August 27, 1998 [rev. Dec. 11, 1998 , by adding # 19]
1. Detective Ken Montgomery, who is the plaintiff in the case, “Ken Montgomery v. Allan Anthony Buttnor and the Church of Scientology of Alberta ,” has asked me to serve as an expert witness on his behalf.
2. I am a Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Alberta , and an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Modern Languages and Comparative Studies, specifically for its Religious Studies Program.
3. I specialize in the sociology of religion, and teach classes on that topic on both the undergraduate and graduate levels. My particular area of expertise is in an area variously called “new religions,” “alternative religions,” or “sectarian groups”.
4. I have published one article specifically on Scientology entitled, “Scientology’s Relationship with Eastern Religious Traditions,” in the Journal of Contemporary Religion 11 No.1 (1996): 21-36.
5. I have discussed aspects of Scientology in academic articles and two encyclopedia articles. The discussion in academic articles are:
(a) Deviance Labelling and Normative Strategies in the Canadian ‘New Religions/Countercult’ Debate,” Canadian Journal of Sociology 15 No.4 (1990), pp. 398, 402, 406, 407, 409.
(b) (second author with Robert H. Cartwright), “Social Control in Alternative Religions: A Familial Approach,” Sociological Analysis 53 No.4 (1992), pp. 355-357.
(c) “New Religious Movements,” in The Sociology of Religion: A Canadian Focus, edited by W.E. Hewitt, Toronto : Butterworths, 1993, pp. 97-99.
6. The discussion of Scientology in encyclopedia articles are:
(a) “Crimes,” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Society, Edited by William H. Swatos, Jr. London : AltaMira Press, 1998, pp. 121-122.
(b) “Deviance,” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Society, Edited by William H. Swatos, Jr. London : AltaMira Press, 1998, p. 138.
7. I also have made presentations specifically on Scientology to religious and governmental bodies in Germany . These presentations include:
(a) Two invited presentations (“Scientology in the United States ” and “Scientology in Canada “) at the Expert Conference, “How To Deal With Scientology–An International Comparison,” sponsored by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation ( Bonn , Germany ), on September 1, 1997 .
(b) Luncheon presentation to invited government aides and Foundation researchers on “How Dangerous is Scientology?–From a U.S./Canadian Perspective.” Konrad Adenauer Foundation ( Sankt Augustin , Germany ) on September 2, 1997 .
(c) Presentation to a parliamentary committee (The Enquete Commission) of the German Bundestag [Parliament] on Scientology ( Bonn , Germany ), on September 22, 1997 .
8. Over the years various media publications have quoted me on Scientology. These publications include:
(a) Blum, Andrew. 1993. “Church’s Litany of Lawsuits.” [on Scientology]. The National Law Journal [ New York , New York ], (June 14): 38.
(b) Garcia, Wayne . 1993. “Scientology’s Words to Hit the Airwaves.” St. Petersburg Times [ Florida ]. (August 28): 3A.
(c) Tobin, Thomas C. 1994. “Scientology Puts Itself on Display.” St. Petersburg Times [ Florida ] (December 6): 1A, 4A.
(d) Parc, Louise. 1997. “Le Reard du Sociologue [on Scientology and Hollywood Celebrities].” Le Matin Dimanche [ Switzerland ] (April 6): 26.
(e) Suddeutsche Zeitung. 1997. “‘Scientology Unterhalt Straflager.’” (July 5/6, 1997): 6.
(f) Die Welt. 1997. “Mit Sorgentelefon Gegen Scientology.” (July 5): B1.
(g) Der Tagesspiegel. 1997. “Umerziehung in Eigenen Lagern.” (July 5): 4.
(h) Deutsche Presse–Agentur Freitag. 1997. “Scientology-Organisation soll Zwangsarbeitslager u.” (July 4).
(i) Berliner Zeitung. 1997. “50 Hauser in the Hand von Scientologen?” (July 5/6): 18.
(j) Krump, Hans. 1997. “Scientologen betreiben in den USA Zwangsarbeitslager.” Berliner Morgenpost (July 5): 2.
(k) Berliner Zeitung. 1997. “Sekten-Forscher: Scientology sperrt Abweichler in Lager.” (July 5): 39.
(l) Die Tageszeitung. 1997. “Experte: Scientology bestatigt Straflager.” (July 6): 5.
(m) Vilsbiburger Zeitung. 1997. “Arbeitslager fur Scientologen?” (July 5).
(n) Markische Allgemeine. “Neue Kritik an Scientologen.” (July 5/6): 2.
(o) Hessische Allgemeine. 1997. “Abweichler in Arbeitslager?” (July 5): 3.
(p) Die Tageszeitung. 1997. “Lager sollen auf den Prufstand.” (July 7): 22.
(q) Freeman, Alan. 1997. ” Germany Presses Case Against Scientologists.” Globe and Mail (July 17): A1, A8.
(r) Tobin, Thomas. 1997. “Scientology Launches Massive PR Campaign.” St. Petersburg Times (August 10).
(s) Schulz, Hans Jurgen. 1997. “‘Das Ziel von Scientology ist die Macht.’” General Anzeiger [ Bonn , Germany ]. (September 3): 4.
(t) Frantz, Douglas. 1997. “Scientology Faces Glare of Scrutiny After Florida Parishoner’s Death.” New York Times (December 1): 1.
(u) Appleby, Timothy and John Saunders. 1998. “Web Not Helping Scientology.” Globe and Mail [ Canada ]. (January 20): A4.
(v) Tobin, Thomas. 1998. “Scientology at Center of Unusual Lawsuit.” St. Petersburg Times (May 30).
(w) Rusnell, Charles. 1998. ” Church of Scientology Targets U of A Professor for Criticizing Its Practices.” Edmonton Journal (June 13): B7.
9. I also have done a number of media interviews about Scientology. These include:
(a) Kohn, Rachael (interviewer). 1993. “The Internal Revenue Service Grants Tax Exemption to Scientology,” Australian Broadcast Company, “Religion Report” on Radio National (November 12).
(b) Cleary, John. 1997. ” Religion Report [on the German and American Disagreement over Scientology].” Australian Broadcast Company [radio], “Religion Report” (February 5).
(c) Segal, Howie. 1997. Radio Interview, CJVI ( Victoria , British Columbia ) on Scientology (July 22).
(d) KABC. 1997. Radio Interview ( Southern California ) on Scientology (December 1).
(e) CIFX. 1998. Radio Interview ( Winnipeg , Manitoba ) on Scientology (June 15).
(f) CBC. 1998. Radio Interview (in Edmonton , Alberta ) on “Scientology (June 15).
10. Previously I have served two times as an expert witness in cases before Alberta courts. On April 1, 1993 , I was admitted as an expert witness for the Crown on “deviant and alternative religions” in the first degree murder trial of “R. v. Ronald Lee Stephenson.
11. On November 19, 1997 I was admitted as an expert witness for the Crown on “the sociology of deviant religions” in the Stony Plain Provincial [Family] court.
12. If admitted as an expert for the plaintiff (Detective Montgomery) on Scientology, then I am prepared to testify on the following points:
13. First, “Attachment D” of Detective Montgomery’s Affidavit of May 13, 1994 is from page 554 of Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter [HCOPL] (23 December, 1965), “Suppressive Acts[,] Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists[,] The Fair Game Law,” and is found on pp. 552-557 of L. Ron Hubbard, The Organization Executive Course, HCO Division 1, Copenhagen: Scientology Publications Organization, 1970. This book was part of an 8 volume (plus index) series known as the “old OEC volumes” or the “old green volumes” because of the colour of their covers and the fact that a new OEC series came out in 1991. (Mr. Buttnor’s lawsuit against Detective Montgomery occurred on March 20, 1991.) Many Scientologists owned the entire “old” series, and all Scientology organizations had copies because members had to refer to it often in order to identify proper organizational procedure. The Scientologists who are defendants in this lawsuit would have trained on and used this volume containing the HCOPL of 23 December, 1965 .
(a) Some time during 1991, the new OEC volumes (“the new green volumes”) appeared. The HCOPL of 23 December 1965RB appears in this new volume, but it had been revised on 8 January, 1991 . The revised version contains much of the wording from the original, but it is reorganized in places, and it has deleted reference to “Fair Game.” I will return to the debate over what role (if any) the old “fair game” doctrine played in Scientology during 1991 (as well as now).
(b) This specific Policy Letter concerns the identification of and response to persons, organizations, or actions that Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard identified as hindering or damaging Scientology’s activities and practices. Hubbard labelled the most serious opponents “suppressive persons.”
(c) As a police officer assigned to the “Cults and Occult Crimes” desk of the Edmonton Integrated Intelligence Unit (E.I.I.U.) whom Mr. Buttnor incorrectly believed was involved with his arrest, Detective Montgomery would have been a “suppressive person” in the eyes of Mr. Buttnor and his associates. I reach this conclusion from a section of an HCOPL of 6 December 1976RB, revised 8 April 1988 , and reproduced in the new OEC 1: p. 904. Entitled, “Illegal PCs, Acceptance of High Crime PL,” it says that it is a “high crime” in Scientology to process someone who “may affect the safety and security of the org” (new OEC 1: p. 904). Categories of people who may be security threats are “people who are members or ex-members, or in families of members or ex-members of media, police spy organizations, and government spy organizations…” (new OEC 1: p. 904 [my emphasis]).
