| POLITICS AT THE CONFERENCE |
FOREWORD
Politics too played a role during the
Congress; it could hardly have been otherwise, considering the issue that was dealt with
and its implications, especially in view of the recent Belgian and French Parliament
Reports, and of the stand taken by the German Government towards certain "religious
minorities", and of the recent report by the Italian Ministry of the Interior, etc.
This issue was dealt with by some of the speakers, who had an
opportunity to criticise, sometimes radically, the conclusions reached by the Belgian and
French parliament reports, but speeches were also made by some well-known Italian
politicians.
The Councillor for Cultural Matters of the Piedmont Region, Giampiero
Leo, was expected to attend the opening of the works. Unable to attend during the morning
because of an unexpected illness, he greeted the participants during the afternoon
session, together with the director of CESNUR, M. Introvigne, who stressed the
considerable contribution by the Councillorship to the realisation of the Congress. During
his speech, the councillor apologised for not having been present during the morning,
stressed the international scope of the Congress, the presence of leading personalities,
and said he was very happy for the following two reasons: " … Because of the
opportunity for dialogue which is the most important thing in the world, this is the only
way to avoid tragedies, and then because of the very high cultural level. To find an
intelligence of the heart and an intelligence of culture together like this is wonderful.
This is why this was one of the initiatives that we, as a councillorship, gave the
greatest credit to. Then finally there is my own enormous personal esteem of Massimo
Introvigne who is one of the greatest experts in the world, but who has brought together,
in this Congress, some real personalities. I am sure that these Acts will be a very
precious heritage for all people of culture and good will. Finally, infinite thanks for
being here and I wish you good proceedings" (1).
Finally, there were two rather important speeches by Ernesto Caccavale
(very active in the discussion in the European Parliament on a document about
"cults"), and by the Italian parliament member, Domenico Maselli (who was the
speaker for the draft law of the Italian government on religious
freedom) during the banquet entitled "The politics of religious freedom."
Europe and "religious minorities"
Speech by the Hon. Caccavale (2)
In his impromptu speech,
the Hon. Caccavale spoke on the topic of "The European Parliament and the
issue of 'cults". A member of the European Parliament for four years,
he expressed his political stand on the issue of "religious minorities."
He expressed his viewpoint on the recent events in Europe involving
"religious minorities." The mass suicides led to widespread emotional reaction,
not only in the countries where they took place, but also in the European Parliament. The
Reports of the French and Belgian Parliament commissions were also the result of this
emotional reaction, unleashed by mass suicides/homicides. These reports, unfortunately,
led to the drawing up of lists, which had something of the appearance of proscription
lists and which were also criticised by the Bishops' Conferences.
The emotional reaction also led the European Parliament to pass a
resolution, on February 29th, 1996, setting up a Committee (the Public Freedom
Committee) charged with studying the phenomenon and suggesting ideas and conclusions. The
final report by the Committee, read by an Austrian parliament member, Berger, was reached
with great difficulty. The Committee was supposed to present its resolution at the plenary
session of the European parliament; however, after two and a half years of work, during
which the resolution was discussed and amended by the Committee members, no vote has yet
been taken by the 630 members of the European parliament.
Hon. Caccavale, who is a member of this Committee appointed by the
European Parliament, says that this delay is due to the controversy surrounding this issue
and to pressures, unspecified, but attributed to the Germans. There are supposed to be
"anti-freedom" tendencies inside the Committee, which are opposed by him and by
other members. He said: "Those who like me were worried by this
anti-freedom trend emphasised that the category of cults is so general that it can lead to
ambiguity and abuse or be used to propose subtle and less subtle discrimination, and hence
violations of religious freedom. I do not mean to say that criminal organisations do not
exist, but the very fact that anybody, even if in perfect good faith, can draw up a list
including the dangerous and the non-dangerous ones, you will understand that this becomes
a lethal weapon in the hands of an ethical concept of the state. This is the opposite of
what the state should be. The modern state is liberal and not an ethical one which can
say, on the basis of general and ambiguous notions what is right and what is wrong… I
would like to add that the Christians of the first Roman centuries were considered outlaw
clandestine sects. The risk of lists being drawn up which write down as dangerous groups
whose only fault is that of being different or a minority, is a danger to be avoided. What
is the solution? There is none, but the only thing to do is to probe what these movements
are doing, one by one. It is too easy to draw up proscription lists… The States of
the European Union attribute great importance to freedom of religion, and this is
something my colleague Berger strongly stressed, when deciding which organisations rightly
claim to religious freedom and which do not…"
The first problem the Committee had to deal with was the definition
of the word "cult", a word which always has negative meaning. It is very hard to
distinguish "cults" from criminal law-breaking organisations. After the problem
of agreeing on which word to use, there is the problem of deciding how the States can and
must intervene in issues involving individual freedom, and especially freedom of religion,
in individual countries.
The Hon. Caccavale then provided some data on the situation of various
European countries. There are no definite data in Greece, and the only recognised cults
are the Jehovah's Witnesses. There are no definite data in Sweden. In Portugal, the only
data concern a cult from Brazil which attracted some attention. In Austria, according to
data provided by the Austrian committee, 50,000 people belong to some cult, while 200,000
are supposed to belong to religious movements of various kinds. There are no definite data
from Holland, and little from England, where however an inquiry into the influence of
Masonry in politics and law is being considered. In Spain, 40 or 50 cults have been
indicated, but it is not possible to provide the number of their members. In another
publication, a total of 300 and 600 cults which belong to what Introvigne calls
"do-it-yourself religions" is mentioned, with somewhere between 150,000 and
300,000 followers. The Spanish Parliament speaks of 700,000 young people who are near
these religious movements. More detailed information is to be had from Germany, Belgium,
France and Denmark, where there have been more polemics and stronger emotional reactions
after the events of 1994 and 1995. The German Parliament Committee stated that 820,000
people belong to these religious and ideological movements, but little information is
available concerning the kind of groups and their features. This committee rejected the
classification of groups by denomination. According to the data provided by the Committee,
1.7% of people interviewed admitted having attended events organised by NRMs or
ideological movements at least once in their lifetime, or of having shared in their
proposals, such as meditation, spiritual training, help courses, etc. The overall amount
is 1,200,000 people. The common features of these people are: they have higher education,
they belong to the middle-to-high class with an average income of 3000 German Marks, are
middle aged and live in large cities. The Belgian Commission listed 157 cults which should
be monitored, without specifying how many people belong to them or what they do. Another
list was drawn up in France, which caused some worry: 172 cults are supposed to be the
central organisations, with 800 branches, 160,000 members and 100,000 sympathisers. Berger
was able to procure these data with great difficulty.
Hon. Caccavale concluded with two political considerations: first,
drawing up lists is insufficient and dangerous, a case-by-case analysis should be made, it
should go in depth and be based on all information, listening both to those who are
satisfied with the group they belong to and those who are not. If the political world
wants to deal with this issue, it must do using all the information available. But these
parliamentary committees have often not referred to a wide range of sources, they have
privileged the defence associations, the anti-cult associations. These reports are based
mainly on the accounts of hostile former members. In order to explain the mistake made by
the Committees which used these sources, Hon Caccavale made this comparison: "It
is as if we judged the Catholic Church on the basis of accounts by former priests."
Another problem is that of crimes attributed to religious
organisations. The Parliament Member had this to say: "These are
disquieting crimes, because they are situated on a psychological and not on an objective
level. Even Berger, in his report, under very strong pressure from the Germans, committed
this mistake, speaking explicitly of physical and emotional integrity. If this report had
reached the plenary session, I already had an amendment ready to delete the word
"emotional" from the report, because when you speak of emotional integrity, you
can easily move over to brainwashing theories. Brainwashing used to exist in Italian law
and was called 'plagio'. In 1981, the Constitutional Court removed this because it was
incompatible with a democratic constitution. On the basis of the Italian
experience, the introduction of laws which speak of brainwashing and hence of mental
manipulation is entirely unacceptable. These are crimes which are hard to pin down, to
define, crimes which may easily be attributed to those who are not on the right or the
winning side, in other words minorities and those who are different. This is what happened
in the gulags… I believe that the Italian and European codes already have the normal
legal tools… so it is not necessary, indeed it is counterproductive and dangerous, to
create new crimes of such vagueness, while I do not intend at all to minimise the
dishonest and fraudulent propaganda techniques used by such movements. Every time the
State tries to interfere in the individual life of people, it risks providing a remedy
which is worse than the illness."
