M. Introvigne tries to oppose once again to french law. We'll demonstrate
how is arguments are flawed and sometimes, mere lies, a thing he has never dared to do by himself against my own
- I'm indeed often publishing his own words and criticizing them, without himself daring to quote us...
"They did it! Despite the national and international protestations (including those
of the highest executives from roman catholic and protestant churches in France), the french Parliament voted on
may 30th the antiscult law already approved by the Senate. An astonishingly fast discussion was enough, during
a busy day (including between else a debate on the new abortion law), to severely inhibit the religion freedom
of thousands of french people.
Some anticult professional deputies have done their usual theater, with Mr. Brard attacking between else catholic
and protestant authorities , saying they were scorning the separation between state and church, and reproaching
to the catholic church representants their "relations with M. Introvigne a zelote of laxist ways for cults".
Anti-american attacks have been less subtle than usally, accusing the american administration
of being infiltrated as well by scientology than by Moon. A naïve deputy has even suggested that if that
law had existed sooner, suicides and murders of the Solar Temple would have certainly been avoided! We have analyzed
attentively this law, which includes still the brainwashing notion, even if disguised under another word and which
has been introduced by amending an existing article."
No time to lose to criticize Introvigne's preface. What Deputies discuss before
a vote of a law is their way to accept or refuse it.
"The question now is: what can be done by international scholars of religious movements and activists
of religious freedoms? Here are my suggestions in a short list:
1. Trying to understand the law in the french context. Rather than signing petitions presented by some of those
religious movements, scholars should first do their job and try to understand the historical, civil and cultural
french context. Works from french scholars like Danièle Hervieu-Léger, Émile Poulat et Jean
Bauberot could be very useful. We had started a discussion during the 2001 lecture in London and it could be a
starting point for future activities. Understanding the context could also give the only possibility of a dialogue
with the most moderate elements having to deal with the so-called "danger of cults" in France."
Introvigne tries visibly to put in the same category people having been paid
by scientology or other criminal cults for connivance studies, adn people like Danièle Hervieu Léger.
"2. Being confident into french and european judges. We are placing our most immediate
hopes into french and european judges. Indeed, french judges have proved that they were not urged to augment the
anticult laws, and some parts of the text could pose problem for the french law before the Eureopean Court for
Human Rights. We should not consider bad taste to help legal actions that some NRMs will certainly launch. What
should be considered bad taste would be the absence of help for their actions. There where everything has failed,
a cointinuous legal action could succeed."
The french judges have not demonstrated they were opposed to strengthen the
legal weapons, even if they have indicated that it was not always entirely utilized. Introvvigne should have remembered
that if the law 1901 had been used in France, most of the very problematic cults could have been closed, since
they have illicit purposes and/or contrary to good mores.
"3. Bombing law application by saying it is inapplicable. While the text speaks of
"cultic groups" and alludes to brainwashing or mental control, explain again and again that such do not
exist. "Cults" and "Mental manipulation" are vague concepts, without scholar or legal definition.
As such, every law using them is clearly inapplicable. Some judges in France could be made aware of such arguments,
as long as they are exposed clearly and with logic."
Why discuss this: the law does not speak of mentyal manipulation: Introvigne
is trying to distract from the true text of the law, which is saying: "The fraudulent abuse of the state
of ignorance or the condition of weakness of either a minor or a person whose specific vulnerability, due to his
age, an illness, a disability, a physical or psychological deficiency or pregnancy, is apparent and known to its
author, or of a person in a state of psychological or physical subjection resulting from serious pressures exercised
or repeated or from techniques likely to alter his judgment"
It is already well known and exposed that Introvigne had shamelessly lied
about the possibility of mind control, when he was pretending that the APA (american psychology association) had
taken definite decision regarding mind control techniques. Indeed, Introvigne quoted a memorandum - but never gave
it, and long researches had to be done to find out that the APA had almost said the reverse of Cesnur's chief
and his accomplices, Melton, Hadden etc. Here the APA memos hidden by Introvigne before italian scholars discovered the trick.
