Kerikeri’s Westmount School pays sacked teacher Suzette Martin $27,700

Northern Advocate, New Zealand
by Imran Ali
April 23rd, 2011

COMPENSATED: Suzette Martin was sacked from the Exclusive Brethren High School and and won compensation after going to the Employment Court. (Photo / Apn)

An Exclusive Brethren school has to pay nearly $28,000 compensation to a teacher it sacked for handing her students a contemporary interpretation of text from Shakespeare’s King Lear without approval from the school committee.

Kerikeri’s Westmount School fired English teacher Suzette Martin in July 2009 – two years after she was employed – for “corruptly and morally defiling her students” in Year 13 through use of the text.

Her employment agreement required the 41-year-old single parent of Whangarei to seek and obtain the school’s approval for her use of teaching material.

Ms Martin had used a modern version of King Lear she had found on the internet to fulfil NCEA requirements.

She went to the Employment Relations Authority, claiming unfair dismissal, but lost and subsequently argued her case in the Employment Court, which has now ruled in her favour.

King Lear was included in the English programme for Y13 students in 2008 but Ms Martin had such considerable professional difficulties with the text and its modern translation that she abandoned teaching the play.

Trustee Daryl Maden authorised her to obtain information she considered necessary after she expressed concern about the lack of approved supporting material for the study of that version of the play.

However, she had to obtain his approval before showing this to students.

A parent raised his concern with Mr Maden in June 2009 that material she taught made students uncomfortable and embarrassed.

Ms Martin was dismissed following a disciplinary meeting in July.

Chief Employment Court Judge Graham Colgan said despite applying for numerous teaching positions through Northland and even in Auckland since, she had not been successful.

Ms Martin neither sought to be reinstated in her former position nor claimed compensation for her significantly reduced income since obtaining work as a part-time hotel receptionist and cleaner.

Her principal concern was for vindication of her good name as a teacher.

She moved in with her mother to make ends meet.

“Although she did not put it this way, it is not difficult to imagine that she found demeaning the move from professionally qualified secondary school teacher to part-time hotel receptionist and cleaner as a consequence of her dismissal and subsequent inability to obtain alternative teaching employment,” Judge Colgan said.

Judge Colgan found that Ms Martin was not careless in not obtaining Mr Maden’s consent and ordered that she be paid $12,710 for lost remuneration and $15,000 as compensation.

The school’s principal, who identified himself only as Selwyn, said the court outcome was disappointing and that the trust would investigate options, without being specific.

Westmount School is run by the Northland Education Trust and although all students at the school are members of the Exclusive Brethren, none of the teachers are.

Read full article – Kerikeri’s Westmount School pays sacked teacher Suzette Martin $27,700

Nick Xenophon targets "Tax lurk of biblical proportions"

For once, there is little to add to what Micheal Bachelard reports today in Australia’s The Age.

The penchant that the Exclusive Brethren have for creating networks of interwoven international, private, charitable and family trusts may at last undergo the scrutiny of Australia’s Tax Office.

Formidable cult-battler Nick Xenophon has his sights set – as Bachelard indicates below, the evidence speaks for itself.

Nick is no stranger to calling for investigations into cults; he is fearless, smart, well-respected and carries a big gun.

The old adage used by criminal investigators – “Follow the money” has never been more apt…

Exclusive Brethren parents claim ‘tax lurk of biblical proportions’
Michael Bachelard
March 25, 2011

Parents in the Exclusive Brethren avoid paying tax on the bulk of their children’s school fees in an arrangement that would be illegal if sought by other Australian parents.

Independent senator Nick Xenophon has called for a tax office investigation into the arrangement which he said looked “at first blush like a tax lurk of biblical proportions”.

When most parents pay school fees, they are paying it from income which has already been taxed. If they sought to avoid tax by paying it via tax-deductable donations, or through a family trust, they could be prosecuted for tax evasion.

But figures released on the MySchool website show the Exclusive Brethren, a radically separatist Christian sect with about 15,000 members in Australia, gets around this law.

The website reveals that, at their Victorian school, Glenvale, 54 per cent of the income is tax-free because it is paid by parents through distributions from family trusts as well as donations. Because a school is a tax-free entity, Brethren families who arrange their business in this way do not need to pay tax on that money.

This tax-free money makes up the majority of the Brethren schools’ income, with another 28 per cent at Glenvale coming from government hand-outs, and the rest from modest fees paid from Brethren families’ post-tax income.

