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

[William Palfreman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Dave Bird wrote:

> In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0111280708300.11562-100000 at batten.zaz.palfrema
> n.com>, William Palfreman <william at palfreman.com> writes
> >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.  
> 
>  No, actually not. The word "Scientology" is not present.  Rather
>  the law would be stated in terms that "the court is inclined to
>  take any religion as genuine, but if you are able to -- not just assert
>  -- but prove to the court on the preponderance of evidence, on  the
>  simple practical tests laid down, that it is so corrupt as to be 
>  not deserving of protection then we will act differently." 

There is a big element of disingenuousness to what you are saying.  You
don't want the word "Scientology" actually mentioned in a law designed
to leave them without the legal protections given to other religions.  
You just want it to be possible to persecute them if there are enough
other people around to "prove" that "they" are "corrupt".  All this talk
about preponderance of evidence is ends up as code for whipping up a
gang of people outside their church - probably their houses too.  Code
also for making the crowd's hateful little prejudices seem somehow less
medieval.

> But, it is implied, don't waste our time on mere ranting without an
> arguable case or you will be landed with a big bill for court costs!

It is purely subjective.  Any religion both unpopular with the crowd and
unpopular with the judge can be got at with a nice legal fig-leaf.  
People exercising their religious freedom will now have to keep both
the crowd and the lawyers on their side.  Scientologists don't have many
friends as it is.  Crowds of chanting self-righteous idiots will be able
to sway some court into applying some voodoo tests legitimizing abusive
behavior against them.

>  The reason I am arguing this line is that (1) if the governement can
>  be persuaded at all then it won't go further than this, and (2)
>  certain important elements of mainstream religions have told me 
>  pretty much that this is what they want and might support whereas
>  more radical opposition is not on the menu for them.   

What I don't get is why you are arguing for it at all.  I don't care
what "certain important elements" want, but I do care about mindless
religious bigotry. 
 
> >You try and make a spurious distinction between
> >"sincere and ethical" religions and those you and other people don't
> >currently like, 
> 
>  BZZT!  It is not about "liking" (or the beliefs). It is about
>  whether they are abhorrent to objective, secular, human rights 
>  principles.

What is abhorrent is religious intolerance.  Their objective secular
human rights allow them free practise of their religion, same as anyone
else.
 
> >even though there is any number of sincere and ethical
> >Scientologists, 
> 
>  It is not a matter of some INDIVIDUALS, it is about whether the
>  organisation (i.e. leadership and written policy) is being 
>  conducted in a fraudulent and vicious manner.

Right.  So its not about individual Scientologists - good
Scientologists, so to speak.  Its about their leadership.  It's about
these shadowy bad Scientologists operating behind the scenes, presumably
poisoning wells, committing fraud and going around killing young people
from mainstream religions in the name of their faith.  I can't believe
anyone could be so naive to fall for that kind of recycled hate meme.
 
>  Feel free if you like to write the two halves in terms of AND:
>  the defendant can show as a rebuttable presumption that
> 
>  (i) the organisation is being conducted in a corrupt and vicious
>  way abhorrent to human rights principles such as keeping written
>  confessional records, and using them for blackmail, after the
>  member has left;
>                   AND
>  (ii) That the statements made were not, in intent or effect, rousing
>  irrational hatred against believers, but making a legitimate protest
>  or warning against corrupt conduct of the organisation which he can, 
>  on evidence, plausibly show exists. [I was short of drafting time]

The proposed law is a stupid law that is designed to stifle religious
dissent and restrict free speech.  All you're asking for is that in
addition to that, some religions should not be treated like others if
a few people make allegations about them, and the people making the
attacks can find some way of making their rabble-rousing look like some
kind of legitimate protest or warning in the eyes of a possibly equally
prejudiced judge.  Not impressive.
 
> >and even if there weren't you have no business making
> >arbitrary generalisations like that.  
> 
>  Sorry, I'm losing patience: the above can only be read as stupidity.

