U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

68–022 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

THE TREATMENT OF RELIGIOUS MINORITIES IN

WESTERN EUROPE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 14, 2000

Serial No. 106–165

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

HILLEL WEINBERG, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel

COLETTE L. BOTTIN, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

WITNESSES

Page

The Honorable Robert A. Seiple, Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State ......................................................... 6

T. Jeremy Gunn, J.D., Ph.D., Guest Scholar, U.S. Institute of Peace ................ 22

The Reverend N.J. L’Heureux, Jr., Executive Director, Queens Federation

of Churches ........................................................................................................... 26

Philip Brumley, Esq., General Counsel, Jehovah’s Witnesses ............................. 28

The Reverend Robert Hunt, Pastor, English Speaking United Methodist

Church of Austria ................................................................................................. 31, 37

Craig Jensen, Chairman and CEO, Executive Software ...................................... 32

Catherine Bell, Actress ........................................................................................... 34

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

The Honorable Robert A. Seiple ............................................................................. 50

T. Jeremy Gunn, J.D., Ph.D. .................................................................................. 55

The Reverend N.J. L’Heureux, Jr. ......................................................................... 70

Philip Brumley, Esq. ............................................................................................... 112

The Reverend Robert Hunt ..................................................................................... 120

Craig Jensen ............................................................................................................ 122

Catherine Bell .......................................................................................................... 130

Statements submitted for the record:

Letter and statement from His Excellency Peter Moser, Ambassador of Austria ......................................................................................................................... 137

Statement of His Excellency Jurgen Chrobog, Ambassador of Germany ........... 140

Statement of Armando Corea ................................................................................. 142

Other material submitted for the record:

Documentation of German sales lost due to discriminatory procurement practices (provided by Mr. Jensen) ............................................................................ 147

(1)

THE TREATMENT OF RELIGIOUS MINORITIES

IN WESTERN EUROPE

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in room

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order.

The Committee on International Relations meets in open session

today to take testimony on the topic of the treatment of religious

minorities in Western Europe. We do so as part of the Full Committee’s geographic responsibility for Europe.

Today’s hearing allows us to turn our attention to a problem that

has troubled many Americans who respect and value the nations

of Western Europe, countries who are, without doubt, friends of the

United States and places where, in general, freedom flourishes.

The ‘‘blind spot’’ that some of those countries seem to have is

their attitude toward religious minorities. As Ambassador Felix

Rohatyn has written with respect to France, ‘‘Recent actions by its

government vis-a-vis sects raise questions about intolerance toward

religious minorities and contravene France’s human rights commitments, although it is a country with a long tradition of religious

freedom and the rule of law.’’ That was in an April 12, 1999, letter

to Congressman Smith of New Jersey.

I would like to point out that the purpose of this hearing is not

to support the religious doctrines or other activities of religious minorities active in Western Europe. However, we are called on not

only to protect the rights of those we like, but of those with whom

we may disagree as well.

I have put on the record repeatedly, for example, my concern

about the use, over the years, of Nazi-era imagery by supporters

of Scientology in their effort to make their points about German

policy. But I am also here to say we must defend their human

rights.

Of course, holding or expressing a religious belief or worshiping

in public and private as one may please is not, as such, forbidden

by law in Western Europe. In practice, however, expressing a minority religious belief often leads to discrimination—the loss of a

job, of educational opportunities, of the right to gain custody of

one’s own child or to be a foster parent—which seriously burdens

one’s exercise of freedom of religion.

2

Some European governments discriminate among religions, giving some favors, such as financial aid or simply the right of clergy

of that religion to visit sick parishioners, while withholding these

privileges from others.

Moreover, religious discrimination by private parties is far from

universally discouraged. It is encouraged in some cases, for example, by the compilation and publication by governments of lists of

sects—although encouraging religious tolerance is an international

human rights obligation.

Such problems are complained of especially frequently and vociferously with respect to Austria, Belgium, France and Germany. It

is frankly difficult to understand how our friends in those countries

can say they have freedom of religion, given the burdens on the

free exercise of religion I have mentioned and which will be described a little later on today.

The Committee’s attention has been drawn to this issue for several reasons: First, the practices to be discussed appear to be in

contravention of internationally accepted human rights standards

and seem to be leading to an atmosphere of religious intolerance.

Second, Americans abroad who wish to evangelize or merely to

practice their religion or professions, or to engage in business, face

discriminatory treatment on the basis of their religions.

Next, emerging democracies in Eastern Europe may copy the bad

examples that are being set by some Western European countries— and China uses Western Europe to justify its brutal crackdown on

the Falun Gong.

And last, the growth of political extremism on the left and on the

right in some of the nations where religious discrimination appears

to be on the rise to questions of whether there are links between

such discrimination and those political trends.

Today, our Committee will first take testimony from our Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom, Robert Seiple.

In the second panel, it will hear from an experienced writer and

observer of religious freedom issues who has worked in government, Mr. Jeremy Gunn; from a Methodist minister in Queens,

New York, who has been active in the Religious Liberty Committee

of the National Council of Churches, the Reverend ‘‘Skip’’

L’Heureux, Jr.; and from members of religious minorities working

in Europe or who are involved in helping coreligionists there, Philip Brumley, General Counsel of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Reverend Robert A. Hunt of the English-speaking Methodist congregation in Vienna, Austria; from an American businessman, who is a

Scientologist, who will testify that his business is being threatened

by a religiously based boycott, Mr. Craig Jensen; and from an

American actress, Ms. Catherine Bell, star of the television show

JAG, also a Scientologist, who will discuss the special problems

faced by members of her church in Europe, particularly in Germany.

I regret to announce that Mr. Chick Corea who was invited to

testify is unable to be with us today due to prior engagements.

This is not a hearing about the merit or lack of merit of one or

another religious group. It is about the practices of certain nations

with respect to some of those groups. Accordingly, the Ambassadors

of Austria, Germany and France have been invited to appear as

3

well. The German ambassador and the Austrian ambassador have

each submitted a useful and interesting statement. I would ask

that my colleagues pay close attention to those statements. I regret

that the French embassy has chosen not to participate in this hearing in any manner.

Without objection, the submissions of the German and Austrian

ambassadors, along with the prepared remarks of today’s witnesses, as well as those of Mr. Corea and reasonable-length additional statements and background materials, at the discretion of

the Chair, will be entered into the record.

I now call on our Ranking Minority Member, the gentleman from

Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One thing that comes to mind as I look at the years that we have

had hearings on this issue is that maybe a solution would be if our

European colleagues followed our model of separation of church

and state. Because even if it is not explicitly discussed, there seems

to be a strong undercurrent that the populace of these countries

are uneasy about subsidizing, providing economic support and

other benefits to religions that they are simply not accustomed to

or that don’t represent a large portion of their population; and that

may be an important lesson for people in this country who have

consistently tried to degrade and remove the separation of church

and state, that we would find ourselves in a similar position.

Populations often find it difficult to accept new philosophies and

new religions, and it becomes particularly problematic when the

general taxpayers are then asked to subsidize these new religions

by funding religious schools, by funding other activities, direct payments to these new religions. So maybe our European brethren

could remove some of their problems with the various religions that

they seem to have difficulty with if they looked to our model more

of establishing a separation between the elected government and

the beliefs that people choose.

I think it is important to make sure that we don’t simply highlight newer religions and newer philosophies and thereby put them

in a separate category. It should be the standards of behavior that

we judge, not the newness of the religion; and obviously governments that take new religions or new beliefs and label them as

sects and cults, I think undermine an attempt to have a society

that respects varying beliefs.

I believe these countries ought to open up a more transparent

dialogue. They need to announce and enunciate principles of tolerance for their society, and they could go a long way to do away

with some of the problems in some of the finest democracies in the

world and our closest allies.

For me, it is important to give every belief an opportunity to express itself and to make sure that a dominant religion doesn’t in

some way try to prevent other religions from competing for parishioners.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Are any other Members seeking recognition?

Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. Salmon.

4

Mr. SALMON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting, just a couple of weeks ago, we had a debate on the House

floor about NTR for China, and numerous Members arose to denounce the practices in China of impingement on religious freedom,

but yet a lot of the same Members expressed hesitance about denouncing the suppression of religious freedom in some of the allied

countries that we have worked closely with since World War II. I

find that quite interesting.

I have a different belief. I think that we ought to be able to be

even more candid with those who are considered to be our allies,

and I frankly am very, very concerned because I see a pattern.

I have been working on the Helsinki Commission for the last 6

years that I have been in Congress; and I have been able to go to

those annual OSCE meetings, and every year these issues come up.

And I find the response, particularly from the European Union,

very, very troubling when we bring these issues up.

Last year, we brought up a resolution to denounce some of the

practices in Europe toward religious minorities and the creation of

these sect monitoring offices in several offices in Europe. We basically got poured in a bottle. I think that we need to be a little bit

more vocal. I think that the Congress needs to take definitive action to declare that here in this country we value the right to be

able to believe according to the dictates of one’s own conscience. It

is a problem.

It has been a problem in Russia. You might recall just a couple

of years ago the Duma had a vote honoring and sustaining only

certain religions.

I might remind everybody here on this Committee that every religion started out as a religious minority, even the Christian religion, to which I belong. You might recall that when they started

out, they had their bumps in the road. A few of them got fed to

the lions. They had problems, as well, and problems being understood by those who believed a different way.

But this religious intolerance in Europe is very, very troubling

and some of the countries that are really the worst actors—Germany, France, Belgium, Austria—we need to take, I think, a definitive stand here in these halls to tell them that that is not acceptable, and that to have a good and solid relationship with the

United States, they need to value the same things that we value,

and that is the freedom of religious expression, the freedom of belief.

I would like to cite some examples because this isn’t just a lot

of empty rhetoric. The most recent international Helsinki Federation report mentions that religious minorities in Belgium have been

subjected to various forms of harassment and other human rights

violations such as slander, anonymous threats, loss of jobs, bomb

threats and denial of room rental for religious ceremonies.

Patrick Belton, a businessman in France, runs a company that

offers training and management advice. When government officials

learned that he was a Scientologist, they accused him of transmitting client files to his church. Consequently, he lost several contracts with an estimated loss of several million French francs.

In 1999, the U.S. Department of State annual report on international religious freedom stated that the conservative Austrian

5

People’s Party formally accepted the decision that party membership is incompatible with membership in a sect, and they decide

what is a sect and what is a religion. This policy led to the resignation of a local party official.

I really believe that this hearing is timely. I thank the Chairman

for inviting the various people to testify before us, but after all is

said and done and we hear the testimony, what are we prepared

to do? Are we going to just sit and listen or are we going to stand

up and be counted?

I think we have an opportunity to make a difference and to stand

for the most basic value that we hold dear in America and, really,

the fundamental that began this country over 200 years ago, and

that is the right to believe according to the dictates of one’s conscience without interference from government.

Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

I would like to note to the audience that we don’t permit demonstrations during the hearing.

Thank you, Mr. Salmon.

Judge Hastings.

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and my apologies to you,

colleagues, and to the witnesses for the fact that I, as one Member,

as I am sure others do, have very serious conflicts and will not be

able to stay for the entirety of the proceedings.

Toward that end, Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself

with your remarks, the remarks of Mr. Gejdenson and my dear

friend and colleague, whom I will miss when he leaves Congress

and goes back to his religious freedom in Arizona, Mr. Salmon. Mr.

Salmon serves on the Helsinki Commission and he and I, along

with other Members, have traveled to Europe frequently; and I,

Mr. Chairman, am an officer in the Organization for Security and

Cooperation in Europe.

My point is, what Matt just got through saying I think is a proper segue for me, at this point, to suggest to the Committee that today’s hearing particularly be placed in a manner whereby it can be

spread widely among our European colleagues; and I will take it

upon myself to take these proceedings to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe at its July meeting, and Mr. Salmon and I can attest to the fact that the subject of religious freedom

arises frequently.

I will end by saying, Mr. Chairman, there is a spiritual that

says, ‘‘A charge to keep have I.’’ All of us come from different faiths

in this great country of ours. To promote religious freedom is a

charge that all of us should keep, and the sooner our European allies recognize this, the more likely we are to be able to influence

others in the world.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Judge Hastings.

Are any other Members seeking recognition?

Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. I know that we have

had testimony in prior hearings about the treatment of those who

practice Scientology in Germany. I would hope that Germany

6

would show respect for that religious minority and others, and it

was with great regret that I noticed Germany pressing for a World

Bank loan to the Government of Iran at a time when that country

has 13 Jews being charged on trumped-up charges.

And so respect for religious minorities includes not only religious

minorities within a country’s borders, but also respect for importance of human rights for religious minorities in foreign policy decisions. And I know that there was one German citizen who was released from Iranian jails, and I appreciate that decision, but I

would have been far more impressed if the German Government

had respected the importance of religious liberty in Iran.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.

Are any other Members seeking recognition? If not, we will proceed with our first witness, who is Ambassador Robert Seiple. Ambassador Seiple’s position as Ambassador-at-Large for International

Religious Freedom was created by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which originated in our Committee. Ambassador

Seiple is a highly decorated veteran of the Marine Corps, having

flown 300 combat missions in Vietnam. He has served in administrative and development positions at his alma mater, Brown, as

President of Eastern College and Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary and as President of World Vision. He took up his present position in May 1999. We welcome Ambassador Seiple.

Your statement has been made part of the record. You may summarize as you see fit. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. SEIPLE, AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE FOR INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. SEIPLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members

of the Committee. I am honored to appear before you today to testify on the treatment of religious minorities in Western Europe. Let

me begin by thanking the Chairman and the Committee for their

strong and continuing contributions toward our goal of promoting

religious freedom.

Each of us here today shares a commitment to protecting the dignity of all human beings. We hold in common the belief that at the

heart of human dignity lies the right to pursue the truth about the

mystery of faith, the truth about our place in the universe, about

how we ought to order our lives. Together, we seek to speed the

day when every human being is free to pursue that truth as he or

she sees fit, not only unhindered by others, but protected by the

state itself.

Freedom of religion and conscience is also foundational for democracy as recognized in the international covenants. The government which fails to honor religious freedom and freedom of conscience is a government which does not recognize the priority of the

individual over the state and that the state exists to serve society,

not vice versa. By the same token, the government which nurtures

religious freedom may be more likely to honor other fundamental

human rights.

So, Mr. Chairman, the promotion of religious freedom and freedom of conscience makes sense from the standpoint of freedom in

7

general, but also from the standpoint of all human rights and from

the standpoint of promoting healthy, vibrant democracies.

Against that background, Mr. Chairman, let me turn to our subject this morning, the treatment of religious minorities in Western

Europe. Overall, it must be said that religious minorities are treated better there than in most other regions of the world. Indeed, in

relative terms, the citizens of Western Europe enjoy a measure of

freedom that is the envy of aspiring democracies around the globe.

Persecution on the basis of religion in the form of brutal activities

by governments, such as prolonged detentions without charge, torture and slavery, simply does not exist there as it so tragically does

elsewhere in the world.

But it also must be said that discrimination on the basis of religion does exist in the four countries on which we are focusing this

morning—Germany, France, Austria and Belgium. Let me give you

a brief overview of the problems that we see in each. Before I do,

however, I want to emphasize that the standard applied to these

countries by the United States is a standard that they have accepted. All of them embrace the international instruments that protect

freedom of religion and conscience, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human

Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights. In applying these standards, we see ourselves as citizens of

the world community, putting our national shoulder to the international wheel.

But our willingness to speak of discrimination elsewhere should

not be taken to imply that we are free of it ourselves. When it

comes to religious minorities, the United States falls far short of

a perfect record. One need only recall discrimination against the

Catholic minority or the Mormons in the 19th century. However,

we believe that one sign of a mature democracy is the willingness

to accept criticism so long as it is based on international standards

of human rights.

Let me begin with Germany, where our primary disagreement involves the treatment of the country’s roughly 8,000 Scientologists.

The nub of the problem is that many in the German Government

believe that Scientology is more a money-making scheme than a religion. This view is shared by officials in certain states where responsibility for religious questions are usually handled.

At the same time, German officials say they are concerned that

Scientology has, ‘‘antidemocratic tendencies.’’ The offices for the

protection of the constitution at both the state and Federal level

have been monitoring Scientology since 1997 for evidence of activities that would constitute a threat against the state. Although initial reports concluded that it did not, the monitoring continues to

this day.

In 1998, a commission on so-called ‘‘sects and psycho groups’’ presented a report to the parliament that criticized Scientology for,

‘‘misinformation and intimidation,’’ of its critics, accusing it of

being a political extremist group with, ‘‘totalitarian tendencies.’’

Following this, the states of Bavaria, Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein published brochures warning the public of the purported dangers Scientology poses.

8

For their part, many of the country’s Scientologists have reported

both governmental and societal discrimination in their daily lives.

Some employers, for example, use the so-called ‘‘sect filter,’’ screening applicants for Scientology membership. The Federal Government also screens companies bidding on some consulting and training contracts for Scientologists, as do some state governments.

That these and other forms of discrimination are occurring was

documented in a 1998 U.N. Report, although it rejected the outrageous claim that Scientologists’ treatment was similar to that

suffered by the Jews during the Nazi era.

Scientologists continue to take their grievances to the German

court system. Some, who have charged their employers with unfair

dismissal, for example, have won out-of-court settlements.

Mr. Chairman, we have discussed these issues at some length

with German officials, both in Germany and the United States. We

have stressed, in particular, the risks associated with governments

deciding what does and does not constitute a religion. We have

made clear our concern with sect filters. To prevent an individual

from practicing a profession solely on account of his or her religious

belief is an abuse of religious freedom, as well as discriminatory

business practice. We have expressed our concern that the continued official observation of Scientology by the German Government,

without any legal action being initiated as a result, creates an environment that encourages discrimination. We have urged our German colleagues to begin a dialogue with the Scientologists, and we

have raised our concerns multilaterally at meetings of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Let me now turn to France. There have been recent reports by

the National Assembly which cast Scientology in a negative light,

expressing concern that they may use excessive or dishonest means

to obtain donations. However, the government has taken no action

against them. Indeed, Interior Minister Chevenement and others,

including Foreign Minister Vedrine, have assumed a very positive

and public posture in support of freedom of conscience and religion,

a fact which has helped diffuse tensions considerably.

But it is also true that France has been on the vanguard of the

troubling practice of creating so-called ‘‘sect lists.’’ These lists are

created by government agencies—in France the list was part of a

parliamentary report—and typically contain the names of scores of

religious groups which may not be recognized by the government.

Some of the groups are clearly dangerous, such as the Solar Temple, which led to suicides in France and Switzerland, but others are

merely unfamiliar or unpopular. By grouping them together under

the negative word ‘‘sect,’’ governments encourage societal discrimination.

Some groups that appear on France’s list continue to report acts

of discrimination. One of them is the Institute of Theology in

Nimes, a private Bible college founded in 1989 by Louis Demeo,

who is head pastor at an associated church there. Others have been

subjected to long audits of their finances. For example, tax claims

against the Church of Scientology forced several churches into

bankruptcy in the mid-1990’s.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have also been heavily audited. According to the International Helsinki Federation, this audit, which

9

began in January 1996 and continues to this day, has been done

in a manner which suggests harassment.

In France, too, the United States has been engaged actively in

promoting a dialogue with French authorities. U.S. embassy representatives have met several times with the interministerial mission to battle against sects. President Clinton, Secretary of State

Albright, Assistant Secretary of State Harold Koh and myself have

each raised these issues of religious discrimination with French officials during the past year, and we will continue to do so. Our goal

is to develop a common understanding with the French Government on what actions are and are not in accord with international

agreements on religious freedom.

Mr. Chairman, the pattern in Austria is not unlike that in

France. The government has long waged an information campaign

against religious groups that it considers harmful to the interests

of individuals and society. A brochure issued last September by the

Ministry for Social Security and Generations described several nonrecognized religious groups, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in

decidedly negative terms that many found offensive.

With the recent appointment of a new minister from Jorg

Haider’s Freedom Party there are fears that the government may

intensify its campaign against religions that lack official recognition. We have raised these issues with the Austrian Government

and will continue to press our view that such practices contravene

Austria’s commitments to religious freedom.

Let me conclude with Belgium. In 1998, the Belgian parliament

adopted several recommendations from the Commission Report on

Government Policy toward sects, including the creation of a Center

for Information and Advice on Harmful Sectarian Organizations.

The Commission had also appended a list of sects in Belgium divided into those considered harmful and all others ,and recommended a special police unit to deal with the harmful groups.

The government has not yet taken any action on this proposal.

Our concern here, Mr. Chairman, is not with the government’s

attempts to deal with illegal activities on the part of any religious

group, whether recognized or unrecognized, new or old. Our fear is

that Belgium, like France and Austria, is painting with too broad

a brush. In its very use of the pejorative term ‘‘sect’’ to characterize

unrecognized religious groups, it casts aspersions on those groups

creating, even if inadvertently, the suspicion that there is something wrong with them. But every religion began as something new

and unpopular.

We have discussed these issues with Belgian officials and we will

continue to urge all our European friends to recognize that the religious quest must be nurtured, not discouraged, for true religious

freedom to exist.

Before concluding, I want to note that Muslims continue to experience some discrimination in Western Europe, even though Islam

is the second largest religion in France and Belgium and the third

in Austria and Germany. In some cases, this discrimination has

more to do with race, culture and immigrant status than religious

beliefs. Indeed, Muslims are free to worship and form cultural organizations in each of these countries. Islam is recognized as an esVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:06 Jan 08, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 68022.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
10

tablished, organized religion, thus enabling it to claim certain tax

exemptions and receive some subsidies from the state.

The most persistent and controversial religious issue facing Muslims in Western Europe is the question of head scarves and whether girls should be permitted to wear them in public schools. The

question has caused considerable debate, some of it quite charged

with overtones of intolerance, but civil society is well-established in

these countries and many organizations have defended the rights

of Muslims. If some jurisdictions remain opposed to students wearing religious clothing, others are becoming more accepting of the

practice.

Our view is that the international covenants are quite clear.

Freedom of religion includes the right to manifest religious belief;

surely democracies can find the flexibility to tolerate such an expression of piety as the religious head scarf.

Let me conclude where I began, Mr. Chairman. We share a great

deal in common with our allies and friends in Europe, including

common religious traditions. Together, we have done much to make

the world a safer, more human place, a place where human rights,

like democracy, might take root and nourish. We offer these

thoughts about religious freedom to our friends out of a sense of

shared responsibility for what we have done and what we might do

together. We will continue to discuss these matters with them. Our

plea is that they consider our argument that freedom of religion,

while sometimes tragically exploited by those who would manipulate fate for their own end, is inherently good because it supports

the dignity of the human person as well as democracy itself.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and that of

this Committee on the matter of promoting religious freedom

abroad; and I would be happy to take any or all of your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Seiple appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ambassador Seiple. We thank

you for your work in religious freedom and we know it is a fairly

new initiative for our government, but we appreciate what you

have done to date with regard to these issues.

Ambassador Seiple, is it in contravention of internationally recognized human rights standards for any state to provide to some

religions financial benefits, for example, and the right to sue or the

right to give religious instruction in public schools and not to provide those rights to other religions? Should the government tax the

receipts of some churches or temples or whatever, synagogues, and

not others in a country where government permits or encourages

discrimination in employment based on religion? Can that be said

to be respecting freedom of religion and practice?

Mr. SEIPLE. Well, this is discrimination. I think the international

covenants are—again, all four of these countries should be familiar;

they are signatories to them, they are members of the global community—as it relates to these documents, very, very clear that you

do not discriminate on the basis of thought, conscience and belief.

That is fairly broad; it was intended to be broad. So anytime that

you have a minority faith, minority thought, a minority belief that

is exposed to these kinds of abuses, it is against the covenants and

the international instruments that they have already signed. These

instruments, by and large, have been put in place so that governVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:06 Jan 08, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 68022.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
11

ments would protect minority faiths, and ultimately, a government

is determined in terms of its human rights records by how it treats

its minority faiths.

So all of this is very much tied to these international instruments.

Chairman GILMAN. Ambassador Seiple, does the administration

believe that Windows 2000 is being boycotted in Germany because

of Mr. Jensen’s religion, and what, if anything, can we or are we

doing about that, and what are we doing proactively about these

sect filters as they relate to employment in Germany and does the

administration work actively to counter French or German antisect

activists when they appear in countries in Eastern Europe?

Mr. SEIPLE. The Jensen case, we do follow—have been following.

We feel it is outrageous. We feel it is far-fetched. It is the ultimate

in paranoia, but it is a good example of the excesses, of the overreach, of what happens when these things are allowed to happen

under the impunity offered by a government that has not come

down hard on the right side of this issue.

Yes, we follow this; yes, we have spoken here and abroad with

the Germans about the sect filters and the potential, the obvious

potential—not only the potential, the reality for discrimination

against a religion because of it; and we will continue to do that.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ambassador. Ambassador, what

will our reaction be if the French adopt a law which would allow

easy dissolution of sects and which criminalizes ‘‘mental manipulation?’’ Mr. SEIPLE. If I understand your question, the easy dissolution

of sects by the French, the problem we have had from the beginning is, this rather large, indiscriminate list of 173 different organizations. They had been put on that list because of a Commission

report that was commissioned by the government. No one knows

how they got on that list. No one knows the criteria or the definitions that were used to be placed on that list, and then the Commission after filing its report is put out of business and there is no

way to get off the list.

So we have this huge list floating out there with the potential

for discrimination, and some of the acts that many of you have already mentioned—individual discrimination against jobs, of

threats, harassments, all kinds of things—we have met with a

number of the people who are on this list, talked to them, continue

to meet with them and continue to guide them as to what might

happen. We have also spent a great deal of time with the French

asking the French to meet with them and not let this thing simply

hang out there.

There is some good news to report on the part of the French.

Cooler heads seemed to be starting to prevail and at the various

senior levels of government we see a different attitude toward this;

and hopefully, this attitude of intolerance that has been fostered in

times past will begin to be ameliorated, we will have a different

kind of resolution to this particular issue.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ambassador Seiple.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask you, one,

what is the impact of the European Union? Are there attempts by

12

the European Union to set up a standardized procedure to deal

with these kinds of issues?

Mr. SEIPLE. Well, it is a place for them to go and take issues.

It is a place for any member of the Union to bring them up. Like

all of these cases, we need specifics and we need to put the specifics

through a specific process in order to find out if the process is going

to deliver the right answers to people who are suffering for their

faith; and I would say that is also the case where the European——

Mr. GEJDENSON. They haven’t begun to do it.

Mr. SEIPLE. It has not been the player that the OSCE folks have

been.

Mr. GEJDENSON. If I was sitting in Europe—and I can look back

and argue that here in the United States, I can’t remember the

year, but it wasn’t until the Scientologists won in court in 1993

that we gave them the ‘‘normal status,’’ I guess you could say.

One, how do we view their situation as different than ours in the

sense that, you know, we obviously have our tax court that creates

hurdles for people who join together—some are accepted as religious, some aren’t—and how do we then look at the Europeans and

say, well, you have got a process, but we don’t like it? What is the

difference there?

Mr. SEIPLE. Well, they have a process. They have a very mature

juridical process, judicial process. The fact is, they haven’t put their

money where their mouth is. These are issues that have been floating around for years, and they haven’t been taken to court and decided in court, and our feeling has been either put up or shut up.

If you believe this is wrong or if you believe a particular sect is

harmful to the government or harmful to the health, or is brainwashing people or is a traitor to democracy, whatever the thing is

that is being floated out there, take it to court and decide it. You

have got the maturity of the court system to do that.

But the fact is that none of them, none of these issues go that

far, and so they continue to be innuendos.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Part of what I have seen in the past are pamphlets by, I think, one of the conservative political parties that

were clearly reminiscent of the depiction of Jewish people or Jewish beliefs by the Nazis; but it wasn’t the government. And so, you

know, how do we—one, what is the government response?

I know in this country we generally get a very clear statement

that government officials and the government finds offensive the

actions of the Nazi party or the Ku Klux Klan. I think generally

there is a revulsion officially and individually by legislative members.

What has the German Government done in response to those

pamphlets? I think you are familiar with them, with the ‘‘fly swatter’’ and what have you, you know, killing Scientologists. What has

been the government’s official response to the political party that

has issued those pamphlets?