The report by Hon. Caccavale, perfectly
in line with the Conference, gives us an opportunity to go into greater depth concerning
some interesting issues.
We shall overlook some of the issues raised by Hon. Caccavale, because
we have dealt with them elsewhere - such as the criticism of the Belgian and French
parliament committees - and we shall make a few brief comments on the abolition of the
crime of 'plagio' by the Italian Constitutional Court (sentence of April 9th,
1981, No.96, published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale No. 158 of June 8th, 1981)
which established the constitutional illegitimacy of Art. 603 of the Penal Code. This
sentence eliminated the crime of 'plagio' from those provided for under our penal code.
In order to avoid misunderstandings concerning this sentence, often
quoted in relation to crimes involving so-called "brainwashing", we have decided
to make things clearer, using the acts of the 1990 Conference on "Socially
accepted persuasion, 'plagio' and brainwashing".
We shall quote only a few papers, which can help us to shed some light
on the events which led to the decision by the Constitutional Court. Dr Pietro Sarteschi,
in the Introduction, quotes part of the sentence, which stated: "A
detailed examination of the various and contrasting interpretations given to the Art. 603
of the Penal Code in doctrine and jurisprudence, clearly shows the lack of precision and
definition of the law, the impossibility of giving it an objective, coherent and rational
content, and hence the absolutely arbitrary nature of its concrete application. It has
rightly been compared to an unanchored mine floating through our legal system, which can
be applied to any fact implying dependence of one human being on another, without there
being any certain parameter for ascertaining the intensity of such influence "
(3).
These words clearly show that the
abolition of the crime of 'plagio' was not due to the idea that psychological condition
(of various kinds and intensity) does not exist, an issue for specialists and certainly
not for the Constitutional Court, but to the fact that this crime, as it was established,
permitted ambiguities and arbitrary interpretations.
The then President of the Constitutional Court, Dr Leonetto Amadei,
attended the Conference and presided over its first day. Defending the sentence, he stated
: "The Constitutional Court has decided that, in order to protect that
ultimate good which is personal freedom, the incriminating law must establish the criminal
deed with definite contours, so the judge can express his judgement on the basis of a
correspondence between the deed and the law… This law, as described, was rightly held
by the Court to be imprecise and indefinite, so much so that it was not possible to
attribute to it an objective, coherent and rational content, with the consequence that its
concrete application would be arbitrary" (4).
In other words, the crime of 'plagio' was declared
"constitutionally illegitimate" insofar as it appeared imprecise and undefined.
But how was this crime actually interpreted? What was meant by the word
"plagio"? According to Dr Giovanni Flora, when Art. 603 was in force, "three
different interpretations of 'plagio' had been developed …". He
says that jurisprudence tended to construe it as … "the creation of a
psychological domination, induced by suggestion … with a consequent hetero-direction
of the will, and, according to sum, the creation of a situation where the person was
deprived of mental competence … " (5).
Flora also adds that, after the abolition of Art. 603 (this abolition has of course left
all the penal issues involved in 'plagio' unchanged), the problem arises of how to "
…protect from a penal point of view the integrity of the psychological person from
certain forms of aggressive conduct …" (6).
This means that it is necessary to define a crime with features of definition and
comprehensibility not only for judges, but for citizens as well.
Dr. De Fazio, in his speech, also pointed out how many polemics
followed the abolition of the crime of 'plagio' because of the confrontation between
favourable and hostile opinions about the Constitutional Court sentence. He says that "…
the cancellation of the crime of 'plagio', as formulated in Art. 603, must not of course
be understood as a denial of the existence of 'plagio' as a phenomenon" (7). He also stresses the current importance of the problem, which is
"... a reality of interpersonal relationships, with concrete risks for
individual freedom, especially in the case of safeguarding personal identity. The question
is therefore an 'open' one …" (8)
Speaking of "circonvenzione di incapace" (approximately,
abuse of incompetent persons), which still exists in the penal code, he explained that,
unlike 'plagio', this is held to be a crime against property through fraud, just like
swindles and so on. This crime calls for " … various and diverse
manners of forcing oneself upon another person's will and obtaining his consent, in order
to make a person perform an act which involves a harmful juridical effect for himself or
for others" (9).
Dr. De Fazio came to the following interesting, and in our opinion also balanced, conclusion:" The sentence No. 98 of June 8, 1981, issued by the Constitutional court, irrevocably celebrated the funeral of Art. 603, i.e. of the crime of 'plagio', but not of 'plagio' itself, which is still a reality in interpersonal relations. Although we feel no nostalgia for the offence which was abolished, juridically impossible to pin down or to uphold, and a source of possible errors and abuse in court, it must be admitted that a gap has been opened in protection of the personality against abusive dynamics, a gap which should be filled in some manner …" (10).
The abolition of this crime must
therefore be considered in a far more complex framework than appears from the words of
Hon. Caccavale. The factors which led to the abolition of this crime were many, and were
strongly influenced by the excitement surrounding a famous sentence in the so-called
"Braibanti case". The fact that the crime was abolished does not in any way
cancel the issues surrounding such a crime, or the processes of psychological conditioning
which certainly take place, beyond any reasonable doubt, in many fields of interpersonal
relations, including the particular kind of psychological relationship between a follower
and his charismatic leader.
We would like also to remark on the comparison made by the parliament
member - when criticising the Parliament Committees which devoted too much time to the
testimony of former members who had become hostile towards the group they left - when he
said "It is as if we judged the Catholic Church on the basis of accounts
by former priests ". This comparison deserves some attention, since we
have often read it and heard it repeated, but it hardly seems suitable to us.
If one interviewed the young and less young people who have abandoned
the Catholic priesthood, we seriously doubt whether their "complaints" would be
of the same nature as those of so-called "apostates." We have had the
opportunity to speak to some "former priests", and we have heard them calmly
talking of their incapacity to accept the law of celibacy, or of difficulty in obeying
their bishops, or of the problems involved in unceasing devotion to their ministry, or
simply acknowledging that it was not the right path for them. Some also criticise the way
seminaries are managed, the rules involved in community life, which can be seen as
limiting, and so on. So, even if we decided to "judge" the Catholic Church using
ONLY the testimony of "former priests", we do not think that the
resulting picture of the Church would be that of a "destructive" cult which
conditions its members through fraudulent recruitment, or keeps them inside the
organisation using threats and punishment, or prevents them from leaving using emotional
and material blackmail. When a young person crosses the threshold of the seminary, he
knows where is going and what awaits him, he knows that he will be asked to be celibate
and to live a life devoted to God and to his neighbour, he knows that he will have to
follow certain rules and live a Christian life to be an example to his brethren, that he
must be ready to administer sacraments without any limit of time, he knows the doctrine he
must believe in and how to announce it, he also knows that his life is not over, and that
his final choice must be supported by prayer, commitment and sacrifice. If this is not
enough, then he is free to withdraw without suffering any "reprisal" for this.
Of course, interviewing former priests would not provide an entirely
positive picture of the Catholic Church, or rather of the experience of the former priest
in such a church. But however negative this picture might be, it could never be compared
to the picture which comes out from the accounts of former members who decide to testify
about the abuses they consider they have suffered in the group they used to belong to. In
any case, it is vitally important, when we wish to really get to know an organisation,
whatever this organisation may be, to pay attention to all accounts, whether from those
who are in the movement or whether from those who have left it, being careful not to
underestimate information supported by positive evidence and documents which the
"apostates" present when they testify, and which other members or the leadership
of the organisations might be interested in denying or hiding.
Concerning the statement that Christians
too were considered members of a clandestine and outlawed cult/sect, and that we must not
repeat the errors of 2000 years ago against what was then a "religious
minority", we take the liberty of saying that this comparison too is not relevant. It
is true that the early Christians were a sect, in the sense of a minority group which had
detached itself from its Jewish roots and which followed Jesus of Nazareth, whom they held
to be the Messiah that the people of Israel had been waiting for for centuries. It is also
true that they were unjustly and cruelly persecuted, and history has also given us other
examples of innocent people who, like them, were massacred only because they were
different, belonging to ethnic, religious or political minorities, which not only were not
dangerous for society, but were exploited by powerful people in a strategy of violence and
oppression which sometimes makes us ashamed of belonging to the same, human race....
