Fair Game Page 13

  Some claims made by Hubbard were so outrageous that they didn’t need interrogation, just ventilation. The Inquiry heard he told his followers that he had visited the Van Allen Belt up in the earth’s magnetosphere, had travelled to Venus and even been to heaven,53 which according to Hubbard was ‘complete with gates, angels and plaster saints – and electronic implantation equipment’.54 Hubbard even had an arrival time for his first visit to the pearly gates: ‘43,891,832,611,177 years, 344 days, 10 hours, 20 minutes and 40 seconds from 10:02½ PM Daylight Greenwich Time, May 9, 1963’.55

  Hubbard never appeared before the Inquiry to have his various claims tested. Scientology’s defence was left mainly to Peter Williams from Scientology’s Melbourne headquarters. The Scientologists claimed that Anderson made sure ‘it was not possible for L. Ron Hubbard to testify in his own defence’.56

  In September of 1964, Scientology’s Melbourne lawyers wrote to Victoria’s Attorney-General, offering Hubbard as a witness to the Inquiry. They were concerned that ‘the pattern has emerged that Scientology may well be a great fraud and its founder, Mr Hubbard himself, may well emerge as a great fraud’.57 Hubbard’s lawyers said his appearance was conditional on his expenses being paid for by the government.

  Victoria’s Deputy Premier, AG Rylah, responded two weeks later:

  I must inform you that it is not the policy of the Government to meet the costs of witnesses who wish to attend and give evidence on their own behalf before Royal Commissions or Boards of Inquiry, and consequently if Mr Hubbard decides to travel to Melbourne he must do so at his own expense.58

  The lawyers for Hubbard were outraged. They fired off another letter to the Deputy Premier claiming Hubbard could not afford to pay his own way and that ‘the demands of natural justice require that he should not be – and that no person should be – put in a position of being bankrupted by this Inquiry’.59 Kevin Anderson believed Hubbard had no intention of appearing. ‘The applications for his expenses to be paid were made, knowing they would be rejected,’ he wrote. ‘They were made merely for the purpose of founding a criticism of the conduct of the Board and of this Report.’60

  Kevin Anderson believed the bankruptcy excuse was a ruse. Through his own inquiry he had learned how much money Hubbard was making out of Australia. ‘His financial resources and those of his organization were more than adequate to defray the expenses of his attendance at the Inquiry,’ he wrote. ‘It was his decision alone which resulted in his non-attendance.’61 Just three months before his lawyers raised fears of bankruptcy, Hubbard had told the Saturday Evening Post he was independently wealthy. The Post’s descriptions of the Georgian mansion, the butler serving Coca-Cola on a silver tray, and the chauffeur polishing the new Pontiac and Jaguar seemed to confirm that Hubbard could afford to travel to Melbourne.62

  Besides, why would Hubbard leave such luxuries to face what he now saw as the barbarity of Australia? In Kangaroo Court, Scientology’s official response to the Inquiry, fears were raised that Hubbard could have been imprisoned and lobotomised if he had gone to Melbourne to give evidence. ‘What better way of ruining Scientology than by getting hold of the Founder, jailing him for purposes of his “own protection” and then quietly taking the opportunity to have Dr Dax perform one of his special, guaranteed to depersonalize, dehumanize, to idiotize and zombiize, operations.’63

  Hubbard’s contempt for Anderson and his investigation came to a head on 30 November 1964 when Ian Abraham, counsel for Scientology, announced that following instructions from his clients he would be withdrawing from any further participation in the Inquiry.64

  Abraham told the Board: ‘When the Inquiry was first proposed, my clients welcomed it in the hope and expectation that their ideas and practices would be examined in an atmosphere free from bias, prejudice and bigotry. The Board, however … has allowed it to degenerate into a witch hunt.’65

  At the point at which Scientology’s counsel withdrew, 56 out of the 93 witnesses called had been pro-Scientology.66 The Board heard further evidence in the New Year before wrapping up hearings on 21 April 1965.