Mr. SEIPLE. As far as I know, it is not enough—hasn’t done

enough.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Has it done anything?

Mr. SEIPLE. Normally what happens to get this thing to a higher

level and, normally, to a level of some sanity is that it comes from

13

within the state; it comes from the people. It has to happen from

within.

At the same time, we bring all of this to the attention of our

interlocutors on the German side and say, these are things that are

sticking out there. You have a very highly developed judicial system. The rest of Europe looks to you, Germany, in the implementation of law; and if you cannot abide by the international covenants

that you have already signed up to, this sends absolutely the wrong

signal.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Has the German Government done anything in

response to these pamphlets that are not issued by governmental

organizations? Do they take any actions either rhetorically or legally against them? Is there a legal course they could take?

Mr. SEIPLE. Well, they generally push them down to the state

level.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And what do the states do?

Mr. SEIPLE. That depends on the state. There are some States

like Hamburg, Berlin, Bavaria, that are very anti-Scientology, and

you can pretty much guess what is going to happen there. So this

goes back and forth. It is a little bit of legislative buck-passing.

We don’t feel good about it. We speak out against it. We have

been forceful again with our interlocutors on all of these issues, but

ultimately I think the society in Germany is going to have to, as

they have in other parts of Europe, rise up and make these same

statements.

Mr. GEJDENSON. What does the national government do if there

are anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim activities, activities against religions that they recognize? Does the national government take action? Does that also go to the state government?

Mr. SEIPLE. Well, I would think—I don’t know the specific answer to that, but I would imagine there would be such a public outcry that both national and state governments would have to respond.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. Salmon.

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ambassador Seiple, wonderful to have you here today. I just have

a couple of questions, and the first one is, I have been working on

this for the last 5 years that I have been in Congress, and I know

that there had been some activity before that and the talk doesn’t

seem to be working. In fact, it is not getting better; it is getting

worse, and it is expanding to other countries.

When we started working on this several years ago, it seemed

isolated, seemed more isolated in maybe Germany and Austria, but

it seems that some of the other countries are being emboldened by

a lack of standing up to this; and I am wondering, is there any

other recourse that we as a nation can take? For instance, in the

Jensen example that Mr. Gejdenson brought up, or I believe it was

the Chairman, brought up, that seems to me to be a violation of

our trade agreements when American businesses are adversely impacted by these countries.

Is that not something that can be brought before the WTO, and

should it be, and who has the responsibility to do that?

14

And second, I know when we have had human rights concerns

with other countries, we have brought up resolutions at the United

Nations, or at some of the U.N. Committees, we have brought up

resolutions. Have we considered doing that, bringing up a U.N.

Resolution? And I say this because it appears that what we are

doing is not working.

What more can we do and do you have any recommendations for

the Congress? Is there something that we can do since it appears

that the problem isn’t getting better, it is getting worse?

Thank you.

Mr. SEIPLE. Well, there are a number of questions in your comments. This may be the darkness before the dawn as well. We see

some progress in France. We were very concerned that this had

been personalized in such a way that all dialogue was going to be

lost on this subject. Countries claim their sovereignty on these

issues and, of course, an American trying to tell a Frenchman

sometimes does not go over, as good as we think our intentions

have been.

But there has been progress. What we are talking about here are

the tactics, what do you do. I think there are two points of discernment on truth. One is, what is actually going on in France, Germany, Belgium and Austria? Listening to your opening comments,

all of you, I think we are right on board with all of that. Yes, we

agree, these are the issues as they have been spelled out. Now,

what do we do about them?

They are our allies. Do we get a lot more done by hitting them

over the head publicly, ranting and raving or whatever? Do we do

a better job talking softly and sustain that conversation over a long

period of time?

We have certainly had these discussions with the OSCE. We

have been very, very bold. The Helsinki folks have been part of

that, you know, naming names, pointing fingers, everything has

been right out there. Again, resistance, step back, put their feet in

the ground.

You mentioned the trade issues. The Title VII report that comes

out from the U.S. Trade Representative mandated on a yearly

basis, as of last year, May 1999, started to mention the problems

with sect filters and the potential for problems; and that is a direction we may have to go at some point if the case exists on the procurement side that discrimination has taken place on the basis of

religion.

So these are complicated issues. I can only assure that we are

as passionate about these things as you are and are constantly

hammering these things home. Many times, we do it much more

quietly than people would like, and I think at that point, folks do

have to judge whether it is helping, it is good, it is time for a tactical change.

This is a group that flew with us in Kosovo. They flew with us

in Kosovo on a human rights issue, a moral imperative. We weren’t

fighting that war together to gain oil or to get land or anything

else. It was a moral imperative. They understand that; they should

understand this. And we try to take those kinds of principles and

develop our arguments from them.

15

Again, I am more optimistic about this because of the attention

it is getting because of the attention of a hearing like this. I think

things are beginning to move our way.

Muslims in France, for example, have an easier time. Some of

the Scientology questions in France are being quietly adjudicated

and in favor of Scientology. These are good markers to look at. But

we will continue to monitor and continue to pursue, and where we

have to raise our voice, we have not been accused of being shy.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Manzullo.

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. I appreciate your coming here.

I think the United States is too timid. This doesn’t make sense.

There is an official document from the German Government saying

that they are going to discriminate against people based upon the

fact that they belong to the Scientology Church. We seem to be

splitting hairs here on whether or not the Germans are saying this

is, in fact, a government or it is a type of business practice.

There has been absolutely no proof that this ‘‘business practice,’’ to use their words, is hurting or endangering any trade issues. I

think for the U.S. Government to waste time on whether or not

this is a religious issue or simply another nontariff barrier put up

by the Germans is a waste of time, and I would suggest that what

we do is immediately file for a panel, have this thing adjudicated

in the WTO. That takes a long enough time.

I have got a document here that we were just furnished from the

State Department on the background for—the title, ‘‘Background

from 2000 Title VII Report.’’ The last sentence says, ‘‘Commerce

will seek to resolve the issue through bilateral contacts with senior

German trade officials,’’ etc.

Well, excuse me, but we have the tools, we have the WTO; and

I think there should be a world fleshing of this issue. I think the

Germans should be held to account in the strongest terms possible,

that we should use the strongest possible measures of the United

States now before more injury is done to our business interests and

to Mr. Jensen’s company. I think that is the only way the Germans

are going to understand this issue.

Sure, they flew with us in Kosovo. That is really important. We

also fought to liberate Kuwait, and they have turned their backs

on us and they are jacking up the price of gasoline; that is how

they say thank you to the United States. And I think the only way

that this Nation can stand as a beacon for religious freedom is to

insist in the strongest terms possible, through a WTO panel, to get

this thing going, get the gears moving, because I am sure we would

win it on that basis, as opposed to going along on some bilateral

context.

Your comments?

Mr. SEIPLE. Well, I would be happy to take that recommendation

back and give it to the appropriate people to follow through on. The

fact is, we yet do not have a specific case under this Title VII report, and when we get a specific case, then it can be pursued.

Mr. MANZULLO. We have a written policy.

Mr. SEIPLE. But you don’t have a specific case to put against the

policy.

16

My point is only this: I think it is premature to call them timid

when they haven’t been able to apply what is now in the report.

When a specific case comes, then if we sit on the sidelines or do

less than our duty, then I think it would be fair to say we haven’t

used the power that is at our disposal.

Mr. MANZULLO. So Mr. Jensen, in his testimony, can state that

his company has lost any percentage of market share of one contract with the Germans, then what you are saying is that that

would be a sufficient threshold showing of damage to bring a panel

under the WTO?

Mr. SEIPLE. I don’t think I said that, but I would like to take

your suggestion on the WTO and put it against this particular incident which has not yet been formulated into a case on the Federal

level that is noted under our Title VII U.S. trade agreements.

Mr. MANZULLO. Whenever the Scientologists have brought actions in Germany, the courts there don’t have the precedential

power that we have in our country so they get thwarted in terms

of whether or not the court system can protect them. But my understanding also is that the officially recognized religions, the German Government exacts the 8 percent tithe from the people who

belong to the organized religions. They run the money through the

government, and then the government doles that back out to the

individual churches.

Mr. SEIPLE. That’s right.

Mr. MANZULLO. That being the case, this appears to be the fact

that perhaps they are concerned about the fact that people who

would be attending the Scientology philosophy would drop out of

belonging to one of these officially organized churches, just making

this an internal revenue issue for Germany. That, in turn, I think

could be used to show there’s still another NTB, nontariff barrier,

that they are using to exclude American products.

We need to expose this big time and put ultimate pressure on

Germany to get them to back off, to get them to rescind that ridiculous contract on government procurement. I am going to send a letter to the German ambassador to do that.

Whenever I meet with the members of the EU—this might even

be a violation of the EU agreement itself among the member countries, but we need to explore on the heaviest basis everything to

nip this type of religious persecution in the bud now, before people

are really hurt.

Mr. SEIPLE. I have no disagreement with that.

Mr. MANZULLO. I appreciate your coming here. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Manzullo.

Ms. Lee.

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just ask you very quickly a question with regard to our

foreign policy and the relationship between religious discrimination

and treatment of minorities and government policies such as we

have toward a country which we feel, or we believe, is engaged in

religious repression, such as Cuba. When do you think that should

kick in, if it should kick in, in terms of sanctions and embargo?

When should the mistreatment of religious minorities be the basis

for us looking at a country to sanction or to embargo, such as we

have, like I said, for 40 years against Cuba?

17

Mr. SEIPLE. I am in agreement with many of the comments that

have just been made in terms of when we kick in on the discrimination of minority faiths. I think as soon as we hear it for the first

time, as soon as it is intimated, as soon as there is any sense that

we have a situation that could go further south, so to speak, we

have got to yell loud and long. I think we have learned this from

our Jewish colleagues in terms of anti-Semitic remarks that are

made and examples of that throughout the world.

To sit back and to wait, or to assume someone else is going to

take it up for you—we are the strongest nation in the world, we

are the last remaining superpower. And we now have legislation to

the point of sanctions; they are very specific sanctions that are

pointed out in the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act. And

that is the guideline. It is a high bar; it is a very high bar. We are

not talking about that bar relative to these four countries.

I think it is very fair to talk about the various avenues that we

have, either from jawboning, the demarching, the role of diplomacy,

to things like the WTO as was just mentioned.

I am a Marine. I believe, when in doubt, you attack simultaneously on all fronts. I think that, yes, you pull out the stops and

you make sure that this kind of religious discrimination that we

have historical evidence for, where it has started in places in times

past with all kinds of really terrible things taking place because no

one stood up at the outset.

Ms. LEE. But then the high bar, when should the high bar kick

in?

Mr. SEIPLE. Well the high bar in the International Religious

Freedom Act is when a country either engages in or tolerates specific language, engages in or tolerates in an ongoing systematic and

egregious way. So there has to be intentionality, there has to be

pattern, and there has to be egregious behavior which gets further

defined under the heading of persecution.

It is very high. It is kidnappings, it is rape, it is general mayhem. It is long-term imprisonments and tortures without charges.

Again, we don’t have that situation here, so this is not the sanction, this is not the bar that we would use to go after and make

our point and put teeth into it with the Germans or the French.

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Ms. Lee.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome Ambassador Seiple and commend him on the extraordinarily good job

he is doing on behalf of religious freedom and speaking out, as he

has, and traveling as extensively as he has been. He and his staff

are doing an extraordinarily good job, and I want to recognize that,

and thank you for that great work.

Mr. Ambassador, you probably saw, or may have seen on today’s

wire, the Agence France Presse reports that the law committee of

the French parliament is considering the bill sponsored by the Socialist Party that would create a new crime of what they call mental manipulation and establish civil and criminal penalties for activities by religious or philosophical groups that the government officials deem to be unacceptable.

18

As you know, this is the latest French parliamentary action to

threaten religious liberty of French citizens, and our commission,

in its ongoing dialogue with the French, are urging that they reject

this legislation and you might want to comment on that and other

developments as you have in your written testimony as well with

regards to France.

I also again want to highlight for the record the case which I believe illustrates our concern, the Grace Evangelical church in

Nimes which is affiliated with the Southern Baptists was listed by

the French parliament as a dangerous group in 1997. Since then

they have experienced continued harassment and discrimination

such as the church being refused commercial bank loans, members

losing their jobs and cars being torched in the parking lot of the

church. Clearly the French parliaments listing of a church in

Nimes and the continuation of the policies of intolerance have a

negative effect on religious liberty in France and similar stories as

you pointed out in your testimony can be told as we have heard in

ongoing hearings in our Helsinki Commission, can be told about

other Western countries.

I want to point out that there is, and we have been you know,

I talked to the Ambassadors and visiting delegations frequently

from Western European countries, Eastern European countries and

central European countries, but further east where the rule of law

is not that well established, they continually cite the examples of

place countries like Austria as justification for their laws. Russia,

Uzbekistan, Romania, Ukraine and Belarus have restrictive laws

and I was wondering if you might tell the Committee if there’s a

model law in any of those countries, any of the countries of Europe

that is positive because again I think the zeitgeist, the move is toward a tightening rather than a relaxation toward religious freedom.

I plan on bringing it up and our delegation will bring it up at

the OSCE parliamentary assembly in Bucharest in July. We plan

on being very vigorous in that, but is there any example of countries where rather than saying look at Austria because I can’t tell

you how many times I have heard that, I am sure you have heard

that as well, we are just following in Austria’s footsteps or

France’s. Is there a country that is a model that they might look

at? And of course, the United States shouldn’t be exempt from your

answer.

Mr. SEIPLE. Yeah. Well, we are all working on this and we all

have laws and maybe even enough laws on the books, not only our

own laws but the international covenants that we have signed.

The question is not so much the laws. It is how they are being

implemented. We have the same laws in many respects in Sweden

as we have in Germany. The Swedes have done it differently. At

point of implementation they have taken a gentler, kinder route

that also corresponds to what they have signed up for on the international side, and I think that is what we have to call them to account for.

Inherent in the international instruments is the concept of mutual accountability. That is while I feel emboldened to go into Paris

and say you have got this wrong and by the way if you want to

come to the states and pick on us that is OK too, but that is what

19

it means to be a part of the international community as it relates

to the human rights and you are absolutely right on the examples.

