Harry’s Place

How are they any different than Dershowitz?

I’m tired of this fake Flanker business. Flanker may be an idiot, but there’s no need to put up fake quotes from him which make him look even more foolish.

Ditto on the Fake Flanker.

Since when can’t free people refer to any church as a cult? I mean, I know little about Scientology, except that they used to offer me free peronality tests when I walked by their office on Guadaluupe St in Austin. (I already suspected I was flakey.) But geez. Is this guy really in trouble only for the sign? Please tell me there is something more.

David you missed out the best bit

“A spokeswoman for the force said today: “City of London police had received complaints about demonstrators using the words ‘cult’ and ‘Scientology kills’ during protests against the Church of Scientology.

“Following advice from the Crown Prosecution Service some demonstrators were warned verbally and in writing that their signs breached section five of the Public Order Act.

We need to ask the CPS if they really did say this (after the WMP debacle who can be sure? )And is the CPS advice actually correct if Scientology is not an officially recognised church?

Incidentally Chief Superintendent Kevin Hurley presumably reports up the line to the City of London Police Commissioner Mike Bowron, who was in turn appointed by the City’s Police Committee chaired by Kevin Knowles.

Maybe that is the place to start asking what is going on and why the City Police are treating the Scientologists as a religion. The Jedi warriors have as much claim to be recognised as a church after all, probably more as there are more of us in the uk .

Ho Ho the plot thickens. It seems the CPS gave the City Police NO such advice.

A CPS spokesman said no specific advice was given to police regarding the boy’s placard.

“In April, prior to this demonstration, as part of our normal working relationship we gave the City of London police general advice on the law around demonstrations and religiously aggravated crime in particular.

“We did not advise on this specific case prior to the summons being issued – which the police can do without reference to us – but if we receive a file we will review it in the normal way according to the code for crown prosecutors.”

The police must really stop doing this, (and in relation to the Data Protection Act as well.) If Scientology is not a religion but only an organisation, how can protesting against it be a religiously aggravated crime? I imagine the CPS will find there is no case to answer and that it is just another case of bully boy tactics by the police, the city police in this case.

As above some needs to write to the Commissioner, asking him why they are treating scientology as a religion.

The “alarm or distress” clause is surely unsustainable as a legal principle. Any speech that is critical of something or someone will naturally cause a degree of distress or alarm to the person or group being criticised. And if criticism isn’t the very point of free speech, I don’t know what is!

Surely they are no different to any of the other so called religions. Try criticising Islam the way you criticise the Scientologists and see how far you get. All religions aim to dupe the public while taking their money why pick on just one of them. And by the way I think you’ll find that christians, muslims and all the rest have infiltrated the Police and, for that matter, the government too.

I think Duncan has a point.

Interesting update on Indymedia (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/398728.html) but as it is quite short I will include relevant section here:

“During the first picket of the day, outside the Church of Scientology’s building in Queen Victoria Street in the heart of the City of London, a protestor was approached by police. He was requested to take down a placard he had brought, reading “Scientology is a dangerous cult.”

The request was under section 5 of the public order Act, which reads as follows:

“Section 5 - Harassment, alarm or distress

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he - a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour. or b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”

So does calling someone or organisation a cult, constitute threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour? I suppose the Scientologists claim it is insulting and has caused them distress.(Duncan - Scientology does not have the status of a church in the UK whatever it choses to call itself - it is an organisation).

This appears therefore to mean that anyone peacefully campaigning about anything, for example could Greenpeace against say oil extraction in Canada, outside BP/Canadian Embassy could and get arrested on the same grounds if BP took exception to the banners.

We have to ask what is going on here. I hope Liberty is on the case.

Incidentally indymedia says :

“This is by no means an isolated incident. In Edinburgh, protestors were prevented from using a megaphone or saying the word “cult,” and were confined to a small area. In Manchester, meanwhile, protestors were coralled into a small space by police units, chanting was forbidden, and rumour has it police dog squads were deployed.

“A few weeks before the most recent demonstration, a small group of protestors were confronted at Tottenham Court Road by a series of police vans and cars and forced to leave the area following a bogus complaint of harassment by the Scientology centre there. ”

It seems Scientology is exploiting the law and the police are stupidly cooperating.

