° Introduction to the Correspondence
14th July 2000
Many thanks for your letter of the 2nd of July. First of all, I notice a practice that has been a part of your communication style for some years now. You send out a letter to me but in fact send me a copy rather than the original. On many occasions the letter reaches me subsequent to other parties. It is almost as though the main point of the exercise is a propaganda exercise rather than a personal communication between the two of us. I'd appreciate if in future when you send me a letter you could send me the original rather than a copy.
I understand that in areas concerning PC skills that you are "quite illiterate in such matters". This is a pity as we could reduce the comm lag were this not the case.
I hope that my response to your leaflet will be the end of the matter. However I'm prepared to continue as long as it takes (TR3 style).
To aide communication I am inserting my responses to your points in italics and bold under each of your 24 points. I intend to put this onto the web. This is not a threat but merely to notify you that this is a conversation that is going to have a public dimension. Openness and dialogue are not a threat to me and shouldn't be to you either.
********** START OF LETTER **********
Dear Mr. Garde,
Further to your letter of 24 May 2000, please excuse my delay, but I am very busy at work.
Ger, this letter isn't an attempt to deal with the issues contained in the leaflet. As you know I sent you a copy of my response to your leaflet earlier this month when I realised you had not received a copy from your OSA colleague, Graeme Wilson.
2 - What "serious charges" of my not acting according to "Scientology beliefs" are you referring to?
Ger, I refer you back to my previous letter where I listed policies/bulletins and how your letters had demonstrated violations of these. I would be grateful if you could respond to those which you have only partially tackled or completely ignored. Perhaps you didn't respond in full to these because you went past a word you didn't fully understand. Rather than list these at length, could you read through the letter again and explain violations of Scientology Tech. For example the use of sweeping generalisations.
3 - Your reference to "taking legal advice" regarding the leaflet I have produced is yet another threat to me by you. I find it extremely ironic that you have continually claimed that my religion is "litigious" and yet it is you who have continually made legal threats. For the record, I have the right to free speech under the constitution. I strongly believe that Dialogue Ireland is acting in a manner that inevitably leads to bigotry and sectarianism. I believe that Dialogue Ireland, whether they intend to or not, are guilty of generating intolerance towards religious minorities in Ireland. I fully intend to share this belief with anyone who might be interested. Are you seriously suggesting that I do not have the right to do this?
Ger, how is taking legal advice a threat to you when it is me clarifying whether I am being libelled? If you are happy with what you have written, why feel threatened? I am advised that I have a case if I wish to pursue it in the courts. The whole point of the exercise is that I have decided not to take the legal route but am placing the material on the internet instead.
To put the record straight, the first legal relations between myself and Scientology was taken by the solicitors for Scientology, Hodkin & Company, on the 9th May 1996. I was expected to cease circulating a book within 7 days - "unless we hear from you within the next 7 days proceedings may be issued against you as a matter of course". I think you err in a matter of fact in terms of who initiated legal proceedings.
I am not trying to silence you, however I suggest that some of the material you have used is actually libellous.
4 - You claim that I wrote "abusive" letters to you! Please document this.
Ger, for example in several of your letters you have linked me to a drug cartel in Mexico, which you have attempted to minimise by saying that if a Mormon had been involved I would have put it in the papers. However your original point had been to try to connect me to this illegal activity.
Secondly you have attempted in the past, and continue even in this most recent letter, to connect me to Father Fortune. You seem to be totally unaware as to how abusive this actually is.
Finally for instance, in your most recent letter you have tried to connect me to the violence perpetrated against a Hare Krishna by her father. To add insult to injury you continue to connect me to a case of a woman who is no longer a Scientologist who you claim I influenced the father to strike her. This would be the equivalent of me saying that your design of the building on John Keane's property could lead to the death of the three, or two, people living in his attic.
5 - This letter is not on behalf of my Church. Letters that come from my home address are not on behalf of my Church. My Church is not located in Finglas East (yet!) If I am writing on behalf of my Church I do not use my home address.
Am I to understand that you are in fact the spokesperson for the Dublin mission or have you ceased from that position and are you now purely an individual Scientologist? Even if you are not the spokesperson anymore you should at least indicate on your leaflet your interest by saying that you are in fact a Scientologist rather than a neutral observer.
6 - I am entirely unaware that you have even been in contact with Mr. Graeme Wilson in the UK, let alone been in receipt of any correspondence you have had with him. Graeme Wilson has nothing to do with my personal correspondence.
Ger, perhaps I am mistaken but my understanding is that Graeme is your direct senior in the UK and as such I would have presumed that the standard lines of particle flow would dictate that a high level of communication would exist on matters relating to your post. The subject matter of your DI article bears a high degree of relevance to your post.
7 - For the record whether I am a Scientologist or not is quite irrelevant. The issue is whether Dialogue Ireland is generating intolerance towards religious minorities in Ireland or not. I believe Dialogue Ireland is generating intolerance towards a variety of minority religions in Ireland, not just my own Church.
Ger, to use your own words, please document this.
8 - You claim that I have sent out "primitive anti-Christian tracts", please document this outright lie. I have never written, produced nor distributed "anti-Christian tracts", primitive or otherwise. I am not anti-Christian and I take grave exception to your lie to the contrary. In fact I am pro Christian. As I have explained to you before, I strongly believe that my own religion will not achieve its aims (a civilisation with war, crime or insanity...) without the assistance of Christianity or indeed other religions. So I find the decline of Christianity in the Western World to be disastrous in that respect. From my perspective, a thriving Christian religion is essential for the achievement of my spiritual aims.
Ger, the anti-Christian tracts was a reference to a document of yours concerning the origins of Christianity and how it was considered a cult in its day. This would be considered abusive and highly offensive by most of the people who have received it.
Ron writes in HCOB 18 July 1959 "Technically Speaking", "The whole Christian movement is based on the victim. Compulsion of the overt act-motivator sequence. They won by appealing to victims. We can win by converting victims. Christianity succeeded by making people into victims. We can succeed by making victims into people. It's time the inversion turned anyway." Perhaps you may need to review your membership of Scientology in the light of this considering that a thriving Christian religion is essential for the achievement of your spiritual aims, as you put it.
You may wish to read "Studia Missionalia" Volume 41, 1992, "Religious sects and movements" by H. Meldgaard published by the Gregorian Pontifical University in Rome which I enclose. The article is called "Scientology's religious roots". This will give you a better understanding of the mix of views that went into the formation of LRH's religious understanding.
9 - You shared an antipathy towards minority religions with Fr. Sean Fortune. Why did Anna Livia Radio station invite Fr. Fortune and you onto the programme? Fr. Fortune lectured in media studies etc in some sort of private course that he delivered in Belfield apparently. (Interestingly he used some professionals from RTE to lecture in this course also.) According to reports (from individuals who attended his lectures) Fortune regularly attacked minority religions in his lectures. You might remember the invective he got into on the radio. So: a. Fr. Sean Fortune was totally opposed to the newer minority religions, b. He lectured to students on the alleged "evils" or "badness" etc of these minorities. c. He got paid for his lectures. d. He appeared in the media attacking the newer minority religions.
I believe that this is your CV also and thus it puts you into the "professional colleague" ranks of Fr. Fortune. You are paid over £12000 per year for your "work", are you not? Though in fairness Fr. Fortune got considerably more cash for his efforts, so I understand.
Ger, again you keep repeating this libellous connection. Why are you so obsessed with Fr Fortune? What has this got to do with me?
10 - I do not think that you or Dialogue Ireland intends to incite violence. However I firmly believe that your continual attacks on the newer minority religions makes violence against them inevitable. Dr. Ian Paisley has stated on numerous occasions that he is firmly opposed to violence and that he has no intention to incite violence. However I believe that his rhetoric inevitably leads others to cause violence. I have no doubt that Ms. Aine Ni Conail has no intention to incite violence against immigrants. However the rhetoric of the Immigration Control Platform makes violence against immigrants inevitable.
Ger, could you give me an example of the rhetoric you are referring to? I give a fair presentation of the facts. Your religion on the other hand refuses to allow members to see any other view. People have been forbidden to speak to me even for example. Furthermore Scientology is well known for its anti-psychiatry rhetoric, with public demonstrations not unheard of too.
I have heard that for example a Hare Krishna person experienced violence or threats of violence from a family member of his wife. Allegedly this happened following an "intervention" from your self. If this is correct, then it is proof that not only Scientologists have been assaulted.
Ger, as you now know due to a conversation you had with the Hare Krishna person concerned, this is in fact not correct and I would suggest that you withdraw this libellous comment in your next letter, and also that you withdraw your continued libel that a Scientologist was also assaulted as this has been addressed on a number of occasions and you continue to repeat it. For your information the person concerned is now an ex-Scientologist.
11 - The continuing revelations about the CDU political party rather expose your claims to be false. As you must know Helmut Kohl is currently under investigation. He has since admitted taking in £75 million in illegal donations! But even worse it has just been revealed that the CDU members on the all-party parliamentary investigation into the sleaze have been meeting with Kohl just prior to his appearances before the investigation. They were not sharing cookery recipes.
Whilst not every CDU member is a criminal, by far, the fact remains that the party to which they have allegiance, and to which they are not trying to reform, actively discriminates against the newer minority religions. In the early 1930s the Nazis stated that Judaism was not a religion but purely a commercial enterprise. They stated that the Jews were plotting to overthrow the democratic process, that Judaism was bent on world denomination and so on. It is no coincidence that this is the exact argument used by the CDU to justify their sectarianism against my religion and incidentally I believe it is the exact argument used by Dialog Centrum in Aarhus against my religion and I believe that you too share this argument.
I notice that you do not deny that Dialogue Ireland/Centre is/was in contact with the Foreign Affairs section of the German Government, you merely state that Fr. Tierney has no recollection of mentioning it to me. Well to jog his memory, Fr. Tierney mentioned it to me at the Dialogue Conference in Clonliffe. It was the time when you refused me entry (despite it being a public conference) but changed your mind (because it was getting embarrassing?). I was having a cup of tea and talking with Fr. Louis Hughes when I got into conversation with Fr. Tierney. He told me about the contacts with the Gerrnan Foreign Affairs section. Your claims that I imagined it are of course the usual propaganda that emanate from Dialogue Ireland.
Ger, I have responded to this already in my response to your leaflet.
12 - I do not have the document to hand where you accuse me of being in Grangegorman. As you know some of our correspondence is a part of the court case that we are both involved in.
Ger, I am not aware of being involved in any court case with you at the moment. If you can't produce the document I suggest you retract the statement about Grangegorman.
13 - As regards your claims vis-à-vis targeting vulnerable people, in the Evening Herald of 12.6.1997 you stated and I quote: "The Scientologists don't brainwash their members, but they target people who are at crisis point in their lives.". I do not need to elaborate what the above means. It is of course an absolute lie.
You are correct in implying that a person must be at the awareness level of "need of change", at least, in order to become interested in my religion. However the "at least" is very important, if a person is higher on the awareness level than "need of change" so much the better. Higher levels than "need of change" including "hope", "help", "perception", "understanding" and so on. Perhaps you were "in need of change" when you were born again in Christ?
Ger, perhaps you could list for me the steps on the dissemination drill please.
15 - Your claims about Narconon and Criminon are quite untrue as you well know. Both of these organisations have helped thousands of individuals to lead a better life. I have already sent you documented evidence of, for example, the efficacy of Narconon (the study done by the Research Centre for Chronic Pain and Dependency Disorders) which was not carried out by Scientologists.
You claim that the methods of the above groups are inadequate, presumably you have documented evidence of this?
I find it quite disgusting that in order to denigrate my religion you appear willing to cast aspersions on groups that are doing very effective work in the most challenging of areas for individuals who really need assistance. Is there no end to the depths to which you are willing to plunge?
Ger, I have not received this document from you. In fact all I recall getting was a photocopied document from a Scientology magazine about such a document. My repeated requests for independent scientific evaluation of this program have up to now produced no results. Also when I was trying to get Brian Wilson's claim to be a religion, I had to contact East Grinstead directly myself because of your inability to produce the goods in Dublin.
I have asked Professor Michael Gibney from Trinity College Dublin to evaluate the Purification Rundown which seems to be a core element in the Criminon program.
16 - The reason I mention the drugs cartel being operated by Mennonites is that if it were, for example, the Mormons operating a drugs cartel, I believe that the newspapers would be full of stories of "evil Mormons" courtesy of your good self. I also believe that you would use this story in your efforts to indoctrinate impressionable schoolchildren on your visits to schools. For example how many times in the media have you regaled the readers/listeners with the story of the Scientologists who were jailed in the 1970s? Many, many times have you tried to tar all Scientologists with the same brush.
Ger, I think I answered that point in my response to your leaflet and also above.
17 - Any Scientologist breaking the law is most certainly not "acting in the line of duty" and your claim to the contrary is your usual propaganda. It the clear policy in our Church to obey the law of the land.
Ger, has Mr Delemare been expelled from your church or as a staff member? Do you regard his actions as being lawful?
18 - have never, ever referred to anybody as "raw meat". In the millions of words Hubbard has written he refers to "raw meat" a few times in a humorous manner. There is quite a lot of humorous slang in Scientology as there is in any technical subject.
Ger, you fail to comment on the term "Wog" and Scientology words derived from it like the "Wogworld", "Wogdom" and "Woggy". Do I take it from your comment above that you have read the entirety of Ron's millions of written words? Otherwise how could you possibly know that he only refers to "Raw meat" a few times?
19 - It is quite untrue that all the writings of Hubbard are regarded as scripture. All the spiritual writings of Hubbard are regarded as scripture. However just because they are scripture does not mean that the writings are followed or practised. There are many, many writings of Hubbard on the subject of spirituality that are no longer practised in Scientology (if they ever were). This is quite typical in all religions. For example there are some rather dubious references to women and Jews in the Bible, but such attitudes are not practised in "mainstream" Christianity any longer. But that does not make them any less a part of the Christian scripture. Perspective, perspective, perspective, you might look at the broader picture once in a while.
Ger, could you illustrate some sample aspects of Scientology scripture which are now regarded as old and which no longer apply? Could you also quote standard source policy on this rather than your own personal opinion please?
20 - You claim that I do not "allow" you to hold a different view of Scientology! This is quite preposterous, you have been "allowed" to hate Scientology for decades!
Ger, of course I meant this in the sense of your not being happy with me holding a different view. I think it is called "granting beingness". Please stop making these absolute statements which have no bearing with my beliefs. The concept of hate does not arise in my thinking about any belief system.
21 - Your last paragraph had me virtually in tears of laughter. You are a funny man. At the start of the letter you threaten me with legal action and then at the end of the letter you state that you are not threatening me! I think you should read over your letters before you post them.
Ger, I think we have covered the legal background above. You only need to feel threatened if you continue to libel me.
22 - The supreme irony is that for decades Dialogue Ireland/Centre has attacked minority religions in Ireland with virtual impunity. To this end your group have had a compliant media and tremendous contacts in the schools and clergy. Your group had a fairly free run to promote your agenda of spreading propaganda against minority religions. Now when there is one leaflet giving an alternative viewpoint, written by one person being distributed with minimal resources you are in a total lather. I get threatening letters to put me on the Internet, veiled and not so veiled threats of legal action against me and so on.
What will it be like when I get a chance to do the other leaflets? Can you imagine what it will be like when I reveal the names of certain individuals who allegedly received £200 each to "exit counsel" a person for a day! A nice little earner you may agree. And there is much more, perhaps.
Ger, this is dealt with in the response to your leaflet. As you can imagine I am breaking out in sweat at the thought of your next leaflet. Concerning my fees, a very simple rule of thumb is that I charge £20 an hour up to a maximum of £100 a day for my services excluding meal times. Your source is misinformed as to my charges. Perhaps you could let me know what you charge per hour is for your architectural services?
23 - For the record I am always willing to dialogue with anybody, friend or foe, about my religion, at any reasonable time. With you, I prefer to dialogue via the written word because I do not trust you an inch. You have betrayed me before and I am a fool rarely more than once. I recall an interview I had with a journalist some time ago (last year) on the subject of my religion. I spoke to the journalist for a couple of hours. The journalist was surprised by my willingness to discuss any aspect of Scientology, controversial or otherwise. The journalist told me that you had told him that Scientologists would not be interested in talking to him. It gave him pause for thought. I think that he then called into question other information you may have given him.
As Ron said, "On the day on which we can fully trust one another there will be peace on earth" ... Trust, trust, trust. I'll meet you at any time. Can I suggest the Hare Krishna's as the mediators. Concerning the journalist you mentioned, the issue is not whether you would be willing to talk to them, after all there is not enough paper to carry the words, but rather obviously if I give them your telephone number it goes without saying that you will talk to them. However again I can't deal with non-specific claims about non-specific journalists.
24 - I truly hope that one day we can all chose our own spiritual path, without the constant threat of denigration of that path, without the constant threat of dealing with propaganda on how "bad" that spiritual path is. Your spiritual path has value, I believe my spiritual path has value, and I believe that all spiritual paths have value. There is, according to opinion, "relative" value but so what! I rejoice that there is variety in religious traditions. I rejoice that there is variety in race, culture, ethnicity and custom. I may not agree with some of the traditions, but I have no interest in denigrating those traditions I disagree with. I do not want to tell schoolchildren how "bad" these traditions are. I do not want to circulate press releases attacking these minorities and I regret to say that I suspect the motives of those who do.
I may of course be incorrect in all of this. Is that a possibility that you will entertain?
I am open to evidence which is the principle of verification which means that I can be wrong on specific issues that we are dealing with. Hopefully this dialogue is the way to find out which issues I am wrong on and which issues you are wrong on.