Scientology and Germany and Cult

"Brainwashing" Theories in European Parliamentary and Administrative Reports on "Cults"
and "Sects"
Author(s): James T. Richardson and Massimo Introvigne
Source: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Jun., 2001), pp. 143-168
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387941
Accessed: 27/11/2010 13:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Blackwell Publishing and Society for the Scientific Study of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
http://www.jstor.org
"Brainwashing" Theories in European
Parliamentary and Administrative Reports
on "Cults" and "Sects"
JAMEST. RICHARDSON
MASSIMOINTROVIGNE
Thisstudyexaminesthe recent r-ashof official reportsdone by governmentalagencies in WesternEuropeto guide

policy developmentin those societies. Particularattention is given to reports in France, Belgium, Switzerland,
Germany,Sweden, and Italy, and to the changes in such reports that have occurred,perhaps because of the
influenceof scholarly critiquesofferedfor some of the ear-lierreports.The reportsare divided into 'Type I" and
"TypeII" reports,with theformer being thorough-goingin theiranti-cultorientation,and the latter reportsbeing
moremoderatein tone, with some attentionpaid to scholarshipon new religions.However,the majorthesis of the
study is supported,as an examinationof both types of reportsreveals that they incorporate "brainwashing"and
"mindcontrol"imageryimpor-tedfrom the UnitedStates, even thoughsuch theories have been largelydiscounted
within the United States. Use of such theories leads directly to some questionablepolicy recommendations,as
demonstr-ated in the r-eports.Reasonsfor the spreadof "brainwashing"ideas to Eur-opeare discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Religious minoritiesin Europetoday are often perceivedas a social problem,traditionally

thoughtof as "a condition which is defined by a considerablenumberof persons as a diversion
from some social normwhich they cherish"(FullerandMyers 1941). Recentscholarshipsuggests
that although a social problem's beginnings are subject to empiricalverification,the way they
developandarerepresented,constructed,ornegotiatedis theresultof complicatedsocial processes
(Richardson1997).
In the 1970s, the concept of "moralpanic" was developed (Jenkins 1998) to explain how
some social problemsgenerateexaggeratedfears.Moralpanicsaredefinedas socially constructed
social problemscharacterizedby a reaction,in the mediaandin politicalforums,out of proportion
to the actualthreat.They areoften basedon folk statisticsthatarepassed on frommediato media,
and may ultimatelyinspire political measures.According to Philip Jenkins, "the panic reaction
does not occur because of any rationalassessment . . ."; rather,it is "a result of ill-clefinedfears
thateventuallyfinda dramaticand oversimplifiedfocus in one incidentor stereotype,which then
providesa visible symbolfor discussionanddebate"(Jenkins1996: 170). Jenkinsalso emphasizes
the role of the "moralentrepreneurs"who have vested interestsin perpetuatingthese fears.
"Sects"and "cults"are often quintessentialtargetsof moralpanics. "Sects performa conve-
nientintegrativefunctionby providinga commonenemy,a 'dangerousoutsider'againstwhichthe
mainstreamcan uniteandreassertits sharedstandardsand beliefs . . . [T]hetensionbetween sects
and mainstreamcommunitymightresultin active persecutionor it can take the form of ostracism
and negative stereotyping"(Jenkins 1996:158). Moralpanics usually have some objectivebasis.
Nobody would deny that some new religious movementshave been guilty of criminalactivities,
ranging from cases of fraudto the horrorsof the Solar Temple. The real problem,however, is
James T.Richardsonis a Pr-ofessorof Sociology and Judicial Studies at the Universityof Nevada, Mail Stop 311, Reno,
Nevada 89557.
MassimoIntrovigneis the ManagingDirector of the Centerfor Studieson New Religions (CESNUR),Via Confienza19,
10121, Torino,Italy.
Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion

144 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION
prevalence,ratherthanexistence. Most scholarsof new religious movementswould subscribeto

the conclusion of the Swiss federal reporton Scientology that "the immense majorityof these
groups ["sects"or "cults"]representsneither a danger to their members nor to the State" (La
Scientologie en Suisse 1998:132-33). Few scholars, on the other hand, would agree with the
French(Assemblee Nationale 1996) or Belgian (Chambredes Representantsde Belgique 1997)
parliamentaryreportsthatlisted dozens of groups-from Mormonsto Quakersand Baha'is-as
'sects" or "cults"actually,or potentially,dangerous.
Moralpanics startwith a basis in reality,but escalate throughexaggerationwhen comments
appropriateto particularincidents are generalized. This happened in the United States after
Jonestown(in 1978) and is currentlyevident in Europefollowing the Solar Temple incidentsof
murdersand suicides (in 1994, 1995, and 1997), especially as demonstratedby so many official
reportson new religions, or "cults and sects." It is in the escalation, ratherthan the creation,
of moral panics that moral entrepreneurswith vested interestsenter the picture. They include
differentanti-cultmovements, some of which currentlyreceive considerablepublic supportin
some Europeancountries.I
"TYPE I" OFFICIALREPORTSON "SECTS" AND"CULTS" IN WESTERNEUROPE
Within this context, some Europeanparliamentaryand other official reports generatedin

the wake of the Solar Temple incidentshave adoptedan interpretivemodel that offers a virtual
guaranteeof inflating,ratherthandeflating,moralpanics."TypeI"(Introvigne2000) officialdocu-
ments,which includethe Frenchreports(AssembleeNationale1996 and 1999), the Belgianreport
(Chambredes Representantsde Belgique 1997), largepartsof the Cantonof Genevareport(Audit
sur les de-ives sectaries 1997) and of the same Canton'sreporton brainwashing(Commission
penale surles derivessectaries 1999), the deliberationsof the FrenchPrimeMinister's"Observa-
toryof Sects"(ObservatoireInterministerielaurles Sectes 1998) and of its successor,the Mission
to FightAgainstSects (MILS2000) all adopta four-stageinterpretivemodel, describedas follows:
1. Cults or Sects are Not Religions. First,the model claims thatsome minorityreligious groups
are not really "religions"but something else: namely, "cults"and "sects."The two words
are used almost interchangeablyin Europe,with the word equivalentto "sect"(e.g., secte in
French,setta in Italian,or sekte in German)being the most derogatoryin severallanguages.
Because religious liberty is recognized in WesternEuropeas a value often constitutionally
safeguarded(includingby internationaltreatiesanddeclarations),the best way to discriminate
against a religious minority is to argue that it is not religious at all (Dillon and Richardson
1994; Barker1996; Introvigne1999c). As sociologist LarryGreil says, religion is "a cultural
resourceover which competinginterestgroupsmay vie. Fromthis perspective,religion is not
an entity but a claim made by certaingroupsand-in some cases-contested by othersto the
right of privilegesassociatedin a given society with the religious label" (Greil 1996:48).
2. Brainwashingand Mind Control. Second, since religion is usually defined as an exercise
of free will, it is argued that a nonreligion can be joined only under some sort of co-
ercion, which is quite often couched in brainwashing-liketerms. The hypnotic paradigm
used against Mormonism,the Shakers, and other groups by 19th century countercultists
(Miller 1983) resurfaced-after the Cold War had conveniently supplied the metaphorof
"brainwashing"-in the 1970s "cultwars"in the United States and elsewhere (Robbinsand
Anthony1982; Anthony,Robbins,andMcCarthy1983;RichardsonandKilbourne1983). By
the end of the 1980s, the first "crude"theories of brainwashinghad been largely debunked
amongEnglish-speakingscholars(Barker1984;Anthony1990;Richardson1993, 1996a),al-
thoughneo-brainwashingtheorieshave been proposedmorerecently,and the situationcould
change.2However,these crudebrainwashingtheoriescontinueto informTypeI reportsdone
by Europeangovernmentalagencies, as will be shown (see Anthony 1999, especially).
3. Apostates.Third,because brainwashingtheoriesarethe object of considerablescholarlycrit-
icism, the model requiresdiscriminationin termsof sources and narratives.The Frenchand
BRAINWASHINGTHEORIESIN EUROPE 145
Belgian reports make little, or no, use of scholarly sources. The Belgian reportexplicitly
states that it is aware of scholarly objections against the mind control model, but has made
the "ethical"choice of preferringthe actualaccountsof "victims."By "victims,"the Belgian
Commission means people usually defined by social scientists as "apostates,"i.e., former
memberswho have become active opponentsof the group they left, and who develop "ac-
counts" of their involvement that cast their former group in a negative light (Richardson,
van der Lans, and Derks 1986; Bromley 1998). The prevalenceof apostatesamong former
membersis certainlyno more than 10 or 20 percent,dependingon the movement(Solomon
1981; Lewis 1986, 1989; Introvigne1999a). Most ex-membersusually are not interestedin
joining a crusadeagainstthe groupthey have left, but the model usually regardsapostatesas
adequaterepresentativesof the total largercategoryof formermembers.
4. Anti-CultOrganizations."Cults"or "sects,"we are told, are not religions because they apply
brainwashingtechniques,whereasreligions by their very natureare "free"and people may
join or leave them at will. We know that "cults" and "sects" use brainwashingbecause
we have the testimonies of their "victims"(i.e., apostates). We know that "apostates"are
representativeof the groups' general membershipbecause they are hand-pickedby reliable
watchdog organizations,groups referredto by scholars as "anti-cult"(Shupe and Bromley
1994). Anti-cultorganizations,prominentin all TypeI reports,are, we are told, morereliable
than academics because the former,unlike the latter,have "practical"experience actually
workingwith the "victims."
This four-stagemodel plays an importantrole in perpetuatingthe moralpanic aboutcults and
sects, and is ratherstrictly adheredto in official documentsand institutionsthroughoutFrench-
speaking Europe. Of particularnote in all these Type I reportsis the lynch-pin role played by
brainwashing-typetheories. Withoutthis ideological device, the reportswould be considerably
weakerin both claims and recommendations.After contrastingType II reports,we will examine
use of brainwashingconcepts in both types of reportsto see whetherthe two types of reportsare
similarin use of such ideas.
"TYPE II" REPORTS
ScholarlycriticismdirectedagainstTypeI reports(see IntrovigneandMelton 1996) seems to

have exertedsome influencein othercountries.We have seen "TypeII"(Introvigne2000) reports
published in 1998 by the GermanParliament(DeutscherBunderstag-13. Wahlperiode1998),
the ItalianMinistryof Home Affairs (Ministerodell'Interno 1998), the Swiss Cantonof Ticino
(Dipartimentodelle Istituzioni,Repubblicae Cantonedel Ticino 1998), a governmentalSwedish
Commission (1998) that investigatednew religious movements, and, in 1999, by the Council
of Europe (Council of Europe-Committee on Legal Affairs and HumanRights 1999) and by
a commission of the Swiss Parliament(Commissionde gestion du Conseil National 1999). We
would includethe generalparton "sects"of the Swiss reporton Scientology in the largerTypeII
category,as well as the Bergerreportpresentedto, but not adoptedby, the EuropeanParliament
(EuropeanParliament,Committee on Civil Liberties and InternalAffairs 1997). These reports
differ from each otherand are subjectto considerabledebateand criticism,but they do not apply
the same Type I model and they concentratemore attentionon academicfindings.For example,
they generallyacknowledgethat:
1. It is extremelydifficultto define such termsas "cult"and "sect,"or "religion,"and it may not
be the provinceof secularstates to attemptsuch definitions.
2. Althoughthereis concernthatsome religious movementsmay exertexcessive psychological
pressures on their members, it is generally understoodthat there is no agreementamong
scholarson the definitionof "brainwashing"or "mindcontrol."
3. Militant ex-members are not viewed as the only reliable source of informationabout the
groups.Those who reportpositiveexperiencesshouldalso be heard(the Swedishreportnotes
that"thegreatmajorityof membersof new religious movementsderivepositive experiences

from theirmembership"-1998:?1.6), as well as scholars.
4. Privateanti-cultorganizationsmay performa legitimatefunctionbut,as the Cantonof Ticino
report puts it, the governmentsshould not supportthem to the point of "co-operatingin
spreadingprejudices"or even a sort of "anti-cultterrorism"(terrorismo antisetta).
Type II reportsrepresentmore acceptanceof scholarly work when comparedwith Type I
reports,and prove that cooler temperscan prevail.However,Type II reportsare still uncertain
concerningthe use of brainwashing/mindcontrolmetaphors,and most contain suggestions that
problems remain in the area of recruitmentand retentiontechniques, and that such problems
shouldbe attendedto by governmentalauthorities.
AN ASSESSMENTOF "BRAINWASHING"
AND "MIND CONTROL"IDEAS IN THE REPORTS
Richardson(1996a) examined the uses made of brainwashingmetaphorsin legal contexts

aroundthe globe, such as before the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights, as well as in several
countries,includingSpain,Argentina,Australia,andRussia,wheresuchideashadbeen discussed
in courtandeven includedin judgmentsrenderedby the courts.He notedthatbrainwashingideas
had become an importantsocial and culturalexport of the United States, and that the concepts
had permeatedmany culturesaroundthe world, as those societies grappledwith the spreadof
new religious groups.While not always successfully appliedwithin legal contexts,brainwashing
notions were spreadaroundthe world as partof the culturalarsenalused in attemptsto exercise
social control over these new phenomenathat were troublesometo some parentsas well as to
policy makersand politicians.
Since that 1996 law review articletherehas developedwithina numberof Europeansocieties
more concernaboutthe new religions,concernthathas manifesteditself, as noted, in a numberof
officialreportsdoneon the allegedmenaceposedby suchmovements.Thereportsin questionwere
issued over a relativelyshortperiodof time. Therefore,it is significantthattheredoes seem to be a
significantshiftin the tenorof thereports.TheTypeI reports,whicharethemostegregiousin terms
of theiracceptanceof an anti-cultperspective,the ignoringof scholarship,andrecommendations,
includethe ones fromFrance(January10, 1996), Belgium (April28, 1997), the Cantonof Geneva
"general"report(May 24, 1997), a second reportfromFrancefocusing on financesof the groups
(June 10, 1999), and the Cantonof Genevareporton brainwashing(1999). We will discuss some
recent developmentsin France,as new laws are being sought that implementthe "findings"of
Frenchreports,and we will also examine brieflysome changes in the Spanishlaw relatedto new
religions, since the changes apparentlyderive directlyfrom influenceof the Frenchdebates.
Type II reportsexaminedhere include the reportof the Swedish governmentalcommission
(October 1998), the Swiss reporton Scientology (July 1998), the reportof the GermanEnquete
Commission (June 19, 1998), the ItalianPolice Report(April 29, 1998), the Council of Europe
report(June22, 1999), and the Swiss Parliament'sCommissionon Managementreport(July 1,
1999).
As indicated,the guiding idea of this study is thatthere is one significantareawhere all the
reports,althoughsomewhatdifferentin tone, sharea similarperspective.Thatconcernsconcepts
analogousto the derogatoryterms"brainwashing" and"mindcontrol"so often used in the United
Statesas social weaponsagainstnewerreligions.We will discuss bothtypes of reportsto illustrate
this similarity.
Type I Reports and Brainwashing
Certainlythe two reportsfrom France (in turn influentialon Spanish developments)and

Belgium are pervadedwith the imagery of psychological manipulationand coercion, as is the
reportfromthe Cantonof Geneva.Manypages in the reportsaredevotedto the varioustechniques
allegedly used to recruitmembersandretainthem. Indeed,some of the most problematicsections
of those reportsare devoted to such topics. The second Frenchreport,while not spendingmuch
time on brainwashingper se, does use the concept as a majorjustificationfor the conclusions
and recommendationsof the report. The Canton of Geneva report on brainwashingtakes for
grantedthe general structureof the previousFrenchand Genevareports,and goes on to propose
specific anti-brainwashinglegislation. Some discussion will be offered of each reportin termsof
its treatmentof terms,concepts, and processes analogousto the Americanizedbrainwashingand
mind controlnotions.
FrenchReportI
This firstFrenchreportevokedan outcryfrom scholarsaroundthe world.It presenteda litany

of anti-cultdiatribeunderthe guise of an official parliamentarydocumentsupposedlybased on
objective study.Thatthis is not the case is obvious to even the most casual observer.We will not
recountall the criticisms of this report(see Introvigneand Melton 1996), but will insteadfocus
just on whatis said aboutrecruitmentandmaintenanceof participants,to give a flavorof the logic
and theoriesthatundergirdthis key aspect of the report.3
The reportrelies heavily on the ideas of notedFrenchanti-cultistJean-MarieAbgrall,a well-
known anti-cultpsychiatristin privatepractice in France (for a critiqueof Abgrall's ideas, see
Anthony 1999). Abgrallis quotedas saying (p. 42):
The recruitmentof the adept undergoesthree phases, from which adhesion will progressivelybe attained,
and at the same time an intellectualand effective form of dependencywill appear.Step by step the new adeptwill
be seduced, persuaded,and then fascinatedby the sect and its recruitingmembers.
The first phase of recruitmentis evidently one of seduction. It focuses on a seductive alternativeto the
difficultiesof everydaylife ....
The seduction principle requiresthat the initial contact be destined to promote the identificationprocess
between the recruiterand the recruit....
After noting that these techniques are used by many in different walks of life, and that
"everybodymanipulateseverybodyelse," we read this startlingstatement:
We shall see thatthe dangersof the persuasiondiscourseused by the sects do not dependas muchon the techniques
used, but ratheron the consequencesof adhesionthatresult.
Anothercomponentof the adhesionprocess, accordingto the report,is "fascination,"devel-

oped duringthe manymeetingsandactivitiesin which the potentialrecruithas been involved.The
reportthen admitsthatthereis a volitionalelement to participation(p. 43), with an interpretation
of that voluntarinessas follows: "The sects are not a net that falls upon people, but a web into
which they end up."
Later in the French report (pp. 90-91) a discussion is offered concerning legal means to
addressthe threatposed by sects and cults. A caution is offered that, "Forobvious reasons, the
repressionof mentaldestabilizationpracticesis particularlydelicate...." Nonetheless,some legal
tools are described,the most interestingof which is describedas follows:
[T]he new Penal Code . . . containsa new incriminationsusceptibleto becoming a supplementaryjudicial means
to fight againstthe practicesof certainsectarianmovements.It is article313-4, in which the terms"thefraudulent
abuseof a stateof ignorance,or a situationof weakness,be it a minor,be it a personwho is particularlyvulnerable
due to age, due to illness, due to physical or psychological deficiency or a state of pregnancy,is apparentor due
to this individual,to force this minoror this vulnerablepersonto commit an act or to an abstentionthatis gravely
prejudicialto him, is punishedby threeyears of jail and a 2,500,00 F penalty.
This new law, which seems somewhatlike Americanconservatorshiplaws designed mainly

to protect elderly people approachingsenility, shows little respect for human agency, similar
to classical brainwashingtheories (Richardsonand Kilbourne 1983). It is being proposed for
use against those who would recruit for new and minority faiths.4 The proffer seems based
on an assumptionthat no person in their right mind would choose to join such a group, so
they must be sufferingfrom a mental defect of some sort if they participate.And that defect is
caused by the recruiter.Thus, a brainwashing-likeinterpretationis offered to undergirdthis new
law, so that it might be used in the currenteffort to exert social control over cults and sects in
France.
Amendmentsto the SpanishCriminalCode
InEurope,therehavebeen severalpre-SolarTempleofficialreportson sects andcults.Notable

for its moderationwas the Dutch reportof 1984 (Witteveen1984). Althoughless moderate,and
introducingthe notionof "destructivecult,"a Spanishreportof 1989 did not recommendnew anti-
cult legislation(see Motilla 1999:328-30). In fact, Spanishcourtsrepeatedlyfoundin favorof the
Childrenof God/TheFamily (Motilla 1999), notwithstandingluridpress campaignsexposing it
as a brainwashing,child-abusingcult. Afterthe firstSolarTempletragedy,however,the decisions
in favorof The Family andothergroups(Richardson1996a) were subjectto increasingcriticism,
as evidencing an alleged "legal vacuum"in Spanish law when it was thoughtnecessary to act
against"destructivecults."The new SpanishCriminalCode (1995) thus introduceda section 515
no. 3 regardingas illicit an associationthat "even when having licit ends, uses violent methods
or alteration and control of the personality in orderto pursue such ends."Being a founder,an
officer, a member,or even a "collaborator"of an "illicit association"is a criminaloffense, and
the associationitself is subjectto dissolution(Motilla 1999: 338).
The referenceto "alterationand controlof the personality"hides a notion of brainwashing,
as evidenced by the District Attorney (D.A.) (Fiscal) of Tenerife, Canary Islands, in a 1999
case that he hopes will become a landmarkexample of prosecutingan association accused of
practicing"alterationandcontrolof the personality"of its members.The D.A. statesthatthe new
provisionintroducedin the CriminalCode representsan "in-depthmodification"of Spanishlaw
and offers the possibilityof prosecutinga "destructivecult"whose featuresare"groupdynamic,"
"hypnoticprocedures"("turningthe attentionof the memberfrom outsideto inside"),and "mind
control"(Casanovas 1999:1-2). The case refers to the Atman Foundation(originally a splinter
group from the BrahmaKumaris)and made internationalheadlineson January8, 1998 when it
was announcedthat the CanaryIslands police had preventeda mass suicide of "a branchof the
Solar Temple"by arrestingits leader,GermanmotivationalspeakerHeide Fittkau-Garthe,and
a numberof followers. During subsequentmonths, the case disappearedfrom the international
media. At the local level, it was clarifiedthat the Atman Foundationhas nothingto do with the
SolarTemplebut,accordingto a family of disgruntledGermanex-members,may be "justas bad."
Police investigationsin Germanyfailed to detect any evidence thatthe Foundationwas preparing
a mass suicide.However,the accusationis maintainedin Spainat the time of this writing,together
with some others,althoughno trialhas been scheduled.
Followinga requestby theD.A., thejudge in chargeaskeda Mr.Eloy Rodriguez-Valdesto sub-
mit an expert report on "whether the group may be regarded as a destructive cult."
Mr.Rodriguez-Valdesdescribeshimself as "a psychologist, sexologist, andexperton destructive
cults"in privatepracticein Bajamar,Tenerife,CanaryIslands.He concludes thatthe Foundation
is a destructivecult and practices"brainwashing"(lavado de cerebro).He submits20 criteriato
be used to distinguishbetweena "religion"anda "destructivecult"routinelyusing brainwashing.
The first is that "religionshave a history,an antiquity,a social evolution. They are not founded
overnight,"while destructivecults "haveno history,nor tradition"(Rodriguez-Valdes1999:35).
Second, religions "partakeof culture and society-they are the result of history"whereas de-
structivecults "havenothing to do with history,much less are a result of it." Third,"members
are free to accept or reject the content or dogma of a religion,"whereas the "adeptis underthe
obligation of believing, practicingand spreadingthe doctrine and belief of a destructivecult"

(Rodriguez-Valdes1999:36).
Thereare, as mentionedearlier,17 othercriteria,but the firstthreearerepresentativeenough
of how platitudes,inaccuracies(are membersof a religion by definitionfree to "rejectits content
or dogma"?),andvaluejudgmentsarepassed off as psychological or scientificconclusions about
mind control,brainwashing,and destructivecults.
For purposes of our study it is not relevantwhether the leaders of the Atman Foundation
are guilty of crimes otherthanpromotingan associationthat is consideredillicit because it uses
"alterationand control of the personality"(i.e., brainwashing).It is the evidence offered by the
expert for this lattercrime, and the comments of the prosecutor,that are particularlydisturbing
in relationboth to the incriminationof brainwashingper se and to the use of professional"cult-
busters"as expertsappointedby the courts.
Belgian Report
The Belgian report,which is the most slanted of all the recent official reports,discusses at
length the concept of "mentalmanipulation"and offers a lengthy summaryof Robert Lifton's
1963 classic, ThoughtReformand the Psychology of Totalism,althoughno critiquesof Lifton's
work (or the ways it has been applied)were mentioned(see Anthony 1990, 1999). Nor does the
Belgian reporttake into accountthe differencesbetween Lifton's own work and the use of Lifton
by MargaretSingerand otheranti-cultauthors;the latterandLiftonarequotedtogetheras if their
theorieswere one and the same (Richardson1993, 1996a).The treatmentof Lifton in the Belgian
reportis a typical anti-cultapplicationof some of his ideas to contemporaryreligious groups.
The discussion of "PersuasionStrategiesand Indoctrination"is especially revealing of the
attitudesunderlyingthe Belgian report.One quote will illustrate:
The detrimentalsectarianorganizationstryto influencetheirmembersandtheirgroupsin the society with the

aim to establishcertainopinions and institutionsby biased intensivepsychological means. An essential element
in this context is indoctrination;the disciples are made dependenton the groupin diverse ways. The membersof
the groupmust be submissiveandmade dependentto answerthe totalitarianneeds of the groupand its chief. With
the help of adequatepsychological methodsthe group and its chief focus on becoming masterof the conscience
of members.To this effect, it is startlingto realize that the membershave no conscience of being manipulated,
and thatthey do not thereforedevelop any appropriatedefense strategy.
Witnesses heardby the investigatingcommission have discussed mentalmanipulation,mental destabiliza-
tion, psychological alienation, moral violence, attemptsat the autonomyof the will, of mental dislocation, of
depersonalization,brainwashing,indoctrination,mentaland personalitydestruction.(vol. II, p. 141)
The Belgian reportalso attemptsto explainaway criticismsofferedby IntrovigneandMelton

(1996), includingthe chapterby Richardson(1996b) critiquingbrainwashingtheories.The report
closes with recommendationsfor some new penal provisions, including one to make illegal
"the abuse of a situationof weakness,"which is the provisiontakenfrom the Frenchpenal code
discussedearlier.Apparently,thislaw,writtento protectminorsandthose withmentaldeficiencies,
is now recommendedfor applicationin Belgium to people who participatein sects and cults.
Of special concern in the Belgian reportis anotherrecommendationof "a prison term of
up to five years and/ora fine for those who use beatings, violence and threats,or psychological
manipulationto persuade an individual about the existence of false undertakings,imaginary
powers, and imminent fantasticalevents" (p. 224 in the Belgian report). Such a stern penalty
could only derive from a belief that there were indeed techniquesthat were all-powerfulwhen
used in recruitingby newer faiths. (See Fautre1999 for more on the Belgium report.)
It is however interestingto note thatthe Observatorycreatedin Belgium to watch "harmful
cults" has adopted a much more moderate approachthan its French counterpartand appears
willing to cooperatewith internationalscholars.
Cantonof GenevaReport
AnotherTypeI report,fromthe Cantonof Geneva,while moremoderatein tone thanthose of

Franceand Belgium, does containrecommendationsfor new statutesthat are obviously derived
from an acceptanceof brainwashingviews aboutparticipation.One such recommendationis to
promoteSwiss federallegislationmakingmind controla federalfelony.
The reportclaims (p. 268), after discussing activities not legally problematic,that "certain
reprehensiblebehaviorhas nonethelessescaped the law,"and then recommendsa new crime of
"mentalmanipulation,"with the following attributes:
a. If psychicaldestabilizationof membersor theirmentalmanipulationhaveas consequencesattemptson their

physical integrityor freedom,we can ... consider institutingpenal proceduresto restrainharmor coercion ....
[T]he existence of injuryis not an absoluteconditionof action .... We should rememberthat in the Swiss
penal law .. . the attemptto commit an act is punishable,even thoughthe executionof the act was interruptedor
the culpable activity has run its course without neverthelessreachingthe desired result. We can imagine in the
meantime,with particularreferenceto brainwashing,thatthe groupor its leadershipcannotbe prosecuteddue to
the lack of observableevidence of attemptson physical integrityor thata personhas been deprivedof his liberty.
b. We know that the notion of brainwashingwas born after the Koreanwar, from the treatmentsinflicted
uponthe Westernprisonersof war.This expressionsymbolizes todaythe intensiveindoctrinationof a personwith
the aim to producethe total loss of contactwith reality.In this contextthe victim weakensby loweringhis level or
reactionandsuppressinghis defenses.To this end, the victim will be subjected,for example,to repeatingsoundsfor
extendedhours,to food deprivation,to repeatedphysicalexercisesof shortduration.. . andotherformsof intensive
and prolongedstress .... This conditioningaims to erase the ideas and concepts of the person,presentingthese
to him as being synonymouswith "sin"or as negativeelements thathave hinderedhis harmoniousdevelopment.
The reportstatesthatit is difficultto establishcoercionin cases wherethepersonis a voluntary

participantand there is no threatof serious injuryor violence, and then says: "We would only
establish that the freedom of the memberhas been violated."Then, after commentingthat it is
difficultto assess attemptson the psychical integrityof a person,the reportstates:
Neverthelessit doesn't seem reasonableto adhereto this simple affirmationandto answerto family memberswho
are worriedaboutthe fate of the personbeing involvedin dangeroussectarianmovementsthatone must wait for
the incidence of an attempton his physical or psychical integrityin orderto act and remove him from ongoing
destabilizationmaneuvers.
After lamentingthe difficultyof jurists operatingwithout medical definitionsor legislators

who cannot simply decree a norm since it would be hardto enforce without experts to observe
the mentaldestabilizationstate of members,the reportstates:
Neverthelessthis does not hinder reflection.We could alternatively,due to the lack of possibility of producing
a medical definition,consider the enactmentof a statutethat would focus on the actions of individualsaimed at
achievingthe mentaldestabilization.It would repressbehaviorsthat,takenindividually,would not fall underthe
law. This normcould describecertainknowntechniquesand definethe illegal aims. It could be consideredas part
of the groupof statutesthatprotectfreedom.This normcould allow, in cases whereconstraintis inapplicableand
where physical injurycannotbe observed,interventionduringthe destabilizationprocess.
These ideas are then given more specificity in a later section of the Geneva report by
Mr. Harari,a lawyer. This section of the reportis entitled, "RecommendationsRelative to the
Penal Repression of Certain Cultic Activities." The recommendationsuse the term "victim"
throughoutto refer to a recruitor participant,and, also, terms such as brainwashingand mental
manipulationand mentaldestabilizationare used casually as if they representacceptedfacts and
processes. One particularlynoteworthypassage in Mr.Harari'ssection states:
If such a normcould be adopted,the fraudulentabuseof the stateof ignoranceor of a weakenedstateof the victim
could be punished. .. where the acts or omissions thatcould result would gravely prejudicethe victim. (p. 294)
Mr.Hararigoes on to recommendthat"associationsanddefense groups"(anti-cultorganiza-

tions) be allowed to assist victims of "culticactivities"in legal procedures,apparentlybasing his
argumenton the helplessness of said victims aftertheirparticipationin the group.This seems to
be a justificationfor allowing such groupslegal standingto initiateactions on behalf of members
of "cults"even when the latterhave no intentionor desire to sue.
Second FrenchReport
The second Frenchreport(issued on June 10, 1999) shows that the Frenchparliamenthas
not been responsiveto critiquesof scholarsof its firstreportor of otherTypeI reports.Therefore,
unlike other more recent reports,which we categorize as Type II,the second French reportis
Type I, given the virulentanti-cultperspectivedemonstratedthroughout.
The second reportfocuses on financesof religiousminorities,but still finds a way to bringin
brainwashingclaims in a significantmanner.It representsanothermajoreffort by MPs Jacques
Guyard,authorof the 1996 Frenchreportwho chairedthe parliamentarycommissionthatdrafted
the second report,andJean-PierreBrard,a memberof the FrenchgovernmentalMission to Fight
Against the Cults (establishedin 1998) who is noted for strongopinions on these mattersand is
the authorof the 1999 document.The reportis divided into three parts,the first of which offers
general comments on the situationconcerningsects in Franceand in Europe.We are told again
of the potentialharmof such groups, and the efforts needed to controlthem, includingadding a
few more to the list of sects and cults publishedin the firstFrenchreport(Anthroposophyandthe
RosicrucianorderAMORC,for instance, are now defined as dangerousand placed on the list).
This section is conspiratorialin its overall flavor,and even contains a referenceto the scholarly
association CESNUR (of which one of the authorsis managing director)as a possible major
organizationin an internationalpro-cultconspiracy.
The second section gives considerabledetail about finances of the groups, discussing how
they gain funds for their operations,and offering a typology of sorts, based on perceptionsof
wealth of the groups (Jehovah'sWitnesses and Scientology are rankedat the top). This section
also presents some truly disturbingmaterialin that it reportson individualcontributionsto the
groups,andnamesnames,even thoughthose listedas giving moneyto certaingroupshave broken
no law in so doing. Those producingthe reportare protectedfrom legal action since this is an
official parliamentaryreport,but in virtuallyany othercivilized society such informationwould
not be allowed to be published.6
The thirdsection of the reportdeals with possible crimes relatedto finances of the groups.
In its conclusion section, there are recommendationsfor otheractivities by the Mission to Fight
Cults,7 more cooperation with anti-cult groups, and anti-cult initiatives by other branches of
government.The report,since it contains little evidence of actuallaw breaking,must dependon
other logic for its quite significantconclusions. It finds its justification by referringto the old
stand-by,brainwashing(lavage de cerveau),called here mindcontrol(manipulationmentale).
Cults, although typically not breaking any laws, can be identified because they employ
brainwashing.While otherreligious organizationsreceive money and pay salariesto leadersout
of free will, cults, "whose use of mind controlcertainlydoes not need furtherevidence"(p. 187),
will use brainwashingto persuadetheir"victims"to contributemoney.While otherorganizations
obtainvolunteerworkby members,cults "abusethe notionof volunteerwork"since theypersuade
membersto work througha "modernform of slaveryfoundedon mind control"(p. 176).
The reportalso urges reexaminationof the recommendationin the 1996 reportthat no anti-
brainwashinglaws be considered, and that the Mission to Fight Cults should conduct a study
of possible new statutes. Thus, the second French reportclearly demonstrateshow claims of
brainwashingare used to undergirdrecommendationsand conclusions that otherwise could not
be justified.
Draft Law by SenatorAboutin France
On December 16, 1999, the French Senate unanimouslyapproveda draft law introduced
by Mr. About amendingthe FrenchLaw of January10, 1936 and certainother laws. The Law
of January10, 1936 was introducedto provide for the dissolution or winding-up,and ban, of
combatant(at that time, mostly right-wing)anti-governmentorganizationsand privatemilitias
by a decree of the government.Cults, or "sects,"will now be included. The discussion in the
senatewas introducedunderthe heading"FightingCults"(Luttecontre les Sectes), and cults are
the aim of the law approvedon December 16, 1999 (althoughin the end the word "cult"was not
introducedin the law, andthusthe law could be used againstothergroupsas well). The discussion
made clear thatthe anti-cultactivistsin the senateare unhappyabouta numberof legal decisions
"favorableto cults"and would like to offer the governmenta way to bypass the judiciary.
Article 1 allows the governmentto dissolve organizationsand groups that have been found
guilty at least twice of a variety of criminaloffenses and are "regardedas a troublefor public
order or a major dangerfor humanpersonality."The senate discussion made clear that both
the "troublefor public order"and the "dangerfor humanpersonality"refer to the criteriafor
identifying "dangerouscults" in the 1996 report(where mind control had a key role), and that
the list of "dangerouscults" in that report will be an importantpoint of reference. Article 2
takes care of the fact that in recent cases (involving, particularly,the Churchof Scientology)
certain leaders or members of the movement but not the movement per se were found guilty
of particularwrongdoings.Under Article 2, organizationsand movements may now be found
guilty of a numberof crimes as corporatebodies. Even if this does not happen,the second partof
Article 1 allows the dissolution and ban of groups "dangerousfor human personality"whose
managersor "defacto leaders"have been found guilty, at least twice, of the same crimes. Special
provisionsmake it particularlyfit for a ban the fact of havingbeen found guilty of breachesof the
Public Health Code, and this (as the printeddiscussion clarifies) is aimed at groups practicing,
in a way regardedas hazardousto public health, faith healing or other alternativesto orthodox
medicine. Finally,Article 3 amends the 1901 law on the associations, increasingto three years
of jail and a fine of F 300,000 the penalty for those who try to reconstitutea bannedassociation
underanothername.
As a member of the senate (Mr. Foucaud) observed, the law of 1936 "was used by the
[pro-Nazi]Vichy regime"and "left-wing movements were banned."He also observed that the
referenceto at least two criminalverdictsagainsta movementfor an enormousvarietyof crimes
and wrongdoingsmay have paradoxicaleffects: "a movementmay be dissolved because a leader
has been found twice guilty of writingbad checks for 10 dollars"(Luttecontre les sectes 1999:
column 40). Nevertheless,all the senatorsvoted unanimouslyin favor of the draft law. In fact,
mindcontrolandbrainwashingwould againplay a key role since not all movementswhose leaders
have been found guilty of criminaloffenses would be banned,but only those accused of being
"dangerousfor humanpersonality."
Approvalby the lower chamber,the NationalAssembly,was needed afterthe senate'sunan-
imous vote. The senatorshad noted that the problem for France is the internationalsituation,
and the U.S. Departmentof State, "which includes Scientologists"(Luttecontre les sects 1999:
column 35) was singled out for its activities on behalf of religious liberty. In fact, the French
governmentitself appearedto be quite concernedabout possible internationalconsequences if
the About act was passed, and delayed a vote in the assemblybecause of such concerns,until the
new Picarddraftlaw, in fact supersedingthe About draft,was introduced.
ThePicard Draft Law in France (2000)
A new French anti-cult draft law dated May 30, 2000 and unveiled on June 6, 2000 was
authoredby MP Ms CatherinePicardand signed by all FrenchSocialist Membersof the National
Assembly. It was approvedby the Commission of Law of the Assembly on June 14, 2000 and
was passed unanimouslyon June22 in the NationalAssembly.This extremelyrapidhandlingof
such a controversialmeasure is itself a sign of how strongly some elements of Frenchgovern-
ment feel aboutnontraditionalreligious groups.At the time of this writing,the law, after several
amendments,awaits final approvalto become effective.8
The Socialist Partyis the partyof France'sPrime Minister.The NationalAssembly, if any-
thing, made the draft law worse by changing the perimeterfrom a school, hospital, or similar
location where "cults"cannot operate from 100 to 200 meters (making it impossible for such
groups to operatealmost everywhere),allowing cities to deny buildingpermissionsto so-called
cults and allowing privateanti-cultorganizationsto promoteand become partiesin court cases
againstthem.These amendmentswere approvedagainstthe opinionof the governmentitself, and
elicited strongreactionsby humanrightsorganizationsand the mainlinechurches(Catholicand
Protestant).As a result,JusticeMinisterElizabethGuigoucalledfor a "pause"anda reexamination
before the law is approvedby the senate.
The draftlaw originallycontained 11 articles,derivedin partfrom severalformerproposals,
includingthe one by SenatorAbout. The main featuresof the draftlaw were as follows:
1. Article 1 provides for the dissolution of a corporationor association whose activities have
"the goal or effect to create or to exploit the state of mental or physical dependenceof peo-
ple who are participatingin its activities"and that infringe "humanrights and fundamental
liberties,"when this association,or its managers(or de facto managers)have been convicted
"severaltimes" (how many times is not specified)for offenses such as fraud,illegal practice
of medicine, and several other criminal offenses. The introductionmakes it clear that this
combinationof mind control,infringementof "humanrights,"and"several"criminalconvic-
tions is the definitionof a "sect"or"cult" now regardedas legally workable.The procedure
of dissolutionis judicial and can be introducedbefore a civil courtby the local prosecutoror
by any personwho has an interestin the matter(including,apparently,anti-cultists).
2. Articles2 to 5 createcorporatecriminalliabilityfor corporationsor associationsfalling under
Article 1 in cases where only personalliability existed.
3. Article 6 lays out the punishmentfor any person who participatesin the reconstitutionof a
corporationor associationthathas been dissolved-a three-yearprisontermand a F 300,000
fine. Article 7 calls for the reneweddissolutionof an associationthathas been reestablished
aftera firstdissolution.
4. Article 8 forbids the setting up of any offices, seat, church, advertisement,or advertising
activityby sects (i.e., the associationsandgroupsdefinedunderArticle 1) withinthe perimeter
of 200 meters (as amendedby the assembly) from a hospital, a retirementhouse, a public
or private institutionof prevention,curing, or caring, or any school for 2- to 18-year-old
students.If this interdictionis violated, the sentence is two years' imprisonmentand a fine
of F 200,000, and the corporationor associationcan be condemneditself. Cults or sects (as
definedabove) may also be denied buildingpermissionsor licenses by cities.
5. Article 9 punishes any promotionor propagandaby an association or group falling under
Article 1 "intendedfor young people" (age not defined) underpenalty of a F 50,000 fine,
applicableto both individualsand associations.
6. Article 10 establishesthe new crime of mentalmanipulation."Mentalmanipulation"(in fact
"brainwashing," althoughthis termis not used) is definedas any activityor activities"withthe
goal or the effect to createor to exploit the state of mental or physical dependenceof people
who are participatingin the group's activities and to infringehumanrights and fundamental
liberties; to exert repeatedpressuresin order to create or exploit this state of dependence
and to drive the person, against its will or not, to an act or an abstentionwhich is heavily
prejudicialto her."The penaltyis two years' imprisonmentand a fine of F 200,000, but if the
victim is particularlyweak due to age, illness, etc., the penalty is five years' imprisonment
and F 500,000 fine. Following the amendmentsby the assembly,courtcases may be brought
by anti-cultorganizations,which can participateas partiesto a case andmay collect damages

