OSCE conference „Human Dimenstion Implementation Meeting“
Warsaw, 25.09.2007
On the agenda of the ‘Human Dimension Implementation Meeting,’ two full days
were devoted to working sessions entitled ‘Combating intolerance and
discrimination and promoting mutual respect and understanding’ and ‘Freedom
of thought, conscience, religion or belief’
Of those speaking out against misleading information about new religious
movements, as provided by FECRIS, the first such address came from the
Brussels-based organization ‘Human Rights without Frontiers.’ That was
followed by individual statements from UPF members from France (delivered by
the Belgian), Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom.
This combined verbal onslaught on FECRIS apparently had its effect, if
various comments received afterwards from representatives of several other
groups were anything to go by. Evidently the four members of FECRIS present
were completely taken aback by what was being said, whilst reference to
their organization’s funding appeared to ruffle the feathers of the French
government official.
Prior to the conference, FECRIS had arranged to convene two side events, one
of which was scheduled for the afternoon and the second for the evening.
Both ran for durations of two hours but if they’d thought that the object of
the exercise was to promote the wonderful work they were doing, they were in
for a bit of a shock.
The four-strong panel from FECRIS comprised Mr Alexander Dvorkin (Russian),
Mr Friedrich Griess (Austrian), Mr Jean Pierre Jougla (French), and Madame
Lacoste (Swiss).
Mr Griess began by explaining how his position as a ‘sect expert’ had
stemmed from a first-hand experience in which his daughter had joined some
group that apparently preached hatred of one’s parents and which, he said,
had completely turned her against him. However, that single and unfortunate
experience seemed to be his sole reference point in assuming that such a
behavioural pattern applied to all of the newer religious movements – all of
which, according to him, were ‘cults’ and all of which were equally evasive,
deceptive and secretive about what there were doing.
Following his talk questions were invited and he was immediately bombarded
from all sides of the room by an audience of around twenty-five people, many
of whom were indignant about what he had said and pointed out the flawed
logic in his various assumptions. One could tell that he was not
particularly well prepared for such questioning and, at one stage he tried
to change the subject simply by launching into an attack on the numerous
organization names used by the Unification Movement, which he claimed proved
its dishonesty. Such a view was successfully responded to and one could
sense that he detected that he was losing the argument.
FECRIS was asked if it could define what constituted a sect and how one
could differentiate between a cult and a religion. Surprisingly enough, for
an organization that campaigns against such things, they were unable to
provide any clear definition at all other that to say that many things, even
commercial businesses and some of the mainstream churches could be
considered ‘cultic.’ After further questioning, the closest they got to
describe a ‘cult’ was any organization that has a guru figure at the head of
a pyramid structure. Someone then pointed out that some groups such as the
Jehovah’s Witnesses didn’t have such a person at the top to which they
replied that in that particular case it was a collective guru.’ When then
asked if, by such definition, their own organization, FECRIS, could also be
considered ‘cultic’ they didn’t answer.
Mme. Lacoste explained that FECRIS is apparently not against religious
groups themselves but is concerned only with dealing with the ‘victims’ of
such groups. She said that there had been cases in which people had emerged
from various groups psychologically abused, penniless, disoriented and
confused, often with a fear that something terrible was likely to happen to
them as a result of their having left. Although it’s perfectly possible that
there may well be certain extreme groups capable of reducing individuals to
such an unfortunate state, there was considerable objection to the apparent
‘one size fits all’ notion in which all of the newer religious organisations
had been slotted into that same category. Several people present attempted
to press FECRIS for a definition of ‘cult victim’ and asked if they
considered that anyone who happened to belonged to a so-called cult would
automatically regarded as a victim. There were no straight answers.
The Russian representative of FECRIS, Mr Dvorkin, began his address by
attacking a conference statement about him that had been made earlier by
‘Human Rights Without Frontiers’ and which he described as completely untrue
and said that the only thing that had been correct in it was his name.
