Scientology correspondence – part 7

More correspondence between Gerard Ryan and Mike Garde

14th July 2000

Dear Ger,

Many thanks for your letter of the 2nd of July. First of all, I
notice a practice that has been a part of your communication style for some
years now. You send out a letter to me but in fact send me a copy rather than
the original. On many occasions the letter reaches me subsequent to other
parties. It is almost as though the main point of the exercise is a propaganda
exercise rather than a personal communication between the two of us. I’d
appreciate if in future when you send me a letter you could send me the
original rather than a copy.

I understand that in areas concerning PC skills that you are “quite
illiterate in such matters”. This is a pity as we could reduce the comm
lag were this not the case.

I hope that my response to your leaflet will be the end of the matter. However
I’m prepared to continue as long as it takes (TR3 style).

To aide communication I am inserting my responses to your points in italics and
bold under each of your 24 points. I intend to put this onto the web. This is
not a threat but merely to notify you that this is a conversation that is going
to have a public dimension. Openness and dialogue are not a threat to me and
shouldn’t be to you either.

********** START OF LETTER **********

Dear Mr. Garde,

Further to your letter of 24 May 2000, please excuse my delay, but I am very
busy at work.

To address the points you raise:

  1. To my knowledge we are not having any real discussion about the leaflet that I
    have produced. As I have said before, if you can document where I am mistaken
    in that leaflet, I will apologise and amend the leaflet accordingly. To date
    there has been a deafening silence from you in this regard. so where is the

    Ger, this letter isn’t an attempt to deal with the issues contained in the
    leaflet. As you know I sent you a copy of my response to your leaflet earlier
    this month when I realised you had not received a copy from your OSA colleague,
    Graeme Wilson.

  2. What “serious charges” of my not acting according to
    “Scientology beliefs” are you referring to?

    Ger, I refer you back to my previous letter where I listed policies/bulletins
    and how your letters had demonstrated violations of these. I would be grateful
    if you could respond to those which you have only partially tackled or
    completely ignored. Perhaps you didn’t respond in full to these because you
    went past a word you didn’t fully understand. Rather than list these at length,
    could you read through the letter again and explain violations of Scientology
    Tech. For example the use of sweeping generalisations.

  3. Your reference to “taking legal advice” regarding the leaflet I have produced
    is yet another threat to me by you. I find it extremely ironic that you have
    continually claimed that my religion is “litigious” and yet it is you who have
    continually made legal threats. For the record, I have the right to free speech
    under the constitution. I strongly believe that Dialogue Ireland is acting in a
    manner that inevitably leads to bigotry and sectarianism. I believe that
    Dialogue Ireland, whether they intend to or not, are guilty of generating
    intolerance towards religious minorities in Ireland. I fully intend to share
    this belief with anyone who might be interested. Are you seriously suggesting
    that I do not have the right to do this?

    Ger, how is taking legal advice a threat to you when it is me clarifying
    whether I am being libelled? If you are happy with what you have written, why
    feel threatened? I am advised that I have a case if I wish to pursue it in the
    courts. The whole point of the exercise is that I have decided not to take the
    legal route but am placing the material on the internet instead.

    To put the record straight, the first legal relations between myself and
    Scientology was taken by the solicitors for Scientology, Hodkin & Company,
    on the 9th May 1996. I was expected to cease circulating a book
    within 7 days – “unless we hear from you within the next 7 days
    proceedings may be issued against you as a matter of course”. I think you
    err in a matter of fact in terms of who initiated legal proceedings.

    I am not trying to silence you, however I suggest that some of the material you
    have used is actually libellous.

  4. You claim that I wrote “abusive” letters to you! Please document this.
    Ger, for example in several of your letters you have linked me to a drug cartel
    in Mexico, which you have attempted to minimise by saying that if a Mormon had
    been involved I would have put it in the papers. However your original point
    had been to try to connect me to this illegal activity.

    Secondly you have attempted in the past, and continue even in this most recent
    letter, to connect me to Father Fortune. You seem to be totally unaware as to
    how abusive this actually is.

    Finally for instance, in your most recent letter you have tried to connect me
    to the violence perpetrated against a Hare Krishna by her father. To add insult
    to injury you continue to connect me to a case of a woman who is no longer a
    Scientologist who you claim I influenced the father to strike her. This would
    be the equivalent of me saying that your design of the building on John Keane’s
    property could lead to the death of the three, or two, people living in his

  5. This letter is not on behalf of my Church. Letters that come from my home
    address are not on behalf of my Church. My Church is not located in Finglas
    East (yet!) If I am writing on behalf of my Church I do not use my home

    Am I to understand that you are in fact the spokesperson for the Dublin mission
    or have you ceased from that position and are you now purely an individual
    Scientologist? Even if you are not the spokesperson anymore you should at least
    indicate on your leaflet your interest by saying that you are in fact a
    Scientologist rather than a neutral observer.

  6. I am entirely unaware that you have even been in contact with Mr. Graeme Wilson
    in the UK, let alone been in receipt of any correspondence you have had with
    him. Graeme Wilson has nothing to do with my personal correspondence.

    Ger, perhaps I am mistaken but my understanding is that Graeme is your direct
    senior in the UK and as such I would have presumed that the standard lines of
    particle flow would dictate that a high level of communication would exist on
    matters relating to your post. The subject matter of your DI article bears a
    high degree of relevance to your post.

  7. For the record whether I am a Scientologist or not is quite irrelevant. The
    issue is whether Dialogue Ireland is generating intolerance towards religious
    minorities in Ireland or not. I believe Dialogue Ireland is generating
    intolerance towards a variety of minority religions in Ireland, not just my own

    Ger, to use your own words, please document this.

  8. You claim that I have sent out “primitive anti-Christian tracts”,
    please document this outright lie. I have never written, produced nor
    distributed “anti-Christian tracts”, primitive or otherwise. I am not
    anti-Christian and I take grave exception to your lie to the contrary. In fact
    I am pro Christian. As I have explained to you before, I strongly believe that
    my own religion will not achieve its aims (a civilisation with war, crime or
    insanity…) without the assistance of Christianity or indeed other religions.
    So I find the decline of Christianity in the Western World to be disastrous in
    that respect. From my perspective, a thriving Christian religion is essential
    for the achievement of my spiritual aims.

    Ger, the anti-Christian tracts was a reference to a document of yours
    concerning the origins of Christianity and how it was considered a cult in its
    day. This would be considered abusive and highly offensive by most of the
    people who have received it.

    Ron writes in HCOB 18 July 1959 “Technically Speaking”, “The
    whole Christian movement is based on the victim. Compulsion of the overt
    act-motivator sequence. They won by appealing to victims. We can win by
    converting victims. Christianity succeeded by making people into victims. We
    can succeed by making victims into people. It’s time the inversion turned
    anyway.” Perhaps you may need to review your membership of Scientology in
    the light of this considering that a thriving Christian religion is essential
    for the achievement of your spiritual aims, as you put it.

    You may wish to read “Studia Missionalia” Volume 41, 1992,
    “Religious sects and movements” by H. Meldgaard published by the
    Gregorian Pontifical University in Rome which I enclose. The article is called

    “Scientology’s religious roots”. This will give you a better
    understanding of the mix of views that went into the formation of LRH’s
    religious understanding.

  9. You shared an antipathy towards minority religions with Fr. Sean Fortune. Why
    did Anna Livia Radio station invite Fr. Fortune and you onto the programme? Fr.
    Fortune lectured in media studies etc in some sort of private course that he
    delivered in Belfield apparently. (Interestingly he used some professionals
    from RTE to lecture in this course also.) According to reports (from
    individuals who attended his lectures) Fortune regularly attacked minority
    religions in his lectures. You might remember the invective he got into on the
    radio. So: a. Fr. Sean Fortune was totally opposed to the newer minority
    religions, b. He lectured to students on the alleged “evils” or
    “badness” etc of these minorities. c. He got paid for his lectures.
    d. He appeared in the media attacking the newer minority religions.

    I believe that this is your CV also and thus it puts you into the
    “professional colleague” ranks of Fr. Fortune. You are paid over

    £12000 per year for your “work”, are you not? Though in fairness Fr.
    Fortune got considerably more cash for his efforts, so I understand.

    Ger, again you keep repeating this libellous connection. Why are you so
    obsessed with Fr Fortune? What has this got to do with me?

  10. I do not think that you or Dialogue Ireland intends to incite violence. However
    I firmly believe that your continual attacks on the newer minority religions
    makes violence against them inevitable. Dr. Ian Paisley has stated on numerous
    occasions that he is firmly opposed to violence and that he has no intention to
    incite violence. However I believe that his rhetoric inevitably leads others to
    cause violence. I have no doubt that Ms. Aine Ni Conail has no intention to
    incite violence against immigrants. However the rhetoric of the Immigration
    Control Platform makes violence against immigrants inevitable.

    Ger, could you give me an example of the rhetoric you are referring to? I give
    a fair presentation of the facts. Your religion on the other hand refuses to
    allow members to see any other view. People have been forbidden to speak to me
    even for example. Furthermore Scientology is well known for its anti-psychiatry
    rhetoric, with public demonstrations not unheard of too.

    I have heard that for example a Hare Krishna person experienced violence or
    threats of violence from a family member of his wife. Allegedly this happened
    following an “intervention” from your self. If this is correct, then
    it is proof that not only Scientologists have been assaulted.

    Ger, as you now know due to a conversation you had with the Hare Krishna person
    concerned, this is in fact not correct and I would suggest that you withdraw
    this libellous comment in your next letter, and also that you withdraw your
    continued libel that a Scientologist was also assaulted as this has been
    addressed on a number of occasions and you continue to repeat it. For your
    information the person concerned is now an ex-Scientologist.

  11. The continuing revelations about the CDU political party rather expose your
    claims to be false. As you must know Helmut Kohl is currently under
    investigation. He has since admitted taking in £75 million in illegal
    donations! But even worse it has just been revealed that the CDU members on the
    all-party parliamentary investigation into the sleaze have been meeting with
    Kohl just prior to his appearances before the investigation. They were not
    sharing cookery recipes.

    Whilst not every CDU member is a criminal, by far, the fact remains that the
    party to which they have allegiance, and to which they are not trying to
    reform, actively discriminates against the newer minority religions. In the
    early 1930s the Nazis stated that Judaism was not a religion but purely a
    commercial enterprise. They stated that the Jews were plotting to overthrow the
    democratic process, that Judaism was bent on world denomination and so on. It
    is no coincidence that this is the exact argument used by the CDU to justify
    their sectarianism against my religion and incidentally I believe it is the
    exact argument used by Dialog Centrum in Aarhus against my religion and I
    believe that you too share this argument.

    I notice that you do not deny that Dialogue Ireland/Centre is/was in contact
    with the Foreign Affairs section of the German Government, you merely state
    that Fr. Tierney has no recollection of mentioning it to me. Well to jog his
    memory, Fr. Tierney mentioned it to me at the Dialogue Conference in Clonliffe.
    It was the time when you refused me entry (despite it being a public
    conference) but changed your mind (because it was getting embarrassing?). I was
    having a cup of tea and talking with Fr. Louis Hughes when I got into
    conversation with Fr. Tierney. He told me about the contacts with the Gerrnan
    Foreign Affairs section. Your claims that I imagined it are of course the usual
    propaganda that emanate from Dialogue Ireland.

    Ger, I have responded to this already in my response to your leaflet.

  12. I do not have the document to hand where you accuse me of being in
    Grangegorman. As you know some of our correspondence is a part of the court
    case that we are both involved in.

    Ger, I am not aware of being involved in any court case with you at the moment.
    If you can’t produce the document I suggest you retract the statement about

  13. As regards your claims vis-à-vis targeting vulnerable people, in the
    Evening Herald of 12.6.1997 you stated and I quote: “The Scientologists
    don’t brainwash their members, but they target people who are at crisis point
    in their lives.”. I do not need to elaborate what the above means. It is
    of course an absolute lie.
  14. Your claim “it is standard [Scientology] policy to ruin a member of the
    public in an area of life in order to sell services.” This is of course an
    outright lie.

    You are correct in implying that a person must be at the awareness level of
    “need of change”, at least, in order to become interested in my
    religion. However the “at least” is very important, if a person is
    higher on the awareness level than “need of change” so much the
    better. Higher levels than “need of change” including
    “hope”, “help”, “perception”,

    “understanding” and so on. Perhaps you were “in need of
    change” when you were born again in Christ?

    Ger, perhaps you could list for me the steps on the dissemination drill

  15. Your claims about Narconon and Criminon are quite untrue as you well know. Both
    of these organisations have helped thousands of individuals to lead a better
    life. I have already sent you documented evidence of, for example, the efficacy
    of Narconon (the study done by the Research Centre for Chronic Pain and
    Dependency Disorders) which was not carried out by Scientologists.

    You claim that the methods of the above groups are inadequate, presumably you
    have documented evidence of this?
    I find it quite disgusting that in order to denigrate my religion you appear
    willing to cast aspersions on groups that are doing very effective work in the
    most challenging of areas for individuals who really need assistance. Is there
    no end to the depths to which you are willing to plunge?

    Ger, I have not received this document from you. In fact all I recall getting
    was a photocopied document from a Scientology magazine about such a document.
    My repeated requests for independent scientific evaluation of this program have
    up to now produced no results. Also when I was trying to get Brian Wilson’s
    claim to be a religion, I had to contact East Grinstead directly myself because
    of your inability to produce the goods in Dublin.

    I have asked Professor Michael Gibney from Trinity College Dublin to evaluate
    the Purification Rundown which seems to be a core element in the Criminon

  16. The reason I mention the drugs cartel being operated by Mennonites is that if
    it were, for example, the Mormons operating a drugs cartel, I believe that the
    newspapers would be full of stories of “evil Mormons” courtesy of
    your good self. I also believe that you would use this story in your efforts to
    indoctrinate impressionable schoolchildren on your visits to schools. For
    example how many times in the media have you regaled the readers/listeners with
    the story of the Scientologists who were jailed in the 1970s? Many, many times
    have you tried to tar all Scientologists with the same brush.

    Ger, I think I answered that point in my response to your leaflet and also

  17. Any Scientologist breaking the law is most certainly not “acting in the
    line of duty” and your claim to the contrary is your usual propaganda. It
    the clear policy in our Church to obey the law of the land.

    Ger, has Mr Delemare been expelled from your church or as a staff member? Do
    you regard his actions as being lawful?

  18. I have never, ever referred to anybody as “raw meat”. In the millions
    of words Hubbard has written he refers to “raw meat” a few times in a
    humorous manner. There is quite a lot of humorous slang in Scientology as there
    is in any technical subject.

    Ger, you fail to comment on the term “Wog” and Scientology words
    derived from it like the “Wogworld”, “Wogdom” and
    “Woggy”. Do I take it from your comment above that you have read the
    entirety of Ron’s millions of written words? Otherwise how could you possibly
    know that he only refers to “Raw meat” a few times?

  19. It is quite untrue that all the writings of Hubbard are regarded as scripture.
    All the spiritual writings of Hubbard are regarded as scripture. However just
    because they are scripture does not mean that the writings are followed or
    practised. There are many, many writings of Hubbard on the subject of
    spirituality that are no longer practised in Scientology (if they ever were).
    This is quite typical in all religions. For example there are some rather
    dubious references to women and Jews in the Bible, but such attitudes are not
    practised in “mainstream” Christianity any longer. But that does not
    make them any less a part of the Christian scripture. Perspective, perspective,
    perspective, you might look at the broader picture once in a while.

    Ger, could you illustrate some sample aspects of Scientology scripture which
    are now regarded as old and which no longer apply? Could you also quote
    standard source policy on this rather than your own personal opinion

  20. You claim that I do not “allow” you to hold a different view of
    Scientology! This is quite preposterous, you have been “allowed” to
    hate Scientology for decades!

    Ger, of course I meant this in the sense of your not being happy with me
    holding a different view. I think it is called “granting beingness”.
    Please stop making these absolute statements which have no bearing with my
    beliefs. The concept of hate does not arise in my thinking about any belief

  21. Your last paragraph had me virtually in tears of laughter. You are a funny man.
    At the start of the letter you threaten me with legal action and then at the
    end of the letter you state that you are not threatening me! I think you should
    read over your letters before you post them.

    Ger, I think we have covered the legal background above. You only need to feel
    threatened if you continue to libel me.

  22. The supreme irony is that for decades Dialogue Ireland/Centre has attacked
    minority religions in Ireland with virtual impunity. To this end your group
    have had a compliant media and tremendous contacts in the schools and clergy.
    Your group had a fairly free run to promote your agenda of spreading propaganda
    against minority religions. Now when there is one leaflet giving an alternative
    viewpoint, written by one person being distributed with minimal resources you
    are in a total lather. I get threatening letters to put me on the Internet,
    veiled and not so veiled threats of legal action against me and so on.

    What will it be like when I get a chance to do the other leaflets? Can you
    imagine what it will be like when I reveal the names of certain individuals who
    allegedly received £200 each to “exit counsel” a person for a
    day! A nice little earner you may agree. And there is much more, perhaps.

    Ger, this is dealt with in the response to your leaflet. As you can imagine I
    am breaking out in sweat at the thought of your next leaflet. Concerning my
    fees, a very simple rule of thumb is that I charge £20 an hour up to a
    maximum of £100 a day for my services excluding meal times. Your source is
    misinformed as to my charges. Perhaps you could let me know what you charge per
    hour is for your architectural services?

  23. For the record I am always willing to dialogue with anybody, friend or foe,
    about my religion, at any reasonable time. With you, I prefer to dialogue via
    the written word because I do not trust you an inch. You have betrayed me
    before and I am a fool rarely more than once. I recall an interview I had with
    a journalist some time ago (last year) on the subject of my religion. I spoke
    to the journalist for a couple of hours. The journalist was surprised by my
    willingness to discuss any aspect of Scientology, controversial or otherwise.
    The journalist told me that you had told him that Scientologists would not be
    interested in talking to him. It gave him pause for thought. I think that he
    then called into question other information you may have given him.

    As Ron said, “On the day on which we can fully trust one another there
    will be peace on earth” … Trust, trust, trust. I’ll meet you at any time.
    Can I suggest the Hare Krishna’s as the mediators. Concerning the journalist
    you mentioned, the issue is not whether you would be willing to talk to them,
    after all there is not enough paper to carry the words, but rather obviously if
    I give them your telephone number it goes without saying that you will talk to
    them. However again I can’t deal with non-specific claims about non-specific

  24. I truly hope that one day we can all chose our own spiritual path, without the
    constant threat of denigration of that path, without the constant threat of
    dealing with propaganda on how “bad” that spiritual path is. Your
    spiritual path has value, I believe my spiritual path has value, and I believe
    that all spiritual paths have value. There is, according to opinion,
    “relative” value but so what! I rejoice that there is variety in
    religious traditions. I rejoice that there is variety in race, culture,
    ethnicity and custom. I may not agree with some of the traditions, but I have
    no interest in denigrating those traditions I disagree with. I do not want to
    tell schoolchildren how “bad” these traditions are. I do not want to
    circulate press releases attacking these minorities and I regret to say that I
    suspect the motives of those who do.

    I may of course be incorrect in all of this. Is that a possibility that you
    will entertain?

    I am open to evidence which is the principle of verification which means that I
    can be wrong on specific issues that we are dealing with. Hopefully this
    dialogue is the way to find out which issues I am wrong on and which issues you
    are wrong on.

Yours truly,


Gerard Ryan

********** END OF LETTER **********

Yours truly,

Mike Garde

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: