Working Session #7 of the 2017 OSCE HDIM was based on the concepts of tolerance and non-discrimination, with a focus on combating racism, xenophobia, and discrimination; combating anti-Semitism and intolerance and discrimination against Christians, Muslims, and members of other religions; and prevention and response to hate crimes in the OSCE area.
Soteria international addressed the fact that freedoms come hand in hand with obligations, or responsibilities. We cannot just claim our rights without considering, also, our obligations and the consequences of our actions. Words have power; even in the physical world. What we say can affect the physical welfare of a person, a group of people, or even a nation. We, therefore, suggest, that holding ourselves accountable to what we say and do with our opinions or ideas is the solution in correctly implementing the freedom of expression. Exercising self-control by learning how to control our speech, while also considering the fact that we all have different capacities to handle words or criticism. It is limiting someone’s freedom of speech when asking them to behave properly, with common sense, and with respect for others.
The intervention can be accessed on the OSCE website, as well as, read below:
OSCE – HDIM 2017
WORKING SESSION 7 – Tolerance and non-discrimination 1, 14 Sept 2017
Freedom of Expression and Religious Rights: Rights and Obligations
Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression are points of concern in all OSCE member states. The complex interaction between these fundamental freedoms has changed in the last decade, through the impact of social media and demographic changes related to immigration. Freedom of expression and Freedom of thought, conscience and belief often seem to clash in the form of blasphemy, discrimination, hate-crimes etc. Still, freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and belief are two sides of the same fundamental inner human need to express and live by ones’ own heart, without denying anyone else the same freedom.
All who engage in social media need to be aware that freedom of expression is not an absolute right in the public sphere.
Freedom of thought, conscience and belief is a central commitment in all OSCE member states, and constitute the basis of tolerance and non-discrimination. Despite many national and international efforts, individuals and religious or belief communities face a range of issues characterized by intolerance, discrimination, and hate speech towards their beliefs. These challenges have profound roots in the lack of education at a social level.
At the core of the human rights dimension lies the commitment to combat all forms of intolerance and discrimination, including hate crime, and to promote mutual respect and understanding.
Both the Danish Institute for Human Rights, in their Status Report for 2016-2017, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, who published his observations from a visit to Denmark in 2016 this March, have stated that freedom of expression and freedom of conscience, thought, and belief are under pressure in Denmark. So there’s an argument to address both of these freedoms in the Danish context.
Let’s first establish a common understanding for the basis of what we’re discussing today. Firstly, human rights law protects the rights of everyone and is based on the principle of non-discrimination. The rights we have are interrelated and equally important, yet are legally implemented in different ways due to the principles of proportionality and the pursuit of a legitimate aim. Any interference with our protected rights must therefore be embedded in national law and be made public in order to protect citizens from inconsistent or unclear rulings.
Secondly, the freedoms we have are composed of both rights and responsibilities that are our obligation to uphold, promote, and encourage at all times. It is also the responsibility of individuals, groups, and associations to promote respect for and foster knowledge of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.
We would like to argue that the two rights we will speak about today, the Freedom of Conscience, thought, and belief and freedom of expression, go hand in hand and cannot be seen as independent and separate rights, but instead we can say that freedom of conscience is a form of freedom of expression and vice versa.
The second conference of our 2017 Spiritual Human Rights series, hosted by Soteria International and ENAR Denmark, was attended representatives with a variety of backgrounds, including spiritual practitioners, academics, law, students, and human rights activists.
Konrad Swenninger, of Soteria International, moderated the conference and set the stage by stating the need to raise the level of the conversation that is being had on the topics of the freedom of expression, and the freedom of conscience, thought, and belief.
The speakers of the panel included: Josephine Carlson from Soteria International, Jens-Peter Bonde, a former member of the European Parliament; Siri Tellier from the University of Copenhagen; Advaita Stoian representing Natha Yoga Center; Jette Møller from SOS Against Racism; Anette Refstrup from the Church of Scientology in Denmark; and Bashy Quraishy representing European network against racism ENAR.
