International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019 59
electronic media coverage, at a level that seems
unique to Scientology among unconventional
groups but very much fed by the organization
itself as well as its critics.
While no doubt many media exposés have been
sourced from the accounts of former adherents,49
parliamentary debates and official inquiries have
also been prompted by material supplied in part
by former Scientologists.50 But media coverage
has often focused on court proceedings and
public campaigns initiated by Scientology. The
media may well be attracted to stories
surrounding Scientology celebrities, but often as
a result of a celebrity focused media strategy
adopted by the organization.51 These strategies
and forays are calculated to attract media
attention. At the very least they are guaranteed
to do so, and the result can be a public relations
success, even if this success is sometimes
qualified by underlying motives and methods
used.
The Chelmsford Campaign
For example, the Church gained some credence
for the fruition of its decade-long campaign
against damaging psychiatric procedures
conducted at the Chelmsford Private Hospital in
Sydney, which involved numerous deaths and
other serious medical consequences. Scientology
sees its opposition to psychiatry and related
professions as an article of faith, claiming in its
guidebook that: “The fact of the matter is that
these self-appointed experts [referring to
49 As with complaints about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church,
there is nothing irregular about this—in fact to ignore these
complaints would be reprehensible. The media invariably ask for
comment from the organization.
50 This is a bone of contention for some scholars of new religious
movements, who can dismiss complaints from former adherents as
apostate atrocity tales. Reputable scholars who understand the
probative value of such testimonies have been subjected to
academic criticism because they use apostate accounts in their
research. These criticisms could be dismissed as foolish nonsense
if the contest over ideas and the public policy consequences were
not so important. For the author’s views on research methodology
in the sensitive area of new religions, see S. Mutch, “Cultism,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security,” Cultic Studies Review, 2006,
vol. 5, no. 2, p. 186–189, and in reply E. Barker, “Stepping Out of
the Ivory Tower: a Sociological Engagement in ‘the cult wars,’”
Methodological Innovations Online, 2011, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 18–39.
51 S. A. Kent, “Hollywood’s Celebrity Lobbyists and the Clinton
Administration’s American Foreign Policy Towards German
Scientology,” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, 2002, vol.
1, no. 1, doi:10.3138/jrpc.1.1.002.
psychiatrists and psychologists] have never
discovered and do not know to this day that the
mind is composed of mental image pictures, that
the brain is simply a conduit, and that man is a
spiritual being.”52
In this respect its Chelmsford campaign might
be viewed as a case of blind faith versus
pioneering (or dangerously experimental)
medicine. Nevertheless, the campaign,
conducted by the Australian Office of
Scientology’s official sounding Citizens
Commission on Human Rights (CCHR)53 (along
with media exposés on the Channel Nine
network’s 60 Minutes program and detailed
investigation by “The Sydney Morning
Herald”), resulted in the establishment of a
genuinely official royal commission in 1988 to
investigate deep-sleep therapy and other
psychiatric practices in the state of New South
Wales.
The royal commission eventually led to some
redress for patients who had been found to be
seriously injured by psychiatric medical
procedures conducted at Chelmsford and
elsewhere. So even if it is argued that its
motivation was misguided or self-serving
(fuelled by over-zealous antagonism against the
mental health professions54 and helping to
proselytize the Scientology brand),55 some
credit, albeit sometimes qualified,56 accrued to
52 Church of Scientology International, What Is Scientology? The
Comprehensive Reference on the World’s Fastest Growing
Religion, Los Angeles 1993, p. 291.
53 Established in 1969 to “expose psychiatric criminality and
oppression” (ibidem, p. 290).
54 Fuelled by derision heaped upon Hubbard by the psychiatric
profession (S. A. Kent, T. A. Manca, “A War Over Mental Health
Professionalism: Scientology Versus Psychiatry,” Mental Health,
Religion and Culture, 2014, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 1–23).
55 This is a fact denied by the CCHR which has claimed, “We do
not have a religious agenda and do not refer our clients, people
whose human rights have been abused by psychiatrists or other
mental health professionals, to the Church” (L. Cottee, “Letters—
No religious agenda,” The Big Issue, 20 September 1999). L.
Cottee was the National Office Spokesperson, CCHR, responding
to an article claiming that “CCHR is widely regarded by anti-cult
activists as a front group for the Church of Scientology” see “Did
cult march on wrong hospital?,” The Big Issue, 6 September 1999.
56 For example, while crediting CCHR as being a “leading
protagonist for the royal commission into the use of deep sleep
therapy” in NSW and for “helping to start the Health
Commissioner’s probe into DST in Victoria,” journalists referred
to “a hidden agenda of retribution … against people whom the
church describes as ‘enemies’” (under the “fair game” policy) (J.
electronic media coverage, at a level that seems
unique to Scientology among unconventional
groups but very much fed by the organization
itself as well as its critics.
While no doubt many media exposés have been
sourced from the accounts of former adherents,49
parliamentary debates and official inquiries have
also been prompted by material supplied in part
by former Scientologists.50 But media coverage
has often focused on court proceedings and
public campaigns initiated by Scientology. The
media may well be attracted to stories
surrounding Scientology celebrities, but often as
a result of a celebrity focused media strategy
adopted by the organization.51 These strategies
and forays are calculated to attract media
attention. At the very least they are guaranteed
to do so, and the result can be a public relations
success, even if this success is sometimes
qualified by underlying motives and methods
used.
The Chelmsford Campaign
For example, the Church gained some credence
for the fruition of its decade-long campaign
against damaging psychiatric procedures
conducted at the Chelmsford Private Hospital in
Sydney, which involved numerous deaths and
other serious medical consequences. Scientology
sees its opposition to psychiatry and related
professions as an article of faith, claiming in its
guidebook that: “The fact of the matter is that
these self-appointed experts [referring to
49 As with complaints about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church,
there is nothing irregular about this—in fact to ignore these
complaints would be reprehensible. The media invariably ask for
comment from the organization.
50 This is a bone of contention for some scholars of new religious
movements, who can dismiss complaints from former adherents as
apostate atrocity tales. Reputable scholars who understand the
probative value of such testimonies have been subjected to
academic criticism because they use apostate accounts in their
research. These criticisms could be dismissed as foolish nonsense
if the contest over ideas and the public policy consequences were
not so important. For the author’s views on research methodology
in the sensitive area of new religions, see S. Mutch, “Cultism,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security,” Cultic Studies Review, 2006,
vol. 5, no. 2, p. 186–189, and in reply E. Barker, “Stepping Out of
the Ivory Tower: a Sociological Engagement in ‘the cult wars,’”
Methodological Innovations Online, 2011, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 18–39.
51 S. A. Kent, “Hollywood’s Celebrity Lobbyists and the Clinton
Administration’s American Foreign Policy Towards German
Scientology,” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, 2002, vol.
1, no. 1, doi:10.3138/jrpc.1.1.002.
psychiatrists and psychologists] have never
discovered and do not know to this day that the
mind is composed of mental image pictures, that
the brain is simply a conduit, and that man is a
spiritual being.”52
In this respect its Chelmsford campaign might
be viewed as a case of blind faith versus
pioneering (or dangerously experimental)
medicine. Nevertheless, the campaign,
conducted by the Australian Office of
Scientology’s official sounding Citizens
Commission on Human Rights (CCHR)53 (along
with media exposés on the Channel Nine
network’s 60 Minutes program and detailed
investigation by “The Sydney Morning
Herald”), resulted in the establishment of a
genuinely official royal commission in 1988 to
investigate deep-sleep therapy and other
psychiatric practices in the state of New South
Wales.
The royal commission eventually led to some
redress for patients who had been found to be
seriously injured by psychiatric medical
procedures conducted at Chelmsford and
elsewhere. So even if it is argued that its
motivation was misguided or self-serving
(fuelled by over-zealous antagonism against the
mental health professions54 and helping to
proselytize the Scientology brand),55 some
credit, albeit sometimes qualified,56 accrued to
52 Church of Scientology International, What Is Scientology? The
Comprehensive Reference on the World’s Fastest Growing
Religion, Los Angeles 1993, p. 291.
53 Established in 1969 to “expose psychiatric criminality and
oppression” (ibidem, p. 290).
54 Fuelled by derision heaped upon Hubbard by the psychiatric
profession (S. A. Kent, T. A. Manca, “A War Over Mental Health
Professionalism: Scientology Versus Psychiatry,” Mental Health,
Religion and Culture, 2014, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 1–23).
55 This is a fact denied by the CCHR which has claimed, “We do
not have a religious agenda and do not refer our clients, people
whose human rights have been abused by psychiatrists or other
mental health professionals, to the Church” (L. Cottee, “Letters—
No religious agenda,” The Big Issue, 20 September 1999). L.
Cottee was the National Office Spokesperson, CCHR, responding
to an article claiming that “CCHR is widely regarded by anti-cult
activists as a front group for the Church of Scientology” see “Did
cult march on wrong hospital?,” The Big Issue, 6 September 1999.
56 For example, while crediting CCHR as being a “leading
protagonist for the royal commission into the use of deep sleep
therapy” in NSW and for “helping to start the Health
Commissioner’s probe into DST in Victoria,” journalists referred
to “a hidden agenda of retribution … against people whom the
church describes as ‘enemies’” (under the “fair game” policy) (J.
