Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

[|darc|]

A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word "cult" to describe the Church of Scientology.

The unnamed 15-year-old was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion.

Officers confiscated a placard with the word "cult" on it from the youth, who is under 18, and a case file has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.

A date has not yet been set for him to appear in court.

The decision to issue the summons has angered human rights activists and support groups for the victims of cults.

The incident happened during a protest against the Church of Scientology on May 10. Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous, who were outside the church's £23m headquarters near St Paul's cathedral, were banned by police from describing Scientology as a cult by police because it was "abusive and insulting".

Writing on an anti-Scientology website, the teenager facing court said: "I brought a sign to the May 10th protest that said: 'Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.'

"'Within five minutes of arriving I was told by a member of the police that I was not allowed to use that word, and that the final decision would be made by the inspector."

A policewoman later read him section five of the Public Order Act and "strongly advised" him to remove the sign. The section prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.

The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a "cult" which was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous".

After the exchange, a policewoman handed him a court summons and removed his sign.

On the website he asks for advice on how to fight the charge: "What's the likelihood I'll need a lawyer? If I do have to get one, it'll have to come out of my pocket money."

Writing on the same website, another anonymous demonstrator said: "We also protested outside another Scientology building in Tottenham Court Road which is policed by a separate force, the Metropolitan police, who have never tried to stop us using the word cult.

"We're completely peaceful protesters expressing a perfectly valid opinion. This whole thing stinks."

Liberty director, Shami Chakrabarti, said: "This barmy prosecution makes a mockery of Britain's free speech traditions.

"After criminalising the use of the word 'cult', perhaps the next step is to ban the words 'war' and 'tax' from peaceful demonstrations?"

Ian Haworth, from the Cult Information Centre which provides advice for victims of cults and their families, said: "This is an extraordinary situation. If it wasn't so serious it would be farcical. The police's job is to protect and serve. Who is being served and who is being protected in this situation? I find it very worrying.

"Scientology is well known to my organisation, and has been of great concern to me for 22 years. I get many calls from families with loved ones involved and ex-members who are in need of one form of help."

The City of London police came under fire two years ago when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology.

The City of London Chief Superintendent, Kevin Hurley, praised Scientology for "raising the spiritual wealth of society" during the opening
of its headquarters in 2006.

Last year a video praising Scientology emerged featuring Ken Stewart, another of the City of London's chief superintendents, although he is not a member of the group.

The group was founded by the science-fiction writer L Ron Hubbard in 1952 and espouses the idea that humans are descended from an exiled race of aliens called Thetans.

The church continues to attract controversy over claims that it separates members from their families and indoctrinates followers.

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.

"One demonstrator continued to display a placard despite police warnings and was reported for an offence under section five. A file on the case will go to the CPS."

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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/2 ... tworkfront

[Stormwatch]

Dear CoS,

Streisand effect, bitches.

Love,
- Anonymous.

[AgentGreen]

If the boot fits, throw it at the cultists.

Fuck scientology.

[Covar]

I love the first amendment.

[mankrip]

Not all cults are religions, but all religions are cults.

[Roofus]

I love the first amendment.

I agree. The first amendment is what protects Scientology's sacred ritual of suing anyone who badmouths them.

[butters]

I love the first amendment.

I agree. The first amendment is what protects Scientology's sacred ritual of suing anyone who badmouths them.

That statement confuses me, as it's completely contradictory to my understanding of the first amendment.

That said, I'd like to see one of their lawsuits go to court against someone able to hire decent lawyers. Anything that can be proven true cannot be defamation.

[Covar]

I love the first amendment.

I agree. The first amendment is what protects Scientology's sacred ritual of suing anyone who badmouths them.

and allows a US citizen to peacefully assemble and protest using words such as "cult" without having to worry about being taken to court by the police.

[az_bont]

No charges over Scientology demo

Legal action has been dropped against a 15-year-old who faced prosecution for branding Scientology a "cult".

The teenager held up a sign which read, "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult", in May outside its headquarters in the City of London.

City of London Police said they had received complaints and warned the teenager to get rid of the sign as it breached the Public Order Act.

The teenager's mother said the move was "a victory for free speech".

Free speech

She said: "We're all incredibly proud of him.

"We advised him to take the placard down when we realised what was happening but he said 'No, it's my opinion and I have a right to express it'."

A Crown Prosecution Service (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 behaviour at a demonstration might be considered to be 'threatening, abusive or insulting.

"The force's policing of future demonstrations will reflect this advice."

I should like to point out that even if he had been held to have violated the law as written, he could well have invoked his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, incorporated into UK law by way of the Human Rights Act 1998, and had the law altered to better reflect that right.

Contrary to what seems to be the opinion of a select few who have responded to this and previous threads, the United States does not have a monopoly on free speech, and it could even be considered to be inferior there in some respects. Could something like Jerry Springer: The Opera, for example, be broadcast over public airwaves in the US, as it was a few years ago in the UK?

It should also be noted that in this case, and in the Jerry Springer case, the ECHR didn't even need to be invoked, with both defendants (or potential defendants) able to rely on the existing safeguards that exist in the relevant statute and at common law.

[Lartrak]

I would argue that the US's speech protection is stronger than the UKs. We control public airwaves in a different way than the UK does. I think the UK mostly does a better job of it, actually, but they're quite different in outlook. And yes, Jerry Springer: The Opera could be broadcast here, provided it was broadcast late enough at night. It probably WOULDN'T be though.

I think I can fairly say both the UK and the US have quite solid speech protections. We pick our exceptions differently, however, and for the most part I like the US's decisions better. It's almost impossible to ban anything outright here (with the exception of child pornography of course), for example. While it is pretty rarely used today, the idea that the government simply won't allow a movie or game to be distributed is foreign to me. It's a concept I feel doesn't belong in any country that values expression and speech. Nor do we regulate hate/extremist speech to nearly the degree the UK does.

On the other hand, the UK has way less crap dealing with obscenity, and the aforementioned (in my view) superior broadcast regulations.

[Covar]

I would argue that the US's speech protection is stronger than the UKs. We control public airwaves in a different way than the UK does. I think the UK mostly does a better job of it, actually, but they're quite different in outlook. And yes, Jerry Springer: The Opera could be broadcast here, provided it was broadcast late enough at night. It probably WOULDN'T be though.

It could also be shown on a cable or satellite station. The only content regulation by the FCC is for network television. Cable and Satellite channels are entirely self regulated.

[Code-Red]

Not all cults are religions, but all religions are cults.

Couldn't agree with you more Frag.