The Guardian (UK) reports:
A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word "cult" to describe the Church of Scientology.
The unnamed 15-year-old was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion....
A policewoman ... read him section five of the Public Order Act and "strongly advised" him to remove the sign. The section prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.
The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a "cult" which was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous".
After the exchange, a policewoman handed him a court summons and removed his sign....
A spokeswoman for the force said today: "City of London police had received complaints about demonstrators using the words 'cult' and 'Scientology kills' during protests against the Church of Scientology.
"Following advice from the Crown Prosecution Service some demonstrators were warned verbally and in writing that their signs breached section five of the Public Order Act.
"One demonstrator continued to display a placard despite police warnings and was reported for an offence under section five. A file on the case will go to the CPS."
Here's what appears to be the teenager's report of the incident, which the article appears to quote:
I brought a sign to the May 10th protest that said: "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult".
Within 5 minutes of arriving at QVS, I was told by a member of the police that I was not allowed to use 'that word', and that the final decision would be made by the Inspector.
At around 11:15, while on the high ground of QVS, I was approached by these happy fellows: YouTube - Anonymous Protests Scientology - London - May 10th2008 (:40)
I was read the Section 5 Public Order Act of 1986, and was told I was strongly advised to remove the sign. You can see my response in the video, as I read out Justice Latey's statement about the Cult of Scientology. I was given until 11:30 to remove the sign.
At around 12:05 the police caught up with me, I was given a Court Summons and my details were taken down....
Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer.
Related Posts (on one page):
- "No Charges Over [Anti-]Scientology Demo[nstration]":
- Possible Prosecution in England for Calling Scientology "Cult" on Sign:
Oh, sorry. This happened in the formerly Great Britain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0
I don't suppose the Brits have also gone back to their quaint old habit of quartering troops in private homes during peacetime?
To this extent it's like a number of misdemeanor offenses here in California, where cops issue citations and later the City Attorney or DA looks at it and gently explains "see, now, officer, actually that's not illegal" or perhaps "there's this thing called the Constitution." Then you show up on the cited date and wait around all day until they admit they aren't filing it.
[Thanks, updated the title to say "Possible Prosecution." -EV]
I assume that your whole post is tongue-in-cheek. But just in the very remote possibility it's not, you should go to Wikileaks where you can find the whole operating Thetan documents. Yes indeed the full monte. Now you don't have to pay thousands of dollars to see the inner secrets of COS. Note the COS is suing Wikileaks to stop them. I don't think they will succeed. Note also that Wikileaks uses the phrase "Cult" all over the place.
The UK is now a complete joke.
The CPS, though, is supposed to either shed light upon or cast into the darkness such foggy matters, and hopefully will not proceed further.
The question is not whether you believe in Scientology, but whether you believe in freedom of speech.
Because the CPS could have gone the other way, or your friend thinks it will the next time he wants to say something.
And then you get acquitted at some expense.
Yeah. This is a nothing. Right. As if, as has been said before, a bunch of attorneys could speak of prophylactic arrests as "nothing" with straight faces.
If Dianetics changed your life, you need to get another one.
You will find on the web much information about wacko Hubbard.
He pursued medals for non-existent military services and actions that never took place. I won't bother providing a link
since there's too much to repeat. Even his son reported his psychopathic behavior.
Would I be out of line to use the word "bribe" in this context? Fortunately I'll never find out, as I live in a state which refuses to enforce British libel judgments.
I ask anyone how can a church have "trade secrets?" A church is not supposed to be in commerce, it's supposed to be a religious organization.
Geesh, I thought VC commenters were intelligent. "Enlightened one you are not." How clever and snarky.
I think you might be confusing the elements of a trade mark (which have to be used “in commerce”) with those of a trade secret (which don’t necessarily have to be used “in commerce” but just have to be something that the owner derives “independent economic value” from keeping secret). I don’t believe that the fact that the owner of a trade secret is a church* or other non-profit organization would necessarily be a bar to being able to own a trade secret.
* FTR I don’t personally consider Scientology to be a “church” but they may in fact be legally recognized as one in the United States.
I agree completely. My question was rhetorical. Obviously COS has successfully used the trade secrets ploy before to get the Fishman papers sealed. I just think it's some kind of quirk in the law to give a church protection for trade secrets when the secrets are the bible of the church.
Yep it's amazing how gullible are. I was 99% sure you were joking.
I sent a 911truther the Onion spoof which was hilarious. To my surprise he thought it was a real news program and took everyone quite seriously. It took me a few minutes to explain the joke to him.
All you Tom Cruise wannabes had better download the "Operating Thetan Documents" from WikiLeaks before Ms. Paquette serves WikiLeaks' web hosting provider with the inevitable ex parte TRO order...
Register article links describing WkikLeaks' "bulletproof" server host are here and here.
Now whether they can successfully get Professor Volokh's blog shuttered for daring to discuss the Scientology document controversy is another question. Anybody know any good law professors willing to take on a pro bono case? [/irony off]
I guess this is another joke. But again just in case. Read this article on bullet proof web hosting. I like this statement from Wikileaks.
I'll bet the OT documents stay up.
The secret's out, tell a friend... [and that's a joke too]
But they are different from most wacky cults. They're a lot more dangerous. A 'religion' that regards blackmail as a sacrament can accumulate an awful lot of power with which to harass people, when folks in high places are stupid enough to get on their hook. When those high places are in government, such a 'religion' can even end up wielding a remarkable amount of nominally state power.
Make no mistake: Scientology is a "wacky cult" the way the Mafia is a "boy's club".
Unfortunately, I think we are headed the same place.
Also, I wonder if the $cilons have started to figure out what a mistake it was to use their usual scorched-earth smear tactics against thousands of anonymous and semi-anonymous web users-- they have made themselves the object of ridicule to untold numbers of people. These "copyright" and "trade secret" claims just draw them further in the quicksand. And every mainstream news media article that reports on their beliefs just makes them look more ridiculous!
there is at least one way we are way way more free, and that's in regards to speech.
our next door neighbor canada gave up the fight long ago.
In practice, self-moderation is called for because the freedom to offend does not imply the necessity to do so. If humility is the first principle, reciprocity -- respect -- is the second, because each of us needs each other.
Maybe in general, but certainly not during any tea party that I am throwing!
Polite conversation, a pot of hot tea, little cucumber sandwiches, and some homemade scones with good jam and cream are all you need to establish any decent civilized society.
For that, the Brits can be immensely and justly proud.
The UK is not a free country, if it ever was for the ordinary
citizensubjectFixed it for you.
PS With regard to freedom of speech in the UK, a trader at the Lincolnshire county show two years ago was fined for selling T-shirts with the message "Bollocks to Blair". Can we have your first amendment ? Oh, and maybe the rest of the Bill of Rights would come in handy too.
As for those masked protestors, they are Anonymous and they declared war on Scientology via Youtube. They wear the masks, in part, to protect themselves from Scientology's attack dogs.
The Neville Chamberlain school of thought has been turned into statute. Poor England, nothing but a tarnished mockery of its former self.
You can have whatever you can take; but you'll have to take it from your government, not us.
Wow, now that I think about it, I am getting the urge to spend a few minutes proudly shining my U.S. Flag lapel pin...
You realize that you could substitute "Catholicism" for "Scientology" above with no loss of truth, right?
Are little green men so much nuttier a fiction than a virgin giving birth and a dead guy coming to life unseen for a trip into the sky?
Clams are bad. It's because of their behavior, not their religion.
Does the English police now have some sort of policy which says that no one can question scientology? I don’t understand what prompted the police to act like this.
the race relations act, and various other "public order" legislation etc. means simply that.
we are about the last place left on earth with free speech
You really don't know anything about Catholicism. The good thing is you can learn all about it and it won't cost you a thing.
Now there is a "lawyer" who needs to read up on why the US constitution is set up the way it is. The Bill of Rights is there to stop "democratically" enacted laws. It is there to stop people "democratically" saying you cannot protest within a mile of the legislature. It is there to stop people "democratically" saying that truth is not an absolute defence to libel/slander. It is there to stop people "democratically" saying that there is no absolute right to silence to prevent self-incrimination. It is there to stop people "democratically" saying that there is no right keep firearms for self-defence.
All of these things are illegal/true in the UK. The laws were "democratically" passed by the Westminster parliament in the case of the statutes. The first is illegal without police permission under section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. For the second see the libel trial of George Galloway v the Daily Telegraph. The third was made law under part 3 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The fourth is prevented by the Firearms Act 1968 and the may-have discretion it allows police for firearms licences in the UK. The UK is not a may-issue CCW jurisdiction, it is a very restrictive may-issue firearms jurisdiction (including shotguns and some types of air rifles).
The founding fathers specifically put elements into the US constitution to stop too much populism. Too much populism is known as mob rule. The Bill of Rights is a very important part of those elements. It stops knee-jerk reactions to events resulting in bans on free speech. If the ruling in DC vs Heller goes as expected it will stop knee-jerk reactions to events resulting in bans on effective self-defence. It stops the abolition of basic protections in the court system (another thing the British Government has consistently tried to erode is the right to trial by jury and they have succeeded in abolishing double jeopardy).
Basic freedoms are vital and too many people are far too ready to throw them away for the illusion of security. Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." In the UK we have done far too much of giving up, and the US would be foolish to follow our example. The Bill of Rights is a strong protection against that happening. The enforcement of the Bill of Rights by the courts is a vital part of its functioning.
Also, I'm shocked no one has mentioned anonymous...
We even have striking down of legislation in the UK now. It has always been the case that secondary legislation could be struck down by the courts as ultra vires. The formal legal situation now is that primary legislation cannot be struck down by the courts due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. However what is happening in reality is that a new constitutional convention is developing that when an act of parliament is ruled to be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 a minister makes uses his power to make secondary legislation amending the offending legislation as soon as possible and the in the meantime the offending piece of legislation is not enforced. Give this a few more years and the way the UK works means that effectively the courts striking down primary legislation will have become a constitutional convention in the UK.
Anonymous was mentioned about 6 hours before you posted, by Vadept.
And the kid did wear a mask. He's called Epic Nose Guy because he wears a carnival mask with a huge nose. Doesn't much matter when you get summoned by the police and they demand your ID. Masks aren't there to defend from the police.
great post btw.
but just for the record, i don't think we have any real protection against double jeopardy in the USA. at least not when the defendants are politically incorrect.
perfect example is rodney king. not guilty in state court, then try them for the same THING (i realize the CHARGES were different, but it's for the same act) in federal court.
we rarely see this with civilians. i don't see a civilian who wins a case of bank robbery in state court being tried federally (bank robbery is a federal offense as well). but let's get real. as long as you can be tried state AND federally for the same act, we have no real protection against double jeopardy either
article
there's an NYTIMES article about this very issue. the ACLU thought it was double jeopardy. of course the NYT disagrees
You're wrong. Feel free to refute any of the following:
1) Thousands of people have left Catholicism over the years.
2) Their most personal secrets were divulged in Catholic confession.
3) They may have left but their secrets remain.
4) I have exactly the same evidence regarding use of secrets divulged in confession against the former members of Catholicism as you do regarding use of secrets divluged in confession against the former members of Scientology.
Through the '40s and early '50s I regularly read a monthly magazine of speculative science fiction. called "Astounding Science Fiction"--ASF, for short. Among its regular contents ASF printed stories and articles, by the likes of Isaac Asimov and various other scientists and technical workers (who often used pen names). The magazine had readers of a similar bent, who enjoyed the idea of going beyond where their facts and findings ran out, and into the realm of possible projections beyond the known--but generally along the same directions that it seemed conceivable the facts were pointing.
One of the ASF writers of fiction was L. Ron Hubbard.
Then Hubbard's article on what he then called "dianetics" appeared in the magazine. It was accompanied by a note from John Campbell, the hitherto highly respected editor of ASF. In this he gave his assurance to readers that the article was NOT any hoax; he had been advised, by no less a personage than Hubbard himself, that it was the real goods.
I believe it was at that point that ASF's professional scientific and technically oriented readers may have dropped away. As did I. "Dianetics" eventually gave way to "Scientology", although the infrastructure of "engrams" and the like seems to have remained. Caveat lector.