On 22 June 1999, the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly unanimously adopted a recommendation, which
gives priority to the prevention of dangerous sects. "Major legislation on sects is undesirable," the
Assembly reiterated in a debate organized during its summer session.
The recommendation adopted following the debate referred to the risk that any legislation passed in this area might
well interfere with the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention on
Human Rights. Nonetheless, the serious incidents of recent years did warrant greater control of groups referred
to as "sects" - which the Assembly did not define further. Their activities should be carried out in
keeping with the principles underlying democratic societies.
Therefore, it was seen as vital to have access to reliable, objective information on these groups, information
which would be directed in particular at teenagers within the school curricula and at the children of followers
of groups of a religious, esoteric or spiritual nature.
Consequently, the Assembly called on the governments of the member states:
· to support the setting up of national or regional independent sect information centers;
· to include information on the history and philosophy of major schools of thought and religion in the general
school curriculum;
· to use criminal and civil law procedures against any illegal practices carried out by these groups;
· to encourage the setting up of non-governmental organizations to protect victims; but also
· to take firm steps against any discrimination or marginalization of minority groups and to encourage a
spirit of tolerance and understanding towards religious groups.
The Assembly also requested that the Ministerial Committee of the Council of Europe to set up a European Observatory
on groups of a religious, esoteric or spiritual nature, to facilitate an exchange of information between different
national centers. It added that the Council of Europe should also take action to promote the setting up of information
centers in central and eastern European countries.
However, the academic world is far from agreeing with the sect report of the Council of Europe. In the 29 June
1999 issues of the magazine Die Welt Prof. Dr. Gerhard Besier (University of Heidelberg, Germany) published an
article entitled "An Observatory Against Dangerous Thinking. Is there a struggle about religious freedom between
Europe and the United States approaching?" In the article he summed up some of the main arguments opposed
to the recommendations made in the report:
According to Besier, the Council of Europe demands a "sect" observatory as the most important prerequisite
in order to fight "possibly dangerous movements" and to protect European citizens from something which
has not even been solidly proved to be "dangerous." In contrast that approach, the experts consulted
by the Enquete Commission of the German Bundestag concerning "So-Called Sects and Psychogroups" unanimously
reached the conclusion that no greater danger emanates from these suspected groups than from other religious and
similar associations."
Besier charges that the Council of Europe report includes contradictions. For example, among other things, the
Council of Europe member states are recommended to establish "independent, national or regional information
centers about sects" but should also support non-governmental organizations. As a rule, such information centers
have not been "independent" as they are either under the control of so-called "opters-out of sects"
or representatives of the established great churches. On the other hand, the report states, that steps should be
taken to prevent any discrimination and marginalization of the suspected religious groups.
Besier concludes that "The bottom of the conflict might be the European attempt to limit the
wide field of ideology, above all for political reasons. The more members the great official churches lose and
the number of religious associations grows, the more unpredictable the mental character of large parts of the population
will be. Of course: there is no room for supervisory requirements such as these in an open society."
Anti-Sect Policies in the Light of the Council of Europe's Sect Report
Despite the controversial character of the Council of Europe's Sect Report, its recommendations do put the anti-policies
enforced in several countries in an awkward position. The French, Belgian, German and Austrian parliamentary members
of the Council of Europe's Assembly have voted in favor of this report although it is contradictory to the policies
carried out by their own state. Therefore, it is indeed noteworthy to compare anti-sect policies carried out by
France, Belgium, Germany and Austria with the recommendations contained in that report.
Among the unanimous condemnations made by the parliamentary assembly were the use of the word "sect";
making any distinction between a "sect" and a religion; the involvement of governments in the theological
debate about whether to label groups "religions" or not; the state recognition of only certain religions;
the state supervision of sect observatories; the spreading of information about certain people/groups before those
people/groups concerned have had a chance to challenge it; the lack of tolerance and dialogue; and any form of
discrimination, marginalization and value judgements towards beliefs and minority groups.
Clearly marking out the area in issue, the parliamentary assembly unanimously decided that only the activities
carried out by religious, esoteric and spiritual groups should be examined.
Sect or Religion?
Currently, Austrian, Belgian, French, and German policies in this regard are completely founded on the distinction
between "sects" and religions. The Parliamentary Assembly considers this to be a "pitfall, which
the authorities must avoid." Its warning is extremely clear, and calls the neutrality and secularity of the
four countries into question. The text of the Council of Europe's report sets it out extremely clearly:
"The state could agree to adopt the course suggested by certain groups and distinguish between religions -
by definition good - and sects - necessarily dangerous - or even between good and bad sects. Once again we do not
think that such an approach is acceptable.
Under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, States are prohibited from distinguishing between
different beliefs and from creating a scale of beliefs which is, in our view, unacceptable. Merely making such
a distinction would constitute a disproportionate violation of the freedom guaranteed by Article 9 of the European
Convention of Human Rights because the very basis of this freedom is the absence of distinction between beliefs,
which explains the state's duty to maintain neutrality.
