top of page
Search

Picard Law: Understanding the Key Legal Developments

Updated: Feb 7, 2024

Abstract:

The Picard law or the Cult law of France was adopted in year 2001 by the French parliament. The Picard law was aimed at enhancing measures to prevent and suppress sectarian movements that undermine the basic rights and freedoms of individuals. This legislation was passed by the National Assembly in the year 2000. The law is targeted to punish sects whose activities are deemed cultic and suppress fundamental freedom, human rights, and manipulation. The international community has raised concerns about the controversial nature of the law, with some critics arguing that it encroaches upon religious freedom. In contrast, supporters assert that the law actually upholds and strengthens religious freedom. But it seems that the new draft relating to Picard law in November 2023 is trying to make the already bad law worse.

 

The concept of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state has been integral to the French notion of governance, dating back to at least the French Revolution and, in some aspects, as far back as the 16th-century reformation and wars of religion. In France, the separation of religion and state is embodied in laïcité, where political authority refrains from meddling in religious doctrine, and religion refrains from influencing public policies. In the French context, "freedom of religion" primarily signifies an individual's liberty to believe or not believe in the tenets of any religion. Additionally, due to the historical dominance of the Catholic Church, the French state perceives its role less as safeguarding religion from state intervention and more as safeguarding individuals from interference by religion. But the suicides in Solar temple from year 1994 to 1997 led France to establish a parliamentary commission to pass laws against cults in France. The reason being, that most suicide victims were French and wealthy members of the French society.  Following this observation, a committee for sects was established which was named as "Interministerial Board of Observation of Sects" and was succeeded in 1998 by the "Interministerial Mission in the Fight Against Sects" (MILS). In 2002, MIVILUDES, the "Interministerial Monitoring Mission Against Sectarian Abuses," took over from MILS. In 2001, when France introduced the contentious About-Picard law aimed at combating cults, the initial proposal sought to penalize "mental manipulation." However, both international and French scholars, along with prominent legal experts, raised objections, contending that this concept was merely a substitute for the discredited theory of "brainwashing." This theory has been debunked as pseudoscience and recognized as a tool for discriminating against unpopular religions by academics and courts in various countries.

 

Amendments in Picard Law

On November 15, the government introduced a proposed law to "strengthen efforts against cultic deviations." The justification for this renewed crackdown on "cults" is the increasing number of "sassiness" received by MIVILUDES. As previously detailed by "Bitter Winter," these "sassiness" are not necessarily reports of real incidents; they encompass inquiries and questions directed to MIVILUDES and may be susceptible to falsehood or manipulation. Claims have emerged suggesting that "cults" proliferated during the COVID-19 pandemic, with some allegedly promoting anti-vaccination sentiments. Consequently, a new offense has been established, termed "provocation to abandon or refrain from necessary medical treatment," carrying a one-year imprisonment along with a fine. It's worth noting that this extends beyond COVID and vaccines. Despite the State Council's recommendation to omit this provision due to concerns about freedom of speech and "the freedom of scientific debates," the government chose to reject the council's advice, retaining the article in the draft law.


The core of the new proposed law revolves around the establishment of a novel criminal offense termed "psychological subjection." Those found guilty of inducing a state of "psychological subjection" in their victims through "serious or repeated pressure" or the use of manipulative techniques capable of altering judgment would face a three-year jail penalty. In cases where the perpetrators constitute an "organized band" employing these techniques systematically, such as in a "cult," the penalty escalates to seven years. This crime is deemed to occur when the use of "psychological subjection" results in a significant deterioration in the victims' physical or mental health or compels them to perform actions detrimentally affecting themselves.

 

Image Source: http://surl.li/qfsip 


Problems with the New Draft

This new offense is distinct from the existing provision on "abus de faiblesse," which penalizes actions induced by psychological techniques in situations where the victim is considered "weak." In contrast, "psychological subjection" applies universally, without the necessity of the victim being in a position of weakness. Moreover, the use of "or" instead of "and" is crucial in connecting the deterioration of the victim's mental health to the potential harm caused by "brainwashing" techniques. This allows punishment for "psychological subjection" even when there is no evidence of the victim engaging in self-damaging behavior; the mere occurrence of a "deterioration of mental health" is deemed sufficient.


The government argues that the existing About-Picard law does not directly address the criminalization of the state of "psychological subjection" resulting from operations and techniques aimed at placing the victim under the perpetrator's control. The proposed law seeks to rectify this by broadening the scope of criminality and accommodating situations where the victim may not exhibit explicit self-harming behaviors but experiences a decline in mental health, a condition presumed in scenarios of psychological subjection. Notably, anti-cult associations are expected to play a role in advocating this theory during trials, with prosecutors and judges advised to seek the opinion of MIVILUDES when in doubt.

 

Conclusion

France appears to be reverting to the year 2000 by contemplating the reintroduction of the crime of "psychological manipulation," a concept abandoned in the 2001 About-Picard law due to constitutional concerns. The State Council in France, often a moderating influence, examined the recent draft law on November 9 and offered a preliminary opinion on the potential violations of religious liberty related to the new crime of "brainwashing." The Council suggested changing the term "assujettissement" (subjugation) to "sujétion" (subjection) and specifying that the crime should involve one-on-one manipulation rather than a generic discourse to a broad audience, including via the Internet. However, many scholars argue that the concept of "brainwashing" is unfounded, and criminalizing it poses a threat to freedom of religion or belief. Despite the government's assurance that it targets techniques, not beliefs, the subjective determination of "cultic deviance" by anti-cultists, MIVILUDES, or the majority of society remains a concerning aspect of the proposed law.

 

 

References:

 

*This article is authored by Sneha & Vijetha Saishree, Student of Symbiosis Law School, Noida and reviewed by Amrit Shree Updhayay, Student of Symbiosis Law School, Noida.


Commentaires

bottom of page