|
|
Criminal
And so it did. In less than two months, the Victorian legislature passed what was called the Psychological Practices Act, 1965, whose principal aim was the banning of Scientology. In fact, it was at first known informally as the Scientology Prohibition Bill.
The chief provisions of the Act are: It sets up a Psychological Council and requires the registration of psychologists with the Council; and restricts the practice of that profession for fee or reward, as well as the use of the word "psychologist", or similar expressions.
It imposes a fine of A$ 5oo for use of the E-meter by anyone other than registered psychologists.It makes it a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of $2oo for the first conviction and up to two years' imprisonment for a second, to demand or receive directly or indirectly, any fee or reward for the teaching, practice or application of Scientology. The same restriction applies to holding oneself out as being willing to teach Scientology.It directs all persons holding "Scientology records" to deliver them up to the Attorney-General and authorizes the seizure of such records by law enforcement officials.Acting swiftly under terms of the last mentioned clause, within one half hour after passage of the bill, police raided the Scientology headquarters in Melbourne, where they confiscated some 4,ooo documents, personal files and books.
The Scientologists' response to this draconian suppression in Victoria was to publish a booklet entitled Kangaroo Court, which laid bare the conspiracy and bias behind the Melbourne Inquiry and vowed that Scientology would continue to grow in Victoria. "No vested interests or blackhearted politicians, no matter how much power they seem to ally themselves with, can stop our thoughts or our communications ... Our administrative form could be altered, but not the subject of Scientology ... We will be here teaching and listening when our opponents' names are merely mis-spelled references in a history book of tyranny."
Later, Hubbard and his followers took more direct action. On April 28, 1970, a writ issued in the Supreme Court of the State of Victoria by the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International against Anderson and Just, charging the two with misfeasance, breach of duty and recklessness in the conduct of the Inquiry into Scientology.This legal counter-attack created a considerable stir in Victorian professional and political circles. Following the Inquiry, both men had been elevated to judgeships - Anderson was now a Justice of the Supreme Court, and Just a judge of the County Court.In order to block the Scientologists from having their case heard in a real court of law, where rules of evidence must be observed, Supreme Court justice McInerny set aside the writ on a technicality. He ruled that Ian Tampion, acting as agent for the Scientologists, was "an unqualified person".The Scientologists refused to give up. After considerable difficulty, they eventually found a firm of solicitors that would, acting as "qualified persons", properly lodge the writ in the Supreme Court.Hubbard's organization now went even further and had writs issued not only against Anderson and just, but against the Victorian Government (for libel in publishing the Anderson Report) and six newspapers.This time the writs could not be struck out on the basis of some legal technicality. The defendants would have to face a full court hearing of the charges against them.
Then, in what was plainly a frantic last-ditch manoeuvre, the Victorian legislature took the unprecedented action of passing a retroactive law that conferred absolute immunity upon Anderson and just. Entitled Evidence (Boards and Commissions) Bill, it amended the evidence Act, 1958 "to overcome separate problems brought to the attention of the Government by the Chief justice and by the Crown Solicitor". Section 21 A of the measure provided that "persons constituting a Royal Commission or board of inquiry, together with legal practitioners and others appearing before the commission or board, and witnesses shall have and be deemed always to have had the same privileges and immunities in respect of acts, matters or things done in relation to or arising in or out of the inquiry or the report of the inquiry as if they were done in relation to or arose in or out of a Supreme Court action or a report of such action." (Emphasis added.)
The idea of a retroactive law, designed to circumvent an action pending before a Supreme Court, would be rejected by the legislature of any civilized state where jurisprudence has any meaning. Even in Victoria, where apparently the race is to the swift and the battle to the strong, a few honorable members rose during the parliamentary debate to go on record as deploring the measure and criticizing the Government (along party lines) for making such an extreme action necessary. But, having deplored the bill, they then voted in favour of it. What seemingly incensed the dissenters most was the fact that the Attorney-General had tried to pull the wool over their eyes. In his speech before the House, explaining the bill, he had said that the aim of the legislation was to amend the Evidence Act to provide immunity for persons appointed to conduct Royal Commissions or boards of inquiry; but he did not inform the members that it was also designed to stop a writ already before the court. Said the member for Albert Park:
"We should have been told that a writ which was destined to come before the Supreme Court will be stopped in mid-air, as it were, by an action of this Parliament.
"The passage of this Bill through Parliament will indicate to many people that justice -in the sense of a person being able to plead his case in court - will not even get off the ground."
One of the most outspoken critics of the Past-Present-Future bill was the Hon. J. W. Galbally, the man who had started the legislative steam-roller against Scientology in the first place. Galbally expressed the view that if the law were amended retrospectively to put Scientologists out of court, it would only "put a sword in the hands of these thoroughly unworthy people".
"I should like to see their actions tried in the court," Galbally continued, "because even as the law stands, I do not think they would have any sort of case. If they win, let the Government pay up. I believe this would be a small price to pay for the independence of justice."Such was not the majority view of the honorable gentlemen. Whether the Scientologists won or lost in court was not the question. The real issue was whether to allow the full story of the Inquiry to be aired in public."As Parliament appointed him [Anderson] to this position," said the Hon. C. A. M. Hider, "surely Parliament is bound to protect him and to avoid having a judge embarrassed."Protecting Anderson was more important than preserving the integrity of the law itself.Although Scientology had been outlawed - temporarily at least - in the State of Victoria, it was still flourishing elsewhere in Australia.The medico-psychiatric group, together with their political and press allies who were conducting the extermination campaign against Scientology, now directed their efforts towards securing a nationwide ban on the organization. Health Minister G. C. MacKinnon of Western Australia told newsmen in January 1967 that he would call for such a ban at the Health Ministers conference to be held in Perth in April of the year.MacKinnon made no secret of his motives. Scientology, he said, was dangerous "to certain groups in the community". He then made it clear which groups he was referring to:
"This is an organization which particularly argues against the established mental health services."
True to his pledge, MacKinnon had the subject of Scientology put on the agenda of the Conference of Health Ministers. However, he was unable to get an agreement from all the ministers present to push for joint Commonwealth-State legislation against the "cult". Those in whose States there were no Scientology centres felt that it was up to the individual States to deal with the problem when and if it arose.