Source : CAP Liberté de Conscience
The public debate on the fight against sectarian drifts in France is often marked by controversy between associations, specialists, and institutions through articles published in the media or on official websites. This raises fundamental questions about freedom of expression, respect for facts, and objectivity in the presentation of legal cases.
This article was written in response to a series of exchanges highlighting persistent tensions surrounding the legitimacy of various actors dedicated to the issue of religious and spiritual minorities and the narrative they present in the public sphere. What follows is an invitation to take a close look at how information is conveyed and to never cease exercising a critical mind, regardless of the convictions or reputations at stake.
A look back at a public debate and its implications
On April 16, 2025, CAP Liberté de Conscience published an article on its website entitled: “Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), the new excuse of MIVILUDES and its ilk”[1]. This text followed several high-profile court decisions involving, among others, Miviludes (Interministerial Mission for Vigilance and Combating Sectarian Drifts), UNADFI (National Union of Associations for the Defense of Families and Individuals Victims of Sects) and FECRIS (European Federation of Centers for Research and Information on Sectarianism).
This article highlighted the following:
“Miviludes itself was condemned by the administrative court in June 2024 for knowingly lying about Jehovah’s Witnesses in its 2018-2020 report. Then it was condemned again in February 2025 for describing a kibbutz as a “sectarian drift” without having the necessary evidence to do so. Once again, should we suspect the judges of being part of the SLAPPs conspiracy? “
Beyond opinions, this article questioned more broadly the excesses of the anti-cult movement and the potential imbalance that institutions or NGOs can sometimes introduce in the protection of fundamental rights. This widely circulated article aimed to spark debate on the means employed, respect for procedures, and the place accorded to religious or belief minorities in the face of powerful and institutionalized actors.
It was in this climate of heated debate that a new element emerged: on April 28, 2025, UNADFI published a statement on its website in response to this article[2].
This could be seen as the normal continuation of a contradictory dialogue in a state governed by the rule of law, between an independent NGO and an association supported and funded by the French state. Each has its own legitimacy and asserts its analysis of the situation. Up to this point, there is nothing unusual, other than the reflection of a pluralistic and, all in all, healthy debate.
However, a careful reading of the UNADFI press release raises some deeper questions. On the one hand, there is a tendency to downplay certain concrete facts and, on the other hand, and more importantly, there is a final statement whose impact seems particularly significant. It illustrates how legitimacy can be built on inaccurate information or a questionable interpretation of European institutional references. This example demonstrates the absolute necessity of verification, even when arguments come from actors supported by public authorities.
Before reaching this key point, it is important to note how the vocabulary and presentation of facts can fundamentally alter the meaning of a court decision or event.
When semantics come into play
Some differences are not just about principles or objectives, but about the words chosen to describe the reality of the situation. To illustrate this point, two examples from the UNADFI press release and the CAP Liberté de Conscience article are worth examining:
1. Proceedings concerning CAP Liberté de Conscience against UNADFI
In its press release, UNADFI writes:
“A decision unfavorable to an association dedicated to combating sectarian drifts concerned a technical point of law relating to press law, and not a criminal offense or proven defamation.”
Behind this wording, the legal consequences of a failed lawsuit are relegated to the status of a mere “technicality.”
However, what is presented here as a procedural hiccup refers to a very concrete case: the refusal by UNADFI to publish CAP Liberté de Conscience’s right of reply, as required by the law on freedom of the press.
The court ruling, far from being merely a “technical point,” was upheld on appeal after an initial ruling against UNADFI, which subsequently decided not to appeal to the Court of Cassation. Thus, the legal reality is clearly more decisive than the wording chosen suggests.
In a previous article, CAP Liberté de Conscience stated:
“CAP Liberté de Conscience has just convicted UNADFI (Union Nationale des Associations de Défense des Familles et de l’Individu victimes de sectes, a partner association of MIVILUDES) for knowingly refusing to implement the law on freedom of the press. UNADFI lost in the first instance, appealed, and lost again on appeal. It has waived its right to appeal to the Court of Cassation. Are all the judges part of the conspiracy? “
2. On the condemnations of Miviludes
Another wording from the UNADFI press release:
“Criticism directed at MIVILUDES regarding certain wording in its reports led to administrative adjustments, but no condemnation for lying or serious misconduct was upheld.”
Here, court decisions are no longer referred to as such, but reduced to mere “administrative adjustments,” which carefully obscures their scope and seriousness.
However, let us recall once again:
“Miviludes itself was condemned by the administrative court in June 2024 for knowingly lying about Jehovah’s Witnesses in its 2018-2020 report. Then it was condemned again in February 2025 for describing a kibbutz as a ‘sectarian drift’ without having the necessary evidence to do so. Once again, should we suspect the judges of being part of the SLAPPs conspiracy? “
These two examples illustrate the contrast between the legal reality and its public presentation, depending on the perspective of each actor.
To refer to a “technical legal point” when describing the outcome of an appeal, or to describe two convictions upheld by the courts as “simple administrative adjustments”, is ultimately a play on words. This is not illegal or even unusual in public debate: everyone has the right to defend their point of view, choose their words, and opt for the narrative that seems most relevant to them.
However, what prompted us to write this article is not the mere use of certain phrases or nuances of language. Everyone is free to express their interpretation of the facts, and that is precisely the essence of freedom of expression.
