A European religious freedom group is slamming the prosecution of OneTaste founder Nicole Daedone and former executive Rachel Cherwitz. The group, CAP LC—official (French) name Coordination des Associations et des Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience—has United Nations consultative status, which means it’s accredited by the U.N. to submit written statements and make oral arguments before the U.N. Human Rights Council. “The issues at hand involve not only the fate of two individuals but also the limits of freedom of thought, conscience, and belief,” said CAP LC in a recent letter to the council.
Daedone and Cherwitz were convicted last year of one count of conspiracy to commit forced labor and sentenced to nine and 6.5 years in prison, respectively. They have since appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
OneTaste is a wellness group best known for its promotion of orgasmic meditation (OM), a partnered clitoral stroking practice that the group advocates for both sexual and psychological health reasons. But while OM gets the most attention, it was just one part of a system of beliefs inspired by Buddhism, feminism, theosophy, and more. OneTaste leaders advocated for openness to new experiences, including sexual experiences, and consensual non-monogamy. Hardcore OM devotees sometimes lived in communal spaces and engaged in other common behaviors, like participating in daily yoga and abstaining from alcohol.
In court, prosecutors seemed intent on putting the group’s beliefs and practices on trial. They also relied on concerning theories of forced labor and of consent. Alleged victims freely admitted to consenting to various activities—from non-sexual activities and labor to participating in orgasmic meditation sessions to hookups with OneTaste investors or students—and sometimes even initiating these activities. But according to prosecutors, this consent and initiative didn’t count because OneTaste leaders were psychologically manipulative and exerted outsize influence on some participants’ lives. This was forced labor, suggested prosecutors, because Daedone and Cherwitz made them think they wanted to do things that they might not have done independently.
“The legal theory used to secure the convictions marks a major departure from established constitutional principles,” states the CAP LC letter to the U.N. Human Rights Council. “The defendants were convicted…based solely on psychological influence, without evidence of threats, violence, or physical coercion.”
You can see how this theory might apply to a wide range of religious groups, philosophical movements, political movements, self-improvement programs, health regimens, lifestyle groups, and so on. If the federal statute against human trafficking (which forced labor falls under) moves beyond cases involving force, fraud, restraint, and more traditional forms of coercion (like threats or blackmail) and starts extending to things like persuasion, spiritual instruction, and advice giving, we risk turning all sorts of influence and ordinary business into a crime. All authorities have to do is label something a cult, and voila—any of the group’s instructions, practices, and marketing tactics become sinister.
The “prosecution relied heavily on anti-cult narratives and the idea of ‘brainwashing,’ a theory largely dismissed by scholars of religion as pseudoscience,” states the CAP LC letter. “If psychological influence alone can count as forced labor, any spiritual, therapeutic, or community group—regardless of belief—may face prosecution based on subjective interpretations of relationships.”
“Former members of mainstream faith communities could file civil claims under trafficking laws, which require less evidence and offer significant financial incentives,” it continues. “This precedent risks legitimizing the use of trafficking law to target minority spiritual movements, a trend already apparent in other parts of the world where broad definitions of ‘coercion’ have been used to suppress unorthodox beliefs.”
