Slashdot Mirror
UK Teen Cited For Calling Scientology a "Cult"
An anonymous reader writes "A 15-year-old in the UK is facing prosecution for using the word 'cult' to describe the Church of Scientology at an anti-Scientology demonstration in London earlier this month. According to the City of London police at the scene, the teen was violating the Public Order Act, which 'prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.' There's a video of the teen receiving the summons from the City of London police at the demonstration (starting about 1 minute in), and now he's asking for advice on how to handle the court case."
naming an act the "Public Order Act."
The next thing London will do is put up posters saying that you are secure beneath the watchful eyes.
Perhaps they thought Orwell was writing an instruction manual?
Once again, what would seem a basic 'right' is being brutally oppressed by an organization under the cloak of 'religion'. I wonder just how much longer this will continue? Until we are all 'clears' or cleared out of our money from the lawsuits?
Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
Whats the difference between religions and cults? As far as I can tell they really are the same thing.
Just spread the word that Scientologists believe Allah is a pig-fucker.
Exhibit A:
...?
Why the heck is this tagged censorship?
Exhibit B:
There's a law against insulting signs.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Last time when someone critical of Scientology turned up dead, police was happy to believe he committed suicide, even though he had given no prior signs (nor had any reason to) kill himself.
You know that Scientology has infiltrated the police in the US in some cities?
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Because a law against "insulting" signs IS censorship, just as a law against "insulting" books or "insulting" speech would be.
Yes. Of course it would. It saddens me that you have to even ask this.
You have the right to stand on the corner with a sign saying "X is Y!" for any values of X and Y. Any values at all. (Dictatorial governments may, of course, not recognize that right; it exists nonetheless.)
"Scientology is a cult". "The Conservative Party is a cult." "The City of London police are a bunch of mindless jerks." "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is better than Jesus." "Tom Swiss is a dweeb."
Anyone who attempts to forcibly stop you from saying any of these things is engaging in censorship.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I want to add to what cynicsreport said earlier in this topic. The word "cult" has commonly accepted definitions, and if Scientology fits that definition, then the sign was a statement of fact.
In particular, part of my liberal arts studies at Westmont college included multiple classes on cults (it is/was a religious school, so knowing about many flavors of cults was mandatory). We had a lengthy course on the difference between cults & religion. The main difference was secrecy, not legitimacy. A religion -- whether you believed it to be true or fake -- was an institution that had open processes. You could gain access to the teachings freely, and likely audit the finances, too. This means the institutions of Catholics, Christians, Jews, and a handful of others were "religions." Then there were other institutions like Scientology, Moonies, and lots of others that had closed processes. You couldn't audit the finances, you couldn't freely gain access to the teachings, etc. Those were cults.
It's entirely possible that you could feel a particular cult held the truth while all religions of the world were shams. The word "cult" was not intended to imply who was right. If calling something a cult was an insult, it wasn't because the cult was crappy or false; it was because of secrecy, potential for deception regarding finances, and so on. And not surprisingly, when you fall back on the dispassionate definition, it gets really hard to refute it even if you DO take it as an insult. If someone says you're holding documents in secrecy and you say "That's an insult" well... ARE you holding documents in secrecy? If so, you're feeling insulted by the truth. In such a case, I don't really feel that a state should compel people to lie.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Yea, I hear about this cult who worship a 2000 year old zombie Jew and believe they can turn bread and wine into his flesh and blood that then then devour in a cannibalistic ritual. Nutters eh?
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
More bizarre and/or insane than what? FFS man, talking telepathically to an imaginary friend who is solely responsible for all that happens in the universe (including putting dinosaur bones in place as is to fool us) compares to evil galactic rulers and volcanoes in a better light in exactly what way?
I have often spoke when I shouldn't have, but I have to say that there are far too many people who 'know' about religion, or think they do when in fact they know about some parts of ONE religion.
Yes, the CoS is a cult, so is the CoE, by technical definition all religions are cults. That is what makes the entire censorship here totally ridiculous. It's rather like saying that there are dangerous humans at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, or 10 Downing street.
Drinking blood and eating flesh? Is that bizarre enough for you? How about sacrificing your own children? Incest? Genocide? The Christian Bible is full of examples of things that would just not work in today's society.
