[Ir-l] HELP! Please lobby against the criminal cult of Scientology getting new powers against its critics

[William Palfreman]

There are plenty of reasons to oppose any kind of law that seeks to
restrict peoples' right to freedom of conscience and right to criticise,
including the right to criticise religions of which they aren't members.
I note you aren't making the free speech point here.  

You're describing Scientology as a "Problem" religion and then you make
a blood-libel about it.  You try and make a spurious distinction between
"sincere and ethical" religions you and other people don't currently
like, even though there is any number of sincere and ethical
Scientologists, and even if there weren't you have no business making
arbitrary generalisations like that.  You claim that they don't deserve
the protection of the law, you repeat the blood libel, and then there is
some weird bullshit about how a religion isn't a proper religion unless
its supports the Government and acknowledges Government control of
"secular matters".  Well get this: most religions don't.  They
acknowledge the power of their God or gods.  In fact, the only religion
I can think of round here which does acknowledge the state is the C of
E, and that's because it's the state religion.

You've basically said that religions you label as disloyal to the
present government are legitimate targets for persecution.  And at the
end of your email you call Scientologists money-grubbers, repeat the
blood libel and call them bigots.  Rubbish.  You are the bigot.

This was an appalling email.  You've got to draw a line between your own
beliefs the the beliefs of others.  It's all very well trying to
persuade people that your beliefs are better than theirs, and that they
should come round to your way of thinking, but blood libels and threats
of persecution are absolutely wrong.

-- 
W. Palfreman. 		http://www.palfreman.com/william/
Tel: 0771 355 0354	PGP ftp://ftp.palfreman.com/pub/wfpkey.asc
			PGP id: 0x26C72581

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Dave Bird wrote:

> 
>  (apologies if this is slightly off topic for the present mailing list)
> 
> 
>  
>  PROBLEM: THE SCIENTOLOGY CULT HAS THREATENED, IN THE GUARDIAN, TO USE
>  AN 'INCITEMENT TO RELIGIOUS HATRED' CLAUSE TO SHUT DOWN CRITICISM.
> 
>  WHAT WE WANT: CONFINE THE PROTECTION TO 'SINCERE & ETHICAL' RELIGION.
>  VIA WHIM:  MEDIA, 'THE TIMES' ESPECIALLY; MEMBERS OF THE LORDS. 
> 
>  =======================================================================
>  
>  WHAT TO DO:  Please write to your press and political contacts,
>  e.g. asking for your signature to be added to this letter in the Times.
> 
>  =======================================================================
> 
> 
> 
>  TO: 
>   Lord Avebury..........................................................
>   Baroness Blatch ......................................................
>   Lord McIntosh.........................................................
>   Baroness Sharples ....................................................
> 
>  "The House of Lords, London, SW1,  England" is their political address.
> 
>  CC:
>   Lord Tordoff .........................................................
>   J....H................................................................
>   Keith HENSON<hkhenson at cogeco.ca>......................................
>   (Bishop of Birmimgham's office).......................................
>   Letters at TheTimes.CO.UK +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  RE: Your concerns re whether Scientology is a Religion,
>   Lords Hansard vol 576 for 1996/dec/10th,  and its relevance 
>   to 'Incitement to Religious Hatred' in the Anti-Terrorism Bill:
>   this is an open letter to the LibDem whips and any interested peers.  
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
>  Your Lordships, 
> 
>  Scientology representative Graeme Wilson has said in the Guardian
>  that he will use any new Incitement to Religious hatred clause
>  for prosecuting human rights activists who lay into his organisation's
>  awful record of deaths and frauds.  
> 
>  Activists will be demonstrating against Scientology this Saturday
>  in half a dozen cities worldwide -- in a way Mr Wilson seeks to 
>  have made illegal --- to commemorate the death of Lisa MacPherson
>  who died at the Scientology headquarters building in Florida,
>  on 5th Dec 1995: she was held for 17 days without adequate food
>  and water until she died of consequent dehydration.  The Scientologists
>  have pretty much succeeded in closing down both the criminal and
>  civil cases, and the former Medical Examiner the pressured to
>  change her testimony now lives in hiding in another state.
> 
>  We do not want that in Britain.  Mr Wilson's soi-disant Church
>  does not deserve protections afforded to the decent and ethical 
>  practices of a religious belief.  I therefore propose a clause such
>  as the following modify any 'Incitement to Religious Hatred' offence.  
> 
>   (Number). The offence of Incitement to Religious Hatred shall
>   protect only the decent and ethical practice of religious faith
>   defined as follows.   A group is religious either if it has a 
>   belief in an immaterial spirit world or has long been accepted
>   as spiritual, and bases its understanding of the world and code
>   of behaviour on that belief, and which [presumably, unless
>   the defendant can prove more-likely-than-not otherwise] is:
>    (a) a sincerely held belief, where there are not statements by
>    the founder or current leaders that religious nature is 
>    being pretended for some ulterior motive, nor does it have 
>    far less paid or voluntary staff delivering religious instruction
>    than carrying out administration or finance; and
>    (b) one which respects the rights if outsiders by respecting 
>    the secular government's right to govern secular matters and have
>    basic protections against thefts or assaults, moreover one where the
>    founder or current leaders have openly & regularly called on members
>    to commit or conceal  basic crimes against property or persons; and 
>    (c) one which respects the human rights of its parishioners to, for
>    example, privacy and data protection in confessional material, and
>    does not keep it after they leave or use it for improper pressure.   
>   Further, the remarks are objected to are  [presumably, unless
>   the defendant can show more-likely-than-not otherwise]
>   simply designed to rouse unreasoning hatred against the group
>   concerned, and not a legitimate complaint of harassment 
>   or fraud which has occurred against the defendant or is facilely
>   likely to happen to persons who get involved with the group.
> 
>  I hope your Lordships will see fit to pursue such an amendment,
>  and protect us from a group such as Scientology, which is 10%
>  organised religion and 90% organised crime, from exploiting 
>  such a law against honest and needed protest.
> 
>  Yours Sincerely,
> 
>  Dave Bird <Dave at Xemu.demon.co.uk>
> 
> 
>              "Graeme Wilson, director of public affairs for the UK
>  Church of  Scientology, says:  [Guardian, 6th November 2001: ]
>              "'Many people are walking around asleep: Scientology wakes
>  them up and  puts them in control of their lives. It is a very
>  practical religion and I believe it is better for students to get into
>  religion - any religion -  than drugs and excessive alcohol.  There is 
>  a lot of inaccurate propaganda about Scientology, and 
>  ######################################################################
>  some people make a living from stirring up fear and inciting religious 
>  hatred - fortunately this will soon become a criminal  offence.'"
>  ######################################################################
> 
>  :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PUBLICATION:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>  I have submitted this to LETTERS at THETIMES.CO.UK with EMBARGO 00:01 FRI,
>  though of course I have no idea whether they will use it or not.
>  Anyone wishing to add their signature to it should send a copy with 
>  their TelNo and digital signature, or a paper copy with their 
>  physical signature, to the Letters desk at The Times.
>  :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> 
>