Interview with Régis Dericquebourg (Sociologist of religions, specialist on religious minorities, Lille 3, CNRS-GRSL)
HRWF: Professor Dericquebourg, following the dissolution of MILS, there is hardly any talk on the organization that replaced it, namely MIVILUDES. Does it mean that the state anti-sect policies in France have become softer?
Prof. Dericquebourg: There is not much talk about MIVILUDES because the media also brings up the issue of “sects” less often. In general, the anti-sect policies have been toned down. The new government has other priorities. Moreover, it does not want to collide with the United States when it comes to religious freedom. The first MIVILUDES report was considered less aggressive in comparison with MILS reports. The reason for that is undoubtedly the fact that it was drafted by a high-ranking official who was very cautious in his approach. However, most of the members of MILS were assigned to the new structure. As far as the latter are concerned, their ideological and personal interests are at the core of their motivation. The two principal anti-sect movements are always represented and listened to. We can also see that the About-Picard law is still in force and MIVILUDES supports it. MIVILUDES put in place training sessions on religion with the participation of sociologists as well as of one American colleague who is very much committed to religious freedom. However, in such sessions, the issue of “sects” is being presented by opponents of “sects.” MIVILUDES avoids public debates where it can be contradicted by members of the said “sects”. It has limited itself to one-sided information in colleges where the audience has no accurate knowledge of the phenomenon....
HRWF: How are anti-sect movements evolving internally?
Prof. Dericquebourg: These last few years we have noticed internal dissention, resignations, and exclusions. CCMM has sold its seat in Paris and has been accommodated in smaller premises. Six people in France have filed a demand with the High Instance Tribunal of Paris for the dissolution of UNAFDI and ADFI-North. This seems to worry their leaders. Prominent figures of the anti-sect fight were condemned by courts. Socialist MPs who have advocated more intense fighting against small religious movements were incriminated for misuse of public funds. One of the main court experts, who was very hostile to sects and wrote unscientific works on religious groups, withdrew.
ADFI, which was Catholic-oriented, is now under the control of rationalists. A former socialist, Mrs Picard, is its new president.
On the other hand, some authors, including academics that have approached the “sect” issue from a single angle and have denigrated academics working in the field, chose another path. They have tarnished the reputation of other people in order to make room for themselves, and then they have withdrawn. The sociology of religious minorities is a study field for experts not for amateurs.
HRWF Int.: What are the main targets of the anti-sect movement?
Prof. Dericquebourg: We notice some changes here too. First of all, the context of accusations has changed. For example, some have pretended that the “sects” advocated paedophilia by generalizing accusations made against The Family (former children of God), although courts cleared it of any suspicion. As far as paedophilia is concerned, it is against Catholic priests that accusations were mainly brought. This makes Catholic anti-“sect” activists more cautious. I am not saying that paedophilia does not exist in “sects.” It is more a matter of statistical probability. An individual must then be brought to justice but his religion is not in the dock except if there has been any incitement or complicity in hiding facts.
Secondly, in France the official debate on the ban of the "Islamic" headscarf has shifted the controversy. It was the same with the debate on the situation of women in the Muslim population, which was raised by young Muslims. It overshadowed the argument of "subordination" of women in “sects.” The accusation of dangerosity posed by “sects” and of proselytism was overshadowed in the face of terrorism of radical Islamists and radical preachers in suburbs. It is a pity that this has created a climate of Islamophobia towards moderate Muslims.
I have the impression that after the fall of the socialist government, the left anti-sect activists have just been busy keeping the issue afloat, under the form of attacks against alternative therapists, while waiting for a possible comeback of socialists to power to take action again. In fact, the attacks are targeted more and more against smaller therapeutic groups or personal development coaches, little known or totally unknown, or even against vegetarian groups. These individuals or small associations are more vulnerable than the "established sects", which have the human and financial resources to assert their rights, to defend themselves, to go to court or even to speak about their vicissitudes abroad. The medical doctors' association is quite vigilant with regard to alternative doctors. The government, however, does not support this, though some MPs of the current majority are reviving the problem under the form of oral and written questions to the government on request of anti-sect activists who contact them. By doing so, they do their job of people's representatives.
Finally, I do not have any information on the fate of the commissions created within the rectorats by the socialist government to keep teaching staff under surveillance.
HRWF Int.: Nobody in MIVILUDES speaks about Islamic "sects" in France.
Prof. Dericquebourg: However, they do exist and they are active. They can recruit fighters for their cause. Apparently, the anti-sect activists do not warn against them. I have never come across a press release by anti-sect activists denouncing attempts committed by radical Islamic groups nor against proselytism of Islamist “sects” in France as they do with regard to evangelicals or Jehovah’s Witnesses. If they exist, I would like to read them.
HRWF Int. What are the relations between the anti-sect movements on one side and sociologists and historians of religions on the other, who do not share their ideas?
Prof. Dericquebourg: They are still as opposed as ever. The attacks against academics studying the sect phenomenon from a scientific and neutral point of view have been unabated. The tactics is to discredit them by accusing them of belonging to a sect, of being lenient or to be in their pay. As far as I am concerned, I myself have been wrongly accused of being a Scientologist, the ultimate sin which kills a reputation! I have lodged a complaint against X on this matter. I also think of Maurice Duval, the author of a good study on Mandarom, who was subjected to heavy attacks. The ad hominem attacks are typical of extremists. The academics are criticized on Internet websites of “sect” opponents. The latter are sometimes former members of minority religious groups who settle their scores with the movement they have left and or they were expelled from. They fight against their former religion as passionately as they were campaigning for it. They have not changed their mentality; they have just changed their target. Their behaviour is similar to a neurotic repetition. Naturally, the attacks are not typical of former “sect” members. Former communists have vilified their former party and their former comrades. Researchers who work on “sect” issues can also be denigrated by unscrupulous colleagues in conditions of competition. I have lived through that. I did not know that prestigious research and teaching institutions could have such vile individuals.
HRWF Int. Your conclusions?
Prof. Dericquebourg: I think that MIVILUDES has no reason to exist because it duplicates the department for religious affairs at the Ministry of the Interior, which is the only institution mandated to keep religions in France under surveillance. The About-Picard law must be abrogated because lawyers consider it unnecessary and dangerous. A debate based on a thorough knowledge of religious minority groups must be a priority. It would be more efficient to place the phenomenon in historical perspective. It would also be more useful not to downplay disinformation and attacks against minorities. Good ostracism or bad ostracism does not exist. When discrimination towards groups is running well, it can be applied to others.
Interview taken by Willy Fautré Brussels, 30 September 2004