International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 8, 2017 35
with ideologies dependent upon the charismatic
whimsies of leaders, increase the likelihood of
group disintegration after a devastating verdict.
Groups, however, that have routinized the
teachings have a greater chance of surviving,
especially if some members believe that the
now-discredited leader had been acting outside
of established doctrinal boundaries. These
groups even may rupture during and after their
leaders’ trials, with some loyalists remaining
true to their leaders while others seek to
maintain aspects of the beliefs and practices
separate from the convicted leadership. For
example, Ivon Shearing (b. 1928), who was the
leader of a British Columbia-based group calling
itself the Kabalarians, received a jury’s
conviction on 12 counts of gross indecency,
sexual assault, and rape concerning seven
complainants from events occurring between
1965 and 1990. From a Canadian legal
standpoint, the case was important because the
defendants applied for access to an alleged
victim’s diary (as a third-party record), which
went through the British Columbia Court of
Appeal, then to the Supreme Court of Canada,
with the defendant being victorious. The second
legal precedent in the case involved reporters
successfully petitioning the court to release
support letters that various members wrote on
behalf of Shearing in an attempt to minimize his
sentencing. Sociologically, however, an
interesting consequence of the case was that it
divided those members who did not renounce
their beliefs into two camps. As the judge
reported in his ruling,
Having sat as the trial judge for over nine weeks,
I have concluded that there are two groups of
Kabalarians warring for control of the Society.
The groups dislike each other intensely. Most of
the harassment of which Ms. Daniel speaks has,
I infer, come from the opposing group of
Kabalarians.
124F
125
Even before the conviction, therefore, the trial
itself caused a split in the organization between
those whom supported Mr. Shearing and those
125 R v. Shearing, 1998, CanLII 4952 (BC SC), para 11.
who wanted to move on and distance themselves
from him. Potential members, however, who
search the group on the Internet will find
information about the conviction, which they
then can weigh in their decision to involve
themselves with the organization and its
followers. Conducting a trial, however, does not
guarantee the dismantling of the group or the
structures/doctrines that facilitated the sexual
abuse.
Conclusion
People’s quests for salvation are timeless, with
examples of these quests going back millennia.
Contemporary religious seekers will continue
such quests well into the future. Some seekers
immerse themselves in old, even ancient
religions others form or join new religious
expressions. To nonbelievers, the content of
these faiths may seem implausible and
unbelievable to adherents, that same content
may be sublime and revelatory. These adherents
will be so taken with their faiths that they likely
will want to share them with loved ones,
including their children and the opportunities
that some alternative religions provide their
young are far more interesting and enjoyable
then they are harmful. Harm, however, even of a
sexual nature, happens far too often, and many
of these incidents of harm lead to charges, court
cases, or both. Adults naively assume that others
in their flocks are people of integrity, and all
members believe that their leaders are above
reproach. Both assumptions can be dead wrong,
and can have dire consequences for the sexual
integrity of children (and for that matter, adults
also).
Court cases present victims with a host of
potential problems—perhaps having to testify in
front of the alleged perpetrator(s) justifying
recalled memories from long-ago incidents
experiencing stress from the length of trials and
often incurring extensive legal costs.
Nevertheless, we have argued—especially when
child sexual abuses are systemic or facilitated by
groups—that full trials which lead to court
decisions best serve the public good. In family
and civil, but especially in criminal cases, the
bar for admissible evidence is high so judges
and juries are receiving degrees of evidence that
with ideologies dependent upon the charismatic
whimsies of leaders, increase the likelihood of
group disintegration after a devastating verdict.
Groups, however, that have routinized the
teachings have a greater chance of surviving,
especially if some members believe that the
now-discredited leader had been acting outside
of established doctrinal boundaries. These
groups even may rupture during and after their
leaders’ trials, with some loyalists remaining
true to their leaders while others seek to
maintain aspects of the beliefs and practices
separate from the convicted leadership. For
example, Ivon Shearing (b. 1928), who was the
leader of a British Columbia-based group calling
itself the Kabalarians, received a jury’s
conviction on 12 counts of gross indecency,
sexual assault, and rape concerning seven
complainants from events occurring between
1965 and 1990. From a Canadian legal
standpoint, the case was important because the
defendants applied for access to an alleged
victim’s diary (as a third-party record), which
went through the British Columbia Court of
Appeal, then to the Supreme Court of Canada,
with the defendant being victorious. The second
legal precedent in the case involved reporters
successfully petitioning the court to release
support letters that various members wrote on
behalf of Shearing in an attempt to minimize his
sentencing. Sociologically, however, an
interesting consequence of the case was that it
divided those members who did not renounce
their beliefs into two camps. As the judge
reported in his ruling,
Having sat as the trial judge for over nine weeks,
I have concluded that there are two groups of
Kabalarians warring for control of the Society.
The groups dislike each other intensely. Most of
the harassment of which Ms. Daniel speaks has,
I infer, come from the opposing group of
Kabalarians.
124F
125
Even before the conviction, therefore, the trial
itself caused a split in the organization between
those whom supported Mr. Shearing and those
125 R v. Shearing, 1998, CanLII 4952 (BC SC), para 11.
who wanted to move on and distance themselves
from him. Potential members, however, who
search the group on the Internet will find
information about the conviction, which they
then can weigh in their decision to involve
themselves with the organization and its
followers. Conducting a trial, however, does not
guarantee the dismantling of the group or the
structures/doctrines that facilitated the sexual
abuse.
Conclusion
People’s quests for salvation are timeless, with
examples of these quests going back millennia.
Contemporary religious seekers will continue
such quests well into the future. Some seekers
immerse themselves in old, even ancient
religions others form or join new religious
expressions. To nonbelievers, the content of
these faiths may seem implausible and
unbelievable to adherents, that same content
may be sublime and revelatory. These adherents
will be so taken with their faiths that they likely
will want to share them with loved ones,
including their children and the opportunities
that some alternative religions provide their
young are far more interesting and enjoyable
then they are harmful. Harm, however, even of a
sexual nature, happens far too often, and many
of these incidents of harm lead to charges, court
cases, or both. Adults naively assume that others
in their flocks are people of integrity, and all
members believe that their leaders are above
reproach. Both assumptions can be dead wrong,
and can have dire consequences for the sexual
integrity of children (and for that matter, adults
also).
Court cases present victims with a host of
potential problems—perhaps having to testify in
front of the alleged perpetrator(s) justifying
recalled memories from long-ago incidents
experiencing stress from the length of trials and
often incurring extensive legal costs.
Nevertheless, we have argued—especially when
child sexual abuses are systemic or facilitated by
groups—that full trials which lead to court
decisions best serve the public good. In family
and civil, but especially in criminal cases, the
bar for admissible evidence is high so judges
and juries are receiving degrees of evidence that
