Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, Page 66
It does, however, speak of proceedings at present under way concerning the refusal of certain
Jehovah's Witnesses to perform military service or, in some cases, alternative community
service.
Norway speaks of accusations brought against the Church of Scientology, whose recruiting
and funding methods are criticized.
Spain speaks of several cases, such as unlawful proselytism, duress, threats, offenses against
individual freedom and safety, fraud, tax evasion, currency fraud, and employment offenses.
The United Kingdom speaks above all of disputes concerning tax exemptions granted to
charitable associations.
The courts in France have had to deal with complaints both from sects themselves and from
individuals --relatives of members or former members --complaining of certain aspects of
their activities.
Sects or their members base their complaints either on defamation or the exercise of freedom
of religion.
Defamation is alleged when information on sects is published (see, for example, the judgment
of 10 November 1982 of the Paris Regional Court, quoted in Les Petites Affiches of 27 April
1988). Some sects conceal their true activities or aims behind a cultural, philosophical, or
other facade, and accordingly regard any information on their true activities as defamatory,
In the case referred to, the court, having compared the documents issued by the sect itself
with the claims made in the article complained of, concluded that those claims were true.
This brings us to one of the elements that distinguish a sect from a religion. While a religion
implies free, informed consent on the part of those who join it, people joining certain sects
may be free when they join it, but are not informed, and, once they are informed, they are
usually no longer free.
As the father of one victim bitterly remarked, sects usually succeed because they advance
undercover.
Another ground for complaints by members of sects concerns the exercise of freedom of
religion. Thus, the European Commission on Human Rights has had to deal with several cases
concerning the practice of religion by sects or some of their members. (See, inter alia: Case
7805/77, 5 May 1979, Vol. XXII, p. 244 Case 2299/64, Vol. VIII, p. 324 Case 7705/76
Case 8282/78 of July 14 1980, D.R. 21, p. 109.) All these complaints were declared
unfounded, since they concerned specific practices beyond the reach of law and were thus
covered by paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This
paragraph provides for restrictions on freedom of religion, provided that these restrictions are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety,
for the protection of public order, health, or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others.
And here we come to the nub of the whole problem of sects, namely, the fact that they lie at
the point where the balance between freedom (either individual or collective) and public order
is upset.
The concept of public order is extremely hard to define, this being a highly subjective and
variable notion, on which states enjoy considerable discretion.
This leads us to start thinking about sects as minorities. We must not forget that the main
religions are legitimized in individual states by being mass religions (they were once state
religions, and still are in some countries) and that the religious observances which they
generate are imposed on the minority as a cultural phenomenon.
It does, however, speak of proceedings at present under way concerning the refusal of certain
Jehovah's Witnesses to perform military service or, in some cases, alternative community
service.
Norway speaks of accusations brought against the Church of Scientology, whose recruiting
and funding methods are criticized.
Spain speaks of several cases, such as unlawful proselytism, duress, threats, offenses against
individual freedom and safety, fraud, tax evasion, currency fraud, and employment offenses.
The United Kingdom speaks above all of disputes concerning tax exemptions granted to
charitable associations.
The courts in France have had to deal with complaints both from sects themselves and from
individuals --relatives of members or former members --complaining of certain aspects of
their activities.
Sects or their members base their complaints either on defamation or the exercise of freedom
of religion.
Defamation is alleged when information on sects is published (see, for example, the judgment
of 10 November 1982 of the Paris Regional Court, quoted in Les Petites Affiches of 27 April
1988). Some sects conceal their true activities or aims behind a cultural, philosophical, or
other facade, and accordingly regard any information on their true activities as defamatory,
In the case referred to, the court, having compared the documents issued by the sect itself
with the claims made in the article complained of, concluded that those claims were true.
This brings us to one of the elements that distinguish a sect from a religion. While a religion
implies free, informed consent on the part of those who join it, people joining certain sects
may be free when they join it, but are not informed, and, once they are informed, they are
usually no longer free.
As the father of one victim bitterly remarked, sects usually succeed because they advance
undercover.
Another ground for complaints by members of sects concerns the exercise of freedom of
religion. Thus, the European Commission on Human Rights has had to deal with several cases
concerning the practice of religion by sects or some of their members. (See, inter alia: Case
7805/77, 5 May 1979, Vol. XXII, p. 244 Case 2299/64, Vol. VIII, p. 324 Case 7705/76
Case 8282/78 of July 14 1980, D.R. 21, p. 109.) All these complaints were declared
unfounded, since they concerned specific practices beyond the reach of law and were thus
covered by paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This
paragraph provides for restrictions on freedom of religion, provided that these restrictions are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety,
for the protection of public order, health, or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others.
And here we come to the nub of the whole problem of sects, namely, the fact that they lie at
the point where the balance between freedom (either individual or collective) and public order
is upset.
The concept of public order is extremely hard to define, this being a highly subjective and
variable notion, on which states enjoy considerable discretion.
This leads us to start thinking about sects as minorities. We must not forget that the main
religions are legitimized in individual states by being mass religions (they were once state
religions, and still are in some countries) and that the religious observances which they
generate are imposed on the minority as a cultural phenomenon.
