Gilles Bottine's 2005 ENM Speech on the Cults

Intervention of M. Gilles Bottine, Secretary General of the MIVILUDES, in 2005

Read also the CICNS commentary on the 2005 Miviludes report and The impossible tolerance? In the course of his functions at the Miviludes, M. Bottine seems to have measured the excesses of the anti-cult fight. We believe that anyone who invests himself seriously in the study of the spiritual minorities in France can only “water his wine” on discovering to what point this partisan fight resembles a medieval witch-hunt and is not a democratic combat as some would like to have it believed. We hope to see the new president and the new secretary of the MIVILUDES evolve towards the same wisdom. Intervention of the secretary general of the Miviludes, Monsieur Gilles Bottine 14 October 2005 Intervention at the ENM from 10 to 14 October 2005

Theme “The cults” When Monsieur Roulet, the new President of the MIVILUDES, asked me to intervene in his name, I accepted with great pleasure. I myself followed this training three years ago, a few weeks before being seconded to the interministerial Mission to exercise there the functions of secretary general. This training brought out well the complexity of the phenomenon and I have been able to measure, since then, the diversity and the very passionate character of the possible approaches. I am also pleased to be with you today, because you are, as magistrates, police commissioners or gendarmerie officers, the guarantors of the implementation, by the public authorities, of individual liberties, and because you see to it, in your daily practice, that the situation of the victims of dérives sectaires is taken into account without ever compromising on respect for the law and constitutional liberties. Since its creation in November 2002, the MIVILUDES has been concerned, equally, to reconcile these two objectives and to hold itself on a sort of ridge line at equal distance from those who show themselves resolutely allergic to everything in social behaviour that takes paths other than those of pure reason, but also from those who claim that a State is never legitimate in setting limits to the expression of convictions or of religious practices in particular. I shall not speak to you of the cult phenomenon as is often done by listing some of the best-known movements. I believe it more useful to specify which doings fall within the competence of the interministerial Mission and of the administrations. I shall do so in the light of the Prime Minister’s circular of 27 May 2005 on the fight against dérives sectaires. I shall do so using by preference the concepts of movement of a cult character (MACS), of at-risk social group or of at-risk social practices, rather than using the term “cult”. The word “cult”, except among the sociologists of religion, is generally used in France to stigmatise very diverse groups which symbolise what society does not want to be or should not be. Very negatively charged, it is indisputably discriminating with regard to certain movements which we know are perceived very differently according to the country. I am thinking of a movement like that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Certainly, certain small groups can be very dangerous. We all remember the criminal doings of the Japanese movement AUM, the collective suicides of the followers of the Peoples Temple, of the Davidians of Waco, of the followers of Heaven’s Gate and, closer to us, the massacres within the Order of the Solar Temple. In other movements, it is less the physical integrity of the followers than their psychological equilibrium and their capacity for autonomy that may be threatened. But most of the movements said to be of a cult character do not expose people to this kind of risk, and the way they are perceived, like the political reactions they arouse, sometimes depends more on their capacity or their difficulty in integrating into a cultural and political environment than on a clearly demonstrated dangerousness. However, the manner in which we perceive the cult phenomenon is still today very largely influenced by these collective tragedies, which touched France less gravely than other countries such as the United States or Switzerland, which, more severely affected, reacted in a different manner. The term “cult” is, equally, ill-suited to apprehending in its entirety a phenomenon which is not reduced to a few clearly identified movements. We have been witnessing for a few decades the development and propagation of a spirit of calling into question the most commonly accepted principles and norms. Moreover, France has opened itself to different cultures, to new religiosities and to non-conventional social or care practices. Confronted with such a diversification of our religious and philosophical landscape, it is essential not to confuse non-conformism and dangerousness, and to distinguish original social practices from authentically at-risk practices where, after being invited to leave all critical spirit in the cloakroom, you find yourself caught in a totalising system of total control. With the creation of the MIVILUDES, the angle of approach was modified. The Government drew the lessons of past experiences, which showed that an approach consisting, for the public authorities, in qualifying this or that grouping as a “cult” and founding their action on that qualification alone did not make it possible to give the initiatives taken a solid foundation in law, nor to ensure effectively the reconciliation between two requirements: - The fight against the doings of certain groups which exploit the physical or psychological subjection of their members, on the one hand, - Respect for public liberties and for the principle of laïcité, on the other. It is no longer a matter of blacklisting groupings but of identifying, preventing and repressing doings contrary to the laws and regulations. This approach, which is none other than that specified by the Prime Minister in his circular of 27 May 2005, is not new: Since 1789, the Republic has respected all opinions, even religious ones, provided their manifestations do not disturb the public order established by law. Since 1905, if the Republic recognises no religion, it guarantees their free exercise under the sole restrictions enacted in the interest of public order. One always finds this requirement of a balance between respect for liberties and the necessities of public order. The MIVILUDES, a body attached to the Prime Minister, comprises three structures: -A permanent structure composed of project officers or advisers seconded by their ministry of origin. -Two other structures which the President convenes regularly: An Executive Committee composed of some twenty representatives of the administrations concerned. An Orientation Council composed of thirty figures, parliamentarians, academics, representatives of the senior administration and of civil society. This council contributes notably to the reflection of the public authorities on dérives sectaires and to drawing out orientations. The MIVILUDES contributes to the information of the public and to the training of public agents. It is charged with reinforcing the coordination of the prevention and repression actions of the public authorities in this domain. It must also facilitate the implementation of actions in favour of victims. It is charged with analysing, observing and fighting against movements of a cult character whose doings infringe fundamental liberties, are contrary to the laws and regulations, or constitute a menace to public order. It is these doings that are designated generically under the concept of dérives sectaires when they are induced by the ideology or doctrine of such movements or by their mode of functioning. In any event, membership of a minority of conviction could not be regarded, from a legal point of view, as a dérive