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.'"

11 of 357 comments (clear)

  1. Watch out, City of London cops... by Swampash · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Watch out, City of London cops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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

  2. The bigger porblem by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

  3. I'd have thrown the book at him by pmsbony · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  4. Re:is the word "cult" insulting? by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Cult != Religion by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:Cult != Religion by Justin+Hopewell · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    2. Re:Cult != Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  6. How funny there's... by EddyPearson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
  7. Co$ and City of London Police bribes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:Allah akbar by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    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
    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.
    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;