At the Meadowbank Education Trust, the Exclusive Brethren school in Sydney, government funding (state and federal) totals almost $9000 per student, fees paid by parents from post-tax income are just $2700, and the rest, $14,300 per student, comes from tax-free donations and distributions.

This means that, though the government funding is on par with the most disadvantaged schools, the controversial Christian sect has $26,000 per student to spend — more than some top flight private schools such as Xavier College, Scotch College and Wesley College.

The pattern is replicated at the six Exclusive Brethren schools around Australia. In 2009, the sect raised $32.4 million in tax-free money to send its 2537 students to school.

This dwarfs the tax-free component of any other private school in Australia, and acts as a de facto second government subsidy to Exclusive Brethren schools. At other comparable small Christian schools, tax-free payments by parents make up between about 1 and 4 per cent of income.

The tax office has ruled that if parents seek a special agreement with an ordinary private school to pay their fees as a distribution from a family trust, it constitutes tax evasion. But the Exclusive Brethren obtained legal advice in about 2006 that their arrangement, which covers all their members, was legal.

Only Brethren children attend these schools, and in the theology of the sect, they are constantly warned to stay separate from the outside world. They are told that “worldly” people are dangerous, and will “defile” and “contaminate” them. As a result, many grow up in fear.

They are also all but barred from going to university.The sect, whose leader is Sydney-based businessman Bruce D. Hales, is adept at what it describes as “spoiling the Egyptians” — or taking as much money from the public purse as it can legally manage.

Exclusive Brethren spokesman Bob Lawrence, of PR firm Jackson Wells, denied the system was specifically set up to avoid tax.

“The schools and parents follow all appropriate tax, education and other guidelines and comply with Australian law,” he said.

Senator Xenophon said the tax office “needs to tell Australian taxpayers whether this sort of arrangement is sanctioned”.

“If what the Exclusive Brethren is doing is more broadly applied it could cause a multi-billion dollar hole in tax revenue,” he said.

Read the full article – Exclusive Brethren parents claim ‘tax lurk of biblical proportions’

Once the investigators have uncovered and unraveled the Exclusive Brethren’s international network of interlinked charitable, private and family trusts, we would suggest that the tax investigators also review the nonsensical ability of the Exclusive Brethren to claim tax exemption on their fortified, windowless Meeting Rooms.

How many private clubs with member-only access have tax exemption?

And how many private schools ban their graduates from attending university upon pain of excommunication?

Just in case you think that this is only relevant in Australia, the 46,000-strong Exclusive Brethren are active in 11 countries including Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, France, Sweden as well as having a strong presence in the USA.

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!

This week, teachers in Westmount schools have been summoned to meetings and required to sign agreements not to talk to the media.

A veil of silence has descended over the schools, which receive $2.59 million in Government funding and have a combined student body of 1619.

How can any government justify giving tax-payer money to intentionally under-educate children?

A copy of an employment agreement obtained by this newspaper lists some remarkable requirements: teachers must disclose their “personal circumstances”, forgo union membership and agree that evolution is a falsehood.

No inter-school sports or activities may bring students into contact with other schools, and promoting any interest by students in university is forbidden.

Craig Hoyle, 20, was kicked out of the Exclusive Brethren early last year for telling his brothers and sisters he was gay.

He was at the Westmount school in Invercargill and said that the quality of education was extremely good – but very restrictive.

“Biology books had any pages involving sexual reproduction or a mention of genitals ripped out,” he said.

“There was no [sex education], no discussions about puberty anywhere. You’re just left to wonder what is going on. For someone like me who is questioning their sexuality, there is no one to talk to.”

He said he failed one section in an NCEA test on radio because pupils were never allowed to use one.

“None of us had any idea what they were asking. We all failed in spite of the teacher trying to explain what the different things meant without using a radio.”

Both Hoyle and another former student said they were brought up to look down on their teachers as “worldlies” – the word used for everyone who is not Exclusive Brethren.

The other student, a woman in her early 20s who left the sect over a year ago, said it was difficult integrating with the rest of society after her upbringing.

Family members turned against her; cutting all communication other than the odd letter declaring her insane or possessed.

“I completely hated it [at Westmount School],” she said. “Maybe some people were happy there, but I was unhappy at school and at home. It was too restrictive.”.”

Even when the Exclusive Brethren loosened its rules on technology in 2007, it was under strict controls.

Children and young people were not allowed mobile phones and texting capability was removed on phones owned by adults. All mobile phones, faxes, and computers had to be hired from a Brethren organisation.

The pupils constantly had it drilled into them that they were special people in special positions and that “worldlies were dirty people,” said the woman.

