Correspondence between CICNS and the MIVILUDES, 2005-2007

Correspondence between CICNS and the MIVILUDES

CICNS attempted to communicate with the MIVILUDES from 2005 to 2007, under the presidencies of M. Langlais and M. Roulet. We have broken off this communication since the arrival of M. Fenech.

CICNS sent the MIVILUDES, on 10 April 2007, a substantial file assembling a part of the discriminations and violence suffered by the spiritual minorities as a consequence of the anti-cult campaign conducted for 25 years in France. The flood of these discriminations has very largely submerged that of the “victims of cults” on which the media and the anti-cult activists feast. M. Jean-Michel Roulet, President of the MIVILUDES, acknowledged receipt of it on 25 April last.

Monsieur Jean-Michel Roulet

President of the MIVILUDES

66 rue de Bellechasse

75007 - Paris

Montpezat de Quercy, 10 April 2007 Subject: The CICNS “discriminations” file Reference: CICNS/miv/no.10 Monsieur le Président, At our meeting of 24 October 2006, we raised with you the question of the discriminations and other excesses suffered by persons who have made an alternative spiritual choice. You had mentioned being interested in this question. We therefore attach to this letter a file which will give you an overview of these discriminations; this file is regularly updated as affairs are brought to our knowledge. In case you have not had occasion to read our latest electronic letters, we take the liberty of giving you the Internet link of the interview with the community of La Balme: Balme_1.htm, which perfectly illustrates the violence that persons choosing an alternative way of life can suffer. We are moreover recording more and more cases of children traumatised by gendarmerie assaults like this one. Such a situation ought to alert you in the context of an inquiry into the cults and childhood conducted by a recent parliamentary commission. We thank you for the attention you will have been good enough to give this letter and beg you to accept, Monsieur le Président, our distinguished salutations. For CICNS, the President, Eric Bouzou

Letter addressed to Jean-Michel Roulet following the publication of the MIVILUDES 2006 report, in which CICNS is mentioned in a context unrelated to its action: lobbying against copyright! Monsieur Jean-Michel Roulet

President of the MIVILUDES

66 rue de Bellechasse

75007 - Paris Montpezat de Quercy, 26 January 2007 Subject: The mention of CICNS in the MIVILUDES 2006 report Reference: CICNS/miv/no.9

Monsieur le Président, We have just taken cognisance of the MIVILUDES 2006 report, on which we shall publish a general commentary on our site. The object of this letter is to raise a particular point of this report, p. 78, where you assert: “CICNS has been campaigning for some months for the liberalisation of intellectual property law” and “CICNS’s principal target is copyright”. These assertions are false and grotesque and demonstrate once more, if it were needed, how elements of information are “used” and “manipulated” to give body to the theses the mission supports. The quotation from our site reproduced in your report is moreover not a CICNS text but an article by an American author which seemed to us interesting for challenging readers on the usefulness of “fairly” shared information (fair use). This page is the only one on this subject among the 750 our site comprises. Which shows how modest our “militancy” is concerning copyright. We have no doubt that any Internet user wishing to inform himself and “of good faith”, which is evidently not the case of your drafter, will know how to find in reading our site an essential analysis of the question of the place of the spiritual minorities in France, with no link whatever to the theme of intellectual property. Nevertheless, because your mission has a natural media audience, the false information you produce in your report is taken up and diffused by the media and conveys a biased appreciation of our association, which is certainly the intention. You cannot be unaware of the effects of rumour and disinformation, since the anti-cult discourse, extreme as it exists in France, is founded on the systematic application of rumour to the new spiritualities. The amalgams you make about us moreover assimilate us to a cult activity, since every analysis contrary to yours is automatically accused of sectarianism: that is a curious conception of democratic debate. We are attentively studying the means at our disposal to answer this disinformation. We beg you to accept, Monsieur le Président, our distinguished salutations. Eric Bouzou, President of CICNS

Account of the meeting between the President of the MIVILUDES and the President and Spokeswoman of CICNS Paris, 24 October 2006 These exchanges led to a meeting with Monsieur Jean-Michel Roulet, who agreed to receive us at his office on 24 October 2006. We met a courteous and attentive person. There are however deep divergences on the questions of substance (the MIVILUDES’s certainty that there exist victims of movements of a cult character and CICNS’s certainty that there exist above all victims of the anti-cult campaign do not meet. One might believe, listening to the president of the MIVILUDES, that he judges collateral damage inevitable in a just war against the so-called cult movements). We indicated that, in our view, the thesis of the social scourge constituted by dérives sectaires was founded neither sociologically nor legally. Monsieur Roulet thinks the contrary. There was also a first, somewhat epidermic interpretation of our statements, judged “discourteous” by Monsieur Roulet, when a dispassionate reading could reveal our intention of balancing a hitherto partial debate, and that our firmness is the measure of the difficulty of making oneself heard. M. Roulet attempted to demonstrate to us that very few spiritual minorities were concerned by the hunt for dérives sectaires and told us he was unaware that certain inoffensive groups were victims of this campaign. The numerous examples of defamations, amalgams and even traumas of children subjected to gendarmerie assaults, for example (while a commission of inquiry on “cults and childhood” is under way), do not seem to have dented our interlocutor’s conviction. But he nevertheless manifested the desire that his action be just and agreed to be kept informed of such situations. We therefore wait to see the evidence of it in his next interventions. CICNS presented itself as an interlocutor on this subject of society, for which the sources are too unilateral in a democratic country. We received no promise in this direction, but the MIVILUDES can no longer ignore the information we shall send it regularly. The annual reports of the MIVILUDES, containing certain statements we judge unacceptable in our country, will find a true balance with the point of view of our association. To be continued…

Answer of M. Jean-Michel Roulet, president of the Miviludes No. 620 Paris, 30 August 2006 Madame, I have the honour of acknowledging receipt of your letter of 22 August 2006 requesting an appointment. I note that less than a year ago you had already expressed the wish to meet me and that I had accepted the principle once I had had time to settle in at the MIVILUDES. Shortly afterwards, your organisation sent me a most discourteous letter informing me that, following the first measures I had been led to adopt, any request for an appointment seemed useless to it. That said, the MIVILUDES never renounces dialogue and I shall therefore meet you either on Tuesday 24 October at 4 pm, or on Wednesday 8 November at 3 pm. I thank you to inform my secretariat which of these dates suits you. I beg you to accept, Madame, the homage of my distinguished consideration. Jean-Michel ROULET

Prefect

Monsieur Jean-Michel Roulet

President of the MIVILUDES

66 rue de Bellechasse

75007 - Paris

Montpezat de Quercy, 22 August 2006 Subject: Request for a meeting Reference: CICNS/miv/no.8 Monsieur le Président, As your secretariat confirmed to us in our telephone exchange, our association is known to your services. You will however find all useful information about us on our website at www.cicns.net. Our association was born of the observation that spiritual orientations and practices have, in France and for several years, been mistreated by the tendentious amalgams of a discriminatory crusade against the new expressions of spiritual search. This observation has not changed recently, and we learn, almost daily, of the effects of a repression without much discernment against inoffensive and often highly valuable persons and movements. We think our action must be founded on dialogue. That is why we would like to obtain an appointment with you in order to present to you our entirely rational approach to the situation. It seems to us today that our association is in fact the best ally of the MIVILUDES, in the sense that it applies itself to providing reliable, dispassionate, direct and therefore honest information on the spiritual minorities. Awaiting the chance to share with you another gaze on the spiritual minorities in France, we beg you to accept, Monsieur le Président, the expression of our respectful salutations. Marie-Christine Koenig, Spokeswoman of CICNS

contact@cicns.net

www.cicns.net

Copy of the letter addressed to M. Jacques Chirac, President of the Republic, drawing a parallel between the Clearstream affair and the rumours propagated by the public authorities about the spiritual minorities. Sent to M. Jean-Michel Roulet.