However, the most significant passage in the UNADFI press release raises another issue that is just as important: the accuracy of quotations and the use of European references.
Europe to the rescue of UNADFI: dream or reality?
It is in the last part of its press release that UNADFI introduces a European dimension to support its position. Here is the relevant excerpt:
“Abusive legal proceedings aimed at intimidating researchers, journalists or NGOs dedicated to the prevention of sectarian drifts have been clearly identified by the European Parliament, which recently legislated against SLAPP suits.
The Parliament’s 2021 report, followed by a directive in 2024, warns of the risks of the instrumentalization of the law by certain groups with spiritual or ideological aims. “
First part of this passage: nothing to report here regarding the nature of the dispute, which is part of normal debate.
However, the assertion that the European Parliament has recently “clearly identified” abusive legal proceedings against researchers, journalists, or NGOs “dedicated to the prevention of sectarian drifts” was surprising, as was the reference to an alleged alert on the “instrumentalization of law by groups with spiritual or ideological aims.”
Having closely followed the European debates on “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPPs), and after careful verification of European texts, CAP Liberté de Conscience can confirm that no such references exist in European legislation or reports.
What European texts really say:
The European Parliament resolution of November 11, 2021, and the 2024 directive
The resolution of November 11, 2021 on Strengthening Democracy, As Well As Media Freedom And Pluralism In The Union, states:
“In its resolution of 11 November 2021 on strengthening democracy and media freedom and pluralism in the Union, the European Parliament called on the Commission to propose a package of both soft and hard law to address the increasing number of strategic lawsuits against public participation (‘SLAPPs’) concerning journalists, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), academics and civil society in the Union. The Parliament expressed the need for legislative measures in the areas of civil and criminal procedural law, such as an early dismissal mechanism for abusive civil lawsuits, the right to the full award of costs incurred by the defendant, and the right to compensation for damage. The resolution of 11 November 2021 also included a call for adequate training for judges and legal practitioners on SLAPPs, a specific fund to provide financial support for the victims of SLAPPs and a public register of court decisions on SLAPP cases. In addition, Parliament called for the revision of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) in order to prevent ‘libel tourism’ or ‘forum shopping’.” (Official text PDF)
At no point does this resolution specifically target the prevention of sectarian drifts, nor does it mention groups “with spiritual or ideological aims”. The scope of application covers: journalists, NGOs, academics and civil society.
What can be found in the 2021 democracy resolution?
Under the heading “Hate speech”, the resolution states:
“11. Highlights that in recent years hate speech and discrimination in the media, both online and offline, as well as cyber-violence, have become increasingly widespread against journalists, NGOs, academics, rights defenders and other civil society actors, including those defending LGBTIQ rights, gender equality issues, religion or belief, thus threatening media freedom, freedom of expression information and assembly, as well as public safety; recalls that online hate speech can incite offline violence; recalls the need to promote the Commission’s code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online; emphasises that female journalists face the same pressures as their colleagues for content-related issues. but are more often the victims of sexual violence and harassment;” (Official text on line)
Here again, the resolution is neither aimed at preventing sectarian drifts, nor the instrumentalization of the law by spiritual or ideological groups. It even explicitly mentions the need to protect freedom of religion or belief: a sign that pluralism of ideas, including religious ones, is precisely one of the values to be preserved, not restricted.
The Council of Europe recommendation of April 2024
Finally, in April 2024, the Council of Europe published its own recommendations on combating the misuse of SLAPPs (official link).
This text promotes the protection of public debate and freedom of expression in the face of abusive judicial practices. Here too, there is no reference to the prevention of sectarian drifts or the targeting of spiritual groups.
A distortion or an error?
In the light of these texts, it would appear that UNADFI’s language is, at the very least, a “very free” interpretation of the European references used. In reality, neither the European directive on SLAPPs nor the parliamentary resolutions we have observed designate anti-cult associations or so-called “spiritual” groups as specific targets or objects of regulation.
On the other hand, the protection we seek applies to all those involved in public debate, without discrimination on the basis of field of action – be it the defense of fundamental rights, freedom of the press, gender equality, the fight against discrimination or freedom of belief.
Debate on the relevance of one formula rather than another, or differences of opinion on the factual reality of a procedure, are essential elements of democracy and in no way detract from the right of each party to defend or criticize a particular interpretation.
However, misusing or exploiting European texts to justify a position or legitimacy that is not to be found in them inevitably exposes those who try to do so to seeing their words relativized, or even called into question.
Rigor for all
A simple lesson can be learned from this example: it is essential to verify every piece of information, whatever the source – independent NGO, large state-funded association or public interest institution.
Vigilance is all the more essential given that some associations, such as UNADFI, have privileged access to numerous institutions (ministerial delegations, training for magistrates, awareness-raising campaigns in the administration, etc.). In this context, exemplarity and rigor in the use of European or international arguments should be the rule.
Does this reflect the communication strategy of certain associations dedicated to the fight against anticults, or is it simply a rough reading of the texts?
It’s up to us all to make up our own minds. Freedom of expression, even in its contradictions, is always strengthened when it is based on scrupulous respect for the facts.
The aim of this article is to contribute to the quality of public debate, by reminding us of the need for accurate and controlled information, whatever the sensitivity or position of its authors. For everyone, exercising a critical mind is the best guarantee of an authentic and balanced debate.
Resources and references :
2.UNADFI press release, April 28, 2025
3.European resolution of November 11, 2021
