english french german greek italian lithuanian russian serbian spanish
Home arrow In Brief arrow ECHR f.Jurisconsult prof.V.Berger: Religious Freedom at Risk by Salles'Report on Sects+minors at CoE

ECHR f.Jurisconsult prof.V.Berger: Religious Freedom at Risk by Salles'Report on Sects+minors at CoE

Written by ACM
Tuesday, 08 April 2014

vberger_on_salles_report_religious_fredom_particularly_of_new_movements_400 

 *Strasbourg/CoE/- Religious Freedom could be "undermined" and exposed to undue "Risks" because of several Controversial points contained at a Draft Report on Sects and Minors, prepared by MEP Salles, which is scheduled to be debated and voted at CoE's Parliamentary Assembly on Thursday, denounces the experienced ECHR's former Jurisconsult, Vincent Berger, professor at the European School of Bruges, in a CoE sidelines' event organized by the President of its PanEuropean Parliamentary Assembly's Social, Health and Development Committee, MEP Valeriu Gihletchi from Moldova, of the ChristianDemocrat/EPP Group. 

Exceptionaly, without endorsing any side's position without a thorough examination of the respective arguments at debate, but given the Timely proximity of Thursday's debate and vote at CoE's Assembly, "EuroFora" publishes Berger's critical presentation (that he read and discussed at a special Hearing in the CoE and kindly gave us) in full , so that all those interested at this issue can have a chance to form their final stance by taking into account also these Legal observations :

vincent_berger_ 

 -----------------------------------------------------------

 

THE PROTECTION OF MINORS AGAINST EXCESSES OF SECTS:

THE SALLES REPORT1

Note by Vincent Berger
2

(24 March 2014)


1. Obviously, the protection of minors is a legitimate concern in the democratic societies composing the Council of Europe. The Salles Report is however far from responding to this concern satisfactorily.

A. Diversion targets

2. Despite its title, the Salles report contains many passages which are of general scope and suggest that minors are used as a collateral or a pretext for an offensive against "sects" .

a) A specific target

3. The draft recommendation
3 deals exclusively with the protection of minors. It therefore corresponds to the official purpose of the report.

b ) A general target

4. As to the draft resolution, it is aiming at a much larger target
4. Indeed, half of its points do not refer to children and teenagers: they concern "religious and spiritual sectarian groups" (§ 6.3) , "sectarian excesses" (§ § 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8) and "cult phenomenon" (§ 6.6).

5. This is also the case with the explanatory memorandum, including important developments that have no relationships with minors (§ § 11-13 , 22-26 , 28, 35 , 37 and 42-44) .

6. The same applies to the summary of the responses by parliamentary delegations of Member States to the questionnaire sent by the Rapporteur (§ § 1 a) -d) and 2 b) - d)), which was also often of a general nature .

B. Unfounded premises

7. Salles report is based on premises whose relevance is questionable, whether explicit or implicit.

a) Explicit premises

8. A European approach is necessary to protect minors: this is far from obvious, to the extent that, according to the Rapporteur himself, many countries do not face serious cases of "
sectarian excesses" affecting minors and that the vast majority of the States deem useless to legislate on this issue.

9. The "
sectarian excesses " against minors are a "deeply worrying phenomenon" (explanatory memorandum, § 38) and "remains very worrying" (explanatory memorandum, § 46 ): this is contradicted by the available data on rare abuses recorded in some States.

b) Implicit premises

10. "Cults" present a priori a danger to minors: this discredits and throws suspicion on all non traditional churches and communities and on all new religious and spiritual groups, while only a tiny minority of these entities may – or may have in the past – given rise to such criticism.

11. The legislation of Member States, and particularly criminal law, is not sufficient to protect minors: this is a serious accusation against national legislators, suspected of negligence, or even complacency, towards dangerous groups.

12. Public services of Member States do not perform their duties properly, in particular to ensure schooling and health of minors: here again, this is an accusation aimed at national authorities.

C. Questionable models

13. In a veiled yet clearly way, the draft resolution and especially the explanatory memorandum are campaigning for combative systems against "
sectarian excesses", that are supposed to be effective and valid throughout all of Europe.

a) The French "model"


14. The French system, in particular, is presented as a model that should be adopted by all other Member States. But it has not proven its effectiveness, as shown by the paltry number of abuse cases reported by Miviludes. As to the About / Picard law, it has aroused the concern of the Parliamentary Assembly, which invited the French government to reconsider it (Resolution 1309 (2002) Freedom of religion and religious minorities in France, § 6), without success. However, the draft resolution advocates repression – without, however, any reference to minors – of the "abuse of psychological and / or physical weakness of persons ". This is a concept that lies at the heart of the French law but is devoid of scientific value.

b) The German "model"

15. The German system is also portrayed favorably, although less emphasized. Catholic and Protestant churches play an important role in "
counseling victims of ‘sectarian excesses’ and gathering information on sectarian groups" (explanatory memorandum, § 38). The Rapporteur encourages the authorities to grant them financial support for this purpose. However, we can question the neutrality of such churches, which are in direct competition with "cults". One must also consider the risk for the State to delegate its powers to private institutions, to the point that they become the armed branch of public authorities.

D. Redundant initiatives

16. Apart from the aforementioned dangers and drawbacks, the Salles report does not provide any "added value" to the works of the Parliamentary Assembly on the issue and is often only repetitions.

a) Previous works

17. The works of the Parliamentary Assembly on the protection of children against abuses led to Resolutions 1530 (2007) and 1952 (2013) and Recommendations 117 (2007) and 2023 (2013). They have a triple character. First, they are very recent. Then they remedy what seems to appear, in the eyes of the Rapporteur, a deficiency of the European Parliament in the considered field. Finally and most importantly, they cover all issues related to violations of the physical or moral integrity of children. They appear therefore amply adequate.

b) The draft resolution

18. On a general level, the Parliamentary Assembly adopted Recommendations 1178 (1992) and 1412 (1999): the first is about sects and new religious movements, the second about the illegal activities of sects. Yet the draft resolution includes two invitations that are already contained in Recommendation 1412 (1999) (§ 8 and § 10 ii and iv.) "
to provide teaching in the history of religions and the main philosophies in schools" (§ 6.4) and "to make sure that compulsory schooling is enforced and ensure strict, prompt and effective monitoring of all private education, including home schooling"(§ 6.5).

E. Inaccurate assumptions

a) The explanatory memorandum

19. The Salles report notes that "
The ECHR has never issued judgments directly concerning minors who have been victims of the influence of sects either directly or through their parents or persons caring for them" (explanatory memorandum, § 14). He explains this in part by "the specific nature of proceedings before the Court" and the "lack of legal capacity to act" of minors under domestic law ( ibid.). He adds that " it is hard to imagine a situation in which parents or legal guardians – followers of a sect – would turn to the courts to protect the children concerned against themselves" (ibid.). He thus suggests that children are helpless, which is incorrect .

b) The Strasbourg jurisprudence

20. States party to the European Convention on Human Rights have a positive obligation to protect individuals. This obligation applies primarily to minors and may be invoked before the national courts by relatives who deem that they are in danger. It is the same in Strasbourg: an indirect victim of a violation of the Convention can complain since he/she has a specific and personal connection to the direct victim. This would be the case of close relatives such as grandparents and aunts or uncles. The absence of ECHR judgments concerning minors affected by "
sectarian excesses" is therefore not explained by any impossibility to file applications meeting the conditions of admissibility.

F. Conclusion

21. If they were adopted as such by the Parliamentary Assembly , the draft resolution and the draft recommendation would be likely to seriously undermine religious freedom and freedom of association guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Indeed, they cast aspersions on all new religious and spiritual groups that have emerged in Europe alongside traditional churches and denominations, in suspecting them, a priori, of "
sectarian excesses" unlawful and harmful to minors.

