|
|
It has long been the boast of the British that England is the Mother of Parliaments; and, indeed, they have good cause for pride.
Yet, one wonders why, in 700 years, so little has been done to place the sacred power of Parliament beyond the reach of selfish politicians and autocratic Ministers, who often enlist it in the service of influential vested interests.We have witnessed a particularly flagrant example of such subversion in the Victorian Parliament's action to defeat the ends of justice by passing a retroactive law that would block the fair hearing of a case pending in the High Court.Far from censuring their opposite numbers in Australia, the honourable members in England cited the Melbourne inquisition as proof that Scientology was a social menace, requiring similar harsh measures in the United Kingdom.
The attack on Scientology in Britain did not reach the House of Commons until February 7, 1966, when Lord Balniel, MP, chairman of the National Association for Mental Health, put down a question in which he asked Kenneth Robinson, the then Minister of Health: "In view of the scathing criticism by an official board of enquiry in Australia into the so-called practice of Scientology, surely the Rt. Hon. Gentleman considers it is in the public interest to hold a similar type of enquiry in this country?"
The Rt. Hon. Gentleman (himself a former officer of the NAMH) replied that he was prepared "to consider any demand for an enquiry", but that no such demand had been made prior to that time."I am aware," he added, "that extravagant claims are made on behalf of Scientology, which are not generally accepted, and for my part, I would advise anyone who is considering a course of this kind to go to his doctor first."This brief exchange was a curtain-raiser for the Parliamentary performance that was to follow - a performance carefully stage-managed by directors of the mental health movement and based upon the Melbourne scenario, which they regarded as a masterwork. They had pounced upon the Anderson Report with the delight of a burglar who finds a window open.Health Minister Robinson was well-suited to his role both by birth and by experience. His father had been a doctor and his mother a nurse. Prior to assuming his Ministerial responsibilities, he had been prominently active in NAMH affairs, chairing various committees and serving as the association's vice-president.
In 1960, Robinson had made an extensive, NAMH sponsored study-tour of mental institutions in Holland, France, the United States and Russia.The Travelling Fellowship which provided for the expenses Robinson incurred on his trip and paid him a fee of £752 for handling the assignment, merits a brief examination.On June 16, 196o, a New York law firm wrote William T. Beatty II, president of the World Federation for Mental Health, stating that they represented the Bruern Foundation, which was desirious of making a contribution of £2,ooo to the NAMH in England "for its general purposes"."It had been suggested," the letter continued, "that this contribution might be made through your organization. The thought was that either you might remit the sum directly to the English organization or by making funds available to it in this country accomplish the same result."The letter was not entrusted to the mails, but was delivered to the WFMH offices by messenger.But why all the hugger-mugger? If the Bruern Foundation wanted to contribute £2,ooo to the English mental health group, why was it necessary to funnel the money in CIA fashion through another organization?Perhaps a partial answer to that question may be found in the identity and tax-status of the Bruern Foundation itself. At the time of the donation, the Foundation had applied to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for tax exemption but had not received it. Subsequent investigation revealed that the Foundation (which has never, so far as I can determine, been listed in any directory of American foundations) was established by a member of the Astor family who was a British subject with business assets in the U.S.
The task of effecting transfer of the £2,ooo was referred to Jonathan Bingham, counsel for the WFMH, who in turn passed it on to J. R. Rees, the world organization's director in Great Britain. Dr. Rees arranged for the money to be sent to Mary Applebey, general secretary of the National Association for Mental Health, in London.The lurid charges against Scientology contained in the Anderson Report were not, in themselves, sufficient to raise the wind in England.While the report provided provocative copy for the press (it was referred to in the British media 278 times in the space of five months), it would be necessary to discovertracks of the cloven hoof nearer home to produce the proper frisson among the Honourable Members.In the latter part of August 1966, the Daily Mail made straight the way for certain MPs once again to raise the question of an inquiry into Scientology.The newspaper published a lengthy article under the heading The Case of the Processed Woman, concerning a young woman who had been compulsorily detained in a mental ward after having been associated with Scientologists at Saint Hill Manor in East Grinstead.The thirty-year-old woman had been in and out of mental hospitals (those "nurseries of insanity", as John Reid called them), since she was nineteen. It can therefore be assumed that psychiatric treatments had done for her before she ever met the Australian Scientologist who, on his own initiative, introduced her to Scientology. Nevertheless, the published account placed the blame for her mental breakdown upon Scientology processing.The story was not, as the Daily Mail held out, the result of a thoroughgoing probe into the affair by its nose-to-the-trail investigative reporters. It was, rather, based upon information made available to the paper by the patient's mother (a certified Communist), who was willing to expose the personal details of her helpless daughter's condition in the public prints in order to "get" Scientology.