The general theme was the unfortunate and actual situation in many European countries where the rights of minorities, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to freedom of opinion and expression seem to clash due to social tensions that manifest as hate speech and defamation of certain cultural and spiritual groups. Each one of the participants brought their unique view to the table, and the audience participated with comments and questions.
Josephine Carlson, the representative from Soteria International, defined freedom of expression and religious freedoms and stated that they don’t necessary have to be seen as conflicting. In the both of these freedoms the core idea is everybody’s right and ability to express him/herself and to live in his/her own truth from the heart. She also pointed out that the verbal violence is a form of violence that also can have severe consequences and that it’s important for all people to aim to respect the principle of “do no harm.” According to Carlson, the mature merging of these two fundamental rights is possible when human beings take a higher perspective upon them and cease to see them as opposing.
The Romanian yoga teacher, Gregorian Bivolaru, has been released from prison in his country of origin. The conditional release was requested and granted after serving one third of the sentence.
Thousands of yoga practitioners suffered the consequences of persecution in Romanian as the yoga movement was targeted, beginning during the Ceausescu times and culminating in 2004.
The yoga teacher, Gregorian Bivolaru, has had refugee status in Sweden since 2006, based on his religious persecution, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. In 2016, however, he was arrested in France and extradited to Romania. Thus, international laws were jeopardized, when Romanian authorities defied EU regulations by continuing the persecution and issuing a European Arrest Warrant in 2013. This created a unique and controversial situation within the EU judicial collaboration, where the refugee was simultaneously protected and persecuted.
The much awaited release of Mr. Bivolaru does not reflect an official change in the ongoing persecution of the yoga teacher.
The relief of his release cannot take away from the importance of the abuses committed in the case, and the struggle for justice within the Romanian system should continue.
Soteria International has been following this case since 2007 and shares the joy of Mr. Bivolaru's long awaited release. May his release inspire international human rights activists, politicians, and experts to further engage themselves in the defence of human rights.
Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion as two points of concern in Europe. The complex interaction between these two freedoms is becoming more apparent in our diverse society, where the cultural norms are being challenged by globalization. Europe is, thus, standing at a crossroads, where on one hand, it wants to maintain a well-functioning society, while also integrating diverse groups that reside here in a congruent way.
Freedom of religion or belief is a central commitment in the OSCE area, in direct relation to the promotion of tolerance and non-discrimination, to raising awareness of religious diversity. In the present, individuals, religious or beliefs communities face a range of issues that continue to be challenged by intolerance and discrimination towards their beliefs, with profound roots in the lack of education at a social level.
The text has been extracted from an article published by CICNS, which can be accessed in it's original language (French) here.
TFI stated in 2001, that "the various massacres linked to the Order of the Solar Temple, occurring at the same time as various other international scandals linked to sectarian movements, have strongly contributed to a stronger movement against sects in France."
Today we can see how these highly publicized tragedies cause panic and affect judgments and hatred. The public is poorly informed with regards to the grey area of all these cases. They are only provided with the perspective that incites fear.
The Order of the Solar Temple, or OST, became notorious with five murders: on September 30, 1994, five members of the Solar Temple died in a house fire in Morin Heights, Quebec. On October 5, 1994, 48 charred bodies were found in Switzerland, 23 in Cheiry, and 25 in Granges-sur-Salvan, including the two masters of the Solar Temple, Luc Jouret and Joseph Di Mambro. On December 15, 1995, 16 people burned in a clearing in the Vercors, including 3 children, and the wife and the son of Jean Vuarnet. March 22, 1997, five followers of the Solar Temple, including three French, were charred in Saint-Casimir, Quebec.
This is Part II of the case of the Case of the Community of the Beatitudes in France.
The text has been extracted from an article published by CICNS, which can be accessed in it's original language (French) here.