For the attention of Monsieur Jacques Chirac, President of the French Republic

Palais de l’Elysée, 55 rue du Faubourg Saint Honoré, 75008 - PARIS Montpezat de Quercy, 13 May 2006 Subject: The use of rumour in France Ref: cicns/PR/no.2 Copies: Dominique de Villepin, Prime Minister; Jean-Michel Roulet, President of the MIVILUDES Monsieur le Président, CICNS is an independent association whose object is to balance the debate on the question of the new spiritualities in France. We had the honour, in a previous letter, of presenting our action to you. Our site will give you fuller information: www.cicns.net. A few recent events call for a fundamental reflection on the harm done by rumours and the dangers they make the whole of society run. - The Outreau affair led to a commission of inquiry, one of whose objectives is to understand and take the adequate measures to, if not suppress, at least limit as much as possible the devastating effects of unfounded allegations, of rumours against citizens subject to the law. While this affair ought to have led to a national awakening and an evolution of behaviour, one notices that nothing of the kind has happened. Two examples will suffice to illustrate it. - The MIVILUDES 2005 Report, in the lineage of the previous reports, maintains a psychosis against the new spiritualities. The dangerousness of the new spiritual and health approaches, asserted without proof, and the danger they would make the Republic run, are rumours dating from the 1980s. No serious large-scale sociological study, and no statistical and legal analysis, makes it possible today to say that the “dérives sectaires” observed are a menace for French society, which would be one of the only European nations to be their target. - The recent Clearstream affair shows how rumour can destabilise a great part of the executive and of political leaders. What differentiates these three affairs is the treatment they receive. The Outreau affair finally initiated a fundamental reflection (will it remain one?) on the workings of justice; the Clearstream affair generates a great media and legal activity to put an end to the rumours and clarify the situation. The spiritual minorities, for their part, continue to be discriminated against amid general indifference and, what is more, under the pretext of the defence of the rights of man and of the child (we attach a CICNS press communiqué which gives three examples among a multitude of others). The consensus of the political chessboard on this question ought to challenge, rather than delight, the principal protagonists. When there is unanimous agreement to cast out of society an important part of the population, how can one hope for social cohesion? “It is not by entering the logic of scapegoats that we shall make our democracy grow. (…) It never serves any purpose to howl with the wolves!” How just and good these words of M. de Villepin, the Prime Minister on whom the MIVILUDES depends, would be if they applied not only to the affair which concerns him but to all those of the spiritual minorities of our country. It is important that our elected representatives set the example. Beyond personal responsibility in “the affairs”, of which we shall not make ourselves the judges, none of them should, during his mandate, permit himself behaviour that does not promote respect for the other and a tolerant and altruistic vision of our fellow citizens. Without that, it is not surprising that power loses its credit. We thank you for the attention you will have been good enough to give this letter and beg you to believe, Monsieur le Président, in the assurance of our high consideration. Eric Bouzou, President of CICNS

Letter to M. Jean-Michel Roulet on the subject of the MIVILUDES 2005 Report Montpezat de Quercy, 28 April 2006 Subject: CICNS commentaries on the 2005 Miviludes report Ref: CICNS/miv/no.7 Copy to Monsieur Dominique de Villepin, Prime Minister Monsieur le Président, Please find attached the commentaries which the reading of the Miviludes 2005 report inspired in us. Hoping this document will hold your attention, Please accept, Monsieur le Président, the expression of our distinguished salutations. Eric BOUZOU, President of CICNS. See the CICNS commentary on the MIVILUDES 2005 Report

Letter addressed to Jean-Michel Roulet, president of the Miviludes, to withdraw our request for an interview, following the departure of Nathalie Luca, that departure having as its motive the hardening of the policy of repression against “dérives sectaires”.

Monsieur Jean-Michel Roulet

President of the Miviludes

66 rue de Bellechasse

75007 - Paris Montpezat de Quercy, 20 December 2005 Subject: The departure of Nathalie Luca from the Orientation Council of the MIVILUDES Ref: cicns/miv/no.6 Copies: Monsieur Jacques Chirac, President of the Republic

