|
Home page
Religious
Discrimination in France
CAP
Submission Regarding the Appointment of Mr. Georges Fenech as President
of MIVILUDES
Coordination
des Associations et des Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience
– Coordination of Associations and Individuals for Freedom of Conscience
(CAP) is an interfaith association created in 2000 to unite minority religions
in France. CAP’s purpose is to oppose discrimination concerning the
right to freedom of conscience and belief in France and to denounce actions
which violate human rights and are a threat to fundamental liberties.
Members of CAP include adherents to numerous minority faiths targeted
for discriminatory measures as “sects” by the government.
On 19 September 2008, Prime Minister Fillon appointed Mr. Georges Fenech,
former Magistrate and Member of Parliament, as Chairman of MIVILUDES (the
Inter-Ministerial Mission of Vigilance to Fight against Sectarian Drifts).
MIVILUDES was formed on 28 November 2002 by the Prime Minister. MIVILUDES
is an inter-ministerial government entity tasked to collect data on religious
movements and inform the public about the "risks of sectarian deviances".
MIVILUDES is composed of a President, a Secretary General with a task
force of twelve Officials assigned from government ministries, an Executive
Committee composed of 18 government officials from nine ministries, and
an Advisory Council composed of eight members of Parliament, eight associations,
and 14 experts.
Mr.
Fenech assumed his position as President of MIVILUDES on 1 October, 2008.
This appointment is of great concern to CAP and many religious organizations
in France. As detailed below, Mr. Fenech is unfit for such a high level
government appointment due to his controversial background which includes
Mr. Fenech currently facing criminal charges. In addition, Mr. Fenech
has exhibited a complete lack of objectivity and neutrality on the issue
of religious tolerance. His appointment represents a backward step for
religious freedom and tolerance in France.
By
way of background, Mr. Fenech was appointed as a Magistrate in 1984. He
was President of the Association Professionnelle des Magistrats (APM)
from 1996 to 1998, a union of judges. He was elected as a Member of Parliament
in 2002 and took a leave of absence from his function as a Magistrate
during his mandate as an MP.
Controversial
Background
Mr.
Fenech has a background that makes him an inappropriate official to assume
the role of President of MIVILUDES.
-
In July 2001, Mr. Fenech was indicted based on charges of “concealment
of misuse of company assets” regarding 100,000 FF (15 000€)
he received in the name of the Union of Magistrates (APM). The charges
indicate that these funds stem directly from illegal sales of arms to
Angola. The committal for trial involving nearly 40 accused and consisting
of 468 pages was released in April 2007. The criminal trial of this case
is due to start on 6 October 2008.
-
In 2008, Mr. Fenech was summoned to Court on 16 October 2008 by officials
of the political party La France en Action for insults and defamation
for stating that the party was linked to “sectarian” organizations
and was covertly promoting and financing a number of “sects”.
-
In March 2008, Mr. Fenech was sanctioned as a Member of Parliament by
the Constitutional Court due to financial irregularities during his election
campaign which constituted an "offence" to articles 52-8 et
LO136-1 of the election Code. His mandate as an MP was cancelled and he
was declared ineligible for one year.
-
In December 1998, Mr. Fenech’s application to the position of First
Judge of Instruction in Paris was rejected by the Ministry of Justice
because of “words with anti-Semitic connotations” in the magazine
managed by Mr. Fenech as President of APM and “questions generated,
from the viewpoint of Magistrates, by his participation to an unofficial
mission of observation of the presidential elections in Gabon”.
A
few days after his parliamentary mandate was cancelled, Mr. Fenech was
appointed in April 2008 by the Prime Minister to conduct a study and evaluation
of the Judiciary to ensure that it is set up to “fight more efficiently”
against “sectarian abuses”. On 27 August 2008, Mr. Fenech was
appointed as First Substitute at the Central Administration of the Minister
of Justice. Concerns were formulated by some magistrates following this
appointment that Mr. Fenech could use his new position to put pressure
on his criminal case before trial. The conflict of interest was pointed
out in Libération on 23 July 2008 when it stated:
“Controversial come back of Fenech amongst the judges: the appointment
of the indicted former Member of Parliament from UMP at the Ministry of
Justice is of concern to some magistrates”.
Lack
of Objectivity in Contravention of the Principles of Non-Discrimination
and Objectivity
In
addition to his controversial background, Mr. Fenech also has taken positions
against the rights of religious organizations derogatorily referred to
as “sects” in France that contravene the principles of non-discrimination
and equality regarding religious organizations. The intolerant position
of Mr. Fenech towards minority faiths is also evidenced by his statement
that he does not believe in dialogue with groups labelled by him as “sectarian
movements” in spite of the fact that there is no definition of this
phrase. When interviewed on 8 June 2007 on Sud Radio he stated:
“I have never dialogued with whoever would have ties with a sectarian
movement.”
This
extreme position contravenes Article 17 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union which France is bound by and which provides:
“1.
The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law
of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.
2.
The Union equally respects the status under national law of philosophical
and non-confessional organisations.
3.
Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union
shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches
and organisations.”
Mr.
Fenech is obviously not the person who will ensure the fulfilment of these
provisions; his appointment to head an inter-ministerial mission under
the Prime Minister’s responsibility is therefore inappropriate.
This
intolerant position of Mr. Fenech regarding minority faiths in France
is also evidenced in his actions chairing the Parliamentary Commission
on Minors in Sects. In June 2006, with only 10 out of 577 members of Parliament
present at the French National Assembly, eight of those present appointed
themselves members of the third Parliamentary Inquiry Commission in eleven
years regarding minority faiths in France, this one focusing on youth.
This inquiry regarding youth and minority faiths is ironic as the United
Nations Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief published a report
in March 2006 regarding her visit to France in which she determined that
the methods of the first two Parliamentary inquiries and divisive policies
adopted by the government at that time has resulted in “ the public
condemnation of some of these groups, as well as the stigmatization of
their members, has led to certain forms of discrimination, in particular
vis-à-vis their children”.
Rather
than attempt to repair these human rights shortcomings identified by the
UN Religious Freedom Rapporteur, as the foremost UN expert on international
human rights law and religious freedom, the Parliamentary Commission under
Mr. Fenech’s leadership instead attempted to compound the problem
of religious intolerance directed at children of minority faiths by holding
biased hearings to attempt to justify draconian laws and “awareness
campaigns” designed to:
-
take custody away from a parent or parents of children of minority faiths;
-
stigmatize and marginalize such children in public educational institutions;
-
subject such children to discriminatory examinations and treatment;
-
refuse to respect the fundamental human right of parents to raise their
children in accordance with their own religious beliefs;
-
bias court officials against members of minority faiths through “awareness
sessions” on so-called sects; and
-
expand the highly controversial and internationally criticized About-Picard
law through further repressive legislation.
The
tactics of Mr. Fenech and the Commission were criticized by the United
States State Department in its 2007 Human Rights Report. The State Department
noted that:
“Members
of Jehovah's Witnesses also alleged that during the reporting period the
rapporteur and the secretary of the newly convened commission openly attacked
them, describing them as delinquents and criminals and labeling their
activities as "mafia like." The Commission's report also elicited
criticism from other minority religious and civil rights groups, which
labeled the Commission's conclusions an affront to freedom of conscience
and religious belief”.
During
a public hearing of the Commission presided by Mr Fenech, Jean-Pierre
Brard, Secretary of the Commission, asked Jean-Yves Dupuis, representative
of the Ministry of National Education, who had explained that the children
of Jehovah Witnesses were actually considered as model students by the
French National Education: “Am I right that the [Ministry of] National
Education has the objective of developing the sense of criticism? Can
we consider that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are making handicapped children,
intellectually speaking?”
Mr.
Fenech raised the “problem of legitimacy of the intervention of a
judge, a prosecutor, a social worker when nothing indicates a danger”,
when dealing with “a family which looks normal, which needs no external
intervention but the children are raised in a family which is caught in
a sectarian grip”. He made the following suggestion: “Could
we envision an ex officio intervention for example from the moment we
find out that a child belongs to a family and to a certain group?”
Mr.
Fenech implies that even though a family “looks normal” and
needs no “external intervention”, the State can intervene because
of the purported existence of a danger for the child by reason only of
the beliefs of his parents, which are deemed to pertain to a “sectarian”
movement. The entire approach of this Commission headed by Mr. Fenech
violated fundamental human rights principles. Article 18 (4) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires States to “undertake
to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal
guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children
in conformity with their own convictions”. Likewise, Protocol 1,
Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires States to
“respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching
in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.
Conclusion
In
her report on her visit to France, the UN Special Rapporteur for Religious
Freedom included the following recommendations to the UN General Assembly:
“111.
The Special Rapporteur hopes that future actions of MIVILUDES will be
in line with the right to freedom of religion or belief and avoid past
mistakes. She will continue to closely monitor the various efforts that
are carried out by MIVILUDES.
112.
The Special Rapporteur urges the Government to ensure that its mechanisms
for dealing with these religious groups or communities of belief deliver
a message based on tolerance, freedom of religion or belief and on the
principle that no one can be judged for his actions other than through
the appropriate judicial channels”.
The
appointment of Mr. Fenech undermines the UN Religious Freedom Rapporteur’s
mandate that MIVILUDES operate “in line with the right to freedom
of religion or belief and avoid past mistakes”. This appointment
represents a step backwards for religious freedom in France. Under these
circumstances :
CAP
calls for the Prime Minister to cancel Mr. Fenech’s appointment as
President of MIVILUDES.
CAP
also respectfully requests that the OSCE Chair-in-Office Personal Representative
on Combating Racism, Xenophobia, and Discrimination against Christians
and Members of Other Religions visit France and closely monitor the activities
of MIVILUDES and its new President to ensure that their actions comply
with religious freedom and tolerance in accordance with the Helsinki Accords.
--------------------------------------
 --------------------------------------
Home
page
CAPLC -
CAP pour la Liberté de Conscience - Liberté de Religion
- Liberté de Conviction
|
