A question for Dorsai
I.S.Rennie
florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement because I
have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have any such
figures? It would be a great help if you did.
Thanks,
Ian
dors...@my-deja.com
Ian,
The base statistics, such as number of churches etc are contained in
What is Scientology (WIS, for short). Adherents of scientology, do
well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives and of
course,... this would apply to individual regions cumulatively. By my
own observation and communication with other scientologists, they are
flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
individuals. This isn't to say that EVERY scientologist is ALWAYS
winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most groups.
As for your "sitting in judgement" of us, well, it presupposes that you
have an ability to observe and that's REALLY taking a "leap of faith",
considering past posts and the forum itself.
But I'm always willing to try and answer questions, so...
Dorsai666
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Chris Leithiser
>
> In article <3A06E7A9...@sheffield.ac.uk>,
> "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Dorsai, you have claimed on several occasions that Scientology is
> > florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement
> because I
> > have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have any such
> > figures? It would be a great help if you did.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ian
>
> Ian,
>
> The base statistics, such as number of churches etc are contained in
> What is Scientology (WIS, for short).
Then it should be child's play for you to cite them, with supporting
data.
Go ahead, play for us, Danno.
> Adherents of scientology, do
> well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives and of
> course,... this would apply to individual regions cumulatively. By my
> own observation and communication with other scientologists, they are
> flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
> individuals. This isn't to say that EVERY scientologist is ALWAYS
> winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most groups.
All 75,000 of you? I doubt that. Did you know that more than half of
all $cientologists are below average?
> As for your "sitting in judgement" of us, well, it presupposes that you
> have an ability to observe and that's REALLY taking a "leap of faith",
> considering past posts and the forum itself.
>
> But I'm always willing to try and answer questions, so...
>
So, why did Ron lie about how many medals he got in WWII.
It's well established that he _did_ lie.
But _why_ did he lie, when it's so easy to check? That's the question.
Was it just contempt for his followers, or what?
Starshadow
call him Dan Number One. He's the one that's trying to make Dan look like a
reasonable and thinking human being, while at the same time ignoring the
actual question that was asked.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow (SP4, KoX) (Yes, I have an @home account now. )
(stars...@starshadow.net still works)
"Feminism--the radical notion that women are people, too"
<dors...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8u6vlh$nhp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A06E7A9...@sheffield.ac.uk>,
> "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Dorsai, you have claimed on several occasions that Scientology is
> > florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement
> because I
> > have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have any such
> > figures? It would be a great help if you did.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ian
>
> Ian,
>
> The base statistics, such as number of churches etc are contained in
> What is Scientology (WIS, for short). Adherents of scientology, do
> well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives and of
> course,... this would apply to individual regions cumulatively. By my
> own observation and communication with other scientologists, they are
> flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
> individuals. This isn't to say that EVERY scientologist is ALWAYS
> winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most groups.
>
> As for your "sitting in judgement" of us, well, it presupposes that you
> have an ability to observe and that's REALLY taking a "leap of faith",
> considering past posts and the forum itself.
>
> But I'm always willing to try and answer questions, so...
>
I.S.Rennie
> In article <3A06E7A9...@sheffield.ac.uk>,
> "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Dorsai, you have claimed on several occasions that Scientology is
> > florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement
> because I
> > have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have any such
> > figures? It would be a great help if you did.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ian
> Ian,
>
> The base statistics, such as number of churches etc are contained in
> What is Scientology (WIS, for short).
although the latest edition of WIS that I saw (in the library of the
University of York, although it is a couple of years out of date) had
figures for the number of churches, it did not have verifiable
membership figures. Can you cast any light on this?
> Adherents of scientology, do
> well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives and of
> course,... this would apply to individual regions cumulatively. By my
> own observation and communication with other scientologists, they are
> flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
> individuals. This isn't to say that EVERY scientologist is ALWAYS
> winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most groups.
this fails to answer my question. Do you have any statistics on
membership of the Church?
> As for your "sitting in judgement" of us, well, it presupposes that you
> have an ability to observe and that's REALLY taking a "leap of faith",
> considering past posts and the forum itself.
where do I mention sitting in judgement?
what I said was that I couldn't comment on your allegation that
'scientology is flourishing' because I have no figures. You have failed
to provide me with any figures. Could you please back up your claim?
> But I'm always willing to try and answer questions, so...
unfortunately you didn't answer this one with any verifiable
information. Do you have any verifiable information about membership of
the Church of Scientology?
Beverly Rice
> > Dorsai, you have claimed on several occasions that Scientology is
> > florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement
> because I
> > have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have any such
> > figures? It would be a great help if you did.
> The base statistics, such as number of churches etc are contained in
> What is Scientology (WIS, for short). Adherents of scientology, do
> well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives and of
> course,... this would apply to individual regions cumulatively. By my
> own observation and communication with other scientologists, they are
> flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
> individuals. This isn't to say that EVERY scientologist is ALWAYS
> winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most groups.
Ah, yet another non-answer by the non-confront Hubbardite.
Dan, Co$ claims 8,000,000 members, actually, latest it is
claiming 10,000,000, but for simplicity sake we'll stick
with the original lie of 8,000,000.
Now ~IF~ Co$ had 2,000 orgs, which is doesn't, that would
be 4,000 members per org.
I understand that Toronto org is supposedly one of the more
~upstat~ and larger orgs . . .
but where are your 4,000 members of the Toronto org? You
must hide them very well.
Unless, of course, Body Thetans count as members too, seeing
as to how members all have thousands of them per individual.
Gee, Dan, that means even ~you~ could be a church unto your
self.
ARC for Co$ fullapoop,
Beverly
Mark Styles
> "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>> University of York, although it is a couple of years out of date) had
>> figures for the number of churches, it did not have verifiable
>> membership figures. Can you cast any light on this?
>
>management official and thus the figures are not at my disposal.
Hang on, you said the figures are in the latest edition of WIS. Do you
not have a copy? Can't you just flick to the relevant page and give us
a number?
>What possible "help" are numbers of members to you at any
>rate...they're meaningless, unless you ARE managing, which you aren't.
Well, if you said 20,000, I'd wonder what all the fuss is about and
forget about your sorry little cult, but if numbers like 8 million are
bandied around, then I have to be a little more concerned.
>> this fails to answer my question. Do you have any statistics on
>> membership of the Church?
>
>As above, I do not. I am not church management.
But you said they are in the latest edition of WIS...
Zinj
says...
>
>On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 01:36:08 GMT, dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>Isn't what? For your information, it was the LARGEST increase in IAS
>>memberships and were HIGHEST EVER, THIS YEAR. Keep up the
>>generalities, they're so predictable (and inaccurate)...
>>
>>
>
>You're talking about generalities, Dan? Are you saying that "...it
>was the LARGEST increase in IAS memberships and were HIGHEST EVER,
>THIS YEAR." isn't a generality? (Not to mention that it doesn't make
>sense as a sentence).
>
>Tell me the truth. You really do work for the psychs and bankers
>don't you? I don't believe that anyone could talk out of both sides
>of their mouths at one time like that if they didn't have some kind
>of motive to do so. It can't be unintentional...
>
>James
>
One of the most important sacraments in Scientology® is 'Fudging the Stats'.
It's what keeps the upstat out of ethics trouble, it's what keeps Scientology
the 'fastest growing religious movement', it's what pays for Superpower, it's
what is the single most obvious proof of the intellectual damage caused by
Hubbardism.
They *believe* their fudged stats.
Zinj
Qbpbdqpd
LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk says...
> dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <3A06E7A9...@sheffield.ac.uk>,
> > "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Dorsai, you have claimed on several occasions that Scientology is
> > > florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement
> > > because I
> > > have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have any such
> > > figures? It would be a great help if you did.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Ian
The official Scientology response from Dan Bryenton is:
> > Ian,
> >
> > By my
> > own observation and communication with other scientologists, they are
> > flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
> > individuals.
But the membership isn't, otherwise you would have said so. I'm
not surprised that people would stay away from an organization
whose policies and "scriptures" support the mental and physical
slaughter of it's own members.
I have read the entire texts for all the OT levels. I challenge
you to produce one person who has gone beyond OT1 and hasn't gone
insane.
Qddpbpdq
--
"I was advised by Richard Aznaran, Sinar Parman and Annie
Breeder that Hubbard was an unhandled PTS III when he died.
According to Sinar Parman, Hubbard was a psychopathic insane
person screaming about BT's and clusters at the top of his
lungs."
Mike O'Connor
> But I'm always willing to try and answer questions, so...
So find out and tell us how many members are in the IAS. Thanks.
dors...@my-deja.com
Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
> dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <3A06E7A9...@sheffield.ac.uk>,
> > "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Dorsai, you have claimed on several occasions that Scientology is
> > > florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement
> > because I
> > > have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have any
such
> > > figures? It would be a great help if you did.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Ian
> >
> >
> > The base statistics, such as number of churches etc are contained in
> > What is Scientology (WIS, for short).
>
> data.
>
> Go ahead, play for us, Danno.
>
> > well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives and
of
my
> > own observation and communication with other scientologists, they
are
> > flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
> > winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most
groups.
>
> all $cientologists are below average?
>
you
> > have an ability to observe and that's REALLY taking a "leap of
faith",
> > considering past posts and the forum itself.
> >
> >
>
> It's well established that he _did_ lie.
>
> But _why_ did he lie, when it's so easy to check? That's the
question.
> Was it just contempt for his followers, or what?
Chris,
Do your homework. On WHAT do you base the statement that we're below
average? Below average in what? You guys are always stating that
services cost exhorbitant amounts of money and now that you believe
that, you about face and say that isn't "abover average? well, which
is it...do we make too much or too little. Generalities aside, you CAN
decide on SOMETHING, can't you?
Let's just say for a moment that you WERE right (membership at 75,000)
and the number was that low (it isn't, but let's say it is for a
moment),.. I guess that sort of "blows" your theory of
scientologists "not doing better than average" in life...a group this
small - with THAT much impact on the political scene? Are you
beginning to see any point to where this is leading...
LRH was there. He was an officer, in a war he hated. YOU say (and I
have been to the documents site and thus know how generalities are used
to degrade his ACTUAL accomplishments) he was not awarded these medals.
He said that he did. Let's see, I should believe a bigot, who relies
on a third party "interpretation" of documents, instead of what I know
about the man...right.
Why don't you look up the MKULTRA program. Who do you think exposed it
back in the 50's, the CIA? Perhaps Psychiatry? Let me clue you
in...it was us. If you can be "vanished" for real, a few documents are
a piece of cake...when you have access. But perhaps thats a stretch
for you and a little too much reality for one sitting...look it up and
see who broke the story.
Until then youngster, have fun...
dors...@my-deja.com
"I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <3A06E7A9...@sheffield.ac.uk>,
> > "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Dorsai, you have claimed on several occasions that Scientology is
> > > florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement
> > because I
> > > have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have any
such
> > > figures? It would be a great help if you did.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Ian
> > Ian,
> >
> > The base statistics, such as number of churches etc are contained in
> > What is Scientology (WIS, for short).
>
> University of York, although it is a couple of years out of date) had
> figures for the number of churches, it did not have verifiable
> membership figures. Can you cast any light on this?
Get the new edition. As I've told others previously, I am not a
management official and thus the figures are not at my disposal. I can
say that those who had purchased a book and/or done a minor/major
service locally, were in the tens of thousands...back in the 70's when
I WAS on staff. Thats over twenty five years ago.
What possible "help" are numbers of members to you at any
rate...they're meaningless, unless you ARE managing, which you aren't.
>
> > Adherents of scientology, do
> > well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives and
of
> > course,... this would apply to individual regions cumulatively. By
my
> > own observation and communication with other scientologists, they
are
> > flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
> > individuals. This isn't to say that EVERY scientologist is ALWAYS
> > winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most
groups.
>
> this fails to answer my question. Do you have any statistics on
> membership of the Church?
As above, I do not. I am not church management.
>
> > As for your "sitting in judgement" of us, well, it presupposes that
you
> > have an ability to observe and that's REALLY taking a "leap of
faith",
> > considering past posts and the forum itself.
>
> where do I mention sitting in judgement?
Then I mis-stated your purpose for this information?
>
> what I said was that I couldn't comment on your allegation that
> 'scientology is flourishing' because I have no figures. You have
failed
> to provide me with any figures. Could you please back up your claim?
Allege? Speaking to other people who are participants in scientology,
in addition to my own personal successes are adequate, for me. I have
provided you with a source for information. I
>
> > But I'm always willing to try and answer questions, so...
>
> unfortunately you didn't answer this one with any verifiable
> information. Do you have any verifiable information about membership
of
> the Church of Scientology?
Verifiable? Are you doing a census or something? Become a member and
find out for yourself (I mean that nicely). If you're in agreement
with our goals, it's not too difficult...
dors...@my-deja.com
Isn't what? For your information, it was the LARGEST increase in IAS
memberships and were HIGHEST EVER, THIS YEAR. Keep up the
generalities, they're so predictable (and inaccurate)...
>
> I have read the entire texts for all the OT levels. I challenge
> you to produce one person who has gone beyond OT1 and hasn't gone
> insane.
>
> Qddpbpdq
> --
Quoting individuals who tried to sue the church to line their own
pockets, isn't exactly a new tactic for you fella's, but it is a
predictable one...
dors...@my-deja.com
Beverly Rice <dbj...@ao.net> wrote:
> dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Dorsai, you have claimed on several occasions that Scientology is
> > > florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement
> > because I
> > > have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have any
such
> > > figures? It would be a great help if you did.
>
> > well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives and
of
my
> > own observation and communication with other scientologists, they
are
> > flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
> > winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most
groups.
>
>
> Dan, Co$ claims 8,000,000 members, actually, latest it is
> claiming 10,000,000, but for simplicity sake we'll stick
> with the original lie of 8,000,000.
>
> Now ~IF~ Co$ had 2,000 orgs, which is doesn't, that would
> be 4,000 members per org.
>
> I understand that Toronto org is supposedly one of the more
> ~upstat~ and larger orgs . . .
>
> but where are your 4,000 members of the Toronto org? You
> must hide them very well.
>
> Unless, of course, Body Thetans count as members too, seeing
> as to how members all have thousands of them per individual.
>
> Gee, Dan, that means even ~you~ could be a church unto your
> self.
>
> ARC for Co$ fullapoop,
>
> Beverly
Beverly,
An answer was given...but it's not the answer you and others were
looking for, sorry...(smile)
I'd love to oblige you with the actual figure but let me state that
when I was on staff...it was in the tens of thousands, in the mid-70's.
Several hundred participate days, evenings and weekends...many have
their own practices and still more have moved on to higher orgs and Sea
Org staff facilities. One thought for you though, how many catholics
are actually church-going at any one time...in any parish?
Ask your friends when they were last "at church" and how many were
there, and perhaps you and the others can gain some insight on why "I"
don't carry those figures around in my pocket...it makes not ONE shred
of difference - to those who ARE participating.
dors...@my-deja.com
I WILL say that it was the highest ever this year...as for the exact
count, you'll have to do that on your own...
Devoid
<dors...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8u7mt3$cr4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
AH Yeah sure. So you tally every Dmsmh sale in
central files, and there 8 million, simple.
Dan are you really trying to tell people
Canadian orgs are growing?
By growing I mean the vfps of dept.
and divs.are long term uptrending, and
the vfps of orgs are being met .
Devoid
DeoMorto
>>Get the new edition. As I've told others previously, I am not a
management official and thus the figures are not at my disposal
If you were a member of the Mormon Church the figures of that organzation would
be at your disposal - don't you think it a tad strange that, as a fully fledged
member of the cofs , they are not at yours?
>> I can
say that those who had purchased a book and/or done a minor/major
service locally, were in the tens of thousands...back in the 70's when
I WAS on staff. Thats over twenty five years ago.>>
whoa hold it sunbeam. Presumably you were on staff at Toronto Org "back in the
seventies" - so you are aware of the "Toronto Method" of bookselling? The one
that basically asks people to donate to an organization that supports drug
rehabilitation? (If memory serves). So, I wouldn't dispute your thousands - but
I would question you tagging those people as "members".
>>What possible "help" are numbers of members to you at any
rate...they're meaningless, unless you ARE managing, which you aren't.<
Oh they are very meaningful Dan - because publishing them would actually enable
scientologists to judge management on how they are doing.
The one thing that International management fears above else.
Why are you not interested in being a responsible manager of your own
organization?
The only organizationa I know of that insist that its members not know anything
(apart from the cofs of course) would be the Communist Party and the Nazi
party. Which does put you in spectacular company.
ars:- perhaps the most malignant newsgroup on Usenet.!
DeoMorto
>
>I WILL say that it was the highest ever this year...as for the exact
>count, you'll have to do that on your own...
wow - 65,000. Jeez what a breakthrough. five thousand more and you would match
one promise keepers convention.
DeoMorto
>have been to the documents site and thus know how generalities are used
>to degrade his ACTUAL accomplishments) he was not awarded these medals.
>He said that he did.
well actually its not Chris that says he didn't earn the medals - it is the US
Navy that says he didn't. And as they are the last word on who is, and is not
entitled to wear what medals and insignia, that sort of blows a hole through
your posting does it not?
Now there is a word for people who claim medals and awards that they have not
earned - its called being an impostor.
What is monumentally surprising to me is why you and members of the CofS insist
on spitting in the faces of the brave men and women who were awarded medals for
their service to the services and the country and did not stoop to claiming
medals they had not earned.
Why is it that the cofs holds US veterans in such contempt that they would
continue to tout something which the US Navy has already stated is incorrect?
Now - what possible good do you think it does for your "church" to do this sort
of thing?
I understand that you are trying to support your "side" as best you can, and,
believe it or not I do appreciate someone sticking up for his or her "side".
The point I am making is why you would continue to make a point that you have
been shown is a lie when, by making it, you are insulting the genuine
awardees?
dors...@my-deja.com
Devo,
Based on the people whom I've talked to at events - yes.
Dorsai666
Mike O'Connor
> In article <mike-4A2940.1...@news.optonline.net>,
> Mike O'Connor <mi...@leptonicsystems.com> wrote:
> > In article <8u6vlh$nhp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, dors...@my-deja.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > > But I'm always willing to try and answer questions, so...
> > So find out and tell us how many members are in the IAS. Thanks.
> I WILL say that it was the highest ever this year...as for the exact
> count, you'll have to do that on your own...
You WON'T tell the number because you are embarrassed by it. OR, you
haven't the foggiest idea of the number. Find and tell us the
number of IAS members.
Devoid
<dors...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8u7sbp$h3f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Look around, Look around.
Devoid
Starshadow
starting to gibber more than Number One generally gibbers, with a lot of
conspiracy talk about documents being stolen in official Navy records.
Still, I think I'll award this to Number Two, the Real Dan Bryenton in spite
of trying to maintain a "reasonable" tone...because he makes the kinds of
typos common to the Real Dan Bryenton.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow (SP4, KoX) (Yes, I have an @home account now. )
(stars...@starshadow.net still works)
"Feminism--the radical notion that women are people, too"
<dors...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8u7lbd$bfa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Starshadow
mistakes and typos, and back to his usual grammatical errors, as well as his
refusal to confront the simple question and answer it, this one beats around
the bush, in effect saying he's afraid to actually have to tabulate numbers
because they might prove him wrong.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow (SP4, KoX) (Yes, I have an @home account now. )
(stars...@starshadow.net still works)
"Feminism--the radical notion that women are people, too"
<dors...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8u7lvm$c0m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Starshadow
errors, and quota of blatant lies.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow (SP4, KoX) (Yes, I have an @home account now. )
(stars...@starshadow.net still works)
"Feminism--the radical notion that women are people, too"
<dors...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8u7ma8$ccb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Starshadow
same answer that is a non answer.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow (SP4, KoX) (Yes, I have an @home account now. )
(stars...@starshadow.net still works)
"Feminism--the radical notion that women are people, too"
<dors...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8u7mt3$cr4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Starshadow
answer.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow (SP4, KoX) (Yes, I have an @home account now. )
(stars...@starshadow.net still works)
"Feminism--the radical notion that women are people, too"
<dors...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8u7sbp$h3f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Starshadow
Notice this one doesn't seem to know that one of them said the answers were
in the latest WIS directory.
You'd think they'd let 'em compare notes at least...
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow (SP4, KoX) (Yes, I have an @home account now. )
(stars...@starshadow.net still works)
"Feminism--the radical notion that women are people, too"
<dors...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8u7mv6$crl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Brent Stone
>dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> > Dorsai, you have claimed on several occasions that Scientology is
>> > florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement
>> because I
>> > have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have any such
>> > figures? It would be a great help if you did.
>
>> The base statistics, such as number of churches etc are contained in
>> What is Scientology (WIS, for short). Adherents of scientology, do
>> well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives and of
>> course,... this would apply to individual regions cumulatively. By my
>> own observation and communication with other scientologists, they are
>> flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
>> individuals. This isn't to say that EVERY scientologist is ALWAYS
>> winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most groups.
>
>Ah, yet another non-answer by the non-confront Hubbardite.
>
>Dan, Co$ claims 8,000,000 members, actually, latest it is
>claiming 10,000,000, but for simplicity sake we'll stick
>with the original lie of 8,000,000.
>
>Now ~IF~ Co$ had 2,000 orgs, which is doesn't, that would
>be 4,000 members per org.
And if it had 128 orgs as it says in the latest version of WIS
(I don't have it, but that number has been posted), there would
need to be an average of 62,500 members per org.
>I understand that Toronto org is supposedly one of the more
>~upstat~ and larger orgs . . .
>
>but where are your 4,000 members of the Toronto org? You
>must hide them very well.
>
>Unless, of course, Body Thetans count as members too, seeing
>as to how members all have thousands of them per individual.
>
>Gee, Dan, that means even ~you~ could be a church unto your
>self.
>
>ARC for Co$ fullapoop,
>
>Beverly
So much for looking at the "base statistics" in WIS.
Yup Bev, fullapoop pretty well describes it.
Brent Stone
Well look at you Dan ... are you one of those "below average" ones?
I can decide what I think about that.
>Let's just say for a moment that you WERE right (membership at 75,000)
>and the number was that low (it isn't, but let's say it is for a
>moment),.. I guess that sort of "blows" your theory of
>scientologists "not doing better than average" in life...a group this
>small - with THAT much impact on the political scene? Are you
>beginning to see any point to where this is leading...
>
>LRH was there. He was an officer, in a war he hated. YOU say (and I
>have been to the documents site and thus know how generalities are used
>to degrade his ACTUAL accomplishments) he was not awarded these medals.
>He said that he did. Let's see, I should believe a bigot, who relies
>on a third party "interpretation" of documents, instead of what I know
>about the man...right.
What "generalities" are you talking about? If you have been to the site
at www.ronthewarhero.org, you have seen copies of the actual government
records of Hubbard's military service. Those documents prove Hubbard's
claims to be lies. You don't have to rely on anyone's "interpretation"
of the documents. Why should you "wonder who to believe" when you can
look at the proof and ~know~ who to believe, unless you didn't want to
know the truth?
If you want to claim that the documents that are webbed might not be true
copies of Hubbard's real war record, you can look at the fact that the
"church" has not sued the author for posting them, which you know they
would do if the documents were forged. If even that doesn't convince
you, you can order the documents directly from the government. I'm sure
someone here can help you with that if you don't know how.
If you don't know that Hubbard lied about his war record, it's only
because you don't want to know. The facts are available and easy to
find.
Brent Stone
So you say it WAS flourishing over twenty five years ago? How about now?
I note that you include anyone who "purchased a book" in your count.
Does that mean that anyone who purchases a book is a "member" in your
eyes? If I purchase a Bible, does that make me a Christian? What if
I purchase a book on Wicca? Would it make me a member forever? Is
Tory a "member"?
I say that including anyone who's purchased a book in your "membership"
count is a lie, and you know it is a lie. In order to do that, you
would have to call me a member.
Back to the original question though. The "church" claims to have
over 8,000,000 members at the present time. In order to show us that
that is not a lie, you pointed us to statistics in WIS, which show
that there are 128 orgs, but show no verifiable membership numbers.
From the numbers in WIS, we can infer that there must be an average
of 62,500 members per org.
Do you believe that number? How does it relate to the number of active
members at the Toronto org?
It is your claim that your "church" is flourishing and "the fastest
growing" religion on earth.
>What possible "help" are numbers of members to you at any
>rate...they're meaningless, unless you ARE managing, which you aren't.
The numbers of members are an advertizing claim made by the "church".
It is important to know if the "church" lies in its public relations
statements.
With all the bad luck you've had repeating claims here, you'd think
you would eventually decide to look at where you are getting your
information, and look into whether or not your information source
lies to you regularly.
One of the more frequent and easiest to prove lies it the number of
members claimed. We've already looked at some other things, like
the extradition treaty with Nigeria, and found them to be lies.
If you think that the membership numbers are only important to people
managing the "church", then why would they be touted in press releases?
Why would they lie about them in press releases?
Obviously, you can't "become a member and find out for yourself" what
the membership numbers are, because you can't get them.
The purpose of asking is to find out if the "church" lies to people.
Anyone concerned with whether or not the "church" is lying to people
would want to know whether they tell the truth about their membership.
I would assume that you would be concerned with finding out if your
"church" is lying to you, too.
Of course, if the "church" is telling the truth in this instance, it
would look great for you to prove that. Since you have just stated that
by becoming a member, you can "find out", go ahead and "find out" for us
and you can prove that the critics are lying. Wouldn't that be great?
- Brent
>Dorsai666
emar...@my-deja.com
dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3A06E7A9...@sheffield.ac.uk>,
> "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Dorsai, you have claimed on several occasions that Scientology is
> > florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement
> because I
> > have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have any
such
> > figures? It would be a great help if you did.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ian
>
> Ian,
>
> The base statistics, such as number of churches etc are contained in
> well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives and of
> course,... this would apply to individual regions cumulatively. By my
> own observation and communication with other scientologists, they are
> flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
> individuals. This isn't to say that EVERY scientologist is ALWAYS
> winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most
groups.
>
you
> have an ability to observe and that's REALLY taking a "leap of faith",
> considering past posts and the forum itself.
>
>
eventually realized it was my own lack of ability on confronting the
subject
©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
In Message-ID: <8u7mv6$crl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
From: dors...@my-deja.com.
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy..
Wrote on the subject: Re: A question for Dorsai:
>In article <mike-4A2940.1...@news.optonline.net>,
> Mike O'Connor <mi...@leptonicsystems.com> wrote:
>> In article <8u6vlh$nhp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> > But I'm always willing to try and answer questions, so...
>>
>> So find out and tell us how many members are in the IAS. Thanks.
>
>I WILL say that it was the highest ever this year...as for the exact
>count, you'll have to do that on your own...
>
>Dorsai666
>>
Hey moron, it's always the highest ever:-)
And you braindead morons belive it too.
Did you sleep better this night?
Problems with peeing?
Yeah well:
Who is Xemu?
I'm going to tell you a story. Are you sitting comfortably? Right, then
I'll begin.
Once upon a time (75 million years ago to be more precise) there was an
alien galactic ruler named Xemu. Xemu was in charge of all the planets
in this part of the galaxy including our own planet Earth, except in
those days it was called Teegeeack.
Now Xemu had a problem. All of the 76 planets he controlled were
over-populated. Each planet had on average 178 billion people. He wanted
to get rid of all the overpopulation so he had a plan.
Xemu took over complete control with the help of renegades to defeat the
good people and the Loyal Officers. Then with the help of psychiatrists
he called in billions of people for income tax inspections where they
were instead given injections of alcohol and glycol mixed to paralyse
them. Then they were put into space planes that looked exactly like DC8s
(except they had rocket motors instead of propellers).
These DC8 space planes then flew to planet Earth where the paralysed
people were stacked around the bases of volcanoes in their hundreds of
billions. When they had finished stacking them around then H-bombs were
lowered into the volcanoes. Xemu then detonated all the H-bombs at the
same time and everyone was killed.
The story doesn't end there though. Since everyone has a soul (called a
"thetan" in this story) then you have to trick souls into not coming
back again. So while the hundreds of billions of souls were being blown
around by the nuclear winds he had special electronic traps that caught
all the souls in electronic beams (the electronic beams were sticky like
fly-paper).
After he had captured all these souls he had them packed into boxes and
taken to a few huge cinemas. There all the souls had to spend days
watching special 3D motion pictures that told them what life should be
like and many confusing things. In this film they were shown false
pictures and told they were God, The Devil and Christ. In the story this
process is called "implanting".
When the films ended and the souls left the cinema these souls started
to stick together because since they had all seen the same film they
thought they were the same people. They clustered in groups of a few
thousand. Now because there were only a few living bodies left they
stayed as clusters and inhabited these bodies.
As for Xemu, the Loyal Officers finally overthrew him and they locked
him away in a mountain on one of the planets. He is kept in by a
force-field powered by an eternal battery and Xemu is still alive today.
That is the end of the story. And so today everyone is full of these
clusters of souls called "body thetans". And if we are to be a free soul
then we have to remove all these "body thetans" and pay lots of money to
do so. And the only reason people believe in God and Christ was because
it was in the film their body thetans saw 75 million years ago.
Well what did you think of that story?
What? You thought it was a stupid story?
Well so do we. Unfortunately this stupid story is the core belief in the
religion known as Scientology.* If people knew about this story then
most people would never get involved in it. This story is told to you
when you reach one of their secret levels called OT III. After that you
are supposed to telepathically communicate with these body thetans to
make them go away. You have to pay a lot of money to get to this level
and do this (or you have to work very hard for the organisation on
extremely low pay for many years).
We are telling you this story as a warning. If you become involved with
Scientology then we would like you to do so with your eyes open and
fully aware of the sort of material it contains.
Most of the Scientologists that work in their Dianetics* centres and so
called "Churches" of Scientology do not know this story since they are
not allowed to hear it until they reach the secret "upper" levels of
Scientology. It may take them many years before they reach this level if
they ever do. The ones who do know it are forced to keep it a secret and
not tell it to those people who are joining Scientology.
Now you have read this you know their big secret. Don't let us put you
off joining though.
* Dianetics and Scientology are trademarks of the Religious Technology
Centre. This document is not connected with that organisation in any
way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the product of L Ron Hubbard's programming:
"We both know you're grasping...so, pretty soon everyone else will
too. I find you amusing little man, your sexual peccadillo's are true
to form for your tone level but perversion is your middle name. Let me
guess - homosexual?"
-Scientologist Dan Bryenton <dors...@my-deja.com>
In Message-ID: <8tpjfu$6o8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
******* Body thetans? We don't need no stinking Body Thetans! *******
*********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ************
IRC #Scientology JavaChat http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/irc.html
* Multimedia: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm *
******** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) ********
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg
>In article <8u6vlh$nhp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> But I'm always willing to try and answer questions, so...