from the so-called cults. Penaltieswill apply to associationsas well as to individuals.
This last provision caused widespread protest by human rights organizations,mainline
churches,and the judiciary.As a result, in January2001 the governmentsuggested thatcreating
an offense of mental manipulationwas not appropriate,and the same results may be obtained
throughan extension of the existing Section 313-4 of the Penal Code repressing"the deceitful
abuse of a state of ignoranceor a situationof weakness."In a new text, both the offense and the
termof "mentalmanipulation"disappeared,andSection 313-4 was amendedto includethe notion
of a "stateof subjection,"eitherpsychologicalor physical,causedby "theexercise of seriousand
repeatedpressuresor techniquesaimed at alteringthe capacityof judgment"(a formulationthat
repeats,word for word,the formulaused in the previousdraftbill to define the offense of mental
manipulation).A second paragraphaddedto the section would make punishmentof the offense
heavier,up to five yearsof detentionanda fine of 5 million francswhen the crimes arecommitted
"by a de facto or legal leader"of a "secte."
Cantonof GenevaReporton Brainwashing
At a conference held on November25, 1999, the Cantonof Geneva unveiled a "Reporton

Mind Controlof the CriminalLaw Commissionon Cultic Abuses" (Rapportde la Commission
penale sur les derives sectaires sur la questionde la manipulationmentale 1999). The Criminal
Law Commissionon Cultic Abuses follows the above-mentionedCantonof Geneva 1997 report
on cults and is the brainchildof a local politician,Mr.GerardRamseyer.
The reportstartsby stating that cultic mind control "is a reality,"mentioningas evidence
"formermembers and parents of currentmembers heard as witnesses by the Commission"
(p. 2). It goes on to present an outline of the issue of mind control (the term "brainwashing"
is not used) in comparativelaw. Althougha Ms. Sophie Borguignon,AssistantProfessorof Law
at the Universityof Genevaand a memberof the Commission,is praisedfor her "serioushome-
work"in this field, the resultsare not particularlyimpressive.Concerningthe U.S. situation,the
reportclaims that Molko (a well-known Californiandecision of 1988 involving the Unification
Church)"governsthis matter"(p. 5), and no mention whatsoeveris made of the post-Molkode-
bate, particularlyof the exclusion of witnesses on brainwashingandmind controlby U.S. judges
startingin the Fishmancase (1990).9 An articleby Richardson(1996a), in fact extremelycritical
of brainwashingclaims in general), is quoted only in orderto note that brainwashingdefenses
raisedby deprogrammers"haveoften (althoughnot systematically)been regardedwith favorby
US courts,so thatdeprogrammershavebeen acquitted"(p. 4). No mentionis madeof a numberof
U.S. decisions regardingdeprogrammingas a criminalactivity.In fact, the reportclaims that"de-
programmingis a formof therapywhose aim is an attemptto counterthe mindcontrolimposedon
the memberandto restorehis or her free will. In fact, the deprogrammertries to call into question
the trustrelationshipbetween the memberand the cult, showing that in fact he or she has been
conned"(p. 4). The ItalianConstitutionalCourtdecision of 1981 strikingthe provisionon plagio
(brainwashing),datingbackto the fascist regime,out of the ItalianCriminalCode as incompatible
with a democraticconstitutionis explainedaway with the argumentthatit was basedon the vague
characterof the statute,ignoring that the Italiancourt said in 1981 that any anti-brainwashing
statutecan only be vague, since there is no accepteddefinitionof brainwashingin general.The
reportalso mentions attemptsto reintroducea plagio statutein Italy,failing howeverto explain
that, so far,these attemptshave consistentlyfailed.
The second half of the reportdeals with Swiss law. It examines how existing provisions
on fraud,consumerprotection,theft, and (in case of use of mind control to persuadethe mem-
ber to have a sexual relation with a leader) rape may be used against mind control, and it is
suggested that Swiss judges apply these provisions in a broaderway. The Commission thinks,
however,that this is not enough, and proposes a new article of the CriminalCode (art. 182) as
follows:
Whoeverhas carriedout physical or psychological actions in a repeatedand systematicalway, aimed at impairing

the capacity of anotherperson to make autonomousjudgments, or at placing this other person in a state of
dependency,will be punishedwith a jail term and a fine. (p. 12)
The examples offered by the Commission as guidelines are not reassuringas far as the
apparentvagueness of the provisionis concerned:
This process includes,but is not limited to:

-magnifying the possibility of the memberto be suggestionizedor fascinatedby a special diet, excessive
repetitionof routine activities or rituals, sleep deprivation,participationto lengthy sessions where the tenets of
the group are learned;
-controlling the environmentof the member (isolation from family and friends, filteringthe information
coming from the outside society ... );
-controlling forms of communication(imposing the use of a coded language, excluding certain subject
mattersfrom discussion . ..);
-excessive social control within the movement,exposureof the memberto an intense humiliationshould
he or she deviate from the tenets of the group. (p. 15)
It is also stated that "since the controlledmember will rarelytake the initiativeof filing a
criminalcase, districtattorneysshould be free to act even withouta previouscomplaint"(p. 15).
It is unclear,at the time of this writing,whetherthis reportwill have any practicalconsequence
at the cantonalor federallevel in Switzerland.
Type II Reports
As indicated,thereareseveralType IIreportsthatarenot so slantedagainstminorityreligious

groups.While these reportsare more balanced,and do considerscholarlyresearch,we will show
that all but one still incorporatesin importantways essential ideas from the brainwashing/mind
controltradition,even if this usage is more subtle.
SwedishReport
The Swedishreportis surprisingbecauseit makesovertcriticismsof actionsof otherEuropean

governmentstowardnewerreligions. It is particularlycriticalof Franceand Belgium, saying that
"some countriescan be said, somewhatexaggeratedly,to have declaredwar on the new religious
movements,"which can only lead to more isolation for such groups.10The reportalso stresses
the rightof adultsto believe what they choose and expresstheirbeliefs. And, the reportclaims as
well that"the greatmajorityof membersof new religious movementsderivepositive experience
from theirmembership."
In chapterseven of the Swedish report,which deals with legal perspectives,thereis a lengthy
discussion of the fact that Swedish laws cover virtuallyany kind of activity that might be harm-
ful to society or to individualmembers. However, the section then closes with the following
recommendation,presentedin the official English summaryof the report:
The Commissioncomes to the conclusion that the protectiveneeds of the individualare relativelywell-provided
for in the majorityof cases. But legislationaffordsinsufficientprotectionwith regardto whatin the Commission's
report is termed "improperinfluence"or manipulation.Introductionof the term "improperinfluence" in the
legislation would benefit both serious practitionersof religion and personal integrity.If a person is induced,
against his will, to renouncehis faith (the term "deprogramming"was formerlyapplied), this, accordingto the
legislation proposed, can be deemed improperinfluence,just as manipulationsof an individual in a religious
movementcan be regardedas improperinfluences.The Commission thereforeproposes that the Penal Code be
amendedto include a new penal provisionmaking improperinfluencea punishableoffense. (?8)
Althoughthe reportuses an example of deprogrammingto illustrateimproperinfluence,the

purviewof the new proposedlaw would also cover "manipulationsof an individualin a religious
movement."This suggests some concernaboutrecruitmentand retentionpractices,as well as an

implicit acceptanceof the idea that a person's will andjudgmentcan be overcome by religious
groups.Thus, it appearsthateven with all the positivethingsthatcan be said aboutthe balanceof
the Swedish report,it has as an underlyingtheme ideas relatedto brainwashingnotions imported
fromthe UnitedStates.Those ideasincludepassivityandweaknesson the partof potentialrecruits
andmembers.Implicitly,the idea of improperinfluence,when used in referenceto normaladults
(even young ones), seems a rejection of their volitional nature,which might be involved in a
decision to experimentwith a newer religion.'1
Swiss Reporton Scientology
A reportspecifically on Scientology, but with attentionto the general topic of sects, was
commissionedby the State SecurityAdvisory Committeein Switzerland.This report,although
criticalof Scientology,is perhapsthe most balancedof all the recentgovernmentalreportson new
religions in that it is quite factualand considers seriously work by scholarsin this areaof study.
The reportdoes not adopt the anti-cultideology that pervadesType I reportsand some Type II
ones. 12
The reportrecountsthe restrainedapproachto new religious phenomenaby most govern-
mentalentities in Switzerland,a pointto which we will return.The reportalso recommendssome
actionsby governmentalauthorities,such as the need for an "observationcenter"on new religions
at a higher educationinstitutionthat would producefactual and independentinformationabout
such phenomenafor use by the public and governmentalauthorities.The reportspecificallydoes
not recommendthatScientology (or any othergroup)be put undersurveillance,and it statesthat
existing laws are adequateto give the state opportunityto oppose any injuriousactivityby sects.
Of particularinterest, the report makes no use at all of brainwashingand mind control
concepts. Indeed, the topic of recruitmentis given short shrift in the report, and there is an
implied assumptioncommon to much scholarlyliteratureon new religions thatpeople join these
groups because they want to, not because of some sort of mystical psychotechnologysuch as
brainwashing.Thus, this reportrepresentsan exception to the usual finding that brainwashing
concepts undergirdeven Type II reports.But, as will be shown, this reportis not the "lastword"
on cults and sects by Swiss authorities.
GermanEnqueteCommission
The GermanBundestagestablisheda much-publicizedEnqueteCommissionto inquireinto

"So-Called Cults and Psycho Groups"in May 1996,13which held many meetings and even
traveledto the United Statesbefore issuing a finalreport.(A preliminaryreporthad evoked some
controversyand criticism.) The final report,issued in May 1998, was surprisinglymoderatein
its tone in some sections (but not in all, see Besier and Scheuch 1999), and includedstatements
that the new religions (with some exceptions) were not harmfulto society, and that they did not
constitutethe seriousproblemthathadbeen originallythought.However,the reportalso included
a substantialminorityreportfiled by some commission membersexpressingconcernaboutanti-
cult orientedportionsof the report,and theirrecommendations,which would exert considerable
controlover minorityfaiths (see Seiwert 1999).
Despite the generally more positive and scholarly informedportions of the report,it con-
tains some assumptionsand claims about recruitmentprocesses indicatingthat the influenceof
scholarlyresearchandcriticismsof earlierofficial reportswas not fully accepted.The reportdoes
say (p. 141 of the English translation)there are some problemswith earlier-acceptedmodels of
conversionthroughbrainwashing,and thatconversionwas usuallyan act of free will (Introvigne
was among those who testifiedbefore the Commissionon this issue). However,there are places
in the reportwhere the earliertheories still are accepted,even if more quietly or implicitly.It is
clear thatnew religions are viewed as sinisterforces to be observed,studied,and generallykept

trackof if the governmentis to properlycare for its citizens.
This approachderives, it has been noticed (Besier and Scheuch 1999), from the German
government'stendencyto assume a duty to protectthe individualagainstexploitationand harm,
or more boldly put, to protect the individualfrom himself or herself, as the individualmakes
spiritualdecisions. Such a perspectiveleads ratherlogically to some innovativeapproachestaken
by the Germanreport,as will be discussed.
There is some direct evidence for the conclusion that the state accepts theories of recruit-
ment that are negatively defined, as revealed through an examination of the topics covered
in the lengthy report,especially the portion devoted to recruitment.14Five pages (74-78) are
devoted to a discussion of "enlistmentand recruitmentstrategies,"and 18 pages (140-57) to
"forms of social control and psychological destabilisation."For example, the following com-
ment is made about "psychologicaldependence,"a term used in a disparagingway within the
report:
As a working concept, "psychologicaldependency"is proposedfor the state of affairswhere an individualhas

