Dangerous Cult - 1
Common Sense - 0

Are we surprised, this is Great Britain a la 1984. With the CCTV cams everywhere. The inability to take a public picture, and certain protected religions. Is this a surprise to anyone?

Not that I am supporting this (nor am I a lawyer), but the wording of the Public Order Act seems to place him pretty squarely in violation.

"The Public Order Act 1986, Section 5 states:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

Per the original article, the protest took place at the HQ of Scientology, thus "within... sight of" people who would consider being called a 'cult' harrasment.

Note that this is different from the case of the judge's ruling, which was neither behaviour nor *displayed* writing.

He's got an out, though; he can probably prove in court that his actions were reasonable.

Heres the original discussion thread - http://forums.enturbulation.org/15-breaking-news/i-got-court-summons-5-10-protest-13461/

"watch you ass"
Jack Parsons.

The further we get into the 21st Century the less and less I want to be here.

What concerns me the most is most people don't care. I informed 30 work colleagues of the government proposal to monitor our entire communications and the reaction was muted at best. And this was in an IT related sector.

I'm not proud of what this nation is becoming... has become.

Doesn't he have anything better to be doing?

I hoped the article would give a little more detail on the charges. The law in question was meant to, for instance, crack down on anti-Semitism etc. but so far has been used fairly ridiculously by police to harass protesters. I remember at a gay pride march a year or two ago, a few gay and lesbian friends of mine had their sign taken away because it said 'Queer', which was deemed as abusive by police, despite being the term many lgbt people prefer. gay pride is for tourists, apparently.

Anyway, good luck on the courts trying to come up with meaningful distinctions between religion and cult. I wouldn't be surprised if it's thrown out at the first, since a decision either way would set a precedent I don't think anyone will be happy with.

He should get a lawyer though.

Wait wait wait. Am I understanding this correctly -- that it's ILLEGAL TO INSULT PEOPLE in England? What a bunch of uptight fussbudgets.

where do I get my Guy Fawkes costume again?

This is just the logical extension of the politics supported on this site, unfortunately.

where do I get my Guy Fawkes costume again?

Forbidden Planet on Shaftesbury Avenue used to have them.

@Ceronomus-Agreed.
@Hanov3r-Wow, so you can't say or display anything that might be construed as insulting... So you can't speak?
@AMCCANN-

This is just the logical extension of the politics supported on this site, unfortunately.

By this site, you mean BoingBoing? If so, yup, most boingers call 'em like they see 'em: A cult is a cult.

Scientology is not a religion. It is a dangerous **** that will **** with your head and leave your ******* wallet empty.

What's next? A court summons for using implicit ambiguity? Facecrime? Thoughtcrime?

The irony in it all is that this matter perfectly demonstrates that scientology is not a religion. It is a dangerous cult that bribes public officials to kowtow to their avarice and insatiable lust for power.

This cult has (again) bought off a personal brigade of law enforcement officers. This is truly disgusting on all levels of decency.

Should've worn his Guy Fawkes mask.

a few gay and lesbian friends of mine had their sign taken away because it said 'Queer'

What in hell? That's as idiotic as Mohamad getting sent to the office because he responds to "Muslim" as his nickname. Or Arab. Or Raghead, or a bevy of other slurs. Just like Nick responds to spic, and I respond to the flavor of the month (sometimes I get the N. American slur, sometimes I get 'kraut'). What ever happened to Yankee pride?

Our nation has a foundation in taking slurs and taking pride.

Um.

Aren't all major religions dangerous cults?

Made-up stories + Power = Dangerous cult!

But I cannot believe that it is basically illegal to hurt people's feelings. That's basically why we have free speech. We have the right to offend.

And AMCCANN: Nah, this site has a pretty strong civil libertarian bias. Don't fall into the "left v. right" trap. I'd say that most people here are somewhat socialist, but also supporters of civil liberties. They're two different things. The first is views on the economics of groups living together. The second is on the lifestyles of living together.

Basically, I think most of the frequent posters here would indeed be called "liberal" on a left-right paradigm, but that lumps in all sorts of things that I/we may or may not support. This is why gun debates flare up here fairly frequently. That particular issue is a lot more about where you fall on the civil liberties spectrum than the economic, even though many would have you believe otherwise. There is no such thing as "liberal" or "conservative." That's just a model politicians use to get elected in a two-party system. Real people are a lot more interesting.

"Ugly buildings, politicians, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.
--Noah Cross

So do cults. It takes a while, but persistence is rewarded with respectability. Look how long it took the Jesus cult. So hang in there all you clears!

I had dinner in London with a lawyer this evening and he mentioned this case and how deeply absurd it is.

apparently, the same word was being waved on placards outside other Scientology buildings at the same time, just in front of uncorrupted Metropolitan police who were doing their job rather than the bidding of Scientology.

As an American, it's nice to be the lesser evil on occasion.

Come to England, where fact is an insult.

Ingsoc doubleplusgood!

M

I love the Guardian, and I love that they're calling bullshit on the cult. Further, I love that BoingBoing is interested enough the subject to bring it even more attention.

The following quote from the article is very telling:

"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."

While it sucks for the kid who now has to face charges over expressing an opinion against a dangerous cult, this is a major footbullet for the cult. The May 10 protests were focused on the cult's "Fair Game" policy. The cult continues to deny that it harasses its critics.

Way to go with that cover story, cult. Have fun tearing yourselves apart.

How do you protest something without using any wording that can be considered insulting?

"Scientology is not necessarily a positive way to spend your leisure time"?

Yeah, THAT will be an effective sign...

correction: '...forty lunatic SAUDIS...'

so who in England loves liberty enough to pay this boy's legal fees? Has anyone stepped forward?

WHOOPS ... The above intended for another thread. Sorry

I'm not in England, but I'd donate $5 american right now for the guy's legal fees! Good idea Takuan! Someone set up a legitimate fund...

oh jeez! now you're on the Deep Core list and the Bliar Memorial list! Sorry.

that gets me thinking Buddy: are there $cientologists in Saudi Arabia?

Takuan: "All my friends are on the Deep Core list and all I got was this damned T-shirt." I want a cut of the profits.

The above intended for another thread.

I kinda wish that there was an 'I'm feeling lucky' button that would post one's comment to a random thread.

While I think the protests are misguided and a waste of time (An organised religion is out for your money? And.. this is news to whom exactly?), I think people should have the right to protest whatever they please.

#29: Actually it was thought from his #26, but thanks for correcting me.

Deep Core
from wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deep Core is a futuristic platform game developed by Dynafield for the Amiga. It was released in 1993 and pusblished by International Computer Entertainment.

Captain Dawnrazer has been sent to save an underwater nuclear research base which has been invaded by strange aliens. A platform game, Dawnrazer must work himself through nine levels (with additional sublevels and bonus levels). The game offers a variety of six weapons, all of which can be upgraded via power-ups.

----------------

It's probably a sign of fatigue that this made me giggle outrageously.

Guy Fawkes costumes and masks. http://www.squidoo.com/v-for-vendetta-costume

"...quoting a 1984 high court ruling...".

I was going to cry "Orwell!" on this article, but the text did it for me.

I kinda wish that there was an 'I'm feeling lucky' button that would post one's comment to a random thread.

With some things people say, it would hardly make a difference. I include Taku-san on this one, but not because he's necessarily being off-topic but because I can't comprehend him sometimes. Higher intelligence ant understanding a human's thought etc...

So then, everyone down to Scientology HQ this weekend with little "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult" signs.

@32,

You mess with $cientology at your peril. These are tough monkeys and they play real dirty. They're not even afraid of Lyndon LaRouche.

Surely there is enough truthiness to the sign to make it defensible in court? If not, what if you preface it with "In my opinion"? Does that make it legal? I mean you're allowed your opinion in the UK, right?

"In my opinion"? Does that make it legal? I mean you're allowed your opinion in the UK, right?

Anything you express is obviously your opinion unless cited. If this is permissible with an IMHO preface and not without, I'm going to be perhaps even more pissed than I would be if it was unacceptable either way. It's like when you write an essay- you don't say "my opinion" because it kills the strength of your argument- OF COURSE it's your opinion, you're expressing it!

