|
ENQUIRY INTO THE PRACTICE AND EFFECTS OF SCIENTOLOGY |
CHAPTER 8: Discrimination against Scientology in the United Kingdom190. I must now turn to consider the relations of Scientology with the rest of the community. The reaction which it evokes in those who have come into contact with it without accepting its theories or submitting to its practices, and especially in official bodies, has been critical almost without exception. I have indicated in paragraphs 173 and 181 of this Report what I conceive to be the principal reasons for this. Whatever the reasons, the result is that the Scientology leadership complains bitterly of discrimination. Insofar as these complaints relate to discrimination in the United Kingdom, I have thought it right to investigate them.191. The Scientology leadership, in correspondence with me, has alleged discrimination on the part of many individuals and organisations, which fall broadly into the following categories: - (a) Departments of Central GovernmentThe course which I have followed in connection with each of these groups, other than the last one, was to write to the body concerned and invite it to tell me whether the allegation was true, what right or power the body claimed to make the discrimination, and what were the grounds relied on. Here again I have regarded myself as prevented, in the absence of a full adversary procedure, from reaching conclusions on disputed allegations of fact. On the other hand where, as in many of these cases, the facts are not in dispute, I have been able to come to conclusions as to whether the body concerned was, in my view, discriminating against Scientology, and, if so, whether that discrimination was justified. These conclusions will appear hereafter. 192. One general conclusion, though, should be stated at the outset. The Scientology leadership consistently complains that Scientologists are discriminated against on the ground of the their religion. I am satisfied that this suggestion is quite unfounded in the case of each of the complaints which I have investigated. In none of these cases has there been discrimination against Scientologists on the grounds, or alleged grounds, of what they think or believe, the objection in each case has been on the grounds of what they do, or are thought to do, to other people. (a) Government Departments(i) The Home Office193. By far the most important of all the Scientologists' complaints to me relates to the current Home Office policy of refusing leave to land to Scientologists from overseas who wish to enter the United Kingdom to study or work at Scientology establishments, and especially the exclusion from this country of Mr Hubbard and his wife Mary Sue, and to the related policy of refusing extensions of permissions to slay here to those foreign and Commonwealth Scientologists who were already lawfully in the country. The scope of these policies was, it will be remembered, announced in the House of Commons on 25th July 1968 by Mr Kenneth Robinson, M.P. (the then Minister of Health) in terms which I have already recited in paragraph 14 of this Report. 194. In fact, I have reason to think that the conduct of Immigration Officers at our ports of entry has been even more stringent than the letter of these measures. For example, (a) not only foreign nationals, but also a number of Commonwealth citizens, have been refused leave to land when they disclosed themselves as Scientologists, although the relevant paragraph was expressed to refer only to foreigners,195. Let me begin this aspect of the matter with a brief examination of the relevant law. Since time immemorial, the Crown in this country has held, and from time to time exercised, an absolute power to admit or refuse entry to the United Kingdom to all aliens (i e. persons of other than British nationality), and this Common Law power was not restricted in any way. It is a reflection on the world's shrinking liberties that the exercise of the power has become markedly more restrictive in the present century. Until 1905, for example, there were not even any means for discovering who, in a shipload of passengers arriving at a British port, were aliens, let alone whether any of them were "undesirable" for the purpose of admission to the United Kingdom. No doubt most of the aliens who did arrive were, then as now, respectable people coming here for a holiday, or to visit friends, or for business reasons, and no-one seemed to think that we had anything to fear from them. 196. With the flood of poor immigrants (most of them Russian Jews escaping from Tsarist pogroms) in the early years of this century, this happy situation changed, and Parliament intervened with the passing of the Aliens Act 1905. Under this Act, there was set up the first peace-time system of official immigration control in the history of this country, under which no "immigrant" was allowed to land from an "immigrant ship" without the leave of an "immigration officer". It is notable that the definition of "immigrant" was confined to alien steerage passengers, and that an "immigrant ship" was one which brought more than 20 of these unfortunates to the United Kingdom at a time. Four specific classes of immigrant were termed "undesirable immigrants", and were always to be refused leave to land: - "(a) if [the immigrant] cannot show that he has in his possession or is in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself and his dependants (if any); or (b) if he is a lunatic or an idiot, or owing to any disease or infirmity appears likely to become a charge upon the rates or otherwise a detriment to the public; or (a) if he has been sentenced in a foreign country with which there is an extradition treaty for a crime, not being an offence of a political character, which is, as respects that country, an extradition crime within the meaning of the Extradition Act, 1870; orand these mandatory categories have survived down to the present day. 197. Under the 1905 Act, there was a right of appeal against refusal of leave to land: in fact 51 per cent of the 9,421 aliens who were refused entry during the 8 years in which the Act was in operation availed themselves of this right and 38 per cent of those appeals were successful. (169) l98. At the outbreak of the First War, Parliament intervened again with the passing of the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914. Since this is the Act which together with what remains of the Royal Prerogative at Common Law, still governs the matter today, it may be useful to quote here its principal provisions:- "(1) His Majesty may [at any time when a state of war exists between His Majesty and any foreign power, or when it appears that an occasion of imminent national danger or great emergency has arisen] by Order in Council impose restrictions on aliens, and provision may be made by the Order-199. At the end of the First War, the Government of the day was concerned to retain this legislation at least temporarily in force, despite the lack of any "imminent national danger" or "great emergency", and at its invitation Parliament passed the Aliens Restriction Act, 1919. This deleted the words within the square brackets in my citation of Section 1 (1) z \~ hz S u mrce for one year only. That year has been extended from year to year ever since by the passing of the annual Expiring Laws Continuance Acts, and what was originally designed as a draconian piece of emergency legislation has thus become part of the everyday law of the land.(a) for prohibiting aliens from landing in the United Kingdom, either generally or at certain places, and for imposing restrictions or conditions on aliens landing or arriving at any port in the United Kingdom. Under the powers conferred by the Acts of 1914 and 1919, subordinate legislation under the style of "Aliens Orders" has been brought into existence from time to time. The Instrument currently in force is the Aliens Order, 1953 (170) (as amended), the major provisions of which are these:- "1. (1) an alien shall not land in the United Kingdom except with the leave of an immigration officer......... 4. (1) Except with the authority of the Secretary of State, an immigration officer shall not grant leave to an alien to land in the United Kingdom unless the alien -(a) is in a position to support himself and his dependants (if any) in the United Kingdom; and(2) Except with the authority aforesaid, an immigration officer shall not grant leave to an alien to land in the United Kingdom- 200. It is noteworthy that under all this legislation, aliens do not have a right of appeal to determine whether a refusal by an immigration officer of leave to land has been in accordance with the rules currently in force, a right which was available to them, and frequently exercised with success, between 1906 and 1914. Those unfortunate enough to have been born in foreign countries of foreign parents have had to wait over 55 years for the restoration of such a right, for it was not until British subjects of Commonwealth citizenship became subject to immigration control in the 1960s that mounting pressure led to the appointment of a Committee on Immigration Appeals under the Chairmanship of Sir Roy Wilson, Q.C., whose Report in August 1967 had this to say: "The other main argument in favour of an appeal system rests on a basic principle. Its advocates contend that, however well administered the present control may be, it is fundamentally wrong and inconsistent with the rule of law that power to take decisions affecting a man's whole future should be vested in officers of the executive, from whose findings there is no appeal. In our opinion these critics have reached the heart of the matter. Even if, generally speaking, justice is being done under the present system, it is not apparent that this is the case. It is one thing for us, after a protracted inquiry, to express our confidence that the power of final decision entrusted to officers of the Immigration Service is being exercised fairly: it is another thing to expect a newly arrived immigrant, and his relatives and friends at the other side of the barrier, to feel the same confidence.'' (171)201. The Wilson Committee therefore recommended the setting up of an appeal procedure, and its recommendations have now reached the Statute Book in the form of the Immigration Appeals Act 1969, whose provisions have only just been brought into force. It is thus now again possible for an alien who is refused leave to land to test before independent tribunals the question of whether the refusal was in accordance with the policy laid down by the Home Office at the time, but he still has no way of challenging whether that policy itself is right. 202. The legal position has been succinctly summarised by Lord Denning, M.R. in Schmidt and Anor v The Secretary of State for Home Affairs (a case about Scientologists) when he said: - ". . .at Common Law no alien has any right to enter this country except by leave of the Crown: and the Crown can refuse leave without giving any reason. The Common Law has now been overtaken by the Aliens Acts and the Orders thereunder . . .Lord Justice Widgery added: ". . . The alien's desire to land can be rejected for good reason or bad, for sensible reason or fanciful or for no reason at all."203. It is clear from all this that, as a matter of law, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs is perfectly within his rights in refusing entry to this country to Scientologists who are foreign nationals, as indeed was decided by the Court of Appeal when the Scientologists challenged this power. 204. But the matter does not end there. In a country such as ours which is governed and administered on a basis of reason, freely and publicly debated in Parliament and the Press, and not on the basis of the whim of a Minister, any power as wide as this is not exercised arbitrarily, but in accordance with a rational policy worked out within his Department, and for which he is answerable to Parliament. The absolute power to exclude aliens from the United Kingdom has been no exception, and has been exercised in accordance with a defined departmental policy for at least the last 50 years. For most of that time, it has not been easy to ascertain precisely what that policy was, but this has become much clearer since the publication in February 1970 of the Home Office's Standing Instructions to Immigration Officers (172). These include the following relevant passages: - "1. Immigration Officers will carry out their duties without regard to the race, colour or religion of aliens seeking to enter the United Kingdom. 17. An alien seeking admission as a student will be expected to produce evidence of acceptance for a course of full-time study at a bona fide educational establishment, and evidence of his ability to maintain himself without working during his stay. He may do this in various ways; for example, by bringing in currency or travellers' cheques at the time of arrival, by bank transfer of foreign funds or by means of a scholarship. Full-time study is normally regarded as involving at least 15 hours organised study a week.205. This being the situation, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to inquire on what grounds his Department refused leave to land to foreign Scientologists. The gist of the answer, dated 13th August 1970, was this: - ". . . the Home Office policy stems from the statement of 25th July 1968 that scientology is harmful. If foreign nationals want to come here to study or work at a scientology establishment we consider that this would be contrary to the public good.206. On this material, I have come to the following conclusions. 207. We pride ourselves that England is a free country. Despite increasing encroachments on the freedom of the individual in an increasingly complex society, we are certainly a good deal more free than the subjects of many other States. At the very least, our freedoms are circumscribed only by laws which require the consent of a majority of our representatives in Parliament, even though these laws may delegate discretions to Ministers of the Crown. Some of these discretions nowadays tend to be wider than many think safe, and other discretionary powers are still available under what survives of the Royal Prerogative. 208. The attitude of the general public in Britain to foreigners - and to a good many other questions - demonstrates conflicting feelings of friendliness and hostility. On the one hand, there is the centuries-old insular tradition of contempt for Dagoes, Frogs, Wops and other lesser breeds without the law, who should be allowed to come here only for brief periods on sufferance, and then go home where they came from and trouble us no more. On the other hand, there is the equally old tradition of welcome and hospitality, founded on a desire to learn from others, to widen our horizons, to enrich our experience and especially to help those who suffer persecution in their own countries. 209. The policy of successive Home Secretaries has been informed, with few exceptions, by the better tradition of friendliness and hospitality which has been the foundation in turn for our long-established policies of tolerance and asylum. The general principle on which the Home Office has in fact (even if not in theory) acted for a very long time is that foreigners should be free to come and go through our ports or entry as they please, unless there is clear evidence that they are likely to do us some specific harm, such as the commission of crimes, political activity endangering national security, the passing on of contagious diseases, putting our own people out of work, or indigence as the result of which we shall find ourselves forced to support them. In my view, such a policy has been right in the past and is right at the present time; as the world becomes smaller and the mobility of its peoples greater, it becomes more rather than less important that we should encourage rather than restrict the free flow of people and ideas. 210. Against that background, it seems to me wrong in principle for the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to use his wide powers of exclusion against those Scientologists who happen to be foreigners or Commonwealth citizens, when there is no law which prevents their colleagues holding U.K. citizenship from believing in their theories or carrying on their practices here. If the practices of Scientology are thought to constitute a danger to our society sufficiently grave to warrant prohibition or control under the law, then it is for Parliament to make such a law and for the Executive to apply it impartially to Britons and foreigners alike within the confines of this country. But so long as none of our laws are being infringed, the classification of foreign Scientologists as "undesirable aliens" so that they are forbidden entry through our ports, while the accident of birth permits those Scientologists who happen to be citizens of the United Kingdom to process and be processed here with impunity, seems to me to constitute a use of this discretionary power which is quite contrary to the traditional policy followed by successive Home Secretaries over many years.211. I draw some comfort from the fact that, in another connection, the Home Office itself seems to share this view. When the present Home Secretary, in a letter to Mr. Michael Foot, M.P. dated 25th August 1970, explained why he was not willing to extend the stay of Mr. Rudi Dutschke, he said this: - "I think it is wrong in principle that people who come to this country should do so on the basis that they refrain from any activities which are lawful for the ordinary citizen" (173)If that is right - and of course I agree - then a fortiori it must be wrong in principle to exclude people from this country altogether on the sole ground that they intend to carry out here "activities which are lawful for the ordinary citizen". 212. In the view which I take, therefore, there is no reason why Scientologists of foreign or Commonwealth nationality should not henceforth be admitted to this country as visitors on precisely the same footing as other people. This would normally entitle them, under current policy set out in paragraph 14 of the Instructions to Immigration Officers, to a stay of up to three months at a time. 213. Again, foreign or Commonwealth Scientologists who wish to come and work here should in my view be granted or refused a work permit on precisely the same criteria as everyone else, and the fact that they or their proposed employers are Scientologists should be regarded as quite irrelevant. 214. The position of students is somewhat different. Under present Home Office policy, they form a privileged class in that they are normally given leave to stay for up to 12 months in the first instance, that is four times as long as an ordinary visitor. One of the necessary conditions for this is acceptance for a course of full-time study at a "bona fide educational establishment " and I am bound to say that on the evidence before me I am not satisfied that Scientology establishments as now organised can be said to fall within that description. However, as appears from the next Chapter of this Report, I recommend the passing of certain legislation for the organisation of psychotherapy as a profession, and if Parliament accepts this recommendation there will in due course be a professional body which will have, amongst its other functions, the duty to approve or disapprove courses of training leading to registration as a practitioner under its jurisdiction. If and when the time arrives where Scientology training receives the approval of this body, foreign or Commonwealth students wishing to take it should be admitted on the same considerations as all other bona fide students. Until that time, however, I see no objection to the continuance of the present Home Office Policy in this respect only: foreign or Commonwealth Scientologists wishing to come here for study at a Scientologist establishment should be admitted as visitors only, and not as students. (ii) The Board of Trade 215. In a letter to me dated 6th November 1969 Mrs. Hubbard complained as follows: - "In 1967 the Board of Trade made two dangerous stipulations with regard to a vessel we had purchased. The first of these was that the scuppers on the main deck be fully welded shut which would have prevented the drainage of water if the vessel had taken any seas over the side.216. The Board of Trade is of course responsible for the safety of United Kingdom registered ships under the relevant legislation. According to its records, the sequence of events was as follows: - (1) On 7th November 1967, they received a telephone call from the Solicitor to the new owners of the Motor Vessel called the "Royal Scotsman" (but now re-named the "Royal Scotman") which had previously been used as a passenger / cargo ship on the Irish Channel service. The purpose of the enquiry was to ask whether the vessel could be re-registered as a pleasure yacht and cleared for a voyage to Gibraltar. He was told that re-classification would require considerable modification of the vessel, and that clearance for such a voyage would require (under the Safety of Life at Sea Convention 1960) valid load line, cargo ship construction, safety equipment and radio certificates.(iii) The Foreign and Commonwealth Office 217. The doubts expressed by Lloyd's surveyors about the "Royal Scotman's" seaworthiness when she left Southampton proved to have been wellfounded, for Mrs. Hubbard's next complaint is in these terms: - "Also in 1967 while outside the Straits of Gibraltar, the steering mechanism of the vessel became damaged during a storm. Although we had in advance arranged to enter the port, we were refused entry when we urgently radioed for assistance and clearance. We were forced to flounder in the open sea in storm conditions with the vessel not under command while we desperately effected repairs."218. In answer to this, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office told me that the Gibraltar authorities could find no reference to the "Royal Scotman" in their records, and that the Captain of the Port was sure that no disabled vessel of any description was refused entry to the port, and left in open sea, in 1967 or - for that matter - at any time. 219. Even this was not the end of the misfortunes suffered by the "Royal Scotman" and her owners. Mrs. Hubbard goes on: - "While in Corfu in 1968, the British Consul, Major Forte, spread rumours about us to the effect that we held black magic rites aboard ship, were poisoning the wells and were casting spells on the cattle. The Deputy Prime Minister of Greece, Mr. Patakes, stated that he had had so much pressure put on him by the British with stories that we were under investigation by Interpol for various reasons that he had been forced to ask us to leave. He has since apologized and invited our return.220. At my instigation, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office investigated these complaints also, with the following results: - (1) By August 1968, the "Royal Scotman" had been transferred to the Panamanian Register, and once more re-named; she was now the "Apollo". She had been joined in the Mediterranean by another Scientology vessel, the "Athena", also flying the Panamanian flag: this ship too had been removed by her owners from the United Kingdom register, on which she had previously figured as the "Avon River". (6) By September 1969, the "Apollo" - captained by Mr. Hubbard - had docked in Casablanca. When the Panamanian Vice-Consul boarded her, she was once again found to be unseaworthy, and was detained to have extensive repairs carried out. Her Majesty's Consulate General in Casablanca were not involved. They have no connection with Mr. Jack Lundin, who is thought to be a free-lance reporter from Tangier who had come to Casablanca to follow up a story about the Scientologists.(iv) The Department of Employment and Productivity 221. The Scientologists complained that the Employment Exchanges would not introduce applicants to vacancies in Scientology establishments. The Department tell me that this is quite true: it was decided in 1960, and again in 1966, not to send applicants to Saint Hill Manor because of complaints which had been received about conditions of employment there; and after 25th July 1968 none were sent to any of the Scientology establishments in conformity with Government policy on Scientology as announced to the House on that day. 222. Under the Employment Training Act, 1948, the provision for withholding of the services of the Employment Exchanges is in the discretion of the Secretary of State. Accordingly, the Department was clearly within its rights as a matter of law, and one can hardly blame it for following a policy decision taken by Central Government as a whole. However, in my view the Department should now revert to the policy in force before 25th July 1968, and henceforth judge the suitability of Scientology establishments as places of employment on the ordinary criteria which are applied to all other cases. (v) The General Post Office 223. Here the Scientologists complain that the G.P.O. refused to accept their advertisements for publication in the telephone directory, having previously done so. 224. The G.P.O's answer was: - "Scientologists describe themselves as a Church in their letter headings and a spokesman has referred to their beliefs as a religious philosophy. The Post Office does not accept religious advertisements for publication in telephone directories."225. Certainly the previous advertisement, which had been accepted and was published as a full page in the "Yellow Pages" of the Tunbridge Wells Directory, contained nothing to warn the Post Office of the religious nature of Scientology. It ran like this: - "THE SCIENTOLOGY FOUNDATION226. Clearly, so long as the Scientologists describe themselves as a religion, they cannot expect to be treated differently from other religions. 227. The Scientologists also complain that their telephones have been tapped. Since they say themselves that they "have no direct evidence" other than "various noises and interference on the telephone", I have not troubled to go into this. (vi) The Ministry of Defence 228. Another complaint put to me by the Scientology leadership was that all mail going into Hobbs Barracks (which is close to Saint Hill Manor) from Scientology was intercepted, and that the addressee was "hauled before the C.O. and told that he must have nothing to do with Scientology and should he persist he would be considered a security risk to his country". 229. When I put this complaint to the Ministry, they told me that since 1968 they had (in conformity with the general Government policy) discouraged employees - both service and civilian - from becoming involved with Scientology. They had given no instructions to intercept mail about Scientology addressed to service personnel, or to suggest that a recipient of such mail should be considered a security risk. 230. However, it seems that Hobbs Barracks was the target of constant approaches and distribution of Scientology literature when it was occupied by the Queen's Regiment, and that in 1967 one of the Officers did intercept a Scientology circular so that its security implications could be assessed. The unit was subsequently warned against any form of tampering with mail, and there is no reason to think that this incident has been, or will be repeated. (b) Local Authorities(i) The County Councils of Surrey, East Sussex, and West Sussex.231. The Scientologists complain that a Mrs. Rosalie Vosper, one of their number, had applied to these three authorities for employment as a schoolteacher, but had been turned down by all of them, despite the fact that she was adequately qualified. Her failure to obtain employment is attributed to the fact - disclosed on her application forms - that she had worked at Saint Hill Manor for three years. 232. I referred the complaint to the County Councils concerned, and received the following answers: - (a) The Surrey County Council was very perturbed about the allegation, and the Deputy Clerk personally investigated it in some depth. He assures me that his Education Committee has no policy against the employment of persons known to have been involved with Scientology. On the contrary, a number of their teachers have "unusual beliefs or callings", and this precludes neither their employment, nor sympathetic approval of applications for leave of absence in termtime to attend essential observances. Nor is there any evidence of any policy adverse to Scientology among the permanent staff responsible for administering the authority's schools. As for Mrs. Vosper, the following facts came to light: -(ii) The Greater London Council(1) On 11th January 1969, she wrote to enquire whether there were any teaching posts likely to fall vacant in primary schools in the East Grinstead area.(b) The West Sussex County Council has been unable to trace any application by Mrs. Vosper, but has assured me that its Education Committee has no policy discriminating against Scientologists. 233. The Scientologists' complaint here is that they applied to book the Royal Festival Hall for a meeting, but were refused. 234. The Controller of Services of the Greater London Council tells me that the original enquiry in May 1969, was for a "special prayer meeting" on a Sunday afternoon, and came on plain paper headed "Human Rights Prayer Day", signed by Mr. P. Ginever who described himself as "Secretary to the Committee". This first letter disclosed no connection with Scientology, but a subsequent letter from Mr. Ginever was written on paper headed "The Hubbard Scientology Organisation". By that time, both the Government statement in the House on 25th July, 1968 and the setting up of my Enquiry had received wide publicity. The General Manager of the Royal Festival Hall thought it right in these circumstances to take ad vice from other hall managements, and also from the Department of Health and Social Security. Following this, he refused the booking but expressed himself willing to reconsider the matter when my Report had been published. The decision was the General Manager's own: the Chairman of the appropriate committee of the Greater London Council was not involved. (c) The Private Sector235. In addition, I have received from the Scientologists a wide variety of complaints about discrimination against them by individuals and companies in the private sector. They include allegations of insurance companies refusing to renew cover on Scientology premises, private schools refusing to accept the children of Scientologists as pupils, doctors refusing to accept Scientologists as patients, newspapers refusing Scientology advertisements, landlords refusing to allow premises to be assigned to Scientology organisations, and hotels refusing to accept bookings for Scientology meetings. There were also numerous complaints of libel.236. I have not investigated any of these. For some of them - such as libel, or cases falling within the Race Relations Act - the law may provide a remedy which, if the complaint is well-founded, it is open to the Scientologists to enforce, and their leadership has never shown any marked inhibition about going to law where they consider that their legal rights have been infringed. For the rest, people in this country are free to choose with whom they will associate, and with whom they will do business. All this is part of the ordinary give and take of everyday life, and much of society's response to Scientology will depend on the attitudes which Scientology demonstrates to society in the first place. _______________ NOTES: (169) Report of the Committee on Immigration Appeals, Cmnd. 3387, Appendix 11. (170) S.I. 1953 No. 1671. (171) Cmmd. 3387, para 84. (172) Cmnd. 4296. (173) The Times, 16th September 1970.
|