGO from Denmark – Soteria International 30.10.2024

The secular milieu in France has a long tradition of being opposed to religious minorities and choosing a more restrictive and penal approach than most other European countries. In April 2024, France passed an amended anti-cult law after months of debate. The law’s name refers to “reinforcing the fight against cultic deviances” and introduces a new crime of “psychological subjection”. It is based on arbitrary and undefined terms. Scholars criticise it for infringing on freedom of speech as it restricts the possibility of criticising mainline medical treatments and seriously endangers freedom of religion or belief.1 In several ways, the law also gave a new and reinforced status to the French governmental anti-cult organisation MIVILUDES, Mission Interministérielle de Vigilance et de Lutte contre les Dérives Sectaires (Eng: Mission for Monitoring and Combating Cultic Deviances).

MIVILUDES has a significant political impact in France, formalised in 2020 through their attachment to the Ministry of Interior and their reports are actively communicated in the media. Given this organisation's great authority and influence, it is concerning that several scholars find reasons to propose an alarming critique of the methods of MIVILUDES. One such critique is raised by a recent Swiss academic study2 written by Manéli Farahmand, the current Director of the Swiss Intercantonal Information Center on Beliefs (CIC), and Fabrice Berna, an academic psychiatrist and expert on alternative therapies. It compares the approach to “dérives sectaires”, translated as cultic deviance3 of the two apparently similar official organisations: the MIVILUDES in France and the CIC in Switzerland. This review will particularly focus on the conclusions about the MIVILUDES' methods, political influence, and definitions, and also refer to other articles by scholars analysing the French MIVILUDES.

Cultic deviations

Of course, religious liberty is not an excuse for committing common crimes. However, the French notion of “dérives sectaires” (cultic deviances) does not refer to common crimes but to “crimes” that would be peculiar to “cults” and whose very existence is contested by scholars of religion. Since 2001, with the About-Picard Law, France has incorporated a definition that puts judicial neutrality on shaky grounds. MIVILUDES introduced the notions of “psychological subjugation” and “mind control” and thus defines cultic deviations as "the implementation, by an organized group or by an isolated individual, whatever its nature or activity, of pressure or techniques aimed at creating, maintaining or exploiting a state of psychological or physical subjection in a person, depriving him or her of part of his or her free will, with harmful consequences for this person, his or her entourage or society"4 (p.159). According to the Swiss authors, the actual legal recourse of the About-Picard law has been rare due to its difficult practical implications.

If the About-Picard law proved difficult to implement and was criticised for stigmatising, the newest addition to the law of May 2024 made a bad law worse.

In November 2023 MIVILUDES presented a bill aimed at “reinforcing the combat against cultic deviations”. The Conseil d'État gave very mixed opinions on this proposal and argued in favour of more sober legislation. Hence followed a process of proposals and dismissals, in which the Senate rejected the bill in its entirety but the National Assembly, which in France eventually prevails over the Senate in case of conflicting votes, eventually passed the law no. 2024-420 in April and it was adopted in May 2024.

The law states that: “It is punishable by three years’ imprisonment and a fine of 375,000 euros to place or maintain persons in a state of psychological or physical subjection resulting from the exercise of serious or repeated pressure or techniques likely to impair their judgement and having the effect of causing serious deterioration of their physical or mental health or leading them to commit an act or refrain from acting that is seriously prejudicial to them” (the penalty increases if it is done by a leader of a group)5.

The law does not define the terms but refer magistrates to consult the relevant governmental agencies - among them, MIVILUDES pose as a central player. Thus, it is up to the analysis of agencies such as the MIVILUDES to clarify if the penalties proposed by this law are applicable in the given matter. This is a crucial role to play for an organisation which lacks religious expertise, lacks cross-referencing in its analysis and is explicitly dedicated to an anti-cultist agenda. How is the future looking for new religious movements in France, one may ask?

Here it might also be worth highlighting that since 2020, MIVILUDES has been attached to the ‘General Secretariat of the Interministerial Committee for the Prevention of Delinquency and Radicalization’6 (SG-CIPDR). In this way, the mission of preventing and restricting neo- religious movements is placed under the protection of the fight against extremist religious radicalisation and delinquency. This is a unique position in Europe and according to the Swiss study, this illustrates what they coin “France's security inflexion” (p.164).

The term ‘psychological subjugation’ refers, beyond the wording, to the concept of brainwashing - which is a concept that has long been rejected by legal practice and by academic scholars. MIVILUDES has now anyway found a way to smuggle in this concept favoured by anti-cultists and open the doors for vengeful apostates to file detrimental complaints with big consequences not only for the persons prosecuted but also for the whole body of the movement - where followers are losing jobs and suffer severe damage on their relationships with families and friends.