Perhaps one disadvantage of working together with other groups is that there
is no immediate way of cross-checking if some of the things that they come
out with are wholly accurate whereas the UPF’s position is for one hundred
percent accuracy. To avoid any possible conflicting viewpoints, therefore,
it was good that UPF members were there representing themselves and not
directly linked to HRWF. Whether or not the statement in question was
accurate is currently being looked into.
Mr Dvorkin continued his appraisal of the situation by explaining how he had
lived under the totalitarian regime of Communism which he was glad to see
the back of and yet how he now regarded groups such as the ‘Moon
organization’ as an attempt to bring about yet another totalitarian regime
in its place. Any reference to Reverend Moon was immediately responded to
with a non-acceptance of the title ‘Reverend’ qualified by saying that as
far as they were concerned his name was just ‘Moon’ and his invitation to
the Kremlin had come about only as a result of back- handed payments of vast
sums of money. Even mention of the term ‘new religious movement’ got equally
rebuffed with an assertion that such groups were neither new nor were they
religious.
When asked why FECRIS persisted in including the Unification Movement on its
list of unsavoury cults, despite the fact that the various allegations of
brainwashing and breaking up families had long since been proved untrue, he
merely reverted back to his ‘cultic’ adjective. That prompted the
intervention of a member of Falong Gong, who said that she could readily
identify with the unfair way in which the Unification Movement had been
portrayed because it was similar to that experienced by her own group. When
then asked about historical precedents, Mr Dvorkin claimed that terms such
as ‘cult’ and ‘sect’ were purely modern day words to fit a new phenomenon.
During the break that followed, Mr Dvorkin seemed taken aback that one of
his opponents would approach him and, on a one-to-one basis, question him as
to how he had arrived at such views. As far as UPF was concerned, it
transpired that he was particularly well-versed in the Nan Suk book and
especially to a reference of alleged fathering of illegitimate children. He
also pointed to the issue of drug addiction of one of Rev.Moon’s sons but
was reluctant to accept that he was now recovered from such an experience.
He called into question another son’s manufacture of firearms in the United
States, which he considered to be wholly incompatible with a group claiming
to be peacemakers. Any suggestions about
their being used for defensive purposes seemed to fall on deaf ears. Mr
Dvorkin said that his deputy in Russia was a former Unification Church
leader who had revealed all the inside information of bribery and corruption
that had apparently taken place. It was pointed out that, whilst under
Communism, the Unification Church had had to operate underground and that,
in such a situation, various financial deals may well have been a necessity
for survival, but that brought little response. When it was mentioned that
Revd Moon had preached against the ideology of Communism throughout his
entire public ministry and had predicted its fall at a time when such a
thing had seemed almost impossible he simply said that he
had similarly predicted its fall. When it was suggested that there he might
therefore have more in common with the Movement than he imagined; he replied
that he feared the Movement was heading towards the realization of a
totalitarian world government under Korean dominance. Although it was
stressed that the Movement was opposed to all forms of totalitarianism, he
came out with a quote attributed to Revd Moon who had apparently
said that the only thing wrong with Communism was the first three letters of
the word and that that, in itself, was an open admission as to his ultimate
aim.
Apparently Mr Dvorkin is a university lecturer in religious studies yet when
asked about biblical reference to the first Christians as being
referred to as the sect of the Nazarenes, he maintained that the word ‘sect’
does not appear anywhere in the Bible. When both chapter and verse
were produced (Acts 24:5) he even refused to acknowledge that by saying that
it was obviously an incorrect translation from the Greek. He came
across as the kind of person who always wanted to have the final word
although certain points that were raised have presumably set him thinking.
The evening session attracted a similar number of people. For its part,
FECRIS openly admitted that it had taken a hammering throughout the day and
that they’d never experienced such a thing before. They suggested that they
were the victims of a slick campaign in which everything had been
meticulously orchestrated against them in the form of a strategy akin to a
rugby match in which the ball was repeatedly being passed from
the one player to the next.
