|
One
of the countermeasures to adopt - on Board's opinion - consists in promoting
the spread of critic information about the indoctrination groups. Also
authorities - tutorial, fiscal, judicial etc. - must have on disposal
a skilled service to recollect the required information about groups,
their pracand doctrines. Indeed the main problem is that, when State
help is required, the interested person are not able to prove the existence
of the compelled damage (for example, fraud, circumvention) or to convince
authorities that juridical protected goods are in peril. Such processes
are carried out often in a strict context or at least inside a group,
and ex post, they cannot be practically reconstructed or proved anymore.
On the other side the evaluation is furthermore complicated by the fact
that the manipulated person plays also his role, meaning that his needs
and his uneasiness is the background for the manipulation realizing
its effects. In case of crimes committed inside indoctrination groups,
the condition is basically different. The individual is not aware at
once he's a victim of a crime and neither it's easy to ascertain who
is the responsible. Crimes are committed in most cases, not as a consequence
of an individual error, but rather on order of persons or bodies' upper
ranks that are partly unknown or reside abroad, or on enforcement of
instructions coming from the group ideology.
The
problem is in the fact that a situation alike can be guessed only knowing
the group's internal structure or the psychological mechanism it lies
over. Lacking these acknowledgments, it can occur that the inquiry authorities
go on keeping idle. Very often the victim fears sticking up his own
rights. On the experts' opinion, it is explained by the fact that the
leaving of the indoctrination group is not by a sole gesture, but implies
a long procedure.
Due
to the seclusion of the followers, wanted and imposed by many groups,
who leaves the group finds himself without social relationships, and
on consequence without a context offering him the required support.
Whereas misleading or indoctrination methods are employed, the partial
or total giving up in self-determination does not concern anymore the
single person but also State, that can and must intervene, whereas it
has the means. Provided that not only the civil and crime legislation,
but also democracy, lies over the axiom of the responsible self-determination,
neither a constitutional State, however liberal it is, can look at,
without reacting, the action of indoctrination groups that systematically
annihilate or try to annihilate the autonomy of single individuals.
According to the Board is so evident that the returnees from sectarian
experiences need the State protection.
On the trace of the Guyard Report, even the Geneva Canton charged a
group of jurists an 'Audit sur les dérives sectaries' in January 1996.
Issued in February 1997, the Geneva report proposed introducing in the
Helvetic right the mental destabilization crime.
|
