64 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019
(presumably including cancellation of fair game
and disconnection) were not genuine.78
It has been noted earlier that complaints about
Scientology were made to the inquiry of the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunities
Commission in 1998. More recently, in 2009,
complaints by former Scientologists were made
to Senator Nick Xenophon who dutifully raised
these matters to public attention and tabled in
parliament numerous letters of complaint he had
received. These complaints, “written by former
followers in Australia,” raised an extraordinary
number of serious abuses allegedly perpetrated
within Scientology including: false
imprisonment, coerced abortions, embezzlement
of Church funds for the personal use of
executives, physical violence including sexual
assaults, intimidation, blackmail, harmful dietary
punishments and other punishments including
illegal confinement and torture, bans on
medication and seeking medical attention,
forcing adherents to cut ties with family
members and friends, and cover-ups of illegal
activities by the Church.79
Media coverage of Senator Xenophon’s
parliamentary speech was extensive, accurately
reporting on the claims that Scientology was a
“criminal organization hiding behind religion”
and the allegations of torture and other claims
made against the organization. At the same time,
media outlets allowed ample opportunity for
Scientology to respond to the allegations, which
78 WA Legislative Council, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard),
Perth, 16 May 1973, p. 1764–1767 his colleague, the Hon.
William R. Withers, felt that the 1968 legislation had helped to
bring about the 1969 reform, which had to be accepted at face
value (ibidem, p. 1766–1767). The Leader of the Opposition, Sir
Charles Court, said in debate that “some of the attitudes of people
concerned [at the time] were unfair, embarrassing, and
threatening” (WA Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates
[Hansard], Perth, 10 May 1973, p. 1646). The distinction made by
MacKinnon between leaders (oligarchs) and followers is
interesting. In another instance, reminiscent of infamous
Scientology undercover operations in the US and Canada a
Scientologist was fined for fraudulently obtaining a confidential
State Government file on Scientology. While he denied any
affiliations with Scientology (which was contradicted by police
evidence), the link with Scientology would be relevant if there was
any proof that he had acted under the orders of the oligarchs
controlling the organization see “Man took secret file by fraud,”
The Sydney Morning Herald, 11 April 1975, p. 1.
79 Commonwealth of Australia Senate, Parliamentary Debates
(Hansard), Canberra, 18 November 2009.
it did with vigour, alleging that the senator had
abused parliamentary privilege and had relied
upon unreliable witnesses, being “disgruntled
former members who use hate speech and
distorted accounts of their experiences in the
church.”80 If the allegations were alleged to be
somewhat sensationalist, the Australian media
can hardly be faulted for reporting on
newsworthy material raised in parliament by a
media savvy, successful politician.
This litany of alleged abuses, the extensive
media coverage and the number of Australian
complainants involved, particularly relative to
the small size of the local membership, would
surely lead to urgent official action if the
organization was something other than one
categorized as a “religion.” Yet initial attempts
by Xenophon to convince his parliamentary
colleagues to investigate the allegations were
rebuffed by the major political parties, with the
senator reportedly being “warned informally that
they would be wary about anything smacking of
intruding upon religious freedom,”, which might
be characterized as a witchhunt aimed at one
group.81 Nevertheless, with persistence, and
possibly due to his crucial crossbench position
(with the government lacking a senatorial
majority), the senator was able to persuade his
colleagues to establish an inquiry into the need
for a more sufficient public benefit test for tax
exempt entities in general, incidentally including
80 N. Bita, “Scientology criminal, says Senator Nick Xenophon,”
The Australian, 18 November 2009,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/scientology-
criminal-says-senator-nick-xenophon/news-story/
3465c11adea6c32e29b3c2ed77f2486a NewsComAu, “Church of
Scientology response to Nick Xenophon,” The Daily Telegraph, 17
November 2009, http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/
news/national/church-of-scientology-response-to-nick-xenophon/
news-story/42314e74a1edc58e0e0e55d6e4bf61ef
81 M. Davis describes the accounts tabled as “credible” and noting
that “[y]ou might have though the role of Senate committees
should include investigating serious grievances and claims of
mistreatment by citizens who have nowhere else to because of gaps
in the legal system” (idem, “Not all grievances are created equal in
politics,” The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 March 2010,
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/not-all-
grievances-are-created-equal-in-politics-20100318-qiws.html).
Interestingly, one scholarly commentator later dismissively refers
to the “tirades from Senator Xenophon under the cover of
parliamentary privilege” (B. Doherty, “Is There Room for
Scientology Amid Australia’s Religious Diversity,?”
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/03/20/3459702.htm
[20 March 2012]).
(presumably including cancellation of fair game
and disconnection) were not genuine.78
It has been noted earlier that complaints about
Scientology were made to the inquiry of the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunities
Commission in 1998. More recently, in 2009,
complaints by former Scientologists were made
to Senator Nick Xenophon who dutifully raised
these matters to public attention and tabled in
parliament numerous letters of complaint he had
received. These complaints, “written by former
followers in Australia,” raised an extraordinary
number of serious abuses allegedly perpetrated
within Scientology including: false
imprisonment, coerced abortions, embezzlement
of Church funds for the personal use of
executives, physical violence including sexual
assaults, intimidation, blackmail, harmful dietary
punishments and other punishments including
illegal confinement and torture, bans on
medication and seeking medical attention,
forcing adherents to cut ties with family
members and friends, and cover-ups of illegal
activities by the Church.79
Media coverage of Senator Xenophon’s
parliamentary speech was extensive, accurately
reporting on the claims that Scientology was a
“criminal organization hiding behind religion”
and the allegations of torture and other claims
made against the organization. At the same time,
media outlets allowed ample opportunity for
Scientology to respond to the allegations, which
78 WA Legislative Council, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard),
Perth, 16 May 1973, p. 1764–1767 his colleague, the Hon.
William R. Withers, felt that the 1968 legislation had helped to
bring about the 1969 reform, which had to be accepted at face
value (ibidem, p. 1766–1767). The Leader of the Opposition, Sir
Charles Court, said in debate that “some of the attitudes of people
concerned [at the time] were unfair, embarrassing, and
threatening” (WA Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates
[Hansard], Perth, 10 May 1973, p. 1646). The distinction made by
MacKinnon between leaders (oligarchs) and followers is
interesting. In another instance, reminiscent of infamous
Scientology undercover operations in the US and Canada a
Scientologist was fined for fraudulently obtaining a confidential
State Government file on Scientology. While he denied any
affiliations with Scientology (which was contradicted by police
evidence), the link with Scientology would be relevant if there was
any proof that he had acted under the orders of the oligarchs
controlling the organization see “Man took secret file by fraud,”
The Sydney Morning Herald, 11 April 1975, p. 1.
79 Commonwealth of Australia Senate, Parliamentary Debates
(Hansard), Canberra, 18 November 2009.
it did with vigour, alleging that the senator had
abused parliamentary privilege and had relied
upon unreliable witnesses, being “disgruntled
former members who use hate speech and
distorted accounts of their experiences in the
church.”80 If the allegations were alleged to be
somewhat sensationalist, the Australian media
can hardly be faulted for reporting on
newsworthy material raised in parliament by a
media savvy, successful politician.
This litany of alleged abuses, the extensive
media coverage and the number of Australian
complainants involved, particularly relative to
the small size of the local membership, would
surely lead to urgent official action if the
organization was something other than one
categorized as a “religion.” Yet initial attempts
by Xenophon to convince his parliamentary
colleagues to investigate the allegations were
rebuffed by the major political parties, with the
senator reportedly being “warned informally that
they would be wary about anything smacking of
intruding upon religious freedom,”, which might
be characterized as a witchhunt aimed at one
group.81 Nevertheless, with persistence, and
possibly due to his crucial crossbench position
(with the government lacking a senatorial
majority), the senator was able to persuade his
colleagues to establish an inquiry into the need
for a more sufficient public benefit test for tax
exempt entities in general, incidentally including
80 N. Bita, “Scientology criminal, says Senator Nick Xenophon,”
The Australian, 18 November 2009,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/scientology-
criminal-says-senator-nick-xenophon/news-story/
3465c11adea6c32e29b3c2ed77f2486a NewsComAu, “Church of
Scientology response to Nick Xenophon,” The Daily Telegraph, 17
November 2009, http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/
news/national/church-of-scientology-response-to-nick-xenophon/
news-story/42314e74a1edc58e0e0e55d6e4bf61ef
81 M. Davis describes the accounts tabled as “credible” and noting
that “[y]ou might have though the role of Senate committees
should include investigating serious grievances and claims of
mistreatment by citizens who have nowhere else to because of gaps
in the legal system” (idem, “Not all grievances are created equal in
politics,” The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 March 2010,
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/not-all-
grievances-are-created-equal-in-politics-20100318-qiws.html).
Interestingly, one scholarly commentator later dismissively refers
to the “tirades from Senator Xenophon under the cover of
parliamentary privilege” (B. Doherty, “Is There Room for
Scientology Amid Australia’s Religious Diversity,?”
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/03/20/3459702.htm
[20 March 2012]).