AMCCANN, if this were really a logical extension of this site, the cop would have made the sign read "Scntlg s nt rlgn, t s dngrs clt."

this case is important... it must not be allowed to be dropped by accepting a lesser punishment... he needs to go the whole hog to get completely exonerated by a jury of his peers... if it gets in front of a jury, there's no way he'd be found guilty...

the biggest problem is getting it in front of a jury... it's probably one of those offences Bliar got demoted to not being heard by a jury...

'England is not a country, it is a dangerous cult.'

'England is not a country, it is a dangerous cnt.'

Which one is offensive? Perhaps they both are. I should expect my summons as soon as possible. Frankly, I am just horrified by what seems to be going on in England with its psychotic cops and its security cameras pushed straight up everyone's ass. Are they getting this crap from us here in the United States? Can somebody please tell them that we've had a monkey in charge for the past eight years and didn't really mean any of it? These brits appear to have really gone off the edge and into the shitter. Wow. Fish and chips aint worth the hassle, man. Hey, why don't you bobbies just start shooting people who take pictures and hold up signs. Clean it up good. Wipe it clean. No more trouble.

Now, I will say that 'cult' isn't as great a word as 'cnt.' Just doesn't have the same punch. 'Cnt.' Say it out loud, 'cnt.' Now say this slowly... 'England is not a country, it is a dangerous cnt.'

In the middle ages Catholicism rose to power by way of the confessional. It was a means by which priests could gather intelligence and then use that info to influence or control the halls of secular power.

Today many cults like Scientology use similar means to get damming information on people and then use that to manipulate and control others.

Same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was.

The Public Order Act is the UK equivalent of what is called "disorderly conduct" in the US: it's a generic law that pretty much everybody is breaking by leaving their house, which the police can use to drag in anybody. Conviction rates are low (something like 70%), and that's not counting the people who are arrested but released without being charged. This guy isn't going to be convicted, and the charges will probably be dropped.

It's pretty lame that every country in the world has these laws, but it's also the only legal basis for the police to break up disturbances before any real crimes are committed. We could certainly do better, but if you accept the need for a police force then some law similar to these is necessary - if they don't have the power to keep the peace, then they're just unpaid bounty hunters.

The real problem here is that there's no attempt or desire to prevent the police from applying these laws at whim.

What a bunch of uptight fussbudgets

That's why we broke free. What, you thought it was cause of the tea?

Ok, the Police Officer was taking the whole thing to the nth degree but y'know devils advocate time:

Assume a (for example) neo-nazi had a sign saying "all jews should be exterminated" and was showing it an predominately Jewish area a reasonable interpretation of the public order act would be to ask him to remove the sign.

In this case.....its a bit fuzzy. Yes "the church of scientology" is a dangerous cult but as Anonomous have several times publicly stated the actual religion itself is as benign as any other religion.

Its difficult to draw a distinction between these two examples and I agree that the law may need clarification/review or the police may require more training on how do deal with grey areas like COH.

Amusingly when "The Wright Report" (uk daytime TV show) reported this, the host Matthew Wright said "Scientology is a cult" straight to the camera just to provoke them.

@45

No, I thought it was because you didn't want to pay your fucking taxes.

@46

There's a chance here (we should learn from the anti-choice lobbyists this week and jump on every chance, even if it results in a loss) to attack the Public Order act itself.

Because it might be a reasonable interpretation of the act to order a neo-nazi to remove an antisemitic sign, but, in a free society, he shouldn't have to.

Neither should someone protesting Scientology, on a public street, have to control what they call it (outside already established public decency laws - swearing, pornography etc.)

I reckon he's got a pretty decent case going with the fact that the last ruling on Scientology resulted in a high court judge calling it a cult. If they can, we can.

Although they deny it, it sounds to me that the City of London police went out specifically to target any protester that was using the word cult to describe Scientology. Also I find it strange that they had ready-made court summons to issue to any protester they believed breached the Public Order Act. Is that usual?

I was wondering if there is a legal fund for this kid. Because I would like to donate 100 bucks of hard earned cash for his defense against this intolerable censorship.

Hey! Guess what guys?

SCIENTOLOGY IS A CULT. Founded by a bunch of whaco nutjobs. This is nothing but the uncut truth.

