Customize

OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

Discussion in 'Senator Xenophon And Scientology' started by _You_, Nov 26, 2009.

  1. _You_ Member

    OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    .
  2. exOT8Michael Member

    re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    I see your point.

    What is needed is a competent and unbiased investigation of the facts and the power to impose correction or cessation of illegal activities. Whether that has a Senate label on it or not is less important than the fact that it would have the power to correct anything illegal found.
  3. El Diablo Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    Small correction - Eric Abetz, being a senator for the Liberal Party is from one of the majors (rather than a minor party).

    [Edit: ah you've changed the thread title...good o! disregard]

    Also, yesterday him and a bunch of other front benchers from the Coalition cracked the shits over the proposed climate change legislation and have resigned from the Coalition front benches in both houses. It's a bit of an aside, but thought I'd let you guys know anyhow.

    Okay, and this is blatant opinion, but Abetz is one of the most insufferable senators in the parliament. Even so, this reply should be a good heads-up about what reservations are generally being held.

    This in particular caught my eye: "Senate committees are an important part of the process of law-making but should not try to act as de facto law enforcers." This might indicate that the role of a proposed senate inquiry might need to be better delineated from a police investigation in our communications with senators.

    Okay, sorry if the above adds nothing. My brain is still ticking over about his reply (and trying to push down my general dislike for this dude).
  4. _You_ Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    moar 'poons plox
  5. kamakaze2000 Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    in any case.. theres a police investigation on the way?
  6. _You_ Member

  7. Response from Senator Eric Abetz

    I received this response from Senator Eric Abetz

  8. tamphex Member

  9. kamakaze2000 Member

    Re: Response from Senator Eric Abetz

    lol hes senator for tasmania.. lol
  10. tamphex Member

    Re: Response from Senator Eric Abetz

    Hahah yes, hard to not sound biased when you notice that.
  11. Re: Response from Senator Eric Abetz

    Of course they're blanket replies, nobody could fairly expect them to write individual replies to hundreds of emails on the same topic. I apologise for missing the other thread.

    The issue I see, though, is Mr Abetz considers the issue to be about "religious freedom", and that if Scientologists feel wronged by the organisation then they should take it up with the police. The thing he misses, though, is whether or not it's appropriate for a tax exempt organisation to conduct themselves this way, which is of course a matter for the senate.
  12. TinyDancer Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    Yeah, it should have said "minority" party. Sorry 'bout that.
  13. _You_ Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    I was bored

  14. tamphex Member

    Re: Response from Senator Eric Abetz

    Valid point.
  15. timthephoto Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    Dear Senator Abetz

    Firstly, I know that I'm not one of your constituents, however any final
    decision over Scientology in Austalia does heve ramifications in the UK,
    since they use their tax free status gained there to avoid taxes over
    here. So I beseech you to at least read on.

    I read one of your email responses on our forum, and I write to point
    out there is a world of difference between a few identified individuals
    being brought to book in your court system, and a decision regarding the
    whole of the business that is Scientology, including it's many
    fraudulent front groups.

    Hidden within their buildings is a mass of orders, advices and opinions
    written by the late L Ron Hubbard, which are divided into three distinct
    catagories.

    "Public", the least offensive of all, merely being mind control and
    financial fraud. They run couses such as TR-L - "How to Lie Effectivly"

    "Sea-Organisation" - (SO) -Once defrauded and deprived of all property,
    a "Public" victim is often recruited into the Sea-Organisation, which is
    totally under the control of the CMO. During membership of this Sea Org,
    a person lives at a Sea-Org building, eats Sea-Org food, and lives the
    Sea-Org life, which is a pretty miserable affair. This is where the
    forced abortions, imprisonment and all that Sen Xenophon spoke about
    takes place, often under direct orders from a CMO person. There are Sea
    Org units in Australia.

    "Commodores Messenger Organisation" (CMO) - this is the top controlling
    group within the cult, who have access to all those highly offensive
    orders, which are obeyed as if they were in fact the Law - many of these
    directly contravene many Laws in any part of the civilized world -
    including Australia.

    Scientology is like MacDonalds in the respect, being as identical as
    possible the whole world over. They run a deliberate policy of moving
    Sea Org members to any country other than thier own, in order that a
    person is more isolated and cut off from support or escape.

    So if this sounds like a picture of a "Church" to yourself, carry on
    opposing an inquiry, if however you think that the above sounds like an
    organisation Australia could do without, please, let's have the
    skeletons out of the cupboard, what harm can it do?

    Yours sincerely

    David Ceptimous
    XxXxXXXXXX
    XXXX
    XXX XXX X

    Downloadable reports
    Download Section,- Free - Printable Reports Regarding Scientology
  16. mrfyde Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    Today somebody posted a link to an article about the Catholic Church in Ireland. The Irish government did not stop Catholicism in Ireland, they did investigate the abuse. One organization that had several innocent members.

    It appears to me that the senator is saying that they support singling out the individual members that are breaking the law when it is reported.

    We apply that policy to ourselves. If one of us screws up we point to them and say you f'd up. After two years it is time that we try to apply the same standard to the scilons. Instead of constantly going after COB, we have to take it to the org level. Starting with the ED's who are responsible for credit card fuck ups, like in the recent Pheonix case. Or AO's case where he is not just going after the CoS he is going after Danny Dunagan too. But these are law suites, and will not lead to an investigation, actual charges need to be filed. You don't need lawyers and lawsuits you need to go call the police and file a complaint.
  17. EyeOnSci Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    Superb response.

    Thnx
  18. _You_ Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    Folks, if you're responding to this, at least make an effort to address the valid distinction he makes between law-enforcement and law-making!!

    Yes the Senate should investigate Scientology. Why? Because if Scientology is tax-exempt under current laws, given all the shit they get up to AS AN ORGANISATION, the law is clearly wrong.
  19. TinyDancer Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    I fully agree with you. I've addressed this in some of my emails to the parliament, but it needs articulating properly in order to explain the limitations of the criminal process.
  20. El Diablo Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    Well, there's two seperate issues going on. Criminal conduct which can be prosecuted as such, and another issue of this being part of the evidence that the CoS - despite being designated as a "religious institution" - is one that is not only failing to operate in the public interest, but actually in direct opposition to it.

    I'm not too good with tax-law, so maybe this is something we'll need to defer to someone who is, but in my web-trawling came across an interesting report coming from a 2000-2001 Inquiry into the Definitions of Charities and Related Organizations

    In particular, Chapter 30: Religious, Scientific and Public Educational Institutions

    And from the chapter's conclusion:

    Have bolded and underlined some points of potential interest here. Though I should emphasize that this is the report of an inquiry, not law.
  21. Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    Hey guys,

    Maybe, he was tring to give us a clue to how we could be more affective:

    We all know the rights of religious freedom is a touchy subject in politics, so maybe they are encouraging that if we can get cases against them then they will support us. Thats how i read it anyway.
  22. Anonxmous Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    QUT | Business | Charity definition

    Welcome to Charities Definition Inquiries website
    QUT | Business | Charity definition also includes a timeline, and links to the resultant 2006 Charities Act.

    It will be interesting to dig into that and find out to what extent the parts El Diablo referenced made it into law!
  23. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    Chief Johnny say: man with username of many errors speaks wisdom.
  24. _You_ Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    I think a fund to buy copies of the book "A Piece of Blue Sky" to send to every member of the senate who is pro-scientology would be good.

    A published, comprehensive, well researched book received by post would have more impact than sending a report or web link. If enough copies are on random desks in the senate building someone will start reading a copy.

    How many would be needed? We need to start a list of who the uninformed senators holding views like Abetz are.
  25. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    AFAIK, it is the other way round, but I might be wrong.
  26. _You_ Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    "IANAL but..." types need to read http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=TXR/TR200521/NAT/ATO/00001

    My first (2 minute) take (it's many pages) with regards to charitable 'purpose', religion, and 'auxilliary purpose', is that having a purpose of 'clearing the planet' would justify 'charitable status' - regardless of the nature of the activities taken towards that goal. Hopefully a closer reading will reveal some leverage!

    ("but it's not a religion" fags need to lurk more)
  27. _You_ Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    You are :-/

    CoS is tax free in UK due to charitable status granted in Oz.
  28. El Diablo Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    Okay, well apparently we have one of the most complex tax-systems in the world, but here's some stuff I've found:

    Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
    Act Compilation (current) - C2009C00469

    And the divisions of tax-exempt entities seem to be the same - as in same as the pre-2000-1 inquiry - at least as far as I can tell. But seriously, this is way out of my depth so all I can do is link and maybe someone else can make a more informed judgement about what's going on and whether there's anything relevant.

    So, we still have the divisions of tax-exempt entities listed under Section 50-5: Charity, education, science and religion - Item 1.2

    With further information for "1.2 - religious institution" in Section 50-50: Special conditions for items 1.1 and 1.2, which says:

    Okay this is hurting my brain right now - so for anybody else wanting to dig/decipher hopefully this provides *something* of use. If not - oh well - puttin' it out there anyhow.
  29. El Diablo Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    Okay, thanks for that linkage. That whole "clearing the planet" issue has been bubbling away in the back of my head too. Would seem that granting charitable status on that ground alone would be rather *ahem* problematic, as would it not be a tacit endorsement of Hubbardarian totalitarianism? Hmm, okay lots of thinking and digging and reading to do - not necessarily in that order.

    Edit: Okay, document has some more details in paragraphs 212-217 regarding "Advancement of religion"

    Could definitely be some stuff in there!
  30. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    Exactly. But it is not what is written in the quote I made, if I am correct, as it states that scientology's status there (in UK) influences its status here (in Australia). Thus my remark.
  31. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    The post was grammatically ambiguous, if taken by itself. In context, it's clear that you simply misconstrued it.
  32. _You_ Member

  33. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    Here is the quote:
    So, somebody writing to an Australian senator will refer to Australia as "there" and UK as "here" `?

    The said senator might not know the "context" and get a wrong understanding.
  34. _You_ Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    exactly
  35. Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    /r/ all e-mails of liberal party members.

    Poons need to include the seperation of 'religious aspects' (the orgs) and service in the Sea Org. There's a difference between practicing a belief, and actively setting out to harm people. Site: disconnection of families, forced abortion, beatings, etc. That drill.
  36. _You_ Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology


    EXACTLY the cult should be investigated by the state which protects the cult by granting them de facto protection via tax exemption, thus, the state is actually enabling the abuse!

    also, fify

  37. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    If the somebody is writing from the UK, yes.

    A grammar nazi's work is never done.


    Speaking of which:
    Cite.

    Might just have been a typo, but I see it a lot. People mix up "site" and "cite" fairly often, and sometimes throw "sight" into the grammatical grab bag too -- just for completeness, I guess.
  38. _You_ Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    Yes there is

    Namely this:

    If you follow the 291 thingy, you get to this quote:

    document:
    http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/62EF6AB739755FFECA25751500055B7C/$file/ExtensionCharitablePurpose2004.pdf

    This leads me to the following question.

    Is Scientology classified as
    (a) a contemplative religious order or
    (b) self-help group?

    Logically, it would be the latter. If it is, they need to meet the requirements that are bolded above.

    If it somehow did get classified as a contemplative religious order, there are no such additional requirements.

    So back to the bolded parts. Do they meet them or not. Well, this is further clarified here:

    Scientology fails the first bolded part because of disconnetion and the second bolded parts on grounds of their treatment of the Freezone (I think).

    Okay...I think it IS important to know how they are classified. If classified as a self-help group, the non-legal issue of disconnection is sufficient ground for a goverment enquiry.

    But....I am not Australian, so I am at a loss as to finding out which classification they have.

    Halp?
  39. _You_ Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    I wanted to ponder the above post a bit more, because I think this is important. It seems that Australian has two categories of 'relígion'

    1) A real religion and
    2) Self-help groups.

    Both seem to have the same 'religious' recognition.

    It this is true, and they are classified as a self help group, I want to QFT this:

  40. _You_ Member

    Re: OZ Liberal Party Protecting Scientology

    Scientology is a self help group. They help themselves to all of your/our money.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins