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

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 14
at establishing branch offices on every continent, with these offices possibly operating as
specialist academic cult-research centres and maintaining close links to those watch groups
that can play a pivotal role in the timely acquisition of information public policy makers
need. We certainly need you!
Interfaith Rehabilitation and the Prerogative of Mercy
It is occasionally noted in academic books on terrorism that amnesty programs have had
some success in breaking the cycle of violence. For example, in 1990, Jerrold M. Post
observed that
As important as it is to inhibit potential terrorists from joining terrorist
groups, it is equally important to facilitate their leaving those groups …
Amnesty modelled after the highly effective program of the Italian
government can contribute to that goal … In the long run the most effective
way of countering terrorism is to reduce external support, to facilitate
pathways out of terrorism, and, most important, to reduce the attractiveness
of the terrorist path for alienated youth.xxii
With respect to facilitating pathways out of terrorism, it seems to me that governments
need to pursue decisive, circuit-breaking policies that reach out to potential leavers,
facilitate their rehabilitation, and most importantly, send a strong message to others that
they too can come in from the cold. In Australia, the case of Jack Roche is an example, in
my view, in which such an opportunity was not taken, although it is never too late to re-
evaluate policy.
Jack Roche is a convert to Islam who fell in with some unsavoury characters. He
subsequently became indoctrinated into such a deviant stream that he was persuaded that
it was a good idea to case the Israeli Embassy in Canberra and the Israeli Consulate in
Sydney for a proposed terrorist attack under the direction of al Qaeda. Somewhere along
this path, Jack Roche resolved to phone ASIO to ―volunteer information about his travel to
Afghanistan and possible Australian links to al-Qaeda.‖xxiii Apparently he left messages, but
they didn‘t get back to him! Thankfully, the mission was aborted, and he was later arrested,
charged, and sentenced by a state court to nine years in prison with a four-and-a-half-year
nonparole period, despite a letter from the federal authorities attesting to the fact that he
had cooperated with investigations.
While providing a straight amnesty or pardon for an indoctrinated and bewildered follower
such as Roche would be politically unthinkable (a large proportion of the Jewish and wider
community would be understandably outraged), I believe that a creative form of sentencing
and program of inter-faith rehabilitation would be an appropriate path to take. A course of
rehabilitation (re-education, if you like), involving a committee of Imams, Rabbis, and other
faith leaders, cooperating to take Jack Roche into hand and pointing out the error of his
former deviant thinking, as well as educating him into the possibilities of interfaith
tolerance, might well be appropriate. As a follower who had already exhibited serious doubt
about the course he had embarked upon, he would probably be receptive to this approach
and would perhaps provide an important role model for other recanters.
I believe that the federal Minister for Justice has power to offer the prerogative of mercy in
special cases. If mercy could be extended conditional on a program of rehabilitation that
actively involved members of his targeted community, perhaps with a form of continuing
detention commensurate with this objective, I think this approach would be well worth
considering. Religious figures with a thorough understanding of the complexities of cults,
sects, and/or new religious movements would be well placed to take the lead in this sort of
interfaith rehabilitation exercise.