Moreover, such an approach is dangerous because if a dispute arose, the debate would focus not on the activities
of the groups concerned but on the nature of their beliefs. The first means of defence for some groups is to seek
to demonstrate that their beliefs constitute a religion, so that they can then claim to be acting accordingly,
even if that entails the commission of illegal acts. In these circumstances, if state authorities agree to enter
into an ideological discussion they are obliged to determine the classification of the beliefs concerned and will
find themselves in an inextricable situation. Either they will have to accept that the belief concerned is not
a religion and will be accused of violating religious freedom and of persecuting the group concerned. Or alternatively,
they will have to consider that the beliefs of the group effectively constitute a religion, and the latter will
take advantage of state recognition to justify all its actions, even illegal ones. In both cases, the state authorities
will take part in a religious controversy and therefore fail in their duty to remain neutral under the terms of
Article 9 of the ECHR. This kind of debate is therefore a trap in which some groups systematically try to ensnare
the authorities and which the latter must be at pains to avoid."
Faced with the impossible choice between using the term "religion" or "sect" (the latter being
a concept with "extremely pejorative connotations"), the Parliamentary Assembly unanimously agreed that
the diverse facets of beliefs could be encompassed and any negative prejudice could be avoided by the use of a
more general formula: "religious, spiritual or esoteric groups."
The Sect Observatory By calling on the governments to set up independent information centers on groups of a religious,
esoteric or spiritual nature and an European Observatory by the Committee of Ministers,2 the Assembly substantially
condemned the state-dependent Sect Observatories set up by France and Belgium whatever the name given to the state
agencies charged with observing and learning how better to fight sects. France tried to pass an amendment that
sect information centers be state-controlled to justify its own Sect Observatory and its Interministerial Mission
to Fight Sects, but Sweden was opposed to it and the reporter, Mr Nastase, reminded the Assembly that this had
already been legally decided against. Austria, Germany and Belgium failed to come to the rescue of a France still
smarting from the refusal of its two other amendments.
It has to be emphasized that the Belgian Anthrosophical Society took the state of Belgium to court over the law
that set up an Information and Advice Center to examine harmful sectarian organizations. In the society's view,
the administrative co-ordination body is discriminatory against Belgians who are not part of an established religion
and contravenes the state's duty to remain secular, as surveillance and collated personal data will be used against
individuals without their agreement or control. The case is pending as of this writing. The outcome of this lawsuit
will be of utmost importance for similar information and advice centers in Austria and Germany.
Sect Campaigns The Assembly recommended that the Committee of Ministers "take measures to inform and educate
young people and the general public."
The Assembly, however, added the following guarantee: the information gathered should be reliable and should emanate
"neither exclusively from sects themselves nor from associations set up to defend the victims of sects."
In addition, the individuals concerned should have the opportunity of expressing themselves "as to the objectivity
of such information."
The position taken by the Assembly opens up the way for initiatives previously dismissed by some member states
and lends stability to those already set up by sociologists and religious historians, such as INFORM in Britain.
A European Observatory should co-ordinate all the private state-independent centers and remain free from any political
control.
· According to the Council of Europe's standards, the sect prevention brochure, widely distributed by the
French Community in Belgium is contrary to the criteria of the Council of Europe's report. Following the case brought
by the Anthrosophical Society, the French Community was ordered to cease its distribution until the information
concerning the Anthrosophical Society had been removed. The same criticism can be made towards Austria and a number
of German Federal States (Länder) which distribute brochures on the prevention sects on a massive scale.
The civic education brochure aimed at high-school students in France, which contains a chapter on sects, should
also be withdrawn from circulation, so false and error-ridden is the information it contains about certain "sects."
The information comes from associations to defend the victims of sects; it was not shown to the individuals and
religious groups concerned before publication nor was it checked either by the Ministry of Education.
The Final Solution - Ban?
The Council of Europe's report suggests "as a last resort to ban certain groups which are known to shelter
the perpetrators of criminal activities."
The conditions of placing a ban are very restrictive and questions arise as to whether such a move would even be
effective. Followers cannot be stopped from meeting together either in public or in private, or from communicating
by fax, email or Internet.
Besides, this recommendation could have unforeseen implications if the Council of Europe upholds its refusal to
see any distinction between "sects" and "religions." It should be noted that the Catholic Church
harbors perpetrators of criminal activities every time it closes its eyes to the pedophile actions of members of
its own clergy.
Conclusions
For the OSCE All major international human rights conventions as well as other international conventions to
which Austria, Belgium, France, and Germany are signatories include a clause that prohibits discrimination on the
basis of religion.
The OSCE participating states, which comprise all European countries except the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
have pledged not only to prohibit discrimination but to "take effective measures to prevent and eliminate
discrimination against individuals or communities on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise
and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, political, economic, social and
cultural life, and to ensure the effective equality between believers and non-believers." (Article 16 of the
Vienna Concluding Document)
The OSCE participating states also have taken upon themselves the affirmative obligation of promoting tolerance.
As the 1989 Vienna Concluding Document provides, all participating states shall "foster a climate of mutual
tolerance and respect between believers of different communities as well as between believers and non-believers."
(Article 16.2 of the Vienna Concluding Document)
Therefore, Austria, Belgium, France and Germany and the other member states of the OSCE must respect and implement
the provisions of these international instruments which fully guarantee the freedom of religion and belief of their
citizens.
====
Les scientologues briefent leurs stars Travolta et Chick Corea pour qu'ils mentent (en l'ignorant peut-être) devant la Commission des droits de l'homme "Helsinki":
