° Introduction to the Correspondence
24 May 2000
Thank you for your letter of 14/5/00 in reply to my letter of 5/4/00. I also wrote to you because you have continued to send out that document of yours regarding our organisation while we are involved in discussions about it. Both this letter and the previous letter do not reply to the serious charges that you are in clear contradiction to Scientology’s beliefs. I have quoted extensively to show this, but you just ignore these points. To illustrate this I am going to highlight the sections of your letter I am referring to. It is strange that you are surprised that over the years DI have desisted from any correspondence with you. We found your letters abusive and did not want to have any thing to do with anyone who would dialogue in such a manner. Now having taken legal advice, we have decided to await the Court’s judgement in relation to the Mary Johnston case before reviewing our position. In the meantime we proposing to put this correspondence on our Web-page and let the public decide as to the merits of the views of DI and the SO. We have completed a copy of our response to your document and are sure Graeme Wilson, your counter part in OSA, (The Office of Special Affairs), in the UK would have sent you a preview copy we sent him. We did this because we had his email address and to request the Web-site for your organisation, as we want to include it as part of our Scientology site, but unfortunately he declined to reply. We intend to review it further before making a hard copy to send out and before displaying it on our web-site. Whereas, we could ignore personal abuse and letters sent to Christian leaders. However, by entering the public arena, with primitive anti-Christian tracts and this first instalment of your DI series we could not stand idly by taking our silence as acceptance of your gross distortions. We could not leave your material unchallenged! Hence our belated response.
Most of the smoke and mirrors you refer to are the issues you preferred not to answer.
Many thanks for your letter of 28th February. I find it highly ironic however that your opening paragraphs refer to my "vague claims" and "typical innuendo" when in fact those very statements are themselves gross generalisations and totally unspecific. These are attempts to dismiss my entire letter in one fell swoop. As Ron says "The Criminal accuses others of things which he himself is doing" (HCOB 15th September 1981, "The Criminal Mind").
You go on to query my assertion that you are waging a Black PR campaign against me and request specifics of untrue claims you have made about me. First of all lets clear up the definition of "Black PR". "’Black Propaganda’ (Black = bad or derogatory, Propaganda = pushing out statements or ideas) is the term used to destroy reputation or public belief in persons, companies or nations." (HCOPL 21 November 1972, "How to handle Black Propaganda").
Again you are back to these generalised comments about a propaganda campaign etc. You seem to be unable to accept difference. Anyone who differs from you is into propaganda, where as your material is just information.
Per this definition it is quite clear to me that you are waging a Black PR campaign against me.
However as you asked me to cite instances of untrue claims you made against me I will provide you with two examples:
You said that Fr Fortune was a colleague of mine and you used to send me newspaper clippings about his alleged crimes against children, an attempt at guilt by association. The reality was that the three of us appeared on a panel as three separate individuals.
Again in your response you distort the concept of association to the point of meaninglessness. Before that night we both appeared on a radio programme I had never seen or heard of Fr Fortune. I totally dispute that I have visceral antipathy (again you tell me what I believe), to the newer religions. You totally twist the English language in linking me professionally to Fr Fortune, and this is another clear indication of black propaganda. What evidence do you have of his lectures? You then connect me again in the negative, " I never suggested that you had the same predilections... I presume that you do not, unless I have evidence to the contrary." Here again is the use of innuendo? Whatever, about architects, I had nothing in common with Fr Fortune, whether it was his views on NRMs or on any issue for that matter.
You may remember that you accused me that as an effect of my counselling Sean Flavin, I think his name was, struck his daughter where as the fact was that I was not in any way responsible for that.
You state that you never suggested I encouraged violence, and then spend the rest of the paragraph insinuates it. Let me state for the last time I never encouraged anyone to harm you! You further go on to make claims that are generalised, an associate of Dialogue Ireland ..threatened your life. > Who is the associate, when did he do it and what happened? I think you are referring to a debate at UCD where a family friend of someone in your church lost the head and had a go at you. What has that got to do with me? He certainly has nothing to do with Dialogue Ireland. I understood his feelings, which I agree with, but totally disagree with his views on the occasion. My memory is, he apologised! You continue this line of argument further suggesting that I am inciting violence.
You refer to CDU’s criminal behaviour saying that they were pointing the finger of accusation at your church for years whilst being "up to their necks in criminal behaviour all that time". Once again this usage of sweeping generalisations bothers me. Sure there was criminal behaviour but that was certain individuals, not the whole organisation. Furthermore, the use of the phrase "All that time" (which you had underlined too) – are you quite sure of that? My attitude would be those specific individuals at set times behaved in a criminal manner but surely not the whole organisation all of the time? I don’t believe in altering to worsen communication, I want to call a spade a spade. Let’s keep things accurate and avoid these generalisations.
Of course the whole matter of the CDU is entirely irrelevant to our correspondence and is merely a covert way of insinuating some link to me.
Your attempts to link DI with the CDU are extraordinary, especially with someone who is an ANC member.
Fr Martin denies any comment about co-operating with the German government, you have a fertile imagination.
Could you provide the evidence that I said you were in Grangegorman as I don’t recall saying this.
You have supplied no evidence of this?
I never said that Ron Hubbard said that it was policy of the Church of Scientology to target the vulnerable. On the contrary he said that Scientology is there to make the able more able.
To be fair though it is standard policy to ruin a member of the public in an area of life in order to sell services. A person with lots of ruins in life might be considered more vulnerable by comparison with someone who is flying a long in life firing on all cylinders. Scientology will try to sell services to both but with the former, one can imagine that they will be more easily able to convince the individual that they have a problem that needs to be sorted out. They will be able to get this guy up to "need of change" on the awareness scale more quickly most likely than the more successful person who doesn’t feel like there is something ruining his life which needs changing but who just "gets on with it". To this degree the more vulnerable are targeted. It is my own personal observation that this seems to be what happens in practice. Are you telling me that I can’t have my own observations?
