UK Prosecutors Say 'Cult' Acceptable

An anonymous reader notes that following our discussion this week about the 15-year-old who was under threat of prosecution for calling Scientology a cult in a recent demonstration, the UK Crown Prosecution Service has decided that there is no case to answer. They have issued new guidance to the City of London police clarifying when they can use their public order powers. Quoting: "A [CPS] spokesman said: 'In consultation with the City of London Police, we were asked whether the sign was abusive or insulting. Our advice is that it is not abusive or insulting and there is no offensiveness (as opposed to criticism), neither in the idea expressed nor in the mode of expression.' A spokeswoman for the City of London Police said: 'The CPS review of the case includes advice on what action or behavior at a demonstration might be considered to be "threatening, abusive or insulting." The force's policing of future demonstrations will reflect this advice.'"

Watch out, City of London cops...

...the Cult of Scientology is about to ask for its money back.

Re:Watch out, City of London cops...

Nah, they'll just take away some of their thetan points.

Re:Watch out, City of London cops...

Ah man, but they were just about to level up to OT II!

Re:Watch out, City of London cops...

Dear Swampash:

It has come to our attention that you have made an unauthorized use of our copyrighted work entitled Cult of Scientology (the "Work") in the preparation of a work derived therefrom. We have reserved all rights in the Work. Your post entitled 'Watch out, City of London cops...' illegally utilizes our Work. By using the name Cult of Scientology you have violated our copyrighted work.

As you neither asked for nor received permission to use the our name as the basis for 'Watch out, City of London cops...' nor to make or distribute copies, including electronic copies, of same, I believe you have willfully infringed our rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $150,000 as set forth in Section 504(c)(2) therein.

I demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of all infringing works derived from the Work, and all copies, including electronic copies, of same, that you deliver to us, if applicable, all unused, undistributed copies of same, or destroy such copies immediately and that you desist from this or any other infringement of my rights in the future. If I have not received an affirmative response from you by April 1, 2009 indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, we shall take further action against you.

Very truly yours,
Terryeo

Co$ and City of London Police bribes

For those that don't understand the parent post, read about the Cult of $cientology bribing the cops. [bbc.co.uk]

I wonder how much would City of London Police go for on eBay? Pretty cheap probably.

The bigger porblem

The bigger problem is addressing the effective infiltration by $cientologi$t$ of various police farces and justice departments.

It shall be remembered that 20 years ago, the cult of $scientology was deemed a criminal organization in Ontario after it infiltrated the Ontario Ministry of Justice and proceed to trash their evidence file. The Supreme Court of Canada has also recently ruled so.

I'd have thrown the book at him

he should be thrown in jail.His description of scientology as a cult was sadly one letter out.

Tom, come out of the closet

You're not fooling anyone, buddy.

It's the law - don't expect police to know it

This isn't a major liberties issue.

There have been several major changes to British liberties recently - the Terrorism Act is the beast behind almost all of them. Those changes - such as the outright ban on demonstrating near parliament and the requirement of express permission in order to do so nearby - are completely distinct from what has happened here.

Also, don't confuse the recent legal order curtailing legitimate demonstrations to a specified area either (Brian Haw [parliament-square.org.uk] has been protesting the Iraq war outside of Parliament for 6 years!)

What has happened here is quite simple: an irate Scientologist who doesn't know the Public Order Act as much as the officer involved, persuaded a PC to halt the demonstration because of the wording on the sign.

This was a mistake by the officer based upon the facts and wording of the sign which, as the CPS said, cannot be deemed to be threatening, insulting or abusive (Public Order Act).

The "cult" description of Scientology is now a matter of fact within UK (there's an EU opinion too) born from the obiter of Justice Latey from a 1984 high court ruling which the sign incongruously quoted.

The officer should have better exercised his office of constable, chosen to read what written, and make up his own mind (in the UK a police officer is responsible for his own actions, he cannot be commanded by those senior to do anything he does not believe is lawful - he is personally liable for what he does and does not, save for contractual/employment obligations). Here the PC showed he was inadequately aware of the Public Order Act which permits the 15 year old's protest.

The CPS was right. They did the lawful thing. It would never have gone to court from the get go. It is an utterly laughable mistake by the PC that even Lionel Hutz would have recognised!

I hope the London constabulary involved is property briefed on their public order duties. I personally feel this was entirely avoidable - especially since R(Laporte) [fairfordco...ion.org.uk].

Matt

How funny there's...

No mention of what's going to happen to the police who have have abused their power. Probably the same thing that happened to the chaps who shot that poor Charles de Menezes eight times in the head without provocation, nothing.

What ever happened to the days of the local Bobby? Friend to all law abiding citizens, there to help and not hinder. Nowdays when you REPORT a crime they're rude to you.

What the fuck happened?