(d) According to the definition given in the Policy Letter itself, “A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts” (old OEC 1: p. 552; new OEC 1: p. 873).
(e) “SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter” (old OEC 1: p. 552; new OEC 1: p. 873).
(f) Several of the acts that Hubbard specified were such that Mr. Buttnor and his Scientology associates would have seen his arrest experience as a suppressive act.
Suppressive Acts include:
(i) “reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practising standard Scientology” (old OEC 1:p. 553; new OEC 1: p. 876); and
(ii) “engaging in malicious rumour-mongering to destroy the authority or repute of higher officers or the leading names of Scientology…” (old OEC 1: p. 553; new OEC 1: 876); and
(iii) “delivering up the person of a Scientologist without defense or protest to the demands of civil or criminal law” (old OEC 1: p. 553; new OEC 1: p. 876).
(iv) Interpreting his arrest as any of the above-mentioned reputedly “suppressive acts,” Mr. Buttnor and his associates would have viewed the police officers responsible for it (whom they mistakenly thought was Detective Montgomery and his RCMP partner) as “fair game.” The old policy specifically states, “[a] Suppressive Person or Group becomes ‘fair game’ (old OEC 1: p. 552).
14. The very next HCOPL in Volume 1 of the old Organizational Executive Course (dated 17 March 1965 ) specifically discusses the “Fair Game Law.” In this context, the Policy says:
“[s]o, in Scientology, anyone who rejects Scientology also rejects, knowingly or unknowingly, the protection and benefits of Scientology and the companionship of Scientologists. If the person never was a member of the group or if the person had been a member of it, the result is the same” (old OEC 1: p. 558).
(a) Also in the old OEC 1 volume is a definition of “High Crimes.” They “consist of publicly departing Scientology or committing Suppressive Acts. Cancellation of Certificates, Classifications and Awards and becoming fair game are amongst the penalties which can leveled for this type of offense…” (HCOPL of 7 March 1965, “Offenses & Penalties,” in old OEC 1: p. 551).
Consequently, Detective Montgomery was eligible to be a “Suppressive Person” and therefore be a “fair game” target, even though he was not, nor ever had been, a Scientologist. I interpret, therefore, the statement that Susan May Kerr gave in deposition on December 13, 1995, that the term, “suppressive acts” “is more an internal justice label as it were” (p. 24) actually means that the term can be applied to the actions of non-members (such as Detective Montgomery).
15. An HCOPL of 18 October 1967 , Hubbard identified what was to happen to a person in either Scientology organizations or its elite “Sea Organization” whom Scientology declared to be an “enemy.” The Policy provides a glimpse into how the organization also would apply its “fair game” concept to supposedly “suppressive” outsiders. An enemy inside Scientology would receive an “SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” The lawsuit against Detective Montgomery is in accordance with this “fair game” policy.
16. Hubbard’s HCOPL of 21 October, 1968 entitled, “Cancellation of Fair Game,” also appeared in the old OEC Volume 1 (p. 489). The four sentence statement, however, reveals that Hubbard ordered Scientologists to stop using the term, “fair game,” because it brought the organization bad public relations. The actual behaviours, however, toward supposedly “Suppressive Persons” were not to change. The Policy read: “[T]he practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L [Policy Letter] does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP [Suppressive Person]” (p. 489).
(a) It is true that the new OEC volumes appear to have purged the “fair game” term. Evidence strongly indicates, however, that the organization has never purged the aggressive behaviours that went along with the term regarding “the treatment or handling of an SP.”
(b) Evidence that the aggressive behaviours continued during 1991 (and beyond) come from an examination of the confidential Scientology publication “Department of Special Affairs[,] Investigations Officer[,] Full Hat Checksheet,” dated 1991.
(i) On p. 5, the person is required to do a demo[nstration] of the statement, “Why the only way to defend anything is to attack.”
(ii) On p. 4, #7, a person studying to be an Investigations Officer must study the HCO Manual of Justice. Hubbard wrote this item in 1959, and on p. 8 it states:
Be just. Don’t ordinarily put a head on a pike unless it’s the right head. But remember that there are times when it’s vitally necessary to put some head, any head, on a pike to quell rising disorder. Just remember that justice is an action to deter disorder and secure the public safety. But if you do put the wrong head on a pike, be sure to put it back on the body again as soon as the need for its being on a pike is over (p. 8).
It seems entirely probable that the lawsuit intended to “put Detective Montgomery’s head on a pike”–that is, to warn the Edmonton Police Service about the consequences of “harassing” Scientology. Indeed, on p. 6 of the HCO Justice Manual, Hubbard stated: “When to sue. Never if you can help it. It consumes time, means little but trouble for you. Suits are basically best as threats” (p. 6).
