the desecration of law

Earlier on this blog, I’ve dealt briefly with the Molau/Ravagli affair, mostly in Swedish (although there are some good links to English and German websites in those posts). Andreas Lichte wrote an interesting post about the embarrassing collaboration that the waldorf movement does not want to acknowledge.

Long story short: Ravagli is a prominent anthroposophist. Molau is–or was, until he had to quit–a waldorf teacher in a German waldorf school. Molau also happens to be a high-ranking representative of the German nationalist party, NPD. The pair wrote a book together, but when Ravagli and his anthroposophical friends realized that the book project would endanger the reputation of the anthroposophical movement, Ravagli withdrew his participation and wouldn’t let the book be published.

Andreas Lichte interviewed Molau, who quoted passages from the book–thus it happened that Ravagli’s statements from the book were made public, to the detriment–or so I assume–of the anthroposophical movement. Ravagli, rather than refute or comment on the statements, chose the all too familiar–in anthroposophical circumstances–route: he had his lawyer hand Molau, Lichte and the publisher of the article threats that he’d sue if they didn’t refrain from publishing the quotes. Andreas Lichte was to agree to a settlement which would prohibit him from using Ravagli’s quotes from the unpublished book in any and all contacts with the press.*

The misuse and abuse of law to silence criticism is by no means a new tactic for cult followers and pseudoscience adherents. Anthroposophists have used it to suppress expression of opinion on web forums (e g, Mumsnet, Times Education Supplement, BBC discussion board). They have threatened journals (i e, Folkvett) with lawsuits if their demands are not met. They have had books (i e, the Grandts’ books on anthroposophy) taken off the market or stopped the publication (that is, apparently, an option available in some countries). This is a tactic sadly familiar. Right now, Simon Singh is standing trial for writing that chiropractors promote bogus treatments when they recommend chiropractics for conditions such as asthma and various childhood problems–indications for which chiropractics have no proven effect and no realistic explanation regarding how it works.

In Humanistischer Pressedienst I read more about the legal threats against Andreas Lichte. In an article aptly entitled “Steiners Apologet im Zwielicht”, Lichte is reported as saying that although he had counted on winning a case, he had no choice but settling; even a potential risk of losing was too tough to bear, he did not dare it. Unfortunately, anthroposophists win, and they once again succeed in stifling criticism. They don’t want to discuss with people, they don’t want to engage with criticism, they don’t want honesty and fairness–they only want people to shut up, before the repuation of anthroposophy is harmed.

But eventually, such a tactic may backfire.

And, as Humanistischer Pressedienst notes, the fact that Ravagli turns to this method of lawsuit threats, is

“… characteristic and sheds light on his dysfunctional relationship to foundational democratic rights, such as the freedom of information and the freedom of press.”

ps. Thanks to Peter who recommended the new article.

Update: anthroposophists make an unsuccessful attempt at resurrecting a sense of dignity. Not very convincing. Note how the writer refrains discussing any of the matters honestly. What about that collaboration? What about the anthroposophist who’s a Nazi? What about the racism expressed by Ravagli, even without the aid of Molau? What about the scare tactics and the use of legal threats to silence criticism? What about the content of those quotes the world is now prohibited from seeing?