Thought Police in France?

Traditional Religious Activity Impeded: According to the bill’s proponents, the bill is supposed to prevent the weak and helpless from being “exploited.” In fact, the bill would make it illegal for religions to help those that they have traditionally helped, i.e., the ill and distraught. Under the bill, any church that gets involved with such people runs the risk of being criminally convicted for this action and then shut down. By way of another example, it has long been the tradition of many religions to preach that people should come and worship their way, and if they don’t, they are condemned for eternity. Under this new law, such statements—in fact, any attempt at persuasive proselytizing—would be punishable.

One of its supporters even declared on the Senate floor in December 1999 that its aim was to dissolve minority religions at a stroke because they are so “skillful” in using judicial procedures to defend themselves.

Tellingly, other legal entities such as political parties or business corporations are not subject to these drastic measures.

In addition to civil dissolution, the bill extends criminal culpability to entities, which meet the conditions for dissolution. It imposes criminal penalties of up to a three-year sentence and 300,000 FF fine for a first offense and 500,000 FF for repeat offenses for any persons participating in the reconstitution of a dissolved religious group. Thus, innocent members who were never officers in a former organization are prohibited, under stiff penal sanctions, from creating a new entity to carry out the purposes of a minority faith and to allow such members to manifest their religion in community with others.

Private Organizations may Initiate Criminal Actions: Another repressive provision allows associations fighting against minority faiths derogatorily designated as “sects” to initiate criminal actions as civil plaintiffs on behalf of affected persons even if the “victims” have no complaint with the organization. In addition, “any association duly classified as being of public interest” organized in its bylaws and articles of incorporation to “defend” and “assist” individuals or protect “collective freedoms” may initiate a civil dissolution action against a religious organization. This will allow anti-religious groups with ingrained prejudices against new and minority faiths to first initiate criminal actions against targeted individuals and organizations, and then initiate dissolution actions. Placing such power in the hands of vested interest groups opposed to minority beliefs will inevitably lead to serious abuse and open the floodgates of suspect litigation. Small religious organizations could easily be forced into bankruptcy.

Opposition to Law: Among the groups who have opposed the bill are: The Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Islamic leaders of France, the U.S. Department of State, International Helsinki Federation, Human Rights Without Frontiers, the Council of Europe (which is investigating the bill and religious discrimination in France), the U.S. International House Relations Committee, International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, Omnium Des Libertes (French human rights group) and the Center for the Study of New Religions (CESNUR).

Catholic and Protestant religious leaders have been particularly outspoken against this legislation. The Protestant Federation leader correctly pointed out that at some point in history, “every religion has been considered a ‘sect.’”

The leaders of the Catholic, Protestant, Islamic and Jewish churches in France all testified before the Law Commission of the Senate that they were concerned that the bill violates fundamental rights. They also met with the Prime Minister in the fall of 2000 to convey these views in person. However, the bill went forward, and the National Assembly Law Commission chose not to hear the religious leaders. A few days before the 30th May vote in the National Assembly, the President of the French Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Protestant Federation president wrote again to the Prime Minister to repeat their warning that the bill could “strike a blow at fundamental liberties.”