Monsieur Dominique de Villepin, Prime Minister

Monsieur Nicolas Sarkozy, Minister of the Interior Monsieur le Président, We recently approached you for an interview, in order to discuss the treatment of the new spiritualities, or new religious movements as the sociologists prefer to call them. As we have already presented it to you, our action aims to balance information and debate on this question, and we are attentive to every sign of progress in this domain. Now, we have just learned (Le Monde 19/12/05) that Nathalie Luca, research fellow at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), has just left the Mission’s orientation council because she refuses to be linked “to a foreseeable hardening of the position of the MIVILUDES”. The cooperation agreement between the MIVILUDES and the EHESS has been suspended. This information is very worrying insofar as, in our view, the academics are the only counterweight within the mission in the evaluation of the phenomenon. The other voice being that of the anti-cult associations, which obstinately refuse dialogue and forbid themselves to understand the place of spirituality in society. This announcement leads us to think the way is now free for increased discrimination. Your statements on the subject seem moreover unequivocal. Must it be recalled again that there exists no verifiable proof of the reality of the social scourge which serves as the basis of the policy of fighting dérives sectaires in France? Parting with the academics is a sure means of preventing objective research on the subject. We regret that the public authorities do not have, beyond the façade discourses, a more responsible attitude on this question. This observation has led us to initiate a citizens’ commission of inquiry into spiritual liberty in France. It goes without saying that the proposal for a parliamentary inquiry from the deputies who are members of the study group on the cults at the assembly is for us the assurance of a biased debate, given the partial and discriminatory statements of the principal parties concerned. In these times of commemoration of the centenary of the 1905 law, of laïcité as guarantee of spiritual liberty, we perceive, contradictorily, a radicalisation of the discourse against spiritual liberty. Blacklisting citizens without proof of their guilt has never favoured rapprochement and social cohesion. The only exception to this sad picture is the creation of the commission of legal reflection on the relations of religions with the public authorities. These opposite directions are however not of a nature to make the government’s policy on the subject legible. In these conditions, and short of a clear sign that openness and dialogue will be the tools chosen by the MIVILUDES, we withdraw our request for an interview. Please accept, Monsieur le Président, the expression of our respectful salutations. Eric Bouzou, President of CICNS

Answer of CICNS to Monsieur Jean Michel Roulet, President of the Miviludes

Montpezat de Quercy, 9 December 2005 Subject: Request for an appointment - answer to your letter of 30 November 2005 (495) Ref: cicns/miv/no.5 Monsieur le Président, We thank you for having taken the time to answer our letter and we wish, by the present, to answer your request for clarification with a view to an appointment. We beg you to believe there is in our letter no “charge” brought against the government’s policy in the matter of prevention against dérives sectaires. Our tone is resolutely that of dialogue and conciliation, but we make the choice of speaking without detour of the questions that occupy us. The long list of worrying points mentioned in our previous letter doubtless gives you the impression of a register of grievances a little too laden, and in which is found no recognition of the State’s efforts to protect its fellow citizens. From our point of view, two perceptions oppose each other on the question of dérives sectaires. That of the public authorities and that of the persons who consider that the corresponding policy ends by infringing the right to individual liberties: among these persons are counted many academics and jurists. The first vision is widely mediatised, the second is passed over in silence or ignored. And it is there that democratic debate does not seem to us respected. It does not seem to us balanced to speak of dérives sectaires without mentioning the excesses of the corresponding policy, since they exist (cf. our interviews). To ignore the amalgam made, voluntarily or not, between the new spiritualities and criminality is not legitimate. That would be to feign ignorance of the force of rumour and defamation. Recent events demonstrate the devastating effects unfounded accusations can have. To be accused of being a “cult” or of “dérive sectaire” today has the same consequences for a significant number of French citizens. Our action places itself resolutely within the framework of the law, but of a law applied without discrimination. One can say there exist two debates today. The first is a debate of conviction, where each party presents its perception, based on the information at its disposal. It is necessary to support these convictions not on fear but on precise and verifiable facts. We observe that psychosis, rather than the understanding of the phenomenon of the new spiritualities, is an ingredient too often used by certain public authorities, seconded in this by a great number of media. The second debate, the only one able to decide between the two camps that have formed on the subject, is that of proof. The actions of the Miviludes, and particularly those of the anti-cult organisations supported by the State, do not seem to us to go in the direction of an objective and dispassionate study of the reality of the “cults” in France. That is why we have had to initiate a Citizens’ Commission of Inquiry into spiritual liberty in France. That is not our role, for Parliament ought to have been the initiator of such an inquiry. But the last parliamentary report on the question demonstrated the superficial approach of the parliamentarians to this subject. The information we provide on our site and the interviews we have made of sociologists and jurists express a voice that cannot be ignored in this debate. We invite you to consult them in order to understand our approach. We hope these few clarifications will have convinced you of our constructive action and our will to dialogue objectively and rationally, even if that may pass through an uncompromising critique of what appears to us an infringement of the individual liberties a democracy must defend at all costs. It is laudable that the State seeks to protect its fellow citizens. But the precautionary principle should not end in an infringement of liberties. Please believe, Monsieur le Président, in the assurance of our high consideration, Eric Bouzou, President of CICNS