I am not going to join in any fashionable slagging off of Scientologists.

Anything you could say about Scientology could be said about mainstream religions.

- They have in the past persecuted their enemies (tick box for all major branches of Christianity and Islam). Many still do - most branches of Islam still fall into that category.

- They indulge in mind control. What religion doesn’t? The Catholic confessional and regular mass attendance is v. like the testing and “clear” system in Scientology.

- They hawk for business on the streets. So do many evangelical sects and Hare Krishna.

- Their beliefs are absurd. More absurd than the Mormons’ idea that God is a material being and you can progress to being a sort of cosmic noble with your own planet to rule over? More absurd than Muslims’ belief that Mohammed went on a “magic carpet” ride to Jersualem in the middle of the night? More absurd than Christians who believe the bread and wine is really and truly turned into the body and blood of Christ?

At the end of the day Scientologists do a lot of good work with the mentally ill, getting them off dangerous medication and helping them to function more or less normally, which I applaud.

Of course I defend the right of people to call Scientology a cult. But there must be limits of course to how far people can disrupt the lives of other law abiding people.

Surely the crucial point is how attractive the scientologist women are. Got any pictures?

At the end of the day Scientologists do a lot of good work with the mentally ill, getting them off dangerous medication: they appear to have a zero tolerance of drugs for mental illness dangerous or otherwise, and their opposition can be quite threatening and harmful in cases where such drugs have been clinically judged important to the well being and to helping people to function normally.

My husband was ready early today to offer to defend this lad pro bono if I could get a message to him, but I couldn’t find any way of contacting.

I can’t see how the CPS will proceed with this case, but I wish the police could be given a salutory lesson by being sued under the HRA, as they have caused the lad unecessary distress and created a chilling and intimidating effect on free speech.

Zenu will get you for this. You’ll get your own volcano.

At the end of the day Scientologists do a lot of good work with the mentally ill, getting them off dangerous medication and helping them to function more or less normally, which I applaud

The Scientologists portray clinical psychiatry as a form of Nazi war crime. They produce lying propaganda to propagate that rubbish. They believe this, because L Ron Hubbard took the view that psychiatry was in competition with the harmful “services” that Scientology offers.

All this really boils down to is a turf war as to which union gets to represent the workers at the job site.

David T- quite- have you seen their leaflets, field? The idiom is straight Goebbels, with the psychiatrist portrayed as the fang toothed maniac slavering over the patient who is tied up and force fed drugs.

You might like to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6xk5D0qte4

I sort of gather from indymedia above that maybe the Scientologists got wind of the protests and got their objections, quoting the relevant law, into their tame police force first. I assume frm the mealy mouthed statement by the CPS that the City Police did consult them but only got advised on general principles which is a bit to vague for your average plod to understand.

According to one source “My understanding is that the police consider it an offence because they consider the term ‘cult’ is an opinion rather than a fact. ”

Still massive own goal for the City Police and the Scientologists. The Americans are AMAZED that such a minor thing as calling it a cult could result in a prosecution.

Are we turning into a police state?

At the end of the day Scientologists do a lot of good work with the mentally ill, getting them off dangerous medication and helping them to function more or less normally, which I applaud.

Anyone who is denying mentally ill people the drugs they need to have somewhat functional brains is committing a crime against humanity.

Some of those drugs have very unpleasant side effects, but the symptoms they suppress are can be much worse. Delusions are no joke, neither is major depression etc. etc.

There are bad drugs on the market - which are probably only used because newer medications are still expensive. That’s a problem in some countries.. but don’t make harmful ignorance a virtue

About the protesters. You’d be shocked if you knew how silly those protests are, or the internet subculture they came from.

Here’s a site that is both part of that culture and talks about it.
Read it at your own risk. It’s offensive in every way so don’t read it at work or if anyone who you want respect from is in the room
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page

David,
By criticizing this religion in this manner you help to support other religions as being somehow more valid.
From the historical evidence, the only thing that qualifies a religion as being valid in ordinary language is longevity, this can be seen in the way that the Mormon church has slowly become socially acceptable.
Validation through longevity is an extremely Conservative position, and a surprising one to find on a left wing blog, even if only implicitly stated.

Scientologyphobia is my favourite neologism of the week.