  On 28 September 1965, Kevin Anderson handed down his much-anticipated 173-page report.67 The first paragraph set the tone for what was to follow:

  There are some features of Scientology which are so ludicrous that there may be a tendency to regard Scientology as silly and its practitioners as harmless cranks. To do so would be gravely to misunderstand the tenor of the Board’s conclusions. This Report should be read, it is submitted, with these prefatory observations constantly in mind. Scientology is evil; its techniques evil; its practice a serious threat to the community, medically, morally and socially; and its adherents sadly deluded and often mentally ill.68

  Hubbard himself was described as having a ‘morbid preoccupation with perversion’ in relations to ‘sex, rape, and similar topics’.69 He was deemed ‘intolerant of opposition’ and ‘autocratic and harsh in his treatment of the dissident’.70 The Board concluded: ‘Hubbard is a fraud and Scientology fraudulent’71 and asserted that his ‘sanity is to be gravely doubted’.72

  Scientology’s theories were found to be ‘fantastic and impossible, its principles perverted and ill-founded, and its techniques debased and harmful’.73 Anderson concluded that ‘Scientology is a delusional belief system, based on fiction and fallacies and propagated by falsehood and deception. While making an appeal to the public as a worthy system whereby ability, intelligence and personality may be improved, it employs techniques which further its real purpose of securing domination over and mental enslavement of its adherents.’74

  Anderson considered Scientology to be a massive rort. He documented justifiable concerns that Hubbard was profiting from ripping off vulnerable people. But there was also a moral dimension to Anderson’s criticism of Hubbard and Scientology that was harder to justify. Anderson was a devout Catholic. When he became a Supreme Court judge, he prayed every morning before court. ‘Each time I mounted the Bench,’ he wrote in his autobiography, ‘I fortified myself, almost instinctively, with a mental petition to God for guidance.’75

  As a Catholic whose beliefs were formed before the second Vatican Council modernised the doctrine of his own faith, Anderson seemed to be repulsed by certain aspects of Scientology. One of his chapters is titled ‘Moral Laxity’.76 He used terms like ‘revolting’, ‘disgusting’ and ‘perverted’77 and wrote that ‘the filth and depravity recorded in the HASI files as being discussed between preclears and auditors almost defies description’.78

  Russell Miller, the author of a highly critical biography of Hubbard, thought some of the language used by Anderson was over the top: ‘In its intemperate tone, its use of emotive rhetoric and its tendency to exaggerate and distort, it bore a marked similarity to the writings of L. Ron Hubbard,’ he wrote.79 As a counter to this, however, Scientology historian Jon Atack says the report ‘contains much sound, factual information and many perceptive remarks’.80 Atack disagreed with the subsequent ban on Scientology, however, believing it achieved little except helping to promote the cult internationally.81

  Miller makes the point that ‘in his determination to undermine Scientology, Anderson completely ignored the fact that thousands of decent, honest, well-meaning people around the world believed themselves to be benefiting from the movement’.82 The Anderson Report had concluded the Board ‘has been unable to find any worthwhile redeeming feature in Scientology’.83

  Peter Gillham believes the Board didn’t find any redeeming features because it wasn’t looking for any. ‘During my time as a witness they never asked me anything about what has Scientology done for you? How has it helped others? None of that. The questions for me were hostile, and rigged in such ways so they didn’t get anything out of what Scientology did, or the benefits it gave.’84

  The Anderson Report recommended that the Victorian government kill off the business of Scientology through regulation, by setting up a board that registered all psychological practices and restricted the practice to
those who met minimum standards for registration.85 But the Victorian government would take it a step further, becoming the first place in the world to ban Scientology. Peter Gillham would be at the forefront of the fight to undermine that ban.

