|
|
|
|
||
 |
|
Testimony of Joseph K. Grieboski PresidentHearing on Religious Discrimination in Western Europe Before the House International Relations Committee
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for inviting me to testify at today's hearings on religious discrimination in Western Europe. Before beginning, I wish to express my deep gratitude for your leadership in holding these important hearings on the status of freedom of conscience and belief in Western Europe, and for your personal dedication to ensuring that human rights and freedom of conscience and belief remain a force in U.S. foreign policy. The countries of Western Europe are America’s historic partners in terms of shared commitment to democracy and human rights. These countries have ratified the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and are all subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, and are members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe – all of which are committed to the highest standards of freedom of conscience and belief. Unfortunately, we are sadly observing many former havens of freedom and religious expression becoming new and subtle arenas for religious discrimination. The bill enacted by the French Government is an example of this new and potentially dangerous trend. Legislation like this limits and restricts the rights of all French people from practicing their beliefs according to the dictates of their consciences, and serves as a dangerous model for other states worldwide. The bill passed by the French Parliament, and signed into law last month, entitled, “To reinforce the prevention and repression of groups of a sectarian nature” aims to restrict the free expression, growth, and development of religious groups. Among the targeted groups are mainstream religious believers, many of whom enjoy the most basic human right of freedom of conscience and belief here in the US. While the legislation is specifically aimed at “sects” and cults,” the consequences of this bill are extremely dangerous, not only for religious groups, but also in the long run for democracy and religious rights in Europe and throughout the world. There is no legal definition for the terms “sect” and “cult” in French law, but these words do carry a derogatory meaning and characterizes what is seen to be a dangerous group. The legislation contains repressive measures which would have a chilling effect on the freedom of religion and belief, including the dissolution of targeted religious associations, the imprisonment of members of such groups, and infringement upon freedom of speech, including speech intended to persuade another person to a particular point of view, whether philosophical or religious. The law gives a court the authority to dissolve any group if it or any of its leaders have been found guilty of more than one vaguely-defined criminal offense. It provides for the dissolution of any related group, if a leader of that related group has at least one conviction against him. The law also allows the government to decide who is a “leader” of a group. It provides for fines and jail sentences if there is any attempt made to reestablish the dissolved group under another name or corporation. Mental Manipulation A particularly disturbing aspect of the legislation is the creation of a new criminal offense: causing "a state of psychological or physical subjection resulting from serious and repeated pressures or from techniques which can alter [a person’s] judgment,” originally entitled “mental manipulation.” Although the terminology “mental manipulation” has been replaced by the more acceptable phrase of “abuse of a person’s state of weakness,” the text of the crime remains unchanged. While the legislation and its authors do not provide an exact definition as to what is entailed in this process, the description could easily be applied to virtually any organization engaged in matters of opinion or belief. However, other legal entities such as political parties or business corporations are not subject to these drastic measures. In essence, the law permits the government to prosecute any organization which establishes a seeming state of physical or psychological reliance such that the follower engages in or desists from acts that results in behavior apparently different from that person’s usual past behavior. A commentary from Le Figaro Magazine points out the concern for Catholic religious orders – particularly cloistered orders – quite clearly: “A young girl who has chosen to live outside the world [as a cloistered nun], who has given up her belongings, left her clothes, cut her hair, who obeys without a murmur to anything, works hard without any salary and gets up several times a night to recite prayers learned by heart may” be considered one day, by a judge, as the victim of ‘mental manipulation’.” While very few of us would question the validity of the acts committed by these religious orders, under this law French authorities could potentially see “techniques designed to alter someone’s judgment,” close the monastery, arrest the mother superior, and charge her with the crime of mental manipulation. And in conjunction with the dissolution element of the legislation, which we will address later, the diocese within which the monastery was located can also be shut down – all under the auspices of the crime of causing "a state of psychological or physical subjection resulting from serious and repeated pressures or from techniques which can alter [a person’s] judgment.” Additionally, any type of religious education or proselytization can be suspect under the vague crime of “abuse of a person’s state of weakness.” An Orthodox Jewish teacher in a religious school, for instance, could potentially be charged with mental manipulation for “requiring” that a student assume the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses. In a similarly inane example according to the French law, a Catholic religious school could potentially be charged with mental manipulation for “forcing” its students to believe that common bread and wine become the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ. After all, what is education but, to use the language of the law, “a technique designed to alter someone’s judgment”? It is no wonder, then, that many traditional faiths – including the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim communities – are concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the law’s criminalization of “mental manipulation.” Acts Leading to Dissolution The list of predicated penal acts set forth in the law is extremely broad. Moreover, the law does not even require that the convictions involve offenses committed when acting for the religious organization. It would subject a religious group to possible dissolution if two perceived leaders were, for example, convicted of relatively minor offenses, including:
An individual convicted under the law may also be denied civil and family rights (such as child custody) and may be denied the right to participate in professional or social activity, if it is determined that the activity led to the action at issue in the penal proceedings. If the presumed “crime” of “causing a state of subjection” takes place on the premises of a religious organization, it is subject to closure for five years or more. In addition, religious organizations themselves are liable under this provision. These are extremely drastic penalties for a “crime” couched in subjective, unscientific and arbitrary standards vague enough to encompass any religious activity, including teaching and proselytizing. Any form of education and any form of persuasion can be defined as “techniques, which can alter judgment.” Under this law individuals will be subject to imprisonment and religious associations themselves to conviction, closure for five years or more and then dissolution if a judge determines that the religious beliefs or practices are somehow harmful to a person – even if the practices and beliefs are lawful and freely consented to by the individual. A variety of international standards are violated by the ambiguous and severe provisions for civil dissolution in the legislation. The government is providing for the eradication of a religious group based on actions unrelated to the dealings of the group itself: the law penalizes the organization for its beliefs, along with the actions of one individual leader, who can be named such by the decision of the court. As Elizabeth Clark pointed out in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in May, “the law is inconsistent with recent European Court decisions on freedom of association, which recognize that the right to have a legal entity is an integral part of the right to freedom of association. The fact that a leader may have done something illegal – regardless of the religion – does not deprive the rest of the group the right to associate.” The successful – and maybe rightful – prosecution of a Catholic priest should not lead to the dissolution of the entire Catholic Church in France; nor should it be so for those groups referred to as “sects” and “cults” in France. This legislation violates several international principles and standards, all of which France has adopted. Among those violated are the nondiscrimination principles of the 1981 United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, the, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the Vienna Concluding Document. Private Organizations may Initiate Criminal Actions Another repressive provision allows associations fighting against religious faiths to initiate criminal actions as civil plaintiffs on behalf of affected persons even if the “victims” have no complaint with the organization. In addition, “any association duly classified as being of public interest” organized in its bylaws and articles of incorporation to “defend” and “assist” individuals or protect “collective freedoms” may initiate a civil dissolution action against a religious organization. This will allow anti-religious groups with ingrained prejudices against faiths to first initiate criminal actions against targeted individuals and organizations, and then initiate dissolution actions. Placing such power in the hands of vested interest groups opposed to certain beliefs will inevitably lead to serious abuse and open the floodgates of suspect litigation. Small religious organizations could easily be forced into bankruptcy. International Consequences Not only is this legislation a threat to believers in France, it also will have a significant effect on believers worldwide. The South China Morning Post reported on 6 April 2001 that, “… the model proposed in France would almost certainly be studied by the SAR [Hong Kong] Government if it chooses to respond to recent pressure from the pro-Beijing camp over the Falun Gong's local activities by considering introducing criminal laws to deal with the sect…. Indeed, there were reports last month that the French anti-sect laws have already caught the eye of the Department of Justice and the Government may use French laws as a reference point in defining an 'evil cult'.” This was just one reference to the French model. In an op-ed article in yesterday’s Washington Post, Joseph A. Bosco commented that, “China's Communist leaders have finally found a Western human rights model they like: France's new anti-cult law making ‘mental manipulation’ a crime. Hong Kong's Tung Chee-hwa indicated he is studying the French precedent for possible use against the Falun Gong movement because it has ‘more or less the characteristics of an evil cult’; he pledged to ‘keep a close eye on their every move.’ Mainland authorities have already cracked down on the group and other spiritual and religious practitioners who resist government thought control.” Participants of the International Conference "Totalitarian Cults & Threat of Twenty-First Century,” which took place from 25-27 April 2001 in Nizhny Novgorod, Russia, also referred to the French legislation as a guide when it stated in its final report, “We assume that the legislation of our country on freedom of conscience and religious activity up to now is not adequate. Traditional religions do not need any specific state protection from totalitarian sects, but citizens of Russia do. We put forward an initiative to introduce into Russian legislation alterations or amendments, or to adopt new legislative acts of direct action in order to put under a strict control, to restrict or even to ban the activity of totalitarian sects (destructive cults) and other groups falling under such definition. Here we can use legislative experience of such European countries as France, Belgium, Germany and Austria.” There are indications that we are confronted with a systematic effort by forces in the French Government to export this repressive and discriminatory stance against religious groups overseas. Alain Vivien, President of the Inter-ministerial Commission to Battle Sects and Cults in France (MILS), has become France’s ambassador for anti-religiosity. Vivien and his staff have developed working relationships with some of the most egregious violators of religious freedom and human rights, a very unholy alliance. On November 9, 2000, representatives of MILS attended an International Symposium on Destructive Cults” held in, of all places, Beijing. The People’s Daily reported that, “The meeting is to focus on promoting international cooperation…for the prevention and control of destructive cults...and call for more attention from various governments, the general public and civil organizations to the issue of destructive cults, and to promote international cooperation in combating such evil forces and safeguarding human rights.” From September 1999 to November 2000, press reports indicate that Mr. Vivien and his staff have traveled throughout Western, Central, and Eastern Europe. From Haiti to China to Poland to Cyprus to Hungary, Germany, and beyond, MILS staff have exported their anti-religiosity throughout the globe, even to the point of coming to “anti-cult” conferences here in the United States. Aaron Rhodes, Director of the International Helsinki Federation, raised a very poignant question when he asked, “Is this the international role the French people want?” We have tried to determine just what is the extent of MILS’ mission and mandate, but to no avail. Members of the committee, I would encourage you to use your influence and stations as members of the International Relations Committee, and more importantly, as members of the human Rights Subcommittee, to investigate whether or not Alain Vivien is a member of the French Foreign Ministry and if, in his foreign trips, he is representing the official positions of the Government of France and its vital interests. Does Alain Vivien and MILS represent the official policies of the French government in the same way Bob Seiple and Tom Farr represent the interests of the United States abroad? Domestic and International Opposition In France itself, there has been serious and consistent resistance voiced by representatives of the civil society and the major monotheistic faiths. In May 2001 Pastor Jean-Arnold De Clermont, President of the French Protestant Federation, and Cardinal Louis-Marie Billé, President of the French Conference of Catholic Bishops, expressed their reservations about the legislation in a letter to Prime Minister Jospin. In response to the concerns of these religious leaders, a politician challenged Pastor De Clermont during a television program saying, “You have to clean your own house.” Pastor Jean-Arnold de Clermont, Monsignor Jean Vernette, of the French Conference of Catholic Bishops, Joseph Sitruk, Grand Rabbi of France, and Dalil Boubakeur, vice-chancellor of the Mosque of Paris, met with both Prime Minister Lionel Jospin’s office in October 2000 and with the Senate Law Commission of France in November 2000 to address their concerns regarding the legislation. Internationally, the level of opposition to the legislation has been incredibly high. Pope John Paul II has spoken out against this devastating legislation. While formally accepting the credentials of the new French Ambassador to the Holy See, Mr. Alain Dejammet, Pope John Paul devoted an entire section of his speech to religious liberty, an unusual theme when receiving ambassadors of