Outsiders were seen as a potential threat “to our purity, to our soul” and were not to be trusted, she said.

She said Exclusive Brethren members monitored staff to ensure they were no immoral activities.

“There were late-night visits. They would turn up at your house, uninvited, at around 9 or 9.30pm. They weren’t trying to befriend you; they don’t do that. They were just checking up on you. The clear intent is to catch you off-guard, to see your living conditions: are you living in sin outside marriage, are you getting a divorce, do you have a boyfriend, or – heaven forbid – have a woman partner. You feel like you are being spied on.”

Another teacher said if they had a day off their classroom would be searched looking for any questionable material.

“They would pull you up on anything they found, and children were encouraged to tell if we said anything considered improper. Anything they remotely considered immoral was vetoed. You couldn’t get anywhere with requests for material … they don’t want students thinking too much.”

“They have every resource money can buy, as long as its approved, which of course means many are not. Everything goes through a committee for approval or censoring. The library is full of books with pages ripped out.”

More recently, male students had been studying at university level through extramural classes, but the focus was on business and legal fields, said Lineham. “They have enormous bills for accountants and legal bills.”

Read the full article at Sect pupils in a class of their own

Why are the Exclusive Brethren scared?

University is designed to help people think for themselves, look outside themselves, consider other points of view and to … be mentally and psychologically free.

No cult could ever allow such a thing! From the Exclusive Brethren perspective, this is a fully understandable decision – they have to protect their future workforce, and … how else will the Exclusive Brethren grow in numbers? They don’t marry outsiders and they don’t recruit new members. They have to protect their future – it’s simply economic common sense!

What is not understandable is why governments would use tax-payer money to assist the process.

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 – keeping children separate from other non-cult children so that by the time they might meet non-EB members of society, they are already pre-conditioned.

Once the children graduate from their Exclusive Brethren schools, they do not have the normal life adventure of deciding on a suitable university. Exclusive Brethren young adults are provided with one or two tertiary opportunities via correspondance courses, but the character-building adventure of beginning to fend for oneself is not an option the Exclusive Brethren allow.  In fact, it is the last thing they want!

Thinking, research, free access to all literature, thought and philosophy are luxuries that Exclusive Brethren children are trained to shun. With an unthinkable future of being disfellowshipped, thrown into outer-darkness and an eternity in hell fire, most succumb to the threat and obediently start working for one of the wealthiest religious international business networks which are in turn linked to one of the largest and most complex international charitable trust (read ‘tax-free’) organizations in the world today. Girls have one future ahead of them – Motherhood. The Exclusive Brethren do not recruit from outside and must therefore fill their schools by breeding from within.

It is this sub-culture that Kevin Rudd is enabling by allowing government funding. It will permanently damage his political future.

Listen to your electorate Kevin!

“I’m not opposed to the use of taxpayer funds to support so-called “private education”. It makes good economic sense, especially given the contribution some schools make to the education of rural students and those with disabilities. Many more students from such schools make immense contributions to the community in later life, more than repaying the money spent on their education. These things, however, are not true of the Exclusive Brethren.”

“The purpose of their schools is to isolate individuals from society and make them so dependent on the group that they are unable to leave because they have no external support network.”

“I suggest the Exclusive Brethren should show a willingness to participate in society before they receive taxpayer funds for education.”

“Brilliant stuff. Fund them all to run their loony schools and do away with sane, rational public education altogether.”

“Schools that accept taxpayers money are not “private”.”

“… whose only purpose is to groom the next generation to fund the religious cult, (illegal and unconstitutional in any other country in the world) otherwise the present religions would simply fade away like all the other thousands of invented religions have? “

“The facts are that the majority of Australian families will never afford to use these private religious cult schools or ever want to use them “

“We should have similar legislation here in Australia so that our taxes are not used by religious cults on political parties, advertising and the indoctrination of vulnerable young children (which many consider child abuse) “

“… by privately run outrageously expensive religious global corporations whose only purpose is to groom the next generation to fund the religious cult, (illegal and unconstitutional in any other country in the world)”

“Church tax in Germany dates from well before Hitler. It was levied back in 19th century, and was part of the Weimar Constitution of 1919 … The tax office collects the tax on behalf of the religion … Those who belong to other religious groups or who have no religion, do not pay the tax. Anyone who officially leaves their religious community is no longer liable for the tax.”

“Exclusive Brethren raise their daughters telling them that if they ever marry or sleep with a man not of their church they will never see their families again. This is child abuse. Plain. Simple. Shut this cult down.”

