The director of the Interstate Cult Information Centre (CIC) has signed a damning indictment against the French government’s anti-cult agency.
Massimo Introvigne
Between 1994 and 1997, a series of suicides and murders were committed in France, Switzerland and Quebec by an esoteric movement known as the “Order of the Solar Temple.” French-speaking countries were particularly shocked, and commissions, public institutions and legislation were created to investigate the “cult.”
France created MILS, which became the current government agency MIVILUDES (Mission to monitor and combat cult deviance, “dérives sectaires”; note that the French word “secte” and its derivatives should be translated into English as “cult” and not “sect”). Switzerland asked each canton to create a special agency: Geneva, Valais, Vaud and Thassin jointly created the Intercantonal Cult Information Centre (CIC), which quickly gained national prominence. Despite their common origins in the debates following the tragedy of the Sun Temple, the two agencies are different: MIVILUDES’ mission is to combat “cult deviance”, while the CIC aims to disseminate more balanced information and allow the Swiss public to form their own opinion.
The current director of the CIC, Maneli Faramand, recently published a two-part article in the French journal Hégel (Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 155-174 and 175-194) together with Fabrice Bernat, a psychiatrist and specialist in alternative therapies, comparing Swiss and French attitudes towards “cult deviance” (dérives sectaires).
Beneath the polite writing style customary in academic journals, the first and second parts of the article contain a scathing critique of the MIVILUDES system, no doubt motivated by the fact that, as mentioned in the text, some Swiss politicians are calling for a more repressive stance against “cults” in Switzerland, following the French example.
The impetus for this article was the recent amendment of anti-cult laws in France to crack down on “cult-like” rejection of alternative medicines, medical treatments, and vaccines. But the Swiss study also offers a broader analysis. It starts from the general observation that whereas Switzerland has traditionally preferred a more neutral approach to religion, France, since the Revolution, has tended to see all religions as “trapping people in superstition and fanaticism” (enfermant les êtres dans la superstition et le fanatisme: p. 158). One consequence is that scholars tend to avoid the term “cult” (secte), and although the alternative designation “new religious movements” has been “adopted internationally” (adoptée à l’international: p. 159) in academic and official jargon (but not in the media), French government documents still use the terms “les sectes” and “dérives sectaires” (cult-like deviations).
Indeed, confusion can arise here. The expression “dérives sectaires” is also used in Switzerland, but with a different meaning, referring to general crimes that criminals claim to have committed because of their religious beliefs. As the article explains, Switzerland agrees that religious motivations do not justify crimes and are not protected by religious freedom. But in France, “dérives sectaires” are not general crimes motivated by religious beliefs. France introduces a “psychological dimension” (dimension psychologique: p. 159) to the concept, considering “dérive sectaire” to be a case in which a belief or practice is promoted through alleged techniques of mind control.
The Swiss experts’ analysis adds a new element by observing a recent “semantic shift” (glissement sémantique, p. 161) in Mivirdes’s writings from “cult deviations” (dérives sectaires) to “risk of cult deviations” (risk of cult deviations). The Swiss authors consider this development dangerous, since the “risk of cult deviations” is almost everywhere, and it is unclear why a mere “danger” justifies the public condemnation and repression of Mivirdes.
In fact, all organizations can be considered to be at “risk” of deviation. The authors write that “since the risk is by definition never zero, any organization (religious, spiritual, political, sports, scientific) can be considered to be at “risk of deviation”. The decision to designate one organization rather than another is based on reasons that have no legal basis and are not methodologically explained for this choice, which is the responsibility of MIVILUDES. However, the decision-making threshold that justifies declaring a group at risk is not clearly specified by MIVILUDES (there is no definition at all, the entire organization is at risk). [religieuse, spirituelle, politique, sportive et même scientifique] It is considered a “dangerous derivation.” The choice of designating a specific non-judicial and methodological motive is an explicit decision by MIVILUDES; or, rather, a just judgment by MIVILUDES against dangerous groups: p. 161). In short, any organization can be accused of “cult deviation,” so who is accused and who is not will be decided by MIVILUDES based on criteria that are not clearly explained.
In response to similar criticism, MIVILUDES has argued that an association is designated as dangerous if it receives a significant number of “requests” about it, the authors point out. The Swiss authors reach a conclusion repeatedly suggested by “Bitter Winter”: “requests” are simply requests for information sent to MIVILUDES. The numbers can be inflated by the activity of opponents of certain associations, by media and MIVILUDES’ own campaigns. The article points out that when governments and media promote cancer prevention campaigns, the number of people who go to the doctor and tell them they are sure they have cancer increases, but this does not indicate that there is an actual increase in cancer cases. In other words, “Saisines are a poor reflection of deviations, whose number varies depending on a large number of parameters unrelated to the deviations demonstrated, first and foremost the communication act of MIVILUDES” (The Saisines act is a very powerful tool used to determine the deviations and their various functions independent of the deviations experienced; in the first place, the communication act of MIVILUDES: p. 165).
Given this methodological criticism, Mivildes’ claim that there has been a sharp increase in “sectarian deviations” since the COVID-19 pandemic is merely an “unfounded sensational claim” (“Non-sensational claims”, p. 165). Swiss experts link this poor methodology to the fact that Mivildes’ staff and consultants do not include scholars specializing in religious studies (there are some, but they come from other disciplines).
Serious questions are raised, which also apply to the sensational statistics spread by MIVILUDES about non-traditional medicines: “This sensationalism has had a strong impact in the media, but given its content, doubts remain. [MIVILUDES] “The agency’s status as a government institution and the way in which data (which nevertheless lacks precision) are interpreted and communicated without critical hindsight. Does it reflect a lack of substantial scientific competence?” (Ce must adhere to the legal regulations of the agency and defend Manière in order to make sensationalist opinions and to be accountable for questioning to influential media. [qui manquent pourtant de précision] There is a need to interpret and communicate, not criticize. Pourrait-il refléter un manque d’expertise scientifique de fond?: p. 166).
In conclusion, “MIVILUDES’s working methods remain opaque” (MIVILUDES’s working methods remain opaque: p. 182). The data presented “lack precision” but “are widely disseminated in the media by a communication that seems to lack critical hindsight” (manquent de précision, sont largement relayées dans les médias par une communication qui semble manquer de recul critique: p. 188). MIVILUDES’ actions reveal rationalist and anti-religious bias, raising the question of how an institution with “limited scientific competence” (competences scientifiques limitées: p. 190) can determine public policy and decide the fate of French citizens who are strongly supported by the French government and accused of “cult deviations”.