With the new amendments in the law giving MIVILUDES farfetched legal influence, the director of the British All Faiths Network, Martin Weightman, describes MIVILUDES as practically amounting “to a state-sanctioned thought-police of religious practice” 7 .

Other scholars note the bias of the new law in the sense that some actions are no doubt punishable by law - but such actions are already, or can be, covered by common laws applicable to all religions without the need to stigmatise that “cults” are posing a higher danger. A “wrong” action is wrong regardless if it is performed by a so-called “cult” or in other words a new religious movement, or done by an established mainstream religion.8

This perspective was already brought forward in a 1999 recommendation (1412) by the European Council that considered it inappropriate "to have recourse to major legislation on cults, on the grounds that this would run the risk of undermining the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights"9. (p.161)

At the 2024 WARSAW HUMAN DIMENSION CONFERENCE, OSCE, on a side event on France (Oct 3), it was pointed out that the anti-religious bias of MIVILUDES has led to the “targeting and persecution” of groups, “with the police acting as the enforcement arm of this ideological distortion”. According to the human rights activist at OSCE, the seriousness of the democratic thread in the actions of MIVILUDES calls for the urgent plea: “We call on France to urgently review its approach to religious minorities, and to ensure that the training and practices of its police and judiciary are aligned with the principles of human rights and the rule of law. Only then can we truly prevent the institutional torture of vulnerable groups in the name of misguided ideology.“ 10

Problematic effects of introducing the term “risk”

In the general literature of MIVILUDES, the Swiss authors highlight a dangerous development in the “semantic shift” from “cultic deviances” to a “risk of cultic deviances” (p.161). While cultic deviances can be proven, the term risk poses a warning yet, at the same time, stigmatisation and repression. Does a mere “risk” truly justify such stigmatisation - especially when “risk of cultic deviances” can be found almost anywhere and has no proven legal frame or legal definition?!

A risk refers, by definition, to a hypothetical occurrence - and is thus not yet punishable. This leads to questioning what indicators should be used to measure and assess the alleged risk. Furthermore, there is by definition never zero risk: “Any organisation (religious, spiritual, political, in the field of sport, or even scientific) can be qualified as ‘at risk of deviances’. The decision to designate one rather than another is based on non-legal and methodologically unexplained reasons for this choice, which is the responsibility of the MIVILUDES; however, the decision-making threshold which justifies declaring a group to be at risk is not clearly specified by the MIVILUDES”11 (p.161). A third consequence of the term ‘risk’ is that it leads us to believe that what is not labelled as "at risk of deviation" would be "without risk”, which, as shown above, is never the case. (P.161) To be frank, the discourse of “risk” poses a great risk in itself and offers unrestricted possibilities for MIVILUDES to create suspicion and even criminalisation of almost any organisation they please.

On what grounds should we put any trust in the hands of such an organisation?

The Swiss authors are not alone in their critique of the criminalisation of the notion of ‘risk’. Several scholars back up this viewpoint, among them the leading sociologist Eileen Barker12 who claims: “This can mean not only that behavior by one religion, labelled as a “cult,” can be deemed criminal in law whilst the same act performed by a group considered a “religion” could be perfectly legal, but also that “cults” may be legally condemned before they have actually done anything illegal other than being labelled a “cult.” “13

According to Eileen Barker, the new law is posing “serious threats to France as a democratic society in which all citizens are not only equal before the law but are also free to manifest their religion unless and until they are found guilty of breaking the law. “ 14

Sensationalist communication and lack of expertise

The Swiss study criticises the reports published by MIVILUDES as based on imprecise data, the source data being difficult to access for external analysis and being written by consultants whose level of expertise is difficult to read and whose academic supervision is not guaranteed (p.167). The Swiss study highlights the fact that MIVILUDES does not include any academics in religious issues. For just two years, Nathalie Luca, an anthropologist of religions worked for the MIVILUDES, but she resigned in 2005 criticising the ideological positioning of MIVILUDES and refusing to be bound by a foreseeable hardening of its position (p.166). For a governmental authority with broad media reach and legal consequences for several groups and individuals, the lack of expertise and transparency in data is not just critical but deeply worrying.