sectaire. That deserves to be recalled. We are, indeed, often questioned about situations presented to us as situations of cult infiltration or entryism in administrations, social services or companies, and which are, in reality, only situations of membership of a minority of conviction or belief on the part of persons whose professional practice turns out to conform to what it ought to be. But the administrative apparatus is not limited to this interministerial level. It extends to the central administrations, justice, national education, employment and training, youth and sport, which have put in place specialised units. This apparatus is replicated at the regional and above all departmental levels. The prefects regularly convene the vigilance cells which reproduce at departmental level the partnership structure that is the interministerial Mission’s Executive Committee. The apparatus put in place by the French public authorities is not only administrative. It is also legal. It rests on all the legislation in force, and not only that of a repressive character. Likewise, in a domain as particular as that of convictions and beliefs, the principle of laïcité and its legislative, regulatory and jurisprudential translations constitute an effective rampart against any intrusion of communitarian practices or demands, which have no place in a public space it is fitting to preserve. That is true of public education. It is true equally of the public hospital service. Finally, it is fitting to evoke the notion of public order which guides the public authorities in their relations with the religions, the minorities of conviction or the at-risk social groups. Thus, in a ruling of 29 April 2004 concerning the Vajra Triumphant, the Conseil d’Etat found that there existed, between three worship associations devoted inseparably to the same religion and possessing common leaders, a “community of interests”. It relied on the existence of this community of interests to refuse one of these associations the tax advantages it claimed, holding against it public-order problems noted in the doings of the other two. But conversely, it is by relying on the absence of any disturbance of public order that the Prefects, under the control of the administrative courts, granted the worship associations of the Jehovah’s Witnesses a certain number of tax advantages, and that the ministers of the Jehovist religion were authorised to affiliate to the old-age and sickness insurance fund for ministers of religion (CAVIMAC). In summary, you have at your disposal the necessary means to answer the legitimate expectations of our fellow citizens. To be effective, the fight against dérives sectaires passes through respect for the law, the refusal of amalgams and of discriminations. These few developments on a French apparatus which is without equivalent in Europe lead me to broach the question of national practices. The only countries to have drawn inspiration from it are Belgium and Austria. Belgium, by a law of 2 June 1998 voted following a recommendation of a parliamentary commission of inquiry, created a Centre of Information and Advice on Harmful Sectarian Organisations (CIAOSN). This centre, which is essentially an observation and analysis structure of great quality, was recognised by the law as having an advisory competence which confers on it a status of expert that the MIVILUDES does not possess. Another point in common with France: Belgium wants to complete its legal arsenal by sanctioning manoeuvres of psychological constraint and by creating an offence of abuse of weakness. As early as 1998 the Austrian government put in place an interministerial working group composed of the representatives of some ten ministries and created a Federal Bureau for sectarian questions, the B.F.S. The role of this independent public-law institute is to gather documentation and information on the dangers that may come from movements or activities of a cult character, provided there is a sufficiently substantiated suspicion and these dangers concern goods or interests worthy of being protected. The fundamental requirement is the obligation of pertinence, objectivity and authentic information. The BFS is supervised by the federal minister of the environment, youth and the family. The Jehovah’s Witnesses benefit, in Austria, from the status of confessional community. This status allows a confessional minority, at the end of a period of ten years, to be recognised as a religion. In 2002, the Swiss put in place an intercantonal Centre of information on beliefs and on the activities of groups of a religious, spiritual or esoteric character, the CIC. This Centre offers information of quality, adversarial and of great neutrality, on this type of movement. Great Britain, for its part, has long favoured the emergence of a structure of the same nature called INFORM (Information Network Focus on Religious Movements). INFORM is an independent non-profit structure. It was founded in 1988 with the support of the British Home Office and of the major Churches to gather and diffuse objective and updated information on the new religious movements and the “cults”. INFORM is directed by Mrs Eileen BARKER, honorary Director of the sociology department of the London School of Economics and Political Sciences. INFORM, which has information on nearly 3,000 structures, is the sole source of information of the British public authorities in this domain. The situation of Germany must be broached taking account of its own organisation and of a particular conception of the separation of Churches and State. Movements of a cult character are not the object of any particular surveillance, with the exception of the Church of Scientology which, since 1998, has been observed by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution both at federal level and in the Länder. Four Länder have put an end to this surveillance for want of concrete elements gathered over seven or eight years. Since the putting in place of this surveillance, Scientology has not been the object of judicial proceedings. Recently, in March of this year, the administrative Court of Appeal of Berlin recognised the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses as having the status of a corporation of public law. To obtain this status, a community must prove the loyalty indispensable to stable cooperation with a democratic State. This status confers on it numerous advantages, notably tax reductions, freedom of religious teaching, the right to collect the religion tax. In Spain, neither opinion nor the political class is really sensitised to the problem of dérives sectaires. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Moon movement are considered authentic religious movements. In Italy, where opinion is equally little sensitised, the Council of State, which judges only doings, considered that the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses posed no problems with regard to the Italian legal order. Since 2002, Italy has been asking itself about the opportuneness of repressing situations of damaging subjection in movements of a cult character. It seems that the Italian national representation is not yet ready to join France in this domain. In summary, in Europe, most countries do not treat the so-called cult phenomenon or at-risk social practices as a specific phenomenon. They have put in place observation structures and settle problems case by case, relying on existing legislation. In so doing, they are only drawing inspiration from recommendation 1412-99 of the Council of Europe, which advocated, in 1999, the necessity of objective information on the new religious or esoteric movements within the framework of respect for freedom of conscience and religion. The Council of Europe equally invited the States to create centres corresponding to this recommendation. Source: www.mivilude.gouv.fr