proposed, Judge André Fauteux established a
precedent in regard to provisions of religious
freedom contained in the Canadian Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms as it relates to the
Youth Protection Act. He concluded that the
provisions contained in the Youth Protection Act
prevail, notwithstanding sections 1 and 2 of the
Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, as this
exerpt from his ruling shows:
Freedom of religion is not absolute. It
does not authorize anyone to refuse a
child's right to protection, life, human
decency, mental and emotional
development, and safety. Neither does
freedom of religion authorize anyone to
violate the rules of law that ensure the
free exercise of basic rights to each
child. (Recueils de jurisprudence du
Québec, 1986, p. 2712)8
The precedent Judge Fauteux established by this
ruling sends an important message to religious
groups who follow exteme perspectives in the
way they practice their religion. It clearly states
that religious practices that violate the law are
not beyond the reach of the law. This precedent
also proved useful for Child Protection Services,
which henceforward had legal guidelines to
better identify punishments that violate the
rights of a child. Although Pastor X had been
confident that Child Protection Services held no
power to regulate the practices that went on in
his church because these practices were
religiously motivated, the rule of law prevailed.
By the time the pastor received his sentence in
1990, the BCW had already terminated its
activities, and he had left the region and sought
anonymity. As for the followers, most of them
had left the church by December 1986 and had
reintegrated with society, sending their children
to regular schools or day-care centers they also
had resumed communication with friends,
8 Original judgment rendered in French: “La liberté de religion
n’est pas absolue. Elle n’autorise personne à refuser à l’enfant le
libre exercice de son droit à la protection, à la vie, au respect de sa
personne, à son développement mental et affectif et à sa sécurité.
La liberté de religion n’autorise non plus personne à enfreindre les
règles de droit qui assurent à l’enfant le libre exercice de ses
propres droits fondamentaux.” (Recueils de jurisprudence du
Québec, 1986, p. 2712)
family, and neigbors. However, the parents of
seven families did not accept the option to
collaborate with the voluntary measures the
DPJE’s social workers had proposed to them.
Their files were thus referred to the Youth
Court, which ordered various measures to ensure
that their children’s safety and development
were safeguarded. These parents were probably
amongst those who remained the most loyal to
the BCW’s teachings. Despite their attachment
to these teachings, their church no longer held
activities or services as of 1986.
Discussion
The review of the literature presented in the first
part of this article is useful in helping us better
understand the peaceful “denouement,” to use
Bromley’s (2002) term, of the severe child-
abuse situation that occurred in the BCW. Here
we will attempt to analyze the behavior and
attitude of the church’s leader and to examine
the trajectory the BCW took, with the intention
of identifying the dimensions that were
instrumental in its final stages, and in its
dissolution. This analysis will lead to the
concluding remarks, in which we will present an
overview of the main observations.
During the first phases of the police and DPJE
investigations, the leader was confident that
social-control agencies held no power to
regulate the practices in his church since those
practices were religiously motivated. At that
point in time, he acted as a plenipotentiary
leader and was in a position to order his
followers to do and say what he deemed best.
Their loyalty to him had been tested in previous
times, and those who had stayed with him were
devoted followers who believed his word was
the truth and the only truth, as many authors
have noted of leaders who claim to be emissaries
of God (Casoni, 2000 Dawson, 2010 Kernberg,
2003a, 2003b Lane &Kent, 2008 Michel,
1999).
In this belief, both Pastor X and most of his
followers, were wrong. We will argue that the
combined and complementary interventions by
the police, child-protection services, and child
day-care authorities were successful in assuring
the safety of the BCW’s children because of
their particular strategy of intervention. Their
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 93
precedent in regard to provisions of religious
freedom contained in the Canadian Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms as it relates to the
Youth Protection Act. He concluded that the
provisions contained in the Youth Protection Act
prevail, notwithstanding sections 1 and 2 of the
Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, as this
exerpt from his ruling shows:
Freedom of religion is not absolute. It
does not authorize anyone to refuse a
child's right to protection, life, human
decency, mental and emotional
development, and safety. Neither does
freedom of religion authorize anyone to
violate the rules of law that ensure the
free exercise of basic rights to each
child. (Recueils de jurisprudence du
Québec, 1986, p. 2712)8
The precedent Judge Fauteux established by this
ruling sends an important message to religious
groups who follow exteme perspectives in the
way they practice their religion. It clearly states
that religious practices that violate the law are
not beyond the reach of the law. This precedent
also proved useful for Child Protection Services,
which henceforward had legal guidelines to
better identify punishments that violate the
rights of a child. Although Pastor X had been
confident that Child Protection Services held no
power to regulate the practices that went on in
his church because these practices were
religiously motivated, the rule of law prevailed.
By the time the pastor received his sentence in
1990, the BCW had already terminated its
activities, and he had left the region and sought
anonymity. As for the followers, most of them
had left the church by December 1986 and had
reintegrated with society, sending their children
to regular schools or day-care centers they also
had resumed communication with friends,
8 Original judgment rendered in French: “La liberté de religion
n’est pas absolue. Elle n’autorise personne à refuser à l’enfant le
libre exercice de son droit à la protection, à la vie, au respect de sa
personne, à son développement mental et affectif et à sa sécurité.
La liberté de religion n’autorise non plus personne à enfreindre les
règles de droit qui assurent à l’enfant le libre exercice de ses
propres droits fondamentaux.” (Recueils de jurisprudence du
Québec, 1986, p. 2712)
family, and neigbors. However, the parents of
seven families did not accept the option to
collaborate with the voluntary measures the
DPJE’s social workers had proposed to them.
Their files were thus referred to the Youth
Court, which ordered various measures to ensure
that their children’s safety and development
were safeguarded. These parents were probably
amongst those who remained the most loyal to
the BCW’s teachings. Despite their attachment
to these teachings, their church no longer held
activities or services as of 1986.
Discussion
The review of the literature presented in the first
part of this article is useful in helping us better
understand the peaceful “denouement,” to use
Bromley’s (2002) term, of the severe child-
abuse situation that occurred in the BCW. Here
we will attempt to analyze the behavior and
attitude of the church’s leader and to examine
the trajectory the BCW took, with the intention
of identifying the dimensions that were
instrumental in its final stages, and in its
dissolution. This analysis will lead to the
concluding remarks, in which we will present an
overview of the main observations.
During the first phases of the police and DPJE
investigations, the leader was confident that
social-control agencies held no power to
regulate the practices in his church since those
practices were religiously motivated. At that
point in time, he acted as a plenipotentiary
leader and was in a position to order his
followers to do and say what he deemed best.
Their loyalty to him had been tested in previous
times, and those who had stayed with him were
devoted followers who believed his word was
the truth and the only truth, as many authors
have noted of leaders who claim to be emissaries
of God (Casoni, 2000 Dawson, 2010 Kernberg,
2003a, 2003b Lane &Kent, 2008 Michel,
1999).
In this belief, both Pastor X and most of his
followers, were wrong. We will argue that the
combined and complementary interventions by
the police, child-protection services, and child
day-care authorities were successful in assuring
the safety of the BCW’s children because of
their particular strategy of intervention. Their
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 93