The authors of the Swiss study point out several ambiguities and even opposing use of terms and definitions in MIVILUDES communication - an issue which is even more problematic due to the fact that there are no legal definitions of several of the key terms. At other times statements made by an individual are pointed out in the reports as deviating - and the individual behaviour is then generalised to the entire group and all its members (p.166). Ultimately, “cultic deviations” and risk thereof “seem to refer above all to anything that is generally perceived by public opinion as "deviant" or on the bangs of established institutions, or at least in a context of relationship to an otherness (official medicine, instituted religious traditions, public authorities).”15 (p.183). Any ‘otherness' seems to pose a too big challenge to the status quo and accepted conventions by the French state.

In the reports widely shared in the media, the MIVILUDES often use connotative terms (with a negative load) and generally sensationalist writing. They have noticeably frequent use of alarming terms such as “increase”, “rise”, and “explosion” in their reports and media statements. As argued in the following part about referrals, the use of such terms is often unsubstantiated sensationalist allegations (p.165). The authors question the function of such discursive modality and the general narrative MIVILUDES is building - it indeed seems to legitimise an increasingly restrictive political discourse on the subject, which is gaining ground in France but also carries influence further to other countries that are referring to MIVILUDES (p.188)

The “sensational boom” in referrals

As justification for the strengthened crackdown on cults and cultic deviances is an alleged boom in numbers of the so-called referrals, “sasines” which MIVILUDES receive. However, the study reveals that the referrals may easily be false or manipulated, and they can even include simple questions. The authors also refer to the well-known fact that when a campaign for cancer screening is running, the number of cancer findings increases due to the simple fact that more screenings are being made. Simultaneously in recent years, MIVILUDES has been campaigning more actively for their anti-cult mission which can explain the rise in referrals. The Swiss authors exemplify how MIVILUDES does not interpret their own figures properly, and neither the media nor the politicians involved in passing the recent bill to reinforce the combat against cultic deviances questioned the nature of the referral data (p.165).

MIVILUDES makes a direct equivalence between the increase in referrals and the increase in sectarian aberrations: "France is facing an unprecedented increase in sectarian activity, reflected in a significant rise in the number of referrals”, quoting the MIVILUDES 2021 report16 (p. 178). However, such equivalence is not objective in any way, as the argumentation above underlines. If MIVILUDES would be willing to do proper surveys or field assessments, this could provide a more objective validation of the facts and potentially justify or denounce the concerns expressed by the referrals.

The second part of the Swiss study, which goes more in-depth with the actual methodology of MIVILUDES, raises a hard critique of the working methods that remain “opaque” in terms of the categories used or how to classify referrals. A former member of MIVILUDES, Olivier Bobineau, provides an even more severe analysis of the mission's methodological weaknesses and the lack of discussion of its conclusions (p.182). The tools used by MIVILUDES for their own analysis’ are full of conceptual approximations, and, claims the Swiss authors, “they seem to be permeated by implicit assumptions: that any alternative and/or holistic practice represents a potential danger; that any emerging spiritual expression opens the door to cultic deviations” 17(p.182).

Most of the data on new religious movements seems to be based predominantly on testimonies by alleged victims, without cross-referencing data or multiplying perspectives. This aspect is in itself alarming and undermines any pretension of neutrality and objectivity. But with the recent 2024 additions to the About-Picard law - with increased penalties for the undefined “psychological subjugation”, such bias towards the alleged “victims” and lack of cross-referencing is literally dangerous for the people partaking or leading new religious movements.

The authors are also questioning the hidden interests behind the disproportionality of con and pro studies of for instance the effects of mindfulness meditation referred to in the reports by MIVILUDES (p.182).

Conclusions

The actions of the MIVILUDES can duly be criticised for having an anti-religious bias, and their analysis’ are lacking religious expertise, lack of transparency and cross-referencing in their data, which is posing a severe threat to the freedom of belief and equality in front of the law since the MIVILUDES has significant influence over the government’s approach to religious minorities. The “referrals” are used in sensationalist media communication and are given high importance, even giving reason for serious investigations. This, even though they are not verified, can be easily inflated, and even MIVILUDES are misinterpreting the numbers. The new amendment to the About-Picard law poses serious threats to the freedom of religion or belief and is criticised by scholars and human rights organisations.

The MIVILUDES are playing an insidious game of suppressing and cripling religious minorities and movements - severely attacking the freedom of speech and the free spreading of ideas. They can be seen as a tool to keep the status quo of society intact - with enormous impairments on our ability to evolve and grow as a species. Let us remember that the openness to explore new ideas and ways of living is what keeps us evolving and learning. This should be something that a government that truly serves its citizens would have on top of its priorities. Especially when the teachings or ideas promote a healthy lifestyle that makes us live a more balanced life in harmony with the universe around us. Instead, we see now a French government which empowers entities, such as MIVILUDES, to suppress and attack organisations that are challenging the status quo of society. That is the move of a system that is not serving its citizens... a system that is afraid to lose its power and control over its citizens! 

