Scientology under the microscope
What justification is there for the Govern- nlent's recent decision to take discriminatory aeliOn against scientology, and how far is it likely to succeed in its aims? What, indeed, i8 scientology? The second of these questions is, in fact, 48 difficult to be dogmatic about as the first. A'spokesman for the Scientology Foundation, speaking in New York a few days ago, de- lined scientology as a religious philosophy teaching 'processes which bring about a ',1eightened awareness and validation of seff.' 'n the adjournment debate in the House of Mr last year the Minister of Health, r Robinson, referred to the findings of the Anderson Commission of inquiry into scien- tology in the State of Victoria, Australia, "jell reported in 1965. 'The report,' he stated , 'sums up in these terms : "The Hub- bard Association of Scientologists claims to. be 'the world's largest mental health organi- sation,' What it really is, however, is the world's largest organisation of unqualified persons engaged in the practice of dangerous techniques which masquerade as mental p that ' Mr Robinson himself commented l'at `To attempt a definition of scientology is sterile exercise, because it appears to mean nothing more at any given time than its in- tventor, Mr Lafayette Ron Hubbard, chooses has say that it means, and at no time ,,a4 he chosen to give it any meaningful Of Mr Hubbard (a former science fiction writer) Mr Hordern, the Conservative me who introduced the debate, had this to say: at From 1930 to 1932, Hubbard was a student the George Washington University, and claims to have been a graduate of that uni- ,v,ersity in civil engineering, using the letters 4S" and "ce" after his name. In fact, he has no such qualification. He also claims to be a doctor of philosophy at the Sequoia Uni- versity, Southern California, but that institu- tion is not registered with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, which is the relevant accrediting body.'
But it is clear that the Government's con- cern lies not with the theories of scientology, whatever they may be, but with its practices. In a written answer last month, Mr Robin- son declared that 'The Government are satis- fied, having reviewed all the available evi- dence, that scientology is socially harmful. It alienates members of families from each other and attributes squalid and disgraceful motives to all who oppose it; its authoritarian principles and practice are a potential menace to the personality and well-being of those so deluded as to become its follow'ers; above all, its methods can be a serious dan- ger to the health of those who submit to them. There is evidence that children are now being indoctrinated.'
This charge was, in effect, elaborated by Mr Hordern in the earlier debate: 'The An- derson Commission reported the unsavoury and indeed disgraceful methods by which people were induced to embark on a course of scientology: how, once they had em- barked, it was impossible to break away, and the resulting financial consequences and damage to health; how harmful hypnotic pro- cedures were used, and a great store of per- sonal information filed away which would do great damage if it were ever released; how family discords were provoked; how in- quiry agents were set on the trail of those opposed to scientology. . . . There is good reason to suppose that these harmful prac- tices are being carried on in this country.' He told the House a horrific story of a constitu- ent of his, a Miss Henslow, who enrolled at Saint Hill Manor, the world headquarters of Scientology at East Grinstead, Sussex, and who, according to Mr Hordern, becathe `completely deranged.'
Replying, the Minister said that what the scientologists do 'is to direct themselves de- liberately towards the weak, the unbalanced, the immature, the rootless and the mentally or emotionally unstable; to promise them re- moulded, mature personalities and to set about fulfilling the promise by means of un- trained staff, ignorantly practising quasi- psychological techniques, including hypnosis. . . . A related aspect of the relationship be- tween the scientologists at Saint Hill Manor and their clients, which I find disturbing, is the case material derived from "auditing" sessions which is accumulated and filed there. It contains confessions and statements of an intensely perSonal nature and might, in some cases, be such as to lay the subject open to coercion or blackmail. .
It was for reasons such as these that the GOvernment decided to make use of its powers under the existing Aliens Order to prevent the entry into Britain of any foreign scientologist or would-be scientologist. But was this really the right course? It is easy to appreciate the Government's dilemma. The methods and practices of scientology are. apparently, perfectly legal; and there is an understandable reluctance to introduce a new law aimed specifically at scientologists. The Government has, therefore, decided instead to harry the scientologists, by statements in Parliament and now by the use of the Aliens Order, until they eventually decide to de- camp from East Grinstead and set up their world headquarters in some more hospitable country. And this may work: already there are reports of the Government's action lead- ing to other minor vexations such as a prep school headmaster refusing to admit a scientologist's son. And, of course, the non-admission of foreign scientologists, of whom there are a very large number, is in itself a considerable blow to the 'world headquarters' at East Grinstead.
Yet doubts remain. The arbitrary powers enjoyed by the Home Office under the Aliens Order are acceptable only if they are employed with the utmost restraint and delicacy. They should not have to be used as blunt instruments, least of all for the pur- poses of carrying out a campaign of per- secution, however well-intentioned. The precedent set by this is not a happy one.
Moreover, there is a real chance that the Government's present policy may prove counter-productive. In spite of his outspoken warnings in the debate in March 1967, Mr Robinson was forced to admit last month that, since then, the practice of scientology in this country had 'continued, and indeed expanded.' The new measures he then announced could easily lead to a wave of sympathy for the scientologists among an inevitably uninformed public, who might see them simply as a group of law-abiding citi- zens harshly and unfairly victimised by an over-mighty government.
But what else is open to the Government, feeling as it does? The answer, we believe, is that there should be a full-scale com- mittee of inquiry set up to report publicly and in detail on the practice of scientology in Britain. This has consistently been urged on the Government, and with equal regu- larity it has been turned down, on the grounds that, thanks to the Anderson Report and other evidence, enough is known already, and that there is therefore no need to hold any further inquiry.
But this is to miss the point. The report of an official inquiry, laid before Parliament, enjoys parliamentary privilege, and could therefore be quoted and disseminated with impunity. This is not the case (in this country) with the Anderson Report, nor with any other evidence the Minister of Health may have had in mind. The practical significance of this distinction was brought out by Mr Hordern in last year's debate, when he com- mented that 'the public has been hampered in its knowledge of scientology by the fact that, so far as I can establish, on every occa- sion that the organisation has been named by a newspaper, that newspaper has been served with a writ of libel.' Whether or not this statement is strictly true, it is notable that in the past fortnight alone the High Court has been considering libel actions brought by the Church of Scientology of California against three national newspapers, and that a further libel writ has been served by the scientologists on yet another national news- paper. In fairness to all sides in this con- troversy, the Government should reverse its present stand and order an immediate and full inquiry into scientology in Britain.
Previous page