You refer to having access to numerous taped radio shows featuring Dialogue, newsletters, reports etc. You go on to claim that Dialogue has caused considerable misery to families that you know of and that Dialogue has disseminated a considerable amount of lies over the years. Well Ger, you make all of these claims, how was it you put it, "all blissfully unencumbered by anything like evidence or specifics of any kind".
As regards to specifics we will have to wait.. how long does it take to look up a file?
To comment on you’re question regarding what constructive activities Dialogue is involved in, I can say that Dialogue holds seminars on New Religious Movements every year. I go in to schools and talk to the children and encourage respect for others and at all times I emphasise not to kick the player but the ball.
You keep talking about impressionable children and indoctrination, no we are involved generally with 6 years who are adults and well tuned into what education is about.
However you then try to compare Dialogue Ireland to the activities of the entire worldwide community of Scientologists, hardly a fair comparison I would have thought, but one which is in keeping with the rest of your letter I am sorry to have to say. Of course there are many Christian charity organisations from Trocaire to Concern and so on which exist to help those less fortunate than us and help make this a better planet.
I am not aware that I said, in my letter that I saw positive aspects in Narcanon and Criminon. In 1966, LRH wrote, "Remember, CHURCHES ARE LOOKED UPON AS REFORM GROUPS. Therefore we must act like a reform group. "Since then, tens of front groups have come into being, some to enhance the public repute of Scientology, others to recruit new members. I do not believe that Criminon and Narcanon are purely separate organisations dedicated to prisoners and drug rehabilitation, I in fact see them as Scientology with another name. This has nothing to do with whether LRH formed them or not. When people become aware of the close association of Narconon to Scientology or when they see the inadequacy of the methods they employ, they withdraw support. I see no evidence to change my mind so far. I am fully aware that the ordinary member, rather than staff for the betterment of humanity perform the activities of these organisations. I am also aware that most of the people who benefit from these groups can’t take part in Scientology courses! I am open to reading any independent study not produced by a Scientologist to be more fully informed about this. The point I was making was that you were not comparing like with like.
You mention that you are busy with your Architecture. I must say that I en to some of the people you have worked with in the past and by all accounts you are an excellent Architect.
You mentioned about Mennonites being linked with drug cartels and of course the reason you mention that is to attempt to discredit me. I could go on about various Scientology convictions. For example five former senior officials of the Church of Scientology in Southern France were convicted of Fraud on 15th November 1999. Xavier Delamare, leader in the South of France received a jail sentence of two years with 18 months suspended and a fine of £10,000. Four others received lesser-suspended sentences (source: The Times November 16, 1999). Now the difference between you and I is that I recognise that Ger Ryan is a different person to Xavier Delamare. Just because a senior member of the Church of Scientology is now a convicted criminal does not adversely reflect on yourself. I can distinguish between things, I can see similarities and differences. Everything is not the same as everything else you know. I won’t tar you with the same brush as a band of criminals. I would appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy.
You continue to use a five year old newspaper article to link me to the activities of ex-Mennonites, as if they were going on today. What you fail to address is the relevant point that your co-religionists in France were sentenced for acting in the line of duty, rather than on their own bat. You don’t answer it with one word.
Out of interest I presume your use of the term "Proslytising" was unintentional because of course in modern usage it conveys a sense of negative recruitment, where as evangelism conveys a sense of open dialogue and conversion through choice.
You mention that Dialogue should engage in real, tolerant, respectful dialogue whilst only in the previous paragraph you refer to "Dialogue Ireland’s minions". Scientology is littered with references to "wogs" (non-Scientologists) and "raw meat" (prospective new recruits) and at the same time you have the cheek to refer in your most recent leaflet to the "Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act". Don’t you think this is a bit rich?
Again you did not answer this charge, especially as nearly every letter mentions, The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act. Do you in fact refer to people as Wogs and raw meat in your literature? Please a simple yes or no answer.
In any event is it even possible to dialogue with Scientologists if you presuppose that yours is the only viewpoint that holds water? You seem compelled to persuade me that I am wrong where as I am happy for you to believe whatever you want to believe. I feel that you are making all this very personal.
You miss the point again, obviously you have friends who are not scientologists, but in your dialogue with me , you do not allow me to hold a different view of scientology, because you can’t. All of the writings of LR Hubbard are treated as scripture. Is that not the case?
I want you to duplicate everything I have said here. In summary you will appreciate that I feel that your letter is laden with sweeping generalisations, hostile and critical remarks, with communications altered to appear worse than they are. This attempt at scare mongering and depicting a dangerous environment won’t wash with me as I feel exterior to and, to that degree, cause over the phenomena of suppression. I won’t let anyone cut my reach.
In 1995/6 I decided on legal action. Now, as I wrote earlier, we are going a different route. I have not talked to you since I gave you a lift from Malahide some years ago, so where these "continual" threats are coming from I do not know. Also I now would not be inclined to appear on a Radio or TV programme with you, unless it had a professional like Gay Byrne covering it. You say that you would apologise if your views were found wanting. What do you think my last two letters were offering you. You evaded the issues as far as I am concerned. We should reform ourselves, and then you will talk to us. If you continue with the kind of articles you have contributed, you will continue on the path that scientology in Ireland is on, namely falling interest, declining vocations and a dispirited membership. Soon you will not be able to pay the rent or staff your offices. The world will end not with a bang , but with a whimper. Hopefully you will take off the mask and really enter dialogue without this heavy agenda of black propaganda.
By the way I heard on the grapevine that you recently got married. I want to congratulate you on that.
Again best wishes,