“this is an obscenity!”

Random quotes extracted from The Australian Letters Blog

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“.

The ‘Daniel Hales’ paper, scheduled to be presented in New York USA at the ICSA’s Conference 2010 July 2nd, 2010 will be fascinating study material for the many thousands of ex-members who have been cut-off from their families and friends by the harsh rigidity of the Exclusive Brethren ‘Separation from evil’ keystone doctrine.

The ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association) is a global network of people concerned about psychological manipulation and abuse in cultic groups, alternative movements, and other environments.

The ICSA Annual Conference organized in collaboration with Info-Cult/Info-Secte of Montreal, Canada (http://infosect.freeshell.org/infocult/ic-home.html) will be held July 1st through July 3rd, 2010. Full details are available at: http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_conferences/conference_home_2010_ny.asp

ICSA state that the Conference is aimed at:

• anyone interested in cults, psychological manipulation, and related groups
• former group members
• people born or raised in cultic groups
• families of group-involved persons
• helping professionals
• researchers

An outline of the proposed Hales Address:

Exclusive Brethren: Is It a Sect or Is It a Cult?
by Daniel W. Hales

The address is a plea to professional persons internationally to consider carefully and dispassionately the parameters under which the words sect or cult can legitimately be used to designate a religious minority group. Are we judging by fact and dispassionate evaluation, or by hysteria and sensational media pressures? The question is raised as to what special regard needs to be given to Christianity in social, legal, and governmental arenas because of its impact on and benefit to society for thousands of years. This presentation seeks to place in an accurate context such matters as the history of the Brethren movement and its position in mainstream Christianity. The paper demonstrates why ‘separation from evil’ has always been foundational to Christian beliefs as a basis for true fellowship. It further explains how Exclusive Brethren (EBs), as fundamentalists, discharge their secular responsibilities in the areas of education and business, and also their interaction with non-EBs in such areas as the educational, medical, legal, and accounting fields.

Source: ICSA – Exclusive Brethren: Is It a Sect or Is It a Cult?

Although the Exclusive Brethren appear keen to take the opportunity to do some much-needed Public Relations, they may well find that this is not the ideal forum for attempting to publish PR-generated revisionism. A number of eminently qualified people will be presenting a wide variety of papers and discussion material during the conference.

Jill Mytton (Middlesex University), brought up in the Exclusive Brethren, is scheduled to speak on Friday, July 2nd on ‘The Mental Health of Second-Generation Adult Survivors of High-Demand Groups: A Quantitative Study’.

On Saturday, July 3rd, Daniel Hales will give his prepared address entitled ‘Exclusive Brethren: Is It a Sect or Is It a Cult?’ at 9:00am

Hales will be followed by Dr. Peter Caws (of George Washington University) with a scheduled address titled: ‘Entrapment and Rejection: The Abusive Treatment of Young People Who Have Been Born into Cultic Groups and Wish to Leave, With Special Reference to the Case of the Exclusive Brethren’.

The two addresses will be followed by a 90 minute Discussion ‘Exclusive Brethren and the Concept of Cult’:

Exclusive Brethren:
Keith Birch (UK)
Peter MacGregor (USA)
Bruce Robertson (UK)
Daniel W. Hales (Aus)

non-Exclusive Brethren:
Peter Caws, Ph.D. (USA)
Lois Svoboda, M.D. (USA)

Moderator:
Eileen Barker, Ph.D.

Meal Discussion Tables are scheduled during the Conference lunch and dinner breaks, but it is unknown if any Exclusive Brethren members would be able to attend these as their ‘Separation from evil’ doctrine bans them from eating at the same table as non-Exclusive Brethren members.

It is hoped that a number of ex-Exclusive Brethren members will also be present. One fact that even a public relations company can not whitewash is a history of broken families, vicious discipline, sociophobic attitudes toward non-members and a male-only business dominated hierarchy that intentionally entraps its members, work force and children.

It is worth noting that the Exclusive Brethren website (http://theexclusivebrethren.com/exclusive-brethren.html) only has the single route of communication available – through their commercial public relations company, Jackson Wells. It is also worth considering how many other self-styled ‘fundamentalist’ ‘christian’ ‘evangelical’ organizations offer the same level of public access to enable their stated function:  ‘to provide for the increase and improvement of christian knowledge and the spread of the gospel’ ?

