Thursday, 12 May 2011

The Scientology "Superinjunction"


Superinjunctions are the big news of the week, but there's been one notable absentee from the Twitter rumour mills.

The Church of Scientology obtained an injunction as far back as 1995 to suppress a serious allegation of child abuse. The unfortunate victim, according to the allegation, was just twelve years old.

(Image credit - www.scientology.com)

The injunction is still in force.

Happily, I reason that it doesn't apply to me, because I've been out of the UK since February and knew nothing about the injunction until this morning, and also because this is a US-hosted website presumably enjoying First Amendment rights.

(Readers in Britain should probably close their eyes as they read the following paragraph.)

"The head of the Scientology school in East Grinstead was being called as a witness. She denied that a twelve-year-old girl had received a 'withhold pulling session' at the hands of three of the school's staff. To 'pull withholds' is Scientologese for making someone confess to their transgressions. Minutes of the schools board meetings had to be publicly available, yet the filed copy made no reference to the 'withhold-pulling' session. I obtained an unedited copy of the school's board minutes, which not only proved the headmistress's sworn statement untrue, but showed the school's attempt at concealment."

The allegation first appeared in the book A Piece of Blue Sky by Jon Atack. The full text of the book is available to read on the internet. My primary source is Carnegie Mellon University.

The full text of the injunction appears below.

1993 H. No.2412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Mr. M Bethel QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen's Bench Division

B E T W E E N

MARGARET ISHOBEL HODKIN - Plaintiff

and -

JONATHAN CAVEN-ATACK - Defendant

UPON hearing Counsels for the Plaintiff and for the Defendant

AND UPON the hearing of an appeal by the Defendant against the decision of Master Tennant given on the 26th day of April 1995 upon the hearing of the Plaintiff's Summons dated 14th March 1995, ordering that:

1 The Defendant's defence be struck out and the costs of the action be taxed and paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, the Defendant having failed to swear and serve one affidavit or affirmation completely of itself complying with the Order of 27th June 1984, and

2. that the costs of and occasioned by this application be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in any event.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1 Appeal dismissed.

2. Defendant to pay the Plaintiff's costs of this appeal on an indemnity basis, such costs to be taxed and paid forthwith.

3. Judgment for the Plaintiff for:

(i) damages to be assessed; and

(ii) an injunction restraining the Defendant by himself his servants or otherwise from further publishing or causing to be printed published and distributed the book entitled "A Piece of Blue Sky" containing the defamatory words set out in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim namely:

"The head of the Scientology school in East Grinstead was being called as a witness. She denied that a twelve-year-old girl had received a 'withhold pulling session' at the hands of three of the school's staff. To 'pull withholds' is Scientologese for making someone confess to their transgressions. Minutes of the schools board meetings had to be publicly available, yet the filed copy made no reference to the 'withhold-pulling' session. I obtained an unedited copy of the school's board minutes, which not only proved the headmistress's sworn statement untrue, but showed the school's attempt at concealment."

or any similar words defamatory of the Plaintiff.

4. Defendant refused leave to appeal.

DATED this 18th day of May 1995


4 comments:

  1. Great article. It seems the Scientology image at the top has been deleted ... by Google? (Legal threat?)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Anonymous,

    No legal threats, just technical problems at the hosting site. Thanks for the tip-off.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm confused - what is involved in a withholds pulling session? and why would the courts allow a super injunction in a case where they has been obvious child abuse? surely the courts would want to prosecute the church rather than protect it? Sorry for being thick but can you explain.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Anonymous,

    In Scientology-speak, a withhold is a "a harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group" which a "person has committed but is not talking about". The advert is referring to a session in which participants are made to confess their sins, real or imaginary.

    As to why the superinjunction was granted - your guess is as good as mine.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.