"4. Don't feed the wolves. The religious groups which are violating laws ( but
not violating the specific anti-cult law) should evidently be sued. Don't defend them, confusing religious freedom
with excuses against law violations. But groups accused of "brainwashing" etc should be heavily defended,
even the most unappetizing ones. The fact that we do not appreciate some movements does not influence here: nobody
can be guilty of an imaginary crime. We could be tempted to make a distinction between "good and bad cults".
It would only feed the wolves, and who shall be the others next?"
We'd like to read at least ONE of these "unappetizing" groups. But
no, he's getting too much personal profits from those. And Introvigne is much in contradiction with himself, since
he came in Lyon to defend the criminal scientology facing homicide, fraud and extorsion charges; he has also defended
- at least writtenly - the Aum criminal murderers. Lots of others such examples exist in Cesnur's website.
"5. Publish or die: make the scholar works known... /... (Introvigne repeats the
same message for a number of lines)"
Certainly M. Introvigne is aware that the scholar publications have had an
impact on uninitiated people - but listen, the works of those who don't share the biased studies done by some partisans
of the "everything is religious"
have not been much published either. And we too, we do it, so as to counter the effect of biased publications
from people like Melton, Hadden, Shupe and other dishonest "scholars". The balance should soon be reversed.
Introvigne says here that many groups have not been studied. But really, does he think that scholars will start
working on groups like "La Thébaïde", while that one has some 10 members and is advocating
"6. Helping with prudence the international pressures. The french anticults have
played on the anti-american feelings by painting cults as "Trojan Horses" for USA in Europe. (This title
is alas not from a small paper, but from a strange artcile in the very respected Monde Diplomatique) But international
pressures succeded to slow down anticult campaigns in some other countries. This shall succeed finally also in
France, at least if this action is not presented as only "american" and is done while respecting the
national french traditions. A quiet diplomatic action would be much more efficient than whole pages of advertizing
against France in the Herald Tribune."
A/ Introvigne speaks of anti-american feeling, but omits to indicate that
USA have lost their Human Rights seat in UN nations. B/ He asks help from international federations, but does not
name them (here, it's mainly the Helsinki federation which is targeted - but that one is known to accept criminal
scientology financing, and to attack french positions without having even read them.) C/ One can be amused to
read that Introvigne criticizes here the inept actions from scientology (Herald Tribune full page of inepties)
or its french allies (Omnium des Libertés).
"7. Ignoring the accusations of "doing cults apology". If you do the actions
above, you'll be accused of "doing cults apology". The french secret services have been very active to
launch rumors (and develop internet sites) trying to discredit international scholars and religious freedoms activists,
by presenting them as mere mercenaries paid by cults. Rather than replying in detail to accusations regarding your
revenues and your private life, ignore those mercenaries who are, themselves, paid by the french secret services,
even if they could be wearing some sort of scholar suits. Indeed, they are completely discredited on an international
level, but moreover, they have proven their remarkable inefficiency."
Wow, I'm quite amused to read that people like my friends Mathieu Cossu, Mickael
Tussier, Xavier Martin Dupont or me, we were mercenaries for french secret
services. And I'm waiting indeed from M. Introvigne that he gives me
the complete budget of his association, that could avoid me to keep on allegating that he and his friends are
probably getting important finances from the most criminal cults, like scientology, moon, etc. See the infamous
Jeffrey Hadden memo for proofs.
And we are more amused still to read that few days after the vote of a major
law against cults, in a major country like France which just got 52 on 53 votes for his seat as a human rights
defender in the UN, that after having gotten congratulations or acceptation marks from such people like the President
of the Human Rights League, that after I've (myself) demonstrated times after times some of the Introvigne's lies,
he still dares to qualify us as "inefficient".
Reminding: we started the struggle here decades
after cults did their own well financed campaigns against liberties.
Sure, the french law is one the first steps and results toward international events which will stop the criminal
maffias hiding under "religious" disguises.