• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • HOME
  • ABOUT CHINA
    • NEWS
    • TESTIMONIES
    • OP-EDS
    • FEATURED
    • GLOSSARY
    • CHINA PERSECUTION MAP
  • FROM THE WORLD
    • NEWS GLOBAL
    • TESTIMONIES GLOBAL
    • OP-EDS GLOBAL
    • FEATURED GLOBAL
  • INTERVIEWS
  • DOCUMENTS AND TRANSLATIONS
    • DOCUMENTS
    • THE TAI JI MEN CASE
    • TRANSLATIONS
    • EVENTS
  • ABOUT
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • TOPICS

Bitter Winter

A magazine on religious liberty and human rights

three friends of winter
Home / From the World / Op-eds Global

French Law on “Separatism”: Where We Are

03/05/2021Massimo Introvigne |

Passed in first reading by the National Assembly, the law is now in the Senate. The text is better than the original draft, but problems remain.

by Massimo Introvigne

Palais du Luxembourg, Paris, where French Senate meets.
Palais du Luxembourg, Paris, where French Senate meets (credits).

Bitter Winter has followed with concern the progress of the French law against “separatism,” now rechristened “law for the respect of Republican principles.” The law amends the century-old French legislation on religions, and its stated aim is to fight extremist Muslim organizations and others that practice “separatism,” i.e., organize their total separation from the state and its “Republican principles.”

CESNUR, the parent organization of Bitter Winter, published two “White Papers” on the draft law. The first listed dangers for religious liberty we found in provisions included in the original project. The second had a positive approach, and suggested that the law may become an opportunity to revisit the old-fashioned definition of religion based on the Christian model prevailing in French case law, making room for religious organizations whose practices and structure are very much different from their Christian counterparts.

Dangers for religious liberty mostly came from provisions that, according to certain politicians, targeted groups labeled as “cults” (sectes), in a country that has a strong anti-cult tradition. They included the possibility of dissolving, or liquidating, religious entities by a simple administrative procedure, without passing through the decision of a court of law, inter alia in case they acted against “human dignity” of their members or exerted “psychological pressures” on their members. “Psychological pressures” is just a new label hiding the old, discredited theory that “cults” practice “brainwashing,” and “human dignity” is a beautiful but differently interpreted concept. Anti-cultists, for instance, believe that “cults” (but, curiously, not traditional religions that do just the same) violate the “human dignity” of their members when they expel them for serious breaches of their rules through their internal committees or ecclesiastical courts, or suggest to their devotees that they do not associate with hostile ex-members.

The objections we presented in our first White Paper were very similar to those raised by the French State Council, which led the government to amend the draft law by eliminating most of the provisions we had criticized. The law then was passed in first reading by the National Assembly, and sent to the Senate. There, it will be discussed by a special committee starting March 15, and then by the whole Senate, which will commence on March 30 a discussion that should conclude on April 8.

We had expressed the concern that the provisions dangerous for religious liberty eliminated after the intervention of the State Council might be reintroduced in the National Assembly through amendments. They were, but the relevant amendments were rejected, although they may be introduced again in the Senate.

While we are happy that cooler tempers have so far prevailed, and the most dangerous provisions have been excluded, there are still reasons of concern.

In the text sent by the National Assembly to the Senate, article 8.3 includes the possibility for the Council of Ministers (rather than a court of law after a due process) to dissolve a religious association for actions committed by “one or more members,” when the leaders failed to stop them. Acting against “human dignity” and exerting “psychological pressures” are no longer mentioned as grounds for dissolution. However, dissolving a whole association because of the wrongdoings of a single member (not necessarily a leader) seems to be contrary to the principle of proportionality, as well as to the 2014 ODIHR/ Venice Commission Guidelines on the Legal Personality of Religious or Belief Communities, stating that, “care should be taken not to inhibit or terminate the activities of a religious community merely because of the wrongdoing of some of its individual members. Doing so would impose a collective sanction on the community as a whole for actions that in fairness should be attributed to specific individuals. Thus, any wrongdoings of individual leaders and members of religious organizations should be addressed to the person in question through criminal, administrative or civil proceedings, rather than to the community and other members.”

Article 26 of the law stated that religious associations must have specific bylaws that include the provision that the association must have an “official council” taking all decisions on the hiring of religious ministers, and on any new membership. This may be regarded as not very important, and is justified as a mean to avoid that radical Muslim imams may enter religious associations. But we know from experience that any provision denying to religious associations the right to organize themselves as they deem fit creates a precedent that will be used for other administrative and judicial unwanted intrusions into their sphere of autonomy.

Article 30 changes how religious associations will be able to be registered. Until now, a religious association can be registered either under the provisions of the law of 1901 (on general associations), with total freedom of association, or under the law of 1905 (on religious associations), which has more constraints but also advantages, including tax exemption. With the new law, religious associations which are under the law of 1901—for example, a religious association that also has charitable activities is not allowed to register under the law of 1905 and should get its registration under the law of 1901—will now be under the same obligations of those under the law  of 1905, but without the corresponding advantages. This means that religious associations under the law of 1901 will be discriminated against, compared to any other law of 1901 (non-religious) associations. Such discrimination is prohibited by article 38 of the 2014 ODIHR/ Venice Commission Guidelines.