Hey! Guess what guys?

SCIENTOLOGY IS A CULT. Founded by a bunch of whaco nutjobs. This is nothing but the uncut truth.

Allesandro @42: All countries will seem dire, if all you do is read the bad news from them.

JGriffiths @48: I believe the rallying call was, "No taxation without representation."

C0nt1nu1ty@48: There's an important difference between criticism and threats. Saying "Jews (or Scientologists) should be exterminated" is a threat of violence (you're calling for particular persons' deaths, after all). Saying "Judaism (or Scientology) is a cult" is a criticism, which may or may not be fair or well received, but it's a completely different case from threats.

Zippypincycle@40: As far as I can tell from the article, the protestor was on a public sidewalk opposite Scientology property, not on it. I have not seen anyone on BoingBoing claim any sort of right to regulate expression outside BB's own property (this blog); nor have I seen anyone in this thread claim that a property owner (even a cult like Scientology) has no right to regulate expression on its own property. (Of course, one reason they haven't is that it's not applicable to this story.)

Apples and oranges, folks.

Problem that I have with this is that "Cult" is not an insult and is an anthropological term to describe a religion that is still in its first generation.

Now that Hubbard has died, this may not be accurate, but it is not an insult.

This is a scientific term to describe a new religion that does not fit into the definition of a sect that has branched off from an established religion.

The word dangerous is more damaging than the word cult in this sign...

"Once the world is Clear - a nation, a state, a city or a village - the Scientology-organization in the area becomes its government! And once this has taken place the only policy accepted as valid is Scientology policy."
- "Future Org Trends," January 9th 1962. By L. Ron Hubbard (founder of the Cult of Scientology)

Bakahage,

While 'cult' may indeed have the specific usage you describe, in the general culture it has a broader (and much vaguer) meaning. Offhand, I would guess that, like most words, the ordinary meaning is prior to the scientific one which was derived from it. It's perfectly ok (indeed necessary) to have such more specific, technical uses of words. But it's silly to pretend that ordinary uses of the word are invoking the technical meaning.

Nelson #52, you write: "Allesandro @42: All countries will seem dire, if all you do is read the bad news from them."

I read it all friend. Good, bad and in between. And 'dire' is not what I said. I called England a cnt. Nothing dire about a cnt. I'm just hoping to provoke the cnt. Just like the kid with the cardboard sign. I'm on his side. Cult... cnt... I don't know, I guess I can't spell.

I saw this elsewhere yesterday, and I decided I really wanted to make a a "Scientology is a Cult T-Shirt", or something else offensive to scientologists. The trouble is (and I'm sure that it's their master plan) "scientology" is a very hard thing to fit on a T-Shirt and still have it readable from farther than 1 foot away. I was hoping to solicit slogan ideas from this thread. Maybe something like:

CoS=Cult
or
I am a Thetan

I think the "I am a Thetan" one might be construed as pro-scientology. I don't know, I'm not trying to delve into their crazy cult beliefs too deeply to find a T-Shirt slogan. I'm thinking possibly of selling these and donating the proceeds to the kid's legal defense fund, or some other worthy anti-CoS cause.

My fear is, and alright, I'm not religious at all, plenty of people would be happy to call Wicca a cult--and I may think it's bull, but I've yet to meet the Wiccan who acts like a dick about it. Or why not Hasidism? It's a religion extremely at odds with mainstream culture.

I mean, properly, when we think of cults we think of Halle Bop comet and Jonestown, and Scientology really doesn't come up to that standard. Or Monochrome has a link to Skpotsy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoptsy] which strikes me as 'cultish', you know, slightly. So if this went to court, it strikes me as lose-lose. One decision would hurt free speech in that the state would get to decide what is and isn't a cult, and the other decision would hurt free speech in that you couldn't call a cult a cult if you saw one. We know that organisations exist to take your money on the pretence of Righteousness--I'll take your money on the pretence of righteousness, for eff's sake, if it makes you feel any better--but is the only difference between that and a religion the proportion of your money they demand?

Again, I strongly suspect this case will be dismissed, because it's significance is so incredibly disproportionate to the incident.