Continuation of Part I:
The community has filed a number of complaints for defamation: "There have been around ten complaints against media: TV channels, national or regional daily new, weekly news, free newspapers, and even a website" (La Depeche, January 20, 2009).
Following the statement of a member of the community in Vaumoise, fearing that the community replaces medicine, Bernard Grenier, the vicar general of the Beauvais bishopric, says: "This isn't the case! They take those who ask for help under their wing. I think that the man who was alarmed and thought it was a cult had to have been surprised by the apparent fervor of religious individuals. Maybe we invited him to participate in prayers, and perhaps this was misunderstood?" A similar remark was made by the Mayor of Vaumoise, Germain Nicolas, for whom this is an unfortunate misunderstanding. "We’ve been living with them for twenty years. Thanks to them, some communes, deserted by the priests, have gotten an office. Healing offices do exist, but in no way do they treat the people with prayer. They are called Patient’s Offices and take place approximately once every four months. People come here to pray for those who feel convicted or who have a serious illness that medicine has failed to cure. They are looking for comfort, that's all. In fact, those who have questions about this community can come to their open house on September 16." There is nothing to hide." (Le Parisien, August 8, 2007).
This is Part I of the case of the Case of the Community of the Beatitudes in France.
The text has been extracted from an article published by CICNS, which can be accessed in its original language (French) here.
The Community of the Beatitudes has been the subject of significant media coverage in recent years due to a number of complaints. This is a summary of these events and a highlight of the role of the media in the construction of a negative image of this group, regardless of the blame placed on certain members whose cases are currently being processed by the court.
"The community was founded in France in 1973, under the charismatic movement, with the name "Community of the Lion of Judah and the Slain Lamb." Gérard Croissant, called Brother Ephraïm, a married man, founded the community along with another couple. In 1987 the community decided to change the name to the 'Community of the Beatitudes' becoming official in 1991. Today, it is located on five continents and in 65 dioceses. "An international association of those faithful to the pontifical right since 2002, the community is part of the pontifical Council for the laity and not only for those directly from their diocese of origin" (La Croix, June 24, 2008). "The Community of the Beatitudes was recognized "ad experimento" (provisionally, Editor's note) in 2002 by the Vatican for a period of five years." Its final recognition was not accepted, although the provisional status was extended for two years, Father Jean-Baptiste Tison, a member of the community of our Lady of Bonnecombe, told AFP" (AFP, October 17, 2008).
Soteria International & ENAR Denmark Invite you to our upcoming conference:
Date & Time: Wednesday, September 13 @ 8pm
Address: Nørre Allé 7, Copenhagen N
This conference will be a series of short presentations and debate where human rights activists and guests will openly discuss the issues related to Freedom of Expression in a religious context in Denmark and Europe, and will focus on questions such as:
1. What role can education play in raising awareness regarding how to maintain freedom of expression, while ensuring the respect of one another’s reputation?
2. How can education help raise awareness with regards to the thin line between the Freedom of Religion and Belief and the Freedom of Expression?
3. How can an open society engage and work towards ensuring the Freedom of Expression, while respecting the moral and ethical code?
4. Should there be ‘checks and balances’ in relation to Freedom of Expression in a religious context?
5. How can we resolve these issues together?
Since the United Nations established the Declaration of Human Rights in 1954, people have been attempting to incorporate the rights of others into their actions. One of the current challenges concerns the freedom of religion and belief and the discrimination that often appears when certain religious groups are not understood in society. With regards to this issue, the Directorate General for Internal Affairs Policy Department on Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs of the EU, along with the experts Chiara Favilli and Nicole Lazzerini from the University of Florence, produced a study on “Discrimination(s) as emerging from petitions received.” These are guidelines and interpretations, which can be found in their entirety here.
Here we provide a reproduction of the section on Religion or Belief:
Art. 19 TFEU, Art. 21(1) CFR and Directive 2000/78/EC mention religion amongst the prohibited grounds of discrimination. The word religion is associated with the term belief. The prohibited ground of discrimination must therefore be interpreted by considering both concepts which equally appear in international conventions aimed to recognise freedom of religion (notably Art. 9 ECHR and Art. 18 ICCPR). Based on the case law of the ECtHR, which must be considered under Article 52(3) CFR, the terms should be interpreted broadly, notably as encompassing also the discrimination of churches or, in general, groups around which a religious activity is organised. These terms must be understood as providing protection in relation to any belief, not only those connected in any way to a deity, but also non-religious belief systems, i.e. sets of ideas and opinions on life and lifestyle. The concept of non - violence and pacifism offers an example because it goes beyond the conceptualisation of peaceful relations between states and rather involves various aspects of human relations. By contrast, mere opinions do not fall within the protected scope of the ground concerned.
It is doubtful whether sects may also be granted protection under the rules on freedom of religion as well as under the rules concerning discrimination on grounds of religion. Generally speaking, the term ‘sect’ refers to a group which, under the mantle of religion, carries out activities which are illegal or even harmful to its followers, sometimes violating their dignity. In its 1996 resolution on cults in Europe the European Parliament affirmed that freedom of religion can be limited when an organisation commits acts of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or involves serious forms of psychological subjugation, thus urging countries to be cautious in granting the status of religious confession to sects whose methods are seriously questionable.
Freedom of expression is a human right, a universal requirement and freedom that all individuals should enjoy. As a requirement for membership in the European Union (EU) a country must respect human rights, as outlined in the Copenhagen Criteria (Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights). The same is true for non-EU countries who want to enter into trade agreements with EU countries.
In addition to human rights, the European Union also considers the rule of law to be of the utmost importance. In fact, it is one of the founding principles and fundamental values upon which the EU is based. The rule of law was implemented in order to established agreements and bring coherence into the European and national communities in order to protect citizens and create harmony in society.
Through our research, we have encountered many instances in which one or more European Union member states have distorted the rule of law in order to reach political interests. One of the most simple trends is the use of labeling, such as has been done in the examples used in the conference when the individuals were accused of being “terrorists.” Such labeling can discredit an individual or group instantly in our social media society where access to information is immediate and where anyone can express anything they want and disseminate it to millions. Therefore, when a state labels an individual or group as something dangerous or undesirable, it quickly becomes accepted and can permanently devastate the reputation and future of a person or group.
Our organization has observed this phenomenon in the use of, in particular, two words which immediately discredit new spiritual movements. The first is the use of the word ‘sect,’ which leads the general public to instantaneously disregard anything being said or done by the group which has been labeled as such. The second is the labeling of volunteer work as ‘human trafficking.’ This term has obvious legal consequences, if indeed true. However, due to the recurrent misinterpretation of volunteer work, which in fact is an integral part of a spiritual practice in many spiritual paths, including Christianity, it has become apparent that this is extensively damaging to the reputation of those accused. It is doubtful that members of the general public will do their research to understand whether or not these allegations are true, whether a person or group is labeled a terrorist, a sect, or perpetrators of human trafficking. The impact on the lives of those individuals suffering from such labels are far reaching, including, impacts on their mental health, financial stability, family relationships, etc.
On June 22 & 23, 2017, the OSCE hosted a Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting (SHDM) in Vienna, Austria focusing on "Freedom of Religion or Belief: Issues, Opportunities, and the Specific Challenges of Combatting Anti-Semitism and Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians, Muslims, and Members of Other Religions," bringing together representatives of governments and civil society.
Academics and experts presented their findings and opinions in the beginning of the event. The following article, published on OSCE's website, highlights a point brought up in the meeting that social cohesion and peace are currently being threatened by social forces hostile towards certain religious or belief communities and the importance of addressing these challenges.
VIENNA, 22 June 2017 – Freedom of religion or belief, and tolerance and non-discrimination are essential to ensuring peace and security in the OSCE region, participants said today at the opening of a two-day OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting in Vienna.
