Church of Scientology Proposes Net Censorship In Australia

An anonymous reader writes "Submitted by the Australian branch of Scientology to the local Human Rights Commission is a proposal to eliminate anonymity on the net and the removal of critical websites (MS Word document). The submission is listed as #1931 at this page at the Australian Human Rights Commission." (Read on below for some of the details of what the Scientologists propose.) "SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendation 1: The implementation of Criminal and Civil Restrictions on Religious Vilification. Recommendation 2: Restriction on Anonymity on acts of Religious Vilification: 2.1 Websites created with primary purpose of inciting religious vilification shall be removed or their access to the Australian public restricted. 2.2 Creators of websites whose primary purpose is the incitement of religious vilification shall be prevented from concealing their identity. Recommendation 3: Restriction on Religious Misinformation and Misrepresentation known or reasonably known to be untruthful in the Media Recommendation 4: Include a form of Bill or Charter of Rights into the Australian Constitution, which prevents the Commonwealth from making any law, which 'directly, indirectly or incidentally' prohibits the free exercise of religion to the extent of such prohibition."

Comments

Re:As an Australian

[pisto_grih]

woosh

Re:How does this affect them?

[Tx]

In the eyes of the law, and therefore the taxman, they are indeed a religion.

Only in some countries, several countries are sensible enough to refuse the scientologists recognition as an official religion. Have a look at this article, and the linked documents. As far as us Brits are concerned, note the findings of the Charity Comission in refusing charitable status to the scientologists; "Scientology is not a religion for the purposes of English charity law."

Uninformative "typo"

[Anonymous Coward]

>"The "freewheel" (auto-running on and on) lasts too long, becomes a nigger then dies."

Mods, you've just blown a point on some GNAA flamebait.
For the real version of "Understanding Scientology" by Margery Wakefield, see http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-07.html

Re:How does this affect them?

[he-sk]

In Germany, this could be prosecuted as coercion. However, the organizers figure that if you're gullible enough to go to such a trip in the first place, it's not very likely that you'll press charges.

Wo kein KlÃger, da kein Richter.

Jesus was NOT a hippie

[DesScorp]

"I normally don't respond to flamebait, but someone modded you insightful."

What a coincidence. It's the same reason I'm responding to you.

"Maybe you were reading straight through and didn't finish until you got to the game-changing peace and love hippie stuff?"

If you think Christianity is all hippy peace and love stuff, then I'd suggest you finish reading the Bible, or take a second look. Even in the New Testament, God (and Christ) often got angry and displayed wrath. Jesus wasn't some Ghandi-ish peace and understanding guy. He said that if you didn't believe he was the Messiah, you were in for an eternity of sufferning. He often told people that it was better for them to suffer some horrible Earthly fate than to violate his teachings, because the punishment for that would be worse.

Turn the other cheek? He also said not so nice things.

"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." - Luke 22:36

In the book of Matthew, one morning Jesus wakes up and wants some breakfast. He comes to a fig tree, expecting fruit. When he sees the tree has produced none, he becomes angry, and curses the tree, causing it to wither and die, never to produce fruit again.

"And as they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance said unto him, âRabbi, behold, the fig tree which you cursed is withered away." - Mark 11:20

Anyone that thinks Jesus was some hippy "I'm OK, You're OK" kind of guy really has never read the Bible.

This isn't funny anymore ...

[golodh]

First of all the Scientology sect has a long, ugly, and above all well-documented history of harassment, intimidation, and legal chicanery. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishman_Affidavit, http://www.cesnur.org/testi/se_scientology.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karin_Spaink#Scientology, http://www.religionnewsblog.com/23160/james-orrington). The Scientology sect is held in Germany to be aimed at taking advantage of vulnerable individuals (http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/03/german-court-orders-berlins-anti.html). It is also in the business of selling its "religious" material, and makes strenuous efforts to keep such material from being publicly available (see e.g. their way of forcing Slasdot to remove material http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/16/1256226_F.shtml)

With legal chicanery I mean e.g. leveling a barrage of nuisance lawsuits at an opponent with the objective of bankrupting the victim by forcing him to expend ruinous sums on legal counsel, or alternatively by securing unfounded convictions against the victim where he has been unable to mount an adequate legal defense (See e.g. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Declaration/exhibg.html).

An additional form of chicanery is to drop charges against a victim who does mount an adequate defense in order to avoid unfavorable precedents from being set against the sect (see http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Gerechten/HogeRaad/Actualiteiten/Hoge+Raad+verwerpt+het+cassatieberoep+in+de+zaak+Scientology+providers+en+Spaink.htm (in Dutch)).

Of course the wave of counter-harassment and even threats (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology) goes too far. But what the Cult now pleads for is to introduce a totally ambiguous definition of "Websites created with primary purpose of inciting religious vilification" (read: "anybody who says something to the effect that the Scientology sect is a nasty, dangerous, for-profit outfit") and strip those of anonymity or even the right to exist at all. In plain text: anyone who writes anything against the Scientology cult will now be exposed to harassment lawsuits, career wrecking, and intimidation (see the Fishman affidavit in one of the links above).

The full text of the "recommendations" I reproduce below:

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: The implementation of Criminal and Civil Restrictions on Religious Vilification.

Recommendation 2: Restriction on Anonymity on acts of Religious Vilification:

2.1 Websites created with primary purpose of inciting religious vilification shall be removed or their access to the Australian public restricted.

2.2 Creators of websites whose primary purpose is the incitement of religious vilification shall be prevented from concealing their identity.

Recommendation 3: Restriction on Religious Misinformation and Misrepresentation known or reasonably known to be untruthful in the Media

Recommendation 4: Include a form of Bill or Charter of Rights into the Australian Constitution, which prevents the Commonwealth from making any law, which 'directly, indirectly or incidentally' prohibits the free exercise of religion to the extent of such prohibition

What part of this looks as if it provides any safeguards against the most appalling abuse? Where are the checks and balances? Who determines what is "misinformation", or "incitement of religious vilification"? Would quoting court documents that state the Scientology sect pr