|
|
Dialogue
The transcript of these sittings was issued as a secret appendix to the published report and was not generally circulated. However, I have come into possession of a copy and will quote a portion of it to show the inquisitional nature of the proceedings.
The date of this hearing was September 18, 1964 and the Board's counsel, Gordon just, was leading the evidence. The witness being interrogated was a Scientology staff member.
"MR. JUST: If the Board pleases: I am going to put some material to Mrs. Williams which people with ears unaccustomed to obscene language and the like would perhaps best not remain to hear. It is the sort of language which would not be, I think, normally used in most places, but I propose to put it to Mrs. Williams language used on the files as recorded by various people.
THE BOARD: Very well.
MR. JUST: Mrs. Williams, when you are auditing a male preclear does it embarrass you if that man starts talking about cunts?
WITNESS: I would not attach any particular significance to it.
MR. JUST: I am not going to have any naming of the preclear in question, but on a file (perhaps Mr. Crook may write the name of the file down and hand it into the Board and my friend) of a male preclear, when you were yourself the auditor, this appears: Auditor's report forms, then the preclear's name. I think it is fair to say it was a staff member - a staff co-auditor. Question: what question shouldn't I ask you? Then there is a note about the tone arm: what sexual activity could you confront, not confront: havingness: point about something. What question shouldn't I ask you? Then 4-T-A havingness 3-T-A. Then on Pre-Session Comm. - there is written on this, O.W.'s a word I cannot now read, but you may know it, Mrs. Williams. I think it is your writing. Then the word fannys (cunts): further down, what terminals are unflat on case: fanny/cunt: auditor's opinion on progress: ran incident on being a nun in 1643 name Isabel, main point of attention fixed on (cunts), ran incident on what question shouldn't I ask you: got T.A. reading proper. Is that your writing? (Document shown to witness).
WITNESS: Yes.
MR. JUST: What is the word I could not read there, perhaps you would read it; it is half way down the page?
WITNESS: O.W.'s oh, I think that is 'nuns'.
MR. JUST: That may well be. You were not embarrassed or shocked by this sort of language?
WITNESS: Not really, no.
MR. JUST: Coming from a male in an auditing session?
WITNESS: Well, as an auditor I have been trained to listen without showing anything, or that sort of thing.
THE BOARD: Do you frequently come across this?
WITNESS: No.
BOARD: You were not prepared for this sort of thing?
WITNESS: Well, not frequently, I have heard sometimes.
BOARD: From time to time?
WITNESS: Yes.
BOARD: Not from any preclear, this is by no means an exceptional case?
WITNESS: No, from time to time -
BOARD: So that you were quite accustomed to this sort of language and this sort of discussion taking place between the preclear and yourself?
WITNESS: No, I am not accustomed to it.
BOARD: I mean by 'accustomed' it occurs from time to time And such occurrences do not occasion you any surprise?
WITNESS: Well, again, one is trained to listen.
BOARD: What is the answer to my question?
WITNESS: I am sorry.
BOARD: Does it happen from time to time with such frequency that this occurrence does not occasion you any surprise?
WITNESS: No, it doesn't.
BOARD: It doesn't occasion you any surprise?
WITNESS: No, it doesn't happen a lot.
BOARD: I think we have our negatives crossed. When it happens, you are not surprised it happens?
WITNESS: No.
BOARD: You are not surprised?
WITNESS: M'mm.
MR. JUST: With this same member of the staff, 26th October 196o, Auditor's Report Forms: Terminals assessed today: sexual organs. Then amongst other things: Auditor's opinion on progress: PC has chronic PTP on sex organs. (Then I think what follows does not add to the case very much.) [By the latter statement, Counsel probably meant there was nothing of a titillating nature in the intervening portion of the file.] That did not surprise you - a male preclear: terminals assessed today: 'Sexual organs'?
WITNESS: No. When one assesses cases, if it reads on the meter and has charge on it, that is, if the T.A. moves on it the tone arm on the meter moves up and down on it - it would have some bearing on the case and that is what would be audited.
BOARD: Can you tell from either of those that Mr. just has spoken to you about, how long the processing session took on the particular topics that have been mentioned.
WITNESS: M'mmm.
MR. JUST: His answers would be frank answers, discussing all sorts of sexual behaviour, would they?
WITNESS: I imagine they would be.
'BOARD: How old was this preclear at this stage?
WITNESS: Forty or something.
BOARD: Married to your knowledge?
WITNESS: Married.
BOARD: You were twenty-four at that stage, were you -four years ago?
WITNESS: Yes.
MR. JUST: How old was [name omitted], the auditor?
WITNESS: I think she'd be about twenty-two now.
MR. JUST: That makes her, in February 1962, somewhere about twenty, and on this same preclear, on February 26th, 1962, on the 'Results and Comments' column the note is: 'All the sexy things we came up with in the last intensive, January '62.' That rather indicates that this young auditor on that occasion was subject to talking about all the sexy things this particular preclear may have been interested in at the time?
WITNESS: If it had a charge on it, that would definitely be audited."
The interrogation continues in this vein, ad nauseam; but I will spare the reader. It is not necessary to eat a whole egg to know that it's rotten.
From the foregoing, it is clear, I think, that for Anderson and Just, mention of repressed sexual feelings and recall of past incidents, even within the context of pastoral counselling, was shocking, shameful and wrong. It went against the grain of the two men's upringing, their social, moral and religious outlook.Scientologists who were present report that sometimes during testimony which explained beliefs and practices of Scientology, Anderson was heard to mutter unjudiciously, "Rubbish!" and "Nonsense!" These remarks were not recorded in the transcript.Among the witnesses hostile to Scientology, two were outstanding because of the quality and extent of their testimony.
The first of these was Dr. E. Cunningham Dax, chairman of Victoria's Mental Health Authority and long-time active member of the World Federation for Mental Health. Speaking from on high, Dr. Dax defined the objectives of Scientology as indoctrination of a large number of blind, uncritical and faithful followers, who were trained to spread Scientology principles in order to satisfy their leader's lust for power. He said an alleged IQ test form used by Scientologists to test a person's intelligence quotient included matters of personality, intelligence and sometimes mental disturbance which would be impossible to measure with accuracy in the way it purported to do.