Exclusive Brethren School System questioned in NZ

On May 17, 2010, in News, by Peebs.Net   Share
Westmount Exclusive Brethren Schools in NZ - censoring Shakespeare

Exclusive Brethren Schools

The following extracts are from Sect pupils in a class of their own, The New Zealand Herald, published on Sunday May 9th, 2010.

This furore commenced on May 2nd, 2010 when a former Exclusive Brethren school teacher was fired for using a non-approved textbook. The fired teacher spoke of clauses within her employment contract that includes proof that the cult attempts to prevent any of their children from going onto university education.

Why?  They’re scared!

Imagine a school whose books had words blacked out or pages removed and large parts of the curriculum – particularly anything to do with puberty and sex – was simply not taught.

A school where teachers received unexpected late-night visits at home to check on their moral probity.

And where all aspects of school life are governed in every detail by a sacred text, but a committee has absolute discretion in deciding how to interpret it.

It may sound like the worst excesses of the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Iranian mullahs, but this is the prevailing orthodoxy in 15 Westmount schools across the country run by the Exclusive Brethren.

The Exclusive Brethren have replaced conscience with rules and directives. They do not practice faith, rather they separate themselves from society. They do not allow the strength of character that is built by learning right from wrong and the normal development of self-control – instead, they rip out pages from books!

Continue reading »

Don Brash, John Howard, Kevin Rudd all had friendly relations with the Exclusive Brethren

Answer: these three politicians came into contact with the Exclusive Brethren and have suffered political damage as a result.

Don Brash and John Howard are now history, but Kevin Rudd currently remains the Prime Minister of Australia. Will Rudd manage to retain his role in the next Australian General Election? Time will tell, but the informed media are sharpening their swords over a mounting list of unfathomable decisions that simply do not add up. Of greater import perhaps is the ‘chatter’ from members of the Australian electorate who are the final arbiters in the future of any politician.

For example, consider the voices of those who have objected to the seeming duplicity in Keven Rudd’s decision to allow over $70 million to be paid to the Exclusive Brethren school system in Australia. It is almost mystifying to watch the man who had the courage in late 2007 to call the Exclusive Brethren what they are – “an extremist cult and sect … who break up families” – and then just two years later, to fork out an almost obscenely disproportionate contribution to the school system blatantly designed by the cult for the cult.

These are not schools aimed at producing well-rounded citizens of the countries and communities in which they are located. They serve one main purpose –

Continue reading »

The Transformation of Daniel Hales

On January 2, 2010, in Commentary, News, by Peebs.Net   Share
Exclusive Brethren hierarchy member Daniel Hales being transformed by Aus PR agency Jackson Wells

Who says Public Relations firms are ineffectual?

The news that Daniel Hales, brother to the Exclusive Brethren leader Bruce D. Hales, is to present a paper at the ICSA Annual Conference in New York in early July 2010 marks a new step in a carefully choreographed transformation.

Daniel Hales has lived in the shadow of his younger brother since not being selected as a suitable leader of the EB following the death of their father John S. Hales in 2002. Always heavily involved in the business and monetary aspects of the cult, he has nevertheless been carefully groomed over the past several years by Jackson Wells (http://www.jacksonwells.com.au/), the EB’s Public Relations Agency, to act as a spokesman for the group.

Several spokesmen have come and gone since Bruce Hales gained control in 2002. Due to the reluctance (some say inability) of Bruce Hales to face the media, a series of personalities have attempted to divert attention away from what many view as firm evidence of cultic behavior. Indeed, the Exclusive Brethren were recently described by current Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as “an extremist cult and sect” who went on to state that he believed “they break up families“.

Continue reading »

November 21st, 2009

The impact of Australian senator Nick Xenophon’s comments in Canberra this week regarding the Scientology ‘church’ should not be under-estimated.