Letter addressed to M. Jean-Louis Langlais, president of the MIVILUDES, with copy to M. Jean-Pierre Raffarin, prime minister. Below it, the answer of M. Gilles Bottine, secretary of the MIVILUDES. Monsieur, We have the great regret of finding in your latest report of 2004, at page 54, the mention of our association among the groups to be watched, in a paragraph introduced by the formula “new forms of sectarianism”. This direct attack on our association, in the form of an amalgam, in a report which nevertheless avoids drawing up blacklists, confirms that the intention of the Miviludes and the government is indeed to eradicate all the expressions that do not echo the pensée unique on the “cults”. This ignoble procedure, which allows you to discredit all efforts towards a balanced debate, will not pass unnoticed. This implicit condemnation of our civic action, without having taken the trouble to meet us, and this despite our proposal to take part in the debates, remains in the continuity of the French-style anti-cult campaign which History will remember as one of those blindnesses mankind undergoes cyclically since the world has existed. The members of CICNS are sorry to note that it is impossible today to take part in a democratic dialogue on the subject of the “cults” and the essential questions the spiritual minorities pose to our society. Cordially, The President. Answer of Gilles Bottine, secretary of the MIVILUDES: Monsieur le Président, I answer the letter you addressed on 3 April 2005 to the President of the interministerial Mission concerning your mention on page 54 of our 2004 activity report. The paragraph you refer to merely reports a few observations presented by the Centre de documentation, d’éducation et d’action contre les manipulations mentales, in the framework of its contribution to our report. I invite you to approach that association. I beg you to accept, Monsieur le Président, the expression of my distinguished sentiments. Gilles BOTTINE

Letter to Monsieur Jean Michel Roulet, new president of the Miviludes, to congratulate him on taking up his functions and request an appointment, followed by M. Roulet’s answer

Montpezat de Quercy, 26 November 2005 Ref: cicns/miv/no.4 Monsieur le Président, CICNS is an independent association which brings a new gaze to spirituality. We address to you our congratulations, as new president of the Miviludes, and we wish to share with you our questions about the true intentions of the public authorities concerning the spiritual minorities. We speak of spiritual minorities where you speak of “cults”. This latter term today conveys an amalgam between spirituality and criminality. It condemns de facto all the movements arbitrarily grouped under this term. A circular of M. Raffarin of May 2005 seemed to put an end to the lists of movements labelled “dangerous”. You yourself say (AFP 29 Sept 2005) that the list is “completely obsolete” but “made it possible to grasp the phenomenon even if in a manner sometimes erroneous and partially incomplete.” Our analysis is rather that the list is without validity insofar as there was no adversarial analysis, and that the way of “grasping the phenomenon” took little account of the impact produced by this “error” on the persons who suffered this discrimination. Moreover, several deputies who are members of the group on the cults at the National Assembly (MM Vuilque, Brard, Fenech) published a press communiqué in which they specify: “the circular absolutely does not advocate finishing with the parliamentary list… Better still, by this ruling, the Conseil d’État confirms the ‘informative’ interest of the parliamentary list, which thus remains a reference for the work of prevention and of fighting dérives sectaires.” The French anti-cult arsenal rests on the hypothesis of the social scourge the cults would constitute, that is to say all the alternative spiritual approaches: the parliamentary lists are in effect augmented by unofficial lists produced by associations like the ADFI, which speaks of 600 to 800 cult movements. Yet the MIVILUDES has, to this day, provided no quantitative proof, no credible and verifiable statistic on the extent of this alleged scourge. The discourse rests on a psychosis maintained on the basis of the testimony of apostates and without any precaution about the use of these testimonies. At the same time, the discriminations suffered by the spiritual minorities are passed over in silence. Why such an imbalance of information, widely amplified by the media? Your statement to AFP of 20 Sept 2005 also challenges us. It seems you wish “to advance by at least five judgments” during your presidency. Would this be a repetition of what happened in 1998, when culprits had to be found to justify the anti-cult policy? The testimony we gathered (cf. our videos below) on the affair of l’Essentiel, in the Aveyron, dates from that period: a community of peaceful people underwent an assault reserved for the worst terrorists to justify the installation of a scapegoat. Who spoke of it? Who knows of this violence? The map of the cults in Paris is for us another example of the baseless psychosis raging in our country. And it is in this climate that certain elected officials of the Paris City Hall are asking for a public debate on the subject: how can one believe it could be balanced in these conditions? We do not deny the existence of offences in the spiritual minorities as in every human group, but we denounce the amalgam made between spirituality and criminality and the absence of proof on which the “fight against dérives sectaires” in France rests. The Netherlands also made a study on the cults. They concluded that these groups were not criminogenic and that there was no need to pay particular attention to them. What particularity could make these groups criminogenic in France? We deplore the little account taken of the work of numerous sociologists and jurists on the subject. The MIVILUDES organised promising colloquia: “Sectes et laïcité”, “L’avocat face aux dérives sectaires”. When we read the conclusions of these colloquia, it seems the only advantage drawn from these contributions was to the detriment of the subject treated. This assessment led us to initiate a Citizens’ Commission of Inquiry into spiritual liberty in France: CEC.htm. We propose a visit to our site www.cicns.net and in particular the page FAQ.htm. We also invite you to consult our videos of sociologists, lawyers, writers and discriminated persons: http://www.cicns.net/Video.htm. We would like to meet you to dialogue on all these points as well as on the mention of our association in the MIVILUDES 2004 report among a list of associations to be watched. We have had several exchanges with Monsieur Bottine on this subject. We had made him a proposal for a meeting and he had answered us (GB/DG no.266) to reiterate our request after your appointment to the presidency of the MIVILUDES. Awaiting your answer, we thank you for your attention. Cordially, Eric Bouzou for CICNS. Answer of M. Jean-Michel Roulet, President of the MIVILUDES: Paris, 30 November 2005. Monsieur, I have taken cognisance of your letter of 26 November 2005, for which I thank you. You express the wish to meet me to discuss aloud various subjects broached in your letter. I do not hide from you the astonishment aroused in me by the charge brought in this letter against the government’s policy in the matter of prevention against dérives sectaires. A clarification of the facts motivating such an analysis on your part seems to me indispensable before any meeting. I beg you to accept, Monsieur le Président, the expression of my distinguished consideration. Jean-Michel ROULET, Prefect