When something like this goes wrong in an established democracy,

especially democracies that take great pride in their history of tolerance, we have a number of the rogue States or semi rogue States

point to that and say you know, they do it, why don’t we do it, you

have one relationship there, another relationship here. Inhuman

rights, inconsistency is the Achilles heel, and if we are not fair and

right about all of these countries in our approach to them as it relates to human rights, we will get into trouble.

The new French law or the new French proposal I should say at

the outset that this kind of legislation has floundered in the past.

Obviously we hope that this flounders as well. We just heard about

it yesterday. We talked about it in the state Department yesterday.

We are on this thing. The down side potential could be nasty. We

are optimistic. We think that this may only be proposed and not

see the ultimate light of day.

In terms of pastor Demeo and the work that he does down in

Nimes we have been extremely close to him as you have been. I

have met with he and his wife on a number of occasions. They are

coming at the end of this month. We will meet again. He has been

a great person to converse with in terms of the specifics because

he is at the end of the food chain. He’s on the sect list, never

should have been there. So he is a good example for us to use.

What we would like just as a starting point would be for the

French Government officials who are most interested in this battle

against sects to sit down with pastor Demeo and tell him why he

is on this list. I think that would bring a lot of these things to a

head. To date unfortunately the French have not done that.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, at one of our hearings, we had Willy

Fautre, the Director of Human Rights Without Frontiers, from Belgium, and he went into great explanation of the impact of freemasonry, European freemasonry on this movement toward—kind of

startled me, because I had not done all that much research about

what Freemasons are doing in Europe, but he talked about many

of their people being behind some of these laws.

What is your take on that? Do you have any information on that?

Mr. SEIPLE. I would not venture that at all. It might be and may

not be, but it would be a very unprofessional to suggest that if I

don’t have the information.

These are mature governments. They push back, whether it is

the Freemasons or some other interest group, they can push back

if they want.

I do think, and I have said this before, I do think that there is

a change in climate in France, and I do think, given their history

and their proud history of tolerance and the growing understanding, that they are into something that doesn’t portray them

in their best light to the rest of the world and to Frenchmen. I

think we are going to see changes; I think we have started to see

changes. Again, that doesn’t stop us from monitoring, and this potential for new legislation makes that point.

Mr. SMITH. Again, getting to what may be sources, if you or your

staff could at least look into that to see if there’s any validity, that

would be helpful to be part of the record.

20

Mr. SEIPLE. We would be happy to.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ambassador, we thank you for being here

but before you go, I know one of our Members has an additional

question. I am going to ask Dr. Cooksey to preside. I have to attend

another meeting for a few minutes, and I will return.

Dr. Cooksey.

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just ask the Ambassador a general question, and I know

we are concentrating today and focusing on the treatment of religious minorities in Western Europe, but I am just curious in terms

of your knowledge with regard to any debate or concerns over the

treatment of ethnic minorities in Western Europe.

I lived in Great Britain for a couple of years in the 1960’s, and

being an ethnic minority during that period was quite challenging,

to say the least. I haven’t been following this issue very closely,

and since you are here and we are dealing with very important

issue in terms of religious minorities, I am just wondering, as you

do your work and as you travel, how things are going; or is there

concern or debate at this point in Western Europe with regard to

ethnic minorities?

Mr. SEIPLE. I have been in many of the capitals on this issue and

talked with the NGO’s, the human rights, faith-based communities.

I have not heard—this is not to say it doesn’t exist, but I have not

heard a concern in this regard. Whether that is good news or simply people are talking about other things I don’t know. We would

be happy to look into it and get back to you on it.

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much.

Mr. SEIPLE. I think it is an appropriate question, but we have

not run into that in Western Europe as it relates to my portfolio

and my position.

Ms. LEE. I would like to get some more information on it if you

have it. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. COOKSEY [presiding]. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr.

Tancredo, has a question.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just briefly, Ambassador Seiple, I am wondering as I sit here

and listen to your discussion and your analysis, how we should go

about trying to identify those behaviors on the part of governments, that we deem to be inappropriate as they relate to these

particular religious entities within their countries. And it is apparent that it is quite difficult, because we are continually addressing

them on an individual basis and we seem not to have a way of establishing some overall framework in order to analyze actions of

each government. Therefore, we can’t really do anything except go

to each one and say, we don’t like it when you do this.

But I am wondering if it would not be in our best interest, it

would not satisfy our mutual goal here, to establish as the prime

criterion for our intervention, something that establishes a definition for us to use that is: governments should react only to actions

and not to thought—react to actions, not to thought.

And if that is unacceptable, certainly you would elaborate, I am

sure, broadly upon that; but if that basic understanding is a muVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:06 Jan 08, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 68022.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
21

tual understanding here, what do you think the administration

should do to sort of, you know, implement that worldwide?

Mr. SEIPLE. Well, I think if we reacted to actions, not the

thought, and we demanded actions—certain actions, not thought— we would certainly eliminate a lot of paranoia around these issues.

We would get into a much more real discussion.

We do have frameworks in which to look at this. We have the

framework of the legislation. We have the framework of our office.

We have the framework of the embassy system where there is ongoing daily discussion of these issues, even as we connect maybe

on a less frequent basis. We have got the report, which is the high

court of public opinion because you folks have agreed to print it.

It is not only on the Web site, but it is in hard copy, and these are

countries that are portrayed in here by region and so you can read

the problems that we—— Mr. TANCREDO. And I have—and I don’t mean to interrupt except

to say that I certainly understand the efforts that are ongoing to

deal with the specific problems that are identified in each country.

But it just seems to me that that is a very laborious process that

could be, to some extent, alleviated by a general definition that we

could get everybody to sign onto, that isn’t there in the legislation.

And the legislation, at least that I have seen and that you reference, talks about this issue in a way as to still leave it, I think,

open to some degree of subjectivity; and I just wonder whether or

not we can come up with some language to implement through the

legislation and through EU agreements that would eliminate the

subjectivity, and that is on actions, not thought.

Mr. SEIPLE. I think the quick answer to eliminate subjectivity

may not happen in my lifetime.

We do have lots of words written. There is a series of articles,

article 18s, in the universal declaration, the ICCPR and things that

essentially came out of Europe over the last 50 years. They still

have to be interpreted.

The issue of national sovereignty as it relates to human rights

always has to get interpreted, especially on some of those that can

be most prickly on these issues. I am not sure how you shortcut

that without an ongoing process which exists at many, many levels.

I am glad that our legislation was cast in the framework of the

international covenants. This is not a heavy-handed American approach. It is an American feeling, a strong feeling that we need to

put our considerable shoulder to the wheel of international instruments that are already out there.

But the OSCE does a really fine job. There are formats and forums and conferences and seminars to advance this discussion.

At the same time, we have to use the embassy system. I mean,

it is just too good an infrastructure to bypass when we have people

who know these issues, know the country, the host country, and

can speak on a daily basis about them. And then in terms of the

finitude of resources, I think we have to use all of them that are

at our disposal and come to bear.

Having said that, I don’t see us creating dramatic changes,

wholesale changes. I mean, we wrote a good law. If we sit back and

think that the rest of the 194 countries are waiting for this law to

pass so they could jump in line, it ain’t going to happen. We are

22

going to be taking baby steps, incremental steps, with lots of countries, and it is going to take a long time. It is going to take a lot

of perseverance.

These issues are not going to go away fast whether it is our ally

or our worst enemy. Our commitment is to continue to pursue on

all these levels simultaneously, inasmuch as we have resources to

do, a conclusion that will match thought and activity, will match

words and what they do, and people will begin to see this is a good

thing, this is in their best interest.

I can’t believe for a second that these four democracies in Western Europe enjoy being on the short end of the discussion, but we

have a better philosophical rationale for what we are saying than

for them to answer. It must be hard for them to make this case.

I can only imagine that they are looking for ways that they can

change over time without the sense that the Americans jammed it

down their throats.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Ambassador. I appreciate it.

Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. I want to thank you

for appearing before this panel. I was looking at your resume. You

have a very impressive resume and I see that you were a warrior

and a fighter pilot and our careers overlapped at the same time.

Yours was a lot more illustrious than mine was. I was in the Air

Force. I personally feel that warriors make the best peacemakers,

and you have obviously been a leader in theology at the seminary,

and that, too, I think makes you a great witness. I appreciate your

comments; I appreciate your being here. The Committee appreciates your being here, and you will be excused and we will have

the next panel seated. Thank you.

I will call on the witnesses in the following order: Dr. Gunn, the

Reverend L’Heureux, Mr. Brumley, Dr. Hunt, Mr. Jensen, Ms. Bell.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I think Ms. Bell is unaware that

there is a seat for her at the table.

Mr. COOKSEY. On our next panel, the first witness is Mr. Jeremy

Gunn. Mr. Gunn has looked at issues of religious liberty from the

perspectives of the U.S. Institute of Peace and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. He has published widely

on this subject.

We are happy he was recommended to us by the Committee minority. So, Dr. Gunn.

STATEMENT OF T. JEREMY GUNN, J.D., Ph.D., GUEST

SCHOLAR, U.S. INSTITUTE OF PEACE

Mr. GUNN. It is an honor to be here to provide testimony today.

During World War II, Felix Chevrier arrived in the small French

town of Chabannes for the purpose of renovating an abandoned

chateau to house and school Jewish refugee children from Eastern

Europe.

While Monsieur Chevrier and the good people of Chabannes

risked their lives to save the refugee children, the French Vichy

Government sent police into the villages of France to arrest Jews.

By October 1940, the Vichy Government issued a law defining Jews

and prohibiting them from holding certain types of employment, including positions in government, law, the police, the army, the

23

press and teaching. The law subsequently expanded to prohibit

Jews from engaging in most forms of commerce.

Jews were condemned as a group simply because they belonged

to the group. Such is the peculiar logic of prejudice. It does not require individual culpability; it requires only the accusation that a

person is a member of the condemned class.

The Vichy Government ultimately was responsible for arresting,

transporting and delivering to the Nazis tens of thousands of European Jews. In stark contrast, all but four of Monsieur Chevrier’s

400 Jewish children survived the war.

One of Monsieur Chevrier’s colleagues, Dr. Meiseles, had previously treated children who were housed in French concentration

camps before he came to Chabannes. In 1942, while the war raged,

he wrote, to examine the children of Chabannes after having examined the children in the concentration camps is to know in our sad

times the two faces of France. The true one is here in Chabannes

where Monsieur Chevrier is working with such beautiful success to

cure the misdeeds of the other.

Unfortunately, France, like all countries of the world—and I include the United States—has two faces, the face of courage and toleration and the face of discrimination.

There are several obstacles to the internationally recognized freedom of religion and belief in France and other Western European

countries, but before criticizing them, it is also important to recognize that these governments and people in Western Europe generally believe in the rule of law and human rights. Much to their

credit, virtually all European States have ratified the European

Convention on Human Rights, and the people of these countries

have the option of taking complaints to the European Court of

Human Rights.

Although I will devote the bulk of my testimony to the problem

of new religious movements, this Committee should not be under

the impression that this is the only or necessarily the most important of the obstacles to freedom of religion and belief in Western

Europe. Without attempting to rank the problems in order, three

other salient and interrelated problems of freedom of religion and

belief in Western Europe are, first, the incorporation of Muslims

into society; second, laws that discriminate among religions; and

third, societal attitudes of intolerance, including anti-Semitism.

But the one issue that has received increasing notice during the

past few years in Europe is what may be called the ‘‘antisect movement.’’

The most serious problem regarding the antisect movement in

Western Europe is in France. In 1998, the French Government established an agency entitled, unsubtly, the Interministerial Mission

to Battle Against Sects. The mission is now headed by the former

French foreign minister, Monsieur Alain Vivien. During the past

few years, the French National Assembly also has issued prejudicial reports on so-called ‘‘sects’’ that are shockingly unscientific.

Widely supported bills, currently pending in the French legislature,

including one that was mentioned a few moments ago, call for increasingly severe measures against sects.

I will describe two interrelated problems of the official antisect

movement in France to illustrate how a legitimate concern for

24

human welfare can be diverted toward the taking of illogical and

discriminatory action.

First, the language of prejudice uses pejorative terms as an appeal to the listener’s bias. The most commonly employed term by

the antisect movement is, of course, the term ‘‘sect,’’ which plays

a role similar to that of racial epithets.

One common tactic by some in the antisect movement is to accuse their ideological opponents of being members or fellow travelers of the scorned groups. I personally witnessed one telling example of this tactic by the president of the interministerial mission,

himself, against a member of an official U.S. delegation in France.

In April 1999, a three-person delegation sponsored by the U.S.

Department of State Office of International Religious Freedom

went to France and other European countries. Shortly before the

meeting, we were advised that the president of this new interministerial mission had declined our request to meet with him. He did

so on the grounds that one of the members of our delegation was

affiliated with the Church of Scientology.

Now, I am not a Scientologist and I knew that the other two participants, Dr. David Little and Karen Lord, Council for Religious

Freedom at the congressional Helsinki Commission, were not

Scientologists.

The president later decided that he would, in fact, meet with us,

but as we were introduced to him, he remarked that he, ‘‘already

knew who Ms. Lord was and that he did not need to be introduced

to her.’’ Later in the meeting, following a question by Ms. Lord, the

president said that he would not respond to her, but would give a

response to the head of the U.S. delegation. Subsequently, Monsieur Vivien has repeated publicly on several occasions that a member of this three-person delegation was affiliated with the Church

of Scientology.

Monsieur Vivien’s assertion is, in a word, false. I am certain that

he cannot prove his assertion. I challenge him to provide evidence

to support it or to issue an apology to Ms. Lord and the United

States.

The most important issue, however, is not that Monsieur Vivien

made a false statement that was designed to discredit Ms. Lord or

the United States Efforts to promote religious freedom. The important issue is that his manner of responding to questions about religious discrimination exemplifies the tactics of much of the antisect

campaign, the use of uninformed, provocative and false allegations

for the purpose of discrediting people and groups.

His ad hominem attack was not an aberration. It has unfortunately become a standard rhetorical device to discredit those who

believe that the antisect movement is going too far. I give some additional examples in my prepared testimony.