Does anyone know whether any organisations are offering to cover the financial costs and provide legal support to the boy in question? A 15 year old isn’t going to have any independent resources of his own to fight this and could well be tempted to accept a caution.

I don’t regard religious beliefs as deserving of any special protection.

I do accept that there are some religious beliefs which so profoundly define an individual’s sense of self, as a member of a community which holds such beliefs, that to deny them or to speak of them offensively is experienced as a deep sense of existential hurt.

Nevertheless, I don’t think that only religious beliefs are definitive in that sense. I do not think that any strongly held personal beliefs should be defended by the coercive power of the state.

In fact, I don’t know how you define a religious belief, as opposed to any other sort of strongly held conviction. That makes it impossible, in my view, to single out religious beliefs for special protection.

Not all religious people want legal protection for their beliefs. Those who do, very often want a special status accorded to their beliefs, but want to remain free to attack those who hold opposing or merely divergent views. They’re not necessarily asking for evenhandedness.

Scientology is a particularly pernicious scam that uses sinister methods to protect its operation. However the main issue here is one of human rights and freedom of speech. It shouldn’t be illegal to call scientology a dangerous cult, ditto catholicism, protestantism, islam, judaism etc. The only public order issue is that the people who are offended by this need to behave properly when their beliefs are challenged, not break the law or bribe the police to arrest people (hypothetically speaking…)

Scientology strikes me as a particularly successful form of personality cult (focussed around Hubbard). It’s interesting to see how they have spun their material quite successfully, whilst other similar personality cults have spectacularly self-destructed eg. Jonestown.

Scientology is nothing more than a dangerous pyramid scheme.

It can be very easily distinguished from Islam, Judaism or even Jedi for that reason. It’s no more a religion worthy of anyone’s respect or protection than Betterware or (for our American chums), Amway.

Field, you are either deluded or a scientology sympathiser.

The City of London police are only enforcing laws that have been made by our elected representatives ie ‘Nu’ Labour, NOT a few poxy Scientologists. They (nu labour) were at the forefront in criminalising ‘hate’ speech, a move enthusiasticaly supported by most of the Left. “Hoist by their own petard”? I should say so! I’m with the RCP/Spiked on this one. This is definitely a free speech issue, one which our American friends should be acquainted with.

To believe in any political ideology requires you to believe in things that are not derivable from reason and evidence, such as assumptions about human nature and natural or human rights.
Therefore, the beliefs of secular liberal democracy and notions of equality and human rights could possibly be seen as a religion outside of the West.
The division between religious belief and political ideology could be seen as a distinction that arises out of the compromises that followed the historical decline of Christian Church power. In this view it is effectively a face saving piece of useful hypocrisy that prevents a triumphalist aura to attach to the achievements of secular liberal democracy in opposition to other forms of religion.
However, this useful and largely unconscious religious transformation has problems when it comes into contact with other religions, because those other religions haven’t yet acknowledged defeat and have no desire to engage in face saving compromises.
I would offer a defence of the religion of western liberal democracy and human rights as being less Conservative than other forms of religion since it is capable of the change and transformation, according to circumstances, of many of its laws by the participation of many people.

alanBy criticizing this religion in this manner you help to support other religions as being somehow more valid
Whatever criticisms you may level at particular religions or religion in general, Scientology is NOT a religion. It is a moneymaking pyramid selling scheme with a side order of manic persecution of psychiatry and psychotropic drugs. You may say televangelism is also a moneymaking scheme, but not even televangelism zealously and litigiously guards its “religious” materials through intellectual property laws to exclude anyone not paying increasingly vast sums of money to access this “knowledge.”.

The story apparently came out on the messageboards at enturbulation.org which is probably the place to make contact with him. I was reading somewhere the lad has been offered a legal defence by LIBERTY though I cant remember where I saw it now.

Obviously the city of london police are just asking for protestors to wave ’stop sucking up to Hubbard’s stinking CU*T’ placards at them.

Most religions are akin to historical re-enactment clubs. Like the Sealed Knot.

“Scientology is nothing more than a dangerous pyramid scheme.”
Absolutely true.

It can be very easily distinguished from Islam, Judaism or even Jedi for that reason.
I challenge you to name a single aspect applicable to real life where Scientology is not superior to Islam.