----------------------------------------

1 Report by M. Rudy Salles, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

2 Attorney at law at the Paris Bar and professor at the Collège d’Europe in Bruges and Warsaw; former jurisconsult of the European Court of Human Rights.

3 Adopted by the Committee on March 3, 2014.

4 Adopted by the Committee on March 3, 2014.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

StartUpEU

Statistics

Visitors: 52971606

Archive

Login Form





Remember me

Lost your Password?
No account yet? Create account

Syndicate

RSS 0.91
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
ATOM 0.3
OPML

Other Menu

 sarkozy_merkel_berlin__stras_400

Sarkozy and Merkel : June 2009 solution to May 2005 "NO" ?

 - Will French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angie Merkel live up from June 2009 to their obvious Historic European mission to revitalize, and re-launch the "European Dream", after the series of 3 "NO" since May 2005 in France, the Netherlands and Ireland, by renewing, and changing the EU with fresh stimulus, big horizons, and values attractive for EU Citizens ?

Whatever views anyone might have, it's a Fact that, recently, EU's political spectrum didn't produce other more charismatic and popular EU leaders than Merkel and Sarkozy, starting from September 2005 and May 2007, respectively.

This trend was confirmed, in one way or another, both during the German EU presidency in 2007 (shared by Merkel with the SPD), and mainly during the French EU Presidency in 2008, (with Sarkozy "free" to move).


The positive 2009 EU Polls are a natural consequence :

- Both with 72% Sarkozy and Merkel are considered by EU Citizens to be "the most Influential" leaders in Europe, by far.

- They are the only EU political leaders to attract a Majority of "Positive" views by EU Citizens, (Merkel over 60%, Sarkozy over 50%, particularly in the continent).

- 60% of EU Citizens find the 2008 French EU Presidency "Good", (and the satisfaction grows up to 67,5% in continental Europe).

The Poll was made by "OpinionWay" in big EU countries as Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK, (with the only exception of France), from 26 to 28 May 2009.

sarkozy_merkel_polls_400

But the most important is that both Franco-German leaders seem willing to, at last, really start serious business on EU's indispensable renovation and Renaissance from 2009 : Year of crucial EU and German Elections.

Therefore, this time, the joint European move by Sarkozy and Merkel, which just published a common Franco-German Manifesto, aims to stimulate aspirations and action not only in their respective countries, but also in many other EU "partners", as they say.

Both on EU economy, social values and scientifico-technologic research, as well as on Turkey's controversial EU bid, obviously incompatible with a popular Political Europe, whose Citizens can find a collective Identity and popular Values, they have already started to magnetize various growing voices accross the European landscape :

"Today, more than ever, it' time for action", they stress from the outset.

Facing "an unprecedented Global financial and economic Crisis", "Europeans must get resolutely involved if they want for the World which is being built to meet their Values of Liberty, Solidarity and Justice".

"That's what we want" and "propose to our Partners" :

* "A strong Europe, able to protect us" :

- "We refuse a Bureaucratic EU, which mecanically applies burdensome rules and is afraid of change. We want a European Union which listens what Citizens have to say, which innovates, stimulates".

- "We want a strong and united EU in the World, while also respecting its Member States' Diversity", which "brings Courageous Replies to the Questions of our Times, ensuring our Prosperity :  

This implies to "favor Research and Innovation", "Economic Coordination", to "develop real Policies on Immigrationn, Energy, Defence, and modernise  common policies, particularly Agriculture".

*  "EU must bring immediate replies to the Global Crisis".

- "Lawless liberalism failed". "The Model we want is that of a Responsible Market Economy, which favors Enterpreneurs and Workers, above Speculators ;  Long-term Investment, over immediate profiits".

- "We appeal upon the EU to take, from June, the first decisions to ensure a real European Regulation of Financial Markets, based on coordination and cooperation". "On speculative funds, on fiscal heavens, CEO's and financial operators' earnings, EU must give the example".

- "We call to change the rules of accounts, which are important for our Economy's revival : The competent normative authorities must take action". "The issue of a sufficient Credit offer is of central importance for our Economy". "We don't accept that, during this Financial Crisis, the European Banks' capacity to lend money might be unjustly reduced by Capital's requirements and accountant's rules

* "During the German and French Presidencies, EU has resoçlutely prepared itself for the fight against Global Warming... EU is the 1st and only area in the World to have adopted a package of ambitious and legally binding rules to comply with International Aims"

- "We have now to convince our Friends and Partners, to get involved, in order to atteint, next December at Copenhagen, a Global Agreement worthy of whay is at stake. Our closer ally, the US, but also other big industrial countries, must commit themselves with the same force as the Europeans".

"Green Growth is a Chance ... and an opportunity to create jobs turned towards the Future. Europe must be a leader".

- But, at the same time, we must ensure that our companies remain competitive in the World. The ambitious European involvements on Climat must not lead into a position where EU industry might become a Victim of Unfair Competition. Climat protection and Competitvity must go together. If our International partners refuse to associate themselves to our efforts, we are determined to take measures to protect European Industry"

* "Europe must be more ambitious for its Industry" : "It must favor the emergence of strong European enterprises at a Global level".

- "As long as an International mechanism" to "monitor Public Aids at WTO level, and hinder 3rd Countries to give abusive subsidies to their enterprises, provoking unfair competition", is "not yet set up, we must consider Transitory European Solutions".

* "The current Public Debt is too heavy... We must head anew towards sound public finance, as soon as we'd have passed the crucial stage in this crisis".
-------------------------------------------------

* Last, but not least :  "Europe must play a top-level role in the World"

- "For that purpose,  it needs efficient Institutions. That's why we need Lisbon Treaty". "The 27 Member States decided, last December (2008) that the Treaty should enter into force before the end of this year (2009)". To obtain that, June EU Council must agree "on the Guarantees for Ireland".

- But, "to be able to act, EU needs Borders. An Enlargment without Limits is not possible", Sarkozy and Merkel stressed in an obvious reference to Turkey, etc.

- "In order to be strong, Europe must assume its Values and its Identity". "Human Rights .. are at the basis of our commitment for a Peaceful Development accross the World".

- "For that purpose, we shall strengthen our common Defence and Security policy".
----------------------

* "We are ready to contribute to activate the EU towards the realisation of these aims, with our EU Partners".

"In order to succeed", Europe  "needs the active involvment of all, starting by Citizens themselves. That's why the June 7 rendez-vous is important", and "we are calling all Europeans to vote".

"We are convinced that, if Europe wants, Europe can", they conclude.
-----------------------

Precisely : - What can better forge "Europe's Will" than a "European Consciousness" emerging from political, democratic struggles to face Global Challenges, and open big New Horizons, including by crystal-clear Public Debates, with active EU Citizens' involvement, before the most important EU Decisions affecting People's lives ?

Precisely what "EuroFora"s project warns since 1997-2007, and unprecedented Majority Abstentions, since 1999-2004, added to 3 "NO" to EU Referenda in 2005 and 2007, proved meanwhile..

Let's hope that the Time wasted by some scandalous anti-European and anti-Democratic obstacles of the Past, will stimulate faster, simplified but substantial and persistent, efficient action.-

Polls

2009 EU Elections were won by Parties against Technocracy and Turkey's controversial EU bid, while the 1999-2004 Majority Abstention trend decelerated. What should be done in 2009-2014 ?

Results

SMF Recent Topics SA

Copyright (c) 2007-2009 EIW/SENAS - EuroFora.net. All rights reserved. ISSN 1969-6361.
Powered by Elxis - Open Source CMS.