I fail to see how CoS is any more bizarre than Christianity.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
At the risk of being wildly un-PC
More like "wildly inaccurate." At least on the Mormon front.
a short list of religions that fit this description would include not only Scientology, but Mormonism and Islam. All three of these fundamentally disallow their members from choosing not to be members, up to and including outright murder.
The Mormon church not only allows people to leave, there is an established process for removing your name from the records. You *will* be hassled about this if you opt to try it -- most leaders will make you ask a few times, they'll ask you if you're sure, they'll try to talk you out of it -- but in the end, they will drop you.
There's also the easier option, which consists of simply not going anymore and avoiding the people who periodically come by to try to reactivate you. I've heard a few outlandish tales of machinations in member's lives, but for the most part, the only tool the Mormon church has is outright preaching and a bit of peer pressure. It is remarkably easy to do whatever the hell you want, especially if you have even the smallest idea of when to keep your mouth shut.
an ex-Mormon in Salt Lake City is going to have a very hard time buying anything, anywhere.
I'd be interested to hear how you came by this the idea that everyday purchases are affected by religious affiliation with any real frequency in Utah, because it's complete bullshit.
There are a variety of problems I think someone who publicly leaves/denounces the Mormon church in Utah is likely to encounter, but with a few exceptions, they're pretty much all going to be directly related to coloring of social interactions with former peers inside of the church. But not only is there a significant enough non-Mormon presence inside of Utah that this wouldn't matter from an economic perspective, I don't believe I've met the Mormon that would actually refuse to sell to an ex-member.
Tweet, tweet.
I fail to see how CoS is any more bizarre than Christianity.
At a 'technical' level you are right, the bible is no less crackpot than the scientology 'technology'.
One difference is that a lot of the various testaments have a good historical basis. For Instance I have no doubt about the existence of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc.. they really existed! - Whether they were the son of god/prophet of god/being of divine light/etc is another question.. I believe they were just charismatic good people who others naturally followed. None of them seem particularly evil; that comes from those who followed them and wanted to assume that power over others for their own.
The difference is in attitude, reputable religions want to spread the word. eg. I have a bible, a translation of the qur'an, and other texts; all of which were given to me for free by believers who genuinely believe that by reading the words I'll become converted.
Compare and Contrast that to how Scientology spreads it's word...
Even the nastiest promoters of mainstream religion (the religious right, jihadists, etc.) are very open about their beliefs. Unfortunately their methods are often similar in terms of infiltrating institutions and crushing dissent.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
For all they do wrong, at least Christians believe in something that was always meant to be a religion, while Scientology believes in a science fiction novel.
:)
Not meaning to be disrespectful, but how do you know the bible wasn't supposed to be a sci-fi novel?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I agree. Every religion in the world can be considered a cult by other religions because their beliefs are not mainstream in the other society.
Even within a religion you can have cult references. American Christian Fundamentalists are certainly considered a cult by most Catholics and Anglicans that I know.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
I don't honestly know that I want the people to decide how the people are governed in a broad sort of way. In general, people as groups tend to panic. Things like the Constitution and UK Common Law may be fragile protection, but they are protection. If you'd actually asked them, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a majority of Americans would have favored an even more knee jerk reaction to 9/11 than actually occurred.
Besides, I'm not sure how it would help in this case. Even if "the people" were making the laws there would still be a need for enforcement therefore still something resembling police. This, so far, is not a case of "government overreaching", but rather "police overreaching". The police are part of the government, but ultimately they are individuals. It becomes a case of "government overreaching" if and only if the young man is prosecuted and found guilty. I wouldn't be half surprised if the the Crown Prosecutors drop this like a hot potato.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
In today's world? +1, Insightful.
Because that is how Scientology works - say something they don't like, and they will harass you with everything they can, quasi-legally. It is their entire strategy for defending themselves - attack their attackers.
"But this one goes to 11!"
And do you really want to? Is mob rule really something you want?
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
You seriously want the people to vote on every single bill that is signed into law? Nothing would ever get done. The entire budget would be spent on elections. And no one has time to read through every bill that goes before congress and understand it. That is why congressmen have huge staffs -- to help them wade through the legislation that they have to deal with. I'm sorry, but your system is completely impractical.
Rhapsody in Numbers