You were making arbitrary negative generalisations about Scientologists.  
Well, you don't have any business whipping up religious intolerance
against people who are totally harmless.  There are plenty of non-stupid
reasons not to be involved in that kind of thing.  It's usually
completely unwarranted.  It's unfair.  It encourages uncivilised behavior
in others.  When you pick on people because of who they are or their
beliefs, and not because of anything they've done actually harmful to
you, it costs you possible friendships and other benefits from not
deliberately harming people.  There are loads of reasons not to do it
really, and I don't think any of them are stupid.

> If I see that a so-called betting shop is defrauding people and
> beating people up those who object, this is "not my business" to
> complain vociferously about --- expecting, of course, I will be
> dragged into court to justify my damning words as true on the
> evidence --- for what reason exactly?  Does it make any difference
> to substitute "place of religious practice" for "betting shop"??

There is no difference between a betting shop and a church.  People
should not be persecuted for going into or owning a betting shop, and
nor should they be for being a member or official of any religion, no
matter how old or new.  We already have laws in this country against
fraud, beating people up or murder.  Punish the perpetrators of crimes,
not people who happen to be members of the same religion.

> Also, why is it so difficult to say that a group expecting the
> protection of secular law must itself accept the reality that
> secular government has a right to make basic laws against damaging
> the person or property of others (and, presumably, against inciting
> people to commit such crimes against others),

Laws against damaging property and killing people all predate government
and secular government in the modern sense.

> and further that your official leadership does not go round
> regularly saying that members should break precisely these laws, in
> order to get the protection of secular law against others doing the
> same to them.

These are free people.  They are not the property of "their" leaders.  
If they choose to commit a crime that is their choice.

> Otherwise they are not merely criminal scum but hypocrites as well:
> surely they should expect the deity, not man-made law which they
> despise and trample upon, to protect them against attack or
> incitement to attack from nonbelievers?

As in kill them all and God will know his own?  Not a very good
precedent IMO.  You are making the same argument here that an English
ferry captain made as he dumped hundreds of fleeing Jews on a sandbank
in the English Channel in the the 13th Century.  "If your God parted the
Red Sea, let him part the Channel for you now".  Personally, I despise
people who hold those kind of attitudes.
 
> > 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.
> 
> Then you clearly don't understand what I said.  Christianity has a
> statement that you should "render unto Caesar what is due to Caesar
> and render unto God what is due to God,"

People always forget the "and to God that which is God's" bit.  Even
fewer people know what it means.  The coin belonged to the Romans,
invaders.  That which comes from them they can keep.  Everything else of
the classical Israelites was of and belonged to God.  It amounts to an
complete rejection of secular authority.

> which St Paul further strengthens by saying "the powers that be...
> are set in their places by God" and should be obeyed in basic
> secular matters.

So?  I have no interest in St. Paul.  To imagine that some President (or
Emperor, King, Tyrant or Prime Minister; take your pick) and all his
little minions are set there by God is ludicrous.

> Thus it is a matter "for Caesar" that there are taxes set or laws
> against burglary, 

At the time Jesus made the "Render unto Caesar" quote, the Jewish
authorities imposed plenty of their own taxes.  Taxes are definitely not
"for Caesar".  Laws against burglary are as old as humanity itself.  
It's just an extension of natural law - we could both rob or kill each
other, but we agree to respect each others property and jointly get
people who would rob or kill us.  That discourages people a bit and makes
life easier.  Neither have anything to do with legitimizing secular
authority.  Taxes imposed on people who don't agree to pay them can only
be considered a kind of burglary themselves.

> and you will be punished if you avoid the taxes or
> break the laws...  and that God has actually ordained this so.  

That's nuts.  Sorry, but it is.  

> Moslems believe that in a majority-Moslem nation the prince should
> be a Moslem, and govern criminal matters according to Moslem law
> ***BUT*** if you go to live among kaffirin 

The word is kaffirs.  Anyone familiar with South African culture will
know precisely what it means in context.