To M. Jean-Louis Langlais, President; M. Gilles Bottine, Secretary General, Miviludes, 66 rue de Bellechasse, 75007 - Paris 1 June 2005

Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Secrétaire Général, On 22 April 2005 we addressed to you a letter following your answer on the subject of our citation in your 2004 report in terms that appear to us suspicious. To all appearances, this suspicion is based solely on your appreciation - which one may qualify as summary given the few exchanges having taken place between us beforehand - of our gaze on spirituality in France. We think that the plurality of opinions makes the wealth of a democracy, and that any hasty suspicion of the opinion of persons of a different view is a way of denying this legitimate right to debate. Being nevertheless convinced that you are, like us, attached to an adversarial and open exchange on the treatment of the spiritual minorities in France, we propose to come and meet you to present our action and our objectives. Awaiting a specification of the place and date of an appointment at your convenience, we beg you, Messieurs, to accept our sincere salutations. For CICNS, The President. PS: we copy in our latest letter. To read also, on the CICNS site, our commentary on the Miviludes 2004 report: http://www.cicns.net/Miviludes3.htm

22 April 2005 Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Secrétaire Général,

Your answer to our remarks is disappointing on several counts. First because it attempts to render anodyne a mention which forms part of a report issuing from a governmental body, which necessarily has an impact on public opinion. Without comparing our case with that of the numerous spiritual minorities victims of discrimination, the procedure used is roughly equivalent to that which consists in publishing a non-adversarial list of 172 movements while qualifying them as dangerous cults, distributing this report in all the ministries and local administrations, and then specifying by a note of the Ministry of the Interior that this list has no normative value, while feigning ignorance of the impact of rumour on public opinion. In the second place, it is curious that you displace the responsibility for these statements onto the provider of the information. You publish an official report; the least one can expect is that you feel responsible for its content and bring a minimum of interest to the quality of the information it contains. We still question the unilateral action of the MIVILUDES, which seems to see dérives sectaires (are they such?) only on one side. We have made contact with the HALDE, which today constitutes the best proposal of the public authorities for beginning an open and serene dialogue on the question of the spiritual minorities. We remain however ready for a dialogue with you on the same subject. We beg you to believe, Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Secrétaire Général, in the expression of our best sentiments. For the CICNS Team, The President. PS1: We copy the HALDE into all the correspondence we have with you. PS2: We take the liberty (since we have an existing correspondence) of sending you our fortnightly information letter at your mail address: miviludes@miviludes.pm.gouv.fr. It is possible to unsubscribe from this letter in each issue, but we are confident its content will interest you.