formedan unusuallystrongand unusuallyexclusive bond, notablyor even predominantlydrivenby anxiety,with
a community which on grounds of religion or ideology exerts an extensive or even exclusive influence on the
generalorientationand everydaylife of its members.(p. 147)
This definition makes it clear that the Commission does not look positively on religious
groups that exercise a strong influence on their members.The Commissiondoes offer a caveat
when it says:
It should be noted that there is an implicit culturaljudgementin the identificationof dependencyin these terms,
i.e. the notion that the observedbond is inappropriatelystrong, that it is harmfulfor the persons concernedand
that it can be misused for immoralpurposes.(p. 147)
The Commission'srecommendationsleave littleroomfor doubtthatmost on the Commission

viewed new religious groups negatively,no matterthe conclusions drawnin partsof the report
aboutthe relativelybenign natureof most such groups. Most Commissionmemberswantedthe
groups to be studied,and wantedto have the governmentfund privateadvisoryand information
offices to help keep tabs on new religious and "psychogroups.""Internationalcooperation"was
called for to assist in findingout more aboutthe groups,as well.
The concept of "milieu control" used by anti-cult activist Steve Hassan is discussed but
criticized as too broad:
[T]he milieu control identifiedby Hassan, consisting of behaviouralcontrol, mental control, emotional control
and informationcontrol cannot, in every case and as a matterof principle,be characterisedas "manipulative."
Controlof these areas of action is an inevitablecomponentof social interactionin a group or community.The
social controlthatis always associatedwith intensecommitmentto a groupmustthereforebe clearlydistinguished
from the exertionof intentional,methodicalinfluencefor the express purposeof manipulation.(p. 150)
The reportalso recognizedthat"inthis areait is not possible (exceptin extremecases) to iden-

tify cause-effectrelationshipsindependentlyof the biography,the personalityandthe social situa-
tion of the candidate"(p. 151). While "theconceptof psychologicaldependencyas a so-called in-
nerfactcannotas a rulebe used as a criterionforjustifyingactionby the authorities"(p. 154),there-
portstatesthatthe distinctionbetweenwhattakesplace in most social organizationsand"planned
andpurposefulmethodsof manipulation[which]do at least tendto runcounterto the basic values
of our social orderis possible"(p. 151). Forinstance,havingheardas a witness Canadiansociolo-
gist StephenKent(a well-knowncriticof Scientologyandothermovements),the Commissionwas
persuadedthat"prolongedsensory deprivationalone can produceacute psychological disorders
(hallucinations)andmakethe victim receptiveto indoctrination('brainwashing')"(p. 150). Here,

as elsewhere, it seems thatat least one movement,Scientology, is regardedas so dangerousthat
even a recommendedcautionin the reportnot to use the word "brainwashing"is abandoned.
Throughoutthe majorityof the reportthere is a "consumerprotection"model operating.
The governmentis assumingthatit has the rightand obligationto protectpotentialrecruitsfrom
participatingin "problematicgroups."One could even say that the Commission has shown a
rathersophisticated,if punitive,approachto the problemof regulatingnewerreligious groups.It
has linked religious groups with "psychogroups,"which are definitelynot consideredreligious.
It has called for more scientificresearchon such groups(althoughit ignoredmuch such research
as it drew up the report).Then it proposes a consumerprotectionapproachthat has the effect of
furnishingsome basis for also regulatingreligious groups. And, all this is done in the name of
protectingthe citizenry,so who can possibly complain?All this is done despiteexplicit statements
made in the reportthat the new religious groups are not a threatto democraticsociety. Plainly
such a position is based upon the view that the groups are sinister,and that they do recruitand
retainmembersin unacceptableways.
It is noteworthythat this "consumerprotection"model, which has also been tried in the
United States(see Richardson1986), has become influentialin otherofficial fora in Europe,such
as the Berger reportto the EuropeanParliament.15MartinKriele says of this approachin the
EnqueteCommissionReport(1998:13):
The recommendationmade to the FederalCouncil to make a law regulatingthe commercialassistancefor

masteringlife, is incomprehensible.This draftlaw emanatesfrom the all-inclusive suspicion that those offering
such services are not reliable,are mysterious,and work with manipulativetechniquesand the consumershave to
be especially protected.
Italian Police Report
This is a police reportpreparedfor internaluse by police and intelligence agencies. It does

access considerablescholarly work, and indeed made use of the CESNUR libraryon new and
minorityreligions. However,the reportalso contains some blatantmistakesin its discussions of
some groups,most notablyThe Family/TheChildrenof God.
Chapterthree of the Italian police report does contain a discussion of brainwashingand
mind control(pp. 10-1 1), and offers in a footnote a standardanti-cultorientedreconstructionof
the brainwashingprocess allegedly used by new religions. The footnote discusses three major
processes that are supposedly involved in recruitingand maintainingmembers. These include
isolation, indoctrination,and maintenance.
* Isolation includesa numberof elements such as the eliminationof family life; "love bombing"
to reinforcethe sense of belonging to the group;eliminationof privacy;and total obligationof
one's wealth to the group,causing financialdependenceon the group.
* Indoctrinationincludesconstantattendanceat very difficultlectures;absoluteobedience;con-
formity to specific dress codes; a sense of mystery and participationin an insoluble design;
and use of repetitiveformulasthatridiculethe critical senses.
* Maintenanceincludes continuousmental impregnationand deprivationof sleep designed to
induce a state of dependence;depersonalizationby eliminatingpersonal initiative;constant
psychological pressureby other membersto preventself-doubt;and the use of a cryptic lan-
guage thatmakes communicationwith the outside world difficult.
There is also in the report a discussion of plagio, a term close to what some mean by
brainwashing,andthatused to be referredto in section603 of the ItalianCriminalCode. However,
the reportcorrectlynotes thatthe offense was declaredunconstitutionalin 1981 and is no longer
partof Italianlaw. This pointnotwithstanding,thereare severaluses of the termlaterin the report,
with claims thatmembersof certaingroupsare "submittedto plagio" (p. 89).
There is also on page 10 a concern aboutrecruitingtechniques.The reportdecries:
the use, in orderto recruitnew candidatesand maintainthem in the fold of subliminalmechanismsof fascination
and of brainwashingor similarmethodsto limit the libertyof self-determinationof the individual.
Further,the reporttalks of indoctrinatingthe adeptby using "scientificmethodsto decrease

the psychicaldefense of the individual,andto inducea criticallevel of totalobedience."At another
place the reportsays that "'mentalconditioning' .. . should not be prosecutedunless it can be
demonstratedthattechniquesof suggestion and hypnosis have been used ...."
It is clear thatbrainwashingnotions serve as an underpinningof this report,even thoughthe
reportcontainssome thoughtfulandinformedportions.Thus,suchunderlyingideashave survived
the infusion of other scholarshipinto the report.Why this has occurredremainsto be seen.
Swiss Cantonof TicinoReport
This reportfrom the Cantonof Ticino in Switzerlandalso shows the apparentinfluence of

criticismby scholarsof some earlierreports.Indeed, it even mentions (p. 17) possible problems
with "anti-cultterrorism"againstnewerfaiths, which suggests a differentapproachin this report.
However,again we see clear signs thatbrainwashingthemes are acceptedby the report'swriters.
We also see evidence of possible cross-fertilizationbetween this reportand the Italian police
reportreferredto earlier.
The report'ssection on "HowPeople Join"is repletewith languageindicatingacceptanceof
the mindcontrol/brainwashing perspective.Readersaretold (p. 22) thatthe "dangersarenumerous
andtreacherous"for youthswho aretargetedby the cults. The processof joining the SolarTemple
is describedas "seductionexertedon the public ... by means of a manipulativeprocess. Of
participants,we are told that "theirvulnerabilityand sense of not being loved are exploited."A
footnote likens the relationshipof participantand leaderto that of the sado-masochisticrelation.
There is discussion of "affectivitybombing"(p. 23), which seems a referenceto the term
"love bombing,"which some apply to recruitmenttechniquesof the UnificationChurchwhere
the groupgoes about"providinghim with an image of happyand comfortablepeople who intend
to help those who have problems."We are told that the recruitmentprocess becomes "moreand
more exacting both psychologically and financially."Recruits then approacha "slipperycliff,
which will bring about a breakingpoint."The reportsays that "at times the group will threaten
his family in orderto put a stop to efforts to lure the adeptaway from the sect."
Even the use of hypnosis and chemical methods can be instrumentalin eliciting total sub-
mission.
[P]rogressiveisolationis whathas increasinglyvictimized subjectandimmunizedhim againstexternalinfluences

and made him utterlydependenton this new reality.In the group privacyis dismantled... and a collective self
replacesthe individualself. (p. 24)
Anotherfootnotediscussingthe UnificationChurchmethodsclaims that"A 'godfather'who

will be in chargeof this personfull-timeprogressivelybegins the brainwashingprocess."Thereis
also discussion of a "seriesof activities"thatare"prolongedandtiring"includingmentally.Here
is mentionedthe example of learninglengthy prayers.The reportadds that a demandingroutine
allows little sleep because of the "intricaterules imposed."All this:
underminespersonalresponsibility,. . . which is particularlyappealingto people who are psychologicallyeasy to

manipulatebecause they feel relieved of theirburdenof responsibility.
The group uses "a reproachfulattitude"for those who deviate from the norms of the group.
The recruitis asked to "makea confession."Thus the groupcauses him to:
create in himself a huge sense of guilt which will be laterused to increasehis psychological dependence:this is
programming.Identityhas been practicallytransformed.(p. 25)
After this process, we are told, "it is almost impossible for him to leave the group .... The
submissionis complete."We are also informedthatMichele Del Re, an Italianlaw professorwho
heads an anti-cultorganization,states that:
the technique of subjugationwithin destructivecults has nothing original to offer. It is in fact the very same
techniquebornat the beginningof the post-warperiodin Chineseprisonsand which was also developedin Korea
and in Bulgaria,where political prisonerswere used as guinea pigs for mentalconditioning.
The reportclaims thatthis techniquehas threemajorsteps (recall the Italianpolice report),

including(1) isolation of the person;(2) indoctrinationof the person;and (3) keeping the person
in a state of absolutedependence.A summaryparagraphconcludes:
The negative consequences can be summarizedin the loss of social contact, breakingof existing relationships,
transformationof personality,mentaldependence,materialsubmission,even culminatingin physicalconsequences
of being deprivedof a balanceddiet, sleep deprivation,or neglect of medical needs.
Then, just to remindthe readerthat something sinister is happening,anothersummarylist

of the principle techniquesused in luring people to join is given (p. 26). These include "love
bombing,""isolation,""repetition,"and "sleep deprivation,"all of which are describedin some
detail.
The reportcloses with a familiarlitany of what should be done about the menace of sects
and cults. The reportoffers (p. 34) recommendations,including,
it is necessaryto intervenebefore the damageis made and to punishwhoevermay use chemical,or psychological
methods in orderto dominateanother.One might then imagine thatpsychical violence might be prosecutedas a
crime.
The reportadds:
One could certainlyhypothesize a law that would punish the acts which tend to destabilize the person, that is,
those behaviorsthatarenot punishablein themselvesbut thatare punishablewhen they exist in combination.This
would allow interveningto a markeddegree while the processof destabilizingthe individualis in progress,rather
thanwaiting for the damageto be actualized.
The reportadmitsthattheremay be "difficultyof proof' since thereareoften no witnesses to

the actionsof the "suspectedcriminalwho affirmsthatthe supposedvictim was fully consenting."
This set of recommendationsis chilling to read, and plainly would be problematicto implement.
They demonstratethat some in the Cantonof Ticino fully accept the brainwashingmyth and are
willing to take drasticactions based on thatacceptance.
Swiss National Council Reporton Cults
On July 1, 1999, the Commission of the Managementof the Swiss National Council (the
FederalParliament)produceda reportto guide public policy in the areaof new religious groups,
apparentlyin responseto some otherreportsdone by governmentalentities in Switzerland,partic-
ularlythe morebalancedone dealingwith Scientologydiscussedearlier.16This reportis generally
mindfulof scholarlystudies of new religions, althoughit does not accept scholarlyviews com-
pletely. Of particularinterestis the creative,if problematic,methodused to addressthe issue of
recruitmentand maintenanceof participationin new religions.
The reportdoes not use the term"brainwashing" at all, in apparentrecognitionof the disrepute
of that term in scholarly circles. However, the reportdoes talk at length about "indoctrinating
movements"(mouvementsendoctrinants),and states that this is the "key element"to observe in
movements with possible "cultic"features(p. 24). The reportadmits that indoctrinationis part
of a continuumbetween acceptableforms of influenceand unduepressure,and thatit is not easy
to define for legal purposes.However,it goes on to say (paragraph435) that "Themost notable
featureof indoctrinatinggroups is the limitationof self-determinationto the point of eradication
of autonomy."The reportalso notes how difficult it is to measure such manipulationprocesses
from the outside; because some of the process is internalto the recruit,it is hardto prove that
deceptionwas used.
In cases of "alterationor suppressionof free will" (p. 36), the stateshouldprotectindividuals
againstthe "indoctrinatingmovement."Of special concernto the Council are childrenand those
who may believe in pseudo-therapeutic"miraclecures"proposedby some movements.One quote
will demonstratepotential implicationsof the assumptionsconcerning so-called indoctrinating
groups.
Since not only civil and criminal legislation, but democracy as well rest on the axiom of responsible self-
determination,no rightfulState, no matterhow liberal,can witness withoutreactionthe actions of indoctrinating
groups thatsystematicallyannulindividualautonomy.(paragraph445)
The Swiss reportdoes not, however,recommendanynew federallegislation,andthe proposal

in the Cantonof Genevareportto legislate againstmind control(discussedearlier)is called "pre-
mature"at the federallevel.17The reportdoes adopta consumerprotectionmodel, and statesthat
theremight need to be some additionalregulationmakingit easier to apply consumerprotection
statutes to "for-profitspiritualassistance"(p. 51). The reportalso recommendsestablishing a
federal service for informationon new groups,and states that it should not be biased.
Thus, the FederalSwiss Parliament'sreportis more moderateand recognizes that there are
differencesof opinionin this area.Thereis littleregurgitationof anti-cultrhetoricwithinthereport,
as was seen in the reportsfrom Belgium and France.However,it is easy to discernbrainwashing
andmind controlideas lurkingwithinthe discussionof so-called indoctrinatinggroups,andthese
help drivethe policy recommendationfor new regulationsof a consumerprotectionvariety.
On June 29, 2000, the Swiss governmentpublished a response to the report,praising the
Commission'sefforts but rejectingall its main proposals.The Swiss governmentconcludedthat
no special laws were appropriate,and that it is not the province of the federal state to create
watchdoginstitutionsto observe"cults."To a limitedextent, the governmentmay supportprivate
nonpartisanefforts (such as the Observatorycreatedat the Universityof Lausanne,see Conseil
federal 2000). Thus it may be the case that implicit brainwashingtheories in the parliamentary
reporthave not carriedthe day in Switzerland.
Council of EuropeReporton Sects and Cults
In 1999, the Council of Europeadopteda compromisedocumententitled,"IllegalActivities

of Sects" (Doc. 8373, June 22, 1999) thatis within the ambitof a Type II report.The reportwas
the result of much discussion, and representsthe views of variousparties,which means that the
documenthas importantinternalcontradictions.It makes strongstatementsin favor of religious
freedomand pluralism,and againstreferringto religious groupswith the "extremelypejorative"
termsect (p. 4), butalso makes some recommendationsthatderivefromconcernabout"religious,
esoteric, or spiritualgroups,"as they are referredto in the report.
The reportdoes not recommendrestrictivelegislation,and mentionsmore thanonce thatthe
state should stay neutralin mattersreligious. The reportdoes call for establishmentof informa-
tion centers, includingregional ones, to aid in disseminationof informationon the groups. The
reportjustifies itself in this regardin two ways: that"thenumberof people joining sects is rising
constantly,"and becauseof "theestablishmentof sects in centraland easternEurope"(p. 3). This
concernaboutcentralandeasternEuropepervadesthe report,with recommendationsbeing made
thataid packagesfor those countriesincludemoney for informationcenterson sects, and so forth.
Of special interestis the concernexpressedaboutrecruitmentand socializationof members.
There are various conceptualizationsrelatedto brainwashingin the report,including some that
use the termbrainwashingexplicitly.For instance,the reportssays:
The assemblyattachesgreatimportanceto protectingthose most vulnerable,andparticularlythe childrenof mem-

bersof religious,esotericor spiritualgroups,in case of ill-treatment,rape,neglect, indoctrinationby brainwashing
* (p.2)
The term brainwashingis also mentioned in the reportin a discussion (p. 6) of the well-
known Kokkinakiscase in the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights, which was decided in 1993
as the firstviolation of article9 of the EuropeanCommissionof HumanRights. As Richardson
(1995b, 1996a) pointed out, both the majorityand minority opinions in that case (which was
decided on a vote of 6-3 in favorof Jehovah'sWitnessesrightto proselytizein Greece)make use
of the termbrainwashingas if it is a well-understoodconcept withinlegal and scholarlycontexts.
The reportuses statementsfromthisjudgmentto indicatethatsome proselytizingis unacceptable
because it might entail "theuse of violence or brainwashing"(p. 6).
The following statementappearsin the conclusionof the report(p. 9): "Itwould be necessary
to reflectuponthe legal consequencesof the indoctrinationof sect members,often called 'mental
manipulation."'This somewhatambiguousstatementseems to suggest that groups engaging in
"mentalmanipulation"should suffersome legal consequences,but the reportis not clear on how
such groupsare to be identified.
So, again we see an official reportof an interparliamentary entity in Europeassuming that
somethingcalled "brainwashing"is a reality,even if several differentterms are used to refer to
this process. And again, we see this assumptionused as a justificationfor policy decisions, such
as the establishmentof informationcentersand the internationalexchange of informationon the
groupsin question,not to mentionthe notion of "legal consequences"for mentalmanipulation.
CONCLUSIONS
It is clear from reviewing these reportsthat the Americanculturalproductof ideas about

brainwashingand mind control is alive and well in Europe, and that those ideas have helped
promotethe moralpanic in some Europeancountriesover cults and sects. Culturaldiffusionhas,
regrettablyin this case, been relatively successful, but it has also been limited and narrow.The
thoroughcritiqueof such ideas that has been done by scholarsboth from the United States and
othercountries(includingEuropeanones) is usuallymissing from the package(see, for example,
Barker1984,1989; RobbinsandAnthony1982;Anthony1990,1996; AnthonyandRobbins1995;
James 1986; Richardson1985, 1991, 1993, 1996a). Thus we see the raw ideas of brainwashing
and relatedconcepts includedin both Type I and Type II reports(with the exceptionof the Swiss
reporton Scientology), and such ideas appearto be driving policy recommendationsin some
Europeancountries,even including those that claim that the new religions are not a threatand
thatreligious freedomand pluralismare valued.
Why brainwashingnotions have been so readily adopted in the Europeancontext needs
furtheranalysis. One could say this has occurredbecause of the tendencyto accept the word of
apostateswhen claims are made and accounts offered about what happenedto them when they
joined newerreligions. Those claims and accountsare apparentlymore culturallycoherentif use
is made of concepts such as brainwashing,mind control, or relatedterms, as Introvigne(2000)
notes (see also Richardson,van der Lans, and Derks 1986; Bromley 1988, 1998).
However,the tendencyto blame apostateaccountsfor widespreaduse of such ideas begs the

question of why in some Europeancountriesthose particularaccounts are valued above others,
including scholarly research-basedclaims that brainwashingas it is popularlyunderstooddoes
not occur. Those trying to understandthe resiliency of brainwashing-basedargumentswill be
forced to examine, among other things, the social constructionistquestion of who gains when
such argumentsare acceptedand moralpanics ensue.
For instance,it is clear thattraditionalchurchesgain (at least in the shortrun)if such notions
are accepted as a basis for policy because competitionfor membershipis stifled. Also, cultural
conservativesgain if culturalinnovationsare stymied throughthe use of such rhetoric.Cultural
liberals may also supportanti-cultuses of brainwashingideas if they are anti-American,and if
they view cults and sects as archconservativeand reactionary(as is often the case in present-day
France).Politiciansmay, in turn,adoptbrainwashingideas as partof theirrhetoricbecause it fits
theirpurposeof wantingto appearto rebuildor defend the culturalintegrityof a society as they
seek to gain and retain political power. Media representativesmay make use of brainwashing
theories if only because they make for a good story, which also happensto sell copies. Those
opposed to religion in general also may promote the idea that cults and sects are a threatwith
their alleged use of brainwashingargumentsbecause it furthersa generalanti-religionagenda.
In France, the first Europeancountry to develop such anti-cult oriented reports to guide
governmentalpolicies, the state has had a traditionof supportingsecularhumanismdatingback
to the French Revolution. At the SupplementalMeeting on Freedom of Religion held by the
Organizationfor Security and Cooperationin Europe (OSCE) in Vienna on March 22, 1999,
answeringcriticismsin the OSCEreportsintroducingthe discussionon religiouspluralism(one of
which was presentedby Introvigne),the secretaryof the FrenchMission to Fight Cults,Mr.Denis
Barthelemy,explainedthe Frenchpositionin a particularlyinterestingway. He said that"religious
liberty" and "freedom of belief" are different concepts, and may indeed conflict. "Religious
liberty" (a "collective liberty" for churches and movements) may be limited for the sake of
"freedom of belief," the "individualliberty" of thinking and believing without "constraints"
externalto the individualconscience. This is an argumenttypical of Frenchsecularhumanism,
and was used in 19th and early 20th century France in order to disbanda numberof Catholic
religiousorders,andto compelmonksandnunsto abandontheirconventsagainsttheirwill. France
will protect against "constraints"to the formationof their individual"belief,"Mr. Barthelemy
concluded,not only childrenbut also "adultsin need of protection"(Barthelemy1999).
Protectingindividualsagainstgroupsmay look like a legitimateoptionwithinthe framework
of a general acceptance of personal freedom. However, Mr. Barthelemy'sspeech implies that
the individualcitizen's freedom of forming one's belief "freely"shall be protectedif necessary
against this citizen'swish, preciselybecause being subjectto brainwashingor mindcontrol he
or she merely thinkshe or she has accepteda belief "freely"when such is in fact not the case. The
ostensibly liberalreferenceto "freedomof belief" in fact hides the quintessentiallyreactionary
presuppositionthat the governmentknows betterthan its adult citizens "in need of protection"
where theirreal freedomand best interestslie.
The confluenceof the variousinterestswe mentionedin the listing of those sharinga common
interestin exerting social control over sects and cults is well illustratedin the Frenchsituation,
as well as in most of the other countries discussed herein. Such a confluence of interestshas
contributedto a widespreadacceptanceof brainwashingtheories,particularlyin some societies.18
In the UnitedStates,brainwashingtheoriesaresupportedonly by a minorityof academicscholars
(and generally,in these few cases, in the form of "neo-brainwashing" models ratherthan in the
"crude"formprevailingin some Europeanreports),butarestill often mentionedin mediaaccounts
of "cults."Only if social constructionistideas are taken seriously will scholarsbe able to come
to some reasonableunderstandingof why the particularmoral panic about cults and sects has
occurred,and how the particularculturaldiffusion of brainwashing/mindcontrol theories has
takenplace when and where it has.19
NOTES
1. The receipt of public funding supportfor anti-cultefforts is mainly limited to Franceand Germany.It is also note-
worthy that the recent patternof official anti-cultistactivity in Europe is not monolithic. Some countries, such as
The Netherlandsand the United Kingdom,have not seen the developmentof a stronganti-cultmovement,and some
early official reportson new religions, such as the one in The Netherlands,have not been nearlyso negative in tenor
(Kranenborg1994; Richardsonand van Driel 1994). It is also worth noting that, as one reviewerpointed out, some
of these official reportshave had little directimpact(othershave had considerableimpacthowever,see herein,Fautre
1999; Introvigne1999b, 2000), and they have not always been determinativein court actions, some of which have
been won by minorityfaiths even in places such as France.This lattersituationof court decisions not necessarily
following political agendasis an indicationof the relativeautonomyof the judicial system in some countries,a very
importantpoint to note (Richardson1999a).
2. As one reviewernoted,one majorappellatecourtdecision in the UnitedStatesreversingthe trendagainstbrainwashing-
based claims could have a significant impact on acceptance of such claims. However, we think this an unlikely
occurrence (for why, see Ginsburgand Richardson 1998; Richardson 1991, 1993; Anthony 1990; Anthony and
Robbins 1992, 1995).
3. For some consequencesof the Frenchreports,see especially Introvigne(1999b, 2000) but also Swantko(1999).
4. The famousKatz case from California(Katzx'.SuperiorCourt,73 Cal. App. 3d 952, 1977) led to the virtualdiscon-
tinuanceof such applicationsof conservatorshiplaws in the United States (see Bromley 1983).
5. We say "some of his ideas" because the typical anti-cultapplicationof Lifton's theories overlooks completely the
last chapterof Lifton (1963), which talks of voluntaryparticipationin self-change programs.Lifton notes that many
people in CommunistChinawere not forced convertsbut that they sought out ways to learn abouttheirnew society
and thereforeto fit in better.Later,Lifton himself (1987:211) cautionednot to "use the word br-ainwashingbecause
it has no precise meaning and has been associated with much confusion,"and that "thoughtreform,and totalism in
general, are not necessarily illegal, however we may deplore them."Most recently,Lifton (1999:202-13) clarified
that,althoughmost "cults"(anda varietyof otherorganizations)use "thoughtreform,"law enforcementshouldrather
focus on the small minorityof "world-destroyingcults,"identified,interalia, by their"ideology of killing to heal, of
altruisticmurderand altruisticworld destruction"and by "the lure of ultimateweapons"See Anthony(1996, 1999)
for a more thoroughdiscussion of Lifton's ideas.
6. On March21, 2000, the JusticeCourtof Parisfound MP JacquesGuyard,presidentof the parliamentarycommission
thatdraftedthe 1999 report,guilty of defamationfor havingcalled Anthroposophy"a cult"(secte) practicing"mental
manipulation."Guyardwas fined F 20,000 andorderedto pay F 90,000 to the AnthroposophicalFederationof Steiner
Schools. Guyard'sargumentwas thatAnthroposophywas regardedas a cult in the second Frenchparliamentaryreport
(1999), a documentcoveredby parliamentaryimmunity.The courtstatedthat"theinvestigation[of thatparliamentary
report]was not serious. It is provedthat it only consideredaffidavitsby alleged 'victims' of Antroposophybut that
neitherthe authorsof these affidavitsnor the alleged perpetratorswere heardby the [parliamentary]commission."
The Parisjudges also decided to stripGuyardof his parliamentaryimmunityin connectionwith this case (subjectto
appealat the time of this writing).Thus at least some Frenchcourtsseem relativelyindependentfrom the anti-cultist
agendaillustratedby the reportsdiscussed herein.
7. The Mission to Fight Cults was established after the "Observatoryof Cults,"which came into being after the first
Frenchreport,issued in 1998, which was thoughtby some to be to soft on the cult problem.One criticismwas thatthe
Observatoryhad as presidenta governmentofficerwith no anti-cultbackground.The Mission is partof the executive
branchof governmentwhose membersare appointedby the Prime Minister.The presidentof the Mission is Alain
Vivien, who as MP authoreda firstFrenchreportback in the 1980s (see Richardson1995b), and who is a personwith
strongviews critical of new religions. Vivien is associatedwith a Frenchanti-cultorganizationthat is humanistand
anti-Catholicin orientation;hence therehas been some criticismin the Catholicpress of his appointment.
8. In an unusualshow of concern, Pope John Paul II made some indirectlycritical comments on June 10, 2000 when
acceptingthe credentialsof the new FrenchAmbassadorto the Holy See, Mr.Alain Dejammet.The Pope remindedthe
new ambassadorthat,"religiousliberty,in the full sense of the term,is the firsthumanright.This meansa libertywhich
is not reducedto the privatesphereonly.To discriminatereligiousbeliefs, orto discreditone or anotherformof religious
practiceis a form of exclusion contraryto the respect of fundamentalhumanvalues and will eventuallydestabilize
society,wherea certainpluralismof thoughtandactionshouldexist, as well as a benevolentandbrotherlyattitude.This
will necessarilycreatea climateof tension, intolerance,opposition,and suspicionnot conduciveto social peace."The
Pope also called on "the media to be vigilant and to treatfairly and objectivelythe differentreligious denominations
[in French,confessions]."Frenchauthoritiesimmediatelyrespondedthat"cultsand sects" are not confessions.
9. See Anthony and Robbins (1992) for discussion of the limited implicationsof the Molko decision (Molko & Leal
v'.Holy Spi-it Ass'n, 179 Cal. App. 3d 450, 1986), and Anthony and Robbins (1995) and Richardson(1996c) for
discussions of the landmarkFishmandecision (UnitedStates '. Fishman,743 F. Supp. 713, N.D. Cal. 1990).
10. All quotes are takenfrom the official English languagesummaryof the Swedish report,"InGood Faith"(1998).
11l. See Richardsonand Kilbourne(1983) for a detailed analysis of the themes in both classical and contemporaryuses
of brainwashingtheories. Also see Anthony (1990, 1996, 1999), Robbins and Anthony (1982), James (1986), and
Richardson(1991, 1993, 1996a) for assessmentsof these themes.
12. The reporthas been roundlycriticizedby anti-cultists,and its very developmentwas controversial.The report'smajor
author,Jean-FrancoisMayer,a well-respectedSwiss scholarof new religiousphenomena,does not adoptan anti-cultist
perspectivein his work,and strivesfor a balancedand factualapproachin all his scholarlywriting.Mayer,who at the
time was an officer and employee of the Swiss CentralOffice of Defense (Switzerland'ssecurityplanningagency at
the time), was well knownbecauseof his researchon the SolarTemplepriorto, andafter,the mass murder/suicidesthat
occurredin 1994. His assistanceto law enforcementauthoritiesas the SolarTempletragedyunfoldedwas well known.
He was asked to preparea reportby the ConsultativeCommission on State Security,which was a group appointed
by the executivebranchof the Swiss federalgovernment.See the criticalstoryby a leading Swiss anti-cultjournalist,
Hugo Stamm (1997a), who also had a critical editorialin the same issue (Stamm 1997b). This attackcontributedto
concernwithin the Swiss Parliament,which eventuallyled to the productionof a parliamentaryreportto be discussed
laterin this paper.
13. For a discussion of the controversyover "cults"and "sects"within Germanyand the impactthis controversyhas had
on the academiccommunitystudyingsuch phenomena,see Hexhamand Poewe (1999), as well as Baumann(1998)
and Besier and Scheuch (1999).
14. Some subheadingsof topics coveredin this portionof the reportinclude:"Formsof Social Controland Psychological
Destabilisation,""Levelsof PsychologicalDependency,""ReligiousDependency,""Levelsof Social Controland Ma-
nipulativeElements,""PotentialDangers,"and "Opportunitiesand Need for GovernmentalInterventions."The very
titles of the subsectionsreveal a pervasivesuspicious posturetowardthe newer religions.
15. This report,which was approvedby the Committeeon Civil and Libertiesand InternalAffairs, was submittedto but
not voted on by the plenarysession of the EuropeanParliamentin July 1998. The reportwas postponedindefinitely,
and is no longer pendingbecause of the June 1999 elections, which had the effect of killing all pendingproposals.It
is availableon the CESNUR website <http://www.cesnur.org/testi/Europe.htm>.
16. See note 11, which recountsthe controversyengenderedby the reporton Scientologyproducedearlierby a commission
of the Swiss government.
17. The first yearly reportof the FrenchgovernmentalMission to Fight Against Cults (MILS 2000) also noted that the
proposalsfor incriminatingbrainwashingper se are "interesting,but theories of mind control have, in the present
statusof science, a subjectivecharactermakingthem difficultto be used in a legal scenario."
18. It is ironic indeed to see Chinese authoritiesusing brainwashingclaims as justificationfor social controlof the Falun
Gong movement.The brainwashingtermwas firstusedby EdwardHunter(1953), a CIA operative,as a way to describe
the alleged resocializationtechniquesof the Chinese Communistsafterthe takeoverin mainlandChina (Richardson
and Kilbourne1983).
19. Obviously, historical and culturalfactors play a role as well, and must be taken into account to help explain the
varied patternof anti-cultsentimentacross Europe.Such historicaland culturalelements must furnisha contextual
backgroundfor the operationof the constructionistperspectiveoutlinedherein.
REFERENCES
Anthony,Dick. 1990. Religious Movementsand BrainwashingLitigation:EvaluatingKey Testimony.In T. Robbinsand