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

If you read the article, what the CPS said is that to be considered "abusive or insulting" under the law, it would have to be offensive (as seen from a neutral bystander's point of view, not the CoS). So it is a higher standard than what you might think of as the colloquial meaning of "insulting".

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

The CPS isn't made up of judges, it's the Crown Prosecution Service; they're solicitors. They decide whether there's a case to charge someone with a crime or not. In this case they decided, rightly, that there wasn't. It didn't even get in front of a judge.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

In Latin there is no difference between "Cult" and "Religion" -- its the one word. The State Religion was "Cultus Deorum" -- cult of the gods. At a very basic, technical level, there is nothing wrong with the term.

On the other hand, in the age of middle east mega-religions, it's pretty much taken on the meaning of "unpopular, wrong, pseudo-religious scam," which Scientology also clearly is.

Then again the term "pagan" -- ie, a country-dweller (analogous to the Germanic "heathen" -- dweller in the heath) because of Christianity, too.

but the point is, Scientology is only out there confuse reality and roll you for your wallet -- same as every other religion.

Cult != Religion

Now, I'm an athiest, but I can't stand the misuse of terminology, even if it feels clever to do so.

Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles. For example, there are some Christians who worship in a cult-like society, and some that do not.

To those who want to cite bible passages, you're missing the point. It is the current behavior of the group that defines this, not what's in their books.

Anyone who studies scientology will know how intense their brainwashing is, and since I was once part of a Christian church that was not a cult, I know it is as different as night and day.

Cult behavior is along the lines of 'removing subject's ego, connections outside the church, ability to question doctrine', and these factors can sometimes be found in any religion, but are not attributed to the whole set of that religion.

Since the Church of Scientology is a hierarchal organization, it can be classified as a cult, but there are practitioners of Scientology beliefs in the 'Freezone' which do not answer to the CoS command and are not cultlike.

Re:Cult != Religion

From Merriam-Webster:

cult

1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

I would say Christianity and any other religion falls in line with this. It doesn't necessarily have to have a negative connotation, but that's generally how its used.

And if you want my two cents, church is just as much a brainwashing tool as an e-meter.

Agnostically yours,
Justin Hopewell

Re:Cult != Religion

Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles. For example, there are some Christians who worship in a cult-like society, and some that do not.

Also not all cults are religious. Psychotherapy and politics can also be the basis for a cult.

Re:Cult != Religion

If you really believe this then I suspect that you have not been subjected to a "religion" firsthand.

And if you really believe that it is impossible to distinguish between the level of coercion leveled on a member of say the UK Church of England and say Scientology hen I suspect that you have not been subjected to a cult firsthand.

Re:Cult != Religion

Look at Jesus, he asks you to sell everything you have in order to gain entrance to heaven.

No... He said that to one person. A guy who asked him, "What must I do?" A guy who's particular hang-up seems to have been attachment to his riches. He did not say that to any random person. (He also didn't say, sell it all and give it to me.)

You have to hate your family and only love God. (No really, you can even quote the bible on that)

No, you can't. He didn't say that. You added a piece: "only love God".

He said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26 [gnpcb.org])

I'm not sure what kind of Christianity you were involved in; from the look of how you treat Bible verses, I would guess it was a particularly fundamentalistic group. Even in your atheism, you don't seem to have lost your fundamenalist approach to reading.

Step back from this as a religious issue for the moment. Look at the text as a report about a teacher. Do you really think his point was to have hatred toward your family? This Jewish teacher, who held to the 10 Commandments (including to honor your father and mother)? This teacher, who earlier in the same book said, "Love your enemies"? You think Jesus taught people that they should hate their family, but then love their enemies?

It's odd that you don't allow for hyperbole. Particularly when there are other biblical examples [gnpcb.org] of using "hated" for "love less". Particularly when even a cursory look at the whole context of Jesus' teaching reveals that he did not mean "hate your family and only love God".

I imagine you might respond with, "Teehee, see how the Bible contradicts itself?" If so, I wonder...How do you take something like, "I am the door"? Did Jesus think he was a big slab of wood on hinges?

Re:Cult != Religion

Maybe he meant these passages:
Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple."

Mark 10:17-31
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Re:Cult != Religion

Both of these are easily explained if you understand previous langauges and translations. Instead of me explaining the first passage in Luke 14:26, I'll give you a link http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm [biblicalhebrew.com].

As for the second passage, and I'm sure you've been told this before, Jesus is not saying everyone needs to sell everything they have. Jesus knew the heart of this particular person and therefore asked him to give up the most important thing(s) in his life. Jesus is not telling you to give up everything, He's asking if you are willing to do so, there's a difference. This passage could have easily have been about sex or any other thing that could be or is important to a particular person. It's all about what or who is most important.

Re:Cult != Religion

Not sure what point you're trying to make - your post is a perfect example of the difference between a cult an a religion.

"Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

This is an example of a religion. If it was a cult, it would read something like this:

"Give me everything you have, and you will have treasure in heaven."

Re:Cult != Religion

Old Testament! Fun. I can do that too. Take a gander at this OT family "value" that you'll never hear preached on or read in your church: Abraham married his sister and god blessed the marriage: Gen ch. 17 and 20 Abe had many slave sluts Gen. 25:6 Jacob "has" both sisters Gen 29 god kills Er, Judah tells Onan to rape Er's wife but Onan at least has the decensy to not ejaculate in her which makes god mad that he didn't ejaculate in her so god kills him Gen. 38. This wonderful story you'll never hear in Sunday school yet it is the basis for church teachings against masturbation and birth control. God murders children Gen. 12 God decides girl babies are dirtier than boy babies Gen 12 Kids who yell at their parents should be killed Gen. 20 If your son is stubborn and rebellious don't use Dr. Dobson's "Tough Love" - just stone them Deut. 21. many more wonderful "family values" can be quickly found then verified at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/long.html [skepticsan...dbible.com] and yes, I read all those long before I ever even discovered that handy Concordance.

Re:Would be nice to know more details.

He was read the "Section 5 Public Order Act of 1986", told to remove the sign, and a short time later had the sign removed by police who then issued him a summons. Clear enough for you?

Re:Allah akbar

While I fear that _anything_ being posted below this rather abusive first post will get modded Troll, I have to say that wasn't all that offtopic in the first place.

Maybe American readers of this site are not that much aware of the situation in Britain, but for the last years signs held up at demonstrations asking to 'behead those who insult Islam' or for 'death to Israel' have gone 'unnoticed' by the British authorities, meaning that no-one ever got arrested for displaying them (or relentlessly shouting similar slogans). Many Europeans are already taking this as proof that Britain has finally fallen to the Islamists.

In that light, it would have been outrageously laughable if voicing this rather common sense opinion on Scientology would have resulted in prosecution.

Re:Allah akbar

Maybe American readers of this site are not that much aware of the situation in Britain, but for the last years signs held up at demonstrations asking to 'behead those who insult Islam' or for 'death to Israel' have gone 'unnoticed' by the British authorities, meaning that no-one ever got arrested for displaying them (or relentlessly shouting similar slogans).

That's not true.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/why-im-glad-nick-griffin-was-acquitted-235.html [libdemvoice.org]
Nick Griffin, the Leader of the BNP, was acquitted yesterday of charges of inciting racial hatred. In 2004 Griffin made a speech to BNP activists in which he described Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith" and said that Muslims were turning Britain into a "multi-racial hell hole".

Griffin is a racist, he espouses an ugly creed based on fear and ignorance, almost every word he says is offensive. But being offensive shouldn't be enough to land you in jail.

Yesterday, Mizanur Rahman, a young radical Islamist was jailed for his part in the protest earlier this year over the Danish newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Rahman waved banners and chanted into a megaphone shouting "Annihilate those who insult Islam" and "Behead those who insult Islam."

Although he apologises now, Rahman's remarks were full of hate, they were grotesque, offensive and shocking. But being shocking shouldn't be enough to get you convicted.

I'm a black gay man and much of the anti-hatred legislation that Griffin and Rahman were prosecuted under was designed to protect people like me. But freedom is a delicate thing, and I believe that our current raft of hate crime laws in danger of undermining the very freedom they aim to protect.

So the "Behead those who insult Islam" guy was jailed, the scientology protester and the guy that called Islam a "wicked vicious faith" were not. Seems fair enough to me. Rahman clearly stepped over the incitement line and Griffin didn't (or more likely didn't step over it in public).

Rahman got six years in prison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizanur_Rahman [wikipedia.org]
He participated in the Islamist demonstration outside the Danish Embassy in London in 2006, where he prayed "Oh Allah, we want to see another 9/11 in Iraq, another 9/11 in Denmark, another 9/11 in Spain, in France, all over Europe. Oh Allah, destroy all of them." [3] On November 9, 2006, he was found guilty of inciting racial hatred[4]. The jury could not reach a verdict on the charge of inciting murder. The Crown indicated it would seek a retrial.[5] At his retrial in 2007 he was additionally convicted on the solicitation to murder, and sentenced to six years in prison.

The government must really hate you if they keep trying you until they get the right result. And everyone else must hate you too if no one questions this dubious piece of gamesmanship.

Many Europeans are already taking this as proof that Britain has finally fallen to the Islamists.

I'd say France's suburbs have already fallen to the Islamists. And Malmo in Sweden is pretty close to doing so. But the British state has centuries of experience ruling all sorts of people. The people at that demonstration are a tiny, unpopular minority on state benefits and the rules can be rewritten to make life very unpleasant for them.

In that light, it would have been outrageously laughable if voicing this rather common sense opinion on Scientology would have resulted in prosecution.

I agree it would have been laughable if this 15 year old Anonymous guy had been prosecuted. I'd throw the book at Rahman though. And rewrite it and throw it again if the first time didn't do the trick.