Council of State Ruling on Freedom of Conscience and Religion

Extract

[...] The neutrality of the State and the freedom of cults are respected. The public affected by the brochure, the media coverage, the dangers, the balancing act are elements taken into consideration by the judge. -Commentary/criticism: Depending on the case, the CE is more or less flexible. Article 2 of the law of December on the separation of churches and the State provides ""The Republic recognizes, pays, or subsidizes no cult". The same year, the CE was tougher with state funding: A public entity cannot financially support a cult association that also implements social and cultural activities (CE Section October 1992, Commune of Saint-Louis against association Siva Soupramanien of Saint-Louis, n°94455). [...]

[...] The latter then had to answer the following question: Can the Minister of Social Affairs finance the documentation centre so that it publishes a brochure on sects without infringing on the freedom of conscience, cults and the principle of neutrality? This question has all its interest in that it allows to fix a framework and to limit, if necessary, the intervention of the State in religion. The Council of State then pronounced itself by a ruling of 17 February 1992. [...]

[...] The risks are numerous: mental manipulation, social isolation, financial dependence, control of thought and suppression of criticism etc. -Commentary/critique: The judge adopts a pedagogical reasoning that is very welcome. He takes into account the totality of the stakes of the sects and thus renders a protective decision, particularly for the young. He highlights the necessary knowledge of the contours of the sects, public information. The CE justifies its position by the risks related to sects and by the case in question itself. [...]

[...] -Commentary/critique: His reasoning is entirely justified. The association pursues a public interest goal and is not funded by any particular cult. However, the boundary can be narrow. The rejection of all the violations invoked by the association is induced but it is also justified. II- The absence of an attack on the state's neutrality and the freedom of cults, justified The absence of an attack on the state's neutrality and the freedom of cults is justified by the risks of sects and the case in itself A justification based on the risks of sects -Citation : "considering that, in view of the risks that may be presented ( . [...]

[...] On the one hand, it joined the first judges on the non-violation of freedom of conscience and religion. On the other hand, it rejected any material error, legal error or manifest error of appreciation of the challenged decision due to the risks that these sects may present and this, although they may pursue a religious purpose. In order to address the problem, it is necessary to examine the induced absence of violation of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion before studying the justified absence of attack on the neutrality of the State and the freedom of cults (II). [...]