Complain and inform - a talk given by Jon Atack on 17 June 95 I cannot express my delight at seeing such a gathering. As a historian of Scientology, I can tell you that this is the first group of its type to meet in Britain. I'm sure that the main reason that this hasn't happened before is because of Scientology's well-earned reputation for harassing its opponents. Former members are frightened that their confessional files will be made public. Families are frightened that private detectives will trail them and dig through their past. I believe that if Scientology had not generated this fear, then its practices would have brought about its demise long ago. The unfortunate consequence of this phobia induction is that an organization which was trivial in wealth and power in the 1960s has turned into a global organization with hundreds of centres, tens of thousands of members and hundreds of millions of dollars. However, it is nowhere near as big or as powerful as it would like us to believe. Notice that I didn't say "eight million members", but "tens of thousands". I've spent the last twelve years gathering and distributing information about Ron Hubbard and his creations. I'm confident that the harassment I've suffered has come about largely because Scientology could concentrate its firepower on me. Because I lived in East Grinstead it was easy to use members to spy on me and to disrupt my life. Because I didn't turn anyone away, it was easy for Scientology agents to infiltrate my confidence. I'm talkative by nature and find it very difficult to play Scientology's "need to know" espionage game. Consequently, Scientology maintained a pretty good picture of my activities by using spies. It was also easy to get the local paper to print offensive letters about me and for members to parade outside my house with placards. As Bonnie and Richard aren't here, I can give my first piece of advice to campaigners: don't live in East Grinstead. When the former head of the Office of Special Affairs Investigation department came to confess her wrongdoing to me, she said that the department had a staff of two and a budget of #60 per week. They had to rely on Field Staff Members to perform agent duties and maintain surveillance, but even then resources were very limited. In its heyday, the Guardian's Office had 1,100 staff, and East Grinstead was the headquarters for harassment. The memory of those days lingers, even though the centre for the Office of Special Affairs Investigation - or OSA Invest - has moved to Los Angeles. But this isn't the whole picture. I have been so outspoken that it is inevitable that Scientology would eventually realize the influence I was having. I've written and had published a 400-page book, and the Total Freedom Trap booklet. I've also written a 25 page general legal report and helped in perhaps 100 court cases. I've counselled or interviewed probably more than 200 former members. I've helped numerous journalists, tv producers and authors over the years. Media pieces that I've worked on have probably reached over 100 million people throughout the world. My views on Michael Jackson have even been quoted in the American People magazine. It's obvious why I am a target. And worth realizing that without the support of a group such as this I've managed to withstand the harassment for nearly twelve years. I believe that at the first meeting of this group stern warnings were given about participating in any action against Scientology. I want to lay some of the anxiety to rest. Yes, Scientology has dragged Ron Lawley through the courts - but he did march into the Copenhagen organization in a sailor suit and walk out with the OT5 material. Scientology has made its commercial concern over this very public. Breaking that monopoly may have cost the cult millions. It certainly claims to have spent $5 million trying to recover the materials. Yes, Scientology is running a campaign against Bonnie and Richard Woods, but they have made telling the truth about Scientology their primary concern since 1991. Bonnie has given numerous media interviews, appeared on radio and tv shows, gone out and given leaflets to anyone approached by street recruiters, and counselled many families. We've been attacked because we have been very public and very successful and because we have been very few. The same is true in the US - only a few have stood up, so Gerry Armstrong is bankrupt and Dennis Ehrlich is fighting to avoid the same fate. Both have been outspoken and dedicated a great deal of time to the campaign. I'm saying that if everyone here becomes active, and if you can inspire others to become active, which looks very possible with the help of sympathetic media, then Scientology doesn't have the resources to intimidate you. Putting the propaganda aside, a Scientology Freedom magazine in 1993 claimed only 1,500 members in the South-East. I think even that is exagerrated. I also think that the campaign being proposed here today could soon easily outnumber Scientology. The main weapon of intimidation is panic itself. Not being sure what will happen. I've been shocked by my own fate in the courts, so have my lawyers, but in the end it is a combination of poor legal advice at the outset of my cases, my own lack of understanding of civil law, and Scientology's capacity to hire the best. Michael Beloff, Queen's Counsel, recently featured in a newspaper article as one of the few QCs to receive over a million a year in fees. He's been retained by Scientology off and on for over a decade. He beat me in the first case I brought without it ever coming to trial. In May, I was wiped out before trial again. No evidence was heard. Scientology's lawyers managed to convince the court that I was withholding evidence, and I have to cut out the top paragraph of page 336 of A Piece of Blue Sky before I can sell any more copies in England or Wales. The paragraph has nothing to do with Scientology or Hubbard. It's about Margaret Ishobel Hodkin, the headmistress of Greenfields, the Scientology school near East Grinstead. So you can take it from me that Scientology hasn't found anything in the book that it can sue me for. Incidentally, Mrs Hodkin's lawyer is also her son and Scientology's agent in the UK. He's the lawyer on all the cases. He's a very busy boy and he has been effective, to give him his due. It's a safe bet that I'm not going to say anything negative about him. For the moment, there are still four other cases active which involve me, but the cost of fighting the existing cases put me into bankruptcy in May. Let me give another piece of hard earned advice: be careful what you say in public. You not only need to be sure that it's true but that you can readily prove that it is true, which means, get a document or something in writing, preferably a sworn statement. Otherwise, preface any comments with "it is alleged that". You're relatively safe if you're talking to the media, because they'll be a party to the suit and they'll pay the costs. Otherwise, you could be looking at #50,000 just to support your side of the costs, because Libel is the only action in English and Welsh law that can't be defended with Legal Aid. Remember, if you don't have proof that you can produce, say "it is alleged that", and know who alleged it. As a matter of honour, I think it is important to be accurate, and I've often said that if anyone can show me an error in my work, I'll correct it in any new edition. Scientology has not pointed out a single error in any of my twelve years of work. I'm still waiting to hear from the organization. All I've seen so far are some rather spiteful memos which are readily proved wrong. If we're going to campain we must campaign honestly. And after all, it would be difficult to dream up anything that would make Hubbard look worse than he actually was: a satanist who tried to incarnate the antichrist; a multiple drug abuser; a pathological liar; a bigamist; and by his own admission a master hypnotist. In A Piece of Blue Sky, I recommended Scientology's Volunteer Ministers Handbook as a way of understanding the subject. This has since been replaced with the Scientology Handbook. This is well worth reading for anyone who is serious about informing people about Scientology. It not only allows you to say that your view is not "one-sided", but more importantly it gives a good understanding of the basic practices of Scientology. We all need to know what we're talking about. The second legal point is to be careful about making photocopies of Scientology materials. I have two suits pending on this. Of course, you can say that you made copies in the public interest, for private study and without profit, but while these are accepted defences which have already been successful against Scientology, you may still have to go all the way to trial to prove it. Fortunately, Legal Aid is available for this, and if I'm successful, you won't have to worry about it, because another precedent will have been set. I believe it is perfectly safe to loan your documents to others, and to provide copies for litigation and possibly for parliament and government agencies. Scientology is actually relatively slow to involve itself in copyright suits in the UK. As far as I can tell, mine are the first in over 20 years. Hubbard v Vosper is still cited as a precedent in copyright law. Lord Denning, the then Master of the Rolls, the highest judge in England, ruled that "there is good ground for thinking that these [Scientology] courses contain such dangerous material that it is in the public interest that it should be made known" and "it is only right that the dangers of this cult should be exposed". In the case against Robert Kaufman - author of Inside Scientology - Justice Goff said that he had read all the "confidential material", which included OT3, and said "it appears that some passages are absolute nonsense, while the rest are of no value whatsoever." The learned judge went on to call the material "nonsensical mumbo-jumbo", and "pernicious nonsense" and added "even if I am wrong in finding it to be dangerous, [it] is at best utterly absurd". Which leads on to what we can do without fear of immediate legal retribution. We can complain and we can inform. Some good people have already donated books to libraries, but there is still plenty of room on the shelves. School libraries are also important, and anyone who can put together school projects relating to cults would be a Godsend. The Citizen's Advice Bureau need to be clued in too, as do the clergy. I first got involved in Scientology after reading a book and phoning a local clergyman who simply suggested that I ring the CAB for the address of a Scientology centre. And that is where I got the address from. Since then I've heard stories of clergymen lecturing families over their concern at a family member joining. Obviously they don't have the first idea of what they are supporting. The clergy in East Grinstead and Chichester have been outspoken in their criticism. It is simply a matter of getting the clergy on board. If you do get worried about the legal implications of any proposed action there are several excellent lawyers who are now clued in on the subject. If you feel that you've been wronged in any way by Scientology then it's worth calling one of these lawyers. They'll give you a free and confidential opinion. I can safely say that several lawyers are outraged by Scientology's activities. As I've said, what we can all do is complain and inform. There is no real risk in a letter-writing campaign and there are many bodies that should be kept up to date with Scientology's progress. The obvious first targets are the Home Office and MPs. I want to suggest some of the other individuals and organizations who might be concerned. Let me start with some concrete proposals; some grounds for complaint. In 1971, Sir John Foster submitted his commissioned Enquiry Report to the British government. I agree entirely with his recommendations. He said that Scientology should not be banned, but that a Psychological Practices Act should be introduced. This Act of parliament would not prevent anyone from offering psychotherapy without charge, but would demand a certain basic qualification of those who offer professional psychotherapy. They would also be monitored by a professional Council and would have to subscribe to a professional ethical code. He pointed out that 19 professions with some 850,000 members were already so organized in Britain, including medical doctors, accountants, lawyers and even architects. Foster pointed out that in the wrong hands psychotherapy is capable of doing as much harm as good. He suggested generous provisions for those who qualify on grounds of experience rather than training. Sir John Foster summed up by saying that he could not see "any reason why Scientologists should not be allowed to practise psychotherapy if they satisfy the proposed professional body that they are qualified to do so, that their techniques are sound, that their practitioners receive adequate training and operate under a stringent ethical code, and that there is no hint of exploitation." Re-reading the recommendations of the Foster report the other day, I really was surprised to find myself in complete agreement with his proposals and stunned at the thought that for almost 25 years this government Enquiry has been ignored. This is a matter for the Department of Health, and something that various existing bodies would probably help to campaign for. My next major concern is with the European Council's 1992 recommendation that member states fund public information regarding sects and new religious movements. Scientology was mentioned three times in the discussion document, but in over three years I've yet to receive an offer from the Home Office. In fact, the Home Office has assured one of my friends that it has no intention of following this recommendation, which is rather strange as it was proposed by British MPs and Euro-MPs - particulary Richard Cotterril and David Wilshire. The Hon David Wilshire is currently working in the Home Office. The proposals were made by the Tories. It seems amazing that County Councils will pay #25,000 a year to hire an anti-smoking campaigner but that no money is paid to any of the counter-cult groups. Nor have studies into the damage done to individuals and thereby to society been commissioned, although Charles Manson's family, Jonestown, Waco, the Order of the Solar Temple, the Japanese gas attacks and the Oklahoma bombings have made it more than clear that authoritarian groups can have profound negative effects on both their members and society. As of course did those archetypal cult groups the Bolsheviks and the Nazis. Thirdly, I would like to see an extension of one of the oldest laws we have: the law of Undue Influence. There are precedents going back hundreds of years. My favourite is the case of Mrs Death. The law of Undue Influence really accepts that brainwashing, where physical duress is used, and mind control, which is purely psychological, both exist. It is presumed that priests, lawyers and doctors can have an undue influence upon their clients. In psychology this might be called transference, but we have to trust highly trained professionals from time to time. If we then make gifts to them and decide later that we shouldn't have, the law protects us. Then there is the law of express undue influence, where hard-selling techniques or physical duress have been used. At the moment, only the victim of such influence can complain, which means that only when the individual has escaped the influence can a complaint be made. So mind control has a "before" and an "after" but no "during". As the "during" can take twenty years, this seems grossly unfair. Groups which use coercive psychology should be put onto a register. An ombudsman should be appointed to decide whether a custodial order should be granted to remove a person from