FRANCE: A Swiss criticism of the French MIVILUDES: “Opaque methods & imprecise data”
The Director of the Intercantonal Information Center on Beliefs (CIC), Manéli Farahmand, co-signed with academic psychiatrist and expert of alternative therapies, Fabrice Berna, a severe indictment of the French governmental anti-cult agency.
by Massimo Introvigne
Bitter Winter (26.08.2024) – The suicides and homicides of the esoteric movement Order of the Solar Temple happened in France, Switzerland, and Québec between 1994 and 1997. French-speaking countries were particularly shocked, and commissions investigating “cults,” the creation of public agencies, and laws followed.
France created the MILS, which then became the present-day governmental agency MIVILUDES (Mission for Monitoring and Combating Cultic Deviances, “dérives sectaires”: note that the French “secte” and its derivative words should be translated into English as “cult” and not as “sect”). Switzerland asked Cantons to create ad hoc institutions.The Cantons of Geneva, Valais, Vaud, and Tessin established together the Intercantonal Information Center on Beliefs (CIC), which quickly acquired a national fame. Despite a common origin in the discussions that followed the Solar Temple tragedy, the two institutions are different. The MIVILUDES’ mandate is to crack down on “cultic deviances,” while CIC is more about spreading balanced information and let Swiss citizens form their own opinions by themselves.
Manéli Farahmand, the current Director of the CIC, has recently published a two-part article comparing the attitude to “cultic deviances” (dérives sectaires) in Switzerland and France, co-signed with academic psychiatrist and expert of alternative therapies Fabrice Berna, in the French-language scholarly journal “Hegel” (vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 155–74 and 175–94).
The MIVILUDES’ controversial use of ‘dérives sectaires’ (cult deviances)
Behind the polite style customary in academic journals, the first and the second part of the article include a devastating critique of how the MIVILUDES works, no doubt also motivated by the fact, mentioned in the text, that some Swiss politicians are advocating a more repressive attitude against “cults” in Switzerland based on the French example.
The opportunity for the article comes from the recent amendments to the French anti-cult law to crack down on alternative medicines and the “cultic” refusal of medical therapies and vaccines. However, the Swiss study also offers a broader analysis. It starts from the general observation that Switzerland traditionally favors a more neutral approach to religion, while France since the Revolution has a tendency to perceive all religions as “trapping people in superstition and fanaticism” (enfermant les êtres dans la superstition et le fanatisme: p. 158). One of the consequences is that while scholars tend to avoid the word “cult” (secte) and the alternative designation “new religious movements” is “adopted internationally” (adoptée à l’international: p. 159) in the academic and official language (although not in the media), French governmental documents still speak of “les sectes” and of “dérives sectaires” (cultic deviances).
Here, in fact, a confusion is possible. Switzerland also uses the expression “dérives sectaires,” but with a different meaning, to indicate common crimes that their perpetrators claim they have committed because of their religious beliefs. Switzerland agrees, the article explains, that a religious motivation does not justify crimes, which are not protected by religious liberty. In France, however, “dérives sectaires” are not common crimes motivated by religious beliefs. France has introduced in the concept a “psychological dimension” (dimension psychologique: p. 159) and sees a “dérive sectaire” where beliefs or practices are promoted through alleged techniques of mind control.
The analysis of the Swiss experts introduces an additional element, by observing in recent years in the MIVILUDES literature a “semantic shift” (glissement sémantique: p. 161) from “cultic deviances” (dérives sectaires) to a “risk of cultic deviances” (risque de dėrives sectaires). The Swiss authors regard this development as dangerous, because “risks of cultic deviances” can be spotted almost everywhere. It is also unclear why a mere “risk” should justify the MIVILUDES’ public stigmatization and repression.
In fact, all organizations can be regarded as being “at risk” of deviances. Since, the authors write, “risk is by definition never zero, any organization (religious, spiritual, political, in the field of sport, or even scientific) can be qualified as ‘at risk of deviances.’ The decision to designate one rather than another is based on non-legal and methodologically unexplained reasons for this choice, which is the responsibility of the MIVILUDES; however, the decision-making threshold which justifies declaring a group to be at risk is not clearly specified by the MIVILUDES” (un risque n’étant par définition jamais nul, toute organisation [religieuse, spirituelle, politique, sportive et même scientifique] peut être qualifiée « à risque de dérive ». Le choix d’en désigner une plutôt qu’une autre renvoie aux motivations non juridiques et méthodologiquement peu explicitées de cette décision qui incombe à la MIVILUDES ; or le seuil décisionnel qui justifie de déclarer un groupe comme à risque n’est pas clairement précisé par la MIVILUDES: p 161). In short, since any organization can be accused of “cultic deviances,” who is accused and who is not is decided by the MIVILUDES on the basis of criteria that are not clearly explained.
The MIVILUDES’ controversial use of “saisines” which are simple requests of information
The MIVILUDES has answered similar criticism, the authors note, by claiming that a group is designated as dangerous when the agency has received a significant number of “saisines” about it. The Swiss authors come to a conclusion repeatedly proposed by “Bitter Winter”: the “saisines” are simple requests of information sent to the MIVILUDES. Their number can be inflated by the activities of the opponents of certain groups, or by campaigns by the media or the MIVILUDES itself. The article notes that when governments and media promote campaigns for the prevention of cancer, the number of those who visit doctors and tell them they are persuaded they have cancer increases—but this does not indicate that cases of cancer are actually increasing. In short, “the saisines are a poor reflet of deviances and their number varies according to numerous parameters independent of proven deviances; first and foremost, MIVILUDES’ act of communication” (les saisines sont un mauvais reflet des dérives et leur nombre varie en fonction de nombreux paramètres indépendants de dérives avérées ; en premier lieu, les actions de communication de la MIVILUDES: p. 165).
When this methodological critique is taken into account, the claims by the MIVILUDES that in the COVID years and beyond there has been an explosion of “dérives sectaires” appear just as “unsubstantiated sensationalist allegations” (allégations sensationnalistes non étayées: p. 165). This poor methodology is connected by the Swiss experts with the fact that the MIVILUDES staff and consultants do not include academics specialized in the study of religions (there are academics but they come from other fields).
The MIVILUDES’ controversial sensational statistics
A serious question is thus asked, which also applies to sensational statistics spread by the MIVILUDES about non-conventional medicine: “This sensationalist discourse has a strong media impact, but raises questions given its [MIVILUDES] status as a government institution and the way data (which nevertheless lacks precision) are interpreted and communicated, without critical hindsight. Could it reflect a lack of substantive scientific competence?” (Ce discours sensationnaliste a un fort impact médiatique, mais soulève des interrogations compte tenu de son statut d’institution gouvernementale et de la manière dont les données [qui manquent pourtant de précision] sont interprétées et communiquées, sans recul critique. Pourrait-il refléter un manque d’expertise scientifique de fond ?: p. 166).
In conclusion, “MIVILUDES’ working methods remain opaque” (la méthode de travail de la MIVILUDES reste opaque: p. 182). The data presented “lack precision” although “they are widely relayed in the media by 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). The action of the MIVILUDES reveals a rationalist and anti-religious bias, and raises the question how an agency with “limited scientific competences” (compétences scientifiques limitées: p. 190) can determine public policies, be strongly supported by the French government, and decide on the fate of French citizens liberally accused of “cultic deviances.”
Footnote
The cover picture and the titles in the text are not from Bitter Winter but from Human Rights Without Frontiers.
Manéli Farahmand (left) and Fabrice Berna (right). From X.