The Meeting, organized by the OSCE’s 2017 Austrian Chairmanship and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), brought together representatives of governments and of civil society organizations working on issues related to the freedom of religion or belief from the Organization’s 57 participating States.
Michael Georg Link, Director of ODIHR, highlighted to Meeting participants current challenges to efforts to build flourishing, open, tolerant and inclusive societies, telling the meeting that hostile social forces, which are intolerant of and foster dangerous environments for particular religious or belief communities, endanger social peace and cohesion. Also, the practice in some OSCE participating States of limiting the free exercise of the universal human right to freedom of religion or belief to a list of religious and belief communities pre-defined and approved by the state is also of particular concern.
At the level of the European Union, freedom of belief and freedom of expression are given a great deal of attention and respect. Denmark prides itself on being an open society, characterized by a flexible structure, the freedom to believe what one chooses, and the widespread dissemination of information. The Danish Constitution states: "Everyone is entitled to publicly express his/her thoughts, in writing and speech." It is a society which encourages critical debate and respects diverse opinions.
The Danish Institute for Human Rights recently published their 2016-2017 Status Report which deemed Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion as two points of concern in Denmark. The complex interaction between these two freedoms is becoming more apparent in our diverse society, where cultural norms are being challenged by increased globalization. Denmark is facing a crossroads in maintaining a peaceful society, which upholds the values upon which the country is built, while also integrating diversity in a congruent way.
Most expression is completely harmless and, therefore, protected under the right to freedom of expression without interference by the state. However, in recognition that expression does indeed have the capacity to harm, Freedom of Expression is not an absolute right. One may freely express one’s self, but in doing so, one should not damage the rights or reputation of others, by making false and misleading statements. Unfortunately, this recommendation is largely ignored, and, thus, often not respected across all levels, whether in governmental institutions, the mass media, or on the individual level.
Women’s rights in Islam is a growing topic of conversation in Western societies, and it is perceived, by both Muslims and non-Muslims, that Muslim women are less equal than their male counterparts. Why do we often hear of violence against women in an Islamic context? Why is that many Muslim women are required to cover their faces? Are there justifiable grounds for these practices?
Soteria International believes in the promotion of spiritual human rights, of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and that everyone has right to enjoy these freedoms, regardless of their gender. Suppression of women within a religious group does not align with the organisation’s ideas of equality in spiritual and human rights.
On Wednesday 3rd May 2017, the European Parliament in Brussels hosted the event, “Are Women's Rights in Islam Compatible with Modern Society: Misconceptions in Islam regarding Women's Rights.” The conference was organised by the International Organisation to Preserve Human Rights (IOPHR). Gerry Campbell, Dr Azmayesh and Mattie Heaven were invited to speak about the topic, and the event was sponsored by four MEPs, representing different political parties. After two hours of thought-provoking debate, the speakers concluded that the root of abuses of women’s human rights within Islam lies within misinterpretation of holy texts. The general consensus was that Islam is indeed compatible with modern society, as least as much so as any other religion is.
MEP Esteban González Pons began by acknowledging the importance of women's voices being heard. He argued that it is common sense that women should be at the forefront of the debate when it comes to women's rights issues, yet this is so often not the case. He acknowledged the vital role of education in teaching values of equality between men and women, and in the balanced (as opposed to extremist) interpretation of religious texts.
The Danish Institute for Human Rights has called Freedom of Religion one of the human rights brought into question in Denmark in their 2016 Status Report. A hearing was held at the Danish Parliament in Copenhagen on May 10, 2017 in order to discuss whether or not a Danish model for secularization (separation of the state and church) could be found. Considering the current atmosphere towards disregarding the freedoms of certain religious groups in Europe, Soteria International finds this topic to be of particular relevance to the safeguarding of one of our fundamental human rights, the Freedom of Conscience, Thought, and Belief. Representatives of Soteria International attended the event and our organization feels optimistic that conversations such as this one will help create a more understanding and open society, which can embrace diversity and find solutions which respect the human rights of all individuals involved.
