MIVILUDES and the Jehovah’s Witnesses

MIVILUDES, the French government agency tasked with monitoring so-called “cultic deviations,” recently released its latest report, covering the years 2021 to 2024. While it claims to protect the public from harmful practices, the report raises a troubling question: when does vigilance cross the line into religious discrimination? And what happens to state neutrality when facts are replaced by biased narratives?

Among the recurring targets of the agency are Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian movement with roughly 140,000 members in France. Although legally recognized as a religion by both French and European courts—and having won several legal battles against the French state—the Witnesses remain a frequent focus of MIVILUDES’ suspicion. On what grounds? And at what cost to the integrity of public information?

An Embarrassing Conviction… Conveniently Ignored

Just last year, a French court found MIVILUDES guilty of defamation against Jehovah’s Witnesses, ruling that its previous report had made false and unsubstantiated claims. The judgment was clear: the accusations were baseless, and the organization had proven them wrong in court. It was a landmark ruling—and a rare rebuke of a government body.

And yet, in its new 2021–2024 report, MIVILUDES makes no mention of this conviction. No correction, no acknowledgment of error, no expression of accountability. This silence speaks volumes. When a state agency erases its own legal defeat, it signals not transparency, but a culture of institutional impunity—especially when the target is an unpopular religious minority.

Suspicion Without Substance

In its latest report, MIVILUDES continues its offensive, this time focusing on the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice of disfellowshipping. But this religious form of excommunication is far from unique—it is practiced in one form or another by many faiths, including Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam.

Instead of presenting solid legal or sociological analysis, MIVILUDES relies on anonymous, unverifiable testimonies. These accounts are neither contextualized nor corroborated by court decisions. The agency even refuses to disclose them in any form, citing confidentiality. Thus, rumor becomes evidence, and innuendo replaces objectivity.

Selective Quoting and Misleading Legal References

To justify its portrayal of the group as harmful, the agency cherry-picks foreign court rulings—often quoting them out of context or omitting critical updates.

Take Norway, for example. MIVILUDES claims Jehovah’s Witnesses lost their religious status there due to their shunning policy. It fails to mention that in March 2025, the Borgarting Court of Appeal overturned this decision. The court ruled that revoking the group’s legal status violated religious freedom and awarded damages. This was widely hailed as a victory for religious rights in Scandinavia.

Similarly, the report references a Spanish court decision to argue that calling the Witnesses a “destructive sect” is legitimate. In fact, the ruling merely stated that such language fell within the bounds of free speech—it did not confirm the truth of the claim.

More significantly, MIVILUDES completely omits other important rulings, such as a 2022 decision in Belgium that fully acquitted Jehovah’s Witnesses on charges of discrimination. The Belgian Court of Appeal concluded that the practice of disfellowshipping was protected under religious freedom. This verdict was later upheld by the country’s highest court—yet not a word of it appears in the French report.

A Secular Crusade?

This report, like others before it, reveals a deeper issue: an official body appears to be selectively targeting certain faiths, filtering evidence, and shaping narratives to suit an ideological agenda. Rather than offering careful risk analysis, MIVILUDES engages in something more akin to a secular crusade—where some religions are tolerated, and others are systematically marginalized.

France’s constitution mandates strict religious neutrality. The state may neither endorse nor oppose any religion. All public institutions are bound to this principle. MIVILUDES, which positions itself as a guardian of republican values, should be held to the highest standards of impartiality.

Vigilance, Yes. Witch Hunts, No.

Whether one agrees with the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses is irrelevant. This is not a matter of personal opinion or religious preference. What’s at stake is the integrity of public information, the equal treatment of all citizens, and the defense of fundamental democratic principles.

By repeatedly targeting a specific religion, misrepresenting legal rulings, and omitting key facts, MIVILUDES is not safeguarding the Republic—it is undermining it. Perhaps the real sectarian danger begins when a state institution feels entitled to accuse without proof—and to err without consequence.