DÁIL QUESTION addressed to the Minister for Justice and Equality (Mr. Shatter) by Deputy Paschal Donohoe

We were grateful in Dialogue Ireland when Deputy Paschal Donohoe  asked this question at the request of the Director of Dialogue Ireland who is a constituent of his.

Our charitable status prevents us from lobbying government. However, we will opening up our blog for comment to the general public to advance the understanding of cultism referencing Irish charitable law and other expert opinion.

The Deputy will appreciate that the word ‘cult’ is a chameleon-hued word that may gets its colours in any given context from the subjective views of the speaker, and that there are no clear, specific, manageable, and universally accepted criteria for identifying cults.

Existing Irish law seems to be pretty specific. This extract is from the Charities Act 2009:

For the purposes of this section, a gift is not a gift for the advancement of religion if it is made to or for the benefit of an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

We also show how other jurisdictions deal with this issue. We will be putting forward the view that this issue should not be dealt with reference to Article 44 which the reply proposed as the reference point for this debate, specifically in relation to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. We would argue that the issue is not about freedom of religion but about group influences and the field of undue influence. No one’s beliefs are under scrutiny rather it is the actions resulting from power, manipulation and control which lead to the loss of freedom. The statement that, “It is of course a reality that one person’s cult may be another person’s faith,” is commonly used to relativise the experience of those who encounter cultism, cultist tendencies and attitudes found in the cultic milieu. To use a medical analogy one person’s cancer is another person’s health? Most people understand that N. Korea is a cultist state, and that S. Korea is a democracy. Most people understand that the Catholic Church is a genuine Confession of the Christian religion, but they also realise that it can have cultist tendencies and attitudes in relation to the issue of its response to child sexual abuse and vulnerable adults. However, it was not the religious or theological content that defines whether a group is a cult or not, but rather whether it controls and removes the person’s autonomy and renders infantile its members as we find in such groups referenced here on our site. People can distinguish between a genuine psychotherapy centre and one that leads to loss of mental independence. A group like The House of Prayer claims to be an authentic expression of Catholicism whereas it has been involved in a systematic form of elder abuse, financial scandal and has a small cohort unable to think rationally.

We see no problem in JW’s believing in Jehovah, but when they advocate that an adult member should not be allowed to have a blood transfusion as they did in 2006 that belief cannot be allowed in a democratic society. The reply is that a person has a right to resist a medical intervention at variance with their beliefs, however, this fails to understand the group processes which inform this decision. The JW’s are usually saved by the intervention of the courts, but there should be an ethics committee to scrutinise these beliefs. There is no biblical scholar in the world who would support their interpretation of blood transfusion, and they do not have one single scholar themselves who could defend this view.

The consequences are a violation of children’s rights as well as since this appalling doctrine was espoused thousands of children have died.

Tony Quinn has managed to bring a significant group of people under his influence and his overwhelming control leaves many floundering. We have noted that many good people are unable to break free from this conditioning. Scientology would like to clear the planet so it is not surprising that Germany regards their presence as a threat to their constitution. Here in Ireland they have managed to ‘ruin’ a number of lives but they have not had any success in advancing what they call their religion. They have not obtained charitable status. LR Hubbard their founder tried to establish a Scientology presence in South Africa at the peak of the Apartheid regime. He was going to solve the race problem! He then tried to get Rhodesia to allow him to establish a kind of ‘Hubbardtown’ there.

We invite those victims and survivors to use our comment section to make our political class aware of their experience, so that no one will ever use such relativistic statement to undermine the gulag that cultism involves! “It is of course a reality that one person’s cult may be another person’s faith”

QUESTION NO:  94

DÁIL QUESTION addressed to the Minister for Justice and Equality (Mr. Shatter)
by Deputy Paschal Donohoe
for WRITTEN on Thursday, 19th May, 2011.

*  To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if his attention has been drawn to the danger posed by the development of cults within Ireland; if he has a working group or plan in relation to this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

– Paschal Donohoe

REPLY.
The Deputy will appreciate that the word ‘cult’ is a chameleon-hued word that may gets its colours in any given context from the subjective views of the speaker, and that there are no clear, specific, manageable, and universally accepted criteria for identifying cults.

In our constitutional democracy, as the Deputy knows, we have a firm constitutional guarantee, in Article 44, of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. A person’s convictions about ultimate concerns such as the meaning of life and the purpose of existence and how to live a life of worth and value is a profound part of the privacies of life and existential thought. It is of course a reality that one person’s cult may be another person’s faith.

It is self-evident, however, that no one may engage in conduct that is directed at a specific person and causes substantial distress to that person, even for the purposes of forcing that person to join or belong to a religious group. In this connection, it may be helpful to point out that section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 provides for the offence of harassment. Thus, any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, commits the offence of harassment. Moreover, a person harasses another when (a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other’s peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and (b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other’s peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

The Deputy might also note that, under section 10(3) of the 1997 Act, when a person is found guilty of this offence, the court may, in addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty, order that the person must not, for such period as the court may specify, communicate by any means with the other person or that the person shall not approach within such distance as the court shall specify of the place of residence or employment of the other person. To answer the Deputy’s second question, I have at the moment no plan to set up a working group to study the subject of cults.