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

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 13
specialise in either leaver research or invited-access research. A researcher who has been
labelled an apologist by some cult-watch groups, whether or not fairly, cannot hope to have
much street credibility with groups of leavers and anti- or counter-cult watch groups.
Conversely, a scholar who has been designated a ―cult critic,‖ again, whether or not that
label is deserved, cannot hope to gain sufficient trust of movement oligarchs to facilitate
adequate research access. Furthermore, a scholar who has been labelled might well be
subjected to deliberate compromise by the group being researched. Groups that are
regularly subjected to the most criticism (often for good reason) do liaise and collaborate,
and they are quite capable of vicious attacks upon potential critics.
While it has been observed that cult-watch groups have been unsuccessful in providing early
warning of violence, cult research groups also have been relatively unsuccessful so far as I
am aware. In my view, it is difficult to sit on the barbed wire fence (as we say in Australia)
in an effort to strive for academic even-handedness. This approach is likely to lead to
public-policy impotence. I have no doubt that the type of timely information most needed
by public officials is that which can be provided by leavers and families and friends of people
in high-demand groups. The only way we are going to find cancer is by searching for the
cancer—not in trying to determine how healthy the body might otherwise be.
I believe we should adopt a triangulated approach to research—to the extent that individual
scholars and groups of scholars specialise either in leaver research or invited-access
research, and in other methods, such as examining the official record of government and
cult encounters, an approach I adopted in my doctoral thesis. It seems to me that the ICSA
has extraordinary street credibility in the area of leaver research and contact with parents‘
and friends‘ watch groups, including counter-cult groups. ICSA should be leery, however, of
diluting this credibility by attempting to cover all bases. ICSA should stick with its core
business. Indeed, I see no reason why the ICSA should necessarily invite controversial
group representatives to its conferences. Some will only try to disrupt and intimidate. Let
those who specialise in access research invite representatives of controversial groups to
their conferences.xxi
The ICSA should focus on its client groups—the anti-cult groups, the leavers, the cult-
specific complaint groups, the counter-cult groups, and invite reputable scholars from the
cult-research groups to contribute to the debate. In addition, ICSA should:
 foster scholars (on a multidisciplinary basis), specialising in leaver accounts
 provide scholarships for researchers in this field
 band leaver researchers together into a special academic network for
methodological guidance and, not least, protection and
 invite and fund official visitors, particularly public policy makers, to ICSA
conferences. (If the Moonies can do it, so should the ICSA.)
The ICSA needs, in addition, to take a more proactive role in fertilising the blossoming of
various types of watch-groups, by:
 keeping a comprehensive inventory of watch-groups worldwide,
 providing start-up kits, including standardised log-in sheets, standardised
question forms for complainants, standardised information gathering and annual
reporting criteria, and
 providing general conduct criteria for the guidance of watch groups.
In other words, the ICSA should not hesitate to assume a pivotal umbrella role for anti- and
counter-cult watch groups, and it should seek to establish research-based groups that
specialise in multidisciplinary leaver and cult-critic research. Perhaps the ICSA should look