But then, I got a strange sense of deja vu when I saw this; I feel like this may have happened in the UK before. Anyone remember?

Maybe the perfect out would have been if the kid's sign was instead a direct quote as follows:

The Church of Scientology is a "cult" that is "corrupt, sinister and dangerous". -- Mr. Justice Latey. 1984 high court ruling.

It's an abomination that such wordsmithing is necessary to help avoid being hassled by the Scientology security goons--oops, I mean the police.

It's nice to know that the English do NOT seem to know how to put that pretty little OED to good use. The world cult can be defined by almost every aspect of the church of Scientology.

@#57 Enochrewt: Just do a shirt with a giant "SP" on it!

IMHO people in cults should have thicker skins about people critical of cults, lolz. But to me this is all about police over-enforcement to silence someone temporarily, knowing the charges won't stand up. The net result is still infringing on freedom of expression. It reminds me of anti-Bush protesters in the U.S. being detained as "security risks" until after the public event was over, and then released without charges. Silenced.

+1

SCIENTOLOGY IS A CULT!

SCIENTOLOGY IS NOT A RELIGION, IT IS A CULT.

No religion charges fees for its knowledge... they may ask for money, or for 10% of your income, but no religion withholds their "knowledge" without receiving payment. Too bad after you pay to get your final level and you realize the Xenu story of souls and space-planes and Hawaiin volcanoes is nothing but bad science fiction.

Charles Stross rants a bit about this here, while also commenting on the number of public officials who have taken money from Scientology - surely just a coincidence, yes?

A cult is a religion that I don't like.

#61: See, this is the insight that I knew BB readers would have and I lack since I read Dianetics 15 years ago and completely dismissed the entire thing as foolish. Thank you! I will be making the first shirt tonight.

Oh course I'll still take other suggestions on slogans that insult Scientology.

Just because it's a dangerous cult doesn't mean it can't also be a religion.

All religions started out as small cults. I think once you have more then ten members it becomes an official religion (emoticon shrugs shoulders and burps to show support for religion). The Church of England is a cult. It's all occult crap.

'Cult' has developed a pejorative and linguistically sloppy connotation. It has only very recently been used widely in its current sense. Behold its primary meaning at #1:

cult
noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
–adjective
9. of or pertaining to a cult.
10. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.

I'll state the reason why Scientology is a cult:

They lie about what they are until years and tens of thousands of dollars lie behind the new recruit. They claim to be about engram-cleansing and past lives, and being compatible with other religions... then they spring Operating Thetan Level Three on the recruit, the explanation of the world as being afflicted with the disembodied souls of executed citizens of a Galactic Federation, souls intentionally released by H-bombs in seven volcanoes in which the frozen aliens were placed. This was done by the evil tyrant Xenu, who had those aliens captured and frozen when they came in for a fake tax audit.

This is all top-top secret, and remained so until the internet newsgroup al.religion.scientology blew it open 15 years ago. Anon.penet.fi remailer got the word out originally.

Cult = lie to people about what you are and take their cash. Then tell them the truth, and watch them discombobulate. They either leave quietly, or go even nuttier and stay.

I've no problem with them believing in Xenu and volcanoes. I've a problem with them because they lie and lie and LIE about it to the world and their own, non-tyled members.

Catbeller: Seriously, do they still try to cover up the Xenu stuff now, though?

Imagine if he was holding a sign that said "Islam is a dangerous cult". Would peoples' reactions here be any different? I don't know any Scientologists, but I believe people should be able to practice their religion (no matter how nutty it may be). The kid with the sign has every right to be there despite his intolerance, but his actions remind me of abortion protesters who hold signs outside Planned Parenthood. They have a right to be there as well, but sometimes I wish they would mind their own business.

What happens when your religion requires you to wear signs that denounce all other religions as false? You would think that GB would have formal protections in place for protests and other freedoms of speech.

Re:#54 I really like the definitions BAKAHAGE gives: neat, quick and precise.

My calling the early followers of Jesus a 'cult' is therefore wrong; since he and his followers were Jews, their efforts formulated a sect, an offshoot of their original faith. While Jesus was alive it would have been a cult only if he had repudiated Judaism and started afresh, much as L. Ron Hubbard did.

So...Jesus founded a sect, Hubbard a cult.

Today Christianity, a Jewish heresy, is one of the world's major religions; and $cientology is...a two-bit hustle.

Whether or not Scientology fits any one definition of a cult is not the issue. The issue is that a teenager is getting prosecuted in violation of his freedom of speech. If someone had a sign "Judaism is a cult" then sure the public reaction might be different, but the legal one should not.

That public order act is absolutely insane, and this application of it is disgraceful.

#79

Okay, so: Jesus started up a following. While the majority of "casual" members attended his speeches, to hear his private teachings and conversations recruits had to abandon and express hatred for their families, jobs and livelihoods first. Only then were they allowed into the inner circle and allowed to listen to the Leader's special teachings.

That sounds quite cult-like to me, from the many definitions in this thread.

The distinction between Scientology and religion is that they charge money for enlightenment (as a core belief, not as a misinterpretation of their texts), believe it's acceptable to destroy dissenting individuals, and are outrageously libelous, believing that they can own ideas.

American Christianity may be morally oppressive, but only a tiny ( Islam has a history of being violent, but they also have a history of allowing conquered cultures freedom of religion and custom, as long as they obeyed Shari'a in public.

Also, do not make the pampered first-worlder mistake of conflating the moral authoritarianism and superiority complexes of private citizens with oppression.
Having someone call you a fag and tell you you'll burn in hellfire is not oppression. Hurtful, but it isn't oppression if you can leave.
Being locked in a room with little food or water for the "Sunshine Rundown" is oppression, and in Lisa McPherson's case, it was also premeditated murder.

Aliceinreality: So.. that makes the death toll for the CoS.. 1.

Islam and Judaism/Christianity are all quite happily trying to wipe each other off the face of the earth at the moment, and anyone who gets in the way. If I started listing names of all the people killed by them, even if we narrow it down to the last 12 months, we'd be left with a very, very long post.

And lets not get into the amount of people killed in Africa as a result of the Catholic Church's anti-contraception propoganda, or the amount of people killed by the enforcement of sharia la.

Call me a pampered first-worlder here.. But killing thousands is "tiny oppression" but killing one American is a huge concern in comparison? Could you explain this?

(I'm not defending Scientology. It's a nasty religious organisation. The powerful, recognised religious organisations of the world are a lot, lot worse, however.)

@77

Probably people would be less critical, but really, it doesn't fucking MATTER if Scientology is a cult or not. Who cares?

The important thing here is that someone was prosecuted for being part of a peaceful protest on public property by a police force with very sketchy links with one of the parties in question.

SCIENTOLOGY BEING A CULT OR NOT IS NOT THE ISSUE.

(Also, this Dispatches episode - http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/in+gods+name/2206647 - shows a group of Christian's protesting the construction of a mosque in their area, they call Islam a religion of hate and a false religion, I didn't see any prosecutions handed out).

I published my own proposed definition of cult vs. church some years ago:

If, on appropriate occasions, the members tell, enjoy, trade, and/or devise transgressively funny jokes about their denomination, it’s a church.

If such jokes reliably meet with stifling social disapproval, it’s a cult.

Per the original article, the protest took place at the HQ of Scientology, thus "within... sight of" people who would consider being called a 'cult' harrasment.

The alleged feelings of the plaintiff are not the standard for what is and isn't allowable language. Otherwise, one shopowner could claim it's harassment if his competitor four doors puts up signs saying "Lowest prices on the block."

I'm sorry the Scientologists have put a bucket on their heads, but that doesn't oblige the rest of us to stand in a fishtank and sing "Jerusalem."

Jupiter12 @77, if his country wasn't at war with a predominantly Islamic country, and if Muslim extremists hadn't been responsible for a number of terrorist attacks (we'll ignore for the moment the further complications that attach to that statement), and if most people who saw the sign had no preexisting opinions about Islam, then you might say it was a comparable situation.

It isn't comparable.

"Scientology is a dangerous cult" falls well within the range of "an expression of personal opinion". So would "Scientology is a fake religion," if his sign had said that instead.

If this incident had happened in the US, I'd have a better sense of how much further he should have been able to push it. Some of the fundies and evangelicals are big on denouncing other denominations as cults. Their favorite targets include the Mormons, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unification Church (Moonies), and Seventh-Day Adventists. They've been known to picket and leaflet their gatherings. As far as I know, they don't get stopped unless they litter, use loudspeakers in residential neighborhoods, or block traffic.

Rosethornn @83, every sufficiently long-lived organization will have nasty episodes in its past. In terms of the overall experience that a reasonably devout average member can currently expect, Scientology is far worse than the major denominations.

@77 wrote:

"Imagine if he was holding a sign that said "Islam is a dangerous cult". Would peoples' reactions here be any different? "

Indeed. To be accurate, the sign should have said "Scientology is a religion, therefore it is a dangerous cult."

I find it appalling that some people find it so acceptable to go on such an all-out offensive against Scientology.

ls fnd th " rd cpl f ngtv, nc-sdd rgmnts gnst Scntlgy n th ntrnt, thrfr hv th mrl rght t ttck ppl wh dn't hv th sm blfs s m" tttd bsltly dsgstng.

Ths chld s bng ttlly mrnc - cn nly hp th lgl ctn gvs hm wk-p cll bt hs lf.

I find it appalling that some people find it so acceptable to go on such an all-out offensive against Scientology.

I find it completely acceptable. Here's why: Scientology is not a human being with feelings -- Scientologists are. Scientology (per se, not talking about the Church of Scientology here) is an ideology, a set of beliefs. Beliefs that happen to be rather stupid, but then, the scripture of all mainstream religions has pretty stupid parts in it, too. And there are so many people that don't question these parts all too much that it's a given you can't call all of them idiots or something else that's offensive.

And here's the thing: as in other religions, you don't have to be a complete nutter to be a Scientologist. Imagine your parents are in the church and most of their acquaintances are and you were raised in this environment where being a believer is completely normal; questioning it isn't really on anyone's mind. Doesn't happen as often as it happens to Christians or Jews or Muslims, but it happens.

Sure you'd find it offensive to hear someone call your religion bullshit, but you'd very much help keep the discussion constructive if you accepted that it's a matter of philosophy (and related subjects, such as epistemology) and not an attack on you as a person.

Social democrats don't freak out when you call Socialism bullshit. Queen fans don't get a heart attack when you call their music rubbish. Existentialists don't kick you in the shin when you praise empiricism. It's only in religion that leaders instruct their sheep never to question their faith, because it is holy and doubting it is a sin. They do that because they lack rational arguments for their specific ideology. In other words, while it's mostly good intentions and docile do-goodery, at the core religion is bullshit. Especially when it serves as the core of an evil, greedy organisation that ruins many people's lives while trying to brainwash them into even being thankful for it.

Going on an all-out offensive against that doesn't strike me as particularly appalling. If you think so, that's fine with me, but I'd like to see a better reason than "just because".

I also find the "I read a couple of negative, once-sided arguments against Scientology on the internet, therefore I have the moral right to attack people who don't have the same beliefs as me" attitude absolutely disgusting.

This child is being totally moronic..

Could you be any more condescending? All the evidence suggest that this guy has thoroughly researched the activities of the cult and has taken to the streets to display his opposition to them. He even read out the ruling of a High Court Judge in support of his stand against the City Police's innapropriate use of the Public Order act.

The protestors are not attacking the abstract beliefs of Scientologists, they are attacking their real world policies and actions.
The April protest was themed around opposition to the CoS's Disconnection policy, which encourages Scientologists not to speak to people who question their beliefs. This has broken up families. Just search Youtube for testimony.
The May protest was themed around CoS's Fair Game policy in which scientologists are taught that it is OK to use any means necessary to discredit critics. Search for the testimony of ToryMagoo44 on Youtube, who talks about how when she was in the cult she took part in a picket outside the house of a prominent critic, holding signs accusing him of paedophilia.

Some sects of the world's major religions may have carried out actions similar to these, but the difference is that in Scientology this behaviour is policy.

As an atheist who has lived in a small village where the Anglican church infinitely enriched the life of the community, it makes me sick to hear Scientology appropriate the language of Anglicanism, calling their members 'parishoners' as if they were serving their immediate community. Instead they specialise in displacement, shipping the vunerable around the world to purchase the next morsel of truth.

Those are some of the reasons why Scientology is not a religion but a dangerous cult. If we think that a Scientology HQ is a nefarious presence in our community we have a duty to say so.

There's two issues, I think, that need to be addressed.

One) Anonymous is not protesting against the religion of Scientology. They are protesting against the Church of Scientology, as an organised corporation (which is, at the end of the day, exactly what they are). They are protesting for ex-scientologists and outspoken critics (Mark Bunker, Tory Tory Christman, and so on) who have been declared SPs and have possibly been cut off from their families. They also protest against the Sea Org, which is currently been looked into by Her Majesty's Customs for using what tantamounts to slave labour: 50 dollars a week (I believe in USD, roughly 25.33 in GBP) for up to twenty hour workdays- and this is not an exaggeration. They also employ children as young as twelve. In the US, they acquired tax-exempt status underhandedly and have been charged in federal crimes. So no, this has nothing to do with freedom of religion- Freezoners (Scientologists who operate outside of the Church of Scientology) are left alone and/or encouraged to speak with Anonymous, as they are not involved with the degradation of civil liberties that the Church is. It is about an organisation that lies, tricks, deceives, and destroys members of its own congregation. You can hate Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism or Paganism, but generally speaking, they don't have you work for pennies on the hour, have you sign billion year contracts, and they're all pretty up front about what they believe.

Two: The other is the fact that this ever happened- an adolescent being charged with showing a word that ruffles feathers- is so wrong and against the fundamental rights that every single human being on this earth should have access to. He's not threatening them, he's repeating a statement said by thousands in hopes that he will win more to his cause. If an Iman thumped his religion in the same place, we'd have no concerns because it is the iman's right to say what he thinks is right- but we can't let a boy protesting in a peaceful demonstration have his say? This absolutely dilutes the very concept of freedom of speech and is fast tracking society to something very Orwellian.

I wish I could say that feathers were ruffled in the Scientology building, but I'm not. Freedom of speech, as my father told me, is not to protect your rights- it is to protect the rights of those who don't agree with you. (You being editorial, before someone get all indignant.) The young man deserves, at the very least, an apology and a PROMISE that he will never be prosecuted or persecute for airing his opinions again.

'm gttng fd p wth th crp tht pprs n sts lk ths.

Ths knd f ln jst kps n pprng: "Pr fls kp lbbng t mny fr yrs nly t fnd tht t's bd scnc fctn stry."

mn, wht th fck r y tlkng bt?

Ths s BLLSHT!

dtng s ncrdbl! Th whl thng s wndrfl vry stp f th wy. Y fnd t bt Y.

Why d ppl py fr t?

Bcs t's wrth t!

t's nt clt, t's nt smn tllng y wht t blv, t's n ncrdbl jrny nt yrslf.

Scntlgy s Scntlgy. t s tslf. Thr's nthng ls qt lk t.

"Lk. S wht y s, nt wht smn tlls y tht y s." L.Rn Hbbrd

Jhn Dvs

regarding section 5 of the public order act, subsection 3 says "It is a defence for the accused to prove ... that his conduct was reasonable" http://snipurl.com/PublicOrderS5 . So there seems to be a valid defence. But it seems wrong to me that the burden of proof is on the accused, surely it should be up to the CPS to prove that is was unreasonable.

johninsapporo,

If you want to defend Scientology, knock yourself out, but try to do it without screaming obscenities next time. You might get more readers that way.

I would have liked to have a look what Johninsapporo has to say, but (at least for me as a non-native English speaker) it's way too much effort to see through the disemvowelment. To me, that post has effectively been censored. IMHO that wasn't clever.

One of the larger allegations against the CoS in the current protests concerns the asshole tactics they use to silence critics. We should stand above that and not give them any reason to play martyr and claim, "nooo, they're doing it to us!" I don't give a fuck about obscenities and I can make up my own opinion about comments.

I find it interesting that BoingBoing never mentions Project Chanology in these Scientology articles.

http://www.partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/PROJECT_CHANOLOGY

I'd be willing to bet my annual salary that the 15 year old in question is a regular poster at 4chan.