References / ICSA Bio’s

Peter Caws:

Peter Caws, Ph.D., is University Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Human Sciences at the George Washington University in Washington DC. He has degrees in physics (from London) and in philosophy (from Yale) and has published widely in the philosophy of science, ethics, existentialism, and structuralism, among other things. He grew up in England among the Exclusive Brethren and his articles on “Belief and Morals Among the Taylorites” appeared in the Evangelical Times in the year 2000.

ICSA Bio – http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_profile/caws_peter.asp

Jill Mytton:

Jill Mytton, MSc., CPsychol., is a Chartered Counselling Psychologist and Principal Lecturer in the School of Psychology, London Metropolitan University where she is the course director for the Professional Doctorate in Counselling Psychology. She is currently studying for a doctorate at the Metanoia Institute affiliated to Middlesex University. She is the only psychologist listed on the British Psychological Society media list for Cults and Thought Reform and has been involved in several TV and Radio broadcasts. Her primary research interest is the mental health of Second Generation Adults, i.e., those born or raised in cultic groups. She has presented at several conferences, including INFORM London, April 2008 and the annual Division of Counselling Psychology conference Dublin, June 2008. She was born and raised in the Exclusive Brethren, leaving at the age of 16, when her parents decided to leave. Apart from a small private practice, she also runs an email support group for former Exclusive Brethren and has become the first point of contact for leavers of several groups

ICSA Bio – http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_profile/mytton_jill.asp

Daniel Hales:

Daniel Hales is a senior elder in the universal fundamental Christian fellowship known as “Exclusive Brethren.” He was born and has lived all his life in Sydney, Australia. He is the eldest son of the past leader of the Exclusive Brethren and an older brother of the present leader. He is a mechanical engineer by training and operates a family owned business in Sydney with international affiliations. He has engaged in extensive world travels since 1970; and since 1984 has been deeply involved in world-wide issues on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren in legal, government, and media areas. He has visited and worked extensively with charity projects and Exclusive Brethren interests in Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, India, USA, Canada, UK, Ireland, Sweden ,and elsewhere in Europe. He has been coordinator for two addresses on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren in France and Sweden and to the European O.S.C.E. Conference in Warsaw in October 2006.

ICSA Bio – http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_profile/hales_daniel.asp

Keith Birch:

Keith Birch is an elder among the Christian fellowship known as the “Exclusive Brethren.” He was born in the UK in 1948 and has lived for the past 30 years in Nottingham. He had some training in chemical research but the majority of his working life has been in merchandising, and he now has a business distributing packaging materials sourced from around the globe, and his three sons are co-directors with him. He has travelled extensively around the world and has investments in a business in Jamaica. Amongst his honorary roles for the church, as a senior elder in the UK, is to represent aspects of Christian conscience and morality to parliamentarians, government committees, councils, and other official bodies that call for submissions and responses from all parts of society.

ICSA Bio - http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_profile/birch_keith.asp

Peter McGregor:

Peter MacGregor, a lifelong resident of New York, is an elder among the group of Christians known as “Exclusive Brethren.” He was born in 1939 and trained as a chemical engineer at the Cooper Union School of Engineering. He completed advanced computer science studies in the industry’s infancy in 1959. A retired businessman, he does marketing consulting for various organizations.

ICSA Bio – http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_profile/macgregor_peter.asp

Bruce Robertson:

Bruce Robertson is an elder in the universal fundamental Christian fellowship known as ‘Exclusive Brethren’. He was born in 1944 and has lived almost all his life in Oxford, UK. He has been involved in the textile trade in Oxford since 1961 and has been senior partner in a family owned business with an international clientele since 1979. He has had personal acquaintance with four generations of the leaders of the Exclusive Brethren. He has travelled since 1962 to many countries universally in the interests of the Church. He has been involved since 1996 in making submissions to Members of both Houses in the UK Parliament (Lords and Commons) in relation to wide issues affecting the consciences of all Christians. He frequently attends parliamentary debates and committee meetings with an interest in legislation as it progresses through the democratic process. He attended the ICSA Conference in Geneva in July 2009.

ICSA Bio – http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_profile/robertson_bruce.asp

Lois Svoboda:

Lois Svoboda, M.D., is a former family medicine physician who has been trained in Marriage & Family Therapy and worked as a medical family therapist for 23 years in Wichita Kansas. Since retiring to Fremont, Nebraska four years ago, she opened a counseling practice and is working almost exclusively with people who have exited cults. In the past year she has planned and been responsible for a full day workshop for former cult members in Omaha, Ne., as well as a one day symposium for medical, law enforcement, clergy, mental health professionals, and the public on Cults and Gangs in Omaha in April of this year.

ICSA Bio – http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_profile/svoboda_lois.asp

Eileen Barker:

Eileen Barker, Ph.D., OBE, FBA, is Professor Emeritus of Sociology with Special Reference to the Study of Religion at the London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London. A former President of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Dr. Barker has written or edited eleven books and written over 275 articles and book chapters. Her books include New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction and The Making of a Moonie: Brainwashing or Choice? She is the Founder and Chair of INFORM, a charity supported by the British Government and Mainline Churches which helps enquirers with information about alternative religions that is as objective and up-to-date as possible.

ICSA Bio – http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_profile/barker_eileen.asp

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:

“The comments this week have been more than a year in gestation. He hooked into Scientology while doing a stint as a talk-back radio host in Adelaide before coming to Canberra. The trigger was a piece by Fairfax writer David Marr. The Marr piece prompted him to query whether the controversial organisation deserved its tax breaks.”

Source – Dogged crusader

David Marr, a highly respected Australian investigative journalist, is no stranger to looking at certain ‘religions’ with a calculator handy:

“You don’t know these three Sydney suburban businessmen, but their sect has influenced politics in four countries. David Marr reports.

With an iron hand, West Ryde businessman Bruce D. Hales rules his world church. To his 40,000 followers in the Exclusive Brethren, this prosperous supplier of office equipment in the Sydney suburbs is known as the Elect Vessel, the Lord’s Representative on Earth, the Great Man, the Paul of Our Day, Minister of the Lord in Recovery and Mr Bruce.
…
They cover their tracks. The name of the sect is never mentioned. Their political demands are a seamless mix of business breaks and hard-line Christian morality. Under Hales, the Exclusive Brethren have become a new player in the right-wing politics of the world. And they have lots and lots and lots of money.”

Source – Hidden Prophets

David Marr goes deeper …

“The sect is having legal problems on other fronts. In June, the High Court confirmed a ruling that the Brethren’s fortress-like meeting halls in Brisbane are not “places of public worship” and it must therefore pay rates. These halls stand on prime real estate all over Australia. The Brethren are up for millions.

But the sect is rich and there is lots of money to pour into the fight against same sex unions. A delegation of Brethren warned Brown this year that gay marriage is completely and utterly wrong, shocking and perverted: “The world is rushing on to destruction.”

Even the Victorian Liberal leader, Ted Baillieu, is talking civil unions now. But with an election only weeks away, the Brethren are organising. They’ve been to see the Victorian Nationals leader, Peter Ryan, to complain about Baillieu and check out his own position. He was able to reassure them completely. “I do not support the principle of gay unions in any sense of it equating to marriage.”

Meanwhile, inside the sect, opponents of this heretical excursion into politics are biding their time. They are terrified of making a move. All they have is at risk: their wives, children and businesses. They say it’s all but impossible to explain what life is like in there: “You cannot understand the horrific mistreatment of people.”

Source – Hell’s fury ranks behind outpouring

And has there been improvement in the last three years? Well, hardly surprisingly the Exclusive Brethren have dropped below their famous ‘radar’ in politics. Their rightly ridiculed political foray was the ‘brain-child’ of the ‘Elect Vessel’ Bruce D. Hales and had the end result of the Exclusive Brethren being seen as political pariahs, untouchable smear-tacticians and brought a focus of international media attention – the one thing that any cult fears the most!

Their ‘help’ resulted in Donald Brash in New Zealand resigning, and John Howard losing his seat, his Prime Ministership and his party’s election. With George Bush (also Exclusive Brethren supported) long gone, the quality of Bruce Hales’s political campaign leadership in the Exclusive Brethren must be considered an unmitigated disaster. If he was not the leader of a cult and holding the temporal and eternal futures of his members  in his hands, he would have been fired for pure incompetency!

Much of this era and the history of the cult has been captured brilliantly in Michael Bachelard’s Exclusive Brethren exposé: ‘Behind the Exclusive Brethren’. Of this October 2008 publication David Marr commented:

“Shocking and compelling. Michael Bachelard has written an eye-opening account of power and cruelty in a tiny Christian sect that enjoys a privileged existence in Australia.”

David Marr Comment – ‘Behind the Exclusive Brethren’

David Marr kept watching …

“A father’s price for quitting his marriage was to lose contact with eight children left behind in the Exclusive Brethren. David Marr caught up with sect defenders.

The Exclusive Brethren has enjoyed sweet victories in the Family Court before, but none sweeter than this. Despite all that is now known about the methods of the Brethren, the court has denied a father in Tasmania any access to his children for reasons that boil down, essentially, to this: he left the sect.”

Source – The Exclusion Brethren (July 2009)
Comment – THE ELUSIVE, EXCLUSIVE AND NOW – EXCLUSION BRETHREN

There have been a number of attempts to gain an official inquiry into the business workings of the Exclusive Brethren as well as an investigation into human rights abuses behind their security fences and locked doors.

Quite rightly people are asking questions about their tax-exempt status and the huge amounts of public money thrown into their ‘schools’.

Then there is the matter of a vast international network of charitable trusts linking every Exclusive Brethren Meeting Room, every Exclusive Brethren ‘school’, every Exclusive Brethren gathering, their ‘Watchtower-like’ Bible and Gospel Trust, ‘Poverty Funds’, Old People Homes, Land Developments, the National Office Assist network, the Wordex distribution, EB cell phones, digital cameras, travel organizations and medical insurance fund.

Tax-exempt money flows freely though the integrated charity network and when necessary couriers bring neatly packaged sums of cash (just under the $10k limit) across international borders.

Hopefully Nick Xenophon will get his wish – an investigation into the cult-like Scientology organization.

We then suggest that Nick Xenophon and fellow-senator Bob Brown spend a little time together. Bob has access to some really interesting information that some will consider demands an investigation into the cult known as the Exclusive Brethren.

“Australian Greens leader Bob Brown has called for an inquiry into the extent of the Exclusive Brethren’s influence in federal politics”

Source – Brown wants probe on Brethren influence (2009)

Go Nick!  And get back in there Bob!

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.

What further upsets folk in the current economic times is if they sense their hard-earned dollars are being used to further a cult and cultic activities. If they then understand that their dollars are being used to indoctrinate the defenseless young to be unquestioning future cult members, it is possible that the public will not only object, they’ll react.

The Exclusive Brethren have ‘flown under the radar’ for a long time.

Their fortress-style churches are described as public places of worship and as such are free of taxation. The fact is that they are places of worship for members of the Exclusive Brethren – not the public. They are therefore private clubs. Every Exclusive Brethren meeting room should be taxed. Why should you pay for them?

The Exclusive Brethren schools rely heavily on subsidies from governments. Their schools are vital to the Exclusive Brethren. Without their own schools, their children would mix with your kids and would become ‘contaminated’ (read: might realize they’re being duped!). What do you think is healthier for them? A choice perhaps?

Exclusive Brethren currently are not allowed to go to university. This means they have to recruit their school teachers from ‘outside’. They have a very high turnover of teachers! The level of interference in tuition and the way the teachers are watched forces most to leave the restrictive environment.

Exclusive Brethren are not allowed to go to university for the same reason as they school their young. Today there is a movement toward some extra tertiary education via correspondence courses – in carefully selected subjects and areas. But there is a fear there. The fear is that their young adults will learn to think – and thinking has always been the enemy of a cult.

The Exclusive Brethren break up families. They will spend as much as they need on expensive lawyers to prevent the excommunicated parent (normally male) from seeing his children. Why? Contamination with the world is again the concern – their children are their only form of growth. Who in their right mind would join them?

Exclusive Brethren honor money above all other commodities. A successful business equates to power and position. Money is a sign of ‘God’s blessing’ and the Exclusive Brethren were one of the earliest adopters of Prosperity Gospel theology.

Discipline is harsh and unequivocal. The end result is always in no doubt, there is no middle ground. The cost is immense and the impact can be fatal. These are their internal walls and most of their 45k members worldwide accept that.

The Exclusive Brethren lie without batting an eyelid. To them, they are dealing with swine and telling an untruth to defend the honor of the Assembly is an honor and as natural as breathing. They even have a scripture for it – ‘Tell it not in Gath’ (2 Samuel 1:20). Why waste something as precious as a pearl of truth when dealing with pigs?

The Exclusive Brethren defend their battered image with a kind of desperate horror. They ‘know’ they are right and that the world is evil. There is no question because they cannot question. To question is to invite Doubt and to doubt is always disastrous.

They have a very expensive Public Relations firm on retainer. Frankly the strategic advice given today to the Exclusive Brethren seems to be ‘fly a little lower under the radar’.

Like the leaders of Scientology, the elite and very wealthy hierarchy of the Exclusive Brethren just want us all to go away and leave them alone. That would be their fervent wish.

The trouble is that they’re a cult – and it’s tough being a cult.

People look at you differently.

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]

Australia and Christianity

Christianity is the revelation of God Himself: and God is love; and “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life” (Holy Bible, the Gospel according to St. John, chapter 3, verse 16).