Another Lie Dan.
>>
>> Dorsai666
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
> I tried to understand better scientology and I had grat treouble, but
>eventually realized it was my own lack of ability on confronting the
>subject
>>
emaresca
Try confronting these facts:
Scientology Management does not always tell truth;
Scientology Management has condoned and often conducted illegal,
unethical and immoral activities;
Some Scientology Practices are dangerous to participants health,
either physical or mental or both;
Scientology Management and L.R. Hubbard lied about Hubbards life,
history and accomplishments;
Despite the pseudo-scientific claims of Hubbard no Scientology or
Dianetic process has *ever* been clinically *proven* to work as
claimed.
I have been circulating the above, in one form or another for
over three years.
Were the above not true, then they would be defamations of
Corporate Scientology and we both know Co$ has the money and the
lawyers to force me to retract or cease to utter or print them.
But the above *are* true emaresca.
And the first four are enforced by *current* Co$ policies.
Once you can confront those facts you will soon become one of
Scientologys' most oft produced products: an Ex-Scientologist.
"Evil Incompetent Financial Genius and Spiritualist"
Gregg Hagglund SP7
Free Toronto
Chris Leithiser
> Chris,
>
> Do your homework. On WHAT do you base the statement that we're below
> average? Below average in what? You guys are always stating that
> services cost exhorbitant amounts of money and now that you believe
> that, you about face and say that isn't "abover average? well, which
> is it...do we make too much or too little. Generalities aside, you CAN
> decide on SOMETHING, can't you?
Decided on lunch, just a few minutes ago.
"Below average" doesn't mean money. Why do you think it's always about
money?
By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
his military career?
"Below average" means intelligence. You are definitely on the western
slopes of the bell curve, and so are more than half those in your cult.
And you pull the average _way_ down.
By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
his military career?
"Below average" means height. Davey pulls _that_ average way down.
By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
his military career?
"Below average" means honesty. Just count the scams coming out of your
little cult.
By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
his military career?
> Let's just say for a moment that you WERE right (membership at 75,000)
I can back that figure up. You can't rebut it.
By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
his military career?
> and the number was that low (it isn't, but let's say it is for a
> moment),.. I guess that sort of "blows" your theory of
> scientologists "not doing better than average" in life...a group this
> small - with THAT much impact on the political scene? Are you
> beginning to see any point to where this is leading...
No, but I've gotten used to that in your rambling. I am willing to
concede that $cientology has a very disproportionate effect on society.
A negative one, but disproportionate to its tiny size. Money talks in
this society. Ask any lobbyist.
Basically, $cientology is a 75,000-member lobbying group, lobbying
for...$cientology.
Let me turn your argument around. If you had the numbers and the powers
you claim, why would this mighty organization need to hire sleazy PI's
and even sleazier lawyers to get its way?
If you had even _one_ OT, why would you need them?
> LRH was there. He was an officer, in a war he hated. YOU say (and I
> have been to the documents site and thus know how generalities are used
Generalities? You can count to four, I feel sure. Four medals. Not
one of them for good conduct.
> to degrade his ACTUAL accomplishments) he was not awarded these medals.
> He said that he did. Let's see, I should believe a bigot, who relies
> on a third party "interpretation" of documents, instead of what I know
> about the man...right.
Let's see, I should believe you, a liar who's been _proven_ a liar
multiple times, because he is quoting a liar and failed military
officer. One who would have been kicked from the service if the Navy
hadn't had other, more important things to do--like fight a war. Gee,
tough decision.
Facts and documents on one side, a liar corroborating a liar on the
other. I guess I'll stick with my side.
By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
his military career? Once again, _why_ did he do it?
> Why don't you look up the MKULTRA program. Who do you think exposed it
> back in the 50's, the CIA? Perhaps Psychiatry? Let me clue you
> in...it was us.
Let me clue you in. You've been lied to. Just as surely as you were
lied to about the "Alaska" mental-health compound.
> If you can be "vanished" for real, a few documents are
> a piece of cake...when you have access. But perhaps thats a stretch
> for you and a little too much reality for one sitting...look it up and
> see who broke the story.
It wasn't $cientology.
>
> Until then youngster, have fun...
Oh, you too, y'old fart.
By the way, the site Dan is trying to decry is
http://www.ronthewarhero.org.
Great site, great documentation.
Chris Leithiser
>
> Isn't what? For your information, it was the LARGEST increase in IAS
> memberships and were HIGHEST EVER, THIS YEAR. Keep up the
> generalities, they're so predictable (and inaccurate)...
Generalities again. Largest increase in history? Percentage-wise? Not
possible. Numerically? Perhaps. But we'd have to know the base. And
you sidestepped that question.
How many people in IAS, Dan?
We _know_ you don't know. The question is: _why_ don't you know this
simple fact about your own cult?
What are they hiding from you?
Chris Leithiser
> Get the new edition. As I've told others previously, I am not a
> management official and thus the figures are not at my disposal. I can
> say that those who had purchased a book and/or done a minor/major
> service locally, were in the tens of thousands...back in the 70's when
> I WAS on staff. Thats over twenty five years ago.
And it's much fewer now, of course.
> What possible "help" are numbers of members to you at any
> rate...they're meaningless, unless you ARE managing, which you aren't.
Exactly. The number of $cientologists is so small as to be
meaningless...just like their theology.
The question--as in the reason why Ron lied about his medals--is just
this: _Why_ can't you get the numbers? What purpose would it serve to
keep the numbers secret? Unless they're embarassingly low.
<snip>
> Verifiable? Are you doing a census or something? Become a member and
> find out for yourself (I mean that nicely). If you're in agreement
> with our goals, it's not too difficult...
Hey, Dan, you've been in how long, and _you_ don't have the
information. What makes you think a new member could get them?
Chris Leithiser
> You WON'T tell the number because you are embarrassed by it. OR, you
> haven't the foggiest idea of the number. Find and tell us the
> number of IAS members.
A little of both. Dan's embarassed that he hasn't the foggiest idea
what the number is.
He's just starting to realize that he's being lied to by his
"superiors." And he's afraid even to think about it.
Chris Leithiser
> Beverly,
>
> An answer was given...but it's not the answer you and others were
> looking for, sorry...(smile)
So, now we know...the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and
Everything.
42.
The question was, "how many practicing $cientologists are there?"
> I'd love to oblige you with the actual figure but let me state that
No, you wouldn't. It would tear your whole argument apart.
> when I was on staff...it was in the tens of thousands, in the mid-70's.
Yes, that would be accurate for the cult as a whole, even today.
Accurate to an order of magnitude.
> Several hundred participate days, evenings and weekends...many have
> their own practices and still more have moved on to higher orgs and Sea
> Org staff facilities. One thought for you though, how many catholics
> are actually church-going at any one time...in any parish?
>
> Ask your friends when they were last "at church" and how many were
> there, and perhaps you and the others can gain some insight on why "I"
> don't carry those figures around in my pocket...it makes not ONE shred
> of difference - to those who ARE participating.
So you can't produce the numbers and you're afraid to ask.
Here's a true way to determine the membership of your church. It
doesn't rely on book sales, or lectures, or whatever.
How many people, if asked "What religion do you practice?" would answer
"Scientology."
Currently, fewer than 75,000 would.
Now, it's impractical to conduct a world-wide survey. But fortunately,
Co$ has done it for us--membership in the IAS would be a valid figure
approximating the above. Some would be IAS members but declared SP's,
others would consider themselves $cientologists but for whatever reason
wouldn't be paid-up members.
So how many are in the IAS? And _why_ don't you know?
Any other method is bogus.
Based on _your_ concept of membership, I am currently
Roman Catholic (based on baptism)
Church of Christ (sent a kid through their school)
Religious Science (attended several times, and half a class)
Jewish (attended a friend's wedding)
Agnostic (by choice)
Atheist (if the guy asking is religiously obnoxious about it)
Discordian (in your heart you know it's all chaos.)
Chris Leithiser
>
> This is probably Number Two as well. Same posting style as the last one,
> same answer that is a non answer.
>
I presume the headers are the same...I didn't check.
I.S.Rennie
> Do your homework. On WHAT do you base the statement that we're below
> average?
he bases the statement that half of you are below average on cold
mathematical fact.
half of ANY group are below average. It's a mathematical joke.
I.S.Rennie
> In article <3A073490...@sheffield.ac.uk>,
> "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <3A06E7A9...@sheffield.ac.uk>,
> > > "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > Dorsai, you have claimed on several occasions that Scientology is
> > > > florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement
> > > because I
> > > > have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have any
> such
> > > > figures? It would be a great help if you did.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Ian
> > > Ian,
> > >
> > > The base statistics, such as number of churches etc are contained in
> > > What is Scientology (WIS, for short).
> > University of York, although it is a couple of years out of date) had
> > figures for the number of churches, it did not have verifiable
> > membership figures. Can you cast any light on this?
> Get the new edition.
does the new edition have membership figures in it? If not, why should
I get it?
I'm trying to find out membership figures. Can you tell me where to
find them?
> As I've told others previously, I am not a
> management official and thus the figures are not at my disposal.
why not?
why are you not allowed to know the membership of your Church?
If you do not know the membership of your church, how are you able to
say it is flourishing?
> I can
> say that those who had purchased a book and/or done a minor/major
> service locally, were in the tens of thousands...back in the 70's when
> I WAS on staff. Thats over twenty five years ago.
I'm sorry, this is anecdotal evidence. I only have your word for this
and you'll forgive me if I tell you that I don't necessarily find you to
be the most reliable source.
> What possible "help" are numbers of members to you at any
> rate...they're meaningless, unless you ARE managing, which you aren't.
they are helpful as they would tell me if the Church of Scientology is
expanding. They would also help me ascertain whether the generalised
claim of '8 million members' was accurate.
> > > Adherents of scientology, do
> > > well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives and
> of
> > > course,... this would apply to individual regions cumulatively. By
> my
> > > own observation and communication with other scientologists, they
> are
> > > flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
> > > individuals. This isn't to say that EVERY scientologist is ALWAYS
> > > winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most
> groups.
> >
> > this fails to answer my question. Do you have any statistics on
> > membership of the Church?
>
> As above, I do not. I am not church management.
why do the parishioners of your church not have access to membership
figures?
if the Church is a non-profit organisation, shouldn't its membership
figures be in the public domain?
> > > As for your "sitting in judgement" of us, well, it presupposes that
> you
> > > have an ability to observe and that's REALLY taking a "leap of
> faith",
> > > considering past posts and the forum itself.
> >
> > where do I mention sitting in judgement?
>
> Then I mis-stated your purpose for this information?
My purpose for finding out this information was to verify for myself
whether your statement that Scientology is flourishing has any basis in
fact. Unless I verify it, it isn't true for me.
> > what I said was that I couldn't comment on your allegation that
> > 'scientology is flourishing' because I have no figures. You have
> failed
> > to provide me with any figures. Could you please back up your claim?
>
> Allege? Speaking to other people who are participants in scientology,
> in addition to my own personal successes are adequate, for me. I have
> provided you with a source for information. I
how do your personal successes or otherwise affect the membership of the
Church of Scientology? Do you get more case gains in a larger
organisation?
you made a claim 'scientology is flourishing'.
I want to discover for myself whether this claim is true.
> > > But I'm always willing to try and answer questions, so...
> >
> > unfortunately you didn't answer this one with any verifiable
> > information. Do you have any verifiable information about membership
> of
> > the Church of Scientology?
>
> Verifiable? Are you doing a census or something? Become a member and
> find out for yourself (I mean that nicely).
so if I become a member will they tell me the membership?
apparently not, as you don't know it.
> If you're in agreement
> with our goals, it's not too difficult...
whether I am in agreement with your goals or not is hardly the point.
why do you find it so difficult to answer my question. It's very
simple. I'll ask it again in two parts.
1) do you have any information about the membership of the Church of
Scientology?
2) if you do not, do you know who I could find out about this membership
from?
I.S.Rennie
>
> In article <MPG.1470e7448...@news.earthlink.net>,
> Qbpbdqpd <Qpdd...@aol.com.us> wrote:
> > > > Ian,
> > > >
> > > > By my
> > > > own observation and communication with other scientologists, they
> are
> > > > flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
> > > > individuals.
> >
> > But the membership isn't, otherwise you would have said so. I'm
> > not surprised that people would stay away from an organization
> > whose policies and "scriptures" support the mental and physical
> > slaughter of it's own members.
>
> Isn't what? For your information, it was the LARGEST increase in IAS
> memberships and were HIGHEST EVER, THIS YEAR. Keep up the
> generalities, they're so predictable (and inaccurate)...
do you have figures on this? you just told me you didn't have any
figures on membership of the Church of Scientology.
> > I have read the entire texts for all the OT levels. I challenge
> > you to produce one person who has gone beyond OT1 and hasn't gone
> > insane.
> > --
> Quoting individuals who tried to sue the church to line their own
> pockets, isn't exactly a new tactic for you fella's, but it is a
> predictable one...
Are you trying to tell me that the testimony of ex members is less valid
than the testimony of members?
Or is that only when the testimony of ex members is critical?
dors...@my-deja.com
Brent Stone <bst...@kudonet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 01:19:47 GMT, dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <3A0706BD...@bc.cc.ca.us>,
> >> dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article <3A06E7A9...@sheffield.ac.uk>,
> >> > "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> > > Dorsai, you have claimed on several occasions that Scientology
is
> >> > > florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement
> >> > because I
> >> > > have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have
any
> >such
> >> > > figures? It would be a great help if you did.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >
> >> > > Ian
> >> >
> >> > Ian,
> >> >
> >> > The base statistics, such as number of churches etc are
contained in
> >> > What is Scientology (WIS, for short).
> >>
supporting
> >> data.
> >>
> >> Go ahead, play for us, Danno.
> >>
> >> > well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives
and
> >of
> >> > course,... this would apply to individual regions cumulatively.
> >my
> >> > own observation and communication with other scientologists, they
> >are
> >> > flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
ALWAYS
> >> > winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most
> >groups.
> >>
half of
> >> all $cientologists are below average?
> >>
that
> >you
> >> > have an ability to observe and that's REALLY taking a "leap of
> >faith",
> >> > considering past posts and the forum itself.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> So, why did Ron lie about how many medals he got in WWII.
> >>
> >> It's well established that he _did_ lie.
> >>
> >> But _why_ did he lie, when it's so easy to check? That's the
> >question.
> >> Was it just contempt for his followers, or what?
> >
> >Chris,
> >
> >services cost exhorbitant amounts of money and now that you believe
> >that, you about face and say that isn't "abover average? well, which
> >is it...do we make too much or too little. Generalities aside, you
CAN
> >decide on SOMETHING, can't you?
>
> I can decide what I think about that.
>
75,000)
> >moment),.. I guess that sort of "blows" your theory of
> >scientologists "not doing better than average" in life...a group this
> >small - with THAT much impact on the political scene? Are you
> >beginning to see any point to where this is leading...
> >
> >have been to the documents site and thus know how generalities are
used
medals.
> >He said that he did. Let's see, I should believe a bigot, who relies
> >on a third party "interpretation" of documents, instead of what I
know
> >about the man...right.
>
site
> at www.ronthewarhero.org, you have seen copies of the actual
government
> records of Hubbard's military service. Those documents prove
Hubbard's
> claims to be lies. You don't have to rely on
anyone's "interpretation"
> of the documents. Why should you "wonder who to believe" when you can
> look at the proof and ~know~ who to believe, unless you didn't want to
> know the truth?
Selective documents, interpreted with a biased slant, with questionable
responses by a government which slandered him world wide up until this
decade...is always held as suspect by me. Not paranoia, just common-
sense.
>
> If you want to claim that the documents that are webbed might not be
true
> copies of Hubbard's real war record, you can look at the fact that the
> "church" has not sued the author for posting them, which you know they
> would do if the documents were forged. If even that doesn't convince
> you, you can order the documents directly from the government. I'm
sure
> someone here can help you with that if you don't know how.
What I do have and believe is a fifty year old, consecutive track of
reasearch and demonstrable results, using that reasearch... since
1950. You enjoy an automobile don't you? Do you really CARE who made
it? Poor analogy but it makes the point.
Well, same thing. I enjoy the benefits of what he discovered and has
passed on to those who wish to improve themselves and KNOW what life is
about...not a vexacious conversation about what a man did or didn't do
in a war...he was opposed to. There is a day by day consecutive record
of that research and NO OTHER SUBJECT can make that claim, to have at
it's fingertips...ALL of the information of the subject of man.
You never will in your lifetime...
>
> If you don't know that Hubbard lied about his war record, it's only
> because you don't want to know. The facts are available and easy to
> find.
>
> >Why don't you look up the MKULTRA program. Who do you think exposed
it
> >back in the 50's, the CIA? Perhaps Psychiatry? Let me clue you
> >in...it was us. If you can be "vanished" for real, a few documents
are
> >a piece of cake...when you have access. But perhaps thats a stretch
> >for you and a little too much reality for one sitting...look it up
and
> >see who broke the story.
> >
> >Until then youngster, have fun...
> >
> >Dorsai666
That's right Chris, stay strictly away from known facts, the truth
about LRH is there for anyone who truly wants to know...for those that
truly don't want to know...well, you have this forum...
dors...@my-deja.com
Unfortunately, there is little to respond to. Like trying to talk to a
child while they scream and you speak...it takes one listening and one
talking to have communication.
Have at it.
Dorsai666
> >
> > Do your homework. On WHAT do you base the statement that we're
below
> > average? Below average in what? You guys are always stating that
> > services cost exhorbitant amounts of money and now that you believe
> > that, you about face and say that isn't "abover average? well,
which
> > is it...do we make too much or too little. Generalities aside, you
CAN
> > decide on SOMETHING, can't you?
>
> Decided on lunch, just a few minutes ago.
>
> "Below average" doesn't mean money. Why do you think it's always
about
> money?
>
> By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
> his military career?
>
> "Below average" means intelligence. You are definitely on the western
> slopes of the bell curve, and so are more than half those in your
cult.
> And you pull the average _way_ down.
>
> By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
> his military career?
>
> "Below average" means height. Davey pulls _that_ average way down.
>
> By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
> his military career?
>
> "Below average" means honesty. Just count the scams coming out of
your
> little cult.
>
> By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
> his military career?
>
> > Let's just say for a moment that you WERE right (membership at
75,000)
>
> I can back that figure up. You can't rebut it.
>
> By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
> his military career?
>
> > and the number was that low (it isn't, but let's say it is for a
> > moment),.. I guess that sort of "blows" your theory of
> > scientologists "not doing better than average" in life...a group
this
> > small - with THAT much impact on the political scene? Are you
> > beginning to see any point to where this is leading...
>
> No, but I've gotten used to that in your rambling. I am willing to
> concede that $cientology has a very disproportionate effect on
society.
> A negative one, but disproportionate to its tiny size. Money talks in
> this society. Ask any lobbyist.
>
> Basically, $cientology is a 75,000-member lobbying group, lobbying
> for...$cientology.
>
> Let me turn your argument around. If you had the numbers and the
powers
> you claim, why would this mighty organization need to hire sleazy PI's
> and even sleazier lawyers to get its way?
>
> If you had even _one_ OT, why would you need them?
>
> > LRH was there. He was an officer, in a war he hated. YOU say (and
I
> > have been to the documents site and thus know how generalities are
used
>
> Generalities? You can count to four, I feel sure. Four medals. Not
> one of them for good conduct.
>
> > to degrade his ACTUAL accomplishments) he was not awarded these
medals.
> > He said that he did. Let's see, I should believe a bigot, who
relies
> > on a third party "interpretation" of documents, instead of what I
know
> > about the man...right.
>
> Let's see, I should believe you, a liar who's been _proven_ a liar
> multiple times, because he is quoting a liar and failed military
> officer. One who would have been kicked from the service if the Navy
> hadn't had other, more important things to do--like fight a war.
Gee,
> tough decision.
>
> Facts and documents on one side, a liar corroborating a liar on the
> other. I guess I'll stick with my side.
>
> By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
> his military career? Once again, _why_ did he do it?
>
> > Why don't you look up the MKULTRA program. Who do you think
exposed it
> > back in the 50's, the CIA? Perhaps Psychiatry? Let me clue you
> > in...it was us.
>
> Let me clue you in. You've been lied to. Just as surely as you were
> lied to about the "Alaska" mental-health compound.
>
> > If you can be "vanished" for real, a few documents are
> > a piece of cake...when you have access. But perhaps thats a stretch
> > for you and a little too much reality for one sitting...look it up
and
> > see who broke the story.
>
> It wasn't $cientology.
> >
> > Until then youngster, have fun...
>
> Oh, you too, y'old fart.
>
> By the way, the site Dan is trying to decry is
> http://www.ronthewarhero.org.
>
> Great site, great documentation.
>
dors...@my-deja.com
As I've stated to one of your cohorts...I'm sure that catholics know
all about the pope, the buddhists about Gautauma Siddhartha and such,
but we consider that the fifty year consecutive and daily record of
reasearch and development to make people more able, as THE important
matter to hand.
As do most religions. Christiaans with the bible, and so on...
In the meantime, we'll keep helping people and you'll keep worrying
about how many medals, how many of us are there and so on...I'd say you
were missing the iceberg...like the Titanic did.
Dorsai666
>
> > Get the new edition. As I've told others previously, I am not a
> > management official and thus the figures are not at my disposal. I
can
> > say that those who had purchased a book and/or done a minor/major
> > service locally, were in the tens of thousands...back in the 70's
when
> > I WAS on staff. Thats over twenty five years ago.
>
> And it's much fewer now, of course.
>
> > What possible "help" are numbers of members to you at any
> > rate...they're meaningless, unless you ARE managing, which you
aren't.
>
> Exactly. The number of $cientologists is so small as to be
> meaningless...just like their theology.
>
> The question--as in the reason why Ron lied about his medals--is just
> this: _Why_ can't you get the numbers? What purpose would it serve
to
> keep the numbers secret? Unless they're embarassingly low.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Verifiable? Are you doing a census or something? Become a member
and
> > find out for yourself (I mean that nicely). If you're in agreement
> > with our goals, it's not too difficult...
>
> Hey, Dan, you've been in how long, and _you_ don't have the
> information. What makes you think a new member could get them?
>
I.S.Rennie
> > In article <8u6vlh$nhp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >
>
> I WILL say that it was the highest ever this year...as for the exact
> count, you'll have to do that on your own...
Dorsai,
can you understand that we don't feel able to take your word for this?
If you know it is the highest ever, you must surely have seen the IAS
membership figures. Could you tell us what they are?
I.S.Rennie
>
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 01:36:08 GMT, dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Isn't what? For your information, it was the LARGEST increase in IAS
> >memberships and were HIGHEST EVER, THIS YEAR. Keep up the
> >generalities, they're so predictable (and inaccurate)...
> >
> >
>
> was the LARGEST increase in IAS memberships and were HIGHEST EVER,
> sense as a sentence).
actually it's not a generality.
it's hyperbolic and unproven but not generalised.
dors...@my-deja.com
deom...@aol.comgetlost (DeoMorto) wrote:
> dan writes:
> >>Get the new edition. As I've told others previously, I am not a
> management official and thus the figures are not at my disposal
>
organzation would
> be at your disposal - don't you think it a tad strange that, as a
fully fledged
> member of the cofs , they are not at yours?
>
> >> I can
> say that those who had purchased a book and/or done a minor/major
> service locally, were in the tens of thousands...back in the 70's when
> I WAS on staff. Thats over twenty five years ago.>>
>
Org "back in the
> seventies" - so you are aware of the "Toronto Method" of bookselling?
The one
> that basically asks people to donate to an organization that supports
drug
> rehabilitation? (If memory serves). So, I wouldn't dispute your
thousands - but
> I would question you tagging those people as "members".
>
> >>What possible "help" are numbers of members to you at any
> rate...they're meaningless, unless you ARE managing, which you
aren't.<
>
actually enable
> scientologists to judge management on how they are doing.
>
> The one thing that International management fears above else.
>
> Why are you not interested in being a responsible manager of your own
> organization?
>
> The only organizationa I know of that insist that its members not
know anything
> (apart from the cofs of course) would be the Communist Party and the
Nazi
> party. Which does put you in spectacular company.
Dear Mr. death-talker,
You are the one interested in numbers, number of books, number of
scientologists, number of organizations and on and on...
What is specifically not interesting to you is a fifty year consecutive
and daily record of the research done and used daily - to the benfit of
anyone who uses it in Scientology.
That speaks for itself.
You're interested in curiosa, I'm interested in improving myself and
REALLY knowing.
Big difference.
Dorsai666
>
> ars:- perhaps the most malignant newsgroup on Usenet.!
dors...@my-deja.com
Mark Styles <a...@lambic.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 01:30:29 GMT, dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> although the latest edition of WIS that I saw (in the library of
the
> >> University of York, although it is a couple of years out of date)
had
> >> figures for the number of churches, it did not have verifiable
> >> membership figures. Can you cast any light on this?
> >
>
> Hang on, you said the figures are in the latest edition of WIS. Do you
> not have a copy? Can't you just flick to the relevant page and give us
> a number?
>
> >What possible "help" are numbers of members to you at any
> >rate...they're meaningless, unless you ARE managing, which you
aren't.
>
> forget about your sorry little cult, but if numbers like 8 million are
> bandied around, then I have to be a little more concerned.
>
> >> this fails to answer my question. Do you have any statistics on
> >> membership of the Church?
> >
> >As above, I do not. I am not church management.
>
I like the idea that a critic has to "pay" for information, at his own
expense and on his own time...
I care not a wit what you believe or don't believe. Anyone who truly
wants to know will take the time to find out...it's part of the
character traits of honest and decent people. Honestly looking.
dorsai666
dors...@my-deja.com
"Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com> wrote:
> This is Number Two, the Real Dan Bryenton. Back to his stupid spelling
> mistakes and typos, and back to his usual grammatical errors, as well
as his
> refusal to confront the simple question and answer it, this one beats
around
> the bush, in effect saying he's afraid to actually have to tabulate
numbers
> because they might prove him wrong.
I have answers for people who want to know, not critics - who don't and
would disclaim it anyway...
why bother?
dorsai666
>
> --
> Bright Blessings,
>
> Starshadow (SP4, KoX) (Yes, I have an @home account now. )
> (stars...@starshadow.net still works)
>
> "Feminism--the radical notion that women are people, too"
> <dors...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8u7lvm$c0m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3A073490...@sheffield.ac.uk>,
> > "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > In article <3A06E7A9...@sheffield.ac.uk>,
> > > > "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > > Dorsai, you have claimed on several occasions that
Scientology is
> > > > > florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement
> > > > because I
> > > > > have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have
any
> > such
> > > > > figures? It would be a great help if you did.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Ian
> > > > Ian,
> > > >
> > > > The base statistics, such as number of churches etc are
contained in
> > > > What is Scientology (WIS, for short).
> > >
> > > although the latest edition of WIS that I saw (in the library of
the
> > > University of York, although it is a couple of years out of date)
had
> > > figures for the number of churches, it did not have verifiable
> > > membership figures. Can you cast any light on this?
> >
> > Get the new edition. As I've told others previously, I am not a
> > management official and thus the figures are not at my disposal. I
can
> > say that those who had purchased a book and/or done a minor/major
> > service locally, were in the tens of thousands...back in the 70's
when
> > I WAS on staff. Thats over twenty five years ago.
> >
> > What possible "help" are numbers of members to you at any
> > rate...they're meaningless, unless you ARE managing, which you
aren't.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Adherents of scientology, do
> > > > well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives
and
> > of
> > > > course,... this would apply to individual regions cumulatively.
By
> > my
> > > > own observation and communication with other scientologists,
they
> > are
> > > > flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have
as
> > > > individuals. This isn't to say that EVERY scientologist is
ALWAYS
> > > > winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most
> > groups.
> > >
> > > this fails to answer my question. Do you have any statistics on
> > > membership of the Church?
> >
> > As above, I do not. I am not church management.
> > >
> > > > As for your "sitting in judgement" of us, well, it presupposes
that
> > you
> > > > have an ability to observe and that's REALLY taking a "leap of
> > faith",
> > > > considering past posts and the forum itself.
> > >
> > > where do I mention sitting in judgement?
> >
> > Then I mis-stated your purpose for this information?
> >
> > >
> > > what I said was that I couldn't comment on your allegation that
> > > 'scientology is flourishing' because I have no figures. You have
> > failed
> > > to provide me with any figures. Could you please back up your
claim?
> >
> > Allege? Speaking to other people who are participants in
scientology,
> > in addition to my own personal successes are adequate, for me. I
have
> > provided you with a source for information. I
> >
> > >
> > > > But I'm always willing to try and answer questions, so...
> > >
> > > unfortunately you didn't answer this one with any verifiable
> > > information. Do you have any verifiable information about
membership
> > of
> > > the Church of Scientology?
> >
> > Verifiable? Are you doing a census or something? Become a member
and
> > find out for yourself (I mean that nicely). If you're in agreement
> > with our goals, it's not too difficult...
> >
> > Dorsai666
dors...@my-deja.com
The point is, find out for yourself.
Whether I do or don't know isn't any of your concern, but you can "dub
in" what you like...as usual.
Why, do you want to join, perhaps to assist in achieving our goals of a
world without war and insanity,...etc.?
dorsai666
Starshadow
"Chris Leithiser" <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3A082D10...@bc.cc.ca.us...
Neither have I yet. I'm running out of time this week to do the in depth
stuff.
Right now I'm looking at sentence structure and other giveaways.
There may be two Number Ones, and two Number Twos, and one of the latter is
the Real Dan Bryenton. I think there is only one Number Three, though.
Starshadow
seems to be better than the Real Dan Bryenton, so it may be a relief
sockpuppet.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow (SP4, KoX) (Yes, I have an @home account now. )
(stars...@starshadow.net still works)
"Feminism--the radical notion that women are people, too"
<dors...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8u9gk8$qau$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Starshadow
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow (SP4, KoX) (Yes, I have an @home account now. )
(stars...@starshadow.net still works)
"Feminism--the radical notion that women are people, too"
<dors...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8u9gpv$qe4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A08291C...@bc.cc.ca.us>,
> Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
> > dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Chris,
>
> Unfortunately, there is little to respond to. Like trying to talk to a
> child while they scream and you speak...it takes one listening and one
> talking to have communication.
>
> Have at it.
>
> Dorsai666
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Do your homework. On WHAT do you base the statement that we're
> below
> > > average? Below average in what? You guys are always stating that
> > > services cost exhorbitant amounts of money and now that you believe
> > > that, you about face and say that isn't "abover average? well,
> which
> > > is it...do we make too much or too little. Generalities aside, you
> CAN
> > > decide on SOMETHING, can't you?
> >
> > Decided on lunch, just a few minutes ago.
> >
> > "Below average" doesn't mean money. Why do you think it's always
> about
> > money?
> >
> > By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
> > his military career?
> >
> > "Below average" means intelligence. You are definitely on the western
> > slopes of the bell curve, and so are more than half those in your
> cult.
> > And you pull the average _way_ down.
> >
> > By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
> > his military career?
> >
> > "Below average" means height. Davey pulls _that_ average way down.
> >
> > By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
> > his military career?
> >
> > "Below average" means honesty. Just count the scams coming out of
> your
> > little cult.
> >
> > By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
> > his military career?
> >
> > > Let's just say for a moment that you WERE right (membership at
> 75,000)
> >
> > I can back that figure up. You can't rebut it.
> >
> > By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
> > his military career?
> >
> > > and the number was that low (it isn't, but let's say it is for a
> > > moment),.. I guess that sort of "blows" your theory of
> > > scientologists "not doing better than average" in life...a group
> this
> > > small - with THAT much impact on the political scene? Are you
> > > beginning to see any point to where this is leading...
> >
> > No, but I've gotten used to that in your rambling. I am willing to
> > concede that $cientology has a very disproportionate effect on
> society.
> > A negative one, but disproportionate to its tiny size. Money talks in
> > this society. Ask any lobbyist.
> >
> > Basically, $cientology is a 75,000-member lobbying group, lobbying
> > for...$cientology.
> >
> > Let me turn your argument around. If you had the numbers and the
> powers
> > you claim, why would this mighty organization need to hire sleazy PI's
> > and even sleazier lawyers to get its way?
> >
> > If you had even _one_ OT, why would you need them?
> >
> > > LRH was there. He was an officer, in a war he hated. YOU say (and
> I
> > > have been to the documents site and thus know how generalities are
> used
> >
> > Generalities? You can count to four, I feel sure. Four medals. Not
> > one of them for good conduct.
> >
> > > to degrade his ACTUAL accomplishments) he was not awarded these
> medals.
> > > He said that he did. Let's see, I should believe a bigot, who
> relies
> > > on a third party "interpretation" of documents, instead of what I
> know
> > > about the man...right.
> >
> > Let's see, I should believe you, a liar who's been _proven_ a liar
> > multiple times, because he is quoting a liar and failed military
> > officer. One who would have been kicked from the service if the Navy
> > hadn't had other, more important things to do--like fight a war.
> Gee,
> > tough decision.
> >
> > Facts and documents on one side, a liar corroborating a liar on the
> > other. I guess I'll stick with my side.
> >
> > By the way, why can't you answer the question about Ron's lying about
> > his military career? Once again, _why_ did he do it?
> >
> > > Why don't you look up the MKULTRA program. Who do you think
> exposed it
> > > back in the 50's, the CIA? Perhaps Psychiatry? Let me clue you
> > > in...it was us.
> >
> > Let me clue you in. You've been lied to. Just as surely as you were
> > lied to about the "Alaska" mental-health compound.
> >
> > > If you can be "vanished" for real, a few documents are
> > > a piece of cake...when you have access. But perhaps thats a stretch
> > > for you and a little too much reality for one sitting...look it up
> and
> > > see who broke the story.
> >
> > It wasn't $cientology.
> > >
> > > Until then youngster, have fun...
> >
> > Oh, you too, y'old fart.
> >
> > By the way, the site Dan is trying to decry is
> > http://www.ronthewarhero.org.
> >
> > Great site, great documentation.
> >
>
>
dors...@my-deja.com
Gregg <elr...@home.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:17:13 GMT, emar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <8u6vlh$nhp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> In article <3A06E7A9...@sheffield.ac.uk>,
> >> "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> > Dorsai, you have claimed on several occasions that Scientology is
> >> > florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement
> >> because I
> >> > have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have any
> >such
> >> > figures? It would be a great help if you did.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Ian
> >>
> >> Ian,
> >>
> >> The base statistics, such as number of churches etc are contained
in
> >> well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives and
of
> >> course,... this would apply to individual regions cumulatively. By
my
> >> own observation and communication with other scientologists, they
are
> >> flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
> >> individuals. This isn't to say that EVERY scientologist is ALWAYS
> >> winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most
> >groups.
> >>
> >you
> >> have an ability to observe and that's REALLY taking a "leap of
faith",
> >> considering past posts and the forum itself.
> >>
> >> But I'm always willing to try and answer questions, so...
>
> >>
> >> Dorsai666
but
> >eventually realized it was my own lack of ability on confronting the
> >subject
> >>
>
> emaresca
>
> Try confronting these facts:
>
> Scientology Management does not always tell truth;
WHO in management? What lies?
> Scientology Management has condoned and often conducted illegal,
> unethical and immoral activities;
Specifically, WHAT illegal, unethical and immoral activities?
> Some Scientology Practices are dangerous to participants health,
> either physical or mental or both;
What specifically and said by whom? Are YOU a physician now Gregg?
> Scientology Management and L.R. Hubbard lied about Hubbards life,
> history and accomplishments;
WHO in management? What lies? What about his life/accomplishments?
Should we listen to someone who has NO personal contribution and
constantly and consistently lies?
> Despite the pseudo-scientific claims of Hubbard no Scientology or
> Dianetic process has *ever* been clinically *proven* to work as
> claimed.
A fifty year consecutive and daily record of the research and
development of the subject of the human mind and spirit is available
and used daily - to the betterment of those who do (use it). You never
have...and now, you never will...
>
> I have been circulating the above, in one form or another for
> over three years.
See the specifics of his accusations above...all generalities. Now, if
he'd only try and give some that are not "manufactured" by him and
couched in generalities...like normal people.
>
> Were the above not true, then they would be defamations of
> Corporate Scientology and we both know Co$ has the money and the
> lawyers to force me to retract or cease to utter or print them.
What specific charges are we supposed to charge you with
Gregg...there's nothing there to support that you have any specific
examples of people. Just generalities and lies that are manufactured
by you...
>
> But the above *are* true emaresca.
> And the first four are enforced by *current* Co$ policies.
>
> Once you can confront those facts you will soon become one of
> Scientologys' most oft produced products: an Ex-Scientologist.
The man telling you this is a complete fraud, who has a twenty year
record of betraying people in business matters...should you trust what
he has to say, or do you find out for yourself? If I'm lying, he can
bring me to court...but he can't.
dorsai666
>
> "Evil Incompetent Financial Genius and Spiritualist"
>
> Gregg Hagglund SP7
> Free Toronto
>
Gregg
<clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
[snip]
>
>How many people, if asked "What religion do you practice?" would answer
>"Scientology."
>
>Currently, fewer than 75,000 would.
Last Canadian Census, 1998 IIRC, fewer than 750 Canadians
identified themselves as Religious affiliation: "Scientologist".
>
>Now, it's impractical to conduct a world-wide survey. But fortunately,
>Co$ has done it for us--membership in the IAS would be a valid figure
>approximating the above. Some would be IAS members but declared SP's,
>others would consider themselves $cientologists but for whatever reason
>wouldn't be paid-up members.
>
>So how many are in the IAS? And _why_ don't you know?
>
>Any other method is bogus.
>
>Based on _your_ concept of membership, I am currently
>
>Roman Catholic (based on baptism)
>Church of Christ (sent a kid through their school)
>Religious Science (attended several times, and half a class)
>Jewish (attended a friend's wedding)
>Agnostic (by choice)
>Atheist (if the guy asking is religiously obnoxious about it)
>Discordian (in your heart you know it's all chaos.)
Mark Styles
> Mark Styles <a...@lambic.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 01:30:29 GMT, dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> membership figures. Can you cast any light on this?
>> >
>> >Get the new edition. As I've told others previously, I am not a
>> >management official and thus the figures are not at my disposal.
>>
>> >> membership of the Church?
>> >
>> >As above, I do not. I am not church management.
>>
>
>I like the idea that a critic has to "pay" for information, at his own
>expense and on his own time...
So do you have access to the information or not? First you say 'Get
the new edition', and then you say 'figures are not at my disposal'.
Either it's in the book or it's not, which is it? I don't want to get
the book if the information I'm looking for is not in there.
Chris Leithiser
>
> In article <3A08291C...@bc.cc.ca.us>,
> Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
> > dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Chris,
>
> Unfortunately, there is little to respond to. Like trying to talk to a
> child while they scream and you speak...it takes one listening and one
> talking to have communication.
>
> Have at it.
Let me clue you in, Dansai. More than half the people in North America
are below average. While $cientology may _attract_ a few of the best
and the brightest, it certainly doesn't hold on to them.
It holds on to...people like you.
As I said: way below average. You can only scream. I'm listening:
why did Ron lie about his war record? What would have been the harm of
leaving it be? He _wasn't_ kicked out, though he manifestly deserved
it. He was reprimanded, and his superiors put him in positions where he
couldn't do any more harm, but he felt it necessary to lie.
Read Ron's "Admissions," his list of cockamamie self-improvement
affirmations. They show what Hubbard was: a man possessed by fear that
he'd be found out. A self-destructive individual who was compelled to
lie publicly, knowing he'd be discovered, because he couldn't stand the
truth.
He was ashamed of his performance in the war, just as he was ashamed of
his performance in the bedroom. He knew he needed help--that's what the
letter to the VA, begging for psychiatric help, are all about.
Thanks for leaving in that URL, Dan. Saved me having to retype it, and
it shows your posting here has a purpose after all.
For a corner of the truth $cientology doesn't want you to know, check
out the site below:
Chris Leithiser
>
> In article <3A082A75...@bc.cc.ca.us>,
> all about the pope, the buddhists about Gautauma Siddhartha and such,
> but we consider that the fifty year consecutive and daily record of
> reasearch and development to make people more able, as THE important
> matter to hand.
I'm sure you do. Once theologians were consumed with the question of
how many angels--or was it Body Thetans--could dance on the head of a
pin.
> As do most religions. Christiaans with the bible, and so on...
I can get fairly reliable figures on any number of _real_ religions.
Why can't I get them for $cientology?
> In the meantime, we'll keep helping people and you'll keep worrying
> about how many medals, how many of us are there and so on...I'd say you
> were missing the iceberg...like the Titanic did.
But $cientology...like the Titanic.._failed_ to miss the iceberg.
Get your life jacket, Dan. It's a cold sea out there.
ptsc
>See the specifics of his accusations above...all generalities. Now, if
>he'd only try and give some that are not "manufactured" by him and
>couched in generalities...like normal people.
How about this, shit for brains?
Read it and weep crime cult moron.
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1995/vol2/html/1995scr2_1130.html
[1995] 2 S.C.R. Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto 1130
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morris Manning and
the Church of Scientology of Toronto Appellants
v.
S. Casey Hill Respondent
and
The Attorney General for Ontario, the Canadian
Civil Liberties Association, the Writers' Union
of Canada, PEN Canada, the Canadian Association
of Journalists, the Periodical Writers Association
of Canada, the Book and Periodical Council,
the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association, the Canadian
Community Newspapers Association, the Canadian
Association of Broadcasters, the Radio-Television
News Directors Association of Canada, the Canadian
Book Publishers' Council and the Canadian Magazine
Publishers' Association Interveners
Indexed as: Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto
File No.: 24216.
1995: February 20; 1995: July 20.
Present: La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and
Major JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Application -- Libel and slander
-- Church of Scientology commencing criminal contempt proceedings against Crown
attorney -- Church's counsel and representatives holding press conference on
courthouse steps -- Counsel reading from and commenting on allegations in
contempt motion -- Contempt allegations subsequently found to be untrue -- Crown
attorney bringing action for damages in libel -- Whether Crown attorney's action
for damages "government action" -- Whether Charter applies -- Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, s. 32(1).
Libel and slander -- Common law of defamation -- Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms -- Whether common law of defamation complies with values underlying
Charter -- Whether "actual malice" rule should be adopted.
Libel and slander -- Defences -- Qualified privilege -- Church of
Scientology commencing criminal contempt proceedings against Crown attorney --
Church's counsel and representatives holding press conference on courthouse
steps -- Counsel reading from and commenting on allegations in contempt motion
-- Contempt allegations subsequently found to be untrue -- Crown attorney
bringing action for damages in libel -- Whether defence of qualified privilege
available.
Libel and slander -- Damages -- General damages -- Aggravated damages --
Punitive damages -- Church of Scientology commencing criminal contempt
proceedings against Crown attorney -- Church's counsel and representatives
holding press conference on courthouse steps -- Counsel reading from and
commenting on allegations in contempt motion -- Contempt allegations
subsequently found to be untrue -- Crown attorney bringing action for damages in
libel -- Counsel and Church found jointly liable for general damages -- Church
found liable for aggravated and punitive damages -- Whether cap should be
imposed on general damages in defamation cases -- Whether damage awards should
stand.
The appellant M, accompanied by representatives of the appellant Church of
Scientology, held a press conference on the courthouse steps. M, who was wearing
his barrister's gown, read from and commented upon allegations contained in a
notice of motion by which Scientology intended to commence criminal contempt
proceedings against the respondent, a Crown attorney. The notice of motion
alleged that the respondent had misled a judge and had breached orders sealing
certain documents belonging to Scientology. The remedy sought was the imposition
of a fine or his imprisonment. At the contempt proceedings, the allegations
against the respondent were found to be untrue and without foundation. He
thereupon commenced an action for damages in libel against the appellants. Both
appellants were found jointly liable for general damages in the amount of
$300,000 and Scientology alone was found liable for aggravated damages of
$500,000 and punitive damages of $800,000. This judgment was affirmed by the
Court of Appeal. The major issues raised in this appeal are whether the common
law of defamation is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and whether the jury's award of damages can stand.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
Per La Forest, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.: The
respondent's action for damages does not constitute government action within the
meaning of s. 32 of the Charter. The fact that persons are employed by the
government does not mean that their reputation is automatically divided into two
parts, one related to their personal life and the other to their employment
status. Reputation is an integral and fundamentally important aspect of every
individual; it exists for everyone quite apart from employment. The appellants
impugned the character, competence and integrity of the respondent himself, and
not that of the government. He, in turn, responded by instituting legal
proceedings in his own capacity. There was no evidence that the Ministry of the
Attorney General or the Government of Ontario required or even requested him to
do so. Neither is there any indication that the Ministry controlled the conduct
of the litigation in any way. The fact that the respondent's suit may have been
funded by the Ministry does not alter his constitutional status or cloak his
personal action in the mantle of government action. Further, even if there were
sufficient government action to bring this case within s. 32, the appellants
failed to provide any evidentiary basis upon which to adjudicate their
constitutional attack.
The common law must be interpreted in a manner which is consistent with
Charter principles. This obligation is simply a manifestation of the inherent
jurisdiction of the courts to modify or extend the common law in order to comply
with prevailing social conditions and values. In its application to the parties
in this action, the common law of defamation complies with the underlying values
of the Charter and there is no need to amend or alter it. The common law strikes
an appropriate balance between the twin values of reputation and freedom of
expression. The protection of reputation is of vital importance, and
consideration must be given to the particular significance reputation has for a
lawyer. Although it is not specifically mentioned in the Charter, the good
reputation of the individual represents and reflects the innate dignity of the
individual, a concept which underlies all the Charter rights. Further,
reputation is intimately related to the right to privacy, which has been
accorded constitutional protection. The "actual malice" rule should not be
adopted in Canada in an action between private litigants. The law of defamation
is not unduly restrictive or inhibiting. Freedom of speech, like any other
freedom, is subject to the law and must be balanced against the essential need
of individuals to protect their reputation.
Qualified privilege attaches to the occasion upon which the communication
is made, and not to the communication itself. The legal effect of the defence of
qualified privilege is to rebut the inference, which normally arises from the
publication of defamatory words, that they were spoken with malice. Where the
occasion is shown to be privileged, the bona fides of the defendant is presumed
and the defendant is free to publish, with impunity, remarks which may be
defamatory and untrue about the plaintiff. The privilege is not absolute,
however, and can be defeated if the dominant motive for publishing the statement
is actual or express malice. Malice is commonly understood, in the popular
sense, as spite or ill-will. However, it also includes any indirect motive or
ulterior purpose that conflicts with the sense of duty or the mutual interest
which the occasion created. Malice may also be established by showing that the
defendant spoke dishonestly, or in knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.
Qualified privilege may also be defeated when the limits of the duty or interest
have been exceeded. The fact that an occasion is privileged does not necessarily
protect all that is said or written on that occasion. The information
communicated must be reasonably appropriate in the context of the circumstances
existing on the occasion when that information was given.
The traditional common law rule with respect to reports on documents
relating to judicial proceedings is that, where there are judicial proceedings
before a properly constituted judicial tribunal exercising its jurisdiction in
open court, then the publication without malice of a fair and accurate report of
what takes place before that tribunal is privileged. However, the common law
immunity was not extended to a report on pleadings or other documents which had
not been filed with the court or referred to in open court. Prior to holding the
press conference M had every intention of initiating the contempt action in
accordance with the prevailing rules, and had given instructions to this effect.
The fact that the proper documents were not filed until the next morning should
not defeat the qualified privilege which attached to this occasion. M's conduct,
however, far exceeded the legitimate purposes of the occasion. The circumstances
of this case called for great restraint in the communication of information
concerning the proceedings launched against the respondent. As an experienced
lawyer, M ought to have taken steps to confirm the allegations that were being
made. This is particularly true since he should have been aware of the
Scientology investigation pertaining to access to the sealed documents. In those
circumstances he was duty bound to wait until the investigation was completed
before launching such a serious attack on the respondent's professional
integrity. M failed to take either of these reasonable steps. As a result of
this failure, the permissible scope of his comments was limited and the
qualified privilege which attached to his remarks was defeated. The press
conference was held on the courthouse steps in the presence of representatives
from several media organizations. This constituted the widest possible
dissemination of grievous allegations of professional misconduct that were yet
to be tested in a court of law. His comments were made in language that
portrayed the respondent in the worst possible light. This was neither necessary
nor appropriate in the existing circumstances. While it is not necessary to
characterize M's conduct as amounting to actual malice, it was certainly
high-handed and careless and exceeded any legitimate purpose the press
conference may have served. His conduct therefore defeated the qualified
privilege that attached to the occasion.
When properly instructed, jurors are uniquely qualified to assess the
damages suffered by the plaintiff. An appellate court is not entitled to
substitute its own judgment as to the proper award for that of the jury merely
because it would have arrived at a different figure. General damages in
defamation cases are presumed from the very publication of the false statement
and are awarded at large. It is members of the community in which the defamed
person lives who will be best able to assess the damages. The jury as
representative of that community should be free to make an assessment of damages
which will provide the plaintiff with a sum of money that clearly demonstrates
to the community the vindication of the plaintiff's reputation. No cap should be
placed on general damages for defamation. First, the injury suffered by a
plaintiff as a result of injurious false statements is entirely different from
the non-pecuniary damages suffered by a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
Second, at the time the cap was placed on non-pecuniary damages in personal
injury cases, their assessment had become a very real problem for the courts and
for society as a whole, which is not the case with libel actions. The award of
$300,000 by way of general damages was justified in this case. Both appellants
published the notice of motion. All persons who are involved in the commission
of a joint tort are jointly and severally liable for the damages caused by that
tort, and it would thus be wrong in law to have a jury attempt to apportion
liability for general damages between the joint tortfeasors. The reports in the
press were widely circulated and the television broadcast had a wide coverage.
The setting and the persons involved gave the coverage an aura of credibility
and significance that must have influenced all who saw and read the accounts.
The misconduct of the appellants continued after the first publication. Prior to
the commencement of the hearing of the contempt motion, Scientology was aware
that the allegations it was making against the respondent were false, yet it
persisted with the contempt hearings, as did M. At the conclusion of the
hearings, both appellants were aware of the falsity of the allegations.
Nonetheless, when the libel action was instituted, the defence of justification
was put forward by both of them. Although M withdrew the plea of justification,
this was only done in the week prior to the commencement of the trial itself,
and Scientology did not withdraw its plea until the hearing of the appeal.
Finally, the manner in which the respondent was cross-examined by the
appellants, coupled with the manner in which they presented their position to
the jury, in light of their knowledge of the falsity of their allegations, are
further aggravating factors to be taken into account.
Aggravated damages may be awarded in circumstances where the defendant's
conduct has been particularly high-handed or oppressive, thereby increasing the
plaintiff's humiliation and anxiety arising from the libellous statement. If
aggravated damages are to be awarded, there must be a finding that the defendant
was motivated by actual malice, which increased the injury to the plaintiff,
either by spreading further afield the damage to the reputation of the
plaintiff, or by increasing the mental distress and humiliation of the
plaintiff. The factors that a jury may properly take into account in assessing
aggravated damages include whether there was a withdrawal of the libellous
statement made by the defendant and an apology tendered, whether there was a
repetition of the libel, conduct that was calculated to deter the plaintiff from
proceeding with the libel action, a prolonged and hostile cross-examination of
the plaintiff or a plea of justification which the defendant knew was bound to
fail. The general manner in which the defendant presented its case is also
relevant. Further, it is appropriate for a jury to consider the conduct of the
defendant at the time the libel was published. In this case, there was ample
evidence upon which the jury could properly base their finding of aggravated
damages. Every aspect of this case demonstrates the very real and persistent
malice of Scientology.
Punitive damages may be awarded in situations where the defendant's
misconduct is so malicious, oppressive and high-handed that it offends the
court's sense of decency. They should only be awarded in those circumstances
where the combined award of general and aggravated damages would be insufficient
to achieve the goal of punishment and deterrence. Unlike compensatory damages,
punitive damages are not at large, and consequently courts have a much greater
scope and discretion on appeal. The appellate review should be based upon the
court's estimation as to whether the punitive damages serve a rational purpose,
as they did in this case. Further, the circumstances presented in this
exceptional case demonstrate that there was such insidious, pernicious and
persistent malice that the award for punitive damages cannot be said to be
excessive.
Per L'Heureux-Dubé J.: Cory J.'s reasons were generally agreed with, except with
respect to the scope of the defence of qualified privilege. The common law of
defamation, as it is applied to the parties in this action, is consistent with
the values enshrined in the Charter. There is accordingly no need to amend or
alter it or, in particular, to adopt the "actual malice" rule. The defence of
qualified privilege, however, is not available with respect to reports of
pleadings in purely private litigation upon which no judicial action has yet
been taken. The defence is available only with respect to reports of judicial
proceedings. While there is a right to publish details of judicial proceedings
before they are heard in open court, such publication does not enjoy the
protection of qualified privilege if it is defamatory.
Cases Cited
By Cory J.
Not followed: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); referred
to: Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; RWDSU
v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; McKinney v. University of Guelph,
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; Nelles v. Ontario, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; Lavigne v. Ontario
Public Service Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; MacKay v. Manitoba, [1989]
2 S.C.R. 357; B.C.G.E.U. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R.
214; R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654;
Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; Re British
Columbia Government Employees' Union, [1983] 6 W.W.R. 640; R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1
S.C.R. 103; Sweeney v. Patterson, 128 F.2d 457 (1942), cert. denied 317 U.S. 678
(1942); Reference re Alberta Statutes, [1938] S.C.R. 100; Switzman v. Elbling,
[1957] S.C.R. 285; Boucher v. The King, [1951] S.C.R. 265; Cherneskey v.
Armadale Publishers Ltd., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067; United States of America v.
Cotroni, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; R. v.
Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; Globe and Mail Ltd. v. Boland, [1960] S.C.R. 203;
Derrickson v. Tomat (1992), 88 D.L.R. (4th) 401; De Libellis Famosis (1605), 5
Co. Rep. 125a, 77 E.R. 250; King v. Lake (1679), Hardres 470, 145 E.R. 552;
Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75 (1966); Vogel v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp.,
[1982] 3 W.W.R. 97; R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S.
564 (1959); Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749
(1985); Coughlin v. Westinghouse Broadcasting & Cable, Inc., 476 U.S. 1187
(1986); Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [1993] 1 All E.R.
1011; Theophanous v. Herald & Weekly Times Ltd. (1994), 124 A.L.R. 1; Silkin v.
Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd., [1958] 1 W.L.R. 743; Adam v. Ward, [1917] A.C. 309;
McLoughlin v. Kutasy, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 311; Horrocks v. Lowe, [1975] A.C. 135;
Taylor v. Despard, [1956] O.R. 963; Netupsky v. Craig, [1973] S.C.R. 55; Douglas
v. Tucker, [1952] 1 S.C.R. 275; Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Dalrymple,
[1965] S.C.R. 302; Gazette Printing Co. v. Shallow (1909), 41 S.C.R. 339;
Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 122;
Walker v. CFTO Ltd. (1987), 59 O.R. (2d) 104; Rantzen v. Mirror Group Newspapers
(1986) Ltd., [1993] 4 All E.R. 975; Ley v. Hamilton (1935), 153 L.T. 384;
Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; Arnold v. Teno, [1978]
2 S.C.R. 287; Thornton v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57
(Prince George), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267; Jill Fishing Ltd. v. Koranda Management
Inc., [1993] B.C.J. No. 1861 (QL); Cassell & Co. v. Broome, [1972] 1 All E.R.
801; Blackshaw v. Lord, [1983] 2 All E.R. 311; Sutcliffe v. Pressdram Ltd.,
[1990] 1 All E.R. 269; Carson v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd. (1993), 113 A.L.R.
577; Lawson v. Burns, [1976] 6 W.W.R. 362; Kerr v. Conlogue (1992), 65 B.C.L.R.
(2d) 70; Egger v. Chelmsford, [1965] 1 Q.B. 248.
By L'Heureux-Dubé J.
Not followed: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); referred
to: RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; R. v. Salituro, [1991]
3 S.C.R. 654; Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; R.
v. Park, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836; Gazette Printing Co. v. Shallow (1909), 41 S.C.R.
339; Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984, S.O. 1989, c. 67, s. 4.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 2(b), 32(1).
Constitution Act, 1982, s. 52.
Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 137(1).
Crown Attorneys Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.49.
Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, ss. 490(15), 504.
Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12.
Marriage Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 256, s. 20(2).
Ministry of the Attorney General Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.17.
Authors Cited
Australia. Law Reform Commission. Report No. 11. Unfair Publication: Defamation
and Privacy. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1979.
Barrett, David A. "Declaratory Judgments for Libel: A Better Alternative"
(1986), 74 Cal. L. Rev. 847.
Barron, Jerome A. "Access to the Press -- A New First Amendment Right"
(1966-67), 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1641.
Bezanson, Randall P. "Libel Law and the Realities of Litigation: Setting the
Record Straight" (1985), 71 Iowa L. Rev. 226.
Bollinger, Lee C. "The End of New York Times v Sullivan: Reflections on Masson v
New Yorker Magazine", [1991] Sup. Ct. Rev. 1.
Brown, Raymond E. The Law of Defamation in Canada, 2nd ed. Scarborough, Ont.:
Carswell, 1994 (loose-leaf).
Canadian Daily Newspaper Association. Response to A Consultation Draft of the
General Limitations Act (September 1991).
Carter-Ruck on Libel and Slander, 4th ed. By Peter F. Carter-Ruck, Richard
Walker and Harvey N. A. Starte. London: Butterworths, 1992.
Christie, George C. "Injury to Reputation and the Constitution: Confusion Amid
Conflicting Approaches" (1976), 75 Mich. L. Rev. 43.
Epstein, Richard A. "Was New York Times v. Sullivan Wrong?" (1986), 53 U. Chi.
L. Rev. 782.
Gatley on Libel and Slander, 8th ed. By Philip Lewis. London: Sweet & Maxwell,
1981.
Gatley on Libel and Slander in a Civil Action: With Precedents of Pleadings, 4th
ed. By Richard O'Sullivan. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1953.
Hawreluk, David. "The Lawyer's Duty to Himself and the Code of Professional
Conduct" (1993), 27 L. Soc. Gaz. 119.
Ireland. Law Reform Commission. Report on the Civil Law of Defamation. Dublin:
Law Reform Commission, 1991.
Lepofsky, M. David. "Making Sense of the Libel Chill Debate: Do Libel Laws
`Chill' the Exercise of Freedom of Expression?" (1994), 4 N.J.C.L. 169.
Leval, Pierre N. "The No-Money, No-Fault Libel Suit: Keeping Sullivan in its
Proper Place" (1988), 101 Harv. L. Rev. 1287.
Lewis, Anthony. "New York Times v. Sullivan Reconsidered: Time to Return to `The
Central Meaning of the First Amendment'" (1983), 83 Colum. L. Rev. 603.
London, Martin. "The `Muzzled Media': Constitutional Crisis or Product Liability
Scam?". In At What Price? Libel Law and Freedom of the Press. New York:
Twentieth Century Fund, 1993.
McLellan, A. Anne, and Bruce P. Elman. "To Whom Does the Charter Apply? Some
Recent Cases on Section 32" (1986), 24 Alta. L. Rev. 361.
Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts, 20th ed. By R. F. V. Heuston and R. A.
Buckley. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1992.
United Kingdom. Report of the Committee on Defamation. London: H.M.S.O., 1975.
Veeder, Van Vechten. "The History and Theory of the Law of Defamation" (1903), 3
Colum. L. Rev. 546.
Waddams, S. M. The Law of Damages, 2nd ed. Toronto: Canada Law Book, 1991
(loose-leaf).
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1994), 18 O.R. (3d)
385, 114 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 71 O.A.C. 161, 20 C.C.L.T. (2d) 129, affirming a
judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) awarding the
respondent damages for libel against the appellants. Appeal dismissed.
Bryan Finlay, Q.C., and Christopher J. Tzekas, for the appellant Morris
Manning.
Marc J. Somerville, Q.C., and R. Ross Wells, for the appellant the Church
of Scientology of Toronto.
Robert P. Armstrong, Q.C., and Kent E. Thomson, for the respondent.
Lori Sterling and Hart Schwartz, for the intervener the Attorney General
for Ontario.
Robert J. Sharpe and Kent Roach, for the intervener the Canadian Civil
Liberties Association.
Edward M. Morgan, for the interveners the Writers' Union of Canada, PEN
Canada, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the Periodical Writers
Association of Canada, and the Book and Periodical Council.
Peter W. Hogg, Q.C., and Brian MacLeod Rogers, for the interveners the
Canadian Daily Newspaper Association, the Canadian Community Newspapers
Association, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Radio-Television News
Directors Association of Canada, the Canadian Book Publishers' Council and the
Canadian Magazine Publishers' Association.
The judgment of La Forest, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major
JJ. was delivered by
1 CORY J. -- On September 17, 1984, the appellant Morris Manning,
accompanied by representatives of the appellant Church of Scientology of Toronto
("Scientology"), held a press conference on the steps of Osgoode Hall in
Toronto. Manning, who was wearing his barrister's gown, read from and commented
upon allegations contained in a notice of motion by which Scientology intended
to commence criminal contempt proceedings against the respondent Casey Hill, a
Crown attorney. The notice of motion alleged that Casey Hill had misled a judge
of the Supreme Court of Ontario and had breached orders sealing certain
documents belonging to Scientology. The remedy sought was the imposition of a
fine or the imprisonment of Casey Hill.
2 At the contempt proceedings, the allegations against Casey Hill were found
to be untrue and without foundation. Casey Hill thereupon commenced this action
for damages in libel against both Morris Manning and Scientology. On October 3,
1991, following a trial before Carruthers J. and a jury, Morris Manning and
Scientology were found jointly liable for general damages in the amount of
$300,000 and Scientology alone was found liable for aggravated damages of
$500,000 and punitive damages of $800,000. Their appeal from this judgment was
dismissed by a unanimous Court of Appeal: (1994), 18 O.R. (3d) 385, 114 D.L.R.
(4th) 1, 71 O.A.C. 161, 20 C.C.L.T. (2d) 129.
3 As in all actions for libel, the factual background is extremely important
and must be set out in some detail. At the time the defamatory statements were
made, Casey Hill was employed as counsel with the Crown Law Office, Criminal
Division of the Ministry of the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario. He
had given advice to the Ontario Provincial Police ("OPP") regarding a warrant
obtained on March 1, 1983 which authorized a search of the premises occupied by
Scientology. During the execution of the search warrant on March 3 and 4, 1983,
approximately 250,000 documents, comprising over 2 million pages of material,
were seized. These documents were stored in some 900 boxes at an OPP building in
Toronto.
4 Immediately following the seizure, Scientology retained Clayton Ruby to
bring a motion to quash the search warrant and to seek the return of the seized
documents. Casey Hill, who had gained experience and special skill in the area
of search and seizure, acted as counsel for the Crown.
5 The litigation commenced on March 7, 1983 and continued throughout 1983
and 1984. On July 11, 1984, Osler J. ruled that solicitor-and-client privilege
applied to 232 of the seized documents he had reviewed and ordered that they
remain sealed pending further order of the court. Several sealing orders and
endorsements were ultimately made by Justices of the Supreme Court of Ontario.
6 Throughout this period, Casey Hill dealt frequently with Clayton Ruby and
other counsel for Scientology in connection with various matters ranging from
the trivial to the significant. They were invariably resolved in a spirit of
co-operation and professional courtesy, even in those situations where the
parties proceeded with contested motions.
7 In March of 1983, Scientology retained Charles Campbell to make an
application to Rosemarie Drapkin, the Deputy Registrar General of the Ministry
of Consumer and Commercial Relations, requesting that its president, Earl Smith,
be granted the authorization to solemnize marriages pursuant to s. 20(2) of the
Marriage Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 256. One year later, Scientology commenced an
application for judicial review of Rosemarie Drapkin's failure to approve that
application.
8 Rosemarie Drapkin believed that it would help her to assess the
application if she could review the seized documents. To that end, Kim Twohig, a
solicitor in the Civil Division of the Crown Law Office, approached Casey Hill
in July 1984. He advised her that there was a motion outstanding before Osler J.
for an order quashing the search warrant and that access would only be granted
if a court order was obtained pursuant to s. 490(15) (formerly 446(15)) of the
Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. He explained that there had been several
interim rulings in this matter and stated that "this was probably the type of
case where the judge hearing such an application would want notice given to
Scientology".
9 During the last week of July 1984, Casey Hill travelled to Nassau to meet
with the Attorney General of the Bahamas in respect of an ongoing criminal
investigation. In the course of a telephone conversation, Kim Twohig conveyed to
Casey Hill the urgent need she had to gain access to the documents as a date had
been fixed to hear Scientology's application for judicial review. Casey Hill
testified that he told Kim Twohig that her Criminal Code application would have
to be served on the Crown Law Office, Criminal Division in the usual fashion to
obtain its consent.
10 Kim Twohig prepared the necessary materials, including the notice of
motion and an affidavit of Rosemarie Drapkin, and obtained the requisite consent
from James Blacklock of the Crown Law Office, Criminal Division. The application
was then filed in Weekly Court on July 30, 1984 with the assistance of Jerome
Cooper, a solicitor with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. No
notice was given to Scientology. The following day, a consent order granting
access to all of the seized documents was issued by Sirois J. in chambers
without submissions from counsel.
11 In her testimony at the trial of this action, Kim Twohig agreed that she
alone made the decision not to provide notice to Scientology of her application.
She testified that she assumed that the presiding judge would determine whether
notice was necessary or appropriate. It was only later that she realized that
the order of Sirois J. might provide access to sealed documents.
12 By letter dated August 22, 1984, Rosemarie Drapkin wrote to Charles
Campbell concerning Scientology's application and advised that she had "reviewed
certain documents relating to the Scientology organization which were seized
pursuant to the search warrant" issued on March 1, 1983. Attached to the letter
was a list of 89 documents, some of which had purportedly been sealed by order
of Osler J. It was this information which raised the concern of Scientology and
its legal advisers.
13 In response, Clayton Ruby wrote a somewhat precipitous and very
aggressive letter to the Solicitor General of Ontario dated August 28, 1984. In
it he accused the OPP of acting "as if there were no rule of law" and of "simply
ignoring solicitor/client privilege and making a mockery of the courts". He
called for a "full investigation" and demanded disciplinary action be taken
"against everyone involved". Clayton Ruby was not aware of the order of Sirois
J. at that time. He simply assumed that those involved had acted improperly.
14 As early as September 5, 1984, Clayton Ruby, along with other counsel and
representatives of Scientology, decided that what had occurred was "disgraceful
and shocking" and constituted contempt. They arrived at this conclusion without
having taken any steps to ensure the accuracy of their impressions.
15 In a letter addressed to Casey Hill dated September 6, 1984, Clayton Ruby
asked for Casey Hill's assistance in obtaining information regarding the
circumstances under which the order of Sirois J. had been granted and why
Scientology had not received notice of the application. He requested a response
within five days. It should be noted that at the time this letter was written,
Clayton Ruby was a Bencher of the Law Society and Vice-Chairman of the Law
Society's Discipline Committee.
16 The letter implied that there could be disciplinary proceedings brought
before the Law Society of Upper Canada and that a contempt action might be
instituted. Not surprisingly, it was given serious consideration by Casey Hill
and others at the Ministry of the Attorney General. Hill sought the advice of
his Director, Howard Morton. Morton wrote a letter to Ruby stating that in light
of the serious nature of the allegations, he would not be able to reply within
the five-day period imposed by Ruby.
17 On September 6 and 7, 1984, Michael Code (then an associate of Clayton
Ruby) telephoned Casey Hill, Jerome Cooper and Kim Twohig to find out how access
to the privileged documents had been obtained. They all conveyed a similar
version of the past events and assured him that the sealed documents were not
opened but rather that unsealed copies must have been examined. Code conceded in
cross-examination that everyone he spoke to was cooperative.
18 On September 11, 1984, however, without making any further inquiries and
without awaiting the reply from Casey Hill and Howard Morton, Ruby retained the
appellant Morris Manning to advise Scientology in respect of possible contempt
proceedings. On September 13, 1984, representatives of Scientology met with
Morris Manning, Charles Campbell, Clayton Ruby, Michael Code and an articling
student at Ruby's office. A decision was made to commence an application for
criminal contempt against both Casey Hill and Jerome Cooper. Morris Manning
testified that a critical piece of information which prompted him to bring the
contempt application was the characterization by Michael Code of Casey Hill's
attitude during their conversation. Casey Hill had allegedly said that if the
Church missed sealing all copies of the privileged documents it was "too bad".
In Morris Manning's opinion, this demonstrated a contemptuous attitude towards
the court. He reached this conclusion without ever speaking to Casey Hill or any
of the others involved in the incident such as Rosemarie Drapkin, Kim Twohig,
James Blacklock, Jerome Cooper or Detective Inspector Ormsby, the senior officer
of the OPP responsible for the investigation of Scientology. Nor had Morris
Manning interviewed those representatives of Scientology who were directly
involved in the sealing of the documents.
19 The evidence adduced at the contempt hearing clearly established that
Casey Hill played no part in the application before Sirois J. and had nothing to
do with the execution or filing of the consent on behalf of the Attorney General
for Ontario. In fact, he was only informed of any difficulties associated with
the order of Osler J. in late August 1984, when he received a telephone call
from Detective Inspector Ormsby. At that time, Ormsby advised him that Rosemarie
Drapkin had attended at the OPP building in which the seized documents were held
with the order of Sirois J., but that she was denied access to the sealed
documents. The sealed documents were never opened. What Rosemarie Drapkin may
have seen were unsealed copies of the sealed documents that were probably
located in different boxes than the sealed originals.
20 Between September 13 and 17, 1984, Morris Manning prepared a notice of
motion for the contempt application returnable in Weekly Court some time in
early January 1985. During this time, he did not make any attempt to determine
what was being done with the seized documents or to ascertain whether any
continuing breach of privilege was occurring.
21 Long before he gave advice to the OPP in connection with the search and
seizure of documents which took place on March 3 and 4, 1983, Casey Hill had
become a target of Scientology's enmity. Over the years, he had been involved in
a number of matters concerning Scientology's affairs. As a result, it kept a
file on him. This was only discovered when the production of the file was
ordered during the course of this action. The file disclosed that from
approximately 1977 until at least 1981, Scientology closely monitored and
tracked Casey Hill and had labelled him an "Enemy Canada". Casey Hill testified
that from his experience, persons viewed by Scientology as its enemies were
"subject to being neutralized".
22 In the file of Charles Campbell there was a note dated September 10 or
11, 1984 which made reference to a press conference to be held the following
Monday, September 17, 1984. It appears, then, that before it had even consulted
Morris Manning, Scientology intended to call a press conference
23 The press conference was organized by Earl Smith. He contacted a number
of media organizations, including CFTO-TV, CBC television and The Globe and Mail
and invited them to the event which was to be held in front of Osgoode Hall.
Morris Manning was appearing on that day before the Court of Appeal in an
unrelated matter and attended the press conference in his barrister's gown.
24 He testified that he answered a number of questions concerning the
contempt proceedings and then, at the request of the media, read a passage from
the notice of motion for the television cameras. Copies of the notice of motion
were distributed to the media along with a typewritten document, prepared by
Scientology, entitled "Chronology of Events Leading to Contempt Motion".
25 The notice of motion in essence alleged that Casey Hill had participated
in the misleading of Sirois J. and that he had participated in or aided and
abetted others in the opening and inspection of documents which to his knowledge
were sealed by Osler J.
26 On the evening of September 17, 1984, the CFTO broadcast was seen by an
audience of approximately 132,000 people. The text of the broadcast is set out
in Appendix A to these reasons. The CBC broadcast was seen by approximately
118,000 people. The text is found in Appendix B. The following morning, an
article appeared in The Globe and Mail entitled "Motion of Contempt Launched by
Church". Approximately 108,000 copies of the edition containing this article
were distributed. The article is reproduced in Appendix C. All three
publications repeated the allegations made in the notice of motion.
27 Patricia Felske is a Scientologist who had attended at the offices of the
OPP on a regular basis since March 1983 for the purpose of reviewing the seized
materials and ensuring that the privileged documents were sealed. Between August
29, 1984, and September 27, 1984, she, along with other representatives from
Scientology, opened the sealed envelopes and verified their contents against
photocopies of the documents that Rosemarie Drapkin had examined. Their purpose
was to determine whether Ms. Drapkin had been granted access to the restricted
materials.
28 On September 17, 1984, the day of the press conference, the Scientology
investigation was well advanced and neither then nor later was there any
indication that Drapkin gained access to sealed documents. Scientology and
Manning nevertheless proceeded with the press conference before any conclusive
findings had been made on this issue.
29 On November 2, 1984, Patricia Felske prepared a brief summary of her
findings, entitled "Time Track Re: Solicitor and Client Privileged Documents",
which she sent to Clayton Ruby, Charles Campbell, Morris Manning and Diane
Martin, another of Scientology's lawyers. In it she concluded that "[t]here was
no evidence to support any allegation that the sealed envelopes had been
tampered with by the OPP" (emphasis added).
30 The contempt trial was heard by Cromarty J. for 11 days beginning the
next Monday, November 5, 1984. Morris Manning and Charles Campbell had carriage
of the proceedings on behalf of Scientology. A number of witnesses were called
by them, including Clayton Ruby, Michael Code, Kim Twohig, Rosemarie Drapkin,
James Blacklock, Detective Inspector Ormsby and four other members of the OPP
who had direct responsibility for the seized documents.
31 Following the presentation of Scientology's case, Cromarty J. dismissed
the application on a motion for non-suit on December 7, 1984: 13 W.C.B. 231. He
held that there was no evidence that Casey Hill participated in any stage of the
application made before Sirois J. or that he should have been aware of any need
for further inquiry into Kim Twohig's actions.
32 From the contents of the Felske Memorandum, which only came to light at
the trial of the present action, it is evident that prior to the start of the
contempt hearing, Scientology was well aware that no sealed envelopes had been
opened. Yet, it still proceeded with a contempt prosecution against Casey Hill.
33 Morris Manning testified that he never received the Felske Memorandum and
conceded that if he had been aware of it, he would have been obliged to disclose
it to Casey Hill. However, on the weekend prior to the start of the contempt
trial, Morris Manning was briefed by Charles Campbell. At trial, both Campbell
and Ruby acknowledged that they had received the Felske Memorandum. In addition,
Campbell testified that all important information concerning the prosecution was
shared with everybody involved. It might be inferred that this would include
Manning.
34 Further, Morris Manning met with Patricia Felske and two other
representatives of Scientology during the weekend prior to the hearing of the
contempt motion. However, he testified that they were not interviewed for the
purpose of giving evidence at the contempt trial nor were they called to do so.
Cromarty J. characterized the failure to call these individuals as "a most
eloquent omission".
35 There was another equally eloquent omission. The OPP officers who were
called by Scientology to testify were not asked to produce the sealed envelopes
they were directed to bring with them to court. If they had, it would have been
obvious that the envelopes had not been tampered with.
(E)The Attempt to Disqualify Casey Hill from the Search and Seizure
Proceedings
36 As stated earlier, Scientology made an application in March 1983 to quash
the search warrant which the OPP had used to seize its documents. This
application was commenced before Osler J. prior to September 17, 1984, but was
adjourned until the completion of the contempt proceedings. Throughout this
time, Casey Hill represented the Crown as lead counsel.
37 The application was resumed on December 18, 1984. By that time, the
contempt charges had been dismissed as unfounded and this libel action had been
commenced. Casey Hill continued to represent the Crown but made a full
disclosure of all the relevant circumstances to Osler J. He submitted that the
proceedings involved the interpretation and application of legal principles
rather than the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and, as a consequence, his
ability to act as responding counsel was not impaired.
38 Scientology, nevertheless, moved to disqualify Casey Hill on the ground
that occasions might arise where he would have to exercise a discretion as to
the production of a document and as to the significance to be attached to it.
Scientology contended that this could reflect adversely upon it and, in due
course result in a favourable consideration of Casey Hill's libel suit.
Scientology was essentially suggesting that Casey Hill would use his position as
Crown counsel to further his private interests. This was a serious attack on his
professional integrity which added to the sting of the libel uttered to that
point.
39 Osler J. emphatically rejected these arguments. He stated that it was
fundamentally important for the Crown to "proceed courageously in the face of
threats and attempts at intimidation or in the face of proceedings that have
been found to be groundless but have obviously had the effect of harassment".
40 On February 18, 1985, Scientology delivered its statement of defence in
this action. Notwithstanding the findings contained in the Felske Memorandum
prepared by its own members, and the conclusion reached by Cromarty J. in the
contempt hearing, Scientology entered a plea of justification.
41 Scientology also put forward as true an allegation that Casey Hill
directed and supervised the OPP in the opening and reviewing of 20 boxes of
documents which had been sealed by order of Linden J. This was found by the
Court of Appeal to constitute a separate allegation of contempt and a further
attack upon the integrity of Casey Hill in the performance of his duties as
Crown counsel.
42 Scientology maintained its plea of justification throughout the trial and
did not withdraw it until the first day of the hearing before the Court of
Appeal on December 6, 1993, some nine years after the original libel.
43 Morris Manning delivered his statement of defence on April 1, 1985, and
also asserted a plea of justification which he did not withdraw until the week
prior to the commencement of the trial. He persisted in this plea despite the
decision of Cromarty J. dismissing the motion to commit Casey Hill for contempt
and despite the overwhelming evidence indicating that the allegations made
against Hill were false.
44 Scientology continued its attack against Casey Hill throughout the trial
of this action, both in the presence of the jury and in its absence. More than
once, it reiterated the libel even though it knew that these allegations were
false. Clearly, it sought to repeatedly attack Casey Hill's moral character.
Some examples are set out below.
The Cross-Examination of Casey Hill
45 Counsel for Scientology subjected Casey Hill to a lengthy
cross-examination which the Court of Appeal correctly described as a "skilful
and deliberate attempt at character assassination" (p. 452 O.R.). Counsel
suggested that Casey Hill often improperly coached his witnesses and took the
same approach with respect to his own testimony at the libel trial. It was
insinuated that Casey Hill was an untrustworthy person who would breach his
undertakings as he had done in this case in relation to the sealed documents.
Attempts were also made to blame him for the failure to give notice to
Scientology concerning the application before Sirois J. even though he had been
vindicated seven years earlier by Cromarty J.
The "Veiled Threat" Against Clayton Ruby
46 Michael Code testified that during the course of his conversation with
Casey Hill on September 6, 1984, the latter had made a veiled threat against
Clayton Ruby which he described in the following terms:
He [Casey Hill] suggests we may receive an ominous reply to Clay's
complaints. He is awaiting a report back from the police. What he said to me was
something to the effect that there was a police investigation of Mr. Ruby's
conduct and basically, you better watch it. [Emphasis added.]
47 When Casey Hill was called in reply, he denied making any such threat or
using the word "ominous" during the conversation. Rather, he testified that he
had used the word "omnibus" in reference to a combined reply to the letters that
Ruby sent to the Solicitor General and to himself.
48 In cross-examination, counsel for Scientology accused Casey Hill of
fabricating this version of events. Not only did counsel suggest that Hill had
lied on the stand, but the general tenor of his questioning implied that Hill
was so unprincipled that he would use the power of the state to intimidate an
opposing lawyer.
The Closing Address to the Jury by Counsel for Scientology
49 During his closing address, counsel for Scientology contended that Casey
Hill had demonstrated feigned and insincere emotion when he described his
reaction to seeing the publication of the CFTO broadcast on the evening of
September 17, 1984. He suggested to the jury that it may have been nothing more
than a "skilled performance to tug at your heartstrings" in order to influence
the verdict.
50 The day after the jury's verdict, on October 4, 1991, Scientology
republished the libel in a press release delivered to the media. A few weeks
later, it issued another press release attacking the verdict of the jury as
"outrageous" and "so exorbitant and so grossly out of proportion that it was
influenced more by L.A. Law than Canadian legal tradition". Shortly thereafter,
it proceeded with a motion before Carruthers J. to adduce evidence which, it
contended, would bear "directly on the credibility and reputation of the
plaintiff S. Casey Hill". That motion was later withdrawn.
51 This action for damages for libel was commenced on December 14, 1984. The
trial before Carruthers J. and a jury lasted from September 3, 1991 until
October 3, 1991. The questions posed to the jury and their answers were as
follows:
SPECIAL VERDICT
QUESTIONS
A. With Respect to the Defendant, Morris Manning
1. Did the CBC broadcast refer to the plaintiff?
A. Yes
2 Did Morris Manning instruct, authorize or consent to the publication of
the Notice of Motion at the press conference?
A. Yes
B. With Respect to Both Defendants
3 Are the words complained of in the CFTO and CBC broadcasts on September
17, 1984, the Globe & Mail article on September 18, 1984 and the Notice of
Motion defamatory of the plaintiff?
A. Yes
4 If the answer to Question 3 is "yes", what general damages, if any, is the
plaintiff, Casey Hill, entitled to from the defendants, The Church of
Scientology of Toronto and Morris Manning?
A. $300,000
5 If your answer to Question 3 is "yes", is he entitled to any aggravated
damages from the defendant, Morris Manning, in addition to any general damages
already assessed, and if so, in what amount?
A. Nil
6 If your answer to Question 3 is "yes", is he entitled to any aggravated
damages from the defendant, The Church of Scientology of Toronto, in addition to
any general damages already assessed, and if so, in what amount?
A. $500,000
7 If your answer to Question 3 is "yes", is he entitled to any punitive
damages from the defendant, The Church of Scientology of Toronto, and if so, in
what amount?
A. $800,000
52 Following the verdict, the appellants made a motion before Carruthers J.
requesting that he completely disregard the jury's assessment of damages because
it was "outrageous, exorbitant and entirely out of proportion to the sting of
the defamation" ((1992), 7 O.R. (3d) 489, at p. 497). Carruthers J. concluded
that the jury was properly instructed as to the object and purpose of each head
of damage and that there was evidence upon which the jury could have reached a
conclusion that it was entitled to award damages under each of the three heads.
53 Carruthers J. refused to "invade the province of the jury" in order to
make his own assessment of the damages (at p. 502). He noted that since both
defendants vigorously opposed each of the several motions on behalf of the
plaintiff to discharge the jury, it was not open to them to suggest that he fix
damages himself.
54 The Court of Appeal, in its careful and extensive reasons, rejected the
appellants' allegation that the common law of defamation violated s. 2(b) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It did so for two reasons. First, the
court held that it was nothing more than a "bare assertion" of
unconstitutionality which could not support their constitutional challenge (at
p. 414). Second, the court held that even if the constitutional challenge could
be resolved in the absence of an evidentiary foundation, the appellants failed
to show that the action for damages commenced by Casey Hill was a form of
"government action" which was necessary in order to attract the application of
the Charter. The court rejected the argument that Casey Hill's position as a
public figure implicated the government in whatever action he pursued. It also
dismissed the submission that the government funding of his action was relevant
to this question.
55 The Court of Appeal then considered the argument that interpreting the
common law in a manner consistent with the Charter required the adoption of the
"actual malice" standard of liability set out in the reasons of the U.S. Supreme
Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). There, Brennan J.
held that public officials could only collect damages for statements concerning
their fitness for office in circumstances where they could demonstrate that the
defamatory statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless
disregard of whether it was false or not" (p. 280). After noting that the common
law concept of malice involves an assessment of different factors, such as
animosity, hostility, ill will and spite, the court concluded that the adoption
of the rule in New York Times v. Sullivan, supra, would result in a major change
to the common law that was neither necessary nor merited. It found that the
existing rule was historically based on sound policy reasons which recognized
the importance of the protection of the reputation of individuals who assume the
responsibilities of public officials.
56 The appellants also submitted that the trial judge erred in ruling that
the circumstances of the press conference did not constitute an occasion of
qualified privilege and in declining to charge the jury with respect to that
defence. The Court of Appeal found that under the common law, qualified
privilege attached only to the publication of documents read or referred to in
open court. It was opposed to conferring a privilege on a press conference held
for the purpose of disseminating to the public details of a pending legal
proceeding at a time when no document in connection with that legal proceeding
had yet been filed in any court office. In rejecting the argument that this
Court's judgment in Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2
S.C.R. 1326, superseded the common law rule, the court stated that, while there
is a right to publish details of judicial proceedings before they are heard in
open court, "such publication does not enjoy the protection of qualified
privilege if it is defamatory" (p. 427).
57 On the subject of general damages, the Court of Appeal examined the
libellous statement, the circumstances of its publication and its effect on
Casey Hill. It found that "[t]he false statements can be seen as little short of
allegations of a criminal breach of trust" (p. 437), "calculated to engender in
the minds of those who learned of [them] that they were very serious and
entirely credible" (p. 438). Accordingly, they justified a very substantial
award of general damages to compensate Casey Hill for the damage to his
reputation and the injury to his feelings. This, it was held, should be the
result even though he had received several promotions and appointments by the
time of trial.
58 With respect to aggravated damages, the Court of Appeal examined the
circumstances existing prior to, at the time of and following the publication of
the libel. It concluded that the jury was entitled to find that its award for
general damages was not large enough to provide adequate solatium to Casey Hill
for the aggravation of his injury which was caused by Scientology's malicious
libel and reprehensible conduct.
59 The court then turned its attention to the issue of punitive damages and
concluded as follows at p. 459:
What the circumstances of this case demonstrated beyond peradventure to the
jury was that Scientology was engaged in an unceasing and apparently unstoppable
campaign to destroy Casey Hill and his reputation. It must have been apparent to
the jury that a very substantial penalty was required because Scientology had
not been deterred from its course of conduct by a previous judicial
determination that its allegations were unfounded nor by its own knowledge that
its principal allegation [that the sealed documents had been opened] was false.
60 The court also observed that it would not interfere with the award of
punitive damages on the ground that Scientology persisted in its attack on Casey
Hill's reputation even after the jury's verdict.
61 On the question of pre-judgment interest, the court concluded that since
the appellants had accommodated counsel for Casey Hill in order to permit him to
participate in a Royal Commission, it would be unfair to charge them with
prejudgment interest for this period. Also, in considering whether Morris
Manning should bear an equal portion of the costs of the trial with Scientology,
the court pointed out that much of the trial was devoted to the plea of
justification pursued by Scientology alone. Furthermore, the majority of the
damages were awarded against Scientology. Therefore, the court concluded that
the trial costs should be apportioned, with Morris Manning paying only 30
percent of the assessed costs and Scientology the balance. However, it added
that the parties should remain jointly and severally liable for all costs with
each having a claim over against the other for any amount paid beyond their
apportioned liability.
62 Two major issues are raised in this appeal. The first concerns the
constitutionality of the common law action for defamation. The second relates to
the damages that can properly be assessed in such actions.
63 Let us first review the appellants' submissions pertaining to defamation
actions. The appellants contend that the common law of defamation has failed to
keep step with the evolution of Canadian society. They argue that the guiding
principles upon which defamation is based place too much emphasis on the need to
protect the reputation of plaintiffs at the expense of the freedom of expression
of defendants. This, they say, is an unwarranted restriction which is imposed in
a manner that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society. The
appellants add that if the element of government action in the present case is
insufficient to attract Charter scrutiny under s. 32, the principles of the
common law ought, nevertheless, to be interpreted, even in a purely private
action, in a manner consistent with the Charter. This, the appellants say, can
only be achieved by the adoption of the "actual malice" standard of liability
articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of New York
Times v. Sullivan, supra.
64 In addition, the appellant Morris Manning submits that the common law
should be interpreted so as to afford the defence of qualified privilege to a
lawyer who, acting on behalf of a client, reads and comments in public upon a
notice of motion which he believes, in good faith, has been filed in court, and
which subsequently is filed. Let us consider first whether the Charter is
directly applicable to this case.
65 The appellants have not challenged the constitutionality of any of the
provisions of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12. The question,
then, is whether the common law of defamation can be subject to Charter
scrutiny. The appellants submit that by reason of his position as a government
employee, Casey Hill's action for damages constitutes "government action" within
the meaning of s. 32 of the Charter. In the alternative, the appellants submit
that, pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the common law must be
interpreted in light of Charter values. I will address the s. 32 argument first.
(1) Section 32: Government Action
66 Section 32(1) reads:
32. (1) This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters
within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon
Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all
matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
67 In RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573, McIntyre J., with
regard to the application of the Charter to the common law, stated at pp.
598-99:
It is my view that s. 32 of the Charter specifies the actors to whom the
Charter will apply. They are the legislative, executive and administrative
branches of government. It will apply to those branches of government whether or
not their action is invoked in public or private litigation. . . . It will apply
to the common law, however, only in so far as the common law is the basis of
some governmental action which, it is alleged, infringes a guaranteed right or
freedom. [Emphasis added.]
68 La Forest J., writing for the majority in McKinney v. University of
Guelph, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229, stressed the importance of this limitation on the
application of the Charter to the actions of government. He said this at p. 262:
The exclusion of private activity from the Charter was not a result of
happenstance. It was a deliberate choice which must be respected. We do not
really know why this approach was taken, but several reasons suggest themselves.
Historically, bills of rights, of which that of the United States is the great
constitutional exemplar, have been directed at government. Government is the
body that can enact and enforce rules and authoritatively impinge on individual
freedom. Only government requires to be constitutionally shackled to preserve
the rights of the individual.
69 La Forest J. warned that subjecting all private and public action to
constitutional review would mean reopening whole areas of settled law and would
be "tantamount to setting up an alternative tort system" (p. 263). He expressed
the very sage warning that this "could strangle the operation of society" (p.
262). See also McLellan and Elman, "To Whom Does the Charter Apply? Some Recent
Cases on Section 32" (1986), 24 Alta. L. Rev. 361, at p. 367, cited in Dolphin
Delivery Ltd., supra, at p. 597.
70 The appellants argue that at all material times Casey Hill was an agent
of the Crown, acting on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, and that the
defamatory statements which are the subject of the present action were made in
relation to acts undertaken by him in that capacity. They further submit that
Casey Hill commenced these legal proceedings at the direction and with the
financial support of the Attorney General in order to vindicate the damage to
the reputation of the Ministry resulting from criticism levelled at the conduct
of one of its officials. It is, therefore, contended that this action represents
an effort by a government department to use the action of defamation to restrict
and infringe the freedom of expression of the appellants in a manner that is
contrary to the Charter.
71 These submissions cannot be accepted. They have no legal, evidentiary or
logical basis of support. Casey Hill's constitutional status for the purpose of
the application of the Charter should not be determined by the nature of the
allegations made against him. Rather, the determination of whether state
involvement existed is dependent upon the circumstances surrounding the
institution of the libel proceedings.
72 The fact that persons are employed by the government does not mean that
their reputation is automatically divided into two parts, one related to their
personal life and the other to their employment status. To accept the
appellants' position would mean that identical defamatory comments would be
subject to two different laws, one applicable to government employees, the other
to the rest of society. Government employment cannot be a basis for such a
distinction. Reputation is an integral and fundamentally important aspect of
every individual. It exists for everyone quite apart from employment.
73 In order to establish the requisite government action for Charter
scrutiny, the appellants argue that it is easy to distinguish between a janitor
working in a government building who is simply an employee and a Crown Attorney
who is an agent of the state. It is said that when a person who is clearly an
agent of the state acts, he or she is acting for or on behalf of the state. I
cannot accept this proposition. There are a significant number of public
servants who represent the Crown in any number of ways. While it might be easy
to differentiate between the extreme examples set forth by the appellants, the
grey area between those extremes is too extensive and the functions of the
officials too varied to draw any effective line of distinction. The experience
in the United States following the decision in New York Times v. Sullivan,
supra, is instructive in this regard. That case modified the common law in
relation to defamation suits brought by public officials and touched off an
intense debate with respect to who might be designated as a public official or
figure rather than a private person. See, for example, G. C. Christie, "Injury
to Reputation and the Constitution: Confusion Amid Conflicting Approaches"
(1976), 75 Mich. L. Rev. 43.
74 There is no doubt that Crown Attorneys exercise statutory powers as
agents of the government. See Ministry of the Attorney General Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c. M.17; Crown Attorneys Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.49; and the Criminal Code, s.
504. Therefore, as McIntyre J. pointed out in Nelles v. Ontario, [1989] 2 S.C.R.
170, at p. 209, they benefit from the protection of any immunity which attaches
to their office. However, they may become personally liable when they exceed
their statutory powers. By extension, actions taken by Crown Attorneys which are
outside the scope of their statutory duties are independent of and distinct from
their status as agents for the government. Such was the case here.
75 The appellants impugned the character, competence and integrity of Casey
Hill, himself, and not that of the government. He, in turn, responded by
instituting legal proceedings in his own capacity. There was no evidence that
the Ministry of the Attorney General or the Government of Ontario required or
even requested him to do so. Neither is there any indication that the Ministry
controlled the conduct of the litigation in any way. See Lavigne v. Ontario
Public Service Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211, at pp. 311-14. Further, the
fact that Casey Hill's suit may have been funded by the Ministry of the Attorney
General does not alter his constitutional status or cloak his personal action in
the mantle of government action. See McKinney, supra, at p. 269.
76 The private nature of these proceedings is apparent, as well, from the
respondent's statement of claim, and particularly from the allegation contained
in para. 19 that the defamatory statements:
. . . constituting as they do statements of the most serious professional
misconduct by the Plaintiff, have damaged his professional reputation and
brought him into public scandal, odium and contempt, by reason of which the
Plaintiff has suffered damage.
77 The position taken by the appellants at trial is also revealing.
Scientology argued that Casey Hill was proceeding with the litigation to advance
his "secondary private interest", that he was trying to "get back at
[Scientology] for prosecuting him for contempt", and that the libel action
amounted to "a risk-free opportunity . . . to pick up some easy money".
78 The personal nature of the libel action is also evident in the
cross-examination of Casey Hill concerning his work with the OPP. At that time,
counsel for Scientology stated that the libel action had nothing "to do with
damages suffered by Mr. Hill. It's part of an attack motivated by the attitude
towards the Church of Scientology, motivated by the fact that as a result of the
contempt prosecution he is removed from prosecuting".
79 In my opinion, the appellants have not satisfied the government action
requirement described in s. 32. Therefore, the Charter cannot be applied
directly to scrutinize the common law of defamation in the circumstances of this
case.
80 Even if there were sufficient government action to bring this case within
s. 32, the appellants failed to provide any evidentiary basis upon which to
adjudicate their constitutional attack. This Court has stated on a number of
occasions that it will not determine alleged Charter violations in the absence
of a proper evidentiary record. See, for example, MacKay v. Manitoba, [1989] 2
S.C.R. 357. In light of the conclusion that the government action requirement of
s. 32 has not been met, I need not address this issue. Yet, I feel a brief
comment is necessary because of the light it sheds on the manner in which the
appellants have conducted themselves in this litigation.
81 The action was commenced in December 1984. By the fall of 1985, the
appellants were made aware of the requirement to adduce constitutional evidence.
In dismissing the appellants' pre-trial motion with respect to the
constitutional issues, O'Driscoll J. clearly indicated that the constitutional
questions must be decided upon evidence adduced at trial. The date for trial was
fixed in January 1991 and confirmed in June. On September 4, 1991, two days into
the proceedings, counsel for Scientology sought to adjourn the trial on the
grounds that there was "a possibility of . . . seeking to call expert evidence
in regard to the freedom of speech issue in this trial". Counsel conceded that
he had not prepared or delivered any reports of experts in respect to this
issue, and indeed, that he had not yet even consulted with experts. He simply
wanted the adjournment in order to "explore that area". The request for
adjournment was very properly dismissed.
82 There is no government action involved in this defamation suit. It now
must be determined whether a change or modification in the law of defamation is
required to make it comply with the underlying values upon which the Charter is
founded.
(2)Section 52: Charter Values and the Common Law
(a)Interpreting the Common Law in Light of the Values Underlying the
Charter
(i)Review of the Decisions Dealing With the Issue
83 This Court first considered the application of the Charter to the common
law in Dolphin Delivery, supra. In that case, the issue was whether an
injunction to restrain secondary picketing violated the Charter freedom of
expression. It was held that, pursuant to s. 32(1) of the Charter, a cause of
action could only be based upon the Charter when particular government action
was impugned. Therefore, the constitutionality of the common law could be
scrutinized in those situations where a case involved government action which
was authorized or justified on the basis of a common law rule which allegedly
infringed a Charter right. However, Dolphin Delivery, supra, also held that the
common law could be subjected to Charter scrutiny in the absence of government
action. McIntyre J. wrote, at pp. 592-93, that, in light of s. 52(1) of the
Constitution Act, 1982, "there can be no doubt" that the Charter, applies to the
common law:
The English text provides that "any law that is inconsistent with the
provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no
force or effect". If this language is not broad enough to include the common
law, it should be observed as well that the French text adds strong support to
this conclusion in its employment of the words "elle rend inopérantes les
dispositions incompatibles de tout autre règle de droit". . . . To adopt a
construction of s. 52(1) which would exclude from Charter application the whole
body of the common law which in great part governs the rights and obligations of
the individuals in society, would be wholly unrealistic and contrary to the
clear language employed in s. 52(1) of the Act. [Emphasis in Dolphin Delivery.]
In emphasizing that the common law should develop in a manner consistent
with Charter principles, a distinction was drawn between private litigants
founding a cause of action on the Charter and judges exercising their inherent
jurisdiction to develop the common law. At page 603 this was written:
Where, however, private party "A" sues private party "B" relying on the
common law and where no act of government is relied upon to support the action,
the Charter will not apply. I should make it clear, however, that this is a
distinct issue from the question whether the judiciary ought to apply and
develop the principles of the common law in a manner consistent with the
fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution. The answer to this question
must be in the affirmative. In this sense, then, the Charter is far from
irrelevant to private litigants whose disputes fall to be decided at common law.
But this is different from the proposition that one private party owes a
constitutional duty to another, which proposition underlies the purported
assertion of Charter causes of action or Charter defences between individuals.
[Emphasis added.]
84 Since 1986, this Court has subjected the common law to Charter scrutiny
in a number of situations where government action was based upon a common law
rule: B.C.G.E.U. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; R.
v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; and Dagenais
v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835. However, Dolphin Delivery,
supra, remains the only case which has closely examined the application of the
Charter in the context of purely private litigation. Nevertheless, it is helpful
to review the different approaches which have been suggested in those cases in
order to better appreciate which principles should properly apply in cases of
private litigation.
85 In R. v. Salituro, supra, the Crown called the accused's estranged wife
as a witness. The common law rule prohibiting spouses from testifying against
each other was found to be inconsistent with developing social values and with
the values enshrined in the Charter. At page 670, Iacobucci J., writing for the
Court, held:
Judges can and should adapt the common law to reflect the changing social,
moral and economic fabric of the country. Judges should not be quick to
perpetuate rules whose social foundation has long since disappeared.
Nonetheless, there are significant constraints on the power of the judiciary to
change the law. As McLachlin J. indicated in Watkins, supra, in a constitutional
democracy such as ours it is the legislature and not the courts which has the
major responsibility for law reform; and for any changes to the law which may
have complex ramifications, however necessary or desirable such changes may be,
they should be left to the legislature. The judiciary should confine itself to
those incremental changes which are necessary to keep the common law in step
with the dynamic and evolving fabric of our society.
Further, at p. 675 this Court held:
Where the principles underlying a common law rule are out of step with the
values enshrined in the Charter, the courts should scrutinize the rule closely.
If it is possible to change the common law rule so as to make it consistent with
Charter values, without upsetting the proper balance between judicial and
legislative action that I have referred to above, then the rule ought to be
changed.
86 Unlike the present appeal and the decisions of this Court in B.C.G.E.U.,
Swain, and Dagenais, the common law rule in Salituro was not alleged to infringe
a specific Charter right. Rather, it was alleged to be inconsistent with those
fundamental values that provide the foundation for the Charter. Although the
Court in Salituro considered whether Parliament had, through the Evidence Act,
intended to preserve the common law rule, it did not undertake an analysis
similar to that which would be required under s. 1 to determine if the Charter
breach was justifiable. Rather, it proceeded to balance, in a broad and flexible
manner, the conflicting values. The reasons examined the origins of the impugned
common law rule and the justifications which had been raised for upholding it.
These concerns were weighed against the Charter's recognition of the equality of
women and, more specifically, against the concept of human dignity which
inspires the Charter. It was held that the values which were set out in the
common law rule did not represent the values of today's society which are
reflected in the provisions of the Charter.
87 In B.C.G.E.U., supra, McEachern C.J.B.C. on his own motion issued an
injunction against a union picketing in front of the courthouse: [1983] 6 W.W.R.
640. It was held that the common law rule giving rise to the picketing
injunction breached s. 2(b). The breach was then found to be justified following
a traditional s. 1 analysis.
88 Subsequently, in R. v. Swain, supra, Lamer C.J. observed that the s. 1
analysis, which has evolved since R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, may not
always provide the appropriate framework by which to evaluate the justifications
for maintaining a common law rule. In R. v. Swain, the Crown raised the insanity
defence, over objections by the accused, on the basis of the common law rule
which authorized such a procedure. That rule was found to violate s. 7 of the
Charter. At pages 978-79, Lamer C.J. held:
Before turning to s. 1, however, I wish to point out that because this
appeal involves a Charter challenge to a common law, judge-made rule, the
Charter analysis involves somewhat different considerations than would apply to
a challenge to a legislative provision. For example, having found that the
existing common law rule limits an accused's rights under s. 7 of the Charter,
it may not be strictly necessary to go on to consider the application of s. 1.
Having come to the conclusion that the common law rule enunciated by the Ontario
Court of Appeal limits an accused's right to liberty in a manner which does not
accord with the principles of fundamental justice, it could, in my view, be
appropriate to consider at this stage whether an alternative common law rule
could be fashioned which would not be contrary to the principles of fundamental
justice.
If a new common law rule could be enunciated which would not interfere with
an accused person's right to have control over the conduct of his or her
defence, I can see no conceptual problem with the Court's simply enunciating
such a rule to take the place of the old rule, without considering whether the
old rule could nonetheless be upheld under s. 1 of the Charter. Given that the
common law rule was fashioned by judges and not by Parliament or a legislature,
judicial deference to elected bodies is not an issue. If it is possible to
reformulate a common law rule so that it will not conflict with the principles
of fundamental justice, such a reformulation should be undertaken. Of course, if
it were not possible to reformulate the common law rule so as to avoid an
infringement of a constitutionally protected right or freedom, it would be
necessary for the Court to consider whether the common law rule could be upheld
as a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter.
Nevertheless, in R. v. Swain, the formal s. 1 analysis was undertaken since
Oakes, supra, provided a familiar structure for analysis, the constitutional
questions were stated with s. 1 in mind and the Court had the benefit of
extensive argument on s. 1.
89 Finally, in Dagenais, supra, the CBC challenged a publication ban which
prevented them from airing one of their programmes. It was held that where the
common law rule on publication bans conflicted with Charter values, the common
law rule must be varied in such a manner as to enable the Court to consider both
the objective of a publication ban and the proportionality of the ban's effect
on protected Charter rights. Without adopting a formal s. 1 analysis, it was
held that this approach "clearly reflects the substance of the Oakes test
applicable when assessing legislation under s. 1 of the Charter" (p. 878).
90 In light of these cases, then, it remains to be determined what approach
should be followed when, in the context of private litigation with no government
action involved, a common law rule is alleged to be inconsistent with the
Charter.
(ii)Approach That Should Be Followed
91 It is clear from Dolphin Delivery, supra, that the common law must be
interpreted in a manner which is consistent with Charter principles. This
obligation is simply a manifestation of the inherent jurisdiction of the courts
to modify or extend the common law in order to comply with prevailing social
conditions and values. As was said in Salituro, supra, at p. 678:
The courts are the custodians of the common law, and it is their duty to
see that the common law reflects the emerging needs and values of our society.
92 Historically, the common law evolved as a result of the courts making
those incremental changes which were necessary in order to make the law comply
with current societal values. The Charter represents a restatement of the
fundamental values which guide and shape our democratic society and our legal
system. It follows that it is appropriate for the courts to make such
incremental revisions to the common law as may be necessary to have it comply
with the values enunciated in the Charter.
93 When determining how the Charter applies to the common law, it is
important to distinguish between those cases in which the constitutionality of
government action is challenged, and those in which there is no government
action involved. It is important not to import into private litigation the
analysis which applies in cases involving government action.
94 In Dolphin Delivery, supra, it was noted that the Charter sets out those
specific constitutional duties which the state owes to its citizens. When
government action is challenged, whether it is based on legislation or the
common law, the cause of action is founded upon a Charter right. The claimant
alleges that the state has breached its constitutional duty. The state, in turn,
must justify that breach. While criminal cases present the prime example of
government action, challenges to government action can also arise in civil
cases. The state's obligation to uphold its constitutional duties is no less
pressing in the civil sphere than in the criminal. The two cases of B.C.G.E.U.,
supra, and Dagenais, supra, present a very specific type of "government action"
in the civil context. In both cases, the Court was called upon to consider the
operations of the Court and to determine the extent of its own jurisdiction to
consider matters which were essentially public in nature. The cases did not
involve strictly private litigation. Therefore, they must be approached with
caution when considering what analysis should be applied in purely private civil
litigation.
95 Private parties owe each other no constitutional duties and cannot found
their cause of action upon a Charter right. The party challenging the common law
cannot allege that the common law violates a Charter right because, quite
simply, Charter rights do not exist in the absence of state action. The most
that the private litigant can do is argue that the common law is inconsistent
with Charter values. It is very important to draw this distinction between
Charter rights and Charter values. Care must be taken not to expand the
application of the Charter beyond that established by s. 32(1), either by
creating new causes of action, or by subjecting all court orders to Charter
scrutiny. Therefore, in the context of civil litigation involving only private
parties, the Charter will "apply" to the common law only to the extent that the
common law is found to be inconsistent with Charter values.
96 Courts have traditionally been cautious regarding the extent to which
they will amend the common law. Similarly, they must not go further than is
necessary when taking Charter values into account. Far-reaching changes to the
common law must be left to the legislature.
97 When the common law is in conflict with Charter values, how should the
competing principles be balanced? In my view, a traditional s. 1 framework for
justification is not appropriate. It must be remembered that the Charter
"challenge" in a case involving private litigants does not allege the violation
of a Charter right. It addresses a conflict between principles. Therefore, the
balancing must be more flexible than the traditional s. 1 analysis undertaken in
cases involving governmental action cases. Charter values, framed in general
terms, should be weighed against the principles which underlie the common law.
The Charter values will then provide the guidelines for any modification to the
common law which the court feels is necessary.
98 Finally, the division of onus which normally operates in a Charter
challenge to government action should not be applicable in a private litigation
Charter "challenge" to the common law. This is not a situation in which one
party must prove a prima facie violation of a right while the other bears the
onus of defending it. Rather, the party who is alleging that the common law is
inconsistent with the Charter should bear the onus of proving both that the
common law fails to comply with Charter values and that, when these values are
balanced, the common law should be modified. In the ordinary situation, where
government action is said to violate a Charter right, it is appropriate that the
government undertake the justification for the impugned statute or common law
rule. However, the situation is very different where two private parties are
involved in a civil suit. One party will have brought the action on the basis of
the prevailing common law which may have a long history of acceptance in the
community. That party should be able to rely upon that law and should not be
placed in the position of having to defend it. It is up to the party challenging
the common law to bear the burden of proving not only that the common law is
inconsistent with Charter values but also that its provisions cannot be
justified.
99 With that background, let us first consider the common law of defamation
in light of the values underlying the Charter.
(b)The Nature of Actions for Defamation: The Values to Be Balanced
100 There can be no doubt that in libel cases the twin values of reputation
and freedom of expression will clash. As Edgerton J. stated in Sweeney v.
Patterson, 128 F.2d 457 (D.C. Cir. 1942), at p. 458, cert. denied 317 U.S. 678
(1942), whatever is "added to the field of libel is taken from the field of free
debate". The real question, however, is whether the common law strikes an
appropriate balance between the two. Let us consider the nature of each of these
values.
Freedom of Expression
101 Much has been written of the great importance of free speech. Without
this freedom to express ideas and to criticize the operation of institutions and
the conduct of individual members of government agencies, democratic forms of
government would wither and die. See, for example, Reference re Alberta
Statutes, [1938] S.C.R. 100, at p. 133; Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285,
at p. 306; and Boucher v. The King, [1951] S.C.R. 265, at p. 326. More recently,
in Edmonton Journal, supra, at p. 1336, it was said:
It is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to a
democratic society than freedom of expression. Indeed a democracy cannot exist
without that freedom to express new ideas and to put forward opinions about the
functioning of public institutions. The concept of free and uninhibited speech
permeates all truly democratic societies and institutions. The vital importance
of the concept cannot be over-emphasized.
102 However, freedom of expression has never been recognized as an absolute
right. Duff C.J. emphasized this point in Reference re Alberta Statutes, supra,
at p. 133:
The right of public discussion is, of course, subject to legal
restrictions; those based upon considerations of decency and public order, and
others conceived for the protection of various private and public interests with
which, for example, the laws of defamation and sedition are concerned. In a
word, freedom of discussion means . . . "freedom governed by law." [Emphasis
added.]
See also Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067, at
pp. 1072 and 1091.
103 Similar reasoning has been applied in cases argued under the Charter.
Although a Charter right is defined broadly, generally without internal limits,
the Charter recognizes, under s. 1, that social values will at times conflict
and that some limits must be placed even on fundamental rights. As La Forest J.
explained in United States of America v. Cotroni, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469, at p.
1489, this Court has adopted a flexible approach to measuring the
constitutionality of impugned provisions wherein "the underlying values [of the
Charter] must be sensitively weighed in a particular context against other
values of a free and democratic society . . .".
104 In R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, for example, s. 319(2) of the
Criminal Code was found to be justified as a reasonable limit on the appellant's
freedom to spread falsehoods relating to the Holocaust and thus to promote
hatred against an identifiable group. Dickson C.J. adopted the contextual
approach to s. 1 and concluded that, since hate propaganda contributed little to
the values which underlie the right enshrined under s. 2(b), namely the quest
for truth, the promotion of individual self-development, and participation in
the community, a restriction on this type of expression might be easier to
justify than would be the case with other kinds of expression.
105 In R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452, the obscenity provisions of the
Criminal Code, s. 163, were questioned. It was held, under the s. 1 analysis,
that pornography could not stand on an equal footing with other kinds of
expression which directly engage the "core" values of freedom of expression.
Further, it was found that the fact that the targeted material was expression
motivated by economic profit more readily justified the imposition of
restrictions.
106 Certainly, defamatory statements are very tenuously related to the core
values which underlie s. 2(b). They are inimical to the search for truth. False
and injurious statements cannot enhance self-development. Nor can it ever be
said that they lead to healthy participation in the affairs of the community.
Indeed, they are detrimental to the advancement of these values and harmful to
the interests of a free and democratic society. This concept was accepted in
Globe and Mail Ltd. v. Boland, [1960] S.C.R. 203, at pp. 208-9, where it was
held that an extension of the qualified privilege to the publication of
defamatory statements concerning the fitness for office of a candidate for
election would be "harmful to that `common convenience and welfare of society'".
Reliance was placed upon the text Gatley on Libel and Slander in a Civil Action:
With Precedents of Pleadings (4th ed. 1953), at p. 254, wherein the author
stated the following:
It would tend to deter sensitive and honourable men from seeking public
positions of trust and responsibility, and leave them open to others who have no
respect for their reputation.
See also Derrickson v. Tomat (1992), 88 D.L.R. (4th) 401 (B.C.C.A.), at p.
408.
The Reputation of the Individual
107 The other value to be balanced in a defamation action is the protection
of the reputation of the individual. Although much has very properly been said
and written about the importance of freedom of expression, little has been
written of the importance of reputation. Yet, to most people, their good
reputation is to be cherished above all. A good reputation is closely related to
the innate worthiness and dignity of the individual. It is an attribute that
must, just as much as freedom of expression, be protected by society's laws. In
order to undertake the balancing required by this case, something must be said
about the value of reputation.
108 Democracy has always recognized and cherished the fundamental importance
of an individual. That importance must, in turn, be based upon the good repute
of a person. It is that good repute which enhances an individual's sense of
worth and value. False allegations can so very quickly and completely destroy a
good reputation. A reputation tarnished by libel can seldom regain its former
lustre. A democratic society, therefore, has an interest in ensuring that its
members can enjoy and protect their good reputation so long as it is merited.
109 From the earliest times, society has recognized the potential for tragic
damage that can be occasioned by a false statement made about a person. This is
evident in the Bible, the Mosaic Code and the Talmud. As the author Carter-Ruck,
in Carter-Ruck on Libel and Slander (4th ed. 1992), explains at p. 17:
The earliest evidence in recorded history of any sanction for defamatory
statements is in the Mosaic code. In Exodus XXII 28 we find `Thou shalt not
revile the gods nor curse the ruler of thy people' and in Exodus XXIII 1 `Thou
shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an
unrighteous witness'. There is also a condemnation of rumourmongers in Leviticus
XIX 16 `Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people'.
110 To make false statements which are likely to injure the reputation of
another has always been regarded as a serious offence. During the Roman era, the
punishment for libel varied from the loss of the right to make a will, to
imprisonment, exile for life, or forfeiture of property. In the case of slander,
a person could be made liable for payment of damages.
111 It was decreed by the Teutons in the Lex Salica that if a man called
another a "wolf" or a "hare", he must pay the sum of three shillings; for a
false imputation of unchastity in a woman the penalty was 45 shillings. In the
Normal Costumal, if people falsely called another "thief" or "manslayer", they
had to pay damages and, holding their nose with their fingers, publicly confess
themselves a liar.
112 With the separation of ecclesiastical and secular courts by the decree
of William I following the Norman conquest, the Church assumed spiritual
jurisdiction over defamatory language, which was regarded as a sin. The Church
"stayed the tongue of the defamer at once pro custodia morum of the community,
and pro salute anim{ae} of the delinquent". See V. V. Veeder, "The History and
Theory of the Law of Defamation" (1903), 3 Colum. L. Rev. 546, at p. 551.
113 By the 16th century, the common law action for defamation became
commonplace. This was in no small measure due to the efforts of the Star Chamber
to eradicate duelling, the favoured method of vindication. The Star Chamber even
went so far as to punish the sending of challenges. However, when it proscribed
this avenue of recourse to injured parties, the Star Chamber was compelled to
widen its original jurisdiction over seditious libel to include ordinary
defamation.
114 The modern law of libel is said to have arisen out of the case De
Libellis Famosis (1605), 5 Co. Rep. 125a, 77 E.R. 250. There, the late
Archbishop of Canterbury and the then Bishop of London were alleged to have been
"traduced and scandalized" by an anonymous person. As reported by Coke, it was
ruled that all libels, even those against private individuals, ought to be
sanctioned severely by indictment at common law or in the Star Chamber. The
reasoning behind this was that the libel could incite "all those of the same
family, kindred, or society to revenge, and so tends per consequens to quarrels
and breach of the peace" (p. 251). It was not necessary to show publication to a
third person and it made no difference whether the libel was true or whether the
plaintiff had a good or bad reputation. Eventually, truth was recognized as a
defence in cases involving ordinary defamation.
115 It was not until the late 17th century that the distinction between
libel and slander was drawn by Chief Baron Hale in King v. Lake (1679), Hardres
470, 145 E.R. 552, where it was held that words spoken, without more, would not
be actionable, with a few exceptions. Once they were reduced to writing,
however, malice would be presumed and an action would lie.
116 The character of the law relating to libel and slander in the 20th
century is essentially the product of its historical development up to the 17th
century, subject to a few refinements such as the introduction and recognition
of the defences of privilege and fair comment. From the foregoing we can see
that a central theme through the ages has been that the reputation of the
individual is of fundamental importance. As Professor R. E. Brown writes in The
Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd ed. 1994), at p. 1-4:
"(N)o system of civil law can fail to take some account of the right to
have one's reputation remain untarnished by defamation." Some form of legal or
social constraints on defamatory publications "are to be found in all stages of
civilization, however imperfect, remote, and proximate to barbarism." [Footnotes
omitted.]
117 Though the law of defamation no longer serves as a bulwark against the
duel and blood feud, the protection of reputation remains of vital importance.
As David Lepofsky suggests in "Making Sense of the Libel Chill Debate: Do Libel
Laws `Chill' the Exercise of Freedom of Expression?" (1994), 4 N.J.C.L. 169, at
p. 197, reputation is the "fundamental foundation on which people are able to
interact with each other in social environments". At the same time, it serves
the equally or perhaps more fundamentally important purpose of fostering our
self-image and sense of self-worth. This sentiment was eloquently expressed by
Stewart J. in Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75 (1966), who stated at p. 92:
The right of a man to the protection of his own reputation from unjustified
invasion and wrongful hurt reflects no more than our basic concept of the
essential dignity and worth of every human being -- a concept at the root of any
decent system of ordered liberty.
118 In the present case, consideration must be given to the particular
significance reputation has for a lawyer. The reputation of a lawyer is of
paramount importance to clients, to other members of the profession and to the
judiciary. A lawyer's practice is founded and maintained upon the basis of a
good reputation for professional integrity and trustworthiness. It is the
cornerstone of a lawyer's professional life. Even if endowed with outstanding
talent and indefatigable diligence, a lawyer cannot survive without a good
reputation. In his essay entitled "The Lawyer's Duty to Himself and the Code of
Professional Conduct" (1993), 27 L. Soc. Gaz. 119, David Hawreluk described the
importance of a reputation for integrity. At page 121, he quoted Lord Birkett on
the subject:
The advocate has a duty to his client, a duty to the Court, and a duty to
the State; but he has above all a duty to himself and he shall be, as far as
lies in his power, a man of integrity. No profession calls for higher standards
of honour and uprightness, and no profession, perhaps, offers greater
temptations to forsake them; but whatever gifts an advocate may possess, be they
never so dazzling, without the supreme qualification of an inner integrity he
will fall short of the highest . . .
119 Similarly, Esson J. in Vogel v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1982] 3
W.W.R. 97 (B.C.S.C.), at pp. 177-78 stated:
The qualities required of a lawyer who aspires to the highest level of his
profession are various, but one is essential. That is a reputation for
integrity. The programs were a massive attack upon that reputation. The harm
done to it can never be wholly undone, and therefore the stigma so unfairly
created will always be with the plaintiff.
When the details of the Vogel affair have faded from memory, what will
remain in the minds of many people throughout Canada is a lurking recollection
that he was the centre of a scandal which arose out of his conduct in office.
120 Although it is not specifically mentioned in the Charter, the good
reputation of the individual represents and reflects the innate dignity of the
individual, a concept which underlies all the Charter rights. It follows that
the protection of the good reputation of an individual is of fundamental
importance to our democratic society.
121 Further, reputation is intimately related to the right to privacy which
has been accorded constitutional protection. As La Forest J. wrote in R. v.
Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417, at p. 427, privacy, including informational
privacy, is "[g]rounded in man's physical and moral autonomy" and "is essential
for the well-being of the individual". The publication of defamatory comments
constitutes an invasion of the individual's personal privacy and is an affront
to that person's dignity. The protection of a person's reputation is indeed
worthy of protection in our democratic society and must be carefully balanced
against the equally important right of freedom of expression. In order to
undertake the requisite balancing of values, let us first review the change to
the existing common law proposed by the appellants.
(c)The Proposed Remedy: Adopting the New York Times v. Sullivan "Actual
Malice" Rule
122 In New York Times v. Sullivan, supra, the United States Supreme Court
ruled that the existing common law of defamation violated the guarantee of free
speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution. It held that the citizen's
right to criticize government officials is of such tremendous importance in a
democratic society that it can only be accommodated through the tolerance of
speech which may eventually be determined to contain falsehoods. The solution
adopted was to do away with the common law presumptions of falsity and malice
and place the onus on the plaintiff to prove that, at the time the defamatory
statements were made, the defendant either knew them to be false or was reckless
as to whether they were or not.
123 At the outset, it is important to understand the social and political
context of the times which undoubtedly influenced the decision in New York Times
v. Sullivan, supra. The impugned publication was an editorial advertisement,
placed in the appellant's newspaper, entitled "Heed Their Rising Voices". It
criticized the widespread segregation which continued to dominate life in the
southern states in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Prominent and well respected
individuals, including Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, lent their name to the
advertisement. It communicated information, recited grievances, protested abuses
and sought financial support. The group or movement sponsoring the advertisement
was characterized by Brennan J. as one "whose existence and objectives are
matters of the highest public interest and concern" (p. 266). Black J. described
the controversy at the heart of the suit in the following terms at p. 294:
One of the acute and highly emotional issues in this country arises out of
efforts of many people, even including some public officials, to continue
state-commanded segregation of races in the public schools and other public
places, despite our several holdings that such a state practice is forbidden by
the Fourteenth Amendment.
124 The advertisement did not mention by name the plaintiff, who was a white
elected commissioner from Montgomery, Alabama. Only 35 copies of the edition of
the New York Times which carried that advertisement were circulated in
Montgomery, and only 394 were circulated in the entire state of Alabama. The
trial took place in 1960, in a segregated court room in Montgomery, before a
white judge and all-white jury. Damages of $500,000 U.S. were awarded. This
would be the current equivalent in Canada of approximately $3.5 million.
125 The Supreme Court, in overturning the verdict, clearly perceived the
libel action as a very serious attack not only on the freedom of the press but,
more particularly, on those who favoured desegregation in the southern United
States. It was concerned that such a large damage award could threaten the very
existence of, in Black J.'s words, "an American press virile enough to publish
unpopular views on public affairs and bold enough to criticize the conduct of
public officials" (p. 294). This concern was intensified by the fact that a
second libel verdict of $500,000 U.S. had already been awarded to another
Montgomery commissioner against the New York Times. In addition, 11 other libel
suits, arising out of the same advertisement, were pending against the
newspaper.
126 Another motivating factor for this radical change to the common law was
the American jurisprudence to the effect that the statements of public officials
which came "within the outer perimeter of their duties" were privileged unless
actual malice was proved. The rationale behind this privilege was that the
threat of damage suits would "dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or
the most irresponsible, in the unflinching discharge of their duties": Barr v.
Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959), at p. 571. The Supreme Court in the Sullivan
decision held that analogous considerations supported the protection which it
accorded to critics of the government.
Critiques of the "Actual Malice" Rule
Comments on the Decision in the United States
127 The "actual malice" rule has been severely criticized by American judges
and academic writers. It has been suggested that the decision was overly
influenced by the dramatic facts underlying the dispute and has not stood the
test of time. See, for example, R. A. Epstein, "Was New York Times v. Sullivan
Wrong?" (1986), 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 782, at p. 787; Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v.
Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985), at p. 767. Commentators have
pointed out that, far from being deterred by the decision, libel actions have,
in the post-Sullivan era, increased in both number and size of awards. They
have, in this way, mirrored the direction taken in other tort actions. See
Epstein, supra; R. P. Bezanson, "Libel Law and the Realities of Litigation:
Setting the Record Straight" (1985), 71 Iowa L. Rev. 226, at pp. 228-29. It has
been said that the New York Times v. Sullivan, decision has put great pressure
on the fact-finding process since courts are now required to make subjective
determinations as to who is a public figure and what is a matter of legitimate
public concern. See Christie, supra, at pp. 63-64.
128 Perhaps most importantly, it has been argued the decision has shifted
the focus of defamation suits away from their original, essential purpose.
Rather than deciding upon the truth of the impugned statement, courts in the
U.S. now determine whether the defendant was negligent. Several unfortunate
results flow from this shift in focus. First, it may deny the plaintiff the
opportunity to establish the falsity of the defamatory statements and to
determine the consequent reputational harm. This is particularly true in cases
where the falsity is not seriously contested. See Bezanson, supra, at p. 227.
129 Second, it necessitates a detailed inquiry into matters of media
procedure. This, in turn, increases the length of discoveries and of the trial
which may actually increase, rather than decrease, the threat to speech
interests. See D. A. Barrett, "Declaratory Judgments for Libel: A Better
Alternative" (1986), 74 Cal. L. Rev. 847, at p. 855.
130 Third, it dramatically increases the cost of litigation. This will often
leave a plaintiff who has limited funds without legal recourse. See P. N. Leval,
"The No-Money, No-Fault Libel Suit: Keeping Sullivan in its Proper Place"
(1988), 101 Harv. L. Rev. 1287, at p. 1288; A. Lewis, "New York Times v.
Sullivan Reconsidered: Time to Return to `The Central Meaning of the First
Amendment'" (1983), 83 Colum. L. Rev. 603; M. London, "The `Muzzled Media':
Constitutional Crisis or Product Liability Scam?" in At What Price? Libel Law
and Freedom of the Press (1993), at pp. 17-20.
131 Fourth, the fact that the dissemination of falsehoods is protected is
said to exact a major social cost by deprecating truth in public discourse. See
L. C. Bollinger, "The End of New York Times v Sullivan: Reflections on Masson v
New Yorker Magazine", [1991] Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, at p. 6; J. A. Barron, "Access to
the Press -- A New First Amendment Right" (1966-67), 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1641, at
pp. 1657-58.
132 A number of jurists in the United States have advocated a
reconsideration of the New York Times v. Sullivan standard. These include one of
the justices of the Supreme Court who participated in that decision. In Dun &
Bradstreet, Inc., supra, White J. stated, in a minority concurring opinion with
which Burger C.J. concurred on this point, that he had "become convinced that
the Court struck an improvident balance in the New York Times case between the
public's interest in being fully informed about public officials and public
affairs and the competing interest of those who have been defamed in vindicating
their reputation" (p. 767). He went on to state at pp. 767-69:
In a country like ours, where the people purport to be able to govern
themselves through their elected representatives, adequate information about
their government is of transcendent importance. That flow of intelligence
deserves full First Amendment protection. Criticism and assessment of the
performance of public officials and of government in general are not subject to
penalties imposed by law. But these First Amendment values are not at all served
by circulating false statements of fact about public officials. On the contrary,
erroneous information frustrates these values. They are even more disserved when
the statements falsely impugn the honesty of those men and women and hence
lessen the confidence in government. As the Court said in Gertz: "(T)here is no
constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie
nor the careless error materially advances society's interest in `uninhibited,
robust, and wide-open' debate on public issues." . . . Yet in New York Times
cases, the public official's complaint will be dismissed unless he alleges and
makes out a jury case of a knowing or reckless falsehood. Absent such proof,
there will be no jury verdict or judgment of any kind in his favor, even if the
challenged publication is admittedly false. The lie will stand, and the public
continue to be misinformed about public matters. . . . Furthermore, when the
plaintiff loses, the jury will likely return a general verdict and there will be
no judgment that the publication was false, even though it was without
foundation in reality. The public is left to conclude that the challenged
statement was true after all. Their only chance of being accurately informed is
measured by the public official's ability himself to counter the lie, unaided by
the courts. That is a decidedly weak reed to depend on for the vindication of
First Amendment interests . . .
Also, by leaving the lie uncorrected, the New York Times rule plainly
leaves the public official without a remedy for the damage to his reputation.
Yet the Court has observed that the individual's right to the protection of his
own good name is a basic consideration of our constitutional system, reflecting
"`our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being -- a
concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty.'" . . .
The New York Times rule thus countenances two evils: first, the stream of
information about public officials and public affairs is polluted and often
remains polluted by false information; and second, the reputation and
professional life of the defeated plaintiff may be destroyed by falsehoods that
might have been avoided with a reasonable effort to investigate the facts. In
terms of the First Amendment and reputational interests at stake, these seem
grossly perverse results. [Emphasis added.]
133 In the subsequent case of Coughlin v. Westinghouse Broadcasting & Cable,
Inc., 476 U.S. 1187 (1986), the majority of the United States Supreme Court
refused to grant certiorari. Burger C.J. and Rehnquist J. dissented because of
their view that the court should re-examine New York Times v. Sullivan, supra,
and "give plenary attention to this important issue" (p. 1187).
(ii)Consideration of the Actual Malice Rule in the United Kingdom
134 The courts in England have refused to adopt the "actual malice"
standard. In Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [1993] 1 All
E.R. 1011, the House of Lords considered an action brought by a municipal
council against the publisher of a Sunday newspaper. The claim for damages,
which was denied, arose from articles concerning the authority's management of
its superannuation fund. In his reasons, Lord Keith stated that public interest
considerations similar to those underlying the New York Times v. Sullivan,
supra, decision were involved in that it was "of the highest public importance
that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental
body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism" (p. 1017). However, the
appropriateness of the "actual malice" standard was not considered and it was
not incorporated into the law of England. In fact, Lord Keith stated that if the
individual reputation of any of the local councillors had been wrongly damaged
by the impugned publication, they could have brought an action for defamation in
their personal capacity.
The Australian Position on Actual Malice
135 The Australian case of Theophanous v. Herald & Weekly Times Ltd. (1994),
124 A.L.R. 1 (H.C.), considered an action brought by a member of that country's
House of Representatives in response to a letter to the editor of a local
newspaper which was critical of his views. Although a plurality of the seven
judges sitting on the High Court held that the existing law of defamation
curtailed the constitutionally protected right to political discussion, it
rejected the adoption of the "actual malice" standard, stating at pp. 22-23:
Even assuming that, in conformity with Sullivan, the test is confined to
plaintiffs who are public officials, in our view it gives inadequate protection
to reputation. . . .
. . . the protection of free communication does not necessitate such a
subordination of the protection of individual reputation as appears to have
occurred in the United States.
(iv)The Position Taken by International Law Reform Commissions
136 International law reform organizations have also criticized the New York
Times v. Sullivan rule. The Australian Law Reform Commission's Report No. 11,
Unfair Publication: Defamation and Privacy (the Kirby Committee Report) (1979),
criticized the concept of "public official" on the basis that "a minor elected
official or public servant [would be] in a more vulnerable position than a
prominent businessman" (p. 252). The United Kingdom Report of the Committee on
Defamation (the Faulks Committee Report) (1975), held that the rule "would in
many cases deny a just remedy to defamed persons" (p. 169). Finally, the Irish
Law Reform Commission's Report on the Civil Law of Defamation (the Keane Final
Report) (1991), stated that "while the widest possible range of criticism of
public officials and public figures is desirable, statements of fact contribute
meaningfully to public debate only if they are true" (p. 82).
(e)Conclusion: Should the Law of Defamation be Modified by Incorporating
the Sullivan Principle?
137 The New York Times v. Sullivan decision has been criticized by judges
and academic writers in the United States and elsewhere. It has not been
followed in the United Kingdom or Australia. I can see no reason for adopting it
in Canada in an action between private litigants. The law of defamation is
essentially aimed at the prohibition of the publication of injurious false
statements. It is the means by which the individual may protect his or her
reputation which may well be the most distinguishing feature of his or her
character, personality and, perhaps, identity. I simply cannot see that the law
of defamation is unduly restrictive or inhibiting. Surely it is not requiring
too much of individuals that they ascertain the truth of the allegations they
publish. The law of defamation provides for the defences of fair comment and of
qualified privilege in appropriate cases. Those who publish statements should
assume a reasonable level of responsibility.
138 The Canadian Daily Newspaper Association indicated, in its response to A
Consultation Draft of the General Limitations Act (September 1991) at p. 3, that
the law of libel is a "carefully-crafted regime" which has "functioned fairly
for the media and for complainants for many years". Freedom of speech, like any
other freedom, is subject to the law and must be balanced against the essential
need of the individuals to protect their reputation. The words of Diplock J. in
Silkin v. Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd., [1958] 1 W.L.R. 743, at pp. 745-46, are
worth repeating:
Freedom of speech, like the other fundamental freedoms, is freedom under
the law, and over the years the law has maintained a balance between, on the one
hand, the right of the individual . . . whether he is in public life or not, to
his unsullied reputation if he deserves it, and on the other hand . . . the
right of the public . . . to express their views honestly and fearlessly on
matters of public interest, even though that involves strong criticism of the
conduct of public people.
139 None of the factors which prompted the United States Supreme Court to
rewrite the law of defamation in America are present in the case at bar. First,
this appeal does not involve the media or political commentary about government
policies. Thus the issues considered by the High Court of Australia in
Theophanous, supra, are also not raised in this case and need not be considered.
140 Second, a review of jury verdicts in Canada reveals that there is no
danger of numerous large awards threatening the viability of media
organizations. Finally, in Canada there is no broad privilege accorded to the
public statements of government officials which needs to be counterbalanced by a
similar right for private individuals.
141 In conclusion, in its application to the parties in this action, the
common law of defamation complies with the underlying values of the Charter and
there is no need to amend or alter it.
142 Consideration must now be given to the submission made on behalf of
Morris Manning that the defence of qualified privilege should be expanded to
include reports upon pleadings and court documents that have been filed or are
at the point of being filed.
(f)Should the Common Law Defence of Qualified Privilege be Expanded to
Comply with Charter Values?
143 Qualified privilege attaches to the occasion upon which the
communication is made, and not to the communication itself. As Lord Atkinson
explained in Adam v. Ward, [1917] A.C. 309 (H.L.), at p. 334:
. . . a privileged occasion is . . . an occasion where the person who makes
a communication has an interest or a duty, legal, social, or moral, to make it
to the person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is so made has a
corresponding interest or duty to receive it. This reciprocity is essential.
This passage was quoted with approval in McLoughlin v. Kutasy, [1979] 2
S.C.R. 311, at p. 321.
144 The legal effect of the defence of qualified privilege is to rebut the
inference, which normally arises from the publication of defamatory words, that
they were spoken with malice. Where the occasion is shown to be privileged, the
bona fides of the defendant is presumed and the defendant is free to publish,
with impunity, remarks which may be defamatory and untrue about the plaintiff.
However, the privilege is not absolute and can be defeated if the dominant
motive for publishing the statement is actual or express malice. See Horrocks v.
Lowe, [1975] A.C. 135 (H.L.), at p. 149.
145 Malice is commonly understood, in the popular sense, as spite or
ill-will. However, it also includes, as Dickson J. (as he then was) pointed out
in dissent in Cherneskey, supra, at p. 1099, "any indirect motive or ulterior
purpose" that conflicts with the sense of duty or the mutual interest which the
occasion created. See, also, Taylor v. Despard, [1956] O.R. 963 (C.A.). Malice
may also be established by showing that the defendant spoke dishonestly, or in
knowing or reckless disregard for the truth. See McLoughlin, supra, at pp.
323-24, and Netupsky v. Craig, [1973] S.C.R. 55, at pp. 61-62.
146 Qualified privilege may also be defeated when the limits of the duty or
interest have been exceeded. See The Law of Defamation in Canada, supra, at pp.
13-193 and 13-194; Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts (20th ed. 1992), at
pp. 166-67. As Loreburn E. stated at pp. 320-21 in Adam v. Ward, supra:
. . . the fact that an occasion is privileged does not necessarily protect
all that is said or written on that occasion. Anything that is not relevant and
pertinent to the discharge of the duty or the exercise of the right or the
safeguarding of the interest which creates the privilege will not be protected.
147 In other words, the information communicated must be reasonably
appropriate in the context of the circumstances existing on the occasion when
that information was given. For example, in Douglas v. Tucker, [1952] 1 S.C.R.
275, the defendant, during an election campaign, stated that the plaintiff, who
was the officer of an investment company, had charged a farmer and his wife an
exorbitant rate of interest causing them to lose their property. The plaintiff
maintained that the allegation was without foundation. In response, the
defendant asserted that the plaintiff was facing a charge of fraud which had
been adjourned until after the election. This Court held that the defendant had
an interest in responding to the plaintiff's denial, thereby giving rise to an
occasion of qualified privilege. However, it ruled that the occasion was
exceeded because the defendant's comments went beyond what was "germane and
reasonably appropriate" (p. 286).
148 In Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Dalrymple, [1965] S.C.R. 302, the
district manager of the defendant insurance company threatened to resign and
take the district agents with him. This Court held that it fell within the scope
of the privilege for the company to make certain defamatory comments about the
plaintiff in order to dissuade its agents from leaving.
149 The principal question to be answered in this appeal is whether the
recitation of the contents of the notice of motion by Morris Manning took place
on an occasion of qualified privilege. If so, it remains to be determined
whether or not that privilege was exceeded and thereby defeated.
150 The traditional common law rule with respect to reports on documents
relating to judicial proceedings is set out in Gatley on Libel and Slander (8th
ed. 1981), at p. 252, in these words:
The rule of law is that, where there are judicial proceedings before a properly
constituted judicial tribunal exercising its jurisdiction in open court, then
the publication without malice of a fair and accurate report of what takes place
before that tribunal is privileged.
See, also, The Law of Defamation in Canada, supra, at pp. 14-35, 14-42;
Carter-Ruck on Libel and Slander, supra, at pp. 140-41.
151 The rationale behind this rule is that the public has a right to be
informed about all aspects of proceedings to which it has the right of access.
This is why a news report referring to the contents of any document filed as an
exhibit, or admitted as evidence during the course of the proceedings, is
privileged. However, the common law immunity was not extended to a report on
pleadings or other documents which had not been filed with the court or referred
to in open court. Duff C.J. explained the reasoning for this in Gazette Printing
Co. v. Shallow (1909), 41 S.C.R. 339, at p. 360:
The publicity of proceedings involving the conduct of a judicial authority
serves the important purposes of impressing those concerned in the
administration of justice with a sense of public responsibility, and of
affording every member of the community an opportunity of observing for himself
the mode in which the business of the public tribunals is carried on; but no
such object would appear to be generally served by applying the privilege to the
publication of preliminary statements of claims and defence relating only to
private transactions; formulated by the parties themselves; in respect of which
no judicial action has been taken, and upon which judicial action may never be
invoked. It is only when such preliminary statements or the claims or defences
embodied in them form the basis or the subject of some hearing before, or some
action by, a court or a judicial officer, that their contents can become the
object of any real public concern as touching the public administration of
justice.
152 In Edmonton Journal, supra, at pp. 1338-40, I noted that the public
scrutiny of our courts by the press was fundamentally important in our
democratic society and that s. 2(b) protected not only speakers, but listeners
as well. This right to report on court proceedings extended to pleadings and
court documents filed before trial, since access to these documents served the
same societal needs as reporting on trials. Even in private actions, such as
those for wrongful dismissal or for personal damages, the public may well have
an interest in knowing the kinds of submissions which can be put forward.
153 Both societal standards and the legislation have changed with regard to
access to court documents. When the qualified privilege rule was set out in
Shallow, supra, court documents were not open to the public. Today, the right of
access is guaranteed by legislative provision, in this case s. 137(1) of the
Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. As well, s. 2(b) of the Charter may
in some circumstances provide a basis for gaining access to some court
documents. However, just as s. 137(1) provides for limitations on the right of
access to court documents, so too is the s. 2(b) guarantee subject to reasonable
limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This
Court's reasons in Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988]
2 S.C.R. 122, provide an illustration of the kind of restriction that has been
upheld in relation to information flowing from court proceedings. In that case,
the constitutionality of s. 442(3) of the Criminal Code was upheld. It imposed a
publication ban on the identity of a complainant in sexual assault cases (or any
information that might disclose her identity) upon the request of that
complainant. There is no need to elaborate further on the scope of access,
however, since it does not arise on the facts of this case. It is sufficient to
observe that, in appropriate circumstances, s. 2(b) may provide the means to
gain access to court documents. It follows that the concept of qualified
privilege should be modified accordingly.
154 The public interest in documents filed with the court is too important
to be defeated by the kind of technicality which arose in this case. The record
demonstrates that, prior to holding the press conference, Morris Manning had
every intention of initiating the contempt action in accordance with the
prevailing rules, and had given instructions to this effect. In fact, the proper
documents were served and filed the very next morning. The fact that, by some
misadventure, the strict procedural requirement of filing the documents had not
been fulfilled at the time of the press conference should not defeat the
qualified privilege which attached to this occasion.
155 This said, it is my conclusion that Morris Manning's conduct far
exceeded the legitimate purposes of the occasion. The circumstances of this case
called for great restraint in the communication of information concerning the
proceedings launched against Casey Hill. As an experienced lawyer, Manning ought
to have taken steps to confirm the allegations that were being made. This is
particularly true since he should have been aware of the Scientology
investigation pertaining to access to the sealed documents. In those
circumstances he was duty bound to wait until the investigation was completed
before launching such a serious attack on Hill's professional integrity. Manning
failed to take either of these reasonable steps. As a result of this failure,
the permissible scope of his comments was limited and the qualified privilege
which attached to his remarks was defeated.
156 The press conference was held on the steps of Osgoode Hall in the
presence of representatives from several media organizations. This constituted
the widest possible dissemination of grievous allegations of professional
misconduct that were yet to be tested in a court of law. His comments were made
in language that portrayed Hill in the worst possible light. This was neither
necessary nor appropriate in the existing circumstances. While it is not
necessary to characterize Manning's conduct as amounting to actual malice, it
was certainly high-handed and careless. It exceeded any legitimate purpose the
press conference may have served. His conduct, therefore, defeated the qualified
privilege that attached to the occasion.
The Standard of Appellate Review
157 The appellants do not contend that the trial judge made any substantive
error in his careful directions to the jury. Thus, there is no question of
misdirection of the jury or of its acting upon an improper basis or of any jury
consideration given to wrongfully admitted or excluded evidence. The sole issue
is whether the quantum of the jury's award can stand.
158 Jurors are drawn from the community and speak for their community. When
properly instructed, they are uniquely qualified to assess the damages suffered
by the plaintiff, who is also a member of their community. This is why, as
Robins J.A. noted in Walker v. CFTO Ltd. (1987), 59 O.R. (2d) 104 (C.A.), at p.
110, it is often said that the assessment of damages is "peculiarly the province
of the jury". Therefore, an appellate court is not entitled to substitute its
own judgment as to the proper award for that of the jury merely because it would
have arrived at a different figure.
159 The basis upon which an appellate court can act was very clearly
enunciated by Robins J.A. in Walker, supra. He stated at p. 110 that the court
should consider:
. . . whether the verdict is so inordinately large as obviously to exceed
the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly
operate or, put another way, whether the verdict is so exorbitant or so grossly
out of proportion to the libel as to shock the court's conscience and sense of
justice.
160 The history of this action emphasizes the reasonableness of the jury's
verdict. It was the appellants who had always insisted upon the jury assessing
damages for the libel. When the jury had retired to consider their verdict, they
returned after four hours with the sagacious question: "what if any are
realistic maximums that have been assessed by society in recent history?". The
trial judge prudently sought the advice of counsel on the question. Counsel for
the appellants agreed with the trial judge that no guidance could be given to
the jury as to the quantum of damages. The jury was so advised. They deliberated
for another five hours and returned the verdict which is the subject matter of
this appeal.
161 There can be no doubt that the decision of the trial judge on this
issue, which was concurred in by counsel for the appellants, was correct. In
Ontario, there is no statutory provision for giving guidelines to a jury on this
issue. It is significant that in 1989, when the Courts of Justice Act was
amended (S.O. 1989, c. 67, s. 4) to permit trial judges and counsel to give
guidance to juries concerning damage awards in personal injury actions, no
provision was made in the Act pertaining to libel actions or any other type of
tort action. It would appear, then, that the legislators specifically left the
assessment of damages in libel actions to the jury.
162 The appellants relied upon the case of Rantzen v. Mirror Group
Newspapers (1986) Ltd., [1993] 4 All E.R. 975 (C.A.), to support their position
that an appellate court should reduce this award. In that case, however, the
English Court of Appeal was acting pursuant to newly enacted legislation. This
legislation, passed in 1990, specifically provided that, in cases where the
court had the authority to order a new trial on the ground that the damages
awarded by a jury were excessive or inadequate, it could, instead of ordering a
new trial, substitute a sum for damages which it considered to be proper. This
statutory provision led the court in Rantzen to modify its approach to the
review of a jury's assessment of damages. Therefore, this case is of little use.
163 If guidelines are to be provided to juries, then clearly this is a
matter for legislation. In its absence, the standard which must be applied
remains that the jury's assessment should not be varied unless it shocks the
conscience of the court. With this in mind, let us first consider the jury's
assessment of damages.
General Damages
164 It has long been held that general damages in defamation cases are
presumed from the very publication of the false statement and are awarded at
large. See Ley v. Hamilton (1935), 153 L.T. 384 (H.L.), at p. 386. They are, as
stated, peculiarly within the province of the jury. These are sound principles
that should be followed.
165 The consequences which flow from the publication of an injurious false
statement are invidious. The television report of the news conference on the
steps of Osgoode Hall must have had a lasting and significant effect on all who
saw it. They witnessed a prominent lawyer accusing another lawyer of criminal
contempt in a setting synonymous with legal affairs and the courts of the
province. It will be extremely difficult to correct the impression left with
viewers that Casey Hill must have been guilty of unethical and illegal conduct.
166 The written words emanating from the news conference must have had an
equally devastating impact. All who read the news reports would be left with a
lasting impression that Casey Hill has been guilty of misconduct. It would be
hard to imagine a more difficult situation for the defamed person to overcome.
Every time that person goes to the convenience store, or shopping centre, he
will imagine that the people around him still retain the erroneous impression
that the false statement is correct. A defamatory statement can seep into the
crevasses of the subconscious and lurk there ever ready to spring forth and
spread its cancerous evil. The unfortunate impression left by a libel may last a
lifetime. Seldom does the defamed person have the opportunity of replying and
correcting the record in a manner that will truly remedy the situation. It is
members of the community in which the defamed person lives who will be best able
to assess the damages. The jury as representative of that community should be
free to make an assessment of damages which will provide the plaintiff with a
sum of money that clearly demonstrates to the community the vindication of the
plaintiff's reputation.
Should a Cap be Imposed on Damages in Defamation Cases?
167 The appellants contend that there should be a cap placed on general
damages in defamation cases just as was done in the personal injury context. In
the so-called "trilogy" of Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R.
229, Arnold v. Teno, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287, and Thornton v. Board of School
Trustees of School District No. 57 (Prince George), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267, it was
held that a plaintiff claiming non-pecuniary damages for personal injuries
should not recover more than $100,000.
168 In my view, there should not be a cap placed on damages for defamation.
First, the injury suffered by a plaintiff as a result of injurious false
statements is entirely different from the non-pecuniary damages suffered by a
plaintiff in a personal injury case. In the latter case, the plaintiff is
compensated for every aspect of the injury suffered: past loss of income and
estimated future loss of income, past medical care and estimated cost of future
medical care, as well as non-pecuniary damages. Second, at the time the cap was
placed on non-pecuniary damages, their assessment had become a very real problem
for the courts and for society as a whole. The damages awarded were varying
tremendously not only between the provinces but also between different districts
of a province. Perhaps as a result of motor vehicle accidents, the problem arose
in the courts every day of every week. The size and disparity of assessments was
affecting insurance rates and, thus, the cost of operating motor vehicles and,
indeed, businesses of all kinds throughout the land. In those circumstances, for
that one aspect of recovery, it was appropriate to set a cap.
169 A very different situation is presented with respect to libel actions.
In these cases, special damages for pecuniary loss are rarely claimed and often
exceedingly difficult to prove. Rather, the whole basis for recovery for loss of
reputation usually lies in the general damages award. Further, a review of the
damage awards over the past nine years reveals no pressing social concern
similar to that which confronted the courts at the time the trilogy was decided.
From 1987 to 1991, there were only 27 reported libel judgments in Canada, with
an average award of $30,000. Subsequent to the decision in this case, from 1992
to 1995, there have been 24 reported libel judgments, with an average award of
less than $20,000. This later figure does not include the award in Jill Fishing
Ltd. v. Koranda Management Inc., [1993] B.C.J. No. 1861 (S.C.), which involved
the assessment of damages for a number of different causes of action. Therefore,
there is no indication that a cap is required in libel cases.
170 There is a great difference in the nature of the tort of defamation and
that of negligence. Defamation is the intentional publication of an injurious
false statement. While it is true that an actual intention to defame is not
necessary to impose liability on a defendant, the intention to do so is
nevertheless inferred from the publication of the defamatory statement. This
gives rise to the presumption of malice which may be displaced by the existence
of a qualified privilege. Personal injury, on the other hand, results from
negligence which does not usually arise from any desire to injure the plaintiff.
Thus, if it were known in advance what amount the defamer would be required to
pay in damages (as in the personal injury context), a defendant might look upon
that sum as the maximum cost of a licence to defame. A cap would operate in a
manner that would change the whole character and function of the law of
defamation. It would amount to a radical change in policy and direction for the
courts.
171 The courts in England have unequivocally rejected the comparison of
libel and personal injury cases. See, for example, Cassell & Co. v. Broome,
[1972] 1 All E.R. 801 (H.L.), at p. 824; Blackshaw v. Lord, [1983] 2 All E.R.
311 (C.A.), at pp. 337, 340; Sutcliffe v. Pressdram Ltd., [1990] 1 All E.R. 269
(C.A.), at pp. 281-82, 289; and Rantzen v. Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd.,
supra.
172 It is true that in Australia a majority of the High Court held in Carson
v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd. (1993), 113 A.L.R. 577, that some useful reference
could be made to personal injury cases in assessing general damages. However,
the 4-3 division in the court shows the serious concern which this issue
engendered. McHugh J., a member of the minority, wrote (at p. 629):
Awards in personal injury cases and defamation actions serve different
purposes, have different elements and different histories. They are not
comparable. I think that it is a mistake to believe that the pain and suffering
component of a personal injury award can be isolated from the other components
of that award and then compared to an award of compensatory damages in a
defamation action.
173 In any event, I would observe that, if the trilogy were to be applied,
the value of the cap in 1991 would be approximately $250,000. It follows that
even if the appellants' contention on this issue was accepted, the general
damages of $300,000 assessed by the jury would come very close to the range said
to be reasonable by the appellants.
Joint Liability for General Damages
174 Manning complains that the judge erred in refusing to accept his request
that the verdict in general damages be rendered separately. He argues that his
liability should be limited to the statement he made at the press conference and
should not extend to the subsequent circulation of the notice of motion. The
trial judge's error, he argues, contributed to the very high award by the jury.
This position cannot be accepted.
175 It must be remembered that at trial: a) it was the position of Manning's
counsel that Manning and Scientology should be jointly and severally liable for
general damages in respect of each of the defamatory statements published by
them; b) Scientology admitted that it published each of the defamatory
statements at issue in the action; c) Manning admitted that he published each of
the defamatory statements with the exception of the notice of motion; and d) the
jury specifically found that Manning published the notice of motion.
176 Thus, both Manning and Scientology published the notice of motion. It is
a well-established principle that all persons who are involved in the commission
of a joint tort are jointly and severally liable for the damages caused by that
tort. If one person writes a libel, another repeats it, and a third approves
what is written, they all have made the defamatory libel. Both the person who
originally utters the defamatory statement, and the individual who expresses
agreement with it, are liable for the injury. It would thus be inappropriate and
wrong in law to have a jury attempt to apportion liability either for general or
for special damages between the joint tortfeasors Manning and Scientology. See
Lawson v. Burns, [1976] 6 W.W.R. 362 (B.C.S.C.), at pp. 368-69; Gatley on Libel
and Slander (8th ed.), supra, at p. 600. However, this comment does not apply to
aggravated damages, which are assessed on the basis of the particular malice of
each joint tortfeasor.
Application of Principles to the Facts Established in this Case
177 It cannot be forgotten that at the time the libellous statement was
made, Casey Hill was a young lawyer in the Crown Law office working in the
litigation field. For all lawyers their reputation is of paramount importance.
Clients depend on the integrity of lawyers, as do colleagues. Judges rely upon
commitments and undertakings given to them by counsel. Our whole system of
administration of justice depends upon counsel's reputation for integrity.
Anything that leads to the tarnishing of a professional reputation can be
disastrous for a lawyer. It matters not that subsequent to the publication of
the libel, Casey Hill received promotions, was elected a bencher and eventually
appointed a trial judge in the General Division of the Court of Ontario. As a
lawyer, Hill would have no way of knowing what members of the public,
colleagues, other lawyers and judges may have been affected by the dramatic
presentation of the allegation that he had been instrumental in breaching an
order of the court and that he was guilty of criminal contempt.
178 This nagging doubt and sense of hurt must have affected him in every
telephone call he made and received in the course of his daily work, in every
letter that he sent and received and in every appearance that he made before the
courts of the province of Ontario. He would never know who, as a result of the
libellous statement, had some lingering suspicion that he was guilty of
misconduct which was criminal in nature. He would never know who might have
believed that he was a person without integrity who would act criminally in the
performance of his duties as a Crown counsel. He could never be certain who
would accept the allegation that he was guilty of a criminal breach of trust
which was the essential thrust of the libel.
179 The publication of the libellous statement was very carefully
orchestrated. Members of the press and the television media attended at Osgoode
Hall in Toronto to meet two prominent lawyers, Morris Manning and Clayton Ruby.
Osgoode Hall is the seat of the Court of Appeal and the permanent residence of
the Law Society. The building is used as the background in a great many news
reports dealing with important cases emanating from the Court of Appeal. In the
minds of the public, it is associated with the law, with the courts and with the
justice system. Manning went far beyond a simple explanation of the nature of
the notice of motion. He took these very public steps without investigating in
any way whether the allegations made were true.