Just because Islam is huge doesn’t change its nature and make it better.

So will the child be charged under blasphemy laws?

So will the child be charged under blasphemy laws?

No - IIRC they only apply to the CofE.

THis seems to be the CIty of London Police overreacting somewhat (the reasons for which one can only but speculate) - - -I think similar demonstrations (including the dreaded c word!) have taken place outside the mad Hubbbard Cult offices on Tottenham COurt Road, which falls within the Met’s, rather than the City Police’s jurisdiction, without objection.

This is really quite outrageous, all in all. Rarely did the Stephen Fry “you’re offended? so fucking what” line apply to such an extent. Would he have been arrested if he had a sign calling them (no less inaccurately) a “scam” rather than a “cult”.

The creeping intrusion of unnecessary laws….

Most religions are akin to historical re-enactment clubs. Like the Sealed Knot.

Some have better music and better costumes though. (I’ve just spent a blissful evening listening to one of the world’s greatest organist play Messaien’s Livre du Saint-Sacrement in Westminster Cathedral)

Coincidentally, this just popped onto my radar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology

Its almost as weird as Scientology.

“I’m tired of this fake Flanker business. Flanker may be an idiot, but there’s no need to put up fake quotes from him which make him look even more foolish.”

Hehe, touche!

Shmuel it’s a bunch of immature teenagers whose main goal is to amuse themselves at other people’s expense.

Which shouldn’t be a problem. I fully support the right to stand outside a church, point and laugh. Or to say offensive things to believers. Or organize silly protests in the hope of getting laid.

Really isn’t that the reason for all fringe parties, getting laid. Maybe these guys are smarter, they just want to laugh, get drunk and laid without all of the time waste of seriously pretending to care about something.

Btw. Did we ever find out what the CPS’s role in the channel4 - WMP - undercover mosque mess? I had a look on ofcom’s website and it made no mention of the CPS raising a complaint, just WMP.

This, the arrest of the Dutch cartoonist, the persecution of Mark Steyn in Canada….doesn’t bode well. Totalitarianism in the name of tolerance. Who will stop this creeping statism?

MRS TRELLIS SAYS:

“Scientology is nothing more than a dangerous pyramid scheme.

It can be very easily distinguished from Islam, Judaism or even Jedi for that reason. It’s no more a religion worthy of anyone’s respect or protection than Betterware or (for our American chums), Amway.

Field, you are either deluded or a scientology sympathiser.”

MY REPLY:

1. If Scientology is a pyramid scheme so are all evangelical religions. No religion is intrinsically productive, so to sustain themselves,their hierarchy and their capital investments and to expand, they all need a constant stream of converts. To the extent that zealot converts can get a paid place in the church, they benefit from the pyramid scheme.
However, the pyramid scheme analogy isn’t really valid since religions, Scientology included, rely on CONTINUING donations, not one off introductory payments. Let’s not forget also that Islam has in its founding texts detailed instructions on how to split war booty. Christianity also has in its founding texts a description of death being meted out as punishment to those who challenge the Church’s financial rules.

2. I think I’ve shown it CAN’T be easily distinguished from other religions.

3. Either you deluded or you are a sympathiser of a rival religion and have a vested interest in slagging them off.

TO OTHERS:

People seem to assume that getting people off these drugs is by definition harmful, but I’ve seen little evidence of that. I think in response to my observation that I’ve NEVER read of a case where someone harmed themselves or someone else as a result in the UK, a respondent came up with ONE story. I could point to plenty of stories where such drugs have been implicated in serious incidents of violence e.g. the recent shooting by the barrister chap - he was on anti-depressants.

And in case anyone hasn’t noticed - this is supposed to be a free country. If people want to publicise the idea that psychiatric doctors are fang toothed maniacs, they should be free to do so:

“Liberty if it means anything is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.”

David T condemning this wicked cult.

Q - What’s the difference between a cult and a religion

A - The spelling!

I do accept that there are some religious beliefs which so profoundly define an individual’s sense of self, as a member of a community which holds such beliefs, that to deny them or to speak of them offensively is experienced as a deep sense of existential hurt.

One could just as easily define religious belief as a variable, and change the content to any of ‘political beliefs’, ‘hobbies’, ’sexual predilections’, ‘football teams’, ‘pop groups’ , ‘favorite authors’….and any number other things.

There is no good reason that religious beliefs or preferences should trump any other; or should be especially sheltered from critique or ridicule.

Indeed personally, I find Christianity waaaay more ridiculous and worthy of ridicule than train spotting.

And L Ron Hubbard was a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE writer…..possibly one of the worst ever to get into print. I wonder if he self published?

Neil, and look where it got him. There’s a lesson there, somewhere.

According to the Guardian’s account, the police objected (or presumably the Scientologists did via the City Police) to the protestors’ use of the word “cult” as “abusive and insulting”.

On the news coverage, some hapless teenage (well she looked it) policewoman was delegated to hand out the summons and clearly had no idea what she was doing. Someone higher up in the City Police should be brought to account for this lunacy.

As posted above the Commissioner of the City Police is Mike Bowron and the Head of the City Committee to whom he reports is Kevin Knowles.

The address of the City Police is 37 Wood Street
London EC2P 2NQ.

There is a Professional Standards Directorate but in my experience all complaints against the police actions are rejected unless you are the direct target, or a family member of the target. Still it might be worth writing anyway.

It is at Professional Standards Directorate
PO Box 36451
London EC2M 4WN
Tel: 020 7601 2770
E-mail: psd_public@cityoflondon.police.uk

The Chairman of the City’s Police Committee is Stanley Keith Knowles, known as Keith Knowles. He is a retired chartered surveyor. I imagine you could write to him at the Police HQ but I don’t know if it might not get “Lost in the Post” .

Here are his personal contact details

8 Devereux Lane
Barnes

London
SW13 8DA

Tel: 020 8748 3751
Mobile: 07818 897879
Fax:
Email: keith.knowles@cityoflondon.gov.uk

I imagine the police will state the summons was required after the Scientologists complained about “abusive and insulting remarks” under the Public Order Act. Of course they are not officially a religion in the UK but have cosied up to the City Police and clearly persuaded them to treat them as one. Would the same response would have occurred if the protestors had been say Greenpeace gathered outside BP hq? I wonder.

I imagine it will get thrown out by the CPS or if not by a judge but it establishes a dangerous precedent. Are we no longer allowed to make any statements that anyone anywhere might find insulting? Ludicrous.

Incidentally there were a lot of protestors but they were gathered on the far side of the road behind barriers and not actually jostling anyone outside the so called Church itself. And there were lots of placards saying it was a cult.

Another update for you: on the BBC website, Chief Supt Rob Bastable is quoted as saying: “City of London Police upholds the right to demonstrate lawfully, but we have to balance that with the right of all sections of community not to be alarmed, harassed or distressed as a result of other people’s behaviour.”

Get that - “all sections of the community have the right not be alarmed harrassed or distressed by other people’s behaviour”. If that really what the Public Order Act says? In other words you must do nothing to offend or upset anyone at any time or they can set the police on you?

On the City Police website, it gives Chief Spt Bastable’s career profile and includes the comment:. “Rob is currently the Force Champion for Faith and Age”. Maybe a clue there?

I have listed his CV in full below because you can see quite clearly in his rise from Garage Sergeant to Head of Tactical Firearms to Staff Officer, all with the City Police, that he is a man of action rather than thought. Nothing wrong with that but should such men be expected to implement the subtle distinctions of ill conceived legislation like the Public Order Act?

This lies at the heart of a lot of police daftness. The guys just don’t have the finely honed legal training or the intellects or the depth knowledge of the law to make value judgements on the fine detail of the Public Order Act or the Data Protection Act, to take two examples. ACC Patani of the WMP for example. Or Derbyshire Police incorrectly shredding records under a mistaken interpretation of the DPA in the Soham case.

So they apply for guidance to the CPS who are basically not up to the job either. As we saw in the Dispatches libel trial last week. Instead they resort to bullying without any proper legal basis.

(The CPS is under fire again at present for hopeless record keeping and also from the Criminal Bar, apparently they have draconian internal targets on how many cases to handle and in order to meet them, they they are making in-house decisions on prosecutions which the Criminal Bar claims they are ill-qualified to make in many cases. Ah those pernicious targets again - part of the Brownite culture - but at least the blame is finally coming home to roost at his door. Hallelujah).

If you are interested I have listed Rob Barstable’s CV in full below:

“Rob joined the Force in 1984 serving at Bishopsgate, both in uniform and CID. In 1989 he was promoted to Sergeant at Bishopsgate and in1991 was posted to the role of Garage Sergeant, managing the Force instant response vehicles.

In 1996 Rob was promoted to Inspector. He transferred to AT&PO, firstly as Head of the Traffic Patrol Section and in 1998 he took over as Head of the Tactical Firearms Group. In 2000 was selected for the post of Commissioner’s Staff Officer.

In 2001 Rob was promoted to Chief Inspector at Bishopsgate BCU, undertaking a Diploma at the Wolfson College, Cambridge.

In 2003 Rob was promoted to Superintendent at Bishopsgate BCU.

In 2006 Rob passed a promotion board for Chief Superintendent and was posted to Snow Hill. In February he was appointed T/Chief Superintendent, (BCU) Divisional Commander at Snow Hill.”

So will the child be charged under blasphemy laws?

The law has been repealed.

Woohoo!

I’m sure his name is Robert, or maybe Roberto, but certainly not “Rob”

“cult”, “sect”, “scam” - which of these are arrestable words?

This is all an ill-thought-through offshoot of the Lawrence enquiry/Macpherson report: the police no longer seem to have the balls (or are allowed to have the balls) to tell those who aggressively take offence at anything to get a grip and stop wasting police time and public money

So one person demonstrates and is arrested. Hardly massive beach of the peace, however thousands of baying Muslims throng the streets during the Cartoon demo’s and not one arrest? Methinks one law for one etc is at play or is there now a protected species policy going on?

‘breach’

Zenu will get you for this. You’ll get your own volcano.

*cough* Its actually Xenu, old bean. And don’t forget the luxurious DC-3s to transport you there as well…

If any $cientologists are reading this, we’ve just saved you the $500,000 dollars it would take you to get to OTIII and learn this shit^H^H^H^Hthe secrets of his most high elronness. As thanks, you can send a tenth of that, in new unmarked bills to…

Methinks one law for one etc is at play or is there now a protected species policy going on?

There is. Its quite simple. There is a certain section of liberal thought and opinion-formers whose liberal self-loathing has got to such a point that they automatically presume that brown people can do no wrong and must be reflexively “defended” at all costs. Anything that impinges upon once of these groups that have had special status accorded onto them is “imperialism” and is therefore utterly verboten. Of course, this is all racist and patronising as fuck, since inherent in this viewpoint is the idea that said brown people are a) all the same, b) are mere puppets who can’t help reacting to provocation, and c) so helpless they need shining while liberal knights to help them. Its also inherently selfish as anything since its all about liberal self-gratification.

The classical example of this of course, is TheIrie. TheIrie would shit himself if he ever actually had to come into contact with a brown person, instead of just patronising them at a distance. He should try masturbation instead - it would be less frustrating for the rest of us. And would divert his energies into something a bit more enjoyable than defending Holocaust Deniers just because their skin isn’t pink.

DavidT
I do accept that there are some religious beliefs which so profoundly define an individual’s sense of self, as a member of a community which holds such beliefs, that to deny them or to speak of them offensively is experienced as a deep sense of existential hurt.

That old saw. ‘An individuals’s sense of self ‘. Sorry, but it’s arrant shite which perpetuates the bearded lies of bearded loons; component with that stripe of thinking which avers that to be ‘Islamophobic’ or even mildly concerned about, say, the RoP, is consonant with being a racist.

Is there any rigorous reason why, apart from being a 3rd rate SF scribbler, Hiram B. Dullard shouldn’t be considered the new messiah?

Stone’s Justices Manual is clear that Section 5, Public Order Act 1986, is meant to prosecute disorderly behaviour, directed at other people, not to catch orderly demonstrations.

There is absolutely no possibility of a successful conviction here, and the law has been misused by the police.

The right to have a system of belief, religious or otherwise, is protected under article 18 of the UDHR and codified in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights as well as the ECHR.

But this in no way whatsoever confers the right for religious or quasi-religious organisations to demand immunity from criticism, scrutiny, mockery and yes, even abuse. A disgraceful resolution was muscled through the UN Human Rights Council in March that will now require the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to effectively police what are being described as “abuses” of free expression pertaining to religion.

In other words a tool designed to protect free expression is going to be perverted to serve the interests of religious movements to bring pressure to censor those who are critical of religion, religious ideas and relgious organisations.

I have a religious faith myself, but these alarming developments are Orwellian and gnaw at a fundamental pillar of an open society. God is big enough to take care of itself.

1. If Scientology is a pyramid scheme so are all evangelical religions. No religion is intrinsically productive, so to sustain themselves,their hierarchy and their capital investments and to expand, they all need a constant stream of converts. To the extent that zealot converts can get a paid place in the church, they benefit from the pyramid scheme.

Untrue. Scientology’s considerable profits come from its franchise operations. Converts set up franchises in order to cover their costs, necessitating bringing in new recruits if they are not to go bankrupt.

Some evangelical churches do receive excessive donations that leave their members in penury, but such churches are *also* fraudulent and get shot down in flames from time to time.

You said this yourself: “To the extent that zealot converts can get a paid place in the church, they benefit from the pyramid scheme.” All Scientologists, apart from the cosseted and pampered celebrities recruited for marketing purposes, are part of the pyramid. If they cannot recruit enough new members, they are set to work for the church, signing billion-year contracts so they may continue to serve in the afterlife.

You cannot compare Scientology to religious institutions that function on donations from their congregation. You could argue that they are “spiritual” pyramid schemes, but no mainstream religion has been banned in so many countries due to its illegal operating practices - other than Scientology.

3. Either you deluded or you are a sympathiser of a rival religion and have a vested interest in slagging them off.

Just an interest in slagging them off, with a very good reason.

If you are interested, there is a group of ex-Scientologists who continue with the courses and “tech” without paying. They’re known as Free Zone or squirrels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29

If nothing else, one can distinguish Scientology from other religions by this one thing. Their texts are copyrighted and can only be accessed by members, for a fee. I can think of no *religion* where this is the case. If I want to read the Vedas, the Quran, Torah, Talmud or anything else, I can, for free.

In fact you can read the texts, should you wish, at http://www.xenu.net and also on wikileaks. But they’re really not worth the trouble.

The bottom line seems to be that Scientologists in the UK have persuaded the authorities and in particular the police and the City Corporation, and even the CPS, that they ARE a church and a religion and not just a membership organisation, which is what in fact they are legally in the UK.

They have done this by repeatedly calling themselves a church and emphasising their “charitable” work with drug addicts. This convinced the City of London Corporation to give them an 80% rebate on their Victoria Street “church” building and enabled them to get not only senior policemen but also City fathers along to support its opening.

Meanwhile given its quasi but incorrectly perceived status of religion, the police around the UK are apparently terrified of upsetting it as this will lay them open to supporting religious persecution or something.

There was an anti Scientology demo in Manchester recently where the police descended en mass and confiscated all the banners and made the demonstrators (with the help of police horses) assemble round the corner out of view of the Scientologists building.

There are going to be monthly demonstrations by Anonymous, the next one is on June 11th, and presumably the Scientologists are leaning on the police to break them up as they are feeling harrassed. The police have consulted the CPS who has advised the use of the Public Order Act, but now badly burned by the WMP affair, is washing its hands of the whole thing in public.

Oh for a sensible Chief Constable somewhere to challenge all this nonsense. Sadly it is the CoLP in this case not the Met Police so we cannot call upon Boris to stand up to the Scientologists.

‘In Manchester, meanwhile, protestors were coralled into a small space by police units, chanting was forbidden, and rumour has it police dog squads were deployed’

Indymedia that reliable source of racist bollocks tells the usual pack of lies again. No dogs and the ‘corall’ was UU replacing the drains on Deansgate outside where the ‘Tologists have their shop. I have never seen anyone other than the staff go in there in twenty years. As for chanting well they must have been too shy to shout much, being out without their mummies to hold their hands an’ all.

And no one, surely no one, apart from these teenage internet wanarkerist dweebs of ‘Anonymous’ that attend these miniscule street theatrics does not already know what Scientology is. And it ain’t a religion anymore than New Age neo-paganism is.

Maybe the Police just had enough of the pimply whiney little twats.