Christianity has undoubtedly provided a solid foundation for the historical development of Australian Society.

The Australian Human Rights Commission would therefore do well to ensure that the Christian voice, the Christian way and Christian practice are not marginalised. There is a danger that they will be.

The downgrading of Christian principles in the community is of major concern.

Despite the emergence of unsatisfactory practices in Australian society, there is nevetheless a generally satisfactory freedom of religious and cultural practice within the normative social and legal framework.

Religious communities contribute to the social wealth of the Australian nation; but the State has the responsibility of curbing the activities of religious extremists when they threaten the safety or wellbeing of others.

Religious toleration is essential, but the emergence of a multifaith Australia will lead to problems unless the voice of Christianity is dominant and decisive.

Some faith communities represent a threat to the long term cohesion of the Australian nation and a physical threat to National Security.

The State is to control morality and violence, as is endorsed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, but not religion. The practice of religion, provided it does not violate public morals or public order, should not be regulated by the State. A regulation of a practice denies the freedom of belief.

Equality

It is necessary that equality before the law be maintained for all citizens, irrrespective of religious belief and practice.

This equality before the law should also apply to government grants and assistance. lt has in the past, but is in danger of somewhat discontinuing.

Equality is a human right to be applied in all instances of religious practice.

Freedom of religious practice

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines two principles: 1) the individual’s right to freedom of religion, and 2) the individual’s right to be free from discrimination and/ or intolerance.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

and also provides:

5. Advocacy of religious hatred which amounts to incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence must be prohibited by law (article 20).

6. Everyone is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the law without discrimination on the ground of religion among other grounds (article 26) and

7. Minority groups are entitled to profess and practise their own religion (article 27).

Freedom to express and practaice a faith system is generally well protected in Australian society. But there is a problem.

lf a person is compelled by law, not to discriminate in conduct against another person or their beliefs, and in order to to this that person has to compromise his own dearly conscientiously held belief and conduct to such an extent that he in effect denies his own personal basic beliefs and practices then that person is being denied ( by law) the very freedom which the Declaration proposes.

Therefore it is essential to include a clause similar to one which was inserted in the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 1995.

“Nothing in (this Act) applies to discrimination by a person against another person if the discrimination is necessary to comply with that person’s genuine religious beliefs or principles”.

In addition, the government should accommodate the needs of faith groups in addressing issues such as religion and education, faith schools, the building of places of worship, religious holy days, religious symbols and religious dress practices by allowing full freedom of religious expression provided it is not immoral or violent.

The Universal Declaration is an admirable social thesis which should colour the legislative thought of every civilised nation in the area of Human Rights; but we submit that any specific Legislation would not fulfil the stated aims of the Declaration.

Neither strengthening Section 116 of the Constitution, or legislating a national Charter of Rights, would securely add to the present freedoms of religion and belief, because the High Court would interpret the clauses in a way it judged to be right, irrespective of what many people would perceive to be a Parliament’s stated intention. This helps neither the freedom of religion nor the Australian ethos.

Both religious radicalism and political extremism are essentially violent and there is a danger of them gathering momentum. Nevertheless, it would be dangerous for government to start controlling religious practice: it should just continue to control morals and violence.

The main areas of concern regarding the freedom to practice our religion are:

. the maintenance of provision for conscience in all laws,
. preaching the Christian gospel (see first paragraph of this submission)
. local Government approval for building churches and schools.

Conscience

A genuine conscience is characterised by:

. A clear understanding and explanation of the moral principles believed;
. A durable or tenacious conviction over a period of time;
. A compelling force or a moral duty which is held in some depth;
. A readiness to suffer disadvantages in maintaining the belief.

Provision for genuine conscience is needed to be maintained in all laws, otherwise you do not have freedom of religion.

The maintenance of provision for conscience as to joint membership of Juries has been generally recognised by governments, but is now under threat in NSW.

There is currently not adequate protection of the conscientious right to discriminate in particular contexts.

Separation

Christianity is inherently based upon the principle of separation, as are most established religions. The Apostle St. Paul, who after Christ Himself was the leading expositor of Christianity, taught “Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (Second Epistle to Timothy, chapter 2, verse 19).

It is critical to consider that most conservative Christian groups ask that their members be excused from inclusion in anything that they consider would violate their principles or conscience, and this situation does not threaten the continuance of Australian society.

However certain intolerant non-Christian religious elements insist on society changing to suit them rather than seeking exemptions. Allowance or provision for their approach will result in the destruction of the Australian society with its tolerance and mutