French Anti cult law - Pro cult positions

The Anti-Cult Movement

The French Anti-Cult Law

Anti-Cult Rationalizations

---

The law gives Government powers to fight evil cults

Argument: The law's sponsors argue that it would give the courts powers to clamp down on sects that use methods like brainwashing or drugs to attract young people^r. "We have adopted this law so that we could fight predacious movements, that seek to exploit the psychological condition of a person", said Jean Yves Defay, advisor of French prime minister Lionel Jospin¹¹.Answer: "Brainwashing" (now clothed as "psychological condition of a person") is a derogatory and dangerous notion that has been debunked by scholars in the 1980's. As for the supposed use of "drugs" and other alleged crimes, laws already exist to deal with this aspects.

The law respects freedom of beliefs

Argument: Anticultists claim they do not to targets beliefs of any kind, but only groups who use coercion, emotional pressure and mind-management techniques to indoctrinate individuals and enslave them to their cause.Answer: However, at the end of the day, it basically does amount to an attack against unpopular beliefs and life-style. It only is disguised in socially acceptable and emotionally-laden concepts even though they have long been debunked by objective examination in English-speaking countries.
Argument: "We don't care about religion, that's not our problem," said Catherine Picard, French Parliamentarian co-author of the bill. "You can worship an orange in your kitchen as long as you don't disturb public order, as long as you don't force people and act in illegal ways."⁷Answer: Classical "we don't attack belief but behavior" anti-cult rationalization, but again, though they are carefully hidden behind these justification, it does end up being a frontal attack on personal allegiance and personal choices that are deemed as "harmful". People, it is claimed, are not forced to act through physical force but through what amounts to "mind-control", a most subjective, controversial, and often derogatory excuse for oppression. As for "illegal ways", again, if these are already illegal, why the need of a new law?

Critics have misunderstood the legislation and its objectives⁷.

Answer: Though people may misunderstand the objectives of the law, which are certainly commendable, there is no misunderstanding on its practical effects that are, in fact, exactly opposite to these very objectives.

The population supports the law

Argument: According to a recent French poll, 73 per cent of respondents believe cults are a danger to democracy and 86 per cent would ban organizations such as the Los Angeles-based Church of Scientology⁷Answer: There lays EXACTLY the role of a democratic institution: to protect minorities against disparaging attitude from the majority. Democracy gives the power of DECISION to the majority, but guarantees the right of EXPRESSION to minorities. The new law simply seeks to suppress this right by labeling, with no legal ground whatsoever, the minorities' expression "harmful" and "dangerous".

The state has an obligation to defend all the members of society¹¹

Answer: Exactly - and it does not defend its citizens by trampling on their religious rights and freedom of association. It doesn't even help the "cult victims".  These need a framework in which they can peacefully understand and come to term with their experience. A confrontational approach, finger pointing and arbitrary measures only increases the mutual misunderstanding and the gap between the cult member and his relatives.

The idea to enact preventive measures against sects arose in the Council of Europe, that has recommended to it's member state governments "to take measures, that the societies of the states were safe from the newly arising dangers"¹¹

Answer: The idea of oppressive measures against sects arose in the anti-cult campaign exported from the United States, as documented by Anson Shupe. The French measures actually endanger societies and states.

Accusations and attacks against those who oppose the law:

• Even though the law is a clear infringement on the separation of Church and States, it was the official Catholic and Protestant critics of the law who were accused of "breaching the principle of separation of Church and State" by anti-cult professionals among MPs for letting Prime Minister Lionel Jospin know of their reserves.
  
  
• Anti-cultists in France have played on anti-American sentiment. Some anti-cult campaigners in the French parliament and media have promoted the notion that sects are a dangerous American import. One respected newspaper earlier called the growing presence of groups such as Baptists, Adventists and Jehovah´s Witnesses an American "Trojan horse" invading France. During the debate in the legislature on May 30, 2001, the U.S. administration was accused of having been infiltrated by both Scientology and "Moon"¹
  
  
• Officials with the State Department and Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission) who have protested the law have been called secret agents of Scientology by some French media and officials. French delegates at the Helsinki hearings last year in Bucharest hissed at Mr. Smith, who had told them that the law would encourage former communist countries that continue to repress religion.
  
  
• CESNUR reports that French secret services have been quite active in supporting rumor mills (and Web sites) aimed at discrediting international scholars and religious liberty activists as simple hired guns for the cults.
  
  
• In general, people are afraid to speak up. The typical charge is being under mind control or being an agent of Scientology.

Media Campaign

• The day of the Senate vote, a government television station aired "Evidence to Convict," a film that linked the 1978 Jim Jones suicide sect, Microsoft exports, espionage, Pentecostals, mind control and Scientology.