  CHAPTER 9

  THE RIFF-RAFF OF AUSTRALIA

  HUBBARD HAD SPOKEN OF Australia as if it were a promised land for Scientology. In 1959, he boasted that Australia would be the world’s first ‘clear continent’.1 He described it as ‘the country, perhaps, with the greatest and brightest future on the face of Earth today’.2 But Hubbard’s views changed markedly following his rejection and humiliation in Victoria. Now, in the eyes of Scientology’s founder, Australia was a brutal, backward, unjust society incapable of escaping its criminal past.3

  Kangaroo Court was Scientology’s official response to The Anderson Report. It is unclear who wrote it, but it bears all the hallmarks of Hubbard’s colourful turns of phrase and his lust for revenge. If Hubbard was not the author, it certainly met with his approval. Published by the Hubbard College of Scientology, bound in black and gold and featuring a kangaroo resplendent in a judge’s wig on the cover, Kangaroo Court was scathing in its judgement of The Anderson Report:

  Only a society founded by criminals, organized by criminals and devoted to making people criminals, could come to such a conclusion. A criminal society would applaud brutality, would regard leucotomy, lobotomy, and other major operations depriving a being of the use of his brain, as necessary to relieve a desperate situation.4

  Kangaroo Court gave an abridged history of transportation to Australia and pointed out that Samuel Speed, one of the last of the transported convicts, died in Perth less than 30 years before the Inquiry.5 Australia, so the logic followed, was incapable of removing the convict stain from its people and its institutions:

  Though memories are dim, patterns remain to determine action. Patterns of behaviour laid down in the days of imprisonment without trial, arrest without warrant, when justice was the tool of a few families, when politicians could demand a result and get it, persist. 6

  The state of Victoria, until recently home to one of the largest and most vibrant Scientology operations in the world, was not spared the vitriol in Kangaroo Court. ‘The foundation of Victoria consists of the riff-raff of London’s slums – robbers, murderers, prostitutes, fences, thieves – the scourings of Newgate and Bedlam.’7

  Though the reaction was churlish, the Scientologists did have a right to be upset. Five weeks after The Anderson Report was published, the Psychological Practices Bill was presented to parliament.8 Victoria became the first place in the world to ban Scientology. The act banned the teaching, practice, advertising or application of Scientology for fee or reward, prohibited use of the E-Meter, except by a registered psychologist, and demanded that any person in possession of Scientology files or records hand them over to the Attorney-General, who had been given expansive powers to issue search warrants on anyone suspected of keeping such records.9

  Jack Galbally, who considered Scientology to be a racket, and whose speeches in parliament led to the Anderson Inquiry, refused to vote for the bill. ‘It is a direct assault on freedom of speech, thought and ideas,’ he thundered, ‘and it puts practically the whole adult population under the thumb of the Executive. The Government has adopted a tactic familiar to Goebbels and the infamous leaders of the Nazi world. This measure, if enacted, will prevent parents from telling the little ones at home to abide by the Ten Commandments.’10 Galbally didn’t want Scientology outlawed; he wanted restrictions placed on its ability to rip off unsuspecting customers.

  The psychologists weren’t happy either. The Victorian Group of the Australian Branch of the British Psychological Society actively lobbied against the legislation.11 The Act set up a council to oversee psychological practices, but only 50 per cent of the Board’s members would be psychologists. This would make them the only regulated profession that did not have a majority on its own council. The Society was also uncomfortable that the bill that registered its practitioners was so closely aligned with Scientology.12

  The Group’s Recorder, Malcolm Macmillan, was annoyed that the legislation banned hypnosis, an area of research he had been exploring.13 But he was also critical of the legislation from a civil liberties perspective. ‘Most of us concerned about fringe practices were also concerned about infringement on the right to free speech and the right to believe in nonsense,’ he said.14 The Society tried to have the legislation amended, but to no avail. Macmillan watched on from the gallery in despair as the bill passed along party lines.15

  When Macmillan testified before the Inquiry, he proposed the idea of an ombudsman who oversaw ‘fringe practices’. If a customer paid money for a service and thought it had harmed them, they could then appeal to a tribunal for repayment of that money.16 Anderson ignored Macmillan’s advice, instead making recommendations that led to legislation that upset both the psychologists and the Scientologists.