(c) I note with interest in the 1991 “Department of Special Affairs[,] Investigations Officer[,] Full Hat Checksheet,” a person on this course was required (on p. 26 #25) to read “HCO Exec Ltr [Hubbard Communications Office Executive Letter] 27 Sept[ember] [19]65, “Amprinistics.” This Executive Letter discusses a number of people and “splinter groups” that supposedly took Dianetics and Scientology material. On the first line of p. 3 of that document, it says, “Treatment: They are fair game, can be sued or harassed.” I realize that the Church of Scientology International reissued a revised version of this Executive Letter on 24 September, 1983 , and that the revised version omits mention of “fair game” and accompanying suits and harassment. The “Full Hat Checksheet,” however, did not list this revision (as it did with other items) when identifying the required reading, but instead listed the earlier version containing the “fair game” statement.
17. Additional support for interpreting Mr. Buttnor’s suit as harassment appears in Appendix E of Detective Montgomery’s Affidavit. This Appendix reproduces a single page, which begins with the words, “IN ALL SUCH CASES….” This is page 157 of an L. Ron Hubbard article entitled, “The Scientologist[:] A Manual on the Dissemination of Material.” It appears on pp. 151-171 of L. Ron Hubbard, The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology, Volume 2 (1954-1956), Copenhagen and Los Angeles : Scientology Publications, 1976. It first appeared around mid-March, 1955 in Scientology’s Ability Major 1 magazine. This book is part of a twelve-part series now known as the (old) Tech volumes or the old “red volumes” because of the colour of their covers. Serious Scientologists owned the entire set, and all Scientology organizations had copies because members had to refer to the books often in order to identify proper auditing (which is a form of counselling) procedures. Indeed, this item is required reading in the 1991 “Department of Special Affairs[,] Investigations Officer[,] Full Hat” course, as indicated by its inclusion on p. 4 of the “Full Hat Checksheet” under Section D: Department 20.” This department is the Department of Special Affairs, which replaced (and in some policies and personnel, continued) the old Guardian Office (in which Ms. Susan Kerr was a member [according to her deposition of December 13, 1995: 15-17]).
(a) The paragraph instructing Scientologists to defend only by attacking, even in a court of law, outlines the behaviour that I believe explains why Detective Montgomery was unjustifiably sued. It states, “The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that, then you will lose every battle you are ever engaged in, whether it is in terms of personal conversation, public debate, or a court of law. NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. DO, yourself, much MORE CHARGING, and you will WIN. Don’t ever let them have any other thought than that Scientology takes all of its objectives” (p. 157).
(b) Moreover, the second-last paragraph on that same page contains two key sentences for understanding Scientology’s attitude toward lawsuits, including (I believe) this one:
The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will be generally sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, ruin him utterly (p. 157).
18. Detective Montgomery’s “Attachment F” actually is the previous page of the same document (i.e., L. Ron Hubbard, “The Scientologist[:] A Manual on the Dissemination of Material”). It instructs a Scientologist to sue immediately if he or she gets “arrested for practising Scientology.” Although this behaviour–practising Scientology–was not the basis of Mr. Buttnor’s arrest, it did provide (in my opinion) the directive about how he was to respond.
19. I note that on p. 5 of the Executive Directive Office of Special Affairs International (1991), Investigations Officers were instructed to study the Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter from August 15, 1960 entitled, “Department of Government Affairs.” That Policy Letter instructed Scientologists:
[i]f attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don’t ever defend. Always attack. Don’t ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy’s front ranks work best (p. 484 in old OEC 7).
Mr. Buttnor’s lawsuit against Detective Montgomery is in accordance with this policy.
20. Finally, I am prepared to testify that Detective Montgomery and his partner were not involved in an investigation of Mr. Buttnor or Scientology at the time of his arrest. Likewise, I am prepared to testify that neither police officer was involved in any way in his arrest (nor was I). I would be able to make these statements because, at the time, I was working (on a volunteer basis) with Detective Montgomery and Corporal Leary on investigations of ritual abuse allegations, and in the course of these investigations we discussed a great many issues related to controversial religions and related groups. My expertise on these topics had made me a trusted confidante of the officers on that desk since the Fall of 1989, and they discussed with me groups (such as Scientology) about which I was more knowledgeable. While I cannot remember the content of any of those discussions (since they took place so long ago), I remember that, prior to Mr. Buttnor’s arrest, they did not have an investigation going on of Scientology and its officials. All of us were surprised when it happened.
I am prepared to affirm that this statement is true, to the best of my knowledge.
Sincerely,
Stephen A. Kent (PhD)
Professor