In a face-saving note at the end of the account, the newspaper declared: "The Daily Mail publishes the patient's name with the support and approval of her family who feel that the practices of Scientology should be made fully public."Mary Applebey, general secretary of the National Association for Mental Health, was quoted in the Processed Woman story as saying, "Now the time has come when there should be a Ministerial inquiry."
It was like pressing the button to release jack-in-the-box. Up popped Peter Hordern, Conservative member from Horsham, to demand that the Health Minister, Kenneth Robinson, initiate "an inquiry into the practice known as Scientology".In a written answer, the minister said he did not think any further inquiry was necessary to establish that the activities of that organization were potentially harmful.Actually, there was not yet enough "evidence" to sustain even a loaded-dice inquiry such as that staged in Melbourne. Accordingly, no move was made to set up formal hearings. Instead, Robinson limited his attack to a public denunciation, apparently hoping that the mentalhealth Amalekites would leave it at that.A few months later, however, the Hon. Mr. Hordern took the floor just before midnight to make Scientology the subject of the motion for adjournment. He recalled that he had asked the Minister of Health on December 5 last to hold an inquiry into Scientology.At that time he went on, the Minister's reply was quite unsatisfactory because "it completely ignored the considerable body of evidence that had been laid before him by myself and others, and the great weight of evidence produced by the State of Victoria Commission, upon the evil nature of this organization".Hordern, then, "with the express permission of her mother", recounted in detail once more the story of the "processed woman". He followed that dramatic account with a lengthy recital of findings from the Anderson Report, and ended with yet another appeal for a full inquiry into Scientology at the earliest possible date.
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Conservative, East Grinstead) assured the House members that he had received information (source and kind not disclosed) "which would indicate that the case which we heard from my Hon. Friend the Member from Horsham, is not an isolated example, information which would add substance to the arguments which have been put forward".
Health Minister Kenneth Robinson still did not feel enough solid ground under his feet to proceed with a full-dress inquiry. Once again deploring Scientologists who "direct themselves deliberately towards the weak, the unbalanced, the immature, the rootless and mentally or emotionally unstable", the Minister said he was nevertheless still opposed to an inquiry. He added:
In opposition, government attorneys again dwelt upon the fees, royalties and compensation for services Hubbard had received and arrogantly asserted that, as "tax exemption is a matter of legislative grace, petitioner has the burden of clearly establishing a right to it".
The Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari.In my opinion, the fundamental issue inherent in the case was never argued - namely the question of whether a federal agency has the right to determine any of the financial matters of a Church.The many thousands of followers of Scientology, with a few exceptions, seem to have derived more personal benefit and spiritual help for the money they spent than the parishoners of large, established Churches, whose vast wealth is today often expended in non-religious (and sometimes anti-religious) political undertakings.The Government's rank hypocrisy, as well as the discriminatory practices involved in the whole question of tax exemption is nowhere more apparent than in the case of huge, tax-exempt foundations which have been permitted to donate countless millions of dollars to revolutionary groups whose avowed aim was the subversion and violent overthrow of American civilization.
As far back as 1953 Congress set up a special committee under the chairmanship of Rep. B. Carroll Reece to investigate the structure and operations of these giant tax-free organizations. But the shocking disclosures of the foundation-financing of the radical left were never given much play in the mass media. In his book, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time, Prof. Carroll Quigley tells why:
"It soon became clear," he wrote, "that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far, and that the 'most respected' newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any of the revelations to make the publicity worth while, in terms of votes or campaign contributions."
Typical of the quiet way the masscom handles news of these tax-exempt corporations' immense contributions to the destructive elements in society was the "play" given the announcement of the left-handed Ford Foundation that it was giving $5oo,ooo to the militant black racist organization, CORE. The press buried the story beneath wooden heads, far back in their newspapers among the indigestion pills and girdle adds. On TV screens, it was an almost subliminal one-liner.Had even a fraction of the same sum been handed over to, say, the John Birch Society, there would have been screaming banners from New York to Honolulu.The Ford Foundation has donated millions of dollars to other subversive and Communist-staffed organizations with only whispered accounts of their activities in the media.The same is true of other foundations controlled by rich industrial families and international financial coteries.
The Internal Revenue Service has never seen fit, however, to question the use by these powerful foundations of enormous tax-free sums to subsidize violent revolution, despite the pious words of the Government attorneys when they told the court in the Scientology case:
"The exemption from tax is made in recognition of the benefit which the public derives from the activities of religious, charitable and educational organizations ... It is based on the theory that 'the Government is compensated for the loss of revenue by its relief from financial burden which would otherwise have to be met by appropriations from public funds, and by the benefits resulting from the promotion of the general welfare'."
It is hard to imagine what benefits the American public could derive from the race riots, campus unrest, Communist intrigues, left-wing political manoeuvres, and educational subversion which lavish grants from some of the big, tax-exempt foundations have promoted.