The Miviludes (Mission interministérielle de vigilance et de lutte contre les dérives sectaires) is the country’s main institution for the fight against sectarian risks. Established in 2002, its mission is to watch and combat what it considers to be groups that pose a risk to public order or individual freedoms. Nonetheless, over the years Miviludes has come under increasing scrutiny for the lack of transparency, the sensationalist rhetoric and the questionable methodologies. Also, its relationship with the media is rather close which has created a feedback loop that amplifies the public fears and stigmatizes religious minorities.
As a journalist I have always been interested in the role of state power and human rights and I have been following this dynamic closely. Through a series of analyses I intend to unravel how Miviludes’ rhetoric and the media’s uncritical reporting have shaped public discourse in France and led to the marginalization of alternative spiritual practices. This article is the beginning of an investigation into this complex and troubling relationship.
Miviludes: A Watchdog or a Political Tool?
Miviludes has put itself forward as the ultimate authority on sectarian risks in France. But a report by Swiss academics offers a very damning critique of the institution’s methods. Miviludes, the report says, relies on imprecise data, lacks scientific rigor and operates with limited transparency. This being the case, how can it be considered a credible watchdog?
These concerns have been raised by Senator Laurence Muller-Bronn in the French Senate to the Minister of the Interior about Miviludes’ refusal to disclose its data and methodologies. In her inquiry she pointed out that such opacity undermines public trust and casts doubt on the institution’s impartiality. The responses she received failed to address these concerns adequately, further reinforcing the perception that Miviludes operates without sufficient accountability.
The Media’s Role in Amplifying Biases
The French media has also helped in amplifying Miviludes’ sensationalist rhetoric. Journalists have tended to cite the institution as authoritative, and in doing so have reproduced its claims without subjecting them to critical analysis. This uncritical reliance has created a climate of fear, in which religious minorities are portrayed as dangerous sects on the strength of anecdotal evidence.
Shincheonji Church of Jesus
Take, for example, the Shincheonji Church of Jesus, a South Korean new religious movement that has come under intense scrutiny at home and abroad. Miviludes in France has already labelled the group as a potential sectarian risk, and the media has already echoed these warnings.
A recent article in Le Figaro, “On nous frappait pour chasser Satan” (January 17, 2025), is a good example of this dynamic. The piece recounts the testimony of a former Shincheonji member, using dramatic language to portray the group as a dangerous cult. For instance, it claims that members are ‘ ADVISED NOT TO MARRY, NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN AND TO ABORT PREGNANCIES.’ These allegations are made as facts but have no independent verification.
The article also refers to Shincheonji as a ‘sulfureuse église’ (sulfurous church) and its leader as a ‘pasteur-gourou et messie autoproclamé’ (pastor-guru and self-proclaimed messiah). Such language is negative and stigmatizing to the group with no balanced perspective offered. Also, the article relies heavily on Miviludes’ data, treating it as gospel truth despite the institution’s well-documented methodological flaws.
Tabitha’s Place
Another example is Tabitha’s Place, a religious community in Béarn that has been under scrutiny for years. A recent article in La République des Pyrénées (January 19, 2025) reported on the group’s ongoing attempts to sell their property and leave France. The sale of their château is the focus of the piece, but it is written in such a way as to create the impression that the group is dangerous. It calls the community a ‘secte’ and emphasizes that they have spent ‘20 months fighting to leave the country’, which implies that their presence is unwelcome.
The article also mentions Miviludes, which has been keeping an eye on the group for years, but there is no concrete evidence of any wrongdoing. It makes vague references to past controversies, just like Miviludes.
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Jehovah’s Witnesses have also been the subject of Miviludes’ and the media’s attention. An article from L’Est éclair (January 21, 2025) has a former member telling of being ‘excommunicated’ from the group. The piece describes the Witnesses’ internal disciplinary process, particularly the role of the ‘committee of elders,’ as akin to a ‘tribunal.’
While the article carries the testimony of a couple who left the group, it does not place their experience in the wider context of religious freedom. Instead, it relies on Miviludes’ characterization of the Witnesses as a sectarian group and uses such terms as ‘rupture sectaire’ (sectarian rupture) to describe the couple’s rift with their family. Such language may be emotionally charged but does little to shed light on the group’s practices and beliefs.
A Feedback Loop of Fear
There is a feedback loop between Miviludes and the media that reinforces public fears and biases:
1. Miviludes’ Alarmist Rhetoric:
Miviludes has released reports and statements that are filled with sensationalist language, such as proclaiming that there was an explosion of sectarian risks during the COVID-19 pandemic. These claims are based on anecdotal evidence or vague definitions of what constitutes a ‘sectarian drift.’
2. Media Amplification:
Newspersons have copied Miviludes’ claims without questioning them in many cases, using sensational headlines and alarmist language to get people’s attention. This serves to amplify the institution’s position and spread its rhetoric to a wider audience.
3. Public Fear and Political Pressure:
The media coverage fuels public fear, which in turn puts pressure on politicians to act. This creates a vicious cycle in which Miviludes’ warnings are used to justify further crackdowns on religious minorities with or without concrete evidence.
The Consequences for Religious Minorities
This feedback loop has real consequences for religious minorities in France. Shincheonji, Tabitha’s Place, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other alternative spiritual movements are being marginalized and stigmatized. Sensationalist media coverage of public fears makes it difficult for these groups to exercise their religious beliefs freely. This undermines France’s commitment to freedom of religion and belief, a cornerstone of human rights.
Also, the media’s uncritical reliance on Miviludes raises questions about journalistic standards in France. By choosing to prioritize sensationalism over factual, balanced reporting, journalists erode public trust and contribute to the creation of a fear-based, divided society.
Breaking the Cycle: A Call for Accountability
For France to continue to claim to uphold human rights and freedom of belief, both Miviludes and the media must be held accountable:
• Miviludes must operate with transparency and scientific rigor. Its reports should be subject to independent verification, and its methodologies should be made publicly available for scrutiny.
• The Media must adopt a more critical approach to reporting on sectarian risks. Journalists should question the validity of Miviludes’ claims and seek out alternative perspectives to provide a more balanced view.
• Public Discourse must move away from fear-based narratives and towards a more nuanced understanding of religious diversity. This requires open dialogue and a commitment to protecting the rights of all individuals, regardless of their beliefs.
This article is the first in a series of investigations into the relationship between Miviludes and the French media. I hope to foster a more informed and balanced discussion about sectarian risks in France by exposing the flaws in their approach and the impact on religious minorities.
The stakes are high. If left unchecked, the feedback loop between Miviludes and the media will continue to erode freedom of religion and belief, undermining the very values that France claims to uphold. It’s time to break the cycle and demand greater accountability from both institutions.
———-
First published in this link of The European Times.
