posted by <Dave@XEMU.demon.co.uk>
.
.
Enclosed are some motions to the AGM of
the National Council for Civil Liberties,
on the weekend 27th/28th April 1996, in London (UK).
There are items
on the Internet ,
on Scientology ,
on an ultracheap Student Membership
and strengthening the a.g.m;
also suggestions for next year
on a secular society.
Independent of what the Executive Committee does, we get the added weight of NCCL's name, and the chance to directly solicit support from
BOTTOM LINE: People will need to join, attend, and fight for these motions against a skeptical EC establishment. There are prominent members who want to get moving on these matters, but they cannot win the day without your support.
These issues have importance and validity for NCCL. They recognise this, and are working---slowly---on their own web pages. They will want to say something about the Internet, but it is important we get primarily action out of them not just them promoting other agendas over the Internet; and that we get them to take an uncompromising freespeech/counterspeech approach in all areas.
Dealing with unjust acts by cults is a part, a small part, of their current activity, and they have helped find representation for people being "fair gamed". But there may equally be reluctance to take on new policy here, or blue funk from those who should know better about opposing Scientology -- this is an area which won't be accepted without some effort from its supporters.
.
.
MOTION(1) THE INTERNET
It accordingly RESOLVES:
(1) That the number and speed of messages dictates that Internet Service Providers
must be given Common Carrier status i.e. liability for message contents lies with
the sender not the carrier, and that there is a right to use secure encryption for
privacy of files and letters on the Internet just as there now is for paper
documents;
note#1 and
(2) That it believes the existing laws of libel adequately cover messages
generally published on the Internet and reaffirms all the AGM94 motions on
censorship and on gay rights [and earlier such motions cited therein], and on
dealing with socially offensive publication by counterspeech, whose principles
apply equally to speech on the Internet;
note#2 and
(3) That the Internet should be regarded for copyright purposes as a medium for
study and discussion unless the material--on individual computers or output to
other media--competes with sale of the material in its usual published form, and
that seizure of materials in copyright matters especially by parties rather
than court official [UK Anton Piller orders] shall be limited to tangible copies
of infringing material and equipment for reproducing such, copying of information
on computer being initially dealt with by injunction not to copy further.
[This is not very satisfactory and may be amended].
note#3
It INSTRUCTS the EC to publicise these policies by suitable means including it least the newsletter, its own Internet pages, circulation to NCCL local groups and student societies, and in particular liaison with Civil Liberties organisations internationally to make common cause on these international issues.
NB: Further details on the Net at http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/freespeech.
PROPOSED----Dave Bird, Syd Thompson, John Lippitt.
Note #1: There are two fundamental problems. First,
if ISPs can be pushed into shutting communications every time they are
threatened by some vexatious complainant, either the system will slow to nothing
or there will be a very chilling effect of block use first and check
if the complaint makes sense afterwards. Common carrier is the obvious solution.
Also, governments are keen to prevent geniuine autonomy by use of encryption
called PGP ( Pretty Good Privacy ) which renders
interception and reading of mail unfeasible. Codes are not forbidded in
ordinary post or telephone, and they should not be in email.
Note #2: Several pretexts have been put forward for Internet censorship. The idea that the law of libel needs to be radically stronger on the Net is simply specious. Pretexts of sexual censorship, or suppressing extreme political views, are already covered by existing NCCL policy which simply needs to be extended to speech on the Net [and put into effect faithfully!].
Note #3: This simply codifies the idea that
the Net is inherently a medium of fast-moving study and discussion and,
like a library photocopier, should not have a more relaxed application
of copyright so long as it does not in fact compete with sale
of complete print copies. This is not meant to hurt software writers
or journalists, for the moment the copy became a direct competitor -- e.g.
immediately pirate software was ready to execute -- copyright would apply.
Seizure of equipment has been used as an extrajudicial punishment in
both copyright or censorship cases: clearly it is wrong to use it in this
way e.g. bankrupting the person's business, then decide not to proceed
with the case.