  On 21 December 1965 the ban on Scientology came into force. Law enforcement officials did not muck around. At 4.55 pm, three policemen and two officers of the Attorney-General’s office raided Scientology’s headquarters in Spring Street, seizing thousands of files.17 The Scientologists had already got to work destroying documents. Police discovered papers being burned in two bins at the back of Scientology’s headquarters. Another file was passed through a window into a getaway car.18

  Scientologists who broke the new laws faced fines of up to £250 and two years in prison.19 Peter Gillham took the law into his own hands when he smuggled EMeters over the border into South Australia. He rented a station wagon, built a false bottom in it, and stacked it full of Emeters. The wagon was then filled with camping equipment for extra cover, before making the 1500 km round trip to Adelaide.20

  Most Scientologists decided to get out of Victoria – either moving interstate or overseas. Annie Tampion wrote to Premier Henry Bolte expressing her disgust at being forced into exile in England. ‘I wish to formally inform you that I have ceased to be a Victorian citizen,’ she wrote, ‘and no longer live in Victoria due to the suppression of Scientology by your Government. I will also do all I can to dissuade others to live there too.’21

  According to Janis Gillham, around a hundred Australian Scientology families moved to England, where they could do courses with Hubbard at Saint Hill and practise their belief without state sanction.22 Hubbard may have thought Victorians were descended from ‘the riff-raff of London’s slums’23 but he was more than happy to take their money.

  Yvonne Gillham was one of the first to lead the Australian pilgrimage to Saint Hill. But she left under duress, a victim of Hubbard’s new policies. In 1965, Hubbard had introduced an ‘ethics’ system, which included the ability to declare someone a ‘Suppressive Person’.24 According to Hubbard 2.5 per cent of the population are suppressive or ‘antisocial’. These people are considered enemies of Scientology. According to her daughters, Yvonne Gillham had been declared suppressive because her College of Personal Efficiency was taking customers from Scientology’s headquarters in Spring Street. To get back in good standing she had to travel to Saint Hill and get her ‘Suppressive Person declare’ status dealt with.

  The move devastated the Gillham family. Before she left for England, Yvonne had to separate from her husband and could no longer run the family’s college. Hubbard had introduced a series of policies that year that forced Scientologists to ‘disconnect’ from a ‘Suppressive Person’ until that person was back in good standing.25 She could not even attend her daughter Terri’s 11th birthday party because her old Scientology friends would be there. In December 1965, Yvonne departed Australia, leaving behind her husband and three children. She never returned to her country of birth.

  Six months later, the Gillham children, Peter Jnr, Terri and Janis, were sent by boat to England to be reunited with their mother. Later that year, Peter Snr sold the family home and his accounting practice so he too could head to Saint Hill.26 The separation
and dislocation put immense strain on the family. This was of no concern to Hubbard. ‘He knew we were all slaves to him,’ says Terri Gillham. ‘He manipulated and controlled us into being that way.’27

  Around this time Treasure Southen, one of Scientology’s founding figures in Australia, and a witness supportive of Hubbard at the Inquiry, wrote to the government requesting a secret meeting.28 In 1963, Southen had written to Premier Bolte praising Scientology. ‘Any money I paid to these fabulous people,’ she wrote, ‘could never pay for the joy of living I found with their help.’29 Three years later she wanted to dump on them.

  The Police Commissioner dispatched a senior detective to Southen’s home in North Balwyn on 22 July 1966. She asked that the meeting be treated as confidential because she feared that ‘her life would be in danger’.30 Southen provided details of where and when undercover Scientology meetings were being held, claimed Scientologists were being urged ‘not to pay taxes or obey laws’ and were being pressured into leaving Victoria.31

  According to the report filed by Senior Detective SJ Houghton, Ms Southen said:

  Literally hundreds of couples with children had been pressurized into selling their homes in Victoria and going to HUBBARD’S Headquarters at Saint Hill, Sussex, England, where they hand the money over to the Organization and are given a job for £8 a week.32

  Peter Gillham Snr says he never heard of anyone being pressured into selling their homes. ‘No, definitely not,’ he told me. ‘I think it was more that they desired to sell their homes. They wanted to go to England.’33 But an Ethics Order published in May 1966 made it clear Scientologists could no longer live in Victoria and must ‘refuse to pay it taxes, refuse to vote for its so-called government, refuse to obey its laws, and refuse to reside within its State.’34