The fight against sectarian excesses is a path strewn with pitfalls. At the end of last year, the government presented a vast strategy to finally oppose the gurus of all kinds who have proliferated in recent years, in particular those who “invest the fields of health, food, well-being, but also personal development. One of its cornerstones: the bill concocted by the Secretary of State for Citizenship from 2022 to 2023, Sonia Backès, then carried by her successor, Sabrina Agresti-Roubache.
Examined at first reading by the Senate at the end of December, this text was nevertheless largely distorted and emptied of its substance by the Upper House. Despite some interesting additions, including the inclusion in the law of the Interministerial Mission for Vigilance and the Fight against Sectarian Abuses (Miviludes), several important articles for stakeholders in the sector – particularly for victims – were deleted by the senators. Northern MP Brigitte Liso (Renaissance), who has just been appointed rapporteur of the bill to the National Assembly, reacts to these modifications and expresses her ambitions for this text, which will be examined in committee the week of 5 February, and the following week in public session.
L’Express: The Senate has largely modified the bill to combat sectarian aberrations presented by the government. What do you think of the text adopted by the Upper House at the end of last year?
Brigitte Liso: The senators did not just amend the bill, they reduced and devitalized it. This text causes a stir, this shows that it is disturbing. This makes me say that it is useful. We are therefore going to propose to our fellow MEPs to return to the initial version sent to Parliament, which seemed entirely coherent. We wish in particular to reintroduce the various articles deleted by the Senate, which planned to strengthen the legal framework by specifically targeting and sanctioning the placing under control with serious consequences for the integrity of the French thanks to article 1, and in also attacking harmful therapeutic abuses with article 4.
Why do you think it is necessary to change the About-Picard law, which already provided for penalizing the abuse of weakness through psychological subjection?
The abuse of weakness takes place in a second phase: by attacking the control, we want to act upstream. Today, it is not possible to directly punish physical or psychological subjection, even though these behaviors themselves cause serious harm to the victims. It was paradoxical to sanction one but not the other. This will also make it possible to better compensate victims and repair the damage suffered, since, today, the law does not allow them to obtain damages commensurate with the after-effects caused by these offenses.
Some magistrates believe that the Penal Code is sufficient. But I think we need to better deter crimes linked to sectarian abuses. Moreover, the conviction figures show us that the legislation currently in force is not sufficient. While reports to Miviludes increase from year to year (with an increase in reports of 33% between 2020 and 2021), there are only around fifteen convictions per year on average on the grounds of abuse of weakness. by subjection. This is proof that there is a lack of effectiveness in the current law.
The About-Picard law dates from 2001 and, since then, sectarian practices have evolved considerably. They are no longer the work of large, well-identified organizations, but of a multitude of isolated gurus who often act thanks to the communication possibilities offered by the Internet. We must therefore adapt to this new reality.
The article on provocation to abandon care was also deleted, after being strongly criticized by the Council of State. Would you still like to reintroduce it?
Creating an offense of provocation to abandonment of care seems so obvious in the current context that the opposition of some to this reform is questionable. With this article, the government was accused of wanting to attack freedom of expression, freedom of care or even freedom of research. It’s quite the opposite, we respect beliefs, but we tackle dangerous behavior. Various cases have shown us in recent years how important it is to intervene in this area.
When a guru encourages his followers to replace chemotherapy with potato juice, we cannot stand idly by. It seems to me that the last version of the text responded to all the criticisms that could have been formulated. We are talking about a provocation to abandon or abstain from following a treatment, arguing for a benefit for the patient, whereas, in the state of medical knowledge, this abandonment or renunciation would have serious consequences for the patient. physical or mental health of the victim. The law also proposes four cumulative criteria which provide a good framework for this new offense, and on which the judge can rely in order to assess whether or not there is grounds for sanction.
Do you expect strong opposition?
