Archief - Scientology vs Anonymous

Toxic! zei:

Geef nobodies een doel in hun leven en vooral "vrienden", en ze doen wat je wil he

Quod erat demonstrandum...

Klik om te vergroten...

scowcroft zei:

nederland had 15 maart 100 protesters, nu zo'n 75 door examens... ze hebben om de twee weken op miniraids etc.
de meesten zijn ondertussen al vrienden geworden

Klik om te vergroten...

scowcroft zei:

1 van de regels is trouwens gemaskerd blijven, de bedoeling is dat niemand elkaar kent. Het is niks van vrienden maken, aap.

Klik om te vergroten...

scowcroft zei:

wat er gebeurd met scientology critici
http://www.jeta-eggers.info/index.html

Klik om te vergroten...

GMotha zei:

Als dat van scientology komt, maakt het ze nog grappiger. Precies een stel kwade 8-jarigen

Klik om te vergroten...

Hellrabbit zei:

<=>




oei?

Klik om te vergroten...

scowcroft zei:

Scientology zijn tegen psychiatry, maar samen zijn het precies een stel psychologen.

Klik om te vergroten...

Early this morning, 05.16.08, I received a message from a member of Co$, allegedly OT IV, who informed me that Harold Gossett of Alexandria, Virginia, a former FBI agent, was hired to spy on me.


I am grateful for this message and wish this member got out of the cult soon. Funny enough &#8211; I know Harold and we used to be friends.

At 2:30 P.M. on May 16, 2008 I made a call to Karin Pouw, Public Affairs Director, Church of Scientology (323)960-3500 to give her the good news.
Stay Safe.
BK

Klik om te vergroten...

#1. Boris was a double agent for the CIA.

#2. He infiltrated the KGB and reached the rank of Major.

#3. He was one of the best field agents (SPIES) we had.

#4. His cover was blown by a drunk U.S. bureaucrat.

#5. The promises made by the CIA to him were never honored.

#6. He risked his life, his family, and everything dear to him.

#7. There's an unspoken rule in the CIA that says an access agent is supposed to die in the place where his cover is blown.
Korczak is a fighter and refused to die and thus was able to save himself and his family from certain death.

Klik om te vergroten...

Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Klik om te vergroten...

The force came under fire in 2006 for accepting thousands of pounds of hospitality from the Church of Scientology.

Klik om te vergroten...

Anonymous have, since February of this year, conducted peaceful worldwide monthly protests. In London, these have taken place at both Queen Victoria Street and Tottenham Court Road. On each occasion the City of London Police, Transport Police and Metropolitan Police have been kind enough to provide their resources to help ensure our protection against actions that Scientology has taken against protesters in other countries (including stalking and assault). The members of Anonymous are very grateful for the help of the Police. It is with great regret, therefore, that Anonymous must take issue with the recent actions of the Officers of the City of London Police in their actions to ban signs and banners carrying the word &#8216;cult&#8217; and, as has been reported, the issuance of a summons to an individual for carrying such a sign at the May 10th protest.

Invocation of the Public Order Act 1986 is Unlawful in the Circumstances.

There is no justification for intervention by the Police to try and ban signs carrying the word &#8216;cult&#8217; from the Anonymous protests. Any arrest or prosecution of an individual for carrying such a sign is unlawful. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as implemented by the Human Rights Act 1998, provides for freedom of expression. Under s6 of the Act it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right.

It is understood that the Police seek to justify their actions under s5 (or 4A as appropriate) of the Public Order Act 1986.

Per Mr Justice Moses in Dehal v DPP [2005] EWHC 2154 (Admin),
&#8220;the criminal law should not be invoked unless and until it is established that the conduct which is the subject of the charge amounts to such a threat to public disorder as to require the invocation of the criminal as opposed to the civil law. There is ample authority for that proposition. It is unnecessary to refer yet again to those authorities in detail, save to say that it is important that all courts bear in mind that the justification for any criminal sanction must be convincingly established
...
In order to justify one of the essential foundations of democratic society the prosecution must demonstrate that it is being brought in pursuit of a legitimate aim, namely the protection of society against violence and that a criminal prosecution is the only method necessary to achieve that aim.&#8221;


In the over 500 separate protests that Anonymous has now conducted worldwide there has never been a single occurrence of violence by a protestor. Anonymous have at all times complied with the requests of, and conditions imposed by, the Police to ensure that their message can be conveyed without violence of any kind.