Asked to give specific examples of the help that FECRIS offered to supposed
victims, they said that due to client confidentiality they weren’t prepared
to do so. However they did give one account of a girl who had allegedly been
raped by a member of the Hare Krishna Movement that had apparently tried to
hush the incident up by offering a financial payment to keep the matter
quiet. In their eyes, that was proof enough that the entire Hare Krishna
Movement was a dangerous cult. Asked whether such an unfortunate occurrence
couldn’t have been an isolated incident which had more to do with the
particular person involved rather than the Hare Krishna Movement as a whole,
their response was that the crime
would never have taken place at all if the person who carried it out hadn’t
been under the influence of Hare Krishna.
Similarly, according to FECRIS, anybody who had been ‘under the influence’
of Scientology would have released all their personal details to that
organization and would therefore be completely under its control to such an
extent that they could only ever do and say whatever that group wanted them
to and therefore couldn’t be trusted.
Mr Jougla is a French lawyer member of FECRIS and he likened membership of a
cult to smoking marijuana. He maintained that if someone becomes traumatised
as a result of smoking marijuana they clearly they are the victim of
marijuana, which, according to him, is not far removed from someone having
become traumatised as a result of indulging in membership of a cult. At that
point, however, his explanation broke off when he noticed that he was being
filmed by a cameraman stood near the exit. He demanded to know if the person
had permission to be filming the meeting. It turned out that he hadn’t but
then someone else in the audience turned to him and said that because it was
a public meeting there was every right for him to carry on filming. Mr
Jougla asked who the person in audience was to grant such authority and
appeared uneasy when it turned out to be someone with the American
delegation from the State Department.
It was suggested by UPF members that as far as the UPF was concerned, FECRIS
was anchored in things from the past and that it was about time they updated
their information. It was pointed out that members no longer live communally
and that all of the various allegations and accusations that had been made
about the Unification Movement had long since been shown to be without
foundation and that it had evolved and simply moved on to a position where
it wasn’t merely tolerated but was also gaining a considerable level of
respect. The main thrust was that if FECRIS was still getting things
hopelessly wrong about the Unification Movement, it wasn’t entirely beyond
the realms of possibility that it might also be getting things hopelessly
wrong about some of the other groups too.
When asked about the funding of FECRIS, it was interesting to note that the
question was evaded right across the panel who simply replied that they were
a non-political, non-religious, non-philosophical, non-economic body and it
was only when the question was repeated several times that Herr Griess
finally said that they received funding from the French Government.
At the close of the session, two of the FECRIS members, Mme Lacoste and Herr
Griess, conceded that they felt they had learnt something from the day.
Quite whether that sentiment will translate through into anything
significant is, of course, anyone’s guess.
The following morning, as everybody was taking their seats for the start of
that day’s working session, there were cordial greetings between both camps,
with the exception of the Russian, Mr Dvorkin, who, without saying anything
at all, spent a considerable amount of time taking close-up photographs of
UPF members from a variety of different angles.
On the final evening, a reception hosted by the conference’s ‘Advisory
Council on Freedom of Religion or Belief’ proved to be an excellent
opportunity for networking with the numerous other participants, several of
whom had been closely following the debate with FECRIS. However, the members
of FECRIS themselves chose to stay away from that event.
General thoughts
Provided that one doesn’t get too bogged down with it, it is useful to have
occasional dialogue with such people as doing so must inevitably help them
re-examine their stance on many issues. Although supportive of the
Brussels-based group, ‘European Network for Religious Tolerance and
Non-Discrimination’, it should not mean that UPF necessarily shares the view
of the other groups affiliated to it. For example, under such an umbrella
organization, one can easily be seated alongside a representative of the
Raelian Movement who begins her statement by announcing that she comes from
another planet. It’s therefore important to keep the UPF’s position somewhat
distinct. The overall aim is not necessarily to
completely destroy FECRIS but to introduce some accountability and to make
them better informed about UPF to such an extent that they no longer spread
inaccurate information about it or include it on their list of cults. At the
end of the day, we need to win their hearts too.
Peter Zöhrer
http://www.religionsfreiheit.at/
In German:
http://www.upf-deutschland.de/