First there is the man. Nick Xenophon is an independant and carries no party allegience. His 400BC namesake was also a soldier as well as a respected historian. Nick has a background in law and is a resourceful and intelligent political warrior. Several are noting that the modern-day Xenophon seems to have a strategy in his carefully worded attack against the ‘religion’ of Scientology.

“There are a couple of things to know about Nick Xenophon. The first is that the independent senator from Adelaide has a genius for publicity. He’s a hustler par excellence. The second is he’s rationing his tabloid impulses in Canberra. Xenophon’s record to date suggests he’s opting for strategy rather than sensation; picking his political fights, not going at everything like a bull at a gate.”

Source – Dogged crusader

This is not a ‘flash in the pan’. Xenophon has been planning his attack for some time:

Continue reading »

The Exclusive Brethren feel misunderstood

On November 19, 2009, in Commentary, News, by Peebs.Net   Share

It’s tough being a cult. People look at you differently.

The Age newspaper reports yet again of hard questions being asked in Australian Parliament. This time it’s about Scientology, science fiction writer Ron Hubbard’s 1950 invention. Although the Exclusive Brethren evolved rather than were created, many of the effects of cultic behavior are startlingly similar.

Former Scientologists allege abuse, intimidation

The Age, Australia
by Katharine Murphy And Misha Schubert
November 19, 2009

Former members of the Church of Scientology have made explosive allegations about forced abortions, child abuse and financial extortion, prompting calls for a parliamentary inquiry.

Letters tabled by independent senator Nick Xenophon reveal claims of vulnerable people preyed on by a coercive and ruthless organisation that punished and shamed dissenters by physical incarceration, withholding food or intimidation.

Under the protection of parliamentary privilege, Senator Xenophon declared the church a ”criminal organisation”.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said they were ”grave allegations” and left open the prospect of backing a Senate inquiry into the church and its tax breaks. ”Many people in Australia have real concerns about Scientology,” he said.

Asked if the church would co-operate with any inquiry, Mr Brooks said it had ”always been willing to co-operate with any authorities on any concerns”.

Greens Leader Bob Brown backed an inquiry, but wanted it extended to the Exclusive Brethren and other groups. The Opposition said it would consider the terms of any inquiry.

Source (incl. video): Former Scientologists allege abuse, intimidation

You don’t need to have even an iota of religion to understand at a very basic level the difference between right and wrong. It is this basic human ability that makes the average person on the street increasingly angry when they recognize blatant hypocrisy.

If you have the audacity to suggest that you are the perfect church, the only religion, or in one particularly obnoxious case – ‘The Bride of Christ’ – then you open the door to your behavior being scrutinized very carefully indeed.

Continue reading »

It is a remarkable moment – an Exclusive Brethren submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission is a newsworthy event indeed! The following submission was published a few hours ago on the Human Rights Commission website.

The three names shown as signatories: Daniel Hales, John Myhill and David Stewart, are representative elders of the cult in Australia.  (Daniel Hales is the passed-over older brother to the current reclusive leader, Bruce D. Hales.)

There is little hint of the Jackson Wells ‘turn of phrase’ in this tangled document – some comments border on Incitement to Discriminate and the general appeal seems to be little more than a ‘self-pity party‘.

Submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission
on
Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century
by
Daniel Hales, John Myhill and David Stewart
[2009]

Continue reading »

Are Jackson Wells now writing Exclusive Brethren advertisements for teachers in their schools?  Surely we are not alone in recognising certain phrases and the old familiar half-truths and hidden meanings.  Below is a July 2nd advert for a teacher in an Exclusive Brethren school in Australia.  The EB are looking for a ‘teacher of Business and VET based Accountancy’ (a highly honored profession among the Brethren).

It is quite striking how impossible it is to tell that this is an Exclusive Brethren ad! This brings back memories of those notorious political smear leaflets – possibly the main difference between those and the advertisment below is that the address here is probably real!

Continue reading »

Many have been outraged at the recent Australian Family Court decision to separate an ex-member of the cult from his children. Most will look squarely at the Judge responsible and ask how this could happen?  But this is only the latest case in a series of similar lawsuits.

The Exclusive Brethren do not recruit; they do not evangelise in order to increase membership. They increase from within. Great pressure is brought to bear on the young to marry and produce offspring. The resulting children are their future – estimated to be approximately 17,000 strong following the 1970 Aberdeen Incident, the cult today numbers in excess of 46,000 worldwide in over 10 countries.

The Exclusive Brethren protect their young with survivalist intensity. Putting their (and tax-payer) money where their mouth is, they have created a large international network of fiercely private schools that are there for one sole purpose – to keep their children separate from the outside ‘evil’ world.  It is more than ironic that the Exclusive Brethren have to recruit non-member teachers to operate their growing number of schools as there is a worldwide ban on attending university for all children. The cult’s educational trusts are monitored closely by Exclusive Brethren ‘volunteers’ to ensure that there is no deviation from a carefully constructed EB-approved syllabus.

Dated January 2005, the following submission was made to Australian Parliament’s Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs by the Exclusive Brethren following a request by then Senator Evans.  ((See original submission at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/estimates/add_0607/ag/qon_18.pdf)
It lays out clearly their tactical approach to Family Court cases.
It would seem that Judge Brown followed the Exclusive Brethren tactical roadmap to the letter.
COMMENTS ON ASPECTS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S 10 NOVEMBER 2003 DISCUSSION PAPER
– A NEW APPROACH TO THE FAMILY LAW SYSTEM
– IMPLEMENTATION OF REFORMS
Key Points:
The key points made in this submission are:
• The importance of the institution of marriage must be paramount in family law issues;
• The concept of a child’s rights is wider than assumed in the discussion paper;
• The time a parenting agreement can be entered into must be examined;
• The age at which a child’s wishes should be seriously considered must be reviewed and a younger child should not be subjected to radical lifestyle changes without compelling reasons.
The following are important matters that we firmly believe must be taken into account in evaluating the proposals for change put forward in the Discussion Paper.
1. The institution of marriage
In any discussion of issues relating to family law it is essential to take as the starting point the importance of the institution of marriage in Australia and the need to prevent the institution falling into further disregard. That the institution of marriage in this country has been seriously weakened is well described by one commentator as follows:
At the heart of the growing disarray of the Australian family is the decay of marriage…..
Family breakdown represents a massive body of child and adult misery and unhappiness. It is a common factor in wider social problems of crime, suicide, violence, poverty, child abuse and educational underperformance.
Over the last 30 years, marriage and family life have been transformed by a variety of social, cultural and economic changes. In conjunction with the advent of no-fault divorce in 1975, these changes have powerfully contributed to the fragility of marriage.”
(Barry Maley: Reforming Divorce Law, Centre of Independent Studies, Issue Analysis No. 39, 1 September 2003)
Against this background, the amendment of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) last year by the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 to specifically enact a definition of “marriage” for the purposes of Australian law (the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life) and to define certain relationships that will not be recognised in this country as a marriage even if they are so recognised in another country, was a significant development which we wholeheartedly support.
Parliament has, therefore, correctly in our view, made it very clear that the institution of marriage is basic to our society. Just as physical violence, whether against the other party of the marriage and/or the child(ren), is an important factor in relation to the welfare of children, so too, it is submitted, can what could be called “moral” violence to the institution of marriage, and in particular, the elements of the exclusion of all others and for life, as occurs all too frequently.
2. Children’s “rights”
The discussion paper (at page 10) states that the Government proposes to strengthen the underlying principles of children having a “right” to be known and cared for by both parents and a “right” to contact on a regular basis with both their parents and other people significant to them, subject always to the best interests of the child.
This proposal is stated as a “right” of a child. The nature of this “right”, however, needs to be articulated. Is it some abstract right or is it a more tangible right which a child can him or herself have a say in in appropriate circumstances? It is submitted that the concept of the “right” of a child extends to a child of suitable age being able to have substantial weight, sometimes decisive weight, placed on what his or her wishes are as to matters that effect his or her life, including living arrangements, contact, etc. See also 6 below.
3. Parenting Plans
The discussion paper (again at p. 10) states that the Government supports shared parenting and wants people to reach agreements about parenting, rather than using the courts. An issue, not address in the discussion paper, is at what point a parenting plan or agreement can be agreed to by the parties to the marriage.
For instance, can such a plan, whether comprehensive or not, be entered into at any time before the marriage breakdown, as in the case of financial arrangements? If, for example, at the time of marriage both parents have a common purpose as to one or more aspects of the lives of their children, why should this not be able to be put into a parenting plan, subject to appropriate safeguards? Or if not, why could not a parenting plan be entered into at some later time before the marriage breakdown?
To take the last point a step further, if parents are agreed on parental responsibility issues for their child(ren) (health, schooling, religion and so on) and have in fact given effect to this, this may effectively be a parenting plan or perhaps create some kind of rebuttable presumption. A child should not, without adequate and compelling grounds, be subject to a radical lifestyle change. Why should this not be a “right” of a child?
4. Equal shared parental responsibility
What the Government proposes is to make equal shared parental responsibility the starting point under the Family Law Act by making it a rebuttable presumption with the best interests of the child being the most important factor to be taken into account and decisions being made on the circumstances of each case. Having regard to what is said at 3, this proposal needs modification.
In addition, the proposed rebuttable presumption of equal shared parental responsibility does not represent a real advance and, indeed, could in many cases turn out to be detrimental. Such a rebuttable presumption will treat as being prima facie normal many situations that are not and may potentially place an “innocent” parent at a substantial disadvantage. After all, it is likely that where equal shared parental responsiblity is approriate, the parties will be in agrement between themselves in any event.
The discussion paper proposes that the rebuttable presumption of equal shared parental responsibility be replaced by an opposing rebuttable presumption where there is evidence of violence, abuse or entrenched conflict involved in the case. Some of these concepts would need to be defined which could cause difficulty. For example, “abuse” would cover more than physical abuse and the concept of “entrenched conflict” is rather nebulous. For instance, is entrenched conflict meant to refer to some long standing conflict or could the nature of the issue in relation to which the conflict exists be sufficient to make it “entrenched” in appropriate circumstances?
5. Substantially shared parenting time
The proposed requirement that the Court consider substantially shared parenting time when both parents want half or more of the time with their child will need to be refined. But more fundamentally, having regard to what is submitted is the right of a child and what is stated above, particularly at 2, this proposal is deficient.
The compulsory dispute resolution mechanism that is proposed in the discussion paper (at page 12) will carry with it a sanction of a possible adverse cost order if the compulsory dispute resolution requirement is not complied with. It is submitted that this should be the only possible downside to a parent who does not attend “Dispute Resolution” and that this should be specifically stated in the legislation.
6. The age of a child
Insufficient attention has been directed to the possibility of making more appropriate provision for the wishes of a child to be determined and given effect to.
It is recognised in the discussion paper that the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration and for something to be forced on a child against the child’s wishes and without adequate reason appears to be contrary to the “right” of a child which is referred to elsewhere in the discussion paper. As submitted above, in the case of a younger child, there should not be drastic lifestyle changes without adequate reason.
Date: 13 January 2005
[Committee note - The submission by the Exclusive Brethren to the family law reforms consultation process, received on 13 January 2005, is attached. The names and contact details of the persons signing the submission on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren have been omitted for privacy reasons.]

It is therefore vital to protect the young assets, those whom the Exclusive Brethren are raising protectively within themselves, behind intentionally closed doors. With this in mind, they weed out the troublemakers (normally young men) and do their utmost to prevent any further contamination of the cult’s ideas and doctrinal restrictions.

Dated January 2005, the following submission was made to Australian Parliament’s Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs by the Exclusive Brethren following a request by then Senator Evans.  ((See original submission at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/estimates/add_0607/ag/qon_18.pdf)

It lays out clearly their tactical approach to Family Court cases.

COMMENTS ON ASPECTS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S 10 NOVEMBER 2003 DISCUSSION PAPER

– A NEW APPROACH TO THE FAMILY LAW SYSTEM

– IMPLEMENTATION OF REFORMS

Key Points:

The key points made in this submission are:

• The importance of the institution of marriage must be paramount in family law issues;

• The concept of a child’s rights is wider than assumed in the discussion paper;

• The time a parenting agreement can be entered into must be examined;

• The age at which a child’s wishes should be seriously considered must be reviewed and a younger child should not be subjected to radical lifestyle changes without compelling reasons.

Continue reading »

The Exclusive Brethren need educating

On June 10, 2009, in Commentary, News, by Peebs.Net   Share

The Allbrook Education Trust (UK 1056053) is a Hampshire, UK Exclusive Brethren charitable trust, connected to the UK’s huge Exclusive Brethren Focus Learning Trust (UK 1099725).  Allbrook has had a difficult couple of years in finding suitable alternative accomodation for its growing educational needs.

Since the cult realized that its only future asset was their children in the 1980′s, the Exclusive Brethren have been implementing a home-school operation which evolved into an impressive world-wide chain of EB-only schools and educational trusts.

There is a component of desperation involved in the EB educational structure.  Their current worldwide leader, Australian Bruce Hales is quoted as admitting the Exclusive Brethren do not evangelize in order to recruit.  As far as they are concerned, growth will come from within – and that means the children must be protected from The Enemy.  By careful shifting of the limited genetic pool components, the EB have seemingly slowed a high tendency toward Downs Syndrome but still suffer from a very high incidence of Autism judging by their frequent Special Ed advertisements in various teaching journals.

Continue reading »

The Exclusive Brethren love spending money – after all they have very little else to do with it!  They don’t take vacations, there is no TV or radio and only highly filtered Internet access.  The job for the young men is to make money and the task of the young women is to breed. They aren’t a very attractive group to join and so their only form of growth is from within.

This then explains their growing network of Exclusive Brethren only schools and the long-standing university education bans – ‘we make them and we need to keep them’.

As communities begin to understand the true nature of their ‘shy’, ‘retiring’, but vaguely unfriendly neighbors and begin to see how little they offer or care about the wider communities in which they take up residence, a very understandable backlash is developing. 

It is difficult to encourage a group of people (described by Australian Premier Kevin Rudd as “an extremist cult and sect”) who treat others with such disdain and yet have the audacity to call themselves ‘Christian’!

 

Objections to church

The Daily Advertiser, Australiu

by Ken Grimson

30/03/2009 

Australian residents in Stirling Boulevard object to Exclusive Brethren plans

Australian residents in Stirling Boulevard object to Exclusive Brethren plans

Residents in Stirling Boulevard at Tatton are objecting to plans for an Exclusive Brethren meeting hall to be built in their street, arguing it will devalue properties and create traffic dangers.

“We are not against the Exclusive Brethren, we just don’t think this is the right location for their meeting place,” said neighbouring resident, Eileen Steel.

Spokesman for the Exclusive Brethren, Tim Pridham, said yesterday the planned place of public worship would be designed to look like any other house in the street and his church would work with residents to overcome any concerns they had about the development.

“We have tried to design it like a house so it fits in with other buildings. It will not look like a church,” Mr Pridham said.

Another Stirling Boulevard resident, Barry Bloodworth said everyone who bought land in the street had done so in the belief the street would be for residential purposes only.

Continue reading »

Tagged with:  
Page 1 of 3123