 

 

1 Against Senate’s Opposition, France Passes New Anti-Cult Law, MASSIMO INTROVIGNE, 04/11/2024 bitterwitnther.com
2 “Les dérives sectaires en santé : comparaison entre la France et la Suisse
Partie 1. Définition et gestion du risque sectaire, Partie 2. Évaluation et état des lieux des dérives sectaires en santé” / ENG: “Sectarian aberrations in healthcare: a comparison between France and Switzerland, Part 1. Defining and managing sectarian risk and Part 2. Assessment and state of sectarian aberrations in the healthcare sector” By Manéli Farahmand, Fabrice Berna, in Hegel 2024/2 (N° 2), pp. 155–74 and 175– 94

3 note that the French “secte” is translated into English as “cult” and not as “sect”

4 Original «la mise en œuvre, par un groupe organisé ou par un individu isolé, quelle que soit sa nature ou son activité, de pressions ou de techniques ayant pour but de créer, de maintenir ou d!exploiter chez une personne un état de sujétion psychologique ou physique, la privant d!une partie de son libre arbitre, avec des conséquences dommageables pour cette personne, son entourage ou pour la société» MIVILUDES. Qu!est-ce qu!une dérive sectaire ? MIVILUDES n.d. https://www.miviludes.interieur.gouv.fr/quest- ce-quune-d%C3%A9rive-sectaire (accessed April 28, 2024).

5 Against Senate’s Opposition, France Passes New Anti-Cult Law, MASSIMO INTROVIGNE, 04/11/2024 bitterwitnther.com
6 Original: Secrétariat général du Comité interministériel de prévention de la délinquance et de la radicalisation (SG-CIPDR)

7 https://www.allfaithsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/The-New-French-Law-on-Sectarian- Deviances.pdf
8 Article: Why the New French Law on "Cults” is Wrong, 02/20/2024 EILEEN BARKER, on BitterWinther.com

9 original: «le recours à une législation majeure pour les sectes au motif que celle-ci risquerait de porter atteinte à la liberté de conscience et de religion garantie par l!article 9 de la Convention européenne des Droits de l!Homme»
10 https://freedomofconscience.eu/2024-warsaw-human-dimension-conference-france-institutional-torture/

11 Original: "toute organisation [religieuse, spirituelle, politique, sportive et même scientifique] peut être qualifiée « à risque de dérive ». Le choix d!en désigner une plutôt qu!une autre renvoie aux motivations non juridiques et méthodologiquement peu explicitées de cette décision qui incombe à la MIVILUDES ; or le seuil décisionnel qui justifie de déclarer un groupe comme à risque n!est pas clairement précisé par la MIVILUDES” 12 Eileenn Barker, O.B.E. is Professor emerita of Sociology at the London School of Economics. She is widely regarded as one of leading contemporary sociologists of religion and the founder of the academic subfield of new religious movements studies. In 1988, she founded INFORM, the Information Network Focus on Religious Movements, with the aim of offering unbiased information on new religious movements to the media and the public.
13 Article: Why the New French Law on "Cults” is Wrong, 02/20/2024 EILEEN BARKER, on BitterWinther.com

As an example to raise caution, in 2018 the MIVILUDES were condemned by the Paris Administrative Court for using “risk of cultic deviance” about anthroposophic medicine. Despite the legal condemnation, MIVILUDES were repeating their comments in a 2021 report (p.161). This is just one of several concrete examples, referred to in the footnotes of the Swiss study, of the MIVILUDES disrespecting court decisions against them.

14 Article: Why the New French Law on "Cults” is Wrong, 02/20/2024 EILEEN BARKER, on BitterWinther.com
15 Original: “En définitive, cette catégorie semble surtout se référer à tout ce qui est généralement perçu par l!opinion publique comme « déviant » ou en marge des institutions établies, ou du moins dans un contexte de rapport à une altérité (médecine officielle, traditions religieuses instituées, autorités publiques).”

16 Original: « la France fait face à un accroissement inédit des agissements à caractère sectaire, se traduisant notamment par une augmentation significative du nombre de saisines. »
17 Original: “Ils semblent en outre traversés par des implicites : toute pratique alternative et/ou holistique représenterait un potentiel danger ; toute expression spirituelle émergente ouvrirait la porte à des dérives sectaires”