D. Anthony,eds., In Gods WeTrust,295-44. New Brunswick,NJ: TransactionBooks.
1996. Brainwashingand TotalitarianInfluence:An Explorationof Admissibility Criteriafor Testimonyin Brain-
washingTrials.Ph.D. Dissertation.Berkeley,CA: GraduateTheological Union.
1999. Pseudoscienceand MinorityReligions: An Evaluationof the BrainwashingTheoriesof Jean-MarieAbgrall.
Social Justice Research 12:421-56.
Anthony,Dick, andTom Robbins.1992. Law,Social Science, andthe "Brainwashing"Exceptionto the FirstAmendment.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law 10:5-30.
1995. Negligence, Coercion,and the Protectionof Religious Belief. Journal of Churchand State 37:509-36.
Anthony,Dick, Tom Robbins, and James McCarthy.1983. LegitimatingRepression.In D. Bromley and J. Richardson,
eds., TheBrainwashinglDeprogramming Controversy,319-28, New York:Edwin Mellen.
Assembl6e Nationale. 1996. Les Sectes en France. Rapportfait au nomnde la Commissiond'Enquete sur les sectes
(documentn. 2468). Paris:Les Documentsd'Informationde l'Assembl6e Nationale.
1999.Rapportfaitau nomde la Commissiond'Enquetesur-la situationfinanciere,patr-imonialeet fiscale des sectes,
ainsi que sur leu-s activWitseconomiqueset leur-srelations avec les milieuxeconomiquesetfinanciers (documentn.
1687). Paris:Les Documentsd'Informationde l'Assemblee Nationale.
Audit sur les deriies sectaires. Rapportdu groupe d'experts genevois au Departementde la Justice et Police et des
Transpo-tsdu Canton? de Geneve. 1997. Geneva:EditionsSuzanneHurter.
Barker,Eileen. 1984. TheMakingof a Moonie: Br-ainwnashing or Choice? Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
-.1989, New;ReligiouxsMov!ements: A Practical Introduction.London:Her Majesty's StationaryOffice.
. 1996. But is it a Genuine Religion? In L. Griel and T. Robbins, eds., BetwveenSacr-edand Secular: Researchand
Theoryon Quasi-Religion,97-109. Greenwich,CT:JAIPress.
Barthelemy,Denis. 1999. Interventionof the French delegation at the OSCE SupplementaryMeeting on Freedomof
Religion. Vienna,March22, 1999.
Baumann,Martin. 1998. ChannelingInformation:The Stigmatizationof Religious Studies as an Aspect of the Debate
about the New Religious Movements in Germany.In E. Barkerand M. Warburg,eds., New Religions and New
Religiosity, 204-21. Aarhus:AarhusUniversityPress.
Besier,Gerhard,andErwinK. Scheuch(eds.). 1999. Die neuenInquisitor-en. undGlaubensneid.Zurich:
Religionsfr-eiheit
Interfrom.
Bromley, David G. 1983. Conservatorshipsand Deprogramming:Legal and Political Prospects. In D. Bromley and
J. Richardson,eds., The Brainwnashing/Deprogr-anmnming Contv-oversy, 267-93. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Books.
Bromley,David G. (ed.). 1988. Fallingfi-ronthe Faith: Causes and Consequencesof Religious Apostasy.Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
1998. The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Tr-ansfor-mation of Religious Movements.
Westport,CT: PraegerPublishers.
Casanovas,CarlosEgufluz. 1999. El Fiscal al Juzgadode Instrucci6nNunieroNueve. SantaCruzde Tenerife.
Chambredes Repr6sentantsde Belgique. 1997. Enquet par-lementair-e visant a 0labor-erune politique en v'uede lutter-
contre les pr-atiquesillegales des sectes et les danger-squ'elles represententpour-la societ et pour les per-sonnes,
particuliU-ementles min1eur-s d'dage.Rapportfiit au nornde la Commissiond'Enquete,2 vol. Bruxelles:Chambre
des Representantsde Belgique.
Commission de gestion du Conseil National. 1999. "Sectes" ou mouvementsendoctrinantsen Suisse. La necessite de
l'action de l'Etat ou:.ver-sune politiquefrderale en matie)e de "sectes."Rappor-tde la Commissionide gestion du
Conseil nationaldu 1 er-juillet1999. Bern:Commissionde gestion du Conseil national.
Commission penale sur les d6rives sectaires. 1999. Rapportde la Commission penale sur les derives sectaires sur la
questionde la manipulationmentale.Geneva:Commissionpenale sur les d6rivessectaires.
Conseil f6deral.2000. Responsedu Conseil fed6ralau rapportde la CdG-CN:"'Sectes' ou mouvementsendoctrinantsen
Suisse La necessite de l^Oactionde lOetat ou vers une politiquef6deraleen matierede 'sectes."' Bern:Conseil
f6deral.
Councilof Europe Committeeon LegalAffairsandHumanRights. 1999. Illegal Activitiesof Sects:Repor-t(Doc. 8373).
Strasbourg:Council of Europe.
Davie, Grace. 1994. Religion in Britain since 1945: Believing wvithout Belonging. Oxford:Blackwell.
Deutscher Bundestag 13. Wahlperiode. 1998. Endberichtder-Enquete-Kommniissioni "SogenaninteSekten und Psy-
chogr-uppen." Bonn: DeutscherBundestag.
Dipartimentodelle Istituzioni,Repubblicae Cantonedel Ticino. 1998. Inter-rogazionisulle sette r-eligiose.Bellinzona:
Dipartimentodelle Istituzioni,Repubblicae Cantonedel Ticino.
Dillon, Jane, and James T. Richardson. 1994. The "Cult"Concept: A Politics of RepresentationAnalysis. SYZYGY:
Jour-nal of AlternativeReligion and Culture 3:185-97.
Enquete-Commissionon "So-CalledSects and Psychogroups."1998. Final Repor-tof the EnqueteCommissionion "So-
Called Sects and Psychogroups":New Religious and Ideological Communitiesand Psychogv-oupsin the Feder-al
Republicof Germany.(English translation)Bonn: DeutscherBundestag,ReferatOffentlichkeitsarbeit.
EuropeanParliament,Committeeon Civil Libertiesand InternalAffairs. 1997. Dr-aftResolutionon)Cults in the Euro-opean
Union. Brussels-Strasbourg:EuropeanParliament1997.
Fautre,Willy. 1999. "Belgium'sAnti-Sect War.Social Justice Research 12:377-92.
Fuller,D.C., and D. Myers. 1941. The NaturalHistoryof a Social Problem.AmericanSociological Review6:21-51.
Ginsburg,Gerald,and James T. Richardson.1998. "Brainwashing"Evidence in Light of Dauber-t.In Lawyand Science,
edited by H. Reece, 265-88. Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.
Greil, ArthurL. 1996. SacredClaims:The "CultControversy"as a StruggleOverthe Right to the Religious Label. In D.
Bromleyand L. Carter,eds., TheIssue of Authenticityin the Studyof Religions, 46-63. Greenwich,CT:JAIPress.
Hexham,Irving, and KarlaPoewe. 1999. "Verfassungsfeindlich": Church,State, and New Religions in Germany.Nova
Religio: TheJournal of Alternativeand EmergentReligions 2:208-27.
Hunter,Edward.1953.Br-ain-Washing in Red Chinathe CalculatedDestructionof Men'sMinds.New York:The Vanguard
Press.
Introvigne,Massimo. 1999a.Defectors,OrdinaryLeave-Takers,andApostates:A QuantitativeStudyof FormerMembers
of New Acropolis in France.Nova Religio: TheJournal of Alternativeand EmergentReligions 3:83-99.
1999b. Holy Mountainsand Anti-CultEcology: The CampaignAgainst the Aumist Religion in France.Social
Justice Research 12:365-76.
1999c.Religionas Claim:Social andLegalControversies.InJ. G. PlatvoetandA. L. Molendijk,eds., ThePragmatics
of DefiningReligion. Contexts,Conceptsand Contests,4 1-72. Leiden-Boston B Koln: Brill.
.2000. Moral Panics and Anti-Cult Terrorismin Western Europe. Terr)orismand Political Violence, 12:47-
59.
Introvigne,Massimo, and J. Gordon Melton (eds.). 1996. Pour-en finir av'ecles sectes. Le debat sur le rappor-tde la
commissionpar-lementaire.3rd ed. Paris:Dervy.
James,Gene. 1986. Brainwashing:The Myth andthe Actuality.Thought:For-dhamUniversityQuarterlyLXI (241):241-
57.
Jenkins,Philip. 1996. Pedophilesand Pr-iests:Anatomyof a Contempor-ary Cr-isis.New York:OxfordUniversityPress.
.1998.Moral Panic: ChangingConceptsof the ChildMolesterin Moder-nAmerica.New Haven,CT:Yale University
Press.
Kriele, Martin. (1998). The Legal-Political Recommendationsof the Sect Commission. Zeitschriftfur- Rechtspolitik
(Magazinefor Legal Politics) 9:349.
La Scientologie en Suisse. Rapportprepare a l'intention de la CommissionConsultativeen matiere de protection de
l'Etat. 1998. Bern:D6partementf6deralde Justiceet de Police.
Lewis, James R. 1986. Reconstructingthe "Cult"Experience.Sociological Analysis47:151-59.
- 1989. Apostates and the Legitimationof Repression: Some Historical and EmpiricalPerspectives on the Cult
Controversy.Sociological Analysis 49:386-96.
Lifton, RobertJ. 1963. ThoughtRefor-mand the Psychologyof Totalisnm. New York:W.W.Norton.
-. 1987. The Futureof Immortalityand Other-Essaysfor-a Nuclear Age. New York:Basic Books.
- 1999. Destroyingthe Wor-ldto Save It: AumShinrikyo,ApocalypticViolenceanidthe New Global 7err^orism. New
York:MetropolitanBooks-Henry Holt and Company.
Lltte contre les sectes. 1999. Seance du Senat francaisdu 16 d6cembre1999 (minutes).
Miller,Donald. 1983. Deprogrammingin HistoricalPerspective.In D. Bromley andJ. Richardson,eds., 7he Brainwash-
inlg/Deprogram7ming Contr:over-sy,15-28. New Brunswick,NJ: TransactionBooks.
MILS (MissionIntermiinisthrielle de Luttecontr-eles Sectes). 2000. Rapportd'activite. Paris:MILS.
Ministerodell'Interno,Dipartimentodella PubblicaSicurezza Direzione CentralePolizia di Prevenzione. 1998. Sette
r-eligiosee nuovi rnol'imentimagici in Italia. Rome: Ministerodell'Interno.
Motilla, Agustin. 1999. New Religious Movementsin Spain. In NewvReligious Movementand the Law in the European
Uniion.Pr-oceedingsof the Meeting:Lisbon, UniversidadeModer-na8-9 Novembe,;1997, 325-40. Milan:Giuffr6.
ObservatoireIntermiinisteriel sur les Sectes. 1997. Rapportannuel 1997. Paris:La DocumentationFrancaise1998.
Richardson,JamesT. 1985. Active vs. Passive Convert:ParadigmConflictin Conversion/Recruitment Research.Jour-nal
for-the ScientificStudyof Religion 24:163-79.
-.1986. ConsumerProtectionand DeviantReligion. Reviewof Religious Resear^ch 28:168-79.
1991. Cult/BrainwashingCases and the Freedomof Religion. Jour-nalof Chur-chand State 33:55-74.
- 1993. A Social PsychologicalCritiqueof "Brainwashing"ClaimsaboutRecruitmentto New Religions. In J. Hadden
andD. Bromley,eds., TheHandbookof CultsanldSects in America(vol. 3, partb of "Religionandthe Social Order,"
75-97). Greenwich,CT:JAI Press.
1995a. Legal Statusof MinorityReligions in the United States. Social Compass42:249-64.
-.1995b. MinorityReligions, Religious Freedom,and the an-EuropeanPolitical and JudicialInstitutions.Jour-nalof
Chur-chand State 37:39-60.
1996a. "Brainwashing"Claims and MinorityReligions Outsidethe United States:CulturalDiffusion of a Question-
able Legal Concept.Brigham YoungUniversity Law Review 1996:873-904.
1996b. Les resistancesaux groupesreligieux minoritairesen France.In M. Introvigneand J. G. Melton, eds., Pour
enifiniravec les sectes, 73-84. Paris:Dervy.
.1996c. Sociology and the New Religions: "Brainwashing",the Courts,and Religious Freedom.In P. Jenkinsand S.
Kroll-Smith,eds., Witnessingfor Sociology: Sociologists in Court, 115-34. Westport,CT:Praeger.
1997. The Social Constructionof Satanism:Understandingan InternationalSocial Problem.Austr-alianJour-nalof
Social Issues 32:61-85.
1999a. Social Justice and MinorityReligions. Social Justice Resear-ch12:241-52.
1999b. Social Control of New Religions: From "Brainwashing"Claims to Child Sex Abuse Accusations. In S.
Palmerand C. Hardman,eds., Childrenin New Religions, 172-86, New Brunswick,NJ: RutgersUniversityPress.
Richardson,JamesT., andBrockKilbourne.1983. ClassicalandContemporaryUses of BrainwashingModels:A Compar-
ison and Critique.In D. Bromley and J. Richardson,eds., TheBrainwashing/Deprogramming Con;r-oversy, 29-46,
New Brunswick,NJ: TransactionBooks.
Richardson,JamesT., Janvan der Lans, and FransDerks. 1986. Leavingand Labelling:Coercedand VoluntaryDisaffil-
iation for Religious Social Movements.In K. LandandG. Lang, eds., Resear-chin Social Movements,Conflict,and
Change, Vol. 9, 97-126, Greenwich,CT:JAIPress.
Richardson,JamesT., andBarendvanDriel 1994. New Religionsin Europe:A Comparisonof DevelopmentsandReactions
in England,France,Germany,andThe Netherlands.InA ShupeandD. Bromley,eds., Anti-CultMovementsin Cr-oss-
CulturalPer-spectivne, 129-70, New York:Garland.
Robbins, Tom, and Dick Anthony. 1982. Deprogramming,Brainwashing,and the Medicalizationof Deviant Religion.
Social Problems29:283-97.
Rodrfguez-Vald6s,Eloy. 1999. Infor^me pericial que solictitael Juez a instancias del Ministerio Fiscal del juzgado de
pr-irera in1stancia, instr-ucctionnE 4. SantaCruzde Tenerife.
168 JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION
Seiwert, Hubert.1999. The GermanEnqueteCommissionon Sects: Political Conflictsand Compromises.Social Justice

Research 12:323-40.
Shupe, Anson, and David Bromley. 1994. Anti-CultMovementsin Cross-CulturalPerspective.New York:Garland.
Solomon, Trudy. 1981. Integratingthe Moonie Experience:A Survey of Ex-Membersof the Unification Church.In
T. Robbins and D. Anthony,eds., In Gods We Tr-ust:New Patterns of Religious Pluralism in America, 275-94.
Princeton:NJ: RutgersUniversityPress.
Stamm, Hugo. 1997a. Der Staatsschutzund der-Freundder Sekten (State Security and the Friendof the Sects). Tage-
samnzeigerZurich, Feb. 4.
1997b.Nafve Staatsschhtzer(Naive State SecurityAgents) TagesamzeigerZurich,Feb. 4.
Swedish Commission. 1998. In Good Faith. Society and the New Religious Movements(Official English-languagesum-
mary).Stockholm:NorstedtsTryckeriAB.
Swantko,Jean. 1999. The Twelve TribesCommunities,the Anti-CultMovement,andthe Government'sResponse.Social
Justice Research 12:341-64.
Witteveen,TobiasA. 1984. Overheiden Nieuwe ReligieuzeBewegingen.Gravenhage:Kamerstukken.

Scientology and Germany and Cult

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scientology and Germany and Cult

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

"Brainwashing" Theories in European Parliamentary and Administrative Reports on "Cults"

Thisstudyexaminesthe recent r-ashof official reportsdone by governmentalagencies in WesternEuropeto guide

Religious minoritiesin Europetoday are often perceivedas a social problem,traditionally

Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion

prevalence,ratherthanexistence. Most scholarsof new religious movementswould subscribeto

"TYPE I" OFFICIALREPORTSON "SECTS" AND"CULTS" IN WESTERNEUROPE

Within this context, some Europeanparliamentaryand other official reports generatedin

"TYPE II" REPORTS

ScholarlycriticismdirectedagainstTypeI reports(see IntrovigneandMelton 1996) seems to

that"thegreatmajorityof membersof new religious movementsderivepositive experiences

Richardson(1996a) examined the uses made of brainwashingmetaphorsin legal contexts

Type I Reports and Brainwashing

Certainlythe two reportsfrom France (in turn influentialon Spanish developments)and

This firstFrenchreportevokedan outcryfrom scholarsaroundthe world.It presenteda litany

Anothercomponentof the adhesionprocess, accordingto the report,is "fascination,"devel-

This new law, which seems somewhatlike Americanconservatorshiplaws designed mainly

Amendmentsto the SpanishCriminalCode

InEurope,therehavebeen severalpre-SolarTempleofficialreportson sects andcults.Notable

obligation of believing, practicingand spreadingthe doctrine and belief of a destructivecult"

The detrimentalsectarianorganizationstryto influencetheirmembersandtheirgroupsin the society with the

The Belgian reportalso attemptsto explainaway criticismsofferedby IntrovigneandMelton

AnotherTypeI report,fromthe Cantonof Geneva,while moremoderatein tone thanthose of

a. If psychicaldestabilizationof membersor theirmentalmanipulationhaveas consequencesattemptson their

The reportstatesthatit is difficultto establishcoercionin cases wherethepersonis a voluntary

After lamentingthe difficultyof jurists operatingwithout medical definitionsor legislators

Mr.Hararigoes on to recommendthat"associationsanddefense groups"(anti-cultorganiza-

Draft Law by SenatorAboutin France

ThePicard Draft Law in France (2000)

by anti-cultorganizations,which can participateas partiesto a case andmay collect damages

Cantonof GenevaReporton Brainwashing

At a conference held on November25, 1999, the Cantonof Geneva unveiled a "Reporton

Whoeverhas carriedout physical or psychological actions in a repeatedand systematicalway, aimed at impairing

This process includes,but is not limited to:

As indicated,thereareseveralType IIreportsthatarenot so slantedagainstminorityreligious

The Swedishreportis surprisingbecauseit makesovertcriticismsof actionsof otherEuropean

Althoughthe reportuses an example of deprogrammingto illustrateimproperinfluence,the

movement."This suggests some concernaboutrecruitmentand retentionpractices,as well as an

Swiss Reporton Scientology

The GermanBundestagestablisheda much-publicizedEnqueteCommissionto inquireinto

clear thatnew religions are viewed as sinisterforces to be observed,studied,and generallykept

As a working concept, "psychologicaldependency"is proposedfor the state of affairswhere an individualhas

The Commission'srecommendationsleave littleroomfor doubtthatmost on the Commission

The reportalso recognizedthat"inthis areait is not possible (exceptin extremecases) to iden-

(hallucinations)andmakethe victim receptiveto indoctrination('brainwashing')"(p. 150). Here,

The recommendationmade to the FederalCouncil to make a law regulatingthe commercialassistancefor

Italian Police Report

This is a police reportpreparedfor internaluse by police and intelligence agencies. It does

There is also on page 10 a concern aboutrecruitingtechniques.The reportdecries:

Further,the reporttalks of indoctrinatingthe adeptby using "scientificmethodsto decrease

Swiss Cantonof TicinoReport

This reportfrom the Cantonof Ticino in Switzerlandalso shows the apparentinfluence of

[P]rogressiveisolationis whathas increasinglyvictimized subjectandimmunizedhim againstexternalinfluences

Anotherfootnotediscussingthe UnificationChurchmethodsclaims that"A 'godfather'who

underminespersonalresponsibility,. . . which is particularlyappealingto people who are psychologicallyeasy to

The reportclaims thatthis techniquehas threemajorsteps (recall the Italianpolice report),

Then, just to remindthe readerthat something sinister is happening,anothersummarylist

The reportadmitsthattheremay be "difficultyof proof' since thereareoften no witnesses to

Swiss National Council Reporton Cults

The Swiss reportdoes not, however,recommendanynew federallegislation,andthe proposal

Council of EuropeReporton Sects and Cults

In 1999, the Council of Europeadopteda compromisedocumententitled,"IllegalActivities

The assemblyattachesgreatimportanceto protectingthose most vulnerable,andparticularlythe childrenof mem-

It is clear from reviewing these reportsthat the Americanculturalproductof ideas about