MOTION(2) RELIGIOUS CULTS---SCIENTOLOGY
This a.g.m. NOTES that the Church of Scientology has continuing policy that its critics "may be tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed" [ church document HCOPL 18/10/67 issue IV -- internet, http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/freespeech ], including UK cases where NCCL has intervened [ East Grinstead Evening Argus 12/4/94 "Victims of Fair Game" ], and its policy of using the courts to stifle critical reporting , e.g. its failed case against Alison Braund of Carlton TV [ on 20/9/1995 ], where City of London Magistrates found there "had been an abuse of process."
This a.g.m. therefore reaffirms its earlier policy on religious
cults, and RESOLVES that E.C. shall:
(1) continue, where practicable, to help persecuted critics e.g.
in finding representation; and
(2) lobby present and prospective governments for a statute
regulating psychotherapy; and
(3) lobby for continued refusal of tax exempt or charitable status to
scientology, because of its vindictive and exploitative practices; and
(4) raise the problem with Civil Liberties organisations internationally
in connection with a number of related courtcases and investigations
across Europe and North America; and
(5) encourage NCCL local groups and student societies that they should
take up this issue where they have a chance to do so.
NB: Texts of source documents are available at the Internet address given.
PROPOSED----Dave Bird, Syd Thompson, John Lippitt.
FURTHER INFO:
Basis: this simply defines the balance of rights involved from NCCL's point of view.
Regulation: One main problem critics
see is that scientology is offering a kind of psychotherapy,
badly--with many breakdowns and suicides--and at
extortionate prices,
and gets away with doing so under the guise of being a religion.
The most even handed way to make them offer it safely and efficaciously
[or, if it cannot become so then stop offering it] and at fair prices,
would be a system of licensing as Foster reccomended.
Fair Game policy: the Hubbard Communication
Office Policy Letter says, "ENEMY = SP [suppressive person] Order.
Fair Game. May be deprived of property or injured, by any means,
by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist.
May be tricked, sued, or lied to, or destroyed."
Later HCOPLs say that Fair Game should not be mentioned in
an SP Declare [excommunication] because of the bad publicity it brings,
but that the policy for handling such declared enemies remains unchanged.
Fair Game instances:
An example of fair game has been actions against ex-Scientologists
Bonnie and Richard Woods of East Grinstead, Sussex.
Tactics have included picketing their home. NCCL/Liberty
has helped them get pro bono representation in a libel case
against the Church of Scientology.
Harassment of other authors is reported in local press articles
"Victims who are Fair Game"
and
"We Live in Fear"
.
See also Skeptic magazine [Arizona] 3.3, 1995, "Scientology vs the Internet" and Readers' Digest 09/1981 "Scientology: the Sickness Spreads" .
Misusing the courts: Hubbard
wrote in a magazine article on the Level 0 checksheet, p55, that
"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather
than to win. The law can be used very easily to harrass,
and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway...
will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease;
if possible, of course, ruin him utterly."
...against reporters: Hubbard is quoted in
"Victims who are Fair Game"
saying that Scientology should sue at the slightest provocation
to prevent hostile coverage.
[The factual part of this motion was researched and documented by
<M.L.Poulter@bristol.ac.uk>
]
It accordingly INSTRUCTS the EC to establish a special rate of £3.00
for students during the period of their study---without provision of
any free books on joining---only for new recruitments on a specific membership
form requiring an unchanging [department] and a longterm [home] address
wherever possible, and urging but not demanding that the payment
be by direct debit to make it break even; to request help from NUS
in circulating such forms; and to arrange that if possible that such
members receive a followup letter on graduation, offering one year
continued membership at the unwaged rate.
PROPOSED---Dave Bird, Syd Thompson, John Lippitt.
NOTES: I am hoping that a
colleage from NUS
will take this up and propose it. Obviously with increasing Internet involvement
there will be more student members, and there is obvious justice [and advantage]
in offering them half the normal unwaged rate as NCCL does now for prisoners.
The restriction to new recruitments, no free books, encourage direct debit etc
are necessary to get a breakeven proposition; and the office should be asked to
cost it on this basis. This proposal been put forward repeatedly, and sunk by
the establishment repeatedly, for no good reason except unadveturousness and
unwillingness to invest effort. However, it really lies with student activists
to turn up and fight for this , and I may not proceed with it to debate if
no solid support is forthcoming before the date of AGM. Over to you, then...
MOTION(3) REDUCED SUBSCRIPTION FOR STUDENTS
This a.g.m. of the National Council for Civil Liberties BELIEVES
it is important to recruit students, who are proportionately more
aware and more approachable on social issues than the general public
and more likely to become activists, and who are in future likely
to be wellpaid and influential but are now often living below benefit rates.
MOTION(4) THE A.G.M.
This a.g.m. of the National Council for Civil Liberties strongly urges EC and CEC
to make a more sustained effort at promoting delegate attendance and voting at
future a.g.m’s as follows:
(a) Matter should be prioritised so that the most crucial business and the most
contentious policy shall be given an almost exclusive claim on the first day,
then voting issues should have a priority claim on the second daytime so that
all motions and reports as far as possible get time for debate, then nonvoting
workshops and other matters shall have the spare or evening times; a reduced
charge should be offered for full-rate attendance on the first day only.
(b) Up to two keynote speakers on urgent practical issues such as miscarriages
of justice for up to twenty minutes each should be invited [the main one on the
first day to promote attendance at priority business], together with related
events such as booksignings, and possibly the ability for personal discussions
on the issue in workshop or informal events.
(c) The CEC should prepare draft proposals for affiliates to receive in early
November and circulate to their meetings in early December, with a deadline
for nominations and motions of at least mid January; they should seek suggestions
from members and promote the a.g.m. events by co-ordinated publicity in the
newsletter, both with an initial announcement in the winter issue and full
details in the spring issue.
PROPOSED---Dave Bird, Syd Thompson, John Lippitt.
MOTION(4A)--AGM'S POWER TO DETERMINE POLICY
This a.g.m. of the National Council for Civil Liberties
(a) NOTES:
[i] that the objects of the Council prescribed by
clause 2.1 of its constitution
cover a broad sweep of issues, and
[ii] that by
clause 5.2 of its constitution
the power to make and change policy is vested in the a.g.m; and
(b) BELIEVES:
that the limitation of an NCCL a.g.m. to less than its customary two days
would render unfeasible the adequate exercise of that power by a.g.m.
PROPOSED---Dave Bird SECONDED---B.W.Campbell
[detail drafting by BWC]
MOTION(5) A SECULAR SOCIETY NOT before the current a.g.m. but, as belt and braces to the Scientology motion, some political parties -- especially across the North of mainland Europe -- might be persuaded to adopt / codify a common secular principle. We believe that:---- (1) People should have the right to believe in any or no religion, and state resources should not be used to advance one religion versus another or religion versus irreligion in general: while parliament and the monarchy might still have their own ceremonial religion, no religion should not have automatic places in parliament nor be under direct state supervision of its appointments, nor should it be enforced as the religion of all state bodies, nor should the law impose religious tribunals as opposed to impartial secular justice between citizens of all faiths equally. No one should be compelled to join or leave--or to criticise or refrain from criticising--any religion, or to carry out religious observances; state power should not be used for this purpose, and any group using unlawful means to do so [beyond simple expulsion from a religion for extremes of dissent] should be prosecuted in the usual way. (2) The law should normally make no distinction between religious versus secular bodies but grant, for example, tax exemptions equally to all bodies which are nonprofitmaking and socially benevolent, the courts being able to scrutinise applications on these grounds. Where and while the law still refers specifically e.g. to religious buildings, the courts should be able to judge what is or is not religious by the degree of compliance with such criteria as being charitable and compassionate in its eithic, and believing in a spiritual aspect to mankind plus usually also a god or gods---or at least being traditionally recognised as a religion.
.
.
.