And the law still lacks the provisions we recommended in our second White Paper, expanding the definition of religion and making it easier and more attractive for religious associations to seek registration under the law of 1905. In fact, persuading Muslim organizations to seek law of 1905 status was one of the stated aims of the law.

As the Russian experience demonstrates, laws against “religious extremism” introduced as tools needed to contain radical Islam usually end up being used against peaceful religious movements and communities, some of them Christian, and against Muslim groups that are not fundamentalist or “extremist.” This is a danger French senators should be aware of, as they prepare to their historical task of amending French legislation on religion after more than 100 years.

Tagged With: France, Religious Liberty

Massimo Introvigne
Massimo Introvigne

Massimo Introvigne (born June 14, 1955 in Rome) is an Italian sociologist of religions. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), an international network of scholars who study new religious movements. Introvigne is the author of some 70 books and more than 100 articles in the field of sociology of religion. He was the main author of the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia (Encyclopedia of Religions in Italy). He is a member of the editorial board for the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion and of the executive board of University of California Press’ Nova Religio.  From January 5 to December 31, 2011, he has served as the “Representative on combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination, with a special focus on discrimination against Christians and members of other religions” of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). From 2012 to 2015 he served as chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty, instituted by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to monitor problems of religious liberty on a worldwide scale.

www.cesnur.org/

Related articles

  • Loup Blanc. 1. The Making of a (Jailed) Shaman

    Loup Blanc. 1. The Making of a (Jailed) Shaman

  • “Religious Abuse of Children”: Another Assault Against Freedom of Religion in Japan. 1. A New Notion of “Abuse”

    “Religious Abuse of Children”: Another Assault Against Freedom of Religion in Japan. 1. A New Notion of “Abuse”

  • 日本の宗教献金法2. 「恐怖」と宗教的詐欺行為

    日本の宗教献金法2. 「恐怖」と宗教的詐欺行為

  • “Religious Abuse of Children”: Another Assault Against Religious Liberty in Japan. 2. “Psychological abuse”

    “Religious Abuse of Children”: Another Assault Against Religious Liberty in Japan. 2. “Psychological abuse”

Keep Reading

  • Mark Fino: No Asylum in Japan for Evangelist Threatened in Bangladesh
    Mark Fino: No Asylum in Japan for Evangelist Threatened in Bangladesh

    The persecuted Bangladeshi Christian preacher and blogger was denied refugee recognition—as it happens to many in Japan.

  • 日本の宗教献金法3. アメリカの先例
    日本の宗教献金法3. アメリカの先例

    1931年、カリフォルニア州最高裁判所は、画期的な事件である「People v. Blackburn」において、いかに小さな宗教運動であったとしても、霊感による宗教的知見を述べて献金を集める行為は宗教の自由の一環として保障されると判示した。

  • Loup Blanc. 3. Tantra et sexualité
    Loup Blanc. 3. Tantra et sexualité

    Bien que les pratiques sexuelles tantriques n’aient jamais été une partie centrale de l'enseignement de Loup Blanc, elles sont au centre de l'affaire criminelle dans laquelle il est accusé.

  • Japan’s Religious Donations Law. 3. An American Precedent
    Japan’s Religious Donations Law. 3. An American Precedent

    In 1931, in the landmark case “People v. Blackburn,” the Supreme Court of California stated that claiming an inspired religious knowledge and collecting donations even for a marginal religious movement is part of religious liberty.

Primary Sidebar

Support Bitter Winter

Learn More

Follow us

Newsletter

Most Read

  • Blaming the Victims: The Hamburg Shooting and the Jehovah’s Witnesses by Massimo Introvigne
  • The Donnie Yen Fiasco: A Uyghur View by Rebiya Kadeer
  • More Uyghur Criticism of Donnie Yen: Wasn’t He More Guilty than Will Smith? by Kok Bayraq
  • The “Buddhist and Taoist Clergy Database,” Another CCP Imposture by He Yuyan
  • The Suicide of the Pink-Haired Girl: How the CCP Exploited a Tragedy by Zhou Kexin
  • Second-Generation Unification Church Believers Discriminated in Japan. 3. Media Slander Leads to Discrimination by Masumi Fukuda
  • Russia: Pastor Moskvitin Sentenced to 1.5 Years in Penal Colony for “Brainwashing” by Massimo Introvigne

CHINA PERSECUTION MAP -SEARCH NEWS BY REGION

clickable geographical map of china, with regions

Footer

EDITORIAL BOARD

Editor-in-Chief

MASSIMO INTROVIGNE

Director-in-Charge

MARCO RESPINTI

ADDRESS

CESNUR

Via Confienza 19,

10121 Turin, Italy,

Phone: 39-011-541950

E-MAIL

We welcome submission of unpublished contributions, news, and photographs. Each submission implies the authorization for us to edit and publish texts and photographs. We reserve the right to decide which submissions are suitable for publication. Please, write to INFO@BITTERWINTER.ORG Thank you.

Newsletter

LINKS

orlir-logo hrwf-logo cesnur-logo

Copyright © 2023 · Bitter Winter · PRIVACY POLICY· COOKIE POLICY