180 At the time this press conference was called, Scientology members had
been working with the sealed documents for some time and they had not yet
discovered any of the sealed documents to have been opened. Yet, Scientology
persisted in the publication of this libel against Hill, who was listed in their
files as an "enemy".
181 Hill movingly described the effect the reading of the press reports of
the press conference had upon him and of viewing the television broadcast. He
put it in this way:
I was sick. I was shocked. I understood from reading it that it related to
access to the documents. The type of thing that Mr. Ruby and I had been dealing
with over many months, and I was just incredulous.
. . .
I was horrified when I saw it. I had had a long history of dealing with
counsel for the Church of Scientology. Small problems, medium-sized problems and
very serious problems had been raised between us.
Every effort was made to answer those issues as they came up. When I saw
the newscast, I realized that there was really nothing I could do to stop the
information from getting out. I thought it was false. I thought it was a very
dramatic representation . A well-known lawyer as Mr. Manning was -- and he was
gowned.
. . .
And he was standing before the High Court. The indication that I had been
involved in opening sealed documents and giving permission was totally false.
For me, in seeing it, it was equivalent to saying I was a cheat and that I had
obstructed the course of justice. It was an attack on my professional reputation
and I had no way of stopping it.
. . .
I also have no way of knowing whether there are people in the community who
would be in a position to place some reliance on the fact that regardless of the
outcome of the criminal case, Manning, a prominent lawyer, and the Church of
Scientology of Toronto, had still expressed a view on September 17th.
182 The factors which should be taken into account in assessing general
damages are clearly and concisely set out in Gatley on Libel and Slander (8th
ed.), supra, at pp. 592-93, in these words:
SECTION 1. ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
1451. Province of the jury. In an action of libel "the assessment of
damages does not depend on any legal rule." The amount of damages is "peculiarly
the province of the jury," who in assessing them will naturally be governed by
all the circumstances of the particular case. They are entitled to take into
their consideration the conduct of the plaintiff, his position and standing, the
nature of the libel, the mode and extent of publication, the absence or refusal
of any retraction or apology, and "the whole conduct of the defendant from the
time when the libel was published down to the very moment of their verdict. They
may take into consideration the conduct of the defendant before action, after
action, and in court at the trial of the action," and also, it is submitted, the
conduct of his counsel, who cannot shelter his client by taking responsibility
for the conduct of the case. They should allow "for the sad truth that no
apology, retraction or withdrawal can ever be guaranteed completely to undo the
harm it has done or the hurt it has caused." They should also take into account
the evidence led in aggravation or mitigation of the damages.
183 There will of necessity be some overlapping of the factors to be
considered when aggravated damages are assessed. This can be seen from a further
reference to the Gatley text at pp. 593-94 where this appears:
1452. Aggravated damages. The conduct of the defendant, his conduct of the
case, and his state of mind are thus all matters which the plaintiff may rely on
as aggravating the damages. "Moreover, it is very well established that in cases
where the damages are at large the jury (or the judge if the award is left to
him) can take into account the motives and conduct of the defendant where they
aggravate the injury done to the plaintiff. There may be malevolence or spite or
the manner of committing the wrong may be such as to injure the plaintiff's
proper feelings of dignity and pride. These are matters which the jury can take
into account in assessing the appropriate compensation." "In awarding
`aggravated damages' the natural indignation of the court at the injury
inflicted on the plaintiff is a perfectly legitimate motive in making a
generous, rather than a more moderate award to provide an adequate solatium. . .
that is because the injury to the plaintiff is actually greater, and, as the
result of the conduct exciting the indignation, demands a more generous
solatium."
184 In considering and applying the factors pertaining to general damages in
this case it will be remembered that the reports in the press were widely
circulated and the television broadcast had a wide coverage. The setting and the
persons involved gave the coverage an aura of credibility and significance that
must have influenced all who saw and read the accounts. The insidious harm of
the orchestrated libel was indeed spread widely throughout the community.
185 The misconduct of the appellants continued after the first publication.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing of the contempt motion before Cromarty
J., Scientology was aware that the allegations it was making against Casey Hill
were false. Yet, it persisted with the contempt hearings as did Morris Manning.
At the conclusion of the contempt hearing, both appellants were aware of the
falsity of the allegations. Nonetheless, when the libel action was instituted,
the defence of justification was put forward by both of them. The statement of
defence alleging justification or truth of the allegation was open for all the
public to see. Despite their knowledge of its falsity, the appellants continued
to publish the libel. Although Manning withdrew the plea of justification, this
was only done in the week prior to the commencement of the trial itself. For its
part, Scientology did not withdraw its plea of justification until the hearing
of the appeal. Finally, the manner in which Hill was cross-examined by the
appellants, coupled with the manner in which they presented their position to
the jury, in light of their knowledge of the falsity of their allegations, are
further aggravating factors to be taken into account.
186 When all these facts are taken into account there is no question that
the award of $300,000 by way of general damages was justified in this case.
Comparison with Other Libel Cases
187 At the outset, I should state that I agree completely with the Court of
Appeal that each libel case is unique and that this particular case is in a
"class by itself". The assessment of damages in a libel case flows from a
particular confluence of the following elements: the nature and circumstances of
the publication of the libel, the nature and position of the victim of the
libel, the possible effects of the libel statement upon the life of the
plaintiff, and the actions and motivations of the defendants. It follows that
there is little to be gained from a detailed comparison of libel awards.
Aggravated Damages
General Principles
188 Aggravated damages may be awarded in circumstances where the defendants'
conduct has been particularly high-handed or oppressive, thereby increasing the
plaintiff's humiliation and anxiety arising from the libellous statement. The
nature of these damages was aptly described by Robins J.A. in Walker v. CFTO
Ltd., supra, in these words at p. 111:
Where the defendant is guilty of insulting, high-handed, spiteful, malicious or
oppressive conduct which increases the mental distress -- the humiliation,
indignation, anxiety, grief, fear and the like -- suffered by the plaintiff as a
result of being defamed, the plaintiff may be entitled to what has come to be
known as "aggravated damages".
189 These damages take into account the additional harm caused to the
plaintiff's feelings by the defendant's outrageous and malicious conduct. Like
general or special damages, they are compensatory in nature. Their assessment
requires consideration by the jury of the entire conduct of the defendant prior
to the publication of the libel and continuing through to the conclusion of the
trial. They represent the expression of natural indignation of right-thinking
people arising from the malicious conduct of the defendant.
190 If aggravated damages are to be awarded, there must be a finding that
the defendant was motivated by actual malice, which increased the injury to the
plaintiff, either by spreading further afield the damage to the reputation of
the plaintiff, or by increasing the mental distress and humiliation of the
plaintiff. See, for example, Walker v. CFTO Ltd., supra, at p. 111; Vogel,
supra, at p. 178; Kerr v. Conlogue (1992), 65 B.C.L.R. (2d) 70 (S.C.), at p. 93;
and Cassell & Co. v. Broome, supra, at pp. 825-26. The malice may be established
by intrinsic evidence derived from the libellous statement itself and the
circumstances of its publication, or by extrinsic evidence pertaining to the
surrounding circumstances which demonstrate that the defendant was motivated by
an unjustifiable intention to injure the plaintiff. See Taylor v. Despard,
supra, at p. 975.
191 There are a number of factors that a jury may properly take into account
in assessing aggravated damages. For example, was there a withdrawal of the
libellous statement made by the defendants and an apology tendered? If there
was, this may go far to establishing that there was no malicious conduct on the
part of the defendant warranting an award of aggravated damages. The jury may
also consider whether there was a repetition of the libel, conduct that was
calculated to deter the plaintiff from proceeding with the libel action, a
prolonged and hostile cross-examination of the plaintiff or a plea of
justification which the defendant knew was bound to fail. The general manner in
which the defendant presented its case is also relevant. Further, it is
appropriate for a jury to consider the conduct of the defendant at the time of
the publication of the libel. For example, was it clearly aimed at obtaining the
widest possible publicity in circumstances that were the most adverse possible
to the plaintiff?
The Application to the Facts of this Case
192 In this case, there was ample evidence upon which the jury could
properly base their finding of aggravated damages. The existence of the file on
Casey Hill under the designation "Enemy Canada" was evidence of the malicious
intention of Scientology to "neutralize" him. The press conference was organized
in such a manner as to ensure the widest possible dissemination of the libel.
Scientology continued with the contempt proceedings although it knew its
allegations were false. In its motion to remove Hill from the search warrant
proceedings, it implied that he was not trustworthy and might act in those
proceedings in a manner that would benefit him in his libel action. It pleaded
justification or truth of its statement when it knew it to be false. It
subjected Hill to a demeaning cross-examination and, in its address to the jury,
depicted Hill as a manipulative actor.
193 It is, as well, appropriate for an appellate court to consider the
post-trial actions of the defendant. It will be recalled that Scientology,
immediately after the verdict of the jury, repeated the libel, thus forcing the
plaintiff to seek and obtain an injunction restraining Scientology from
repeating the libel. It did not withdraw its plea of justification until the
hearing of the appeal. All this indicates that the award of aggravated damages
was strongly supported by the subsequent actions of Scientology.
194 In summary, every aspect of this case demonstrates the very real and
persistent malice of Scientology. Their actions preceding the publication of the
libel, the circumstances of its publication and their subsequent actions in
relation to both the search warrant proceedings and this action amply confirm
and emphasize the insidious malice of Scientology. Much was made of their
apology tendered at the time of the hearing in the Court of Appeal. There is a
hollow ring to that submission when it is remembered that it was not until the
fifth day of oral argument before the Court of Appeal that the apology was
tendered. Scientology can gain little comfort from such a late and meaningless
apology.
195 These damages were awarded solely against Scientology and are based upon
the misconduct of that appellant. There is no question of Manning being in any
way responsible for these damages. Indeed, there cannot be joint and several
responsibility for either aggravated or punitive damages since they arise from
the misconduct of the particular defendant against whom they are awarded. See,
for example, Sun Life, supra, at p. 1310; Egger v. Chelmsford, [1965] 1 Q.B. 248
(C.A.), at pp. 263 and 265; Vogel, supra, at p. 171; S. M. Waddams, The Law of
Damages (2nd ed. 1991), at pp. 11-23 and 11-24. Scientology's behaviour
throughout can only be characterized as recklessly high-handed, supremely
arrogant and contumacious. There seems to have been a continuing conscious
effort on Scientology's part to intensify and perpetuate its attack on Casey
Hill without any regard for the truth of its allegations.
Punitive Damages
General Principles
196 Punitive damages may be awarded in situations where the defendant's
misconduct is so malicious, oppressive and high-handed that it offends the
court's sense of decency. Punitive damages bear no relation to what the
plaintiff should receive by way of compensation. Their aim is not to compensate
the plaintiff, but rather to punish the defendant. It is the means by which the
jury or judge expresses its outrage at the egregious conduct of the defendant.
They are in the nature of a fine which is meant to act as a deterrent to the
defendant and to others from acting in this manner. It is important to emphasize
that punitive damages should only be awarded in those circumstances where the
combined award of general and aggravated damages would be insufficient to
achieve the goal of punishment and deterrence.
197 Unlike compensatory damages, punitive damages are not at large.
Consequently, courts have a much greater scope and discretion on appeal. The
appellate review should be based upon the court's estimation as to whether the
punitive damages serve a rational purpose. In other words, was the misconduct of
the defendant so outrageous that punitive damages were rationally required to
act as deterrence?
198 This was the test formulated by Robins J.A. in Walker v. CFTO Ltd.,
supra. In that case, he found that the general damages award of $908,000 was
obviously sufficient to satisfy whatever need there was for punishment and
deterrence. He found that, in those circumstances, the $50,000 punitive damage
award served no rational purpose. The Court of Appeal, in the case at bar,
applied the same reasoning and upheld the award of punitive damages.
199 Punitive damages can and do serve a useful purpose. But for them, it
would be all too easy for the large, wealthy and powerful to persist in
libelling vulnerable victims. Awards of general and aggravated damages alone
might simply be regarded as a licence fee for continuing a character
assassination. The protection of a person's reputation arising from the
publication of false and injurious statements must be effective. The most
effective means of protection will be supplied by the knowledge that fines in
the form of punitive damages may be awarded in cases where the defendant's
conduct is truly outrageous.
The Application to the Facts of this Case
200 There can be no doubt that the conduct of Scientology in the publication
of the injurious false statement pertaining to its "enemy" was malicious. Its
publication was carefully planned and carried out in a manner which ensured its
widest possible dissemination in the most damaging manner imaginable. The
allegation made against Hill was devastating. It was said that he had been
guilty of breach of trust, breach of a court order and that his conduct and
behaviour was criminal. Scientology's actions from the time of publication,
throughout the trial, and after the trial decision was rendered constituted a
continuing attempt at character assassination by means of a statement which it
knew to be false. It was such outrageous conduct that it cried out for the
imposition of punitive damages.
201 There might have been some concern that, in light of the award of
general and aggravated damages totalling $800,000, there might not be a rational
basis for punitive damages. However any lingering doubt on that score is
resolved when Scientology's persistent misconduct subsequent to the trial is
considered. On the very next day following the verdict, Scientology republished
the libel in a press release delivered to the media. It then brought a motion to
adduce fresh evidence which it stated would have a bearing "on the credibility
and reputation of the plaintiff S. Casey Hill" which, if presented at trial,
"would probably have changed the result". Its actions were such that Hill was
forced to bring an application for an injunction enjoining Scientology from
republishing the libel. In his reasons for granting the injunction, Carruthers
J. stated that he was forced to take that action because "no amount awarded on
account of punitive damages would have prevented or will prevent the Church of
Scientology from publishing defamatory statements about the plaintiff". Even the
injunction did not deter Scientology which moved to set it aside. Further, in
its notice of appeal of the libel judgment, Scientology alleged that the trial
judge had erred in ruling the decision of Cromarty J. in the contempt
proceedings was res judicata of the issues raised in the libel trial.
202 During the appeal, it was conceded and the evidence and events confirmed
that in all likelihood, no amount of general or aggravated damages would have
deterred Scientology. Clearly then, this was an appropriate case for an award of
punitive damages. Scientology did not withdraw its plea of justification until
the first day of the oral argument in the Court of Appeal. Nor was any apology
tendered by Scientology until the fifth day of oral argument before the Court of
Appeal.
203 The award of punitive damages, therefore, served a rational purpose in
this case. Further, the circumstances presented in this exceptional case
demonstrate that there was such insidious, pernicious and persistent malice that
the award for punitive damages cannot be said to be excessive. Scientology has
alleged that the size of the award of punitive damages had a chilling effect on
its right to freedom of expression. However as stated earlier, in spite of the
slow and methodical progress of this case to trial and appeal, and despite the
motion brought six years before the trial which drew attention to the need for
evidence, Scientology adduced no evidence as to the chilling effect of the
award. In its absence, this argument should not be considered. It may be that
different factors will have to be taken into consideration where evidence is
adduced and where a member of the media is a party to the action. However, those
are considerations for another case on another day.
204 The appeal is dismissed with costs.
APPENDIX A
CFTO BROADCAST
The Toronto Church of Scientology has filed charges of contempt of court
against two provincial lawyers. The Church believes the lawyers violated a court
order by opening sealed documents which were seized last year in a raid on the
Church's headquarters. A report from CFTO's Tim Webber:
Webber:
Eighteen months ago, more than one hundred O.P.P. officers stormed out of
three buses and into the offices of the Church of Scientology. They seized
hundreds of thousands of documents in two days of searching. Police said they
were looking for evidence of tax fraud, consumer fraud and other indictable
offences. Many of these seized documents were deemed confidential by the Church.
Some they said were confessions between priests and penitents and they convinced
a judge to order about two hundred of the documents sealed. Today, lawyers for
the Church filed charges alleging that the sealing order has been violated.
Manning:
The documents were ordered sealed by Mr. Justice Osler, pursuant to a
request by counsel, in a very serious matter, and they were opened and revealed
to persons whom we say were unauthorized to so do.
Webber:
The charges are against Jerome Cooper, a lawyer for Consumer and Commercial
Relations, and Crown Attorney S. Casey Hill. The documents filed today alleged
that the two convinced another Supreme Court Justice to allow the Ministry of
Consumer and Commercial Relations to view the sealed documents in the company of
O.P.P. officers. One of the lawyers being charged, Jerome Cooper, today told us
he had absolutely no comment on the matter. The trial date has already been set
for the 17th of January, but lawyers for the Church of Scientology are hoping to
convince the defendants and the Court so start even sooner.
APPENDIX B
CBC BROADCAST
The Church of Scientology has filed a suit against two Toronto based Crown
Attorneys. The Church had its offices raided by police and documents seized in
March of 1983. Lawyers for the Church say those documents were opened and read
by persons not authorized to do so.
Manning:
They were confidential documents which have been ordered sealed by Supreme
Court of Ontario Justices which were opened with the permission of counsel for
the Crown. And this constitutes, in the opinion of the Church, a contempt of
court. We've had a date set in January. But hopefully, we can get a date set
earlier with the consent of the Chief Justice of the Trial Division, or the
Chief Justice of Ontario on the basis that it's a very important matter. It's
important to the administration of justice.
APPENDIX C
GLOBE AND MAIL
The Church of Scientology of Toronto is asking the Supreme Court of Ontario
to find a Crown prosecutor and a lawyer with the Ontario Ministry of Consumer
and Commercial Relations in contempt of court.
Morris Manning, a lawyer acting for the church, said in an interview
yesterday that he has filed a motion asking for S. Casey Hill, a prosecutor with
the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney-General, and Jerome Cooper, a lawyer with
the Consumer Ministry, to be jailed or fined.
The motion claims that Mr. Cooper misled Mr. Justice Jean-Charles Sirois of
the Supreme Court of Ontario into releasing to the Consumer Ministry documents
seized by the Ontario Provincial Police in a raid on the Church's headquarters.
The motion says Judge Sirois was not told that many of the documents had
been ordered sealed by another Ontario Supreme Court judge while the Church
contests the legality of the search warrant used by the O.P.P. in the raid last
year.
The motion claims Mr. Hill, who represented the Attorney-General during the
search warrant hearings "aided and abetted in the misleading of Mr. Justice
Sirois".
A hearing on the motion has been set for January 17.
The following are the reasons delivered by
205 L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ J. -- I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of
my colleague Justice Cory and, except on one point, generally agree with them as
well as with his disposition of this appeal.
206 First, however, in order to dispel any possible confusion regarding the
applicability of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the common law,
I note that this issue can be easily summarized in the following two principles,
both of which were first articulated by McIntyre J. in RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery
Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573:
1 The Charter does not directly apply to the common law unless it is the
basis of some governmental action.
2 Even though the Charter does not directly apply to the common law absent
government action, the common law must nonetheless be developed in accordance
with Charter values. (To the same effect, see R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R.
654, Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835, and R. v.
Park, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836, per L'Heureux-Dubé J.)
In other words, the basic rule is that, absent government action, the
Charter only applies indirectly to the common law.
207 In light of the above, I agree with Cory J. that where the common law is
"challenged" on Charter grounds, a traditional s. 1 analysis will generally not
be appropriate. Instead, "Charter values, framed in general terms, should be
weighed against the principles which underlie the common law. The Charter values
will then provide the guidelines for any modification to the common law which
the court feels is necessary" (para. 97). As well, I agree with Cory J. that
"the party who is alleging that the common law is inconsistent with the Charter
should bear the onus of proving both that the common law fails to comply with
Charter values and that, when these values are balanced, the common law should
be modified" (para. 98). Such an approach is, in my view, consistent with the
fact that, absent government action, the Charter only applies indirectly to the
common law.
208 Applying this approach in the case at hand, I agree with Cory J.'s
conclusion that the common law of defamation, as it is applied to the parties in
this action, is consistent with the values enshrined in the Charter.
Accordingly, I agree with my colleague that there is no need to amend or alter
the common law. In particular, I agree that the "actual malice" rule adopted by
the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964),
should not be adopted into the Canadian common law of defamation.
209 Second, the one issue on which I part company with my colleague concerns
the scope of the defence of qualified privilege. Traditionally, this Court has
held that the defence of qualified privilege is available with respect to
reports of judicial proceedings, but not with respect to reports of pleadings in
purely private litigation upon which no judicial action has yet been taken:
Gazette Printing Co. v. Shallow (1909), 41 S.C.R. 339. The appellants, however,
argue that Shallow is no longer good law as it had been overtaken by this
Court's more recent decision in Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General),
[1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326. My colleague appears to accept this argument. Accordingly,
he broadens the scope of the defence of qualified privilege, making it available
with respect to reports of pleadings upon which no judicial action has yet been
taken. I disagree. In my view, Shallow and Edmonton Journal are entirely
consistent. In this respect, I adopt the following statement from the judgment
of the Court of Appeal in the case at hand ((1994), 18 O.R. (3d) 385, at p.
427):
We were urged to extrapolate from Edmonton Journal the proposition that the
common law of defamation should respect such constitutional forms of expression
as the reporting of information pertaining to intended court proceedings by
conferring qualified privilege on the occasion of the publication of such
reports. With respect, we do not agree. Edmonton Journal struck down, in the
name of freedom of expression, statutory provisions which sought to inhibit the
publication of the details of pending matrimonial and other civil actions. But
it by no means follows that the publication of such details should be accorded
the mantle of qualified privilege if they are defamatory.
Edmonton Journal and Gazette Printing stand together without conflict:
there is a right to publish details of judicial proceedings before they are
heard in open court, but such publication does not enjoy the protection of
qualified privilege if it is defamatory. As Duff J. noted in the extract from p.
364 of Gazette Printing set out above, no such privilege is necessary if the
statements published are true, and no such privilege is desirable if they are
not true.
210 Subject to the above, I would dispose of this appeal as does my
colleague Cory J.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellant Morris Manning: Weir & Foulds, Toronto.
Solicitors for the appellant the Church of Scientology of Toronto:
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Kitchener.
Solicitors for the respondent: Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington,
Toronto.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario: The
Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto.
Solicitors for the intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties Association:
Robert Sharpe and Kent Roach, Toronto.
Solicitors for the interveners the Writers' Union of Canada, PEN Canada,
the Canadian Association of Journalists, the Periodical Writers Association of
Canada, and the Book and Periodical Council: Davies, Ward & Beck, Toronto.
Solicitors for the interveners the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association,
the Canadian Community Newspapers Association, the Canadian Association of
Broadcasters, the Radio-Television News Directors Association of Canada, the
Canadian Book Publishers' Council and the Canadian Magazine Publishers'
Association: Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The official versions of decisions and reasons for decision by the Supreme
Court of Canada are published in the Supreme Court Reports (S.C.R.). This site
is prepared and published by LexUM in partnership with Supreme Court of Canada.
Chris Leithiser
>
> In article <3A082AD6...@bc.cc.ca.us>,
> Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
> > Mike O'Connor wrote:
> >
> > > You WON'T tell the number because you are embarrassed by it. OR, you
> > > haven't the foggiest idea of the number. Find and tell us the
> > > number of IAS members.
> >
> > A little of both. Dan's embarassed that he hasn't the foggiest idea
> > what the number is.
> >
> > He's just starting to realize that he's being lied to by his
> > "superiors." And he's afraid even to think about it.
>
> The point is, find out for yourself.
I am attempting to do that.
In fact, I have a fairly good estimate for your numbers--75,000. Now,
I'm trying to get that number validated.
> Whether I do or don't know isn't any of your concern, but you can "dub
> in" what you like...as usual.
74,999. 74,998. 74,997...
> Why, do you want to join, perhaps to assist in achieving our goals of a
> world without war and insanity,...etc.?
I'm already doing that. Why would I want to defect?
Chris Leithiser
It's not in the new book. I _have_ the new book. Picked it up cheap
from a library sale.
You don't think they actually _shelve_ this crap, do you?
Mike O'Connor
> In article <3A082AD6...@bc.cc.ca.us>,
> Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
> > Mike O'Connor wrote:
> >
> > > You WON'T tell the number because you are embarrassed by it. OR,
> > > you haven't the foggiest idea of the number. Find and tell us the
> > > number of IAS members.
> >
> > A little of both. Dan's embarassed that he hasn't the foggiest
> > idea what the number is.
> >
> > He's just starting to realize that he's being lied to by his
> > "superiors." And he's afraid even to think about it.
>
> The point is, find out for yourself.
>
> Whether I do or don't know isn't any of your concern, but you can
> "dub in" what you like...as usual.
>
> Why, do you want to join, perhaps to assist in achieving our goals of
> a world without war and insanity,...etc.?
You are a poor dancer. You are afraid to say the number. You know what
saying that number would show. Your fear seeps through everything. Find
out and tell us the number. Don't live in fear all your life. Face
reality.
DeoMorto
true - I asked a question
you didnt answer it.
Which basically means I guess that you have no idea what the figures are and
are too embarassed to admit it.
Mark Styles
wrote:
>Mark Styles wrote:
>> So do you have access to the information or not? First you say 'Get
>> the new edition', and then you say 'figures are not at my disposal'.
>> Either it's in the book or it's not, which is it? I don't want to get
>> the book if the information I'm looking for is not in there.
>
>It's not in the new book. I _have_ the new book. Picked it up cheap
>from a library sale.
So Dan is caught in yet another lie.
>You don't think they actually _shelve_ this crap, do you?
I've yet to see it anywhere :)
Brent Stone
>>Big difference
>
>true - I asked a question
>
>you didnt answer it.
>
>Which basically means I guess that you have no idea what the figures are and
>are too embarassed to admit it.
No, it pretty much means that he DOES have a good idea what the figures
are and he's to embarrassed to admit it.
Brent Stone
>In article <3A082A75...@bc.cc.ca.us>,
> Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
>> dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>As I've stated to one of your cohorts...I'm sure that catholics know
>all about the pope, the buddhists about Gautauma Siddhartha and such,
>but we consider that the fifty year consecutive and daily record of
>reasearch and development to make people more able, as THE important
>matter to hand.
>
>As do most religions. Christiaans with the bible, and so on...
>
>In the meantime, we'll keep helping people and you'll keep worrying
>about how many medals, how many of us are there and so on...I'd say you
>were missing the iceberg...like the Titanic did.
>
>Dorsai666
Yes, you go ahead and continue to follow Hubbard wherever that takes
you. You've proved you can't count to four to figure out if he lied
about his war record, but go ahead and believe he told you the truth
about it.
Especially, keep believing that he invented his "science" and "cured"
his war injuries with it. Regardless of the fact that he never had
the injuries he claimed to cure. Just be sure that ~you~ never look
at the facts, or it will cause problems with your "case". Scientology
"cases" are very fragile things, and looking at the truth can damage
them greatly.
Believe in the "workability" of the "science" that Ron gave you,
proven by the "fact" that it cured non-existant war injuries.
Keep on "curing" your own non-existant problems, like your "reactive
mind" which not only has science proven doesn't exist, but your own
"clear cognition" recognizes to be imaginary ("I mock up my reactive
mind").
Just don't complain when, as you try to ~sell~ products that you
yourself admit are defective, people point that out to your targets.
Sell that "clears" have perfect memories by leaving it in your
sales pitches and books, while you yourself admit that "perfect
memory" is only a "postulate" that turns out to be false. Sell
freedom from disease, while you yourself continue to see it isn't
true. Most of all, continue to sell the "science" of mental health,
while you yourself continue to show the results of that "science"
here on the newsgroup.
Just don't be surprised when others who are not afraid of looking at
facts continue to expose the lies.
- Brent
Brent Stone
>On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 08:24:55 -0800, Chris Leithiser
><clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>How many people, if asked "What religion do you practice?" would answer
>>"Scientology."
>>
>>Currently, fewer than 75,000 would.
>
> Last Canadian Census, 1998 IIRC, fewer than 750 Canadians
>identified themselves as Religious affiliation: "Scientologist".
That's getting us somewhere. According to What Is Scientology on
their web pages, Canada accounts for 3% of worldwide membership.
If we trust WIS and the Canadian census, that would give us fewer
than 25,000 scientologists.
Hey Dan, did 239,250 scientologists in Canada lie on their census
forms and write some other religion? Is WIS lying when it shows
3% of scientologists in Canada? Or is 25,000 really a pretty
accurate estimate of the number of scientologists?
- Brent
Podkayne1
> > The base statistics, such as number of churches etc are contained in
> > What is Scientology (WIS, for short). Adherents of scientology, do
> > well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives and of
> > course,... this would apply to individual regions cumulatively. By my
> > own observation and communication with other scientologists, they are
> > flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
> > individuals. This isn't to say that EVERY scientologist is ALWAYS
> > winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most groups.
>
> Ah, yet another non-answer by the non-confront Hubbardite.
>
> Dan, Co$ claims 8,000,000 members, actually, latest it is
> claiming 10,000,000, but for simplicity sake we'll stick
> with the original lie of 8,000,000.
>
> Now ~IF~ Co$ had 2,000 orgs, which is doesn't, that would
> be 4,000 members per org.
Does the Org Finder put gold dots on the map for every org? Because
there are only about 40 gold dots on the US map - that doesn't bode well
for there being 2000 worldwide.
--
you can look, you can look everybody look at your hats
you can look, you can look everybody's crashin' the stats
-- Safety Look by Captain Nerd
"You have angered the hedgehog, and now you must pay!"
Podkayne1
<elr...@home.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 08:24:55 -0800, Chris Leithiser
> <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> >How many people, if asked "What religion do you practice?" would answer
> >"Scientology."
> >
> >Currently, fewer than 75,000 would.
>
> Last Canadian Census, 1998 IIRC, fewer than 750 Canadians
> identified themselves as Religious affiliation: "Scientologist".
> >
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/religion.htm
Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious
affiliation on a mandatory basis; therefore, the Bureau of the Census is
not the source for information on religion.
Some statistics on religion can be found in the 1998 Statistical
Abstract of the United States,
which says
No. 89. Religious Bodies--Selected Data
[Includes the self-reported membership of religious bodies with 60,000
or more as reported to the Yearbook of American and Cana-
dian Churches. Groups may be excluded if they do not supply information.
The data are not standardized so comparisons between
groups are difficult. The definition of ''church member'' is determined
by the religious body]
column headers:
RELIGIOUS BODY
Year reported
Churches reported
Membership (1,000)
Pastors serving parishes
Don't bother downloading it - the CoS is one of the groups that didn't
supply information. The LDS, which is about the size the CoS claims to
be, said
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The
............ 1996 11,000 4,800 (NA)
(Hmm - 4.8M in 1996, 11M today (worldwide, but the vast majority of
Mormons are in the US) - now that *definitely* makes them faster growing
than the CoS)
Podkayne1
"Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com> wrote:
> This is probably Number Two as well. Same posting style as the last one,
> same answer that is a non answer.
Is Number One the one who says "Nothing more"?
