Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 16
I believe that Australia does not have the same constitutional impediments as the United
States, such as they might be, although a certain amount of sensitivity to religious paranoia
is a prudent political choice. In any event, I support an indirect form of scrutiny that does
not involve the type of intrusive surveillance that one might expect of intelligence agencies.
Surveillance is resource intensive, both in personnel and equipment, and certainly not a
feasible means of achieving coverage without the type of pervasive state apparatus
associated with totalitarian regimes.
In addition, despite some claims of past success, from my own observation of the tin-pot,
hand-to-mouth nature of most academic research units in the social sciences
(notwithstanding the brave efforts of many researchers), I don‘t believe the academic
community is in a position, without government structural assistance, to provide the type of
effective forewarning system that might be hoped for.xxvi However, a great deal might be
achieved by government in partnership with the academic community, and in particular the
international network of cult-watch groups and academics presently operating under the
informal leadership of the ICSA.
The imperfect but promising working model I examined for my doctoral dissertation is the
Charity Commission for England and Wales, which provides a gate-keeping model for the
admission or otherwise of third-sector groups to the nirvana of tax-exempt and
government-favoured status. It also provides some mechanisms for the disqualification of
groups previously admitted, although, in my view, both these functions would be improved
with a more straightforward mechanism for the receipt of objections and complaints about
privileged groups.
In the course of my research, I came across an interesting observation from a member of
the Legislative Council of the parliament of the state of Victoria in Australia. In 1982, the
Honourable Haddon Story noted that
there is a large file in the Attorney-General‘s Department of complaints about
all sorts of sects or pseudo-sects in the State, and about the harm that can
be caused to people who allow themselves to be ―sucked in‖ by them, to
their detriment. No country that I know of has been successful in finding a
formula for dealing with these sorts of problems.xxvii
A formula has been elusive because in a contest between damaged individuals and
organisations claiming religious status, the political process tends to favour the organisation
and the so-called human-rights lobby tends to favour the freedom of religious groups to
exploit individuals over the rights of complainants—such is the nature of politics. However,
now that the propensity for some religious groups to do harm has been well and truly
scorched onto the psychology of the West, it is time to lobby for the establishment of
regulatory frameworks for third-sector entities that deal with these complaints in a serious
and systematic way.
When a nascent religious organisation wishes to claim third-sector privileged status, a
system of notification advertising for objections should be implemented, with an
adjudicative process established to deal appropriately with any complaints. The same
avenue for complaint should be facilitated with respect to existing religious groups that
enjoy a financially privileged status. Any adjudicative system, whether it is a judicial, or
quasi-judicial tribunal, or another administrative commission, should be supported with a
research arm to advise on the level of complaint relative to the statistical size of an
organisation. Advice could also be provided on the seriousness and frequency of such
complaint. Of course it goes without saying that instead of sitting in departmental files, any
evidence of criminal activity should be referred to the appropriate policing authority for
immediate action.
I believe that Australia does not have the same constitutional impediments as the United
States, such as they might be, although a certain amount of sensitivity to religious paranoia
is a prudent political choice. In any event, I support an indirect form of scrutiny that does
not involve the type of intrusive surveillance that one might expect of intelligence agencies.
Surveillance is resource intensive, both in personnel and equipment, and certainly not a
feasible means of achieving coverage without the type of pervasive state apparatus
associated with totalitarian regimes.
In addition, despite some claims of past success, from my own observation of the tin-pot,
hand-to-mouth nature of most academic research units in the social sciences
(notwithstanding the brave efforts of many researchers), I don‘t believe the academic
community is in a position, without government structural assistance, to provide the type of
effective forewarning system that might be hoped for.xxvi However, a great deal might be
achieved by government in partnership with the academic community, and in particular the
international network of cult-watch groups and academics presently operating under the
informal leadership of the ICSA.
The imperfect but promising working model I examined for my doctoral dissertation is the
Charity Commission for England and Wales, which provides a gate-keeping model for the
admission or otherwise of third-sector groups to the nirvana of tax-exempt and
government-favoured status. It also provides some mechanisms for the disqualification of
groups previously admitted, although, in my view, both these functions would be improved
with a more straightforward mechanism for the receipt of objections and complaints about
privileged groups.
In the course of my research, I came across an interesting observation from a member of
the Legislative Council of the parliament of the state of Victoria in Australia. In 1982, the
Honourable Haddon Story noted that
there is a large file in the Attorney-General‘s Department of complaints about
all sorts of sects or pseudo-sects in the State, and about the harm that can
be caused to people who allow themselves to be ―sucked in‖ by them, to
their detriment. No country that I know of has been successful in finding a
formula for dealing with these sorts of problems.xxvii
A formula has been elusive because in a contest between damaged individuals and
organisations claiming religious status, the political process tends to favour the organisation
and the so-called human-rights lobby tends to favour the freedom of religious groups to
exploit individuals over the rights of complainants—such is the nature of politics. However,
now that the propensity for some religious groups to do harm has been well and truly
scorched onto the psychology of the West, it is time to lobby for the establishment of
regulatory frameworks for third-sector entities that deal with these complaints in a serious
and systematic way.
When a nascent religious organisation wishes to claim third-sector privileged status, a
system of notification advertising for objections should be implemented, with an
adjudicative process established to deal appropriately with any complaints. The same
avenue for complaint should be facilitated with respect to existing religious groups that
enjoy a financially privileged status. Any adjudicative system, whether it is a judicial, or
quasi-judicial tribunal, or another administrative commission, should be supported with a
research arm to advise on the level of complaint relative to the statistical size of an
organisation. Advice could also be provided on the seriousness and frequency of such
complaint. Of course it goes without saying that instead of sitting in departmental files, any
evidence of criminal activity should be referred to the appropriate policing authority for
immediate action.
