'Scientology's Legal System' by Phil Lord
comments
This paper provides an overview of the legal system of the religion of Scientology. To the members of the religion, this legal system supersedes and fully displaces the mainstream legal system. Scientology’s legal system is self-contained and independent, with rules, enforcement mechanisms, and correctional facilities. The overview provided in this paper will be useful to courts and to further research in the nascent yet vital field of Scientological legal research.
Lord argues
This paper provides a broad overview of the legal system of the
religion of Scientology. No legal scholar has yet provided such an overview.
This fact is somewhat perplexing, as the religion was founded some seventy
years ago. More broadly, the literature on Scientology is far sparser than that
on other recently founded religions such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (two religions which count far
more adherents than Scientology).
Only recently has Scientology been studied more extensively in the academy,
notably under the leadership of Dr.
Stephen Kent at the University of Alberta.
The relative lack of literature on the religion is, arguably, caused by
Scientology’s litigiousness and commitment to attack its perceived enemies.
For example, Scientology’s STAND (Scientologists Taking Action Against
Discrimination) league dedicates a page on its website to attacking Dr. Kent.
The webpage’s lead reads as follows:
Stephen Kent is a biased sociologist of religion who adopted
the universally debunked theories of psychologist Margaret
Singer and sociologist Richard Ofshe of “coercive
persuasion” and “brainwashing” as applied to religions and
made a career as a paid witness for litigants against new
religious movements. In abdicating academic integrity and
methodology for pseudoscientific anti-religious vilification, Kent earned the disrespect and ire of professionals in the
field.
While I refrain from addressing the specific claims made in this passage, the
tone of the passage is indicative of Scientology’s commitment to attack its
perceived enemies. Academics are rarely attacked, especially with such
strong language. These attacks are likely to have caused a chilling effect
within the academy, at least until Scientology’s propensity to attack its
perceived enemies became better known. Scientology has, indeed, garnered
a great deal of attention in recent years, and its behaviour has been covered
(and decried) in national outlets reaching millions of people, such as CNN
and A&E. On the latter channel, a television show spanning two seasons
has been dedicated to “giv[ing] a voice to victims of the Church of
Scientology despite public attempts to discredit them.” As Scientology’s
propensity to attack its perceived enemies has become better known, the
likelihood of third parties believing the assertions made in Scientology’s
attack materials has likely been reduced. The potential impact of the
assertions on their target nonetheless remains significant.
Scientology’s decision to consistently attack its perceived enemies is
deliberate. It provides a fit backdrop for this paper’s introduction. The
decision is anchored in Scientology’s legal system, mandated by the latter’s
rules. In 1965, L. Ron Hubbard created the Fair Game law. The rule provides
guidance on the appropriate way to deal with perceived enemies of
Scientology. One who is declared fair game may not “be further protected by
the codes and disciplines or the rights of a Scientologist.” Hubbard later
clarified that the rule extends “to suppressive non-Scientology wives and
husbands and parents, or other family members or hostile groups or even close friends” and to organisations such as governments. Once one is
declared fair game, she may be “deprived of property or injured by any means
by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist” and “tricked,
sued or lied to or destroyed.” Although the Church has asserted that the Fair
Game law was cancelled, the assertion is contradicted by the Church’s
written policies and organisational behaviour.
The Fair Game law, therefore, explains Scientology’s decision to
attack its perceived enemies. It explains why the organisation’s behaviour is
consistent, even in the face of public criticism. Other organisations would
likely have altered their practices when faced with negative media coverage. The policy explains why Scientology has not: altering the
practice would be inconsistent with the (mandatory) rules of Scientology’s
legal system.
The Fair Game law is a microcosm of Scientology’s legal system. It
helps introduce a legal system of significant and unusual magnitude and
sophistication, a legal system which aims to be self-contained and
independent. Few scholars have studied Scientology and none have studied
its legal system. Scientology, unlike other new religious movements, has
not actively sought to establish a research field concerning itself as a religion,
much less has it sought to embed within the field Scientologist scholars to
tell its version of the story. (The perspective of Scientologist scholars remains
lacking yet necessary to a balanced conversation.) Scientology and its legal
system have, thereby, been defined haphazardly and hastily in courts and in
the media, by defenders and detractors. Rarely have disinterested parties with
the benefit of time participated in this vital process.
Studying Scientology’s legal system is important, as, to Scientologists, it
supersedes and fully displaces the mainstream23 legal system. Through the
constitutional protections afforded to freedom of religion, governments give
the space religious legal systems need to exist and allow members of religious
groups to act in a way which is consistent with their beliefs – including the
rules and their enforcement mechanisms set out in religious legal systems.
This paper will provide neither an in-depth nor a full critical analysis
of Scientology’s legal system. It will, rather, provide a broad overview of it,
which will be useful to further research in the nascent yet vital field of
Scientological legal research and to courts in various jurisdictions. Courts
have, indeed, thus far understandably struggled to comprehend Scientology’s
legal system. They have not benefitted from an objective overview of
Scientology’s legal system: they have been in the unenviable position of
having to rely on two competing, interested positions – that of the plaintiffs
and the defendants – to draw an understanding of even the most basic facts
regarding Scientology and its legal system.
For the purposes of this paper, I divide the legal system into what I
consider to be its three building blocks: rules, enforcement mechanisms, and
punishment facilities. Section III, IV, and V each explore one of these
building blocks. Beforehand, I address, in Section I, the materials which
constitute Scientology’s legal system and, in Section II, the way in which
Scientology exists as an independent legal system.
