Hodkin Harasses again!

In article <DC7yqq.J25@uns.bris.ac.uk> plmlp@mail.bris.ac.uk "Martin Poulter" writes:

> I recently posted (with Subject: Scientology intimidates UK critics) a > letter sent to many of scientology's "enemies" in the UK by their lawyers > Hodkin and Company. It demanded an *immediate* written commitment that they > would not take part in any acts which might be defamatory or tortuous > against Scientology. I am glad to say that that letter was roundly ignored. > Shortly after the letter went out, Hodkin and Co sent a PI round to Richard > and Judy Price's house in Kent

If indeed Hodkin & Co did that, then such should be referred to the Complaints Tribunal of the Law Society, as well as to the local police.

> We act for the Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc,

Which, being American, has no standing in English jurisdiction and could therefore be required to post a bond with the High Court were they silly enough to proceed.

> yourself and others entitled "The Big Story". This leaflet is wholly and > deliberately misleading, scurrilous and defamatory of our client.

Defamatory? Hardly - but Hodkin's own letter is!

> The leaflet contains inter alia a number of purported quotations from Mr > Hubbard. We have been unable to identify the last of these quotations, but > all the rest are taken entirely out of context in a malicious fashion.

And, thus, they are not "purported" but actual quotations.

> And the last but one quotation is taken from an issue dealing with > persons who try to provide currputed versions > of Scientology for their own profit.

And that was:

> 'Fair Game' - on opponents to Scientology: > "May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed" > "...the Law can be used very easily to harrass"

Would they really want that to be read out, in open court, and in the original context?

Hodkin is wrong about the context; he/they seem to think that it comes from "The Scientologist: A Manual on the Dissemination of Material" (1955) wherein Fatty recommended barratrous litigation as a weapon against independent practitioners of scientology and/or dianetics: '"The purpose of the suit is to harass, and enough harassment on someone who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly" Hubbard further urged that Scientologists employ private detectives to investigate critics of Scientology, adding: "we should be very alert to sue for slander at the slightest chance so as to discourage the public press from mentioning Scientology."'

Would they want _that_ to be read out in open court?

> The picture presented by what can only be described as a propagandist > leaflet designed mailiciously to incite hatred towards our client, is > wholly false. Accordingly unless you do the following within 7 days of the > date of this letter proceedings will be issued against you, including a > claim for defamation damages and costs, without further recourse: > > 1. Immediately cease distribution of the leaflet. > 2. Destroy all copies of the leaflet in your custody or control > 3. Provide a full apology to our client, including a complete retraction. > 4. Undertake not to repeat the same or any similar libels in the future. > We await to hear from you.

They should be referred, and in as many words, to the celebrated reply in the matter of James Arkell v. Pressdram (Private Eye) and others.

> Are those quotes "entirely out of context"?? By the way, note that Hodkin > is in effect vouching for the authenticity of all except one of the quotes.

Indeed! A Big Win[tm]?

> The three court decisions "misstated" by the leaflet are the Federal Court > Ruling in Germany that Scientology is a business, the Denmark ruling to > the same effect and the Paris Co$ being hit for tens of millions of francs > in tax and social security contributions.

So, it didn't mention the case about to start in Spain, in which a number of leading members of the cult of $cientology are to face trial for fraud?

> The UK judgement quoted on the leaflet and on our placards was: > "Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious... In my judgement it > is corrupt, sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is based on > lies and deceit and has as its real objective money and power for Mr > Hubbard, his wife and those close to him at the top. It is sinister > because it indulges in infamous practices both to its adherents who do not > toe the line unquestioningly, and to those who criticise or oppose it. It > is dangerous because it is out to capture people, especially children and > impressionable young people, and indoctrinate and brainwash them so that > they become the unquestioning captives and tools of the cult, withdrawn > from ordinary thought, living and relationships with others." > -Mr Justice Latey, High Court decision, July 1984

Again, Hodkin's comments are irrelevant;it doesn't matter Mr Justice Latey's opinion cannot be used as a precedent at law, for it was merely presented as the opinion of one English judge in a recent case. As there are other judgements - some English, some American and, now, one from Canada - from which comments could have been taken, the use of Mr. Justice Latey's remarks were merely "fair comment upon a matter of public interest and concern".

I do hope they brief Peter Carter-Ruck; their case hasn't a leg to stand on, and Carter-Ruck is so damned expensive...

If the cult of Scientology had wanted to drag their evil doings into the glare of the public gaze, they could hardly do so more effectively than starting yet another libel action that they cannot possibly fail to lose, one way or the other; even were they to win in court on some technicality or other - and especially were they to lose, the publicity for their opponents would be sufficient to make Parliament act to restrict the practice of psychotherapy by improperly and inadequately trained persons. That was, of course, recommended in the 1971 Foster Report, but it was only 23 or so years ago...

We can't expect the UK Government to do everything at once...