Victorian Inquiry into Cults – Detailed Analysis
One of the biggest dangers we can identify for this inquiry is the potential for expanding the definition of “cult” to encompass unpopular religions.
We are encouraged by the initial discussion in the Guidance Note about the nature of cults:
This Inquiry is not about judging or questioning anyone’s beliefs, whether religious or otherwise.
Many groups, including new religious movements, bring people together who share similar beliefs, and offer real community, meaning, and support to their members—and have a positive impact on their members’ lives.
What we’re focused on are those groups that use techniques that can harm individuals emotionally, psychologically, financially, or even physically. Harmful or abusive practices can happen in any group—religious or not— and our concern is with those actions, not the beliefs behind them. (p. 1)
Given the strong negative connotations the term cult carries, especially when applied to new/fringe religious or ideological movements/organisations, caution is essential when using the term. Labelling a group as a cult without clear, objective criteria can lead to stigma, misrepresentation, and potential infringement on rights such as freedom of belief or association. (p. 2)
As well as the adoption of the West and Langone definition:
a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g., isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.), designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. (p. 3)
However, we are concerned that this position will come under significant pressure and risk of expansion in the definition of a cult to include mainstream religions.
For example, soon after the inquiry was announced, the ABC ran an article titled “All to Jesus I surrender”: When coercion is taken out of religion, what do we have left?
The article alleges that the inquiry will investigate “high demand” religious groups, which includes groups that influence “education, employment and opportunities, relationships, resources and lifestyle”. The article goes on to argue that faiths with high conviction (especially evangelical Christianity) are inherently coercive:
doesn’t religion qua religion require our “all”? Surely Christianity is, by necessity, “high demand”? Evangelicalism certainly is. Churches frequently sing “All to Jesus I surrender”, and as a Christian, I was taught to “die to myself” so that I might “live for Christ”. This is as high as demands get.
… surely the argument that one must give over one’s life and soul to avoid damnation is coercive by nature?
This article highlights the kinds of pressures that the inquiry will face to expand the definition of “cult” or “coercion” to include mainstream faiths.[al1] Clearly, if the definition of coercive behaviour includes mainstream religious beliefs and practices, this definition is far too broad for the purposes of the inquiry, which is designed to evaluate “cults and fringe groups”.
Accordingly, it is imperative that the inquiry uses a tight and clear definition of the term and ensures that the definition does not suffer from “scope creep”.
Lists of behaviours
One of the areas of greatest risk for expanding the definition of “cult” is in the description that the Guidance Note gives of “recruitment methods” and “tactics” used by cults. Many of the “tactics” listed are standard practice for most world religions, as well as many non-religious organisations, including:
- Offering belonging and purpose: Appealing to people seeking meaning, identity, or community.
- Promising transformation or salvation: Offering exclusive access to truth, enlightenment, or protection from existential threats.
- Slowly introducing core beliefs and increasing commitment through rituals, group activities, or study sessions.
- Peer recruitment: Leveraging social networks to build trust and credibility (friends, colleagues, family members).
Stated less pejoratively, other listed “tactics” are also standard practice for many world religions and non-religious associations:
- Demonstrating love and affection for new members and providing special attention to them to help them participate and connect.
- Inviting people to seminars and “first contact” events.
- Building rapport and community through social events.
- Providing particular support to those who are most vulnerable.
- Voluntary isolation, such as monastic orders.
The danger of the lists in the Guidance Note is that they mix these religious practices with conduct which may be coercive tactics. By doing this, the Guidance Note risks condemning mainstream religious activities by association. The danger is that the individual items on the lists are considered to be indicators of cult-like behaviour, or that they could be implicitly used as a scoring system. That is, if a religious group fulfils enough of these examples (restated as pejoratively as possible), then they are a “cult”.
Our concern is that, under anti-religious pressure, these definitions can be stretched to cover non-coercive but unpopular religious groups. This impairs other rights, including to have or to adopt a religion or belief of your choice (ICCPR 18.2).
We encourage the inquiry to emphasise that many of these activities are not, of themselves, cult-like behaviour. Indeed, the inquiry would much more effectively avoid the appearance of anti-religious bias by removing the lists entirely and focusing on a clearly scoped definition of “cult”.
Coercive Control
The terms of reference include the “impacts of coercive control”.
In order to consider the role of coercive control in cults and fringe groups, it is important to have a clear and contained definition of the term. There is no specific definition of “coercive control” in Victorian legislation. A Victorian Parliamentary Library Research Paper What is coercive control? notes that “there is currently no agreed-upon definition of coercive control itself … A 2017 study identified some 22 different definitions, all of which hold varying implications for research, practice and policy-making.” (p3)
However, that paper sketches a framework for coercive control that is helpful: (p3)
Coercive control describes a systematic pattern of behaviour used by a person to dominate and control another person…
While physical and sexual violence may be present, coercive control is characterised by nonphysical behaviours, including emotional and psychological abuse, financial abuse, technology facilitated abuse, stalking and intimidation…
The effect is that, over time, the person experiencing coercive control sees their sense of autonomy eroded.
Common features of coercive control include:
• jealousy and accusations of infidelity
• verbal abuse
• monitoring or control of movement
• restricting a partner’s access to money
• interfering with a partner’s relationships with family and/or friends
• making threats of self-harm, and
• making threats of violence against the partner, family, friends, children and/or pets
It is worth noting that the NSW Crimes Legislation Amendment (Coercive Control) Act 2022 legislates a definition of coercive control that matches the paper’s framework.
A few key elements of this definition are important:
- Coercive control involves a systematic pattern of abusive behaviours directed at an individual
- The intent of the behaviours is to coerce or control the person
A critical distinction must be made between deeply held religious convictions and coercive control, as defined above. Importantly, beliefs are not coercion. Even the presence of strong beliefs does not amount to coercive control.
Submissions to the Inquiry close July 31. Click here for more details on writing a submission
