freedom of conscience

The prime Minister authorizes a
secret black list

Polemic stated in february 2009 with Mr Fenech’s announcements in an article at the date of 13 february 2009 in le Parisien entitled “ Tense about a project of a new black list”. Indeed, this one proposed the creation of a  list to refer, listing all group “alleged” to be a risk. Mr Fenech’s project gave rise to a hight protest from Mrs Aliot Marie, minister of the Home Office at this time, asking the Prime minister “to  center well the action of the Milvilude”.

In May, US congressmen wrote to the french ambassador, in Washington, to protest against this possible index or “list” to refer of the cult practices being a risk.

The republican congressman from Arizona (west), Trent Franks, expressed his worries, in a letter dated and signed by 5 fellows ( 4 republicans and 1 democrat), “regarding the protection of the individuals ‘rights to religious freedom in France”.

“ As allies of the United States, engaged toward our mutual concern for fundamental human freedoms, we encourage The French government to ensure itselfbthat each new politics concerning the religious freedom  be in agreement with the international duties of France”, ,wrote the members of Congress to the Ambassador Pierre Vimont.

Thursday 30 july, the chairman of the Miviludes, M Geoges Fenech, announced that Matignon  came to the decision  to not publish the “ the list to refer to”. But the Miviludes said that the  document will be opened to professionals.

It is the first time a Prime Minister authorizes a  body of the state to establish a “ black list”, which can involved movements recognized as religion in the entire world or experienced  therapeutic practices, even if this one stays a document only for “professionnals”.

We can be afraid that the idea of “professionnals”stays as indefinite as this of “cult” or “sectarian deviation”.So, since the first “black list” of 1995, the Prime Ministers on post always answered that “no groups has been classified as “cult” by  the Republic which, allowed to the article 2 of the law of 1905 regarding the disestablishment of churches and State, not recognized any  worship, and so can not give appreciation on the content of  this or that belief (see atttachment)”.

More, M Fenech, chairman of the Miviludes, said in an article in le Monde of 6 april 2009 that  there would be a “ right to answer” in the next  report of the Miviludes, intended to guarantee “the respect of contradictory”. How  the groups implicated in this new confidential “black list”, could have an access to this elementary rights such the “respect of contradictory” and presumption of innocence ?