Western democratic countries. The Pope reminded the ambassador that "religious liberty, in the full sense of the term, is the first human right. This means a liberty which is not reduced to the private sphere only…To discriminate religious beliefs, or to discredit one or another form of religious practice is a form of exclusion contrary to the respect of fundamental human values and will eventually destabilize society, where a certain pluralism of thought and action should exist, as well as a benevolent and brotherly attitude. This will necessarily create a climate of tension, intolerance, opposition and suspect, not conductive to social peace.” The Council of Europe had appointed a Parliamentary Assembly Rapporteur to “investigate the provisions of the law and determine whether they are in line with the European Convention on Human Rights and other Council of Europe and international human rights standards” and to “investigate complaints concerning religious discrimination” in France. In April, 50 members of the of the parliament of the Council of Europe wrote to the French Senate urging it to stop the vote on the then-draft law, commenting on its potential to create religious discrimination in France.” In a January 2, 2001 letter, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright expressed her concerns regarding the dangerous trend of religious intolerance advancing across Europe. Secretary Albright stated that, “… the proposed legislation is part of a disturbing trend in western Europe where some states have adopted, or are considering, discriminatory legislation or policies that tend to stigmatize legitimate expression of religious faith by wrongfully associating them with dangerous ‘sects’ or ‘cults.’ Such laws and policies pose a danger to freedom of religion…We are concerned that legislation or policies that stigmatize these religious groups contravene international – and European – norms of religious freedom…We have made clear to our friends and allies in Europe that we are concerned about these trends.” In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Europe, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Michael Parmly, commented that, “Although the proposed bill does not apply exclusively to religious groups, it is clearly intended to target the new and less familiar religions in France. We are concerned that the language in this context is dangerously ambiguous and could be used against legitimate religious endeavors, such as religious schools, seminaries, monasteries or retreats.” Aid to the Church in Need, an international Catholic charity under papal jurisdiction, included France among the countries with discriminatory laws in its “2001 Report on Religious Liberty Worldwide.” The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights has stated that, “We need for France to show respect for international standards…But this law contradicts France’s obligations undertaken in the Helsinki process. It contradicts the standards of the Council of Europe…The law is a threat to religious tolerance and basic liberties that are central to French political values. The law reflects a demonizing attitude toward minority religions and will increase the sense of insecurity felt by members of minority religions.” Closing This repressive law makes the practice of one’s religion into a criminal offense. The right of an individual to express his beliefs immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits, is the fundamental foundation and leading factor in the success of the American experiment. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, a fundamental question of American credibility and legitimacy is tied directly to the passage of this legislation. The United States has stood strong and proud as a defender of human rights and religious freedom globally. We have stood up for the rights of religious, political, and civil minorities throughout the world. The reports of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom and the US Department of State pinpoint the violations of human rights globally, and drive US action. While we stand against tyranny in Sudan, oppression in China, and other violations, what credibility will the United States have if it does not address directly and indirectly the intolerance and discrimination taking place in the countries of Western Europe, our own allies? Will the concerns I have raised today be carried out by authorities in France? I cannot answer that. However, we cannot delude ourselves into thinking that such actions cannot take place simply because the law was passed in a liberal, democratic state. The Administration, the United States Congress, and the entire religious community must be vigilant in its defense of the fundamental freedom and right of all people to believe according to the dictates of hearts and consciences. As the Second Vatican Council stated in its document Dignitatis Humanae (On the Dignity of Man), “…the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups, and every human power, so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in public or in private, alone or in association with others.” This right is based on the dignity of the human person both as an individual and as simultaneously a social being, as revealed by the Work of God and by reason itself. Thank you again, Madame Chairman, for your commitment to he cause of
religious freedom. I would be happy to take questions from the committee.
|