The language of prejudice also reveals itself in the use of such

terms as, ‘‘infiltration’’ to describe the real or imagined employment

of a ‘‘sect member’’ in a business or government office. Whereas if

Catholics or members of the Reformed Church teach in school or

work for Electricite de France, they are called ‘‘employees,’’ but if

they are members of the groups under attack, they are called ‘‘infiltrators.’’ This is the use simply of pejorative language.

25

Second, there are illogical methods of prejudice that come into

play, and I would like to identify four now. One, the methods of

prejudice do not consult scholars familiar with issues related to

new religious movements, but rely instead on antisect activists. By

failing to consult scholars, the report, particularly in France and

Belgium, presents an ahistorical and caricatured view of new religious movements.

Two, the reports in the antisect movement rely on statements

made by accusers and disgruntled former members, but they refuse

to accept the considerable evidence that most, although not all, adherence of the new religious movements generally report positive

and beneficial experiences with the groups. This was, in fact, the

conclusion of both the Swedish and the German Governments’ investigations into new religious movements.

In a telling repudiation of this methodology employed by the

antisect movement, a French court recently found Jacques Guyard,

president of the 1999 parliamentary investigation, called ‘‘The Finances of Sect,’’ libel himself for defamation against

anthroposophy. As reported by the newspaper, Le Monde, the court

held that his parliamentary report and his statement was not ‘‘a

serious investigation.’’ Monsieur Guyard, for making the statement

about anthroposophists, was fined 20,000 francs and ordered to pay

90,000 francs in damages.

The French antisect movement typically refuses to engage in dialogue with the groups they are attacking. This refusal to engage in

a discussion with the groups that are under attack is an approach

very different from that recommended by the Swedish Government,

for example, which strongly recommends dialogue with groups

rather than polarization of the issues. That is also the recommendation made by the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Three, the principal documentary evidence in the French reports

are secret allegations contained in the files of the Renseignements

Generaux, the security division of the French police.

Four, the reports use examples of alleged misdeeds of some people in some groups and then broadly condemn the entire group, or

even sects generally. The fallacy of this type of analysis can be easily illustrated by reference to the recent criminal conviction of

Jacques Guyard himself. The spring has not been kind to Monsieur

Guyard, being sentenced to having committed a criminal offense

and defamation against religious minorities. The same Monsieur

Guyard who condemned in 1999 the fraud committed by sects was

ironically convicted by a French court in May of this year for influence peddling and was sentenced to 1 year in prison and fined

100,000 francs. If we were to apply the same analysis to Monsieur

Guyard that he applies to the new religious movements, we would

then need to hold the entire——

Chairman GILMAN [presiding]. Dr. Gunn, I would just like to interrupt you. You are exceeding your time and I would hope you

could summarize your statement. Thank you.

Mr. GUNN. Yes, thank you. It would be the same as holding the

entire French interministerial mission responsible for the actions of

Monsieur Guyard.

26

I would like to make four short recommendations. First, the Department of State should monitor much more closely and vigorously

antisect movements on both bilateral and multilateral basis.

Second, based upon my experience working in the State Department, I must also suggest that Congress take seriously its responsibility for fully funding the State Department. From my own observations, personnel in the State Department are overworked and

undersupported. There’s a need for more time and resources in the

State Department.

Third, Congress could assist the Department by promoting genuine international approaches to human rights.

Fourth, I believe that the religious community in the United

States can be much more helpful in supporting religious freedom

abroad. While all faiths in the United States can help, those that

are widely practiced and respected in Europe, particularly Catholicism, Lutheranism, Orthodoxy and the Reformed Church can play

a very helpful role in promoting tolerance.

I don’t know how long the antisect movement is going to continue

in France. The Vichy Government continued in France for 4 years,

and I hope the life of the antisect movement does not have much

longer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gunn appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Dr. Gunn.

Just one admonition to our panelists. Since time is running and

we want to hear from all of you and then we want to have a dialogue with our Members, I am going to ask if you would try to keep

within the 5-minute rule that we have. Your full statements have

been made part of the record.

We will now proceed to our next panelist, The Reverend N.J.

‘‘Skip’’ L’Heureux. The Reverend L’Heureux is Executive Director

of the Queens, New York, Federation of Churches and Moderator

of the Religious Liberty Committee of the National Council of

Churches of Christ in the United States. He is a Methodist pastor

with wide experience in ecumenical work and religious freedom

questions.

We welcome your proceeding, Mr. L’Heureux.

STATEMENT OF THE REVEREND N.J. L’HEUREUX, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, QUEENS FEDERATION OF CHURCHES

Reverend L’HEUREUX. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members

of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today about

the worsening problem of religious intolerance in France, and I will

present here a short summary of my testimony.

It was 343 years ago on December 27, 1657, that residents of

Flushing, Queens, began a letter to then-Governor Peter

Stuyvesant by declaring ‘‘You have been pleased to send up unto

us a certain prohibition or command that we should not receive or

entertain any of those people called Quakers because they are supposed to be, by some, seducers of the people. For our part, we cannot condemn them.’’

The Flushing Remonstrance is the earliest declaration of religious liberty on these shores, focused on securing that liberty not

27

just for self, but for individuals and groups other than the ones

making the declaration.

France is a signatory to international human rights laws protecting religious freedom. Unfortunately, the French Government

policy is so far in violation of these tenets that its officials have set

up an office called the Interministerial Mission to Fight Against

Sects, commonly known as MILS. MILS has drawn deep from the

wells of hostility fueled by the American anticult movement and by

its long campaign of militia vilification of new or religious religions.

In France, a 1996 parliamentary commission report stigmatized

some 173 religious movements with the pejorative label of ‘‘sect,’’

including the Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh

Day Adventists. We notice, as well, that there is discrimination visited in France upon the Muslim community.

The U.S. State Department’s Annual Report for Religious Freedom, published last September, criticized this commission report on

the grounds ‘‘It contributed to an atmosphere of intolerance and

bias against minority religions.’’

Earlier this year, as has been noted, the Rapporteur of the Parliamentary Commission was himself convicted by a Paris court and

denounced for research methods counted by the court as ‘‘not serious.’’ And yet the blacklist of this 173 movement continues to circulate and is used to justify discrimination against the groups.

In March, I was a member of an expert panel in a nongovernmental hearing in Paris which drew more than 300 people from 38

minority religious movements to describe the discrimination to

which they had been subjected. I and the other members of the

panel were shocked at what we heard, because it was evident that

these individuals were being targeted solely because of their religious beliefs.

I felt it necessary to bring the situation to the attention of a

wider audience and then sought to place a series of paid advertisements in French newspapers in the form of Open Letters to senior

French officials. The Open Letters focused attention on the violations of European and international human rights standards

caused by MILS, and they were, in turn, signed by some 52 religious and human rights leaders, mostly American.

Four major national newspapers in France refused to publish

them. Only the national paper, France Soir, agreed to run them,

and on April 20 published our Open Letter to the President

Jacques Chirac.

American signatories of these ads included Lee Boothby, of the

International Commission for Human Conscience; Dr. Derek Davis,

Director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Relations at

Baylor University; the board of the First church of Christ, Scientist

in Boston; Dr. Franklin H. Littell, Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Richard Stockton College in New Jersey; Dr. David

Little of the Harvard Divinity School; Melissa Rogers, General

Counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs; and representatives of many Christian, Muslim and Jewish faith communities.

Such was the furor following publication of this Open Letter that

although France Soir had agreed to run the third letter a week

28

later, the paper not only reneged, but the chief editor publicly stated that he had published this letter on April 20 by mistake.

It is against this background that we come to a recent and most

disturbing development in France to date, the proposed bill pending now before the National Assembly about which much has been

said. That bill is the subject of an Open Letter published today in

the International Herald Tribune, a letter addressed to Prime Minister Lionel Jospin saying it is a flagrant violation of fundamental

human rights standards in that it singles out and targets members

of minority religions even as a special category of citizens.

The bill’s title proclaims its discriminatory intent, ‘‘Law Proposal

Aimed at Reinforcing the Prevention and the Repression of Groups

With Sectarian Character.’’ The proposed law is essentially the

product of the hysteria about minority faiths brought about by

MILS and its president, Alain Vivien.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge you and the Members of the Committee to make the strongest possible representations to the French

Government that should this law pass, it will place in question

France’s commitment to the Helsinki Accords. Such a law would be

a cancer on French democracy. Only by sending a strong and unmistakable signal of Congress’ intent to take firm measures against

violations of international human rights codes will we be able to

succeed in halting these reverses for religious freedom in Europe.

I thank you very much for hearing my testimony, and I will be

happy in the dialogue to respond to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Reverend L’Heureux appears in the

appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very much, Reverend L’Heureux.

We appreciate your reference to the work of our New York ancestors as well.

We will now move on to the next witness, Philip Brumley, General Counsel of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mr. Brumley has traveled all

over the world in support of religious liberty.

We thank you, Mr. Brumley, for being here today, and you may

now proceed.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP BRUMLEY, ESQ., GENERAL COUNSEL,

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

Mr. BRUMLEY. Good morning, Chairman Gilman and Congressman Gejdenson and to all of you on the House Committee on International Relations.

Today happens to be a very special day. Most of you will know

that it is Flag Day. It is also a special day for all lovers of religious

freedom because it marks the 57th anniversary of an historic Supreme Court decision, West Virginia v. Barnette. In that case, the

Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to force children

of Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the flag. Most do not understand

nor necessarily agree with our position that while we owe respect

to the flag we may not salute it, but that decision stands as irrefutable proof that this country does stand up and grant religious

freedom to all, including those of minority faiths.

One would expect that the situation would be similar in Western

Europe. Sadly, this is not the case, as has been testified. Witness

communities have been active in Western Europe since 1890, over

29

100 years. There are approximately 1 million active Jehovah’s Witnesses in Western Europe, approximately 1,600,000 who also attend our services. During World War II, hundreds of Jehovah’s

Witnesses paid the ultimate price for not compromising their faith.

With this backdrop, it is surprising to see the treatment Jehovah’s Witnesses are receiving in Western Europe.

I begin with France because it is the epicenter of religious intolerance of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Two years ago France imposed a 60

percent tax on all donations made to our administrative center in

France. They assert that we owe as much as $50 million in unpaid

taxes.

Here we see the level of sophistication of religious intolerance.

The French authorities will assert that Jehovah’s Witnesses are

free to believe whatever we will, but their anti-sect commission labeled us a dangerous religion and this had the effect of declaring

open season on Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Let me give you one example of what happens now to Jehovah’s

Witnesses in France. One of our ministers, Rene ́ Schneerberger, for

decades has sent religious literature to inmates in prisons throughout France. Recently those inmates informed him they were no

longer receiving the literature. When he inquired as to the reason,

he was given the following answer by the Bapaume prison officials,

‘‘Receipt of these magazines has been suspended because of the sectarian nature of Jehovah’s Witnesses as recognized by the parliamentary commission.’’

Regarding Belgium, let me inform you of the situation that children of Jehovah’s Witnesses routinely face in Belgium with regard

to religious intolerance. A teacher in the Ecole des Pagodes issued

a paper for class discussions and said this, quoting, ‘‘In Belgium

there are 189 dangerous sects and 37 are hard-core ones such as

Jehovah’s Witnesses.’’

Now, how would you have felt if your children and their faith

were subjected to such scrutiny and intolerance in their classrooms?

Some who are Jehovah’s Witnesses in Belgium have lost custody

of their children just because they happen to be Jehovah’s Witnesses. In one case the judge states ‘‘It constitutes a grave danger

for the children taking into account the influence of the Jehovahsect of which the mother seems to be a member.’’ Another judge

was even more openly bigoted. He said, ‘‘Jehovah’s Witnesses are

not to be viewed as a religion but as a movement of fanatics.’’

What about Germany? As the fall of communism drew near, the

East German officials granted Jehovah’s Witnesses full religious

status, a status superior to the mere not-for-profit status we enjoy

in Western Germany.

When unification took place, we moved to have complete religious

freedom throughout Germany like the other majority religions. A

trial court and an appellate court ruled that we were entitled to

this status—it is called corporation of public law status—but the

high administrative court ruled against us. For the first time, it

said that we lacked the degree of loyalty necessary for any religion

seeking corporation of public law status. They said that we lacked

this loyalty because we are neutral in political matters. This case

30

is now pending before the German Constitutional Court and we

hope for a favorable victory there.

Once again, let me show you the effect on local Jehovah’s Witnesses. For decades, one couple had been used to care for foster

children. When the Local Youth Office of the German Government

was informed by an anti-cult chairman that the couple happened

to be Jehovah’s Witnesses, they moved to have the children removed from this couple. This led to a 2-year court battle that the

couple ultimately won, but the Local Youth Office has now refused

to assign any new children in their care.

Next, let me summarize briefly the situation in Austria. For decades, we were moving through the political and the legal court systems to obtain the same religious status as other religions in Austria, and Mr. Chairman, just as we were getting to the point of obtaining this religious status, the national legislature of Austria convened and passed a new law. The new law for the first time imposes a 10-year waiting period for any organization seeking full religious recognition. The law applies to nobody but Jehovah’s Witnesses. No one else is seeking this status at present. It was clearly

passed with us in view.

Again, let me move to the individual level of what is happening

to Jehovah’s Witnesses. One of our brothers was applying for a job

for which he was well qualified and for which he was going to be

accepted, but when they found out he was one of the Jehovah’s

Witnesses, he received the following letter ‘‘We thank you for your

application but we are sorry to have to tell you that we do not employ persons belonging to any kind of sect.’’

To just summarize a final matter, Sweden is complicating our operations there because of not recognizing the concept of voluntary

work on behalf of religious endeavors. Although Sweden has a

much better record than the other four countries I just mentioned,

it is hampering our volunteer work to build new Kingdom Halls because those who would serve as volunteers to do this have to pay

a tax on their labors as though it is a taxable event.

Well, clearly something is wrong in Western Europe. What is the

solution? Well, Jehovah’s Witnesses turn to the scriptures first, and

Isaiah foretold this: ‘‘In the wilderness justice will certainly reside,

and in the orchard righteousness will dwell. . . . My people must

dwell in a peaceful abiding place and in residences of full confidence.’’

Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize that the complete fulfillment of

that lies ahead in the future, but in the meantime, we call upon

this Committee and all governments to recognize our God-given

right to religious freedom that currently Western Europe extends

only to majority faiths.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brumley appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Brumley.

Your reference to the Supreme Court’s decision in Barnette,

which not only came on Flag Day, but came in the midst of war,

reminds us how strong the impulse is to provide for religious freedom in our own Nation. After all, that is why many of our ancestors first came here to begin with, to look for freedom of religion.

31

We will now avail ourselves of the digital video conference facilities of our Committee and the facilities of our American embassy

in Vienna to hear our next witness. We thank the public affairs

staff of our embassy in Vienna for their assistance in this endeavor.

We will now call upon in Vienna, Dr. Robert A. Hunt. Dr. Hunt

has, since 1997, been the pastor of the English-Speaking United

Methodist Church of Vienna. He is a Texan by birth and a graduate of the University of Texas, Southern Methodist University,

and the University of Malaya, where he earned his Ph.D. Dr. Hunt

has served congregations in Texas, in Malaysia and in Vienna and

has worked in New York and in Singapore. He is a specialist in

Christian-Muslim relations.

We know how happy you are in your own ministry, Dr. Hunt.

Nevertheless we are grateful that you are willing to share your

concerns about the present environment in which you are working

in Vienna.

Dr. Hunt, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF THE REVEREND ROBERT A. HUNT, PASTOR,

ENGLISH SPEAKING UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, VIENNA,

AUSTRIA (Via video teleconference)

Reverend HUNT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

thank the Committee, as well, for inviting me to give this testimony and to share some of the experiences that I have had in Vienna.

According to a statement of the Austrian Information Service,

dated January 20, 1998, the laws which regulate the legal status

of religious belief communities, especially the law of 1998, while

making distinctions among them, in no way infringe on the rights

of individuals or groups to choose their religion and practice it in

public and in private.

I would like to suggest that the right of religious freedom cannot,

however, be separated from the issue of the legal status of religious

communities or official or unofficial bias against particular religious communities and practices.

It is my experience that even though United Methodists——

Chairman GILMAN. We pause for technical difficulties.

Dr. Hunt, we are having some problem. You seem to be disconnected. We will try to come back to you as quickly as we can.

I am going to—in the interim, we are going to call on Congressman James E. Rogan, a Representative in Congress from California, who is here today to introduce the next witnesses; and if we

are able to get Dr. Hunt back on the line, we will interrupt you.

Congressman Rogan.

Mr. ROGAN. Let me tell you, as a Member of Congress, being interrupted goes with the turf, but I especially thank you for calling

this hearing and giving me the privilege to take a moment to introduce two witnesses to this Committee who are both friends.

The first witness literally needs no introduction. I am sure she

is familiar to all of the Members of this Committee. Catherine Bell

is the star of the hit CBS show, JAG. On that show she plays a

military attorney. I teased her yesterday, I said you have the best

of both worlds, you get paid for pretending you are an attorney but

32

you don’t have to go through the disgrace in life of actually being

one. So I want to thank Catherine for coming out.

She is a member of the Church of Scientology. She lives near me

in Los Angeles, and in her presentation she will be reading prepared testimony of another great actress, Anne Archer, who could

not be here today.

The second witness that I wanted to introduce is an old friend

of mine, he is also a constituent, Craig Jensen from Glendale, California. Craig is the CEO of Executive Software. His company produces key software that enables disk operating systems to run

more efficiently. It is a core component of most computer software

operating systems. His company has contributed much to our national economic expansion in the last couple of decades.

Currently Microsoft plans to include Craig’s software in their

Windows 2000 operating system. However, the Microsoft product

launch, while heralded around the world, is being severely disadvantaged in Western Europe and, in particular, in the Federal

Republic of Germany. The origins of this imposition relate to the

fact that Craig Jensen a member of the Church of Scientology.

Mr. Chairman, this Committee as a long history of acting on behalf of religious freedom. Its work has carried the torch of liberty

to many new lands. It is in this spirit that I thank you for inviting

Craig, Catherine and the other witnesses before this Committee

and for giving me the privilege of making this brief introduction of

both of them.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Congressman Rogan. We thank

you for being here with us.

We will now call upon Mr. Craig Jensen, the entrepreneur who

founded and is President and CEO of Executive Software.

Mr. Jensen.

STATEMENT OF CRAIG JENSEN, CHAIRMAN AND CEO,

EXECUTIVE SOFTWARE

Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the

Committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell you

about an embargo of American products by the Government of Germany. I will be presenting a brief summary of my views.

I am the CEO of Executive Software, a company I founded in

1981 in California. My company’s products are in use in every sector of the American economy, including right here on Capitol Hill,

and are sold extensively abroad as well.

I would like to point out that no other country on earth can

produce software of the quality and usefulness that American software companies produce. In view of this, a foreign embargo of

American software products must be viewed as a hostile act. Purchase of my products is restricted in Germany by government edict.

And now, the fact that Microsoft’s new Windows 2000 operating

system includes a component developed by my company is being

used to justify a ban on the sale of Windows 2000 in Germany.

Why? The official reason given is that my company is headed by

a member of the Church of Scientology. But what does my religion

have to do with selling software? Nothing. The German Government makes no attempt to hide the fact that their embargo is

33

based on religious discrimination. In fact, the government officials

see nothing wrong with religious discrimination.

Simply put, I come here today to alert your attention to a trade

embargo justified on the grounds of government-mandated religious

discrimination. Let me give you the background.

In December, a German magazine article proposed a ban on Windows 2000 on the grounds that I, as CEO of a Microsoft supplier,

am a Scientologist. The official German news agency, DPA, sent

out an international news story saying that my involvement in

Windows 2000 is ‘‘of interest to the Catholic Church, the other German states, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and

German industry.’’ A government official from the Hamburg Ministry of the Interior fanned the flames by boasting in the press that

in Bavaria and Hamburg, the government does not use services or

products from companies owned by Scientologists.

While such a blatantly discriminatory admission would be condemned immediately in this country, in the climate of intolerance

created by the German Government, it is allowed to pass.

That official heads an office called ‘‘Working Group Against

Scientology,’’ which created the so-called ‘‘sect filter’’ which forbids

employment or contractual relations with individuals participating

in the Church of Scientology. In the end, the German Security

Technology Office informed Microsoft that they would not certify

Windows 2000 for sale in Germany because part of the program

was produced by a company owned by a Scientologist. Although the

U.S. State Department has repeatedly condemned the German

Government’s use of the sect filters, the discrimination has not

lessened. In fact, it has gotten worse.

Official German discrimination has broadened from individuals

to corporations and now to corporations who suppliers employ or

are owned by members of minority religions. Official statements

from the German Government have confirmed that public bodies

expressly ban purchases from companies owned by or associated

with Scientologists, effectively prohibiting the purchase of U.S.

products.

This year, for the first time, the U.S. Trade Representative

placed Germany on the watch list over its abuse of Scientologists’

rights. The inclusion of Germany in her report shows that, in the

view of the U.S. Government, Germany’s discriminatory practices

are not only a blatant violation of human rights, but a threat to

American trade as well.

Mr. Chairman, I come to you today not just on my own behalf,

but on behalf of my friends, partners, and business associates who

are suffering at the hands of official German bigots who can’t stand

the thought of anyone participating in a sect or free church.

I also come before you on behalf of all members of the Church

of Scientology who are forbidden employment, political party affiliation and even schooling for their children because of their religious beliefs. I ask you to send a message to the German Government that the Congress and the people of the United States will

not tolerate either human rights violations of a religious nature or

discrimination against American trade.

Perhaps the most effective action that you take at this time is

to give your full support to the resolutions on Germany, H.R. 388

34

and S. 230, which call upon Congress and the President to demand

that Germany abide by international human rights law.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before

this Committee, and I will be happy to respond to any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jensen appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Jensen.

We will now proceed with our final witness, Ms. Catherine Bell,

known for her television series of JAG. As a former Marine Corps

attorney, I am sure you don’t hesitate to give us straight testimony

today. Thank you for being here.

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE BELL, ACTRESS

Ms. BELL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of

the Committee, thank you very much for holding today’s hearing

and for the opportunity to testify.

In fact, I am here at the request of my friend and fellow-actress,

Anne Archer, whose professional commitments unfortunately prevent her attendance at this hearing , to speak on her behalf. With

your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to present the testimony she would have given had she been here today.

First, a word about my interest in this issue. Having been born

in London to an English father and a Persian mother, then becoming an American citizen at a young age and spending most of my

life in the United States, I have learned that difference is best celebrated, and never made a reason for division or discrimination.

Therefore, when I first heard that government officials in many

were canceling the exhibitions and concerts of artist friends of mine

solely because of their religion, I was shocked that such intolerance

could be enacted by a Western government which loudly proclaims

its commitment to democracy.

Mrs. Archer has undertaken two fact-finding missions and has

been committed to combating religious discrimination against

members of minority religions in Germany for several years. In addition to her fact-finding visits to Germany, she has addressed

large rallies for religious freedom and human rights in Berlin,

Frankfurt and Hamburg. In October 1998, she raised the problem

before the plenary session of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and she has also taken up the issue with various members of the European Parliament.

Last October, she visited Congress again to welcome the introduction of H.R. 388 and S. 230, regulations which now have a combined total of more than 50 sponsors in the House and Senate. The

resolutions call upon the German Government to comply with its

obligations under international human rights laws and to respect

the rights of minority religions.

On behalf of Anne Archer, I would like to thank you, sir, as Committee Chairman, as well as Congressmen Salmon and Payne for

introducing the resolution in the House, and Senator Enzi, the

principal sponsor in the Senate. Our thanks go also to the many

Members of this Committee who have cosponsored the resolution.

I trust that after today’s hearing, those Members who have not yet

signed onto H.R. 388 will be motivated to do so.

Present in this room today are nearly two dozen German citizens

who have come here to witness the fact that an official body would

35

care enough to hear their personal grievances and provide an open

forum to air the facts about governmental religious discrimination

in Germany. I would like to introduce some of them to you, and

briefly recount their personal stories of discrimination.

Mr. Carl Rohrig is a very talented graphic artists whose work

has been exhibited internationally and has appeared on the covers

of leading international magazines. He is here today with his

daughter, Marlene. Because of his religious beliefs, Mr. Rohrig has

been blacklisted and has had exhibits boycotted or canceled. His

bank accounts were closed without explanation and his family

threatened. He was compelled to send his family abroad to rescue

them from the discrimination and intolerance they faced in Germany, and his children are now being schooled in Denmark, not in

their native country. In addition to the disruption of Car’s pursuit

of happiness, he has suffered economic damage totaling hundreds

of thousands of dollars.

As a recent example: In January this year, Mr. Rohrig held an

exhibition of his work in Neuberg, Bavaria. The town’s cultural director learned that Mr. Rohrig is a Scientologist and demanded

that the gallery director cancel the exhibition. When the director

refused, the city government publicly called for a boycott of Mr.

Rohrig’s exhibition, resulting in a financial loss to him of more than $20,000 because several clients canceled their purchases of

his paintings and prints.

Mr. Hans Schorr, another Scientologist who is here today with

his family, worked for 20 years as a journalist, producing highly regarded reports for Bavarian and national German television on the

central issues of the day. After his religious affiliation became

known, all work suddenly dried up. In the end, he had no choice

but to leave Germany, and he and his family now live here in the

United States.

Finally, I would like to introduce Ms. Antje Victore, who in 1997

became the first German Scientologist to be granted asylum by a

U.S. Immigration court on the grounds that she faced ruinous religious persecution if she had to return to Germany.

I understand that on behalf of all those experiencing discrimination in Germany, the members of my religion who are here today

wish to present a petition to you, Mr. Chairman, asking for the full

support of your Committee behind H.R. 388.

In addition, Mr. Chick Corea, who had hoped to be here today,

but is prevented from attending by a physical impairment, has requested that his written testimony and evidence regarding German

officials continuing denials of his right to perform in Germany be

included in the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Corea appears in the appendix.]

Hearing these accounts of discrimination, you may well ask:

What remedies are available through the courts? Though the German courts do act to some degree as guardians of the constitution,

Germany’s want of antidiscrimination legislation leaves them poorly armed to remedy a pattern and practice of religious intolerance

that has soaked into the bureaucratic culture. By contrast, due to

the efforts of Congress, we are fortunate in the United States to

enjoy strong antidiscrimination laws. When Deutsche Bank in New

York fired an employee solely because of her membership in the

36

Scientology religion, she was able to obtain not only financial compensation, but to extract an apology from the bank. In Germany,

no comparable remedy would have been possible against Deutsche

Bank.

In Germany schools today, children are taught, by order of the

government, that members of certain religions are evil. I have seen

some of the so-called teaching materials that are used. They are

highly offensive and calculated to breed intolerance and hate. On

a personal note, I receive a lot of letters from people in Germany

who watch JAG, the TV series in which I play a U.S. Marine Corps

attorney. I would hate to think that due to reaching such hateful

propaganda, they might be made to think less of the program or

of me.

Nor is discrimination in Germany a problem only for

Scientologists. Mormons, Charismatic Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Orthodox Jews and others also suffer a climate of religious

intolerance in Germany. Officials of both state and Federal Governments here continue to discriminate against thousands of law-abiding members of minority religions, many of them American in origin.

It is unfortunate that the German ambassador has chosen not to

appear today. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the Ambassadors of Germany, France and Austria were all invited. I further understand that the German Government also refused to appear before the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe when it held a hearing into religious intolerance in September

1997. However, the Ambassador has not hesitated to discuss his

government’s position on Scientology with members of the press

and with certain members of this Committee in private. It is my

view and that of Anne Archer that the Ambassador’s repeated refusal betrays the fact that there is neither defense nor justification

for his government’s position.

Following the hearing on German official discrimination conducted by the Helsinki Commission in September 1997, the German Government said that it would deploy its foreign intelligence

agency on U.S. soil to inform Americans about my religion. We

have no way of knowing yet if this legally impermissible plan was

carried out, but we hope not. Our point is that if German officials

had a clean human rights record vis-a-vis minority religions such

as mine, they would not shy away from the scrutiny of a public

forum.

As I have looked deeper into these issues and have studied the

extent of the discrimination, I have become alarmed to learn that

intolerance has been carried across the border from Germany into

some other countries of Europe, notably, France. French officials

have stigmatized members of 173 religious minorities, including

the Baptists, as ‘‘sects.’’ The French Government has set up a special unit to ‘‘fight against’’ minority faiths, headed by an individual

with a long history of intolerance who has described our precious

First Amendment as ‘‘crazy.’’ His self-professed goal is to legislate

which religions a person may and may not believe.

Today’s growing religious discrimination in Central Europe as

spawned several years ago in Germany by the Kohl administration.

Unfortunately, the government of Chancellor Schroeder has taken

37

no steps to reverse those divisive policies and propagate religious

freedom and pluralism. Forums such as today’s are essential to

drive home that we will not only speak out against these governmental abuses, but take firm action against them. The resolutions

in Congress—H.R. 388 and S. 230—deserve the full support of this

Committee. And given the spread of religious intolerance to other

European countries, I believe a resolution is needed calling upon

countries such as France, Austria and Belgium to respect international human rights laws, especially as regards religious freedom.

I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to give serious consideration to a resolution of this kind in the near future.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Bell, for your testimony.

Ms. BELL. I have a little bit more.

Chairman GILMAN. Yes, please sum up.

Ms. BELL. While we continue to speak out, of course, we must

keep open the doors to a dialogue. Anne Archer and I share the desire of many here today to bring the Governments of Germany and

France to the discussion table, and persuade them to open a genuine dialogue with the minority religions whose members worship

in those lands. In the end, only dialogue can resolve this problem.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bell appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Bell, for being here and for

your testimony and for your requests which we will honor and take

a good, hard look at.

Dr. Hunt, you are back with us again. We apologize for the interruption which is something that was beyond our control but we

hope that you can give us your testimony now.

Dr. Hunt, please proceed.

Reverend HUNT [continuing]. Thank you. I will continue where

I left off.

It is my experience that even though Methodists are a state-recognized religion, they do not live free from official and unofficial

bias. I have encountered this in trying to book hotel rooms for

church retreats, notably being told by the private owners of certain

small hotels that they would not engage having a sect in their

hotel. In a more official and larger hotel, it was possible to book

rooms for our church retreat, but only after demonstrating that we

were a state-recognized religion; and I cannot say that the same

hotel would have rented rooms to a nonrecognized religion.

I have also encountered problems, as I say, in my statement in

making visits to different prisons. In one case, I was simply turned

down and told that I must be part of the Catholic group, Caritas.

In another case, I had to get permission from the Roman Catholic

chaplain first. I would not generalize here; I have been given access

to other prisons.

Another type of bias has been reported to me by other members.

In one case, a member of our church felt that the judge in a child

custody case, as well as a court-appointed psychologist, showed

prejudice against him by referring to him as a fundamentalist and

a member of a sect because he was a Methodist. Apparently, they

were not aware that ours is a state-recognized religion.

38

In another case, the member was surprised to find that if, as a

divorcee, he married a Roman Catholic religious instruction teacher, she would lose her job. Although her education and salary are

paid by the state, if she wishes to remain employed, her right to

marry, and thus his, hinges on a Roman Catholic marriage tribunal

and, presumably, a priest’s approval of her future spouse. Such a

situation can hardly fail to be coercive. It puts the resources of the

state at the disposal of a religious group purely for the enforcement

of its own idiosyncratic beliefs.

The problem of bias is unfortunately rooted in Austrian law. At

a symbolic level, it is telling that the Austrian courts still display

prominently a crucifix, a symbol hardly calculated to inspire confidence by non-Catholics in an unbiased judicial system.

The Austrian Government distributes a document entitled, in

English translation, ‘‘Sects, Knowledge Protects,’’ which attempts to

define religion and then distinguishes between three types of religious groups. Some are able to obtain legal entity status. Others

are given legal recognition as churches whose activities are in the

public interest and, thus, receive public support, and then there are

groups regarded as dangerous sects.

One cannot escape the effect of this official bias by simply keeping one’s religious identity secret. Every resident of Austria must

declare their religion on a Meldezettle, or required residency registration, with the police, and you must present a copy of this for

every activity from signing a housing lease to opening a bank account to even purchasing a mobile telephone. So you cannot keep

your religion private, and you cannot keep it private in an unbiased environment.

I would just add quickly here that the United Methodist Church

of Austria in its annual conference last week adopted a short statement on the book ‘‘Sects, Knowledge Protects’’ and I will just read

it for you in English translation. ‘‘We strongly disagree with the law and office being set up by the

Austrian Government for documentation of sects and their activities. We do not see any need to do this. If illegal action is taking

place, existing criminal law, civil law and consumers rights should

be called on to correct it. We challenge the majority churches to

clarify their position on these matters.’’

And if I can add just one other thing, Congresswoman Lee was

interested in whether there was a relationship between religious

freedom and discrimination against ethnic and racial minorities. I

would just have to say, my congregation is one-third African onethird Asian, and one-third European and American. And several

times privately people have characterized us as a sect based on the

large number of African members of the church; and in one case—

again, in trying to rent rooms for our church—we were told, we

know that all those Africans must be sect members. So there is a

link here in Austria between these two things.

In closing, let me just say I am not unhappy to live and minister

in Austria as an American and a Methodist. The majority of my relationships with Austrian society are happy and positive, and yet

I don’t think there can be any apathy on this issue. No country is

so far along in its social evolution that it cannot, given the right

circumstances, revert to religious bigotry and intolerance. And our

39

commitment to freedom requires us a continual and disciplined

self-examination and honest appraisal of our friends.

I want to thank the Committee Members. I want to thank you,

Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Reverend Hunt appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Dr. Hunt, and again we apologize

for the interruption. We hope you can stand by for questions of the

panelists and possibly questions of yourself.

Will you be able to do that?

Reverend HUNT. Yes, I will.

Chairman GILMAN. We will now proceed with questions by our

colleagues of our panelists, and we will start with Mr. Salmon.

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to start my

first question with Mr. Jensen.

I am just curious. Have you considered a lawsuit?

Mr. JENSEN. Congressman Salmon, the answer is, yes, I have

considered a lawsuit. I would prefer to use communication, diplomacy, speaking out here at Congress, rather than going to court.

That is my personal view.

If these methods don’t work, then I would consider pursuing that

course of action.

Mr. SALMON. It is really interesting, about 3 years ago we were

able to get this same resolution that you have alluded to, Ms. Bell,

the resolution that I have cosponsored with Representative Payne,

we were able to actually get it out of this Committee, got it to the

floor and there was so much confusion and misunderstanding about

what exactly we were trying to accomplish and there was a lot of

really anti, I think, or very discriminatory rhetoric that came from

Members on the House floor, as I listened to them talk about

Scientology, the Church of Scientology in particular.

And one of the concerns that has been raised—and Mr. Jensen,

I kind of privately talked to you about this the other day—is information that has been sent to virtually every Member of this Committee from the Lisa McPherson Trust, and I mentioned to you I

was going to ask that question. You are familiar with what this

trust is all about.

Do you have any thoughts on some of the allegations that have

been raised by this group, and if so, what are they?

Mr. JENSEN. Congressman, contrary to its characterization as a

foundation, the Lisa McPherson Trust is a profit-making body, and

all the charges brought in their case were dismissed recently. That

has been covered in the newspapers in the last few days.

Mr. SALMON. So all of the charges or all of the allegations that

they have made have been dropped?

Mr. JENSEN. That’s correct, dismissed by the court.

Mr. SALMON. OK.

I think the other point that I would like to make is that my personal feeling when people within religions do things that are unseemly, or even illegal, to me, the recourse that we have in this

country is not to stomp on the religion, it is to prosecute the bad

actors within the religion; and virtually every religion that I know

of has had problems. Ecclesiastical leaders in virtually every religion have done things that offend people, and some have done

40

things that we consider to be illegal in this country; and our course

of action in this country has always been, when people do things

that violate the law, they are prosecuted, and there is justice within our court system. But the answer has never been and should

never be in a free society that respects freedom of religion to paint

with a broad brush, and then use that as a reason for discrimination.

I am just curious, do you have any thoughts?

Mr. JENSEN. I agree completely, Congressman, and I particularly

agree with the comment made earlier by one of your colleagues

that people should be judged on their actions and not on their

thoughts. In this country, we cherish the freedom to believe as we

choose, and whether someone disagrees with your particular beliefs

or not, a good American will die for your right to believe in what

you choose.

The Germans don’t share that view. They are a very young democracy and the stench of religious intolerance there is at a high

point today. I believe that the problem in part stems from the collapse of church and state in Germany, something we are not familiar with and have never experienced in this country. When you put

a member of one religion or one belief system in a position of power

within the government, an abuse is bound to occur. So I don’t think

it is really a problem of one religion versus another, or anybody actually doing anything wrong, but rather a conflict of beliefs that is

backed up with the power of government.

Mr. SALMON. Thank you.

Dr. Gunn, you have spoken about some of the problems that you

have seen firsthand throughout various countries in Europe. I am

just interested in your thoughts on, as a U.S. Government, what

do you see as recourse that we could possibly pursue?

Mr. GUNN. I think that one of the important problems the United

States has in Europe is that there is often an immediate reaction

to statements, recommendations by the U.S. Government. So sometimes those harsh statements actually play into the rhetoric of

those who are—who support the antisect movements. So I would

urge strong diplomacy, but also clear words to make clear what is

happening.

I think with the case you mentioned earlier, with the United

States Trade Representative, I believe that is one that should be

pursued vigorously and the United States should be prepared to

say that the action taken against Scientologists in Germany is a

barrier to trade and in violation of the WTO.

Mr. SALMON. I agree Dr. Gunn.

One last point: Do you share the optimism that things are getting better that was given to us by Ambassador Seiple?

Mr. GUNN. I think it is a mixed story. I would have said it differently.

I believe there are some signs for optimism. I don’t think it is

right over the horizon.

Let me say something positive about Germany. I think that in

many regards the kind of problem we are talking about has diminished significantly in Germany. A wide range of groups were subject to the same type of discrimination that Scientologists have

been going through during the last year. That has been moderated

41

to some extent in Germany, partially through the release of the

Enquete Commission report, which backtracked significantly over

what it had said before; and that the German Parliamentary Commission concluded—said, first, that the word ‘‘sect’’ should not be

said to describe them, which is an advance. And they also said that

these groups are not, per se, dangerous and they should be treated

on a case-by-case basis. That is an extremely positive step.

That said, there continues to be the kind of problem we have

heard described today.

Mr. SALMON. This list of 176, I am not sure if that is the correct

number, but this list that was created, what is the status of that?

Is it something that the government uses to constantly monitor, or

is it something that pretty much has gone by the wayside?

Mr. GUNN. In France, there is a list of—sometimes it is called

172 and sometimes it is 173, and that has to do with how the list

was prepared; but that is from France. The government as an official institution does not necessarily use that. The Interministerial

Mission Against Sects constantly refers to that list. They also say

that that list is not an exhaustive list, so that there are other

groups that could be pursued as well.

French courts—when there have been cases where the prosecutors have used that list, French courts have, as far as I know, consistently said that list does not constitute the basis for any governmental action. So it was in a parliamentary report; it is not a legal

document in that way in France.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For purposes of clarification, I am sure that Congressman Salmon said that churches should get rid of their bad actors; that was

not an artistic reference in any way, shape or form.

Let me welcome the panel and thank you all for your testimony.

If I could be parochial for one moment, Mr. Chairman, I would like

to personally welcome Reverend L’Heureux from my hometown of

Queens, New York City, and thank him for the great work that he

does year round for all people, and the inclusiveness and the moral

leadership that he exerts; and especially for referencing the birthplace of religious freedom, where I grew up, in Flushing, New York,

and the work of John Bowne—and the Bowne House on that one

block, it should be noted.

Not only do we still have that active Quaker Meeting house, but

we have an African church, we have two churches of different

Christian denominations, one Orthodox synagogue, one Islamic

mosque and three Buddhist temples; and that is within a very

short—maybe three-quarters of a mile, all on that one street.

I call to the Chairman’s attention that when we were on a

CODEL and we were in Germany, the Chairman did forcefully

bring this issue up with various members of the government in

Germany and was very forceful about the opinion of most of us on

this Committee, I believe, and what we thought was in America’s

best interests and the interests of fairness and religious freedom

and tolerance in America. We made our points. I don’t know that

we scored any victory at all, but they know that some of us, at

least, are focused on it.

42

I think the testimony that we have heard here has to be highlighted and profiled. I am not sure what you do besides being here

today, which is very important. Maybe you have to try to garner

the attention and support of the labor movement in this country,

which seems recently to have a powerful interest in religious freedom in other countries. Maybe we can condition our trade relationship with other countries on this, whether we give them permanent

normal trade status; or maybe you can just get yourself in more

trouble in China. That seems to get a lot of attention.

One of the things that the officials in Germany were using to

make whatever points they thought they were making was that

this particular religion of which we speak today, Scientology, in

their view was not a religion and was just basically a Ponzi scheme

to take money from unsuspecting people. We argued that.

But how do you respond to that? Anybody on the panel, maybe

Mr. Jensen.

Mr. JENSEN. Congressman, I think ‘‘my lady doth protest too

much’’ when the Germans say there’s a Ponzi scheme or something

like that. In Germany, they don’t have religious freedom; they don’t

have separation of church and state. They have declared certain religions to be official state religions, and all others are referred to

as sects or free churches; and my understanding is that ‘‘free’’

means, that religion or church is not controlled by the government.

So I am not surprised that they would use such derogatory terms

to refer to my church. Personally I am offended by it.

It is nothing new. This sort of thing has been going on in Germany a long time. I have been losing sales and contracts in Germany for 10 or 11 years simply because I am a member of a minority religion and no one makes any bones about it. They boast of the

fact. They use sect filters. I have a whole binder, full of documents,

here—and there is a sample of one over on the board there—which

require you to declare that you are not only not a member of the

Church of Scientology but you have never even read a book by L.

Ron Hubbard.

Now I can’t see anything so offensive about reading a book. Why

should that be a disqualification for employment or participation in

the electoral process?

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thought we were past the time where, in Germany, we had problems with books.

But nonetheless, I strongly agree with you and recall that this

country was founded by people who seemed strange to other people,

no matter from whence they came. We were really founded by the

weirdos and whackos of the world in the view of the majorities in

other places.

My district, I guess they still have a tendency to elect those people to public office. But it becomes a very dangerous game when

we try to define on any particular basis where people, by virtue of

their free will, want to associate and consider themselves as a religion. Who is to judge that they are not? I mean, there are some

pretty strange practices. There are some groups that wear beanies

and won’t turn the lights on on Friday nights when it gets dark.

That does not mean that my religion is not a legitimate religion,

no matter how strange that might seem to others.

43

So I just want to thank the panel for your persistence and know

that you have many member friends here.

Reverend L’HEUREUX. Congressman, may I comment on your

question?

The question initially was in terms of the accusation of financial

improprieties in a Ponzi scheme for wealth acquisition. In different

forms, but with equal virulence, the same accusations have been

made in history against almost every major religious group.

In my own lifetime, I can remember hearing that kind of bigotry

espoused against the Roman Catholic church. The slanderous and

anti-Semitic remarks regarding Jewish wealth, for example, fall

within that category. It is an easy way to hook bigotry in a way

that will target it against some other group and marginalize them.

I wish that our celebration of American religious freedom were

so complete and universal, but alas it is not because we have had

difficulties here, many of them historic, occasionally present.

One of the tragedies that I see in this current environment is

that much of the antisect movement in Europe—France and Germany, that I am familiar with personally in particular—arises because of the work, for the last four decades here, of the American

anticult movement. It has been rendered economically deficient in

this country by legal judgments that have bankrupted the cult

awareness network and one of their leading kidnapper

deprogrammers.

And now I believe, much like the tobacco industry, they are taking their product and exporting it elsewhere for their own benefit.

And the relationship between Alain Vivien, in particular, with

American anticult groups is rather interesting considering that he,

along with other officials, will denounce what the American Government might say about France, but welcome what this group of

anticultists would say.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Reverend L’Heureux, and thank

you, Mr. Ackerman.

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo.

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you very much. I would like to center on

the trade aspects of this situation, because unfortunately there is

not much that can be done legally. When a country is discriminating against members of certain religions, it becomes a sovereignty issue; but when it becomes a trade issue that results in

harm to American companies, then it does become our legal obligation to get involved.

Mr. Jensen, you stated in the last 8 to 10 years that you were

losing sales and contracts as a result of discrimination against you

because of your beliefs. Do you recall the testimony of Ambassador

Seiple, who said that Commerce has not been able to quantify the

harm or injury of any and therefore elevate this complaint to that

of requesting the panel?

I note with great, total disbelief the statement, the official statement from the German Government who was invited to appear

here, but declined and sent a communique. It said recent assertions

about German Government measures concern a small area of public procurement, specifically the awarding of government contracts

for staff and management training. They are not focused on membership in Scientology, but are instead designed to ensure that

44

techniques which seek to psychologically manipulate or oppress individuals are not used for training or consulting purposes. The

measures are limited to government contracts. There are no regulations affecting bidding for private sector contracts.

I guess, therefore, if you are a Scientologist in Germany and you

follow the reason of this letter, you can psychologically manipulate

or oppress as long as it doesn’t involve governmental contracts.

This is written by a diplomat.

And I was just discussing with Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen—

and she is the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Trade and

International Economic Policy of this Committee, and we are very

much interested in seeing if you can quantify—can you tell us if

you can document loss of contracts based on this present policy of

Germany?

Mr. JENSEN. Yes, Congressman.

Mr. MANZULLO. Or other companies, as well, based upon your religious beliefs?

Mr. JENSEN. Yes, Congressman Manzullo, I can document that.

I will be happy to provide that to the Committee.

Chairman GILMAN. If you can provide that to the Committee, we

will make it part of the record.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Mr. MANZULLO. I presume it would be proprietary for you to go

into detail as to each contract and each loss, or is there something

that you wish to share generally?

Mr. JENSEN. In some cases it is not difficult at all. A communication from Volkswagen, for instance, saying that they not only will

refuse to honor our contract, but demand a refund for all purchases

of software they had ever made because of the fact that I am a

Scientologist. I told them I would be happy to comply if they would

put that in writing, at which point they settled for a cessation of

business and forgot about demanding the refund.

There are other cases more recent.

Mr. MANZULLO. Were there any American-based companies that

were there, or branches rather?

Mr. JENSEN. Daimler Chrysler is one. We have a copy of their

sect filter up on the wall there. There have been others, such as

the Ford Motor Company, GE Capital, and another company here

in the United States, that do business in Europe, have ordered

their German subsidiaries to stop using the sect filters and have

written to us that they have stopped doing that.

But when it comes to my own personal situation, the discrimination I referred to earlier was just on my own products, and that

might come to millions of dollars worth of losses. I am not sure exactly what I could document in Germany. But today, with this

Microsoft situation, the German Government is threatening to boycott or put a ban on the Microsoft Windows 2000 operating system

because of my involvement as a Scientologist.

Now, that, according to studies on the benefits of migrating to

Windows 2000, would be a $50 billion hit on the German economy,

simply because of the inefficiency of systems they would have to

use instead.

45

So, yes, I can supply numbers; yes, I can supply documentation,

but you would also have to look beyond a specific transaction toward the chilling effect on business, as well as one’s personal life.

What will happen the next time Microsoft needs a component in

their operating system? And I have been a terrific supplier for

them. For 7 years now, we have done business well together, but

someone sitting around that table in the future is going to say,

well, remember we had this problem with the Scientology issue.

Mr. MANZULLO. We look forward to meeting with you. I know

there are several members on this panel that would like to meet

personally with you and go into great depth as to the harm it has

given to your company.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Manzullo.

I now call on our distinguished subcommittee chairman on economic policy and trade, the Congresswoman from Florida, Ms. RosLehtinen.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman; and following on Mr. Manzullo’s remarks, in our trade subcommittee we

would look forward to the opportunity to discuss the issue of sect

filters and what has been happening with discriminatory trade

practices in Germany, France or other countries. And so we look

forward to getting that information from you, Mr. Jensen.

I had the opportunity to meet with you and some of the others

in the panel yesterday afternoon, and we look forward to following

up on that to see if our trade subcommittee could help you in any

way, at least highlight this issue of discrimination against those

who hold religious views that are not popular or in accordance with

the majority-held beliefs. And certainly in this country, that was

founded upon religious freedom, we would frown on such practices;

but especially when they interfere with commerce in a manner

which is, on the face of it, very discriminatory.

So we look forward to getting that information from you.

And I know that as the other panelists were talking, Ms. Bell

was writing some notes, so I don’t know if you wanted the opportunity to say something. I think when Mr. Ackerman was asking

a question of some of the other panelists, you looked like you wanted to say something.

Ms. BELL. I did, and most of it was actually said by Congressman

Ackerman, but the one thing that I wanted to point out is, he was

talking about the Germans saying that they didn’t think Scientology was a religion, but I wanted to point out the fact that Scientology has been recognized as a religion by all of the world, by the

U.S. Government, by Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, recently Sweden. So it has been recognized as a religion.

And again, it goes back to what Congressman Ackerman was

saying, that it is really not the place of the state or the government

to decide whether it not it is a religion; and again, the bottom line

is that the freedom to practice your own beliefs whether or not they

agree with it, or think it is a religion or whatever, you should have

freedom and the ability to practice what you believe, especially by

a country that claims to be democratic.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. That is interesting that many of those statements were not echoed during the South Carolina primaries, as

some candidates visited Bob Jones University. It is like ‘‘Animal

46

Farm,’’ all animals are equal, just some are more equal than others. But I do not espouse those beliefs of Bob Jones University, but

perhaps some of those folks who make those statements about religious freedom would apply it overall.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity and thank you for

an excellent presentation. We look forward to working with them

in our trade subcommittee to see how we could be of help.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Chairman Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. Rogan, the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say I am

sorry I missed your hearing. I am also running off to a hearing

about human rights in Afghanistan.

Let me just say for the record, we expect more of Western Europe than we do of Afghanistan. We expect more of Western Europe than we do of totalitarian societies; and the fact that there are

still some of the issues that you have raised today—and I know

about the issues that you are talking about and will read your testimony.

It is outrageous that countries as educated and as industrialized

and as democratic—supposedly democratic—are participating in

the kinds of discrimination that we find in these countries; and the

United States should be this squeaky wheel when it comes to the

violation of these people’s rights, because we are talking to other

countries that supposedly stand for this higher standard.

And I appreciate your leadership, Mr. Chairman, in calling this

hearing. Thank you very much.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rogan, for joining us. I have

just a few brief questions.

Dr. Hunt, you have been so patient. Allow me to ask you a question. Do you see a linkage between the antisect movement and the

rise of political extremism in Austria, in France, Germany and Belgium? And I address that to any panelist that may want to respond.

Dr. Hunt.

Reverend HUNT. I am not certain about the other countries. I

think in Austria there is certainly a link. The recent political campaign which featured prominently images of real Austrians as opposed to, apparently, not real Austrians is certainly based on a climate that tries to characterize the kind of Germanic Catholic personality as being truly Austrian and all others as being not really

quite Austrian; and I think that kind of political extremism and

nationalism is certainly related to the rise of actions against sects.

Chairman GILMAN. Any of our other panelists?

Mr. Brumley.

Mr. BRUMLEY. I would concur with the thought that there is a

linkage. The situation in Europe reminds me of a sad chapter in

our country in the McCarthy era where one was accused of being

a Communist without any facts. He had to go through infinite details to prove a negative that he was, in fact, not a Communist.

Well, the sect commissions have done—they are essentially doing

the very same thing, based on unsubstantiated reports, unfounded

prejudices. They stigmatize somewhat.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have found that, for example, during the

audit of our operations in France, we came out squeaky clean. They

47

found no impropriety whatsoever, even though they were certainly

looking for it. But we feel subjected to that same type of scrutiny,

that we have to prove we are not a dangerous sect. Instead of assuming we are doing something correct, we found—and I know you

understand this as well—our recourse has been through the courts.

As we go through the court system in France and in Germany, we

have typically won the decisions, but in this court of public opinion,

in the press, this stigmatization continues.

Chairman GILMAN. Does any other panelist wish to comment?

Reverend L’Heureux.

Reverend L’HEUREUX. Just a brief comment to echo what was

said a second ago in terms of the role of government not to be a

definer of what is orthodox or correct in belief.

Moments before this Committee hearing convened this morning,

I understand that the government in Paris conducted yet another

raid on the offices of the Church of Scientology there. In a series

of raids that have removed computer disk drives and records, and

appear some weeks later to return them with no particular charges

being filed, no reason given as to why the raids occur; and this

kind of pattern of brutal harassment is really evidence of a kind

of a totalitarian aggression against religious movements.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Does any other panelist wish to

comment?

If not, let me ask Reverend L’Heureux and Dr. Gunn, what

should our government do to deal with the situation in France?

Any suggestions?

Reverend L’Heureux.

Reverend L’HEUREUX. Well, to speak out loudly and a little bit

more loudly than we have been doing. I recognize the problem that

has been stated many times here, that sometimes the official statement of the government is not well received in Europe, and France

and Germany in particular, as an intrusion into their sovereignty.

But the issue needs to be raised. Silence often gives consent to the

kind of misconduct that we have chronicled this morning. There is

no way for us to avoid the responsibility of being forthright.

The other is to avoid in every way possible participating in a division that the antisect, anticult people would want us to do to sort

of throw away certain groups and allow them to be trampled, because somehow they have been stigmatized or demonized as not religions. Again, the test is that government is simply not qualified

to make a determination of orthodoxy.

The behavior standards that were mentioned are correct. If there

are crimes committed, if there are misdeeds done by individuals,

they need to be called to account. If, in fact, there is some kind of

a criminal conspiracy in a way that is detrimental to the society

and in violation of the laws, certainly that ought to be prosecuted.

That is not what we are dealing with here. What we are dealing

with is the vague innuendo that leads to blacklisting, that leads to

loss of employment, that leads to loss of schooling, that leads to

loss of child custody; and these acts are intolerable, and we must

denounce them.

Chairman GILMAN. We thank you, Dr. L’Heureux.

Dr. Gunn, did you want to answer?

48

Mr. GUNN. It is very difficult in France. The Interministerial

Mission Against Sects frequently employs anti-American rhetoric in

order to justify its position, thinking that that plays well in France.

So sometimes strong statements by the United States can backfire.

France has a lively tradition of intellectual dissent, and it has a

lively tradition of trying to bring down people who promote intolerance. I believe that there has been, during the last year, a rise in

those particular groups, and I assume those are the people to

whom Ambassador Seiple was referring. Two very famous French

historians have taken positions on this. The leading French scholar

has now taken a position. Some important French journalists have

taken a position on this. They are still voices in the wilderness.

The kind of thing I think the United States could do to help

would be to encourage those sorts of voices to be more pronounced

in what they are doing, whether it is including American academics

to deal with their colleagues abroad, or American religions to deal

with their coreligion abroad, to let them know what the consequences are of discrimination.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very much.

Would any of the other panelists care to add any thoughts before

we conclude?

Mr. Brumley.

Mr. BRUMLEY. Just to say that this fall is pivotal for Jehovah’s

Witnesses. We have a case pending before the Council of State in

France and another case pending in Germany. Both decisions

should be handed down this fall. This is certainly a time to be

watchful to see what France and Germany will do. If they hand

down favorable decisions, then the optimism espoused by Ambassador Seiple would be well justified. An adverse decision certainly

brings down a black curtain.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very much. Did you care to say

something Mr. Jensen?

Mr. JENSEN. Yes. I would just like to urge the Committee and

all the Members of Congress to support H.R. 388 and S. 230.

Chairman GILMAN. We will certainly give a lot of attention to it.

I can’t thank the panelists enough, Reverend Hunt, for your

being with us in Vienna. We wish we were there with you for the

moment; I hope your weather is good.

And thank you all for taking part. Catherine, Mr. Jensen, Mr.

Brumley, Reverend L’Heureux and Dr. Gunn, thank you for joining

us, and Committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

(49)

A P P E N D I X

JUNE 14, 2000

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163