Podkayne1
> In article <3A082AD6...@bc.cc.ca.us>,
> Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
> > Mike O'Connor wrote:
> >
> > > You WON'T tell the number because you are embarrassed by it. OR, you
> > > haven't the foggiest idea of the number. Find and tell us the
> > > number of IAS members.
> >
> > A little of both. Dan's embarassed that he hasn't the foggiest idea
> > what the number is.
> >
> > He's just starting to realize that he's being lied to by his
> > "superiors." And he's afraid even to think about it.
>
> The point is, find out for yourself.
The point is, there's no way for us to do that, but *you've* claimed
that you know what it is.
Podkayne1
> > although the latest edition of WIS that I saw (in the library of the
> > University of York, although it is a couple of years out of date) had
> > figures for the number of churches, it did not have verifiable
> > membership figures. Can you cast any light on this?
>
> Get the new edition. As I've told others previously, I am not a
> management official and thus the figures are not at my disposal. I can
> say that those who had purchased a book and/or done a minor/major
> service locally, were in the tens of thousands...back in the 70's when
> I WAS on staff. Thats over twenty five years ago.
How about the ones Safe used? 1993 vs 1998:
Hi Fellow Scientologists,
I just did a vital statistics check from the New 1998 "What is
Scientology?" (WiS) just released at the IAS Event. In this book it
releases vital statistics for Scientologists so they can see the state
of health of our church. Here's some news.
Ironically, there was not individually graphed stats of the orgs and
missions growth. So in order to get the stat, I had to manually count
them from the listings of missions and orgs in the back of both 1993 and
then the new 1998 WiS edition. After counting, I see why international
management does not want to show the results in graph form because it's
too telling.
1993 Count ....144 Class IV Orgs
1998 Count ....143 Class IV Orgs
This shows NO expansion and even shrinkage which indicates at LEAST a
longterm CONDITION of EMERGENCY but more likely DANGER Condition for
International Management.
1993 Count .... 228 Missions
1998 Count .... 230 Missions
We've grown a whopping TWO missions in 5 years. That's an average of 1
mission opening every 2 1/2 years.
So ourt total NET new DELIVERY orgs (Mission, Class IV or above) total
...
372 TOTAL DELIVERY ORGS for 1993
373 TOTAL DELIVERY ORGS for 1998
----------
1 Additional Org "net" in 5 years
The above are the REAL stats.
What was reported in "What is Scientology?" was a really an optimistic
org expansion figure which is an UTTER LIE.
It was reported there were
1039 "Churches, Missions, and "Organizations" as reported in 1993 "WiS"
1811 "Churches, Missions, and "Organizations" as reported in 1998 "WiS"
So according to the graph, we're in SCREAMING AFFLUENCE regarding orgs
because it shows a WHOPPING growth of 772 orgs form 93-98!
772 more orgs? But what kind of orgs? They certainly aren't delivery
orgs, that's for sure and DELIVERY orgs who train and audit are the ONLY
orgs who can "clear" people.
The Graph indicates
772 more "orgs" ... but the TRUTH? ....
... just 1. PERIOD.
Just ONE new DELIVERY org. THOSE are what count. DELIVERY ORGS!
So somebody lied by about 772 new orgs which misleads us Scientologist
that our delivery orgs are BOOMING. But they really aren NOT.
Another lie is that we have ....
1811 Churches, Missions, and "organizations"
What we REALLY have is ...
373 Class IV orgs and Missions
This figure misleads us by only 1,438 Delivery orgs that are even NOT
there ... NON-EXISTANT. It's so easy to check out the truth, just count
the darn listing in the back of the book!
# of Staff nearly DOUBLED from 5,150 in 1980 to 10,224 in 1990. They
grew by 5,074 in those 10 years between 1980-90.
But ... from 1990 to 1997, staff growth grew only by 1,086
10,224 staff in 1990
11,310 staff in 1997
Again, indicating a drastic drop in staff recruiting stats.
Reportedly we "grew" by 772 "orgs" during 1993-1998. If that's the case
then with a staff of only 1,086, then that means each of those new
"orgs" get an average staff allotment of only 1.4 people per "org."
Doesn't look likely.
So at our current rate, our DELIVERY org growth is only ONE new org
every 5 years. I said in an earlier email message that we will need
593,000 Class IV DELIVERY orgs to clear the planet. At our current rate
of growth, we will have 593,000 orgs established in 2,965,000 years.
That's almost THREE-MILLION YEARS from now. This is not good plan. Not
cool at all!
Could one gather that International Management is DEFINITELY in DANGERHi
Fellow Scientologists,
I just did a vital statistics check from the New 1998 "What is
Scientology?" (WiS) just released at the IAS even. In this books
releases vital statistics for Scientologists so they can see the state
of health of our church. Here's some news.
Ironically there was not individually graphed stats of the orgs and
missions. So in order to get the stat, I had to manually count them from
the listings of missions and orgs in both 1993 and then the new 1998 WiS
edition. After counting, I see why international management does not
want to show the results in graph form because it's telling.
1993 Count 1998 Count
144 Class IV Orgs 143 Class IV Orgs
This shows NO expansion and even shrinkage which indicates a at LEAST a
longterm CONDITION of EMERGENCY but more likely DANGER Condition for
International Management.
228 Missions 230 Missions
We've grown a whopping TWO missions in 5 years. That's an average of 1
mission opening every 2 1/2 years.
So out total NET new DELIVERY orgs (Mission, Class IV or above) total ...
372 TOTAL DELIVERY ORGS for 1993
373 TOTAL DELIVERY ORGS for 1998
----------
1 Additional Org "net" in 5 years
The above are the REAL stats.
What was reported in "What is Scientology?" was a really optimistic org
expansion figure which is an UTTER LIE.
It was reported there were
1039 "Churches, Missions, and "Organizations" as reported in 1993 "WiS"
1811 "Churches, Missions, and "Organizations" as reported in 1998 "WiS"
So accorded to the graph, we're in SCREAMING AFFLUENCE regarding orgs
because it shows a WHOPPING growth of 772 orgs!
772 more orgs? But what kind of orgs? They certainly aren't delivery
orgs, that's for sure and DELIVERY orgs who train and audit are the ONLY
orgs who can "clear" people.
The Graph says
772 more "orgs" ... the TRUTH? ....
... 1
Just ONE new DELIVERY org. THOSE are what count.
So somebody lied by about 772 new orgs which misleads us Scientologist
that our delivery orgs are BOOMING. NOT.
Another lie is that we have ....
1811 Churches, Missions, and "organizations"
What we REALLY have is ...
373 Class IV orgs and Missions
This figure misleads us by only 1,438 Delivery orgs that are NOT there
... NON-EXISTANT. It's so easy to check out the truth, just count the
darn listing in the back of the book!
# of Staff nearly DOUBLED from 5,150 in 1980 to 10,224 in 1990. They
grew by 5,074 in those 10 years between 1980-90.
But ... from 1990 to 1997, staff growth grew only by 1,086
10,224 staff in 1990
11,310 staff in 1997
Again, indicating a drastic drop in stats.
Reportedly we "grew" by 772 "orgs" during 1993-1998. If that's the case
then with a staff of only 1,086, then that means that each of those new
"orgs" get an average staff allotment of only 1.4 people per "org."
Doesn't look likely.
So at our current rate, our DELIVERY org growth is only ONE new org
every 5 years. I said in an earlier email message that we will need
593,000 Class IV DELIVERY orgs to clear the planet. At our current rate
of growth, we will have 593,000 orgs established in 2,965,000 years.
That's almost THREE-MILLION YEARS.
Not cool. Could one gather that International Management is DEFINITELY
in DANGER? Perhaps worse? First it's not ok for us to be lied too this
way. Second, it's not ok to mislead and OMITT important data.
Like ... No specific "CLASS IV DELIVERY Org Growth" Stat! Instead, a
FALSE stat is put in its place with unbelievable figures which I cannot
substantiate by any imagination.
Also is cleverly Omitted ... the data of "# of Clears to Date"
statistic. In the ORIGINAL 1978 "What is Scientology" book, it showed
the growth of the number of Clears made year. It was a definite
affluence stat too by the way.
Not any more. There are NO "# of Clears Statistics". Apparently there is
a replacement stat (to diverge one's attention to this) that's called
"well-done auditing hours" stat. But auditing hours is not a PRODUCT.
Making a Clear is a REAL product. The IMPORTANT question regarding how
we're doing is ....
HOW MANY DANG CLEARS ARE WE MAKING?
Right now, the "The Auditor" journal says "almost 50,000 Clears" in it's
last issue. This is also strange because Clears have actual CLEAR
NUMBERS ... like Clear # 44,103. So why they can't just find the lastest
# certificate not given and minus one and then you'd have the EXACT
figure. Easy. Not just an uncertain generality.
What is it going to take for me to ask all you Scientologists to take a
closer look at what's going on? Quit pretending everything is ok. How do
you know it really is? Have you PERSONALLY checked for yourself? Or are
you just listening to somebody else SAY it.
I think I've said enough above to wake any caring Scientologist up to at
least question what's happening. I hope you do friend. We are in a
serious danger condition and most Scientologists haven't figured it out
yet. This is a lot of work for me to do. I don't just do it to
enturbulate. I'm the most caring Scientologist for our future survival
you may ever meet. I'm trying to sound the ALARM. PLEASE just take a
closer look, ok?
If we don't look at this, we're all going to see things vanish and say
"I can't believe that happened. Gosh, I just couldn't believe it when
somebody had even warned me to at least take a look." My friend, that's
what the people said in the holocaust.
My fellow Scientologists, while it's nice to exchange simple
pleasantries, there's a DANGER CONDITION to be handled. Are you going to
help? Or are you just going to ignor the situation and whistle while the
house burns down?
You can start by enforcing our Church Creed and APPLYING it.
Yours for waking up and confronting grim truth,
Safe
Podkayne1
> In article <3A082A75...@bc.cc.ca.us>,
> Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
> > dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> As I've stated to one of your cohorts...I'm sure that catholics know
> all about the pope, the buddhists about Gautauma Siddhartha and such,
> but we consider that the fifty year consecutive and daily record of
> reasearch and development to make people more able, as THE important
> matter to hand.
Subject change, huh? OK - since you brought it up: *what* "research and
development"? I thought "development" meant "change", and "change"
equals "squirreling"
Podkayne1
<a...@lambic.co.uk> wrote:
> >You don't think they actually _shelve_ this crap [WiS], do you?
>
> I've yet to see it anywhere :)
My local Crown Books usually gets a copy or two - but my local Crown is
the last stop for hardbacks before Crown goes to the expense of shipping
'em back to the publisher...
Byll23
>In article <3A0706BD...@bc.cc.ca.us>,
> Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
>> dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <3A06E7A9...@sheffield.ac.uk>,
>> > "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > > Dorsai, you have claimed on several occasions that Scientology is
>> > > florishing. I can't comment on the veracity of this statement
>> > because I
>> > > have no figures on the membership of the Church. Do you have any
>such
>> > > figures? It would be a great help if you did.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > Ian
>> >
>> > Ian,
>> >
>> > The base statistics, such as number of churches etc are contained in
>> > What is Scientology (WIS, for short).
>>
>> Then it should be child's play for you to cite them, with supporting
>> data.
>>
>> Go ahead, play for us, Danno.
>>
>> > Adherents of scientology, do
>> > well to the degree that they use the technology in their lives and
>of
>> > course,... this would apply to individual regions cumulatively. By
>my
>> > own observation and communication with other scientologists, they
>are
>> > flourishing and prospering in the fields of interest they have as
>> > individuals. This isn't to say that EVERY scientologist is ALWAYS
>> > winning at ALL times, but by and large...we do better than most
>groups.
>>
>> All 75,000 of you? I doubt that. Did you know that more than half of
>> all $cientologists are below average?
>>
>> > As for your "sitting in judgement" of us, well, it presupposes that
>you
>> > have an ability to observe and that's REALLY taking a "leap of
>faith",
>> > considering past posts and the forum itself.
>> >
>> > But I'm always willing to try and answer questions, so...
>> >
>> So, why did Ron lie about how many medals he got in WWII.
>>
>> It's well established that he _did_ lie.
>>
>> But _why_ did he lie, when it's so easy to check? That's the
>question.
>> Was it just contempt for his followers, or what?
>
>Chris,
>
>Do your homework. On WHAT do you base the statement that we're below
>average?
Presumably, he's basing it on the performance that you and certain other CoSers
put on for us on this NG. Judging solely by that, you would all appear so below
average as to be subhuman. I think it's unfair for people to judge _all_
scientologists by your example, though.
Byll23
<The Anti-Dorsai wrote>
>>LRH was there. He was an officer, in a war he hated. YOU say (and I
>>have been to the documents site and thus know how generalities are used
>>He said that he did. Let's see, I should believe a bigot, who relies
>>about the man...right.
>
>What "generalities" are you talking about? If you have been to the site
>at www.ronthewarhero.org, you have seen copies of the actual government
>records of Hubbard's military service. Those documents prove Hubbard's
>claims to be lies. You don't have to rely on anyone's "interpretation"
>of the documents. Why should you "wonder who to believe" when you can
>look at the proof and ~know~ who to believe, unless you didn't want to
>know the truth?
>
>copies of Hubbard's real war record, you can look at the fact that the
>"church" has not sued the author for posting them, which you know they
>would do if the documents were forged. If even that doesn't convince
>you, you can order the documents directly from the government. I'm sure
>someone here can help you with that if you don't know how.
>
If the Anti-Dorsai were a US citizen, he could get 'em with the Freedom of
Information Act. But he's a canadian, isn't he? Can he use the FOIA too?
Thomas J Best
Starshadow <starsh...@home.com> wrote in message
news:DPXN5.63866$E85.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
>
> "Chris Leithiser" <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message
> news:3A082D10...@bc.cc.ca.us...
> > Starshadow wrote:
> > >
> > > This is probably Number Two as well. Same posting style as the last
one,
> > > same answer that is a non answer.
> > >
> > I presume the headers are the same...I didn't check.
>
> Neither have I yet. I'm running out of time this week to do the in depth
> stuff.
>
> Right now I'm looking at sentence structure and other giveaways.
>
> There may be two Number Ones, and two Number Twos, and one of the latter
is
> the Real Dan Bryenton. I think there is only one Number Three, though.
>
>
> --
> Bright Blessings,
>
> Starshadow (SP4, KoX) (Yes, I have an @home account now. )
> (stars...@starshadow.net still works)
>
>
> "Feminism--the radical notion that women are people, too"
I haven't done any serious header analysis on them yet either. I've got
a couple of headers from 14 and 18 October that look remarkably
different, though the NNTP-Posting-Host is close:
14 October NNTP-Posting-Host 216.154.8.206
18 October NNTP-Posting-Host 216.154.6.161.
Whatever. It's fun to poke the monkey :-)
tam
Thomas J Best
<dors...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8u9hcg$qvp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20001106220631...@ng-fh1.aol.com>,
> deom...@aol.comgetlost (DeoMorto) wrote:
> > dan writes:
<snip>
> > >>What possible "help" are numbers of members to you at any
> > rate...they're meaningless, unless you ARE managing, which you
> aren't.<
> >
> > Oh they are very meaningful Dan - because publishing them would
> actually enable
> > scientologists to judge management on how they are doing.
> >
> > The one thing that International management fears above else.
> >
> > Why are you not interested in being a responsible manager of your own
> > organization?
> >
> > The only organizationa I know of that insist that its members not
> know anything
> > (apart from the cofs of course) would be the Communist Party and the
> Nazi
> > party. Which does put you in spectacular company.
>
>
> Dear Mr. death-talker,
>
> You are the one interested in numbers, number of books, number of
> scientologists, number of organizations and on and on...
>
> What is specifically not interesting to you is a fifty year consecutive
> and daily record of the research done and used daily - to the benfit of
> anyone who uses it in Scientology.
>
> That speaks for itself.
>
> You're interested in curiosa, I'm interested in improving myself and
> REALLY knowing.
>
> Big difference.
>
> Dorsai666
>
<snip>
That's right, Dorsai. We *are* interested in numbers. They're very handy
things - "stable datum", I believe you'd call it. Why is it that you can't
provide or point to any? If Ian or DeoMorto were having this conversation
with a active, proselytising member of any other interest group it would
equally be a matter of note if that member consistently dodged questions
about real-world issues such as membership numbers.
First you say "read WIS". When it's pointed out to you that WIS doesn't
contain such figures, you bluster about your 'conversations' and denigrate
the motives of those asking you a simple question. You are not helping
your chosen cult any, Dorsai, and when they finally cog to this, you'll have
your a.r.s. 'hat' ripped off so fast it'll take your head too. Still, you'll
be in
good company, with all the other headless drones that OSA creates to
fill up the blank spaces.
You are also in error about DeoMorto and others not being interested
in what you claim as 50 consecutive years of research and records. If
these things existed, it would be a simple matter to cite them, would it
not? Why don't you? Could it be because your 'research' and 'records'
consist of nothing but the ravings of a drunken psychotic liar, bigamist
and fraud? Could it be because the 'records' consist of nothing more
than the deluded confabulations of dupes like yourself?
tam
Brent Stone
I believe anyone can make FOIA requests. There is no requirement for
citizenship that I know of. Even if he can't request them directly,
he could easily ask any of his "friends" in the "church" in the US to
request them for him (assuming they haven't disconnected from him for
his damage to the "church" in this forum).
- Brent
Steve Zadarnowski
>What possible "help" are numbers of members to you at any
>rate...they're meaningless, unless you ARE managing, which you aren't.
And even if you had them, they'd be meaningless.
There is no *real* membership figure, just some abstract
number decided by Jentzsch etc as describing the number of
people who purchased a course. Just a name, really.
Only the IAS membership numbers are realistic because any
sane Scientologist would be a card-carrying IAS member for
the discount.
Given that's somewhere in the 90,000 to 15,000 range,
its not many at all. It takes a bit more than a head
count
You don't want to confuse the apparent affluence of a
few choice sites with the general squalor of the regional
orgs, struggling daily to meet impossible targets with
a huge turnover of underqualified and underpaid staff.
One org for every three million people in Australia isn't
exactly effective...
S
---
"If it smells like ass, its Scientology!"
"Just bum data, bum data, bum data, bum data,
alter-is, alter-is, bum data." - LRH, SHSBC
Steve Zadarnowski
>What I do have and believe is a fifty year old, consecutive track of
>reasearch and demonstrable results, using that reasearch... since
>1950. You enjoy an automobile don't you? Do you really CARE who made
>it? Poor analogy but it makes the point.
Hubbard was dead in 1986. What ether did you grab fifty years
from? All 'research' stopped 36 years into Dianetics and 32
years into Scientology.
If you want to defend the last 14 years in research, you can
point us to new tech documents and their authors....
I can tell what research has happened. Marketing and Sales.
"The golden age of tech" and the now-failed mis-delivered OT7
AT FLAG!
Idiots.
Steve Zadarnowski
>I have answers for people who want to know, not critics - who don't and
>would disclaim it anyway...
>
>why bother?
That's right! Why bother to post if all you can do is drool
in a corner? Not critics. Just who do you think you are
talking to? We're your only audience.
Steve Zadarnowski
>I WILL say that it was the highest ever this year...as for the exact
>count, you'll have to do that on your own...
And my dick's bigger than yours. For the exact length, you'll
have to come and measure it. Bring a folding ruler...
I.S.Rennie
> I tried to understand better scientology and I had grat treouble, but
> eventually realized it was my own lack of ability on confronting the
> subject
sounds like a self worth problem to me. Although If I were having 'grat
treouble' I might have self worth problems too
I.S.Rennie
>
> In article <3A08291C...@bc.cc.ca.us>,> > > Chris,
>
> Unfortunately, there is little to respond to. Like trying to talk to a
> child while they scream and you speak...it takes one listening and one
> talking to have communication.
is that why you ignore his entire post?
I.S.Rennie
<snip>
> I care not a wit what you believe or don't believe. Anyone who truly
> wants to know will take the time to find out...it's part of the
> character traits of honest and decent people. Honestly looking.
I am honestly looking for information regarding the membership of the
Church of Scientology.
I am honestly asking you, do you have any information or do you know
whare I could find any information regarding the membership of the
group?
you have told me to 'Get the new edition.' of WIS, but also told me that
'I am not a management official and thus the figures are not at my
disposal.'
If the figures are not at your disposal, how would the new edition of
WIS help me in answering my query?
I feel that you are not being entirely honest with me.
dors...@my-deja.com
fan...@nilspam.iinet.com.au wrote:
> dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >What I do have and believe is a fifty year old, consecutive track of
> >reasearch and demonstrable results, using that reasearch... since
> >1950. You enjoy an automobile don't you? Do you really CARE who
made
> >it? Poor analogy but it makes the point.
>
> Hubbard was dead in 1986. What ether did you grab fifty years
> from? All 'research' stopped 36 years into Dianetics and 32
> years into Scientology.
>
> If you want to defend the last 14 years in research, you can
> point us to new tech documents and their authors....
>
> I can tell what research has happened. Marketing and Sales.
> "The golden age of tech" and the now-failed mis-delivered OT7
> AT FLAG!
>
> Idiots.
>
> S
Little stevie (I wonder),
Well, wonder no more...why not read WIS and see what's happened since
1986 and see all the quditing sessions going on since then and funny,
not one word changed in his research wrap-up since 1986. WHO said it
began in 1950...(research) I just said that the record has gone on
since that point, right up to present time and including today and next
year, next decade, next century, next millenia...but I think you get
the point.
WHO exactly says anything has failed? Be specific now...generalities
don't count.
At least you acknowledged there IS a record and per your information
(as inaccurate as it is) it began in 1950 and ended in 1986, but that's
just not the case. You'd have to actually know the record of LRH's
life to know when it actually started, but you never will, will you?
Not in my lifetime anyway...
Dorsai666
> ---
> "If it smells like ass, its Scientology!"
> "Just bum data, bum data, bum data, bum data,
> alter-is, alter-is, bum data." - LRH, SHSBC
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
dors...@my-deja.com
dors...@my-deja.com
Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
> Mark Styles wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:28:21 GMT, dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Mark Styles <a...@lambic.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 01:30:29 GMT, dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >> > "I.S.Rennie" <LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >> >> figures for the number of churches, it did not have verifiable
> > >> >> membership figures. Can you cast any light on this?
> > >> >
> > >> >management official and thus the figures are not at my disposal.
> > >>
on
> > >> >> membership of the Church?
> > >> >
> > >> >As above, I do not. I am not church management.
> > >>
> > >> But you said they are in the latest edition of WIS...
> > >
> > >I like the idea that a critic has to "pay" for information, at his
own
> > >expense and on his own time...
> >
> > So do you have access to the information or not? First you say 'Get
> > the new edition', and then you say 'figures are not at my disposal'.
> > Either it's in the book or it's not, which is it? I don't want to
get
> > the book if the information I'm looking for is not in there.
>
> It's not in the new book. I _have_ the new book. Picked it up cheap
> from a library sale.
>
Whats not in it? What were you looking for?
dors...@my-deja.com
Mark Styles <a...@lambic.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 13:14:04 -0800, in alt.religion.scientology you
> wrote:
> >Mark Styles wrote:
> >> So do you have access to the information or not? First you say 'Get
> >> the new edition', and then you say 'figures are not at my
disposal'.
> >> Either it's in the book or it's not, which is it? I don't want to
get
> >> the book if the information I'm looking for is not in there.
> >
> >It's not in the new book. I _have_ the new book. Picked it up cheap
> >from a library sale.
>
Now, what lie is that?
dorsai666
>
> >You don't think they actually _shelve_ this crap, do you?
>
> I've yet to see it anywhere :)
>
>
dors...@my-deja.com
Mark Styles <a...@lambic.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 13:14:04 -0800, in alt.religion.scientology you
> wrote:
> >Mark Styles wrote:
> >> So do you have access to the information or not? First you say 'Get
> >> the new edition', and then you say 'figures are not at my
disposal'.
> >> Either it's in the book or it's not, which is it? I don't want to
get
> >> the book if the information I'm looking for is not in there.
> >
> >It's not in the new book. I _have_ the new book. Picked it up cheap
> >from a library sale.
>
> So Dan is caught in yet another lie.
Now, what lie is that? And what information are you looking for?
dors...@my-deja.com
Ian,
Mo dishonesty with you intended. The only statistics available are put
together in WIS.
Given the "neighborhood" of this forum, any other data (if I had it)
would not be subject to non-management or for public disclosure. As
I've stated before, it has nothing to do with the efficacy or use of
scientology by scientologists.
You also assume that I would care about this type of
information...which I don't.
dorsai666
dors...@my-deja.com
deom...@aol.comgetlost (DeoMorto) wrote:
> >Big difference
>
> true - I asked a question
>
> you didnt answer it.
>
> Which basically means I guess that you have no idea what the figures
are and
> are too embarassed to admit it.
Mr death,
I've stated the former elsewhere and you can bet your bottom dollar I
admire the people in my group and the work they do...the only
embarrassment is your assesment and attempt at "logic"...very funny.
Dorsai666
>
> ars:- perhaps the most malignant newsgroup on Usenet.!
dors...@my-deja.com
fan...@nilspam.iinet.com.au wrote:
> dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >I have answers for people who want to know, not critics - who don't
and
> >would disclaim it anyway...
> >
> >why bother?
>
> That's right! Why bother to post if all you can do is drool
> in a corner? Not critics. Just who do you think you are
> talking to? We're your only audience.
>
> S
Dear little stevie (I wonder),
Peanut gallery, shooting gallery but definitely not an audience. That
would take someone listening and someone perceptive enough to
understand what is being said.
Go back to sleep Mr.Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...zzzzzzzzz.....zzzzz...
Dorsai666
> ---
Starshadow
"Thomas J Best" <noe...@nowehere.yet> wrote in message
news:3a08daa...@nancy.pacific.net.au...
using the same machine, then. Might be easier to prove they are different
idiots.
Starshadow
"Podkayne1" <podk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:podkayne1-AE685...@nntp.lightlink.com...
> In article <4%MN5.61701$E85.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>,
> "Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > This is probably Number Two as well. Same posting style as the last one,
> > same answer that is a non answer.
>
Dunno, started paying attention to sentence structure and parsing first.
I'll keep an eye out. Maybe it's one of the Number Ones. (there may be two.)
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow (SP4, KoX) (Yes, I have an @home account now. )
(stars...@starshadow.net still works)
"Feminism--the radical notion that women are people, too"
>
dors...@my-deja.com
> > Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
> > > dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > As I've stated to one of your cohorts...I'm sure that catholics know
> > all about the pope, the buddhists about Gautauma Siddhartha and
such,
> > but we consider that the fifty year consecutive and daily record of
> > reasearch and development to make people more able, as THE important
> > matter to hand.
>
> how many angels--or was it Body Thetans--could dance on the head of a
> pin.
>
> > As do most religions. Christiaans with the bible, and so on...
>
> I can get fairly reliable figures on any number of _real_ religions.
> Why can't I get them for $cientology?
>
> > In the meantime, we'll keep helping people and you'll keep worrying
> > about how many medals, how many of us are there and so on...I'd say
you
> > were missing the iceberg...like the Titanic did.
>
> But $cientology...like the Titanic.._failed_ to miss the iceberg.
>
> Get your life jacket, Dan. It's a cold sea out there.
Chris,
Ahhhhh, a sign of imagination...now if you could only do something
constructive with it. (I do like the fact that you are at least
WILLING to stay with the analogy).
Like Captain Ahab, when you do finally get to stalk the whale, I'm
afraid that you'll suffer the same fate...you already suffer from the
same delusions as he did.
What you "menace" is just the tip of the iceberg, but like Ahab, you'll
eventually see it for yourself...
Dorsai666
dors...@my-deja.com
Brent Stone <bst...@kudonet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:20:05 GMT, dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <3A082A75...@bc.cc.ca.us>,
> > Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
> >> dors...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >As I've stated to one of your cohorts...I'm sure that catholics know
> >all about the pope, the buddhists about Gautauma Siddhartha and such,
> >but we consider that the fifty year consecutive and daily record of
> >reasearch and development to make people more able, as THE important
> >matter to hand.
> >
> >
> >about how many medals, how many of us are there and so on...I'd say
you
> >were missing the iceberg...like the Titanic did.
> >
>
> Yes, you go ahead and continue to follow Hubbard wherever that takes
> you. You've proved you can't count to four to figure out if he lied
> about his war record, but go ahead and believe he told you the truth
> about it.
He never told me anything about it, other than he hated to see the
wholesale slaughter of men and the destruction of cultures, both of
which he knew very well and first-hand (before and AFTER the war).
His record as a humanitarian is beyond your comprehension.
>
> Especially, keep believing that he invented his "science" and "cured"
> his war injuries with it. Regardless of the fact that he never had
> the injuries he claimed to cure. Just be sure that ~you~ never look
> at the facts, or it will cause problems with your "case". Scientology
> "cases" are very fragile things, and looking at the truth can damage
> them greatly.
I use that same technology to assist my friends and family and it works.
I can give you personal testimonies of what I've seen for myself and
can also state accurately that everything offered...is there to be had.
I'm afraid that facts ARE my teritory, inaccurate and irrational lies
are YOUR territory. Ignorance is another word for it and fragile is an
apt description of "building a case, based on lies".
>
> Believe in the "workability" of the "science" that Ron gave you,
> proven by the "fact" that it cured non-existant war injuries.
YOU say so, based on lies created by others. We say so, because we do
it all the time, seen it many times. To you it's miraculous. To us,
it's routine...
>
> Keep on "curing" your own non-existant problems, like your "reactive
> mind" which not only has science proven doesn't exist, but your own
> "clear cognition" recognizes to be imaginary ("I mock up my reactive
> mind").
What science, proved what? You're getting as bad as Gregg Hagglund in
your generalities, ya young pup ya! I'm afraid what you're "mocking
up" is a one way road to no-where. And I see you have jets on now...
>
> Just don't complain when, as you try to ~sell~ products that you
> yourself admit are defective, people point that out to your targets.
> Sell that "clears" have perfect memories by leaving it in your
> sales pitches and books, while you yourself admit that "perfect
> memory" is only a "postulate" that turns out to be false. Sell
> freedom from disease, while you yourself continue to see it isn't
> true. Most of all, continue to sell the "science" of mental health,
> while you yourself continue to show the results of that "science"
> here on the newsgroup.
What's defective? DMSMH did postulate the concept that the mind is
a "perfect" computer. It DOES hold true today. It'll be true tomorrow
and all the tomorrows after that...fortunately. You're a good example
of someone who could use a few more IQ points, your reasoning is based
on fundamental lying to be "right". That isn't rational, that's
someone who needs a new hard drive or new software or somethin'...
maybe just an upgrade. Hard to tell.
>
> Just don't be surprised when others who are not afraid of looking at
> facts continue to expose the lies.
I'll be here.
>
> - Brent