anthroposophicalbehaviour

bringing forward Waldorf/Steiner issues

interesting read

with 2 comments

New Anti-Cult Parliamentary Report in France – alt.support.ex-cult | Google Groups

Formally dated June 10, the new French Parliamentary Report on Cults has been published yesterday as a book. It is a 300+ pages documents devoted to the finances of cults. The report states that the list of cults in the 1996 report is still valid but new “cults”, originally excluded because they were (mistakenly) declared non-dangerous, should be included, most notably Anthroposophy and the Rosicrucian order AMORC. The report confirms the prevailing trends in France. Budgetary and financial information of an obviously confidential nature (including not a few names of private individuals) are offered to the general public. They have been gathered from tax records, secret service investigations, and compulsory attendance at secret hearings (no-shows were threatened with fines and jail, as were those who would divulge the content of the hearings). Any other association, anywhere in the world, would simply sue for infringement of their privacy and win. In France parliamentary commissions are exempt from any legal liability and the privacy of “cultists” is obviously regarded as expendable. The logic of the report is “damn if you do, damn if you don’t”. If a cult has been found guilty of tax evasion and other financial offenses, it is dangerous. If ist accounts and tax records are in order, and there is no evidence of any illegal activity, the cult has “learned how to sail through the legal system” (a sentence referred to the Jehovah’s Witnesses) and is still more dangerous. Although it should have discussed only finances, the commission mentions other matters too. It recommends continuing the discussion whether an anti-brainwashing statute should be proposed (although it mentions dissident voices within the anti-cultist themselves – it may make prosecution more difficult). It exposes as an objectionable ruse any change of name in a movement (such as the Children of God becoming The Family, Tabitha’s Place becoming “La Ferme”, etc.).

Advertisements

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. As can be seen from the page you link to s source, what you write refers to 1999.

    In March 2000, Jacques Guyard, the President of the French Parliamentary Commission on Sects, was convicted fined approximately $2,850 (20,000 francs) for calling the anthroposophical movement a sect. The court also ordered Guyard to pay approximately $12,850 (90,000 francs) in damages.

    http://thebee.se/comments/France/US-State-Department-2000-1.htm

    Guyard appealed, claiming Parliamentary immunity, and was releaved of the fines, but not of the conviction as such, as far as I remember.

    Greetings,

    Sune

    October 12, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    • Yes , he should not have called the movement a sect. A cult/religion would have been more accurate. None of the things said by anthroposophical proponents can mitigate in any way the things I have observed at Christchurch steiner.

      Wiremu Haua (@wiremuhaua)

      October 13, 2011 at 11:49 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: