Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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".
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.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
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?
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
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.
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
1) a few asshole cops overstep their bounds
2) the prosecutors refuse to take the issue to court, and clarify to the cops what is or isn't allowed
Sounds like a workable system to me.
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 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).
Matt
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."
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.
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.
Actually, I would bet that this is exactly what those Scientology nuts wanted to happen. Thanks to the Fair Game policy, identified critics of the Scientology get harassed or may even "disappear". These things are happening right now. This is why you see people wearing masks at the Scientology protests.
Now this guy has been clearly identified. They now know his name and where he lives. Getting in trouble for some kind of "hate crime" thing is way better than having the cult of Scientology harassing you the rest of your life. Having the case thrown out isn't much of a victory at all.
For those that don't understand the parent post, read about the Cult of $cientology bribing the cops.
I wonder how much would City of London Police go for on eBay? Pretty cheap probably.
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 and yes, I read all those long before I ever even discovered that handy Concordance.
I blanche at using the Webster's dictionary to solve the debate...as you can see they have 5 definitions.
Perhaps my goal is to sensibly define the radical difference between the Church Scientology and say, the Epsicopal Church.
Saying they are both cults waters down the human rights abuses of the CoS. If you haven't studied how the CoS operates, I recommend it. It is a fantastic look at merciless authoritarian control.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)