FRANCE: BILL “TO REINFORCE THE FIGHT AGAINST CULTIC DEVIANCES”

FRANCE: BILL “TO REINFORCE THE FIGHT AGAINST CULTIC DEVIANCES”

A REAL THREAT TO FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE, RELIGION AND BELIEF

Executive Summary

The draft law « aimed at reinforcing the fight against cultic deviances », presented to the Council of Ministers on November 15, 2023, and immediately forwarded to the Senate Law Commission under accelerated procedure, will be discussed in plenary session in the Senate on December 19 [1]. Comprising 7 articles, if passed into law, it would seriously undermine basic principles of freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and poses real problems of conventionality and conformity with the French Constitution and international law on fundamental freedoms.

– Article 1 of the bill creates a new offence of « placing or keeping in a state of psychological or physical subjection » in the penal code. Psychological subjection » (or mind control) is a pseudo-scientific concept repeatedly rejected by scientists the world over, which application in criminal law, and in particular to the religious and spiritual sphere, represents a danger to democracy and fundamental freedoms. The ECHR itself has already ruled that « there is no generally accepted and scientific definition of what constitutes ‘mind control’ « .

The adoption of this article would lead to the criminalization of many religious practices, which could easily be considered as « techniques capable of altering judgment » leading to psychological subjection. It would also lead to a worrying trend in criminal law, allowing psychiatrist to interpret vague legal definitions, since in the end, it would be the appointed psychiatrist who would be called upon to decide on the validity of a religious or spiritual practice, and the validity of a devotee’s consent to a particular faith and practices.

– Article 3 of the draft law would enable associations antagonistic to minority religions, some of whom may be entirely financed by the State and known for their discriminatory practices towards religious minorities, to act as civil parties (plaintiffs) in lawsuits that would otherwise not concern them at all, thus seriously undermining the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

– Article 4, against the advice of the Conseil d’Etat (French supreme administrative court which has also a role of advisor to the government when it comes to draft laws), creates an offence of « provocation to abandon or refrain from following a therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment ». The Conseil d’Etat considered that this article would allow « the criminalization of challenges to the current state of therapeutic practices », endangering « the freedom of scientific debate and the role of whistle-blowers. It considered that « such provisions constitute an attack on the exercise of freedom of expression », and advised the government, in vain, to withdraw the article. Whilst this article may only affect some peripheral religious practices it shows the intolerance of the drafters and intent to maintain a kind of “orthodoxy” with regards to medical treatments as it would potentially criminalise many areas of alternative medicine practice.

– Article 6 is designed to enable MIVILUDES (Interministerial Mission of Vigilance and Fight Against Cultic Deviances, a French governmental agency based in the Ministry of Interior, also known for its intolerance towards minorities) to be called upon by public prosecutors or the courts in the context of criminal proceedings. The Conseil d’Etat, in its November 9 opinion on the bill, considered « that a State service, not specially empowered as an expert before the courts, could not intervene on its own initiative in legal proceedings without infringing the right to a fair trial guaranteed by articles 16 of the Declaration of 1789 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. »

It is of special concern that this law is being proposed at this current time when the social and political climate in France makes it difficult to oppose such legislation due to such proponents being pilloried as would be tarred in the media as « cultists” or “cult apologists” without any regard to the basic principles of freedom of religion or belief.

***

Further explanation

Article 1

Article 1 of the draft law creates a new offence in the penal code of « placing or maintaining a person in a state of psychological or physical subjection resulting from the direct exercise of serious or repeated pressure or techniques designed to alter his or her judgment and having the effect of causing a serious deterioration in his or her physical or mental health, or of leading this person to an act or abstention which is seriously prejudicial to him or her » (new article 223-15-3 of the penal code). While this offence appears to be modelled on the one created by the About-Picard law in 2001, which was already highly contested at the time of its adoption, it differs from the latter in several respects, and goes much further in terms of interference with freedom of religion and belief. Under the About Picard law, it was the offence of « fraudulent abuse of a state of weakness created by psychological subjection » which was punishable. It was therefore necessary to identify an abuse, a fraud, a « psychological subjection » (an indefinable pseudo-scientific term), all of which having to lead to an act or abstention seriously prejudicial to the person.

The About Picard law already heavily criticized at the time

Even back then, the law was heavily criticized. As Professor Patrice Rolland (An eminent jurist, university professor at Paris and member of the École pratique des hautes études) wrote in 2003 [2] : « In September 2000, the National Advisory Commission of Human Rights and the Human Rights League issued a negative opinion, which Parliament and the government took into account. The public commitment of the churches and representative bodies of the various religions was overwhelmingly critical and negative. The Council of Europe expressed strong mistrust of the law. Without concluding that there had been a clear violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Resolution adopted referred to the possible judgment of the European Court, and invited the French government to review the law ».

However, the new bill goes much further. It is no longer fraudulent abuse that is punished, but simply « maintenance or placement in a state of psychological or physical subjection », with all the vagueness that this notion leaves (Patrice Rolland writes: « How can we define, for example, what has the effect of creating psychological subjection? Can’t a political party or a trade union also fall within the scope of such a question?) And it is no longer necessary for this placement or maintenance to result in « an act or abstention seriously prejudicial to the person », but only that « serious or repeated pressure » or « techniques likely to alter his judgment » have had « the effect of causing a serious deterioration in his physical or mental health ».

It is easy to see how the continued insistence of a minister towards individuals to pray for forgiveness of sins, could also be characterised as psychological or physical subjection by a former church member. And what of monks and nuns who