The event, titled “How afraid are we of religion?”, was organized by Grundtvigsk Forum and hosted by Daniel Toft Jakobsen, a Member of Parliament with the Social Democrats. Three questions/issues were suggested prior to the event, including: 1) Should public funding be provided to religious organizations? 2) Should priests/imams/other religious leaders have the right to be judges? And 3) Should there be more or less room for religion in asylum centers? Among other issues, these questions were addressed by a wide panel of experts, including academics, politicians, and professionals.
Daniel Toft Jakobsen opened the hearing by discussion the word ‘religion’ and our modern conceptualization of it. He stated that although it is often associated with “terror, war, and fear” in the media, it can indeed add a very positive aspect to our society. He stated that undemocratic religious opinions must be brought to light rather than being hid away and must not be afraid of the publics ability to discern between peaceful religion and fanaticism. We must therefore continue to uphold the freedom of spirituality.
On May 8, at the United Nations (Geneva), a side event was hosted by Human Rights Without Frontiers International (HRWF), the Forum for Religious Freedom-Europe (FOREF), and Freedom of Conscience (CAP) regarding the case of two Czech yoga teachers – Jaroslav Dobes and Barbora Plaskova, case which Soteria International has represented and advocated for at the EU and national levels since 2015.
HRWF (09.05.2017) – On the margin of the Universal Periodic Review of the Philippines at the United Nations in Geneva, three human rights NGOs – Human Rights Without Frontiers (Brussels), FOREF-Europe (Vienna) and CAP (France) – organized a side event on 08 May 2017 about the situation of two Czech yoga teachers – Jaroslav Dobes and Barbora Plaskova – who have been detained for two years in the Immigration Detention Center of Bagong Diwa in Manila.
The facts in brief
On 7 October 2014, Jaroslav Dobes and Barbora Plaskova were sentenced by the court of first instance in Brno (Czech Republic) to 10 and 9 ½ years in prison for rapes that were allegedly committed in their country of origin more than ten years earlier.
Barbora Plaskova, the mother of a three-year old son, was arrested on 14 April 2015 and Jaroslav Dobes, the father of a five-year old child, on 15 May 2015. Both were deprived of their passport and were hereby left undocumented.
However, on 21 May 2015 (one week after Dobes’ arrest), the High Court of Olomouc ruled on appeal that the judgment of the Court in Brno was “annulled and revoked” and that the case was to be returned “to the court of first instance to make a new decision.”
Two years later, a new trail has yet to be initiated and there is no sign that there will be another one in the near future.
Despite their status of presumption of innocence, the Czech authorities have not given up the idea of deporting them and persistently urge the Filipino authorities to keep them in detention.
Human Rights Without Frontiers International (HRWF) and the Forum for Religious Freedom-Europe (FOREF) are making an appeal to the Russian Supreme Court and Presidential Administration regarding the ban of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia. Soteria International supports their action and is publishing their appeal.
FOREF - Europe/HRWF (05.05.2017) - BRUSSELS/VIENNA - The Forum for Religious Freedom - Europe (FOREF) and Human Rights Without Frontiers (HRWF) urge the Supreme Court of Russia to overturn its 20 April 2017 decision to ban the Jehovah's Witnesses from the country and seize their assets. FOREF and HRWF also call on President Putin and his administration to resort to a "transparent and frank" dialogue to promote better understanding of the nature of the Jehovah's Witnesses, as proposed by the religious group
"The allegation that the Jehovah's Witnesses are an extremist group is transparently false, and the ban should be overturned," argues Dr. Aaron Rhodes, President of FOREF. "The decision not only violates basic human rights obligations, but also puts all Russian citizens at further risk of arbitrary legal judgments. It makes a mockery of their legal system and humiliates Russia on the world stage" he added.
United Nations monitors and other experts agree that neither the doctrines nor the conduct of the Jehovah's Witnesses can be called "extremist" with any credibility whatsoever. On the contrary, the group advocates respect for political and governmental authorities, and keeping clear of political matters.
On May 4th, a public hearing on “Fighting against discrimination of EU citizens in the EU Member States and
protection of minorities” was held in the Committee on Petitions, in which the representatives of Soteria International participated in order to remain up to date with latest findings on discrimination and minority rights. The hearing addressed numerous petitioner allegations of discrimination in the EU, and fundamental rights violations, particularly of Article 21 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights. The debated topics included equality and non-discrimination, as defined under EU law and jurisprudence, the protection of minorities (in particular in the field of education), the recognition of LGBT family rights, loss of EU citizenship, and discrimination based on minority languages.
The President of the Committee on Petitions (PETI), Ms. Cecilie Wikström, opened the event by stating that the committee receives many petitions every year on alleged abuses of citizen’s rights to equality and non-discrimination, as stated in the charter. Ms. Wikström emphasized that Article 21 states the principle of equality before the law, and there within is the principle of non-discrimination. She stated that discrimination occurs due to historical and political factors dating back to World War II and that the protection of national minorities is particularly interesting as it is one of the values of the EU, the reason for which these rights exist. Although, the EU has little competence in the actual matter, as the EU regularly points out to petitions on these issues, Ms. Wikström was optimistic that we could find new solutions to fighting discrimination.
The text has been extracted from an article published by CICNS, which can be accessed in it's original language (French) here.
The case of the “presumed guru" Robert Lé Dinh, as the media have called him, is indicative of how judicial affairs treat “sects" in France.
For more than twenty years, Robert Lé Dinh led a community of roughly 20 people, first in the Lot-et-Garonne, then in Ariège, before becoming the subject of a complaint and being placed in custody on September 5, 2007 and, two days later, put under review and placed in pre-trial detention. The case started in April 2007, when two of his former disciples—followers—a couple who were civil servants and who had joined the group from its inception in 1984, denounced his actions and filed a complaint with the GIRONS (Ariège) police. Born in 1959 in Villeneuve (Lot-et-Garonne), the son of a Buddhist worker of Vietnamese origin and a French Catholic mother, is said to have received a divine message from Christ in 1982 making him a "servant" or "the third Messiah" (NouvelObs).
Following this denunciation, Robert Lé Dinh was accused of "rape," "sexual assault," including on minors, "mental hypnosis" (NouvelObs), of "manipulation and influence" (La Dépêche). One of the main complainants, Isabelle Lorenzato (along with her husband), claimed to have been raped for 22 years by Robert Lé Dinh.
The misunderstanding of new religious movements becomes especially dangerous when it occurs on an institutional level. Although the law should protect or condemn an individual based on objective facts, popular opinion and the portrayal of a story in the media can have a devastating impact on the outcome of a person’s future. CICNS argues that the outcome of the following case was greatly affected by the “sectarian” rhetoric in France, which is one of fear.
The text has been extracted from an article published by CICNS, which can be accessed in it's original language (French).
It took no more than three hours for the jurors in the Assize Court of Ariège, on September 18, 2010, to condemn 'the guru' Robert Lé Dinh to 15 years (more than what the Advocate-General had suggested, which was 'ten to twelve years' imprisonment). The accusations were heavy. What are the facts? According to several witnesses in the trial, the accused was not very convincing, he seemed to suit the profile of a 'cult guru' and there was even a form of automatic repulsion from the early days of media coverage of his case. We can't yet say that the evidence is overwhelming. It was all about emotional and "intimate conviction" (the general council stated that "the will of the victims was annihilated". On what basis, the debate on mental manipulation, a pseudo-scientific concept, that has never been decided upon?), elements which do not mix when we really seek justice. Everything leads to the belief that this 51-year-old man sexually abused his followers. Already convicted in 1984 for extortion, this time he was accused of abusing adult women and minor girls. He denied this. Even at the end of the trial, everybody reached this conclusion. Doubt was permitted. The conclusions were provided in the personal opinion of the jurors.