I suppose there’s something defective in the CPS guidelines since the met and city forces apparently interpret the same words to mean different things. Perhaps ACPO needs to kick up a fuss if they’re being given vague or confusing guidance.

For ‘Police descending en masse’ see one dozen coppers for all of thirty or so spotty youths dis-guising their acne with Vendetta masques. The mounted Police were the usual ones that always saunter along in the city centre Saturday mornings and were probably on-hand due to usual ethusiasms of this sort of teenage anarchist tosser to break windows and swear at old ladies and the like when their parents aren’t around.

I once did polling station duty during an election, collecting voting card numbers for Labour, alongside the Tory representative.

The Tory chap told me that he was a Scientologist. He had just come back from a very expensive course, delivered on board a cruise ship. He confided that his employers had denied him the time off, but had taken it in any case, as it was a very important course. Therefore, he had been sacked. His view was that it had been worth it, because the course was so useful. It helped him to realise his potential, apparently.

It wasn’t Freewinds, was it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freewinds

Poor LRH wanted a navy, but all he got was one ropey cruise ship.

omg: From that Freewinds link: field, never mind harmful drugs, what about all those asbestos- contaminated level 8 thetans?

Scientology continues to deny that there is an Asbestos problem. On May 15, 2008, a Scientology spokesperson told Metro, “There is not now and never has been a situation of asbestos exposure on the Freewinds.” [20] although this is notably false, and evidence of blue asbestos has been rife for over 21 years. [21]. Scientology continues to maintain falsely that no asbestos was found on the ship, which could potentially stop Scientologists from getting the medical help they require.

That reminds me DT - I was going to attempt a guest post about my day pollclerking in the safest tory ward in cheshire earlier in the month… probably too late now and nothing especially interesting happened really.

we were able to hear the tellers getting peoples numbers inside the station through a side window a lot of the time so we frequently knew who was coming in to vote before they came through the door… we decided it’d be a bit too alarming to greet them with ‘hello Fred Smith of 9 Acacia Road’ though

Scientologists’ desire to censor anyone accusing them of cultism make me want to shout “SCIENTOLOGY IS A CULT!” outside their offices. But of greater concern is the possible link between the “gifts” given by the “Church” of Scientology to the police, who in return have been more than willing to censor demonstrators calling it a cult - bear in mind that a judge stated his belief that Scientology is a cult, so they are simply reiterating these words. I don’t like a wealthy celebrity-backed cult apparently buying off police officers in return for the suspension of the right to freedom of speech. This is of far greater concern than the cult’s nonsensical beliefs.

ami good for Mr ami
———————–

field

we spend a lot of time on this site debating the central ideas and texts of Islam, and despite its qualification as a religion according to the usual set of criteria, the argument is to what extent its core beliefs and practices; inform, condition or determine violent actions directly, though negatively, associated with its doctrines.

Scientology, even if it were to graduate from a cult to a more widely dispersed religion, would not be exempt from such an interogation.

The core views of scientology are a kind of techno-hippy-solipsistic-totalitarianism.

illness, infirmity, disability and disease are unethical and only experienced by weaker people who have failed to triumph over their bodies by the excercise of will as expressed in dianetics (via its franchise operations).

An adept who has prrogressed through training (at great expense, I have interviewed some) levels to reach mastery level is quite literally incapable of experiencing pain or becoming sick (hence the totally silent deliveries expected of scientologists giving birth).

Scientology has a very unpleasant view of human frailty that is quasi-fascistic in its intolerance.

Its cures for drug users are not so different to the rigours of Burmese drug rehabilitation programmes that I once had the distasteful experience of reviewing in a seminar.

The proponent of these camps from the ministry of health told me how detoxification (from heroin addiction) was acheived in the jungle based ‘health and character reform camps’ ‘naturally without the use of drugs through purposeful labour, in a spirit of joy’.
—————————————-

As for the word cult as pejorative prohibited form of ‘hate’ speech OM!

All sociologists and anthropologists of religion are done for then.

Shinto is routinely referred to as a state or Imperial cult.

I nearly used the word ’state cult’ the other day to refer to the Church of England (though properly speaking this would not refer to later Anglicanism but would correctly describe the innovations of Queen Elizabeth 1st)

What this lad had in his placard doesn’t come close to the signs the religious nutters who stand outside the IoD protesting against