International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 9, 2018 39
access studies (difficult with respect to terrorist
groups) and others from public-information
sources in order to gather a so-called thick
picture based on various approaches (Mutch,
2006).
Because of the fraught nature of the groups we
are dealing with, and the need for timely action
to protect the public, academics engaging in
apostate research need to be working closely in
partnership with governmental authority to
achieve the public-policy results required.
Although many potential informants will not
provide information on family members and
friends if doing so might result in those
individuals being drawn to the adverse attention
of authorities, and particularly police, it is
equally true that, because of the porous nature of
many of these groups, there will always be
informants. Even in the most tightly controlled
groups or cells, there is sometimes attrition. In
addition, if apostates with no record of
attempted violence (although they may be
implicated through association offenses—
consorting with proscribed individuals or
groups) are treated with a degree of sympathy
(in contrast with the leaders and oligarchs who
operate the groups), then over time trust can be
built with potential informants to facilitate
complaints from the public.
Pathways for Complaint
The absence of a dedicated agency tasked to
receive and competently analyze streams of
complaint about spiritual or ideological advisers
has been a serious omission in our regulatory
framework. Sometimes we see the convergence
of real terrorism and dubiously qualified pastoral
advisers, counsellors, and other individuals
parading as spiritual therapists and healers.
These individuals can proselytize within and
outside religious groups, including cults, sects,
and new religious movements. But even outside
legislatively defined terrorism, there have been
many instances in which the implosion or
explosion of groups led by a fanatical preacher
or spiritual leader have led to tragic, sometimes
fatal consequences, with the process of
ideological or religious conversion central to our
understanding of how these individuals and
groups operate.
In addition, a range of other unethical and
predatory practices occur all too frequently in
the religion-and-belief sector (the tsunami of
child sexual abuse being a prime example) for
governments to continue to ignore the need to
effectively regulate the sector. Governments
tend to treat the sector as a benign or beneficial
grouping and regulatory regimes generally
facilitate access by the sector to privileges
(accommodations), exemptions, or protections
rather than enforce regulatory controls on
behavior.
To be effective, the public face of a central
repository for complaints about religious and
ideological actors and groups is an important
consideration. To be accessible such a repository
must be known to the public so as to facilitate
pathways for complaint. It should be at least one
step removed from law enforcement, to provide
some reassurance that genuine victims of
radicalization (in popular terms, brainwashing)
will be treated with understanding. The public
agency might be styled as a complaints
commission for religious and ideological abuse.
One approach might be a university-based unit
(something such as INFORM
428F
11 in the UK), but
with a greater focus on apostate research and a
wide, multidisciplinary approach that includes
psychologists, psychiatrists, and theologians—
and incorporates the expertise of nonacademic
people, particularly apostates themselves with
experience in programming (conversions),
deprogramming, and exit counselling. However,
although there is no doubt that an INFORM-
styled university think tank, alongside other
university units focused more directly on
terrorist-related violence or Islamic-based
research, would be a useful development in
Australia, that option would not provide the sort
of complaints-based, government-run agency
with discrete investigative and reporting powers
that is necessary to provide the type of evidence-
based advice government ultimately requires.
Another model that incorporates a useful
approach to dealing with problematic groups in
11 Information Network Focus on Religious Movements (London
School of Economics).
access studies (difficult with respect to terrorist
groups) and others from public-information
sources in order to gather a so-called thick
picture based on various approaches (Mutch,
2006).
Because of the fraught nature of the groups we
are dealing with, and the need for timely action
to protect the public, academics engaging in
apostate research need to be working closely in
partnership with governmental authority to
achieve the public-policy results required.
Although many potential informants will not
provide information on family members and
friends if doing so might result in those
individuals being drawn to the adverse attention
of authorities, and particularly police, it is
equally true that, because of the porous nature of
many of these groups, there will always be
informants. Even in the most tightly controlled
groups or cells, there is sometimes attrition. In
addition, if apostates with no record of
attempted violence (although they may be
implicated through association offenses—
consorting with proscribed individuals or
groups) are treated with a degree of sympathy
(in contrast with the leaders and oligarchs who
operate the groups), then over time trust can be
built with potential informants to facilitate
complaints from the public.
Pathways for Complaint
The absence of a dedicated agency tasked to
receive and competently analyze streams of
complaint about spiritual or ideological advisers
has been a serious omission in our regulatory
framework. Sometimes we see the convergence
of real terrorism and dubiously qualified pastoral
advisers, counsellors, and other individuals
parading as spiritual therapists and healers.
These individuals can proselytize within and
outside religious groups, including cults, sects,
and new religious movements. But even outside
legislatively defined terrorism, there have been
many instances in which the implosion or
explosion of groups led by a fanatical preacher
or spiritual leader have led to tragic, sometimes
fatal consequences, with the process of
ideological or religious conversion central to our
understanding of how these individuals and
groups operate.
In addition, a range of other unethical and
predatory practices occur all too frequently in
the religion-and-belief sector (the tsunami of
child sexual abuse being a prime example) for
governments to continue to ignore the need to
effectively regulate the sector. Governments
tend to treat the sector as a benign or beneficial
grouping and regulatory regimes generally
facilitate access by the sector to privileges
(accommodations), exemptions, or protections
rather than enforce regulatory controls on
behavior.
To be effective, the public face of a central
repository for complaints about religious and
ideological actors and groups is an important
consideration. To be accessible such a repository
must be known to the public so as to facilitate
pathways for complaint. It should be at least one
step removed from law enforcement, to provide
some reassurance that genuine victims of
radicalization (in popular terms, brainwashing)
will be treated with understanding. The public
agency might be styled as a complaints
commission for religious and ideological abuse.
One approach might be a university-based unit
(something such as INFORM
428F
11 in the UK), but
with a greater focus on apostate research and a
wide, multidisciplinary approach that includes
psychologists, psychiatrists, and theologians—
and incorporates the expertise of nonacademic
people, particularly apostates themselves with
experience in programming (conversions),
deprogramming, and exit counselling. However,
although there is no doubt that an INFORM-
styled university think tank, alongside other
university units focused more directly on
terrorist-related violence or Islamic-based
research, would be a useful development in
Australia, that option would not provide the sort
of complaints-based, government-run agency
with discrete investigative and reporting powers
that is necessary to provide the type of evidence-
based advice government ultimately requires.
Another model that incorporates a useful
approach to dealing with problematic groups in
11 Information Network Focus on Religious Movements (London
School of Economics).