Not on the side of the presidential majority, in any case, nor of the moderate left. It will perhaps be a little more complicated with elected environmentalists. Some of them may advocate a return to nature which can sometimes give rise to unconventional care practices and therapeutic abuses. On the Republican side, I have not identified any strong opposition at this stage, but I have not found people very involved on the subject of sectarian aberrations either.
The senators wanted to include Miviludes in the law, whereas this structure today depends on a simple regulatory text. Do you think you will keep this measure?
Miviludes is a fully recognized and well-identified organization. I don’t think legislative registration is a priority. But, as rapporteur, I want to keep the debate alive, and why not on this subject. The government had also proposed to modify the Senate article that you mention, with a more balanced version. This amendment provided for the anchoring of such an institution in the law, specifying its missions, in particular the capacity to receive reports and any information linked to a risk of sectarian drift.
In any case, don’t you think that the resources allocated to Miviludes should be strengthened, while referrals continue to increase?
In an ideal world, that’s what we should do, of course. But budgets are not expandable, and I think it is possible to do better with so much. I would nevertheless like to point out that Miviludes has undergone an unprecedented increase in its workforce, with the recent recruitment of lawyers and magistrates. This was a strong expectation from the teams and associations.
You say that the budgets are not expandable, but, at the same time, funds have been released to open calls for projects aimed at associations defending victims of sectarian aberrations. It is therefore indeed a political choice…
We would of course like to be able to do both, but, given the constrained budgetary context, this seems complicated. I do not believe that we must pit the State against associations, the interministerial mission also draws on associations. We are facing a relay deficit on the ground. Even in a very remote department, victims must be able to find a local contact, a contact who will then be able to report their situation to Miviludes.
On the other hand, I think we must ensure that the associations meet our expectations. This is why I would like to propose an amendment aimed at establishing a charter to supervise associations and standardize their structuring methods. Miviludes could be responsible for ensuring compliance.
Are there any other improvements you would like to make to the bill?
We can certainly go further in our reflections, in particular on the protection of minors, even if the Senate has already adopted amendments in this direction. In Quebec, for example, it is possible to offer support and supervision by social services in the event of serious and continuous desocialization of a child, even without any immediate vital or psychological risk. We know that there are cases of children, certainly in school, but not participating in any activities or outings: outside of school, they do not leave the family environment. In Quebec, it is possible to act for these children, because we know that this desocialization can be harmful to them. Furthermore, I would like us to make it easier to repair the damage suffered by victims of sectarian abuses by automatically granting them the right to legal aid. We cannot want to both encourage the filing of complaints and not financially help the people concerned.
Do you think that the discussions around this text of law will help to put the question of sectarian abuses back at the heart of the debate?
I hope so. It is imperative that the general public realize that anyone – you, me – can, at some point, fall under the influence of a guru. The national strategy to combat sectarian abuses presented at the end of last year provides for general public communication on these subjects, and I welcome this. We must train our fellow citizens to recognize the methods used by manipulators who seek to place people under their influence. Often, they begin by isolating their victims, then, once they are isolated from those around them, they make them believe that only they can understand and help them. These are well-known mechanisms, which we find in romantic influence, in conspiracy, in radicalization, etc.
During the debates in the Senate, an LR senator minimized the extent of the threat linked to sectarian abuses by insinuating that the reports reported by Miviludes were sometimes simple unsubstantiated calls, and that the data displayed overestimated reality. What do you think ?
We contacted Miviludes on this subject, who assured us that no information was truly trivial. Simple “unsubstantiated” calls, as this elected official says, are often questions from concerned fellow citizens. Many situations are indeed worrying and are the subject of more complete monitoring and sometimes transmission to the competent services for investigations or a report under article 40 of the Penal Code. Obviously, some thought they had found an angle of attack there to question the work of Miviludes or the relevance of this bill, but they are on the wrong track. We also know well that the facts reported to Miviludes are unfortunately only the tip of the iceberg.
.