° Introduction to the Correspondence
5th April 2000
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").
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 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 that 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.
Could you provide the evidence that I said you were in Grangegorman as I don't recall saying 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 public on 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 along 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".
To comment on your 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.
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 ourselves and help make this a better planet.
You mention that you are busy with your Architecture. I must say that I have spoken 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 drugs cartels and of course the reason you mention that is to attempt to discredit me. I could go on about various Scientolgy 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.
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?
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.
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 wont wash with me as I feel exterior to and, to that degree, cause over the phenomena of suppression. I wont let anyone cut my reach.
By the way I heard on the grapevine that you recently got married. I want to congratulate you on that.