Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 12
Indeed, one controversial group cites an eminent sociologist of religion, I am presuming
correctly, as stating,
The apostate is generally in need of self-justification. He seeks to reconstruct
his own past, to excuse his former affiliation, and to blame those who were
formerly his closest associates. Not uncommonly the apostate learns to
rehearse an ―atrocity story‖ to explain how, by manipulation, trickery,
coercion, or deceit, he was induced to join or remain within an organisation
that he now forswears and condemns. Apostates, sensationalised by the
press, have sometimes sought to make a profit from accounts of their
experiences in stories sold to newspapers or produced as books … Neither
the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard
the apostate as a credible or reliable source of evidence. He must always be
seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to
both his pervious religious commitment and to his former associates.xviii
With all due respect, this is nonsense. How can anyone even pretend to be an objective
researcher when he is prepared to dismiss, out of hand, the evidence of complainants? Of
course witnesses can be biased. I am sure the victim of a rape has a jaundiced view of the
perpetrator. Some rape victims have even been known to embellish or fabricate—but
nobody with any common sense at all is going to peremptorily dismiss the testimony of any
witness. Even prison inmates are brought into court as witnesses.
In the case of the testimonies I gathered from former members of Kenja, I would bet my
bottom dollar on their veracity. Indeed, an incredibly perceptive and empathetic article has
recently been written by Australia‘s leading public intellectual, political scientist Robert
Manne, which is a devastating indictment of the Kenja organisation and which attributes the
breakdown of Cornelia Rau, the subject of an infamous mistaken internment case in
Australia, to the disgraceful psychological treatment she received in Kenja.xix
It gives me little satisfaction at all to say ―I told you so‖—indeed, I spent several hours back
in 1992 and 1993 (years before Cornelia Rau even joined the organisation) detailing
comprehensive allegations against Kenja, and I remain to this day dismayed that the
government of the day neither had the wit nor wisdom, nor cared enough about the
suffering of individuals, to seriously investigate what should be done about the organisation
as such and the methods employed within. Action was taken by the police to lay criminal
charges against the leader of Kenja this action arose from the complaints of several young
women—because I personally presented evidence to them and became a witness for the
prosecution. The leader was convicted on some counts, but then the convictions were set
aside by the Australian High Court and subsequently a decision was made not to have the
matter tried all over again. However, it is worth noting that the leader has now again been
committed to stand trial on a number of other charges for alleged offences against other
young women.
I don‘t have the time here to outline the types of action I think should be taken with respect
to groups like Kenja, and the methods they employ. What I do want to talk about is the
type of research methodology I believe should be adopted when one is dealing with
controversial and sometimes dangerous groups—and I mean dangerous to the researcher.
It seems to me that scholars will tend to specialise in one or other of the different research
approaches viable in this fraught area. I cite with approval Eileen Barker when she says, ―it
is important to understand the movement from a variety of perspectives, which,
themselves, need to be understood as part of the ongoing process of the situation.‖xx
However, I believe that it is difficult for any individual scholar to attempt successfully to
gain access to a controversial new religious movement and at the same time study the
accounts of leavers. Even further, I think that some scholars may have to choose to
Indeed, one controversial group cites an eminent sociologist of religion, I am presuming
correctly, as stating,
The apostate is generally in need of self-justification. He seeks to reconstruct
his own past, to excuse his former affiliation, and to blame those who were
formerly his closest associates. Not uncommonly the apostate learns to
rehearse an ―atrocity story‖ to explain how, by manipulation, trickery,
coercion, or deceit, he was induced to join or remain within an organisation
that he now forswears and condemns. Apostates, sensationalised by the
press, have sometimes sought to make a profit from accounts of their
experiences in stories sold to newspapers or produced as books … Neither
the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard
the apostate as a credible or reliable source of evidence. He must always be
seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to
both his pervious religious commitment and to his former associates.xviii
With all due respect, this is nonsense. How can anyone even pretend to be an objective
researcher when he is prepared to dismiss, out of hand, the evidence of complainants? Of
course witnesses can be biased. I am sure the victim of a rape has a jaundiced view of the
perpetrator. Some rape victims have even been known to embellish or fabricate—but
nobody with any common sense at all is going to peremptorily dismiss the testimony of any
witness. Even prison inmates are brought into court as witnesses.
In the case of the testimonies I gathered from former members of Kenja, I would bet my
bottom dollar on their veracity. Indeed, an incredibly perceptive and empathetic article has
recently been written by Australia‘s leading public intellectual, political scientist Robert
Manne, which is a devastating indictment of the Kenja organisation and which attributes the
breakdown of Cornelia Rau, the subject of an infamous mistaken internment case in
Australia, to the disgraceful psychological treatment she received in Kenja.xix
It gives me little satisfaction at all to say ―I told you so‖—indeed, I spent several hours back
in 1992 and 1993 (years before Cornelia Rau even joined the organisation) detailing
comprehensive allegations against Kenja, and I remain to this day dismayed that the
government of the day neither had the wit nor wisdom, nor cared enough about the
suffering of individuals, to seriously investigate what should be done about the organisation
as such and the methods employed within. Action was taken by the police to lay criminal
charges against the leader of Kenja this action arose from the complaints of several young
women—because I personally presented evidence to them and became a witness for the
prosecution. The leader was convicted on some counts, but then the convictions were set
aside by the Australian High Court and subsequently a decision was made not to have the
matter tried all over again. However, it is worth noting that the leader has now again been
committed to stand trial on a number of other charges for alleged offences against other
young women.
I don‘t have the time here to outline the types of action I think should be taken with respect
to groups like Kenja, and the methods they employ. What I do want to talk about is the
type of research methodology I believe should be adopted when one is dealing with
controversial and sometimes dangerous groups—and I mean dangerous to the researcher.
It seems to me that scholars will tend to specialise in one or other of the different research
approaches viable in this fraught area. I cite with approval Eileen Barker when she says, ―it
is important to understand the movement from a variety of perspectives, which,
themselves, need to be understood as part of the ongoing process of the situation.‖xx
However, I believe that it is difficult for any individual scholar to attempt successfully to
gain access to a controversial new religious movement and at the same time study the
accounts of leavers. Even further, I think that some scholars may have to choose to