such a group, so that qualified professionals could present well-attested factual information about that group to the person in a non-coercive setting. The ombudsman should also be able to provide state backing for undue influence suits, and the law of criminal undue influence should be remade to assist victims of psychological abuse. After all, the victims of such abuse have been subjected to prolonged psychological rape where their most private thoughts have been exploited; where phobia and guilt have been induced and manipulated, and where logical reasoning has often been impaired by what I call cognitive restructuring: the rebuilding of someone's mind. There is experimental work which shows that cult practices can have more than a psychological effect - they can physically alter the pathways of the brain. New laws are the domain of parliament, so if you get a letter from the Home Office saying that Scientology isn't breaking the law, please remind them that it's up to parliament to create laws to protect the citizenry. Other counter-cult groups and groups campaigning for the rights of psychotherapy victims, such as the False Memory Society, would probably help enthusiastically. The Internet is much in the news recently. The newsgroup alt.religion.scientology is a remarkable demonstration of the power of communication technology. At last there is a forum where even the anonymous can air their views. This has great therapeutic value. It also means that news spreads much faster. I've been told that there are about 2,000 messages in the newsgroup at any one time and that about 72,000 people have logged into the newsgroup, many of them uninvolved but fascinated by Scientology's attempts to silence its Internet critics. Not only is there an ongoing dialogue, but information such as Paulette Cooper's book can be downloaded and up-to-date news articles are posted. There is still a need for more material. There are many excellent books, articles and academic papers which should be made available. There are also significant court rulings, government reports, affidavits, testimony and source documents which should be thoroughly public. If you have an optical scanner please work out what you can do. If you don't have a scanner, please buy one. All you need is a modem to get into the Net. Oh, yes, and a computer. Of course, any campaign will meet with resistance. While denying accusations that they are "brainwashed" or behave like "robots" it is interesting to see that Scientologists the world over trot out the same phrases in response to criticism. Opponents are "hate-campaigners" engaged in a "Nazi-style persecution" of a "religion". Critics statements are compared to Goebbels. This stems from Hubbard's adoption of "positioning", a method used by advertisers to bypass reasoning and create hypnotic associations between their product and a brand leader. You can also position in opposition. The "Nazi" campaign has rather backfired on Scientology with the revelation that one of the world's most significant neo-Nazi groups was run from 1981 until this year by a leading Scientologist. Thomas Marcellus was director of the Institute for Historical Review, which claims that the Nazi genocidal holocaust against the Jews and gypsies didn't happen. According to the Institute, Zyklon-B gas was a delousing agent, and there were no death camps. Marcellus resigned from IHR after the story broke, but he is not just a rank and file member of the International Association of Scientologists but one of the elite Patrons. That means that the $40,000 he donated for his Patron status may well have been used to pay for ads in the New York Times saying that Scientology faces the same type of persecution in Germany now that the Jews did fifty years ago. I am not by the way suggesting that Scientologists should be deloused. But, maybe Marcellus is suggesting that delousing would be a cheap alternative to the OT levels for getting rid of indwelling alien spirits or body thetans. Scientology crows about persecution but never mentions the Fair Game law. It is an aspect of current "scripture" that if anyone tries to hinder Scientology, the Hubbard example to follow is to "make Captain Bligh look like a Sunday school teacher". Scientology calls open discussion of its beliefs "persecution". But we have the right to freedom of disbelief. Obviously, you can't have freedom of belief without it. We can express our disbelief. We can complain and inform. Share information, show your friends the Panorama video, the wonderful 1968 interview with Hubbard, where he said that he had only a first and a third wife, the 1987 TVS piece and of course the upcoming Big Story. Spread news articles, pamphlets and books around. In short, bore the hell out of everyone and anyone until something happens. It is possible to raise petitions on the street, especially if you do it away from cult centres. Ask friends and relatives to complain. And complain to any organization that might be relevant, for example the Attorney General, the Advertising Standards Authority, the Department of Fair Trading. Hopefully ideas can be shared. And having complained, don't take "no" for an answer. Respond to every reply, use people power, in the words of the movie say "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take any more!"