May 20, 2008

You can't say CULT in England

The Guardian is reporting that a 15 year old member of Anonymous is facing prosecution for daring to brandish the word "cult" on a sign while he was picketing Scientology last Saturday. The law in question is Public Order Act, Section 5, which is apparently intended to permit the police to control unruly mobs and to quell riots. Here's the relevant portion of the statute:

5 Harassment, alarm or distress

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

[...]

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

[...]

(c) that his conduct was reasonable.

The problem with the law will be instantly recognizable to most Americans: the statue is vague, overbroad and runs squarely against free speech expectations. Somewhat helpfully, the Crown Prosecutor's website gives some clues as to how the statute should be read.

Police officers are aware of the difficult balance to be struck in dealing with those whose behaviour may be perceived by some as exuberant high spirits but by others as disorderly. In such cases informal methods of disposal may be appropriate and effective; but if this approach fails and the disorderly conduct continues then criminal proceedings may be necessary.

It almost sounds as if this law was intended to give the police broad powers to fight the all-too-frequent soccer hooligan incidents that arise. They provide examples of violative behavior that seems to confirm this:

• causing a disturbance in a residential area or common part of a block of flats;
• persistently shouting abuse or obscenities at passers-by;
• pestering people waiting to catch public transport or otherwise waiting in a queue;
• rowdy behaviour in a street late at night which might alarm residents or passers-by, especially those who may be vulnerable, such as the elderly or members of an ethnic minority group;

So are members of Anonymous like soccer hooligans? The police obviously don't think so, because they don't have the conviction to actually serve a summons on someone. Instead, they've been issuing a sort of quasi-summons (see here), which states that the recipient is in violation of the law, and that he/she "may be reported for summons, or in certain circumstances arrested."

So why haven't they actually served anyone? My guess is that they won't, or they would have already. My guess is that they're trying to split the middle because they're under intense pressure from Scientology to do something--after all, it was only two years ago that the London police force was caught in bed with Scientology:

Dozens of police officers have accepted film premiere tickets, banquet invitations and the use of a jazz band from the controversial Church of Scientology, it has emerged.

I've no idea whether there's a connection, but it's certainly worth poking around further. In the meantime, I'm pondering whether the actions the police are taking with this quasi-summons is worse than actually bringing a case. The net effect of such a tactic--threats of prosecution but no actual prosecution--is a profoundly direct chill on speech, across the entirety of Anonymous. But the Crown is likely aware that it would lose any such case it brought forward under this law and these facts.

If it does go to court, the 15 year old warning recipient is apparently wise beyond his years, responding to the police who handed him the warning by quoting British High Court Justice Latey, who said in 1984, "It is dangerous because it is out to capture people and to indoctrinate and brainwash them so they become the unquestioning captives and tools of the cult, withdrawn from ordinary thought, living, and relationships with others." [ironic emphasis added]

UPDATE: "Orderous" on the Ex Scientology Kids forum responded to this article (I'd reply there but my registration is pending), identifying my citing the bribery scandal from a year and half ago as "tin foil hattery." The poster appears to be from London him/herself, and so I'll certainly defer to his/her knowledge of the particulars, noting that my speculation was only speculation--and my speculation was merely intended to point out that Scientology has successfully dangled carrots before the London Police before, and it wasn't even that long ago. Given that context, my speculation is certainly reasonable. That said, Orderous quotes another poster, "theanonymoustipster," who is identified by Orderous as the person making all the calls to the CPS & CoL (Crown Prosecution Service & City of London[?]):

• This is how it happened. Absolute fact, not a case of interpretation (except for ones marked *):
  • Scilons baaw to every police force in the land
  • None of the forces want to take the jump and involve the CPS, as they are bureaucratic twats
  • CoL is the first to cave as they get harassed the most. All other forces sigh in relief.
  • CPS make bad decision, everyone knows it but because the CoL asked for advice, they have to listen to it. The other forces dont as they didnt ask for it
    
  • This leads to ENG [Epic Nose Guy], the inspector on the day was less than thrilled but had no choice
  • ENG is being done under public order act (fact). The inspector obviously cant say exact details, but my guess is its not specifically the sign as they know thats retarded. It is more likely he is being done for non-compliance (didnt take it down when asked)*
  • ENG probably will go to court, but what the court decides is anybody's guess*
  • The CPS are reviewing their decision, and will hopefully reverse it

This certainly seems plausible--that the London policle sought an opinion from the Crown Prosecution Service, which decided on this policy of handing out quasi-summons, which the police were beholden to enforce. If so, my speculation was merely aimed at the wrong target. Scientology routinely brings tremendous pressure to bear on public officials--sometimes via the carrot, sometimes via the stick. Read about Clearwater then-Medical Examiner Joan Wood, read about NYC council member Margarita Lopez, read about CCHR's involvement in getting anti-psychiatry bills passed by local governments, read about the IRS (where Scientology's consideration in the parties' secret deal was merely to cease ongoing litigation against the IRS), and so on. Speculating that Scientology may have corrupted public officials where those public officials find themselves out on a limb for the organization, in light of history, is measured skepticism, not tin-foil hattery. There is also a difference between a specific allegation of corruption and hedged speculation that it might exist, a difference, which, ironically, appears to be at the heart of this controversy, which highlights the UK's weak protections for speech.

UPDATE II: The Crown Prosecution Service decided against bringing the case to court, as expected.

A CPS spokesman said: "In consultation with the City of London police, we were asked whether the sign, which read 'Scientology is not a religion it is a dangerous cult', was abusive or insulting.

"Our advice is that it is not abusive or insulting and there is no offensiveness, as opposed to criticism, neither in the idea expressed nor in the mode of expression. No action will be taken against the individual."

The teenager's mother said the decision was "a victory for free speech".

"We're all incredibly proud of him. We advised him to take the placard down when we realised what was happening but he said 'No, it's my opinion and I have a right to express it'," she said.

posted by scott pilutik at May 20, 2008 07:44 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink