The President of the »parliamentary commission to investigate cults«, Jacques Guyard, on Tuesday, March 21st was convicted of libel and fined 20 000 French francs plus 90 000 French francs in punitive damages for calling the anthroposophical movement a »sect« on France 2 [of the national television network]. The Paris Court decided that M. Guyard was »not able to justify« his accusations »based on a serious inquiry«.

Impossible to »justify [his accusations based on] a serious inquiry«, documents not »pertinent« or without »any value as proof«, »unchecked testimony«.

The methods of the parliamentary commission to investigate sects have "lead in their wings", according to the judgement pronounced by the 17th correctional chamber of the Paris tribunal, who ruled on March 21st that its President, Jacques Guyard, (member of the Parti Socialiste and representative for the district of Essonne) be fined 20 000 French francs in addition to 90 000 French francs in punitive damages for slandering three anthroposophical movements who work with Rudolf Steiner's current of thought.

On June 17th, 1999 - the parliamentary commission had just published its second report dealing with »Sects and Money« - M. Guyard was featured as a guest on the one o'clock news on France 2. A documentary on an anthroposophical community centre is shown.  Anthroposophy, not listed among the sects in the first report in 1995, now figures on the parliamentary list. 

Question: »On which criteria has this community been classified as a sect?« 

Answer: »It is typical.  All these movements are seductive at first, and then it turns out that their primary goal is either to detour money or to exert absolute power over people. (…). Here we are dealing with a clear case of indoctrination«. 

And M. Guyard mentions »a worrying medical aspect« based on »clear statements by patients«.

The Federation of Steiner Schools (17 in France, 2 of them under contract with the State, 180 in Germany) was not amused. Neither was the Nouvelle Economie Fraternelle (NEF), an anthroposophical savings and loans company that is supervised by the [state run] Caisse centrale de Crédit Coopératif and is an official partner of the Ministry of Employment.  Neither was the Mercure fédérale, an umbrella organisation of French anthroposophical medical associations (400 medical doctors, 1500 affiliated authorised prescribers), which informs that anthroposophical medicine is recognised by European agencies in the same capacity as homeopathy, acupuncture and phytotherapy.

 »I did not know that we were only going to talk about anthroposophy that day« contended Jacques Guyard, trying to explain his words on TV.  The MP persisted, however, in using the term »sect«, remarkably based on anonymous reports ("renseignements généraux") of the General Intelligence Agency. He repeatedly stressed the »secret« character of the work of the parliamentary committee, preventing him - so he claimed - from revealing his sources.  »That is a lot of secrets indeed when everybody wants to know how this comes about!« the president of the court, Martine Tact-Madoux, finally exclaimed.

Other side never heard

In its judgement, the Court's tribunal concluded: »It has been shown that M. Guyard formulated accusations on television which he was not able to justify with a serious inquiry. It follows from his testimony that he only had knowledge of written testimony from persons claiming to be victims of anthroposophy, but that neither the authors of these documents nor the persons presumed to be responsible for the anthroposophical movement were heard by the commission, that hearing the other side of the story in the diligent investigation consisted solely in mailing a questionnaire to about sixty movements considered sectarian«.

»None of the documents produced is pertinent with regard to the accusations of mental manipulations, financial pressures, embezzlement and medical practices threatening to the lives of patients« added the tribunal, denying the anonymous reports [in the dossier of the "renseignements généraux"] any »value as proof«.

Rejecting the benefit of parliamentary immunity to M. Guyard, for which the substitute of the public prosecutor François Cordier had opted, the judges deemed that the damages to the civil party were »considerable ... since the libellous statements had been made by an MP, whose authority and competence as president of the commission could not be doubted by the general public.« 

Jean-Michael Dumay

Copyright: Le Monde

(Original:http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,2320,47568,00.html)