... but what does this have to do with the
so-called persecution which the "religious minorities" the speaker mentioned are
supposedly subjected to? There is an enormous difference between the two terms of
comparison, and a profound difference between the historical contexts which have been
juxtaposed.
History is living memory and demands respect, especially when it is the dramatic memory of injustices and massacres of innocent victims.
"Politics" and "Religious Freedom" at a banquet.
Friday, September 11th, 1998,
saw the Banquet entitled "The politics of Religious Freedom",
an especially important moment in the International CESNUR Conference, which I was
happy to attend, and where - among other things - I enjoyed a truly excellent dinner. This
was an opportunity for me to share experiences with the people I met at the same table,
where the CESNUR staff was also seated.
Besides the host, CESNUR Director Massimo Introvigne, the banquet was
also attended by Hon. Maselli of the Italian Parliament, who presented his paper, by the
CESNUR staff, by some speakers of the Conference, by the spokesman for the Church of
Scientology in Italy Fabio Amicarelli, by representatives of "religious
minorities", observers and ordinary participants.
The purpose of the banquet was to inform those attending about the
current situation of Italian legislation in defence of religious freedom, and about its
possible future developments.
Raimonda Casari, Regional Councillor, was supposed to introduce and
preside over the banquet, but was absent. However, she sent a paper which was read (11). This paper stressed the commitment by the Piedmont Region to support
the initiatives of CESNUR, described as always significant and of a high cultural level.
The Councillor also confirmed her confidence in CESNUR and its director, M. Introvigne,
despite certain recent attacks against CESNUR, according to which CESNUR is a cult defence
organisation and part of a plot. These gratuitous accusations are not taken into any
consideration; indeed, she confirmed her trust in CESNUR and expressed her best wishes,
both for the continuation of the Conference and for its future activities.
Hon. Maselli delivered an impromptu speech on : "The
new Italian law on religious freedom". He informed those attending that
an "understanding" would be signed with the Jehovah's Witnesses and with the
Buddhists before the end of September. This understanding should have been signed on July
22nd; it was not signed then for technical reasons, since the person
responsible was not available. The final signature will be made before the end of December
1998.
Hon. Maselli expressed great enthusiasm for the final conclusion of
this initiative, after the "understandings" already signed with the Waldensians,
the Assemblies of God and others. He then told this story: during the previous Berlusconi
government, during a visit by the US President Clinton, the "understanding" with
the Baptists had not yet been signed. Hon. Maselli had asked for a quick conclusion, and
had jokingly told Berlusconi, "You know Clinton is coming, and we have not yet
defined the understanding with the Baptists? Are we still so far behind?" According
to Maselli, Berlusconi, thereupon rushed through the "understanding". The guests
at the banquet, especially those from foreign countries, were greatly amused listening to
this anecdote.
Maselli then gave some information about the law on religious freedom
currently under discussion in the Italian Parliament. It is divided into three parts, and
has been described as a very open and tolerant law, the most tolerant in Europe. Maselli
also stressed the important fact that, before the law can be applied, it will be necessary
to make final understandings with several groups. Concerning the issue of religious
freedom, Maselli also said that both the right wing and the left wing in Parliament agree
entirely on the approval of this issue, since on such a question of principle (religious
freedom), it is not possible to make party "quarrels". Some individual
parliament members disagree, but their disagreement does not involve their party groups.
Maselli also told the story of this law, which dates back to the late
'80s, and said that it will be further simplified, since it is too ample at present. It
will then be submitted for examination to the various religious confessions in Italy, and
each will make its comments and proposals according to its needs. This law firmly upholds
the principle that parents may decide on the religious education of their children, but it
places some conditions on the health of minors, it protects their health which is not
considered to be an exclusive asset of their parents. The State will deal with this, since
this is established by constitutional right.
Maselli also announced that there will be other changes. He asked that
the observatory on religious groups (cults), currently under the Ministry of the
Interior, be transferred to another body. Investigations involving religious groups would
no longer be undertaken by the Police but by the Prefectures, thus taking away the
"police-like" feature which does not respect religious pluralism.
He also mentioned a proposal, also made by M. Introvigne, for modifying the procedures for obtaining new "understandings". These should involve a Commission including experts (the Parliament Member looked significantly at Introvigne at this point). The Commission isbeing set up and is led by a professor at the University of Florence.
Efforts by people in power around the
world to promote and defend religious freedom for minorities deserve appreciation.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights are often quoted to support
this struggle. One of the many publications made available to those attending the
Conference quotes some extracts from this Declaration in an Appendix.
Art.18 says : "Every individual has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, this right includes the freedom to change one's religion or beliefs, and the freedom to express one's religion or beliefs individually or with others, both publicly and privately, in teaching, in practise, in cult and in ritual observance" (12).
This right of all human beings can admit
of no exception, and must be safeguarded also for those who, having once belonged to a
"religious minority", freely decide to leave it. It is unfortunate that there
are often episodes of intolerance towards such people on the part of the group they
belonged to, who evidently think that Art. 18, quoted above, should be applied only to
their own group, and not to those who decide to leave it.
Since we are speaking of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we would also like to
mention some of its other articles quoted in the same publication :
Art.19 : " Every individual has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right not to suffer molestation because of his opinions, and the right to seek, receive and spread information and ideas by every means and across every frontier" (13)
Art.20 § 2 : " Nobody
may be forced to belong to an association" (14)
We believe any comment to be superfluous; nobody in good faith can disagree with the
principles expressed in this Declaration.
For this reason, we leave any comment on the
following quotes to the reader.
They are taken from various kinds of publications of organisations commonly included among
"religious minorities" :
NOTE :
1) This is a word-for-word
transcript of what the Councillor said.
2) This is taken from a recording. The words between quotation
marks are the transcription of those of the speaker.
3) Mario Di Fiorino, editor, La persuasione socialmente
accettata, il plagio e il lavaggio del cervello, vol.1, Psichiatria e Territorio,
Forte dei Marmi, 1990, p.17
4) Ibid, p. 24
5) Ibid, p.31- 32
6) Ibid, p. 34
7) Ibid, p. 39
8) Ibid, p. 39
9) Ibid, p. 40
10) Ibid, p. 44 (emphasis added)
11) The mention I make of Dr. Casari and Hon. Maselli's speeches
is based entirely on memory. There may be some slight inaccuracies.
12) "Il ripristino e la salvaguardia della libertą di
religione" by "Ufficio Europeo per i Diritti Umani e gli Affari Pubblici
della Chiesa di Scientology", p.32 (emphasis added). (This and the following
are translations back into English from Italian).
13) Ibid
14) Ibid
15) La Torre di Guardia, 15-12-1960, p. 762-763. This
quotation was taken from the "Domande dai lettori".
16) La Torre di Guardia, 15.6.64, pag. 368, in Lorenzo
Minuti, I testimoni di Geova non hanno la Bibbia, Coletti a San Pietro, Roma, 1997,
p.145
17) La Torre di Guardia, 1.4.86, p.30, in Lorenzo Minuti, I
testimoni di Geova non hanno la Bibbia, Coletti a San Pietro, Roma, 1997, p.154
18) Miguel Martinez, Storia di un imperatore : Jorge Angel
Livraga Rizzi, in "Religioni e Sette nel Mondo" N. 11, p. 106.
19) Ibid., p. 129.
20) HCO Bull. 27 August 1987, originally published as an article
in Ability, 199, in 1967, in Mario Di Fiorino, L’illusione comunitaria,
Moretti e Vitali, Bergamo, 1998, p.102. This is a translation back into English from
Italian.
21) L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics – La forza del pensiero sul
corpo, New Era Publications Italia srl. Milano, 1995, p.529. This is a translation
back into English from Italian.
RAFFAELLA DI MARZIO
Copyright © 1998 - Reproduction of this
article, in part or
in whole, is forbidden without express consent of the authors.