> then you should obey the basic, fair, secular laws of that place,
> presumably because this is Allah's will for you and you should
> submit to it.  Most religions say something similar.

Only if they are basic and fair, not the kind of thing made by
Parliaments in recent years, where the government just makes up anything
it likes and calls it law.  No religion I know of says you should obey
every law, no matter how unjust or incompatible with that religion.
 
> >You've basically said that religions you label as disloyal to the
> >present government are legitimate targets for persecution.  
> 
>  Ah, you don't understand, then.  "Loyalty" to every policy, or
>  even not having conscientious objection to the state's wars,
>  is not in it.  Accepting the right of the state to make basic
>  laws protecting citizens 

States don't have the right to impose random laws on people who happen
to live there.  Basic laws like those on robbery and murder don't have
anything to do with the state.  They are made out of agreed systems
allowing humans to live with each other in peace.  States have no right
to overturn those laws.  They can't simply legalise the murder of people
they don't like nor should they be allowed to steal from people.

> from (incitement to...) attack on the person or property, is a basic
> prerequisite of demanding such protection for yourselves
> organisationally. 

Not attacking persons or property is a prerequisite for individual
protection.  Just because an individual member of an organisation breaks
a law regarding attacking persons or property does not make members of
that organisation "fair game" for attacks by other people.  

> I do not even say, as $cientologists would, 

That's Scientologists, with an S.  You have no business making
derogatory insinuations here. 

> that "the individual burglar has foregone protection of law against
> being burgled himself." I do say that the society of burglars is not
> a fit body to be given criminal sanction to shut down public
> criticism of its organisational acts.
> 
> >And at the
> >end of your email you 
>  wibble wibble twaddle twaddle: go stick you head up a dead bear's bum.

Are you drunk or something?  Say what you like, but your signature is
offensive and bigoted.  You should change it.

> >This was an appalling email.  
>  Then why did you write it? Your time would have been better
>  spent on reading comprehension and remedial education classes.

I was talking about your email.  Oh yeah, I need to back to school, and
to learn to read proper.  Bigotry and babyishness together.  How
surprising.
 
> When Scientologists are criticised for a negligent killing by their
> (basically financial) corporation, 

First thing I notice is that there haven't been any successful
prosecutions, so we are just dealing with allegations.  Allegedly a very
small number of people may have been responsible for the death of a
person.  I believe we both know that murder and kidnap are already
illegal in the US and Britain, according to long established legal
principles.  So there is a pre-existing way to deal with this, should it
actually be true.

"They", as in Scientologists in general, don't have anything to do with
this at all. Individual people are responsible for their own actions,
and Scientologists are people too.

"Their (basically financial) corporation)"?  All officially organised
bodies of people are basically financial in nature.  Companies,
voluntary societies, trade unions, religious bodies, charities,
whatever.  They all have their formal structures in order to handle
money for their organisation.

> they refuse to discuss the evidence but characterise the very
> mention of it as Biggott!Biggott!Biggott!  

Unsurprisingly, when a person makes blood libels and encourages the
persecution of a religious minority.  Bigot is actually about the nicest
word for it.

> I suggest anyone interested do a search on LISA, MACPHERSON, DEATH,
> CLEARWATER and make up their own minds whether this is reasonable of
> them.
>
> Yes, though I did not say it, the Church of $cientology officials
> are fiercely bigoted against any unbeliever who challenges their
> actions and any heretical Scientologist group.  

Scientologists are defensive against people who promote
anti-Scientologist bigotry and distribute hate propaganda.  Do you
honestly expect to say that kind of thing against them, and for them to
like it?  They aren't stupid you know.

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


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjwHclUACgkQlEOQDkvPqLYJzgCdE3SdJ4rICO9WviYqXRK8fpuP
GucAn2KaR+zS/9i7isARaG5tuEhPXwIH
=d/8o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----