At all previous protests there have been numerous signs bearing the word &#8216;cult&#8217; and these have not prompted any public order issues. Indeed, on the 10th May protests at the Tottenham Court Road branch, and across the world, such signs were displayed. There was no breach of the peace. There is no evidence whatsoever that the carrying of signs bearing the term &#8216;cult&#8217; would pose any future threat to public order. There is therefore no justification for invoking the Act and no grounds for the current Police position.


It is of note that the Metropolitan Police, who administer the Tottenham Court Road protests, have not at any point suggested that such signs would be a breach of the Public Order Act, or indeed any other law. If the Church of Scientology is aggrieved by signs referring to them as a cult then the proper course of action is for them to pursue a civil suit for libel.

Even if it were lawful to invoke the Public Order Act 1986 in this instance, carrying a sign bearing the word cult cannot possibly constitute an offence under s4A or s5.

There was no offence committed under s.4A or s.5

It should be remembered that the &#8216;Church&#8217; (a company) is the only possible injured party here. The term &#8216;cult&#8217;, by necessary implication, can only refer to the organisation. Each individual member cannot constitute a cult. One must question whether a sign labelling the Church of Scientology a cult can be considered threatening, abusive or insulting. Per Lord Reid in Rubber Improvement v Daily Telegraph [1964] A.C. 234, &#8220;a company cannot be injured in its feelings&#8221;. A sign calling the Church of Scientology a cult is not, on the face of it, threatening. In light of Lord Reid&#8217;s comments a body corporate cannot be abused or insulted, they can only be defamed, those terms being given their ordinary meaning.

In the absence of threatening, abusive or insulting words the question is academic, but it is also unlikely that the second limb of these offences could be made out. A company cannot be harassed (DPP v Joseph Dominic Dziurzynski [2002] EWCH 1380 (Admin)) and there can be no suggestion of harassment of individual Scientologists as a result of worldwide protests. Anonymous have at all times acknowledged the right of individual Scientologists to believe what they wish. The protests have on each occasion been in relation to the practices of the organisation rather than its adherents in their personal capacity. Indeed, Anonymous is acutely aware of the fact that members of the Church of Scientology are the primary victims of the abuses protested. Following Rubber Improvement the company could not be alarmed or distressed.

The Section 5(3)(c) and 4A(3)(b) Defences

It is entirely reasonable to label the Church of Scientology a cult and these defences therefore apply. &#8216;Cult&#8217; was an acceptable label according to Justice Latey in Re B & G (Minors) [1985] Fam Law 58 and the judge referred extensively to the Church of Scientology by this term in his judgment. More recently, in Crown Suppliers (Property Services Agency) v Dawkins (1991), Rastafarianism was treated as a cult: a religion with an estimated 100,000 more followers than Scientology. Since then, in Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland (2000) Lord Justice Aldous approvingly quoted Lord Denning in calling Scientology a cult.

Not only is it a term happily used by the judiciary to describe Scientology, it is an accurate description of the organisation on the ordinary meaning of the word. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines &#8216;cult&#8217; as, inter alia, &#8220;a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members&#8221;.

Whilst the religious status of the Church of Scientology is disputed &#8211; they are not recognised as such in this country (see Church of Scientology&#8217;s Application for Registration as a Charity 1999 WL 33453547) &#8211; the organisation regards itself as such. It is clear that the organisation is regarded as strange and imposing excessive control over their members from the multitude of negative media reports on it. For example, as recently as 28 March 2008 the Church of Scientology was referred to in Britain&#8217;s largest selling newspaper as a &#8220;crazy cult&#8221;.

I am quite sure that it is not the intention of the City of London Police to unlawfully restrict the human rights of British subjects who are peacefully exercising their right to free speech. I would therefore urge you to reconsider your position on this issue. Please confirm that signs and banners bearing the word cult will not be prohibited at future protests.

In support of this application we would direct you to the following approving sources:
Practical implications of the enactment of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, Ecc. L.J. 2007, 9(2), 187-201
Religion and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Crim. L.R. 2002, Nov, 890-911
Towards legislative reform of the blasphemy and racial hatred laws, P.L. 1991, Aut, 371-385
Dehal v DPP [2005] EWHC 2154 (Admin)
Rubber Improvement v Daily Telegraph [1964] A.C. 234
DPP v Joseph Dominic Dziurzynski [2002] EWCH 1380 (Admin)
Re B & G (Minors) [1985] Fam Law 58
Crown Suppliers (Property Services Agency) v Dawkins (1991)
Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland (2000)
Church of Scientology&#8217;s Application for Registration as a Charity 1999 WL 33453547

Klik om te vergroten...