Scientology and Germany and Cult

8/8/2019 Scientology and Germany and Cult

1/27

"Brainwashing" Theories in European Parliamentary and Administrative Reports on "Cults"and "Sects"Author(s): James T. Richardson and Massimo IntrovigneSource: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Jun., 2001), pp. 143-168Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of ReligionStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387941Accessed: 27/11/2010 13:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and Society for the Scientific Study of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toJournal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sssrhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1387941?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1387941?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sssrhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/27


3/27

144 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFIC TUDY OFRELIGION

prevalence,rather hanexistence. Most scholarsof new religious movementswouldsubscribe othe conclusion of the Swiss federal reporton Scientology that "the immense majorityof thesegroups ["sects"or "cults"]representsneither a danger to their members nor to the State" (LaScientologie en Suisse 1998:132-33). Few scholars, on the other hand, would agree with theFrench(AssembleeNationale 1996) or Belgian (Chambredes Representants e Belgique 1997)parliamentary eports hat isted dozens of groups-from Mormons o Quakersand Baha'is-as'sects" or "cults"actually,or potentially,dangerous.Moralpanics startwith a basis in reality,butescalate throughexaggerationwhen commentsappropriate o particular ncidents are generalized.This happened in the United States afterJonestown(in 1978) and is currently vident in Europefollowing the Solar Templeincidentsofmurdersand suicides (in 1994, 1995, and 1997), especially as demonstrated y so manyofficialreportson new religions, or "cultsand sects." It is in the escalation, rather hanthe creation,of moralpanics thatmoralentrepreneurswith vested interestsenter the picture. They includedifferentanti-cultmovements, some of which currentlyreceive considerablepublic support nsome European ountries.

"TYPE I" OFFICIALREPORTSON "SECTS" AND "CULTS" IN WESTERN EUROPE

Within this context, some Europeanparliamentary nd other official reports generatedinthe wake of the SolarTempleincidents haveadoptedan interpretivemodel thatoffers a virtualguarantee f inflating, ather handeflating,moralpanics."Type "(Introvigne 000)officialdocu-ments,which includethe Frenchreports AssembleeNationale 1996 and1999),theBelgianreport(ChambredesRepresentants e Belgique 1997), largepartsof the Cantonof Genevareport Auditsur les de-ives sectaries 1997) and of the same Canton'sreporton brainwashing Commissionpenalesurles derives sectaries1999),thedeliberations f the FrenchPrime Minister's"Observa-toryof Sects"(Observatoirenterministerielur es Sectes 1998)andof its successor, he MissiontoFightAgainstSects(MILS2000)alladoptafour-stagenterpretivemodel,describedas follows:1. Cultsor Sects are Not Religions. First,themodel claims that someminorityreligiousgroupsare not really "religions"but somethingelse: namely,"cults"and "sects."The two wordsare used almostinterchangeablyn Europe,withthe wordequivalent o "sect" e.g., secte inFrench,setta in Italian,or sektein German)beingthe most derogatoryn several anguages.Becausereligiouslibertyis recognizedin WesternEuropeas a value oftenconstitutionallysafeguardedincludingbyinternationalreatiesanddeclarations),he bestwayto discriminateagainsta religiousminorityis to arguethatit is not religiousat all (Dillon andRichardson

1994;Barker1996; Introvigne1999c).As sociologist LarryGreilsays, religionis "aculturalresourceover whichcompeting nterestgroupsmayvie. Fromthisperspective, eligionis notanentitybut a claim madeby certaingroupsand-in some cases-contested by othersto therightof privilegesassociated n a given society withthereligiouslabel"(Greil1996:48).2. Brainwashingand Mind Control.Second, since religion is usually definedas an exerciseof free will, it is arguedthat a nonreligioncan be joined only under some sort of co-ercion, which is quite often couched in brainwashing-likeerms. The hypnoticparadigmused against Mormonism,the Shakers,and other groups by 19th centurycountercultists(Miller 1983) resurfaced-after the Cold War had conveniently suppliedthe metaphorof"brainwashing"-inthe 1970s "cult wars" n the United Statesand elsewhere(RobbinsandAnthony 1982;Anthony,Robbins,andMcCarthy1983;Richardson ndKilbourne1983). Bythe end of the 1980s, the first "crude" heoriesof brainwashinghadbeen largelydebunkedamongEnglish-speakingcholars Barker1984;Anthony 1990;Richardson1993, 1996a),al-thoughneo-brainwashingheorieshave beenproposedmorerecently,andthesituationcouldchange.2However, hesecrudebrainwashingheoriescontinueto informTypeI reportsdoneby Europeangovernmental gencies, as will be shown (see Anthony 1999,especially).3. Apostates.Third,because brainwashingheoriesare the object of considerable cholarlycrit-icism, themodel requiresdiscrimination n terms of sourcesand narratives.The Frenchand


4/27

BRAINWASHINGTHEORIES N EUROPE 145

Belgian reports make little, or no, use of scholarly sources. The Belgian report explicitlystates that it is aware of scholarly objections against the mind controlmodel, but has madethe "ethical" hoice of preferring he actual accountsof "victims."By "victims," he BelgianCommission means people usually definedby social scientists as "apostates,".e., formermembers who have become active opponentsof the group they left, and who develop "ac-counts" of their involvement that cast their former group in a negative light (Richardson,van der Lans, and Derks 1986; Bromley 1998). The prevalenceof apostatesamong formermembers s certainlyno morethan10 or 20 percent,dependingon the movement (Solomon1981; Lewis 1986, 1989; Introvigne 1999a). Most ex-membersusuallyare not interested njoininga crusadeagainstthegrouptheyhaveleft, butthemodel usually regardsapostatesasadequaterepresentatives f the totallargercategoryof formermembers.4. Anti-CultOrganizations."Cults"or"sects,"we aretold,are notreligionsbecause they applybrainwashing echniques,whereas religions by their very natureare "free"and people mayjoin or leave them at will. We know that "cults" and "sects" use brainwashingbecausewe have the testimoniesof their "victims" (i.e., apostates).We know that "apostates"arerepresentative f the groups' general membershipbecausethey arehand-pickedby reliablewatchdog organizations,groups referred o by scholarsas "anti-cult"ShupeandBromley1994). Anti-cultorganizations,prominentn all TypeIreports,are,we are told, more reliablethanacademicsbecause the former,unlike the latter,have "practical" xperience actuallyworkingwith the "victims."Thisfour-stagemodelplaysanimportantole inperpetuatinghemoralpanicaboutcultsandsects, and is ratherstrictlyadhered o in official documentsand institutions hroughoutFrench-speaking Europe.Of particularnote in all these Type I reports s the lynch-pinrole played by

brainwashing-typeheories. Without his ideological device, the reportswould be considerablyweaker n both claims and recommendations.After contrastingTypeIIreports,we will examineuse of brainwashing onceptsin bothtypesof reports o see whether he two typesof reportsaresimilar n use of such ideas.

"TYPE II" REPORTS

ScholarlycriticismdirectedagainstTypeIreports see Introvigneand Melton1996)seems tohave exertedsome influence n othercountries.We have seen"Type I"(Introvigne2000) reportspublishedin 1998 by the GermanParliament DeutscherBunderstag-13. Wahlperiode1998),the ItalianMinistryof Home Affairs(Ministerodell'Interno1998), the Swiss Cantonof Ticino(Dipartimento elle Istituzioni,Repubblicae Cantonedel Ticino 1998),a governmentalSwedishCommission(1998) that investigatednew religious movements, and, in 1999, by the Councilof Europe (Councilof Europe-Committee on Legal Affairs and HumanRights 1999) and bya commissionof the Swiss Parliament Commissionde gestion du ConseilNational 1999). Wewould includethegeneralparton "sects"of theSwiss reporton Scientologyin the largerTypeIIcategory,as well as the Bergerreportpresented o, but not adoptedby, the EuropeanParliament(EuropeanParliament,Committee on Civil Liberties and InternalAffairs 1997). These reportsdiffer from each otherandaresubjectto considerabledebateandcriticism,buttheydo notapplythe same TypeI model andtheyconcentratemore attentionon academicfindings.Forexample,they generally acknowledgethat:1. It is extremelydifficultto define such termsas "cult"and"sect,"or"religion," ndit maynotbe theprovinceof secularstatesto attemptsuch definitions.2. Although here s concernthat somereligiousmovementsmayexert excessive psychologicalpressureson theirmembers,it is generallyunderstood hat there is no agreement amongscholarson the definitionof "brainwashing" r "mindcontrol."

3. Militant ex-members are not viewed as the only reliable source of informationabout thegroups.Those who reportpositive experiencesshouldalso be heard theSwedish reportnotes


5/27

146 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFIC TUDY OFRELIGION

that "thegreatmajorityof membersof newreligious movementsderive positiveexperiencesfrom theirmembership"-1998:?1.6),as well as scholars.4. Privateanti-cultorganizationsmay performa legitimate unctionbut,as theCantonof Ticinoreport puts it, the governmentsshould not supportthem to the point of "co-operating nspreadingprejudices" reven a sort of "anti-culterrorism"terrorismo antisetta).Type II reportsrepresentmoreacceptanceof scholarlywork when comparedwith TypeIreports,and prove that cooler tempers can prevail. However, TypeII reportsare still uncertainconcerning he use of brainwashing/mind ontrolmetaphors,andmost containsuggestionsthatproblems remainin the area of recruitmentand retentiontechniques,and that such problemsshould be attended o by governmental uthorities.AN ASSESSMENTOF "BRAINWASHING" ND "MIND CONTROL" DEAS IN THEREPORTS

Richardson 1996a) examined the uses made of brainwashingmetaphors n legal contextsaroundthe globe, such as before the EuropeanCourtof Human Rights, as well as in severalcountries, ncludingSpain,Argentina,Australia,andRussia,wheresuch ideashad been discussedin courtand even included njudgmentsrenderedby the courts.He noted thatbrainwashingdeashad become an important ocial and culturalexport of the United States, andthat the conceptshad permeatedmanyculturesaround he world, as those societies grappledwith the spreadofnew religiousgroups.While not alwayssuccessfully appliedwithin legal contexts, brainwashingnotions were spreadaround he worldas partof the culturalarsenalused in attempts o exercisesocial controlover these new phenomena hat were troublesome o some parentsas well as topolicy makersandpoliticians.Sincethat1996law reviewarticle herehasdevelopedwithinanumberof European ocietiesmore concernabout henewreligions,concern hathasmanifested tself,asnoted,ina numberofofficialreportsdoneon theallegedmenaceposedbysuch movements.Thereportsnquestionwereissued overarelativelyshortperiodof time.Therefore,t is significant hat heredoes seem to be asignificant hift n thetenorof thereports.TheTypeIreports,which arethe mostegregious ntermsof theiracceptanceof ananti-cultperspective, he ignoringof scholarship, ndrecommendations,includethe ones fromFrance January 0, 1996), Belgium (April28, 1997),theCantonof Geneva"general" eport May 24, 1997),a secondreport romFrance ocusingon financesof thegroups(June 10, 1999),andtheCantonof Genevareporton brainwashing 1999). We will discuss somerecentdevelopments n France,as new laws arebeing soughtthatimplementthe "findings"ofFrenchreports,and we will also examinebrieflysomechangesin theSpanish aw related o newreligions,since the changes apparentlyderivedirectlyfrom influenceof the Frenchdebates.TypeII reportsexamined here include the reportof the Swedishgovernmental ommission(October1998), the Swiss reporton Scientology (July 1998), the reportof the GermanEnqueteCommission(June 19, 1998), the ItalianPolice Report (April 29, 1998), the Councilof Europereport June22, 1999), and the Swiss Parliament'sCommissionon Management eport July 1,1999).As indicated, he guidingidea of this studyis thatthereis one significantarea where all thereports,althoughsomewhatdifferent n tone,sharea similarperspective.That concernsconceptsanalogous o thederogatoryerms"brainwashing"nd "mindcontrol" o often usedinthe UnitedStatesas socialweaponsagainstnewerreligions.We will discussbothtypesof reports o illustratethis similarity.Type I Reports and Brainwashing

Certainlythe two reportsfrom France(in turn influentialon Spanishdevelopments)andBelgium are pervadedwith the imagery of psychological manipulationand coercion, as is thereport romthe Cantonof Geneva.Manypagesin the reportsaredevoted o the various echniquesallegedlyused to recruitmembersandretain hem. Indeed,some of the mostproblematic ections


6/27


of those reportsare devoted to suchtopics.The second Frenchreport,while not spendingmuchtime on brainwashingper se, does use the concept as a majorjustification or the conclusionsand recommendationsof the report.The Cantonof Genevareporton brainwashing akes forgranted he generalstructure f the previousFrenchand Genevareports,andgoes on to proposespecificanti-brainwashingegislation.Some discussion will be offered of eachreport n termsofits treatment f terms, concepts,andprocessesanalogousto the Americanizedbrainwashing ndmind control notions.FrenchReportI

This firstFrenchreport vokedanoutcry rom scholarsaround heworld.Itpresenteda litanyof anti-cultdiatribeunderthe guise of an officialparliamentary ocumentsupposedlybased onobjectivestudy.Thatthis is not the case is obvious to even the most casual observer.Wewill notrecountall the criticisms of this report(see Introvigneand Melton 1996), butwill instead focusjuston what s said aboutrecruitment ndmaintenance f participants,o give a flavorof thelogicand theories thatundergirdhiskey aspectof the report.3Thereport eliesheavilyon the ideas of noted Frenchanti-cultistJean-MarieAbgrall,a well-known anti-cultpsychiatrist n privatepracticein France(for a critiqueof Abgrall'sideas, seeAnthony1999). Abgrallis quotedas saying (p. 42):

The recruitment f the adeptundergoes hreephases,from which adhesionwill progressivelybe attained,andat the same time an intellectualand effectiveformof dependencywill appear.Step by stepthe new adeptwillbe seduced,persuaded,andthenfascinatedby the sect andits recruitingmembers.

The first phase of recruitment s evidently one of seduction.It focuses on a seductive alternative o thedifficultiesof everyday ife ....The seductionprinciple requiresthat the initial contactbe destinedto promotethe identificationprocessbetween the recruiter nd the recruit ...

After noting that these techniquesare used by many in different walks of life, and that"everybodymanipulates verybodyelse,"we read this startling tatement:We shall see that hedangersof thepersuasiondiscourseusedbythe sects do not dependas muchon thetechniquesused, but ratheron the consequencesof adhesionthat result.

Anothercomponentof theadhesionprocess,according o thereport, s "fascination," evel-oped during hemanymeetingsandactivities nwhich thepotentialrecruithas beeninvolved.Thereport hen admitsthat there s a volitional element to participationp. 43), with an interpretationof thatvoluntarinessas follows: "Thesects are not a net that falls upon people, but a web intowhichtheyend up."Laterin the Frenchreport(pp. 90-91) a discussion is offered concerninglegal means toaddressthe threatposed by sects andcults. A caution is offeredthat,"Forobviousreasons, therepressionof mentaldestabilization ractices s particularly elicate ..." Nonetheless,some legaltools aredescribed, he most interestingof which is describedas follows:

[T]henew Penal Code . . . contains a new incrimination usceptible o becominga supplementaryudicial meansto fight againstthepracticesof certainsectarianmovements.It is article313-4, in which the terms"thefraudulentabuse of a state of ignorance,or a situationof weakness,be it a minor,be it a personwho is particularly ulnerabledue to age, due to illness, due to physicalor psychologicaldeficiencyor a state of pregnancy, s apparent r dueto this individual, o force this minoror this vulnerablepersonto commit an act orto an abstention hat s gravelyprejudicial o him, is punishedby threeyearsof jail anda 2,500,00 F penalty.

This new law, which seems somewhat ike Americanconservatorshipaws designed mainlyto protectelderly people approachingsenility, shows little respect for humanagency, similarto classical brainwashing heories (Richardsonand Kilbourne1983). It is being proposedfor


7/27

148 JOURNALFOR THESCIENTIFIC TUDY OF RELIGION

use against those who would recruit for new and minority faiths.4The proffer seems basedon an assumptionthat no person in their right mind would choose to join such a group, sothey must be sufferingfroma mental defect of some sort if they participate.And that defect iscaused by the recruiter.Thus, a brainwashing-likenterpretations offered to undergird his newlaw, so that it might be used in the currenteffort to exert social control over cults and sects inFrance.

Amendments o the Spanish CriminalCodeIn Europe, herehavebeen severalpre-SolarTempleofficialreportson sects andcults. Notable

for its moderationwas the Dutch reportof 1984 (Witteveen1984).Although ess moderate,andintroducing he notionof "destructive ult,"a Spanishreportof 1989 did not recommendnew anti-cultlegislation(see Motilla1999:328-30). Infact, Spanishcourtsrepeatedly ound n favorof theChildrenof God/TheFamily (Motilla 1999), notwithstanding uridpress campaignsexposing itas abrainwashing, hild-abusing ult.Afterthe firstSolarTemple ragedy,however, he decisionsin favorof The Family and othergroups(Richardson1996a) were subject o increasingcriticism,as evidencing an alleged "legalvacuum" n Spanishlaw when it was thought necessary to actagainst"destructiveults."The new SpanishCriminalCode (1995) thus introduced section 515no. 3 regardingas illicit an associationthat"evenwhen havinglicit ends, uses violent methodsor alteration and controlof thepersonalityin orderto pursuesuch ends."Being a founder,anofficer,a member,or even a "collaborator" f an "illicit association" s a criminaloffense, andthe association tself is subjectto dissolution(Motilla1999:338).

The reference o "alteration nd control of the personality"hides a notion of brainwashing,as evidenced by the District Attorney (D.A.) (Fiscal) of Tenerife, Canary Islands, in a 1999case thathe hopes will become a landmark xampleof prosecutingan association accused ofpracticing"alteration ndcontrolof thepersonality" f its members.TheD.A. statesthatthenewprovision ntroducedn the CriminalCoderepresentsan"in-depthmodification" f Spanish awandoffers thepossibilityof prosecutinga "destructive ult"whose featuresare"groupdynamic,""hypnoticprocedures" "turninghe attentionof the member rom outsideto inside"),and"mindcontrol"(Casanovas 1999:1-2). The case refers to the AtmanFoundation originallya splintergroupfrom the BrahmaKumaris)and made international eadlines on January8, 1998 when itwas announced hat the Canary slandspolice hadpreventeda mass suicide of "a branchof theSolarTemple"by arresting ts leader,Germanmotivational peakerHeide Fittkau-Garthe,nda numberof followers. During subsequentmonths,the case disappearedrom the internationalmedia.At the local level, it was clarified hatthe AtmanFoundationhas nothingto do with theSolarTemplebut, according o afamilyof disgruntledGerman x-members,maybe "justas bad."Police investigationsn Germany ailedto detectanyevidencethatthe Foundationwaspreparinga masssuicide.However, he accusation s maintainednSpainat thetimeof thiswriting, ogetherwith some others,althoughno trial has been scheduled.FollowingarequestbytheD.A.,the udgeinchargeaskeda Mr.Eloy Rodriguez-Valdeso sub-mit an expert report on "whether the group may be regarded as a destructive cult."Mr.Rodriguez-Valdes escribeshimselfas "apsychologist,sexologist,andexperton destructivecults" n privatepractice n Bajamar,Tenerife,Canary slands.He concludes thatthe Foundationis a destructive ult andpractices"brainwashing"lavadode cerebro).He submits20 criteria obe used to distinguishbetweena "religion" nda "destructive ult"routinelyusing brainwashing.The firstis that"religionshave a history,an antiquity,a social evolution.Theyare not foundedovernight,"while destructive ults "haveno history,nor tradition"Rodriguez-Valdes 999:35).Second, religions"partake f cultureand society-they are the resultof history"whereasde-structivecults "have nothing to do with history,much less are a result of it." Third, "membersare free to accept or reject the content or dogma of a religion,"whereas the "adept s underthe


8/27


obligationof believing, practicingand spreading he doctrineand belief of a destructivecult"(Rodriguez-Valdes 999:36).Thereare,as mentionedearlier,17othercriteria,but the firstthreearerepresentativenoughof how platitudes, naccuracies aremembersof a religionby definition ree to "reject ts contentordogma"?),andvaluejudgmentsarepassedoff as psychologicalor scientificconclusionsaboutmindcontrol,brainwashing, nddestructive ults.For purposesof our study it is not relevantwhether the leaders of the AtmanFoundationareguiltyof crimes otherthanpromotingan associationthatis considered llicit because it uses"alteration ndcontrol of the personality" i.e., brainwashing). t is the evidenceofferedby theexpertfor this lattercrime,andthe comments of the prosecutor, hat areparticularlydisturbingin relationboth to the incrimination f brainwashingperse andto the use of professional"cult-busters"as expertsappointedby the courts.

BelgianReportThe Belgian report,which is the most slanted of all the recent officialreports,discusses atlength the concept of "mentalmanipulation" nd offers a lengthy summaryof RobertLifton's1963 classic, ThoughtReformand thePsychology of Totalism,althoughno critiquesof Lifton'swork(or the ways it has been applied)werementioned(see Anthony1990, 1999). Nor does theBelgianreport ake intoaccountthedifferencesbetween Lifton's ownwork andthe use of Liftonby Margaret ingerandotheranti-cultauthors;helatterand Lifton arequotedtogetheras if theirtheorieswere one and the same(Richardson1993, 1996a).Thetreatment f Lifton in theBelgianreport s a typicalanti-cultapplicationof some of his ideasto contemporaryeligiousgroups.The discussionof "PersuasionStrategiesandIndoctrination"s especiallyrevealing of theattitudesunderlying heBelgianreport.Onequote will illustrate:

Thedetrimentalectarian rganizationsry to influence heirmembersandtheirgroups n thesocietywith theaim to establishcertainopinionsandinstitutionsby biased intensivepsychological means. An essentialelementin this context is indoctrination;he disciples aremadedependenton the group n diverse ways. The membersofthegroupmust be submissiveandmadedependent o answer hetotalitarian eedsof thegroupand ts chief. Withthe help of adequatepsychologicalmethods the groupand its chief focus on becoming masterof the conscienceof members.To this effect, it is startling o realize thatthe members have no conscience of being manipulated,and thattheydo not thereforedevelop anyappropriate efense strategy.Witnesses heardby the investigatingcommission havediscussedmentalmanipulation,mentaldestabiliza-tion, psychological alienation,moralviolence, attemptsat the autonomyof the will, of mentaldislocation, ofdepersonalization, rainwashing,ndoctrination,mental andpersonalitydestruction. vol. II,p. 141)

TheBelgianreportalso attempts o explainawaycriticismsofferedby IntrovigneandMelton(1996), including hechapterby Richardson 1996b) critiquingbrainwashingheories.Thereportcloses with recommendations or some new penal provisions, includingone to make illegal"theabuse of a situationof weakness,"which is the provision takenfromthe Frenchpenalcodediscussedearlier.Apparently,his aw, written o protectminorsand hosewithmentaldeficiencies,is now recommended or application n Belgiumto peoplewho participaten sects andcults.Of special concernin the Belgian reportis anotherrecommendationof "a prisonterm ofup to five yearsand/ora fine for those who use beatings,violence andthreats,orpsychologicalmanipulationto persuadean individual about the existence of false undertakings, maginarypowers, and imminentfantasticalevents"(p. 224 in the Belgian report).Such a sternpenaltycould only derive from a belief thatthere were indeedtechniquesthatwere all-powerfulwhenused in recruitingby newer faiths.(See Fautre1999 for moreon theBelgiumreport.)It is howeverinteresting o note that the Observatory reated n Belgium to watch"harmfulcults" has adopteda much more moderateapproach han its Frenchcounterpartand appearswilling to cooperatewith internationalcholars.


9/27

150 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFIC TUDY OF RELIGION

Cantonof Geneva ReportAnotherTypeI report, rom the Cantonof Geneva,while more moderate n tone than hose ofFranceand Belgium, does contain recommendations or new statutes hat are obviously derivedfrom an acceptanceof brainwashing iews about participation.One such recommendation s topromoteSwiss federal egislation making mind controla federalfelony.The reportclaims (p. 268), after discussing activities not legally problematic, hat "certainreprehensiblebehaviorhas nonetheless escaped the law,"and then recommendsa new crime of

"mentalmanipulation," ith thefollowing attributes:a. Ifpsychicaldestabilization f membersortheirmentalmanipulation aveas consequencesattempts n their

physical integrityor freedom,we can ... consider nstitutingpenal procedures o restrainharmor coercion ....[T]he existence of injury s not an absoluteconditionof action .... We should remember hat in the Swiss

penallaw .. . the attempt o commit an act is punishable, ven thoughthe executionof the act was interrupted rthe culpable activityhas runits course withoutneverthelessreachingthe desiredresult. We can imagine in themeantime,with particular eference o brainwashing, hatthe groupor its leadership annot be prosecuteddue tothe lackof observableevidence of attemptson physical integrityor that a person hasbeendeprivedof his liberty.

b. We know thatthe notion of brainwashingwas born after the Koreanwar, from the treatments nflicteduponthe Westernprisonersof war.Thisexpressionsymbolizes today the intensive ndoctrination f a personwiththe aim to produce he total loss of contactwithreality.In this context the victim weakensby loweringhis level orreactionandsuppressinghis defenses. To thisend,the victimwill be subjected, orexample, orepeating ounds orextendedhours, o fooddeprivation,orepeatedphysicalexercisesof shortduration. . andother ormsof intensiveandprolongedstress .... This conditioningaims to erasethe ideas andconceptsof the person, presenting heseto him as being synonymouswith "sin"or as negativeelementsthat have hinderedhis harmoniousdevelopment.

Thereport tates hat t is difficult o establishcoercion n caseswheretheperson s avoluntaryparticipantand there is no threatof serious injuryor violence, and then says: "We would onlyestablish thatthe freedom of the memberhas been violated."Then,aftercommentingthatit isdifficultto assess attemptson thepsychical integrityof a person,thereportstates:Nevertheless tdoesn't seem reasonable o adhere o this simpleaffirmation nd to answer o familymemberswhoareworriedabout the fate of theperson being involved n dangerous ectarianmovements hatone must wait forthe incidenceof an attempton his physicalor psychical integrity n orderto act and removehim fromongoingdestabilizationmaneuvers.

After lamenting he difficultyof jurists operatingwithout medical definitionsor legislatorswho cannotsimply decreea norm since it wouldbe hardto enforce withoutexpertsto observethemental destabilization tate of members, hereportstates:

Nevertheless this does not hinder reflection.We could alternatively, ue to the lack of possibility of producinga medicaldefinition,consider the enactmentof a statute hat would focus on the actionsof individualsaimed atachievingthe mental destabilization. t would repressbehaviors hat,taken ndividually,wouldnot fall under helaw. This normcould describecertainknowntechniquesand define the illegalaims.It could be consideredas partof thegroupof statutes hatprotect reedom.This norm couldallow,in cases where constraints inapplicable ndwherephysical injurycannotbe observed, nterventionduring he destabilizationprocess.

These ideas are then given more specificity in a later section of the Geneva report byMr.Harari,a lawyer.This section of the report s entitled,"RecommendationsRelative to thePenal Repressionof Certain Cultic Activities."The recommendationsuse the term "victim"throughouto refer to a recruitor participant, nd, also, termssuchas brainwashing nd mentalmanipulation nd mentaldestabilizationare usedcasuallyas if they representacceptedfactsandprocesses.Oneparticularly oteworthypassagein Mr. Harari's ection states:

If such a normcould be adopted, he fraudulent buseof the stateof ignoranceor of a weakenedstate of the victimcould be punished .. where the acts or omissions thatcould result would gravely prejudice he victim. (p. 294)


10/27


Mr.Harari oes on to recommend hat"associationsand defensegroups" anti-cultorganiza-tions)be allowed to assist victims of "culticactivities" n legal procedures,apparentlybasinghisargumenton thehelplessnessof saidvictimsafter theirparticipationn the group.This seems tobe ajustification orallowingsuchgroups egal standing o initiateactionsonbehalfof membersof "cults"even whenthe latterhaveno intentionor desire to sue.

SecondFrenchReportThe second French report(issued on June 10, 1999) shows that the Frenchparliamenthasnot beenresponsive o critiquesof scholarsof its firstreportor of otherTypeI reports.Therefore,unlike other more recentreports,which we categorizeas Type II,the second Frenchreport sTypeI, given thevirulentanti-cultperspectivedemonstratedhroughout.The second report ocuses on financesof religiousminorities,but still findsa wayto bring nbrainwashing laims in a significantmanner. t representsanothermajoreffortby MPsJacquesGuyard,authorof the 1996 Frenchreportwho chaired heparliamentaryommissionthatdraftedthe secondreport,and Jean-PierreBrard,a memberof the FrenchgovernmentalMission to FightAgainstthe Cults(established n 1998) who is noted for strong opinionson these mattersand isthe authorof the 1999 document.The report s divided into threeparts,the first of whichoffersgeneralcommentson the situationconcerningsects in Franceand in Europe.We aretold againof the potentialharmof suchgroups,and the effortsneededto controlthem, including addingafew more to the list of sects andcultspublished n thefirstFrenchreport Anthroposophy nd theRosicrucianorderAMORC,for instance,are now definedas dangerousandplacedon the list).

This section is conspiratorialn its overallflavor,and even contains a referenceto the scholarlyassociationCESNUR (of which one of the authors s managing director)as a possible majororganizationn an international ro-cultconspiracy.The second section gives considerabledetail about finances of the groups, discussinghowthey gain funds for theiroperations,and offeringa typology of sorts,based on perceptionsofwealth of the groups (Jehovah'sWitnessesand Scientologyarerankedat the top). This sectionalso presentssome trulydisturbingmaterial n that it reportson individualcontributions o thegroups,andnamesnames,eventhough hose listed as giving money ocertaingroupshave brokenno law in so doing. Those producing he reportareprotected rom legal action since this is anofficialparliamentary eport,butin virtuallyany othercivilized society such informationwouldnot be allowed to be published.6The third section of the reportdeals with possible crimesrelatedto finances of the groups.In its conclusionsection,there arerecommendations or otheractivities by the Mission to FightCults,7more cooperationwith anti-cultgroups, and anti-cult initiativesby otherbranchesofgovernment.The report,since it containslittle evidence of actual aw breaking,must depend onotherlogic for its quite significantconclusions.Itfinds its justification by referring to the oldstand-by,brainwashing lavagede cerveau),called heremindcontrol(manipulationmentale).Cults, althoughtypically not breaking any laws, can be identified because they employbrainwashing.While otherreligious organizations eceivemoneyandpay salaries o leaders outof freewill, cults,"whose use of mind controlcertainlydoes notneed further vidence"(p. 187),will use brainwashingo persuade heir"victims" o contributemoney.Whileotherorganizationsobtainvolunteerworkbymembers,cults "abuse henotionof volunteerwork" incethey persuademembers o workthrougha "modern orm of slavery foundedon mind control" p. 176).Thereportalso urgesreexamination f the recommendation n the 1996report hatno anti-brainwashingaws be considered,and that the Mission to Fight Cults should conducta studyof possible new statutes.Thus, the second Frenchreport clearly demonstrateshow claims ofbrainwashingare used to undergird ecommendations nd conclusions that otherwise couldnotbe justified.


11/27


DraftLaw bySenatorAbout n FranceOn December 16, 1999, the FrenchSenate unanimouslyapproveda draft law introduced

by Mr. Aboutamending the FrenchLaw of January10, 1936 andcertainother laws. The Lawof January10, 1936 was introduced o providefor the dissolutionor winding-up,and ban, ofcombatant at thattime, mostly right-wing)anti-government rganizationsand privatemilitiasby a decree of the government.Cults,or "sects,"will now be included.The discussionin thesenate was introducedunder he heading"FightingCults" Luttecontreles Sectes), and cultsaretheaim of the law approvedon December16, 1999 (although n theend theword"cult"was notintroducedn the law,andthusthe lawcouldbe usedagainstothergroupsaswell). Thediscussionmadeclearthatthe anti-cultactivists n the senateare unhappyabouta numberof legal decisions"favorableo cults"and wouldlike to offer the governmenta way to bypassthe judiciary.Article 1 allows the government o dissolve organizationsandgroups thathavebeen foundguilty at least twice of a varietyof criminaloffenses and are "regarded s a troublefor publicorderor a majordanger for humanpersonality."The senate discussion made clear thatboththe "trouble or public order"and the "danger or human personality"referto the criteria oridentifying"dangerous ults"in the 1996 report(wheremind controlhad a key role), andthatthe list of "dangerouscults" in that reportwill be an importantpoint of reference. Article 2takes care of the fact that in recent cases (involving,particularly,he Churchof Scientology)certainleaders or membersof the movement but not the movementper se were found guiltyof particularwrongdoings.Under Article 2, organizationsand movements may now be foundguiltyof a numberof crimesas corporatebodies.Even if thisdoes nothappen, he secondpartofArticle 1 allows the dissolutionand ban of groups"dangerous or humanpersonality"whosemanagersor "defactoleaders"have been foundguilty,at leasttwice,of thesamecrimes.Specialprovisionsmakeitparticularlyit fora banthe fact of havingbeenfoundguiltyof breachesof thePublicHealthCode, and this (as the printeddiscussionclarifies)is aimed at groupspracticing,in a way regardedas hazardous o publichealth,faithhealingor otheralternativeso orthodoxmedicine.Finally,Article3 amendsthe 1901 law on the associations,increasing o threeyearsof jail anda fineof F 300,000 the penaltyfor those who tryto reconstitutea bannedassociationunderanothername.As a memberof the senate (Mr. Foucaud)observed,the law of 1936 "was used by the[pro-Nazi]Vichy regime"and "left-wingmovementswere banned."He also observedthatthereference o at leasttwo criminalverdictsagainsta movement or an enormousvarietyof crimesand wrongdoingsmayhaveparadoxical ffects:"a movementmaybe dissolvedbecausea leaderhas been foundtwice guiltyof writingbad checks for 10 dollars" Luttecontreles sectes 1999:column40). Nevertheless,all the senatorsvoted unanimously n favor of the draft law. In fact,mindcontrolandbrainwashingwouldagainplayakeyrole since notallmovementswhose leadershave been found guilty of criminaloffenses would be banned,but only those accusedof being"dangerousor humanpersonality."Approvalby the lowerchamber, heNationalAssembly,was neededafterthe senate'sunan-imous vote. The senatorshad noted thatthe problemfor Franceis the international ituation,and the U.S. Department f State,"which includesScientologists" Luttecontre les sects 1999:column 35) was singled out for its activitieson behalf of religious liberty.In fact, the Frenchgovernment tself appeared o be quiteconcernedaboutpossible international onsequencesiftheAbout actwaspassed,anddelayeda vote in the assemblybecauseof suchconcerns,untilthenew Picarddraft aw,in fact superseding heAboutdraft,was introduced.ThePicardDraftLaw in France(2000)

A new Frenchanti-cult draftlaw datedMay 30, 2000 and unveiledon June 6, 2000 wasauthoredby MP Ms CatherinePicardand signedby all FrenchSocialistMembersof theNational


12/27


Assembly.It was approvedby the Commissionof Law of the Assembly on June 14, 2000 andwas passedunanimouslyon June 22 in the NationalAssembly.This extremelyrapidhandlingofsuch a controversialmeasure is itself a sign of how stronglysome elements of Frenchgovern-ment feel about nontraditionaleligiousgroups.At the time of thiswriting,the law,afterseveralamendments,awaitsfinalapproval o become effective.8The SocialistParty s the partyof France'sPrimeMinister.The NationalAssembly,if any-thing, made the draftlaw worse by changingthe perimeter rom a school, hospital,or similarlocation where "cults"cannotoperatefrom 100 to 200 meters (makingit impossiblefor suchgroups to operatealmosteverywhere),allowingcities to deny buildingpermissionsto so-calledcults andallowing privateanti-cultorganizations o promoteandbecome parties n courtcasesagainst hem. Theseamendmentswereapprovedagainst heopinionof thegovernmenttself,andelicited strongreactionsby humanrightsorganizationsand the mainlinechurches CatholicandProtestant).As aresult,JusticeMinisterElizabethGuigoucalled for a"pause" ndareexaminationbefore the law is approvedby the senate.Thedraft aw originallycontained11articles,derived n part rom severalformerproposals,includingthe one by SenatorAbout. Themainfeaturesof the draft aw were as follows:1. Article 1 provides for the dissolutionof a corporationor associationwhose activities have"thegoal or effect to createor to exploit the state of mental orphysicaldependenceof peo-ple who areparticipating n its activities"andthatinfringe"humanrights andfundamentalliberties,"whenthisassociation,or its managers orde factomanagers)havebeen convicted"several imes"(howmany times is not specified)for offenses such as fraud, llegalpracticeof medicine, and several othercriminaloffenses. The introductionmakes it clear that thiscombinationof mindcontrol, nfringement f "human ights,"and"several" riminalconvic-

tions is the definitionof a "sect"or"cult" now regardedas legally workable.Theprocedureof dissolution s judicial and can be introducedbeforea civil courtby the localprosecutororby any person who has an interest n thematter including,apparently, nti-cultists).2. Articles2 to 5 createcorporate riminal iabilityforcorporations rassociations alling underArticle 1 in cases whereonly personal iabilityexisted.3. Article6 lays out the punishment or anypersonwho participatesn the reconstitution f acorporation r association hathasbeendissolved-a three-yearprisontermandaF 300,000fine. Article7 calls for the reneweddissolution of an associationthat has been reestablishedafter a firstdissolution.4. Article 8 forbids the setting up of any offices, seat, church,advertisement,or advertisingactivityby sects(i.e., theassociationsandgroupsdefinedunderArticle1) withintheperimeterof 200 meters(as amendedby the assembly)from a hospital,a retirementhouse, a publicor privateinstitutionof prevention,curing,or caring,or any school for 2- to 18-year-oldstudents.If this interdictions violated,the sentenceis two years' imprisonmentand a fineof F 200,000, and the corporationor associationcan be condemned tself. Cults or sects (asdefinedabove)may also be deniedbuildingpermissionsor licensesby cities.5. Article 9 punishesany promotionor propagandaby an association or groupfalling underArticle 1 "intended or young people"(age not defined)underpenalty of a F 50,000 fine,applicable o both individualsandassociations.6. Article 10establishesthenew crime of mentalmanipulation."Mentalmanipulation"in fact"brainwashing,"lthough histerm s notused)is definedasanyactivityoractivities"with hegoal or the effect to create or to exploitthe state of mentalorphysicaldependenceof peoplewho areparticipatingn thegroup'sactivitiesand to infringehumanrightsandfundamentalliberties;to exert repeatedpressures n order to create or exploit this state of dependenceand to drive the person,againstits will or not, to an act or an abstentionwhich is heavilyprejudicial o her."Thepenalty s two years' imprisonment nd a fine of F 200,000, but if thevictim is particularlyweak due to age, illness, etc., the penaltyis five years' imprisonmentandF 500,000 fine. Followingthe amendmentsby the assembly,court cases may be brought


13/27


14/27


Whoeverhas carriedoutphysicalorpsychologicalactionsin a repeatedandsystematicalway,aimed at impairingthe capacity of anotherperson to make autonomous udgments,or at placing this other person in a state ofdependency,will be punishedwith ajail termand a fine. (p. 12)

The examples offered by the Commission as guidelines are not reassuringas far as theapparent aguenessof theprovision s concerned:This processincludes,butis not limited to:-magnifying the possibility of the member o be suggestionizedor fascinatedby a special diet, excessive

repetitionof routine activitiesor rituals, sleep deprivation,participationo lengthy sessions where the tenets ofthe grouparelearned;

-controlling the environmentof the member(isolationfromfamily andfriends, filtering he informationcoming from the outsidesociety ... );-controlling forms of communication imposing the use of a coded language, excluding certainsubjectmatters rom discussion . ..);

-excessive social control within the movement,exposureof the member o an intense humiliation houldhe or she deviate from the tenets of thegroup. (p. 15)It is also stated that "since the controlled member will rarelytakethe initiative of filing acriminalcase, districtattorneys hould be free to acteven withouta previouscomplaint" p. 15).It is unclear,at the time of this writing,whether his reportwill have any practicalconsequenceat thecantonalor federal evel in Switzerland.

Type II ReportsAs indicated, hereare severalType IIreports hatarenot so slantedagainstminorityreligiousgroups.While thesereportsare morebalanced,and do considerscholarlyresearch,we will showthatall but one still incorporatesn importantways essentialideas fromthe brainwashing/mindcontroltradition, ven if this usage is more subtle.

SwedishReportThe Swedishreports surprising ecause tmakesovertcriticismsof actionsof otherEuropeangovernmentsowardnewerreligions.It is particularlyriticalof FranceandBelgium,sayingthat"some countriescan be said,somewhatexaggeratedly,o have declaredwar on thenewreligiousmovements,"which can only lead to more isolation for such groups.10The reportalso stresses

therightof adults o believe whattheychoose andexpresstheirbeliefs.And,thereportclaims aswell that "the greatmajorityof membersof new religiousmovementsderive positive experiencefrom theirmembership."Inchapter even of theSwedishreport,which deals withlegal perspectives, here s a lengthydiscussion of the fact thatSwedish laws covervirtuallyanykind of activitythatmightbe harm-ful to society or to individual members.However,the section then closes with the followingrecommendation, resented n the officialEnglishsummaryof the report:The Commissioncomes to the conclusion that the protectiveneeds of the individualarerelativelywell-providedfor in themajorityof cases. Butlegislationaffords nsufficientprotectionwithregard o what n theCommission'sreportis termed"improper nfluence"or manipulation.Introductionof the term "improper nfluence"in thelegislation would benefit both serious practitionersof religion and personal integrity.If a person is induced,againsthis will, to renouncehis faith (the term"deprogramming" as formerly applied), this, according o thelegislation proposed,can be deemed improper nfluence,just as manipulationsof an individualin a religiousmovement can be regardedas improper nfluences.The Commission thereforeproposesthatthe PenalCode beamended o include anew penal provisionmaking impropernfluencea punishableoffense. (?8)

Although thereportuses an example of deprogrammingo illustrate mproper nfluence,thepurviewof the newproposed aw would also cover"manipulations f an individual n a religious


15/27


movement."This suggests some concernaboutrecruitment nd retentionpractices,as well as animplicit acceptanceof the idea that a person's will and judgmentcan be overcome by religiousgroups.Thus, it appears hateven with all the positive things thatcan be said about he balanceofthe Swedish report, t has as an underlying heme ideas related o brainwashing otions importedfromthe UnitedStates.Thoseideas includepassivityandweaknesson the partof potential ecruitsand members. mplicitly, he idea of improper nfluence,whenusedin reference o normaladults(even young ones), seems a rejectionof theirvolitionalnature,which might be involved in adecision to experimentwitha newer religion.'1SwissReporton Scientology

A report specificallyon Scientology, but with attention o the general topic of sects, wascommissionedby the State Security Advisory Committee n Switzerland.This report,althoughcriticalof Scientology, s perhaps hemostbalancedof all therecentgovernmental eportson newreligionsin that it is quite factualand considers seriously workby scholars n this area of study.The reportdoes not adoptthe anti-cult deology that pervadesType I reportsand some TypeIIones. 12

The reportrecounts the restrainedapproach o new religious phenomenaby most govern-mentalentitiesin Switzerland,a point to whichwe will return.The reportalso recommends omeactionsby governmental uthorities,uch astheneed for an"observationenter"on newreligionsat a highereducation nstitution hatwouldproducefactual and independent nformationaboutsuchphenomena or use by thepublicandgovernmental uthorities.Thereport pecificallydoesnot recommend hatScientology (or anyothergroup)be putundersurveillance,and it statesthatexistinglaws areadequate o give the stateopportunityo opposeany injuriousactivity by sects.Of particular nterest,the reportmakes no use at all of brainwashingand mind controlconcepts. Indeed, the topic of recruitment s given short shrift in the report, and there is animplied assumption ommon to muchscholarly iterature n newreligions thatpeople join thesegroupsbecause they want to, not because of some sort of mystical psychotechnologysuch asbrainwashing.Thus, this reportrepresentsan exceptionto the usual finding that brainwashingconcepts undergird ven TypeIIreports.But,as will be shown, this report s not the "last word"on cults andsects by Swiss authorities.GermanEnqueteCommission

The GermanBundestagestablisheda much-publicizedEnqueteCommissionto inquire nto"So-Called Cults and Psycho Groups" n May 1996,13which held many meetings and eventraveled o theUnitedStates beforeissuinga finalreport. A preliminary eporthad evoked somecontroversyandcriticism.)The finalreport, ssued in May 1998, was surprisinglymoderate nits tone in some sections (butnot in all, see Besier and Scheuch 1999), and included statementsthat the new religions (with some exceptions)were not harmful o society,and thattheydid notconstitute he seriousproblem hathad beenoriginally hought.However, hereportalso includeda substantialminorityreport iledby somecommission membersexpressingconcern aboutanti-cult orientedportionsof thereport,and theirrecommendations,which would exert considerablecontroloverminority aiths(see Seiwert1999).Despite the generallymore positive and scholarlyinformedportionsof the report, t con-tains some assumptionsand claims about recruitment rocessesindicating hatthe influenceofscholarlyresearchandcriticismsof earlierofficialreportswas notfully accepted.Thereportdoessay (p. 141 of the Englishtranslation)herearesome problemswith earlier-acceptedmodels ofconversion hroughbrainwashing, ndthatconversionwas usuallyan act of free will (Introvignewas among those who testifiedbefore the Commissionon this issue). However, here are places

in the reportwhere the earliertheories still are accepted,even if more quietly or implicitly.It is


16/27


clear that new religionsareviewed as sinisterforcesto be observed, studied,andgenerallykepttrackof if the government s to properlycare for its citizens.

This approachderives, it has been noticed (Besier and Scheuch 1999), from the Germangovernment's endency to assume a dutyto protect he individualagainstexploitationandharm,or more boldly put, to protect the individualfrom himself or herself, as the individualmakesspiritualdecisions.Such a perspectiveeads ratherogicallyto someinnovativeapproachesakenby the Germanreport,as will be discussed.Thereis some direct evidence for the conclusion that the stateacceptstheories of recruit-ment that are negatively defined, as revealed throughan examinationof the topics coveredin the lengthy report,especially the portiondevoted to recruitment.14 ive pages (74-78) aredevoted to a discussion of "enlistmentand recruitment trategies,"and 18 pages (140-57) to"forms of social control and psychological destabilisation."For example, the following com-ment is made about"psychologicaldependence,"a term used in a disparagingway withinthereport:

As a working concept, "psychologicaldependency"s proposedfor the state of affairs where an individualhasformed anunusuallystrongandunusuallyexclusivebond, notablyor even predominantly rivenby anxiety,witha communitywhich on groundsof religion or ideology exerts an extensive or even exclusive influence on thegeneralorientationandeveryday ife of its members. p. 147)

This definitionmakes it clear that the Commissiondoes not look positively on religiousgroups that exercise a stronginfluence on their members.The Commission does offer a caveatwhen it says:It should be noted that thereis an implicitcultural udgement n the identificationof dependency n these terms,i.e. the notion that the observedbond is inappropriately trong,that it is harmful or the personsconcerned andthat it can be misusedfor immoralpurposes. p. 147)

The Commission'srecommendationseave little room for doubt hatmost on theCommissionviewed new religious groups negatively,no matter he conclusionsdrawn n partsof the reportaboutthe relativelybenignnatureof most suchgroups.Most Commissionmemberswantedthegroupsto be studied,and wantedto have the government und privateadvisory and informationoffices to help keep tabson new religiousand"psychogroups." Internationalooperation"wascalled for to assist in findingoutmoreaboutthegroups,as well.The concept of "milieu control"used by anti-cultactivist Steve Hassan is discussed butcriticized as too broad:

[T]he milieu control identifiedby Hassan, consisting of behaviouralcontrol,mentalcontrol,emotional controland informationcontrolcannot, in every case and as a matterof principle,be characterised s "manipulative."Control of these areasof action is an inevitablecomponentof social interaction n a groupor community.Thesocial control hat s alwaysassociatedwith intensecommitment o agroupmust thereforebe clearly distinguishedfrom the exertionof intentional,methodical nfluence or the expresspurposeof manipulation. p. 150)

Thereportalsorecognized hat"inthis area t is notpossible (except nextremecases)to iden-tify cause-effectrelationships ndependently f thebiography,hepersonalityandthe social situa-tionof the candidate"p. 151).While "theconceptof psychologicaldependencyas a so-calledin-nerfact cannotas a rulebe usedas a criterion or ustifyingactionbythe authorities"p. 154),the re-portstatesthat hedistinctionbetween whattakesplaceinmost socialorganizations nd"plannedandpurposefulmethodsof manipulation which]do at leasttend to runcounter o the basicvaluesof our social order s possible"(p. 151).Forinstance,havingheardas a witnessCanadian ociolo-gist StephenKent(a well-knowncriticof Scientologyandothermovements), he Commissionwaspersuaded hat "prolonged ensory deprivation lone canproduceacute psychological disorders


17/27


(hallucinations) nd make the victim receptive o indoctrination'brainwashing')"p. 150).Here,as elsewhere, it seems that at least one movement,Scientology, is regardedas so dangerous hateven a recommended aution n thereportnot to use the word "brainwashing"s abandoned.Throughout he majority of the reportthere is a "consumerprotection"model operating.The government s assuming hat it has therightand obligationto protectpotentialrecruits romparticipatingn "problematicgroups."One could even say that the Commission has shown arather ophisticated, f punitive,approach o the problemof regulatingnewer religious groups.Ithas linkedreligious groups with "psychogroups,"which are definitely not consideredreligious.It has called formorescientificresearchon such groups(although t ignoredmuch such research

as it drewup thereport).Then it proposesa consumerprotectionapproach hat has the effect offurnishingsome basis for also regulatingreligious groups. And, all this is done in the nameofprotecting he citizenry, o whocan possiblycomplain?All this is done despiteexplicit statementsmade in the report hat the new religiousgroups are not a threat o democraticsociety.Plainlysuch a positionis based uponthe view that the groupsare sinister,and thatthey do recruitandretainmembers n unacceptableways.It is noteworthy hat this "consumerprotection"model, which has also been tried in theUnited States (see Richardson1986),hasbecomeinfluentialn otherofficialfora in Europe,suchas the Berger reportto the EuropeanParliament.15MartinKriele says of this approach n theEnqueteCommissionReport 1998:13):

The recommendationmade to the FederalCouncil to makea law regulating he commercialassistanceformastering ife, is incomprehensible.This draft aw emanates rom the all-inclusivesuspicionthatthose offeringsuch services are not reliable,aremysterious,and work with manipulative echniquesand the consumershavetobe especially protected.

Italian PoliceReportThis is a police reportprepared or internaluse by police andintelligence agencies. It doesaccess considerablescholarly work,and indeed made use of the CESNURlibraryon new andminorityreligions. However, he reportalso containssome blatantmistakes n its discussionsofsome groups,mostnotablyTheFamily/TheChildrenof God.Chapter hree of the Italianpolice reportdoes contain a discussion of brainwashingandmindcontrol(pp. 10-1 1), and offersin a footnote a standard nti-cultorientedreconstruction f

the brainwashingprocess allegedly used by new religions.The footnote discusses threemajorprocesses that are supposedlyinvolved in recruitingand maintainingmembers. These includeisolation, indoctrination, nd maintenance.* Isolation includesa numberof elements such asthe eliminationof family life;"lovebombing"to reinforce he sense of belongingto thegroup;eliminationof privacy;and totalobligationofone's wealth to the group,causingfinancialdependenceon the group.* Indoctrinationncludesconstantattendance tverydifficult ectures;absoluteobedience;con-formityto specificdresscodes; a sense of mysteryandparticipationn an insolubledesign;and use of repetitive ormulas hatridicule the critical senses.* Maintenance ncludes continuousmentalimpregnationanddeprivationof sleep designedto

induce a stateof dependence;depersonalizationby eliminatingpersonal initiative;constantpsychological pressureby othermembers o preventself-doubt;and the use of a crypticlan-guagethatmakescommunicationwith the outsideworld difficult.There is also in the reporta discussion of plagio, a term close to what some mean bybrainwashing, ndthatused to be referredo in section603 of theItalianCriminalCode.However,the reportcorrectlynotes thatthe offense was declaredunconstitutionaln 1981 and is no longerpartof Italian aw. This point notwithstanding,hereare severaluses of the term ater n thereport,with claims that membersof certaingroups are "submitted o plagio" (p. 89).


18/27


Thereis also on page 10 a concernaboutrecruiting echniques.Thereportdecries:the use, in order o recruitnew candidatesand maintain hemin the fold of subliminalmechanismsof fascinationandof brainwashing r similarmethodsto limit the libertyof self-determination f the individual.

Further, he report alksof indoctrinatinghe adept by using "scientificmethodsto decreasethepsychicaldefense of theindividual,andtoinducea critical evelof totalobedience."Atanotherplace the reportsays that"'mental conditioning' .. . shouldnot be prosecutedunless it can bedemonstrated hattechniquesof suggestionandhypnosishave been used ...."It is clear thatbrainwashing otions serve as anunderpinning f thisreport,eventhoughthereport ontainssomethoughtfuland nformedportions.Thus,suchunderlyingdeashavesurvivedthe infusion of otherscholarship nto the report.Whythis has occurredremains o be seen.Swiss Cantonof TicinoReport

This report romthe Cantonof Ticino in Switzerlandalso shows the apparentnfluenceofcriticismby scholarsof some earlierreports.Indeed,it even mentions(p. 17) possible problemswith"anti-culterrorism" gainstnewerfaiths,whichsuggestsa differentapproachn thisreport.However,againwe see clearsigns thatbrainwashinghemes areacceptedby thereport'swriters.We also see evidence of possible cross-fertilizationbetween this report and the Italian policereportreferred o earlier.Thereport's ectionon "HowPeopleJoin" s repletewith language ndicatingacceptanceofthe mindcontrol/brainwashingerspective.Readersaretold(p. 22) that he"dangers renumerousand treacherous"oryouthswhoaretargetedbythecults. TheprocessofjoiningtheSolarTempleis describedas "seductionexertedon thepublic ... by meansof a manipulativeprocess Ofparticipants,we aretold that"theirvulnerabilityandsense of not being loved areexploited."Afootnotelikens therelationshipof participant nd leaderto that of the sado-masochistic elation.There is discussionof "affectivitybombing"(p. 23), which seems a referenceto the term"love bombing,"which some apply to recruitment echniques of the Unification Churchwherethegroupgoes about"providinghimwithanimageof happyandcomfortablepeoplewho intendto help those who haveproblems."We are told that the recruitment rocessbecomes "moreandmore exacting both psychologically and financially."Recruitsthen approacha "slippery cliff,which will bringabouta breakingpoint."The reportsays that"attimes the group will threatenhis family in order o puta stopto efforts to lure the adept awayfromthe sect."Even the use of hypnosisandchemicalmethods can be instrumental n eliciting total sub-mission.

[P]rogressive solation s whathas increasinglyvictimizedsubjectand mmunizedhim againstexternal nfluencesandmadehim utterlydependenton this new reality.In the group privacy s dismantled .. and a collective selfreplacesthe individual elf. (p. 24)

Another ootnotediscussingthe UnificationChurchmethodsclaims that"A 'godfather'whowill be inchargeof thispersonfull-timeprogressivelybeginsthebrainwashing rocess."There salso discussion of a "seriesof activities" hatare"prolongedandtiring" ncludingmentally.Hereis mentioned he exampleof learning engthy prayers.The reportadds that a demandingroutineallows little sleep because of the "intricate ulesimposed."All this:

underminespersonalresponsibility, . . which is particularly ppealing o peoplewho arepsychologically easy tomanipulatebecausethey feel relievedof theirburdenof responsibility.

The group uses "a reproachfulattitude"or those who deviate from the norms of the group.The recruit s asked to "makea confession."Thus the groupcauses him to:


19/27

160 JOURNALFOR THESCIENTIFIC TUDYOFRELIGION

create in himself a huge sense of guilt which will be later used to increasehis psychologicaldependence: his isprogramming. dentityhasbeen practically ransformed.p. 25)

Afterthisprocess,we aretold, "it is almostimpossiblefor him to leave the group.... Thesubmission s complete."Wearealso informed hatMicheleDel Re, anItalian awprofessorwhoheadsan anti-cultorganization, tatesthat:the techniqueof subjugationwithin destructivecults has nothing original to offer. It is in fact the very sametechniqueborn at the beginningof the post-warperiod n Chineseprisonsandwhich was also developed n Koreaandin Bulgaria,wherepoliticalprisonerswereused as guineapigs for mentalconditioning.

The reportclaimsthatthis techniquehas threemajorsteps (recallthe Italianpolice report),including(1) isolationof theperson; 2) indoctrination f the person;and(3) keepingthepersonin a stateof absolutedependence.A summaryparagraphoncludes:

The negativeconsequencescan be summarized n the loss of social contact,breakingof existing relationships,transformationf personality,mentaldependence,material ubmission, ven culminatingnphysicalconsequencesof being deprivedof a balanceddiet, sleep deprivation, r neglectof medicalneeds.

Then,just to remindthe reader hat somethingsinisteris happening,anothersummary istof the principletechniquesused in luring people to join is given (p. 26). These include"lovebombing,""isolation,""repetition,"nd"sleepdeprivation,"ll of which aredescribed n somedetail.The reportcloses with a familiar itanyof what shouldbe done aboutthe menaceof sectsand cults.Thereportoffers (p. 34) recommendations,ncluding,

it is necessary o intervenebefore thedamage s made andto punishwhoevermayuse chemical,orpsychologicalmethods n orderto dominateanother.One mightthenimaginethat psychicalviolence mightbe prosecutedas acrime.

The reportadds:One could certainlyhypothesizea law that would punishthe acts which tend to destabilizethe person,that is,thosebehaviors hatarenotpunishable n themselvesbut thatarepunishablewhentheyexist in combination.Thiswouldallow intervening o a markeddegreewhile theprocessof destabilizing he individual s inprogress,ratherthanwaitingfor thedamageto be actualized.

The reportadmits hat heremaybe "difficultyof proof' since thereare oftenno witnessestothe actionsof the"suspected riminalwho affirms hat hesupposedvictimwasfullyconsenting."This set of recommendationss chillingto read,andplainlywould be problematic o implement.Theydemonstratehatsome in theCantonof Ticinofully acceptthe brainwashingmythandarewillingto takedrasticactionsbasedon that acceptance.SwissNationalCouncilReporton Cults

On July 1, 1999, the Commissionof the Managementof the Swiss National Council (theFederalParliament) roduceda report o guidepublicpolicy in the areaof newreligiousgroups,apparentlynresponse o someotherreportsdoneby governmental ntitiesinSwitzerland,partic-ularly he morebalancedonedealingwithScientologydiscussedearlier.16 hisreports generallymindfulof scholarlystudiesof new religions,although t does not acceptscholarlyviews com-pletely.Of particularnterest s the creative, f problematic,methodused to address he issue ofrecruitment nd maintenanceof participationn new religions.


20/27


The reportdoes not use the term"brainwashing"t all, inapparent ecognitionof the disreputeof that term in scholarly circles. However,the reportdoes talk at length about "indoctrinatingmovements" mouvements ndoctrinants),and states that this is the "key element"to observeinmovements with possible "cultic" eatures(p. 24). The reportadmits that indoctrination s partof a continuumbetween acceptable orms of influenceand unduepressure,and that t is not easyto definefor legal purposes.However, t goes on to say (paragraph 35) that"The most notablefeatureof indoctrinating roups is the limitationof self-determination o the pointof eradicationof autonomy."The reportalso notes how difficultit is to measuresuch manipulationprocessesfrom the outside; because some of the process is internal o the recruit, t is hardto provethatdeceptionwas used.In cases of "alteration r suppressionof free will"(p. 36), the state shouldprotect ndividualsagainstthe"indoctrinatingmovement."Of specialconcernto the Councilare childrenand thosewho may believeinpseudo-therapeuticmiracle ures"proposedby somemovements.One quotewill demonstratepotential implicationsof the assumptionsconcerningso-called indoctrinatinggroups.

Since not only civil and criminal legislation, but democracyas well rest on the axiom of responsible self-determination, o rightfulState,no matterhow liberal,canwitness without reaction he actionsof indoctrinatinggroups that systematicallyannul ndividualautonomy. paragraph 45)

The Swiss reportdoesnot,however,recommendanynew federal egislation,andtheproposalin the Cantonof Genevareport o legislateagainstmindcontrol(discussedearlier) s called"pre-mature" tthe federal evel.17Thereportdoes adopta consumerprotectionmodel,andstates thattheremightneed to be some additionalregulationmakingit easier to applyconsumerprotectionstatutesto "for-profit piritualassistance"(p. 51). The reportalso recommendsestablishingafederalservice for informationon new groups,andstates thatit should not be biased.Thus,the FederalSwiss Parliament's eport s more moderateandrecognizesthatthere aredifferencesof opinion n thisarea.There s littleregurgitationf anti-cult hetoricwithin hereport,as was seen in thereports romBelgiumand France.However, t is easy to discernbrainwashingand mind control deaslurkingwithinthe discussion of so-calledindoctrinating roups,andthesehelpdrive thepolicy recommendation or new regulationsof a consumerprotectionvariety.On June 29, 2000, the Swiss governmentpublisheda responseto the report,praisingtheCommission'sefforts butrejectingall its mainproposals.The Swiss governmentconcludedthatno special laws were appropriate, nd that it is not the provinceof the federal state to createwatchdog nstitutions o observe"cults."Toa limitedextent,thegovernmentmay supportprivatenonpartisan fforts(such as the Observatory reatedat the Universityof Lausanne,see Conseilfederal 2000). Thus it may be the case thatimplicit brainwashing heories in the parliamentaryreporthave not carried he day in Switzerland.Councilof EuropeReporton Sects and Cults

In 1999, theCouncil of Europeadopteda compromisedocumententitled, "IllegalActivitiesof Sects"(Doc. 8373, June22, 1999) that is within the ambitof a TypeIIreport.Thereportwasthe result of muchdiscussion,andrepresents he views of variousparties,which meansthat thedocumenthas importantnternalcontradictions. t makesstrongstatements n favorof religiousfreedom andpluralism,andagainstreferring o religious groupswith the "extremelypejorative"termsect (p. 4), butalsomakes somerecommendationshatderivefromconcernabout"religious,esoteric,or spiritualgroups,"as theyarereferred o in thereport.Thereportdoes not recommend estrictiveegislation,andmentionsmore thanonce thatthestate should stay neutral n mattersreligious.The reportdoes call for establishmentof informa-tion centers, includingregional ones, to aid in disseminationof informationon the groups.The


21/27


report ustifies itself in this regard n two ways: that"the numberof people joining sects is risingconstantly," nd because of "theestablishment f sects in centraland easternEurope" p. 3). Thisconcernaboutcentraland easternEuropepervades he report,with recommendations eing madethataid packages or those countries ncludemoney for information enterson sects, and so forth.Of specialinterest s the concernexpressedaboutrecruitment ndsocializationof members.There are various conceptualizations elatedto brainwashing n the report, ncluding some thatuse the term brainwashing xplicitly. For instance,the reportssays:

The assemblyattachesgreat mportance o protecting hose most vulnerable,and particularlyhe childrenof mem-bersof religious,esoteric orspiritualgroups, ncase of ill-treatment, ape,neglect, indoctrination y brainwashing* (p.2)

The termbrainwashing s also mentionedin the report n a discussion (p. 6) of the well-knownKokkinakis ase in the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights, which was decided in 1993as the first violation of article9 of the EuropeanCommission of HumanRights.As Richardson(1995b, 1996a) pointed out, both the majority and minority opinions in that case (which wasdecided on a vote of 6-3 in favor of Jehovah'sWitnessesrightto proselytize n Greece) make useof thetermbrainwashing s if it is a well-understood onceptwithin egalandscholarlycontexts.Thereportuses statements rom thisjudgment o indicate hatsome proselytizing s unacceptablebecauseit mightentail "theuse of violence orbrainwashing"p. 6).Thefollowingstatementappearsntheconclusionof thereport p. 9): "Itwould be necessaryto reflectuponthelegal consequencesof theindoctrination f sectmembers,often called 'mentalmanipulation."'This somewhatambiguousstatementseems to suggestthatgroups engaging in"mentalmanipulation"houldsuffer some legal consequences,but thereport s not clear on howsuchgroupsare to be identified.So, againwe see an officialreportof an interparliamentaryntityin Europeassumingthatsomethingcalled "brainwashing"s a reality,even if several different erms are used to refer tothisprocess.Andagain,we see this assumptionusedas ajustification orpolicy decisions, suchas the establishmentof information entersand the internationalxchangeof informationon thegroups n question,not to mentionthe notion of "legal consequences" or mentalmanipulation.

CONCLUSIONS

It is clear from reviewingthese reportsthat the Americanculturalproductof ideas aboutbrainwashingand mind control is alive and well in Europe,and thatthose ideas have helpedpromote he moralpanicin some European ountriesover cults and sects. Culturaldiffusionhas,regrettablyn this case, been relatively successful,but it has also been limited andnarrow.Thethoroughcritiqueof such ideas that has been done by scholarsbothfromthe United States andothercountries includingEuropean nes) is usually missingfromthepackage(see, forexample,Barker1984,1989;RobbinsandAnthony1982;Anthony 1990,1996; AnthonyandRobbins1995;James 1986;Richardson1985, 1991, 1993, 1996a).Thus we see the raw ideasof brainwashingand relatedconceptsincluded n bothTypeI andTypeIIreports withtheexceptionof the Swissreporton Scientology), and such ideas appearto be driving policy recommendationsn someEuropeancountries,even includingthose that claim that the new religionsarenot a threatandthatreligiousfreedomandpluralismare valued.Why brainwashingnotions have been so readily adoptedin the Europeancontext needsfurtheranalysis.One could say this has occurredbecause of the tendencyto acceptthe word ofapostateswhen claims are made and accountsofferedabout whathappened o them when theyjoinednewer religions. Those claims and accountsareapparentlymoreculturally oherent f useis made of concepts such as brainwashing,mind control, or relatedterms, as Introvigne 2000)notes (see also Richardson, an der Lans,and Derks 1986; Bromley 1988, 1998).


22/27


However, hetendency o blameapostateaccountsfor widespreaduse of such ideas begs thequestionof why in some Europeancountriesthose particular ccounts are valued aboveothers,including scholarly research-based laims that brainwashingas it is popularlyunderstooddoesnot occur. Those trying to understand he resiliency of brainwashing-based rgumentswill beforced to examine, among otherthings, the social constructionistquestionof who gains whensuchargumentsareacceptedandmoralpanicsensue.Forinstance, t is clear thattraditional hurchesgain (atleast in theshortrun) f such notionsareacceptedas a basis for policy becausecompetitionfor membership s stifled.Also, culturalconservativesgain if cultural nnovationsarestymied through he use of such rhetoric.Culturalliberals may also supportanti-cultuses of brainwashingdeas if they areanti-American,and ifthey view cults andsects as archconservative ndreactionary as is oftenthecase in present-dayFrance).Politiciansmay,in turn,adoptbrainwashingdeas as partof theirrhetoricbecause it fitstheir purposeof wantingto appear o rebuildor defend the cultural ntegrityof a society as theyseek to gain and retainpoliticalpower.Media representativesmay make use of brainwashingtheoriesif only because they make for a good story,which also happensto sell copies. Thoseopposed to religion in generalalso may promotethe idea that cults and sects are a threatwiththeir alleged use of brainwashing rgumentsbecauseit furthersa generalanti-religionagenda.In France,the first Europeancountryto develop such anti-cult orientedreportsto guidegovernmentalpolicies, the state has had a traditionof supporting ecularhumanismdatingbackto the French Revolution.At the SupplementalMeeting on Freedom of Religion held by theOrganization or Securityand Cooperation n Europe (OSCE) in Vienna on March22, 1999,answering riticisms nthe OSCEreports ntroducinghe discussiononreligiouspluralism oneofwhich waspresentedby Introvigne),hesecretaryof the FrenchMission toFight Cults,Mr.DenisBarthelemy, xplained he Frenchposition naparticularlynterestingway.Hesaid that"religiousliberty"and "freedomof belief" are differentconcepts, and may indeed conflict. "Religiousliberty" (a "collective liberty"for churches and movements) may be limited for the sake of"freedomof belief," the "individual iberty"of thinkingand believing without "constraints"external o the individualconscience. This is an argument ypicalof Frenchsecularhumanism,and was used in 19th and early 20th centuryFrancein order to disband a numberof Catholicreligiousorders,andtocompelmonksandnunsto abandonheirconventsagainst heirwill. Francewill protect against"constraints" o the formationof theirindividual"belief,"Mr.Barthelemyconcluded,not only childrenbut also "adults n needof protection"Barthelemy1999).Protectingndividualsagainstgroupsmaylook like a legitimateoptionwithintheframeworkof a general acceptanceof personalfreedom.However,Mr.Barthelemy'sspeech implies thatthe individualcitizen's freedomof formingone's belief "freely"shall be protected f necessaryagainstthiscitizen'swish,preciselybecause being subject o brainwashing rmindcontrol heor shemerelythinkshe or she hasaccepteda belief "freely"when such is in fact not the case. Theostensiblyliberal reference to "freedomof belief" in fact hides the quintessentially eactionarypresupposition hatthe governmentknows better than its adult citizens "inneed of protection"where theirrealfreedomand best interests ie.The confluenceof the various nterestswe mentioned nthelistingof thosesharinga commoninterest n exertingsocial controlover sects and cults is well illustrated n the Frenchsituation,as well as in most of the othercountries discussed herein. Such a confluence of interestshascontributed o a widespreadacceptanceof brainwashing heories,particularlyn somesocieties.18Inthe UnitedStates,brainwashingheoriesaresupported nly by aminorityof academicscholars(and generally, n these few cases, in the form of "neo-brainwashing"models rather hanin the"crude" ormprevailingnsomeEuropean eports),butarestill oftenmentionednmediaaccountsof "cults."Only if social constructionist deas are takenseriouslywill scholars be able to cometo some reasonableunderstanding f why the particularmoralpanic about cults and sects hasoccurred,and how the particular ultural diffusion of brainwashing/mindontrol theories hastaken place when and where it has.19


23/27

164 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFIC TUDYOF RELIGION

NOTES

1. The receipt of publicfunding support or anti-cultefforts is mainly limitedto FranceandGermany. t is also note-worthy that the recentpatternof official anti-cultistactivity in Europe is not monolithic. Some countries,such asThe Netherlandsand the United Kingdom,have not seen the developmentof a strong anti-cultmovement,and someearlyofficialreportson new religions,such as the one in The Netherlands,have not been nearlyso negativein tenor(Kranenborg 994; Richardsonandvan Driel 1994). It is also worth noting that,as one reviewerpointed out, someof these official reportshave had little direct mpact othershavehadconsiderable mpacthowever,see herein,Fautre1999; Introvigne 1999b,2000), and they have not always been determinativen court actions, some of which havebeen won by minorityfaiths even in places such as France. This lattersituation of court decisions not necessarilyfollowing political agendas s an indicationof the relativeautonomyof the judicial system in some countries,a veryimportant oint to note (Richardson1999a).

2. As one reviewernoted,onemajorappellate ourtdecisioninthe UnitedStatesreversinghe trendagainstbrainwashing-based claims could have a significant impacton acceptanceof such claims. However,we think this an unlikelyoccurrence (for why, see Ginsburgand Richardson1998; Richardson1991, 1993; Anthony 1990; AnthonyandRobbins 1992, 1995).

3. For some consequencesof the Frenchreports, ee especially Introvigne 1999b, 2000) but also Swantko 1999).4. The famous Katz case from California Katzx'.SuperiorCourt, 73 Cal. App. 3d 952, 1977) led to the virtualdiscon-

tinuanceof such applicationsof conservatorshipaws in the UnitedStates(see Bromley 1983).5. We say "someof his ideas" because the typical anti-cultapplicationof Lifton's theoriesoverlookscompletely the

last chapterof Lifton(1963), whichtalksof voluntaryparticipationn self-change programs.Liftonnotes thatmanypeople in CommunistChina were not forced convertsbut thatthey soughtout ways to learnabout their new societyand therefore o fit in better.Later,Liftonhimself (1987:211) cautionednot to "use the wordbr-ainwashingecauseit has no precise meaning andhas been associated with much confusion,"andthat"thought eform,andtotalism ingeneral,are not necessarily illegal, howeverwe may deplorethem."Most recently,Lifton (1999:202-13) clarifiedthat,althoughmost "cults" anda varietyof otherorganizations)use "thought eform,"awenforcement houldratherfocus on the small minorityof "world-destroying ults," dentified, nteralia, by their"ideologyof killing to heal,ofaltruisticmurderand altruisticworld destruction" ndby "the lureof ultimateweapons"See Anthony (1996, 1999)for a more thoroughdiscussion of Lifton's ideas.

6. On March21, 2000, theJusticeCourtof Paris ound MPJacquesGuyard,presidentof theparliamentaryommissionthatdrafted he 1999report,guiltyof defamation orhavingcalledAnthroposophy a cult"(secte) practicing"mentalmanipulation." uyardwas finedF 20,000 and ordered o payF 90,000 to theAnthroposophical ederation f SteinerSchools.Guyard'sargumentwasthatAnthroposophywasregarded s a cultinthe second Frenchparliamentaryeport(1999), a documentcoveredby parliamentarymmunity.The courtstated hat"the nvestigation of thatparliamentaryreport]was not serious. It is provedthat it only consideredaffidavitsby alleged 'victims' of Antroposophybutthatneitherthe authorsof these affidavitsnor the alleged perpetratorswere heardby the [parliamentary]ommission."The Paris udges also decidedto stripGuyardof his parliamentarymmunity n connectionwith this case (subjecttoappealatthe timeof this writing).Thus at least some Frenchcourtsseem relatively ndependent rom the anti-cultistagenda llustratedby the reportsdiscussed herein.

7. The Mission to Fight Cults was established afterthe "Observatory f Cults,"which came into being afterthe firstFrenchreport, ssuedin 1998,whichwas thoughtby some to be to soft on the cultproblem.Onecriticismwas that heObservatory adas presidenta governmentofficer with no anti-cultbackground.The Mission is partof the executivebranchof governmentwhose membersare appointedby the PrimeMinister.The presidentof the Mission is AlainVivien,who as MPauthored firstFrenchreportbackin the 1980s(see Richardson1995b),and who is a personwithstrongviews criticalof new religions.Vivien is associated with a Frenchanti-cultorganizationhatis humanistandanti-Catholic n orientation; ence there has been some criticism n the Catholicpressof his appointment.

8. In an unusualshow of concern, Pope John Paul II made some indirectlycritical comments on June 10, 2000 whenaccepting he credentialsof the new FrenchAmbassadoro theHoly See, Mr.AlainDejammet.ThePope reminded henew ambassadorhat,"religious iberty, nthe full senseof theterm, s the firsthumanright.This meansa libertywhichisnot reduced o the private phereonly.Todiscriminate eligiousbeliefs,or to discreditoneoranotherormof religiouspractice s a formof exclusion contrary o the respectof fundamentalhumanvalues and will eventuallydestabilizesociety,whereacertainpluralism f thoughtandactionshouldexist,as well as a benevolentandbrotherly ttitude.Thiswill necessarilycreatea climateof tension, intolerance, pposition,andsuspicionnot conducive o socialpeace."ThePope also called on "the media to be vigilantand to treat airlyandobjectivelythe differentreligiousdenominations[in French,confessions]."Frenchauthorities mmediatelyresponded hat "cults and sects" are not confessions.9. See Anthonyand Robbins(1992) for discussion of the limited implicationsof the Molko decision (Molko& Lealv'.Holy Spi-it Ass'n, 179 Cal. App. 3d 450, 1986), and Anthonyand Robbins(1995) and Richardson 1996c) fordiscussions of the landmarkFishmandecision (United States '.Fishman,743 F. Supp. 713, N.D. Cal. 1990).

10. All quotes are taken fromthe official English languagesummaryof the Swedish report,"In Good Faith" 1998).11l.See Richardsonand Kilbourne 1983) for a detailed analysis of the themes in both classical and contemporary ses


24/27


of brainwashing heories.Also see Anthony(1990, 1996, 1999), Robbins and Anthony (1982), James(1986), andRichardson 1991, 1993, 1996a) for assessmentsof these themes.12. The reporthasbeen roundlycriticizedby anti-cultists,and ts verydevelopmentwascontroversial.Thereport'smajorauthor, ean-FrancoisMayer,awell-respectedSwiss scholarof newreligiousphenomena,does notadoptananti-cultistperspective n his work,andstrives or a balancedand factualapproachn all his scholarlywriting.Mayer,who atthetime was an officerandemployeeof the Swiss CentralOfficeof Defense (Switzerland's ecurityplanningagencyatthetime), was well knownbecauseof his researchontheSolarTempleprior o,andafter, hemassmurder/suicideshatoccurredn 1994. His assistance o lawenforcementauthorities s theSolarTemple ragedyunfoldedwas well known.He was askedto preparea reportby the ConsultativeCommission on StateSecurity,which was a groupappointedby the executive branchof the Swiss federalgovernment.See thecriticalstoryby a leadingSwiss anti-cult ournalist,Hugo Stamm(1997a), who also had a criticaleditorial n the same issue (Stamm1997b).This attackcontributed oconcernwithin the Swiss Parliament,whicheventually ed to theproduction f a parliamentaryeport o be discussedlater n this paper.13. Fora discussion of the controversyover "cults"and "sects"withinGermanyand the impact his controversyhashadon the academiccommunitystudyingsuch phenomena, ee HexhamandPoewe (1999), as well as Baumann 1998)and Besier andScheuch(1999).14. Some subheadingsof topics covered n thisportionof thereport nclude:"Formsof Social ControlandPsychologicalDestabilisation," Levelsof PsychologicalDependency," ReligiousDependency," Levelsof SocialControland Ma-nipulativeElements,""PotentialDangers,"and"Opportunities nd Need for Governmentalnterventions." he verytitles of the subsectionsreveal a pervasivesuspiciousposture oward henewerreligions.15. This report,which was approvedby the Committeeon Civil andLibertiesand InternalAffairs,was submitted o butnot voted on by the plenarysession of the EuropeanParliament n July 1998. The reportwas postponed ndefinitely,and is no longerpendingbecauseof theJune 1999 elections,whichhad the effect of killing all pendingproposals.Itis availableon the CESNURwebsite .16. See note 11, whichrecounts hecontroversy ngenderedbythereportonScientology produced arlierby acommissionof the Swiss government.17. The first yearlyreportof the FrenchgovernmentalMission to FightAgainst Cults (MILS 2000) also noted that theproposalsfor incriminatingbrainwashingper se are "interesting,but theories of mind controlhave, in the present

statusof science, a subjectivecharactermakingthemdifficult o be used in a legal scenario."18. It is ironicindeed to see Chinese authoritiesusingbrainwashing laims asjustification or social control of the FalunGongmovement.Thebrainwashingermwasfirstusedby EdwardHunter 1953), aCIAoperative,as awaytodescribethe allegedresocialization echniquesof the ChineseCommunistsafter the takeover n mainlandChina(RichardsonandKilbourne1983).19. Obviously, historicaland cultural factors play a role as well, and must be taken into account to help explain thevariedpatternof anti-cultsentimentacrossEurope.Such historicalandculturalelements mustfurnish a contextualbackgroundor the operationof the constructionistperspectiveoutlinedherein.

REFERENCES

Anthony,Dick. 1990.ReligiousMovementsandBrainwashingLitigation:EvaluatingKeyTestimony. nT. RobbinsandD. Anthony,eds., In Gods WeTrust,295-44. New Brunswick,NJ: TransactionBooks.1996. BrainwashingandTotalitariannfluence:An Explorationof Admissibility Criteria or Testimony n Brain-washing Trials.Ph.D. Dissertation.Berkeley,CA: GraduateTheological Union.1999. PseudoscienceandMinorityReligions:An Evaluationof the BrainwashingTheoriesof Jean-MarieAbgrall.Social JusticeResearch12:421-56.Anthony,Dick,andTomRobbins.1992.Law,SocialScience,andthe"Brainwashing" xception o theFirstAmendment.Behavior l Sciences & the Law 10:5-30.

1995.Negligence, Coercion,andthe Protectionof ReligiousBelief. Journalof Churchand State37:509-36.Anthony,Dick, TomRobbins,andJamesMcCarth

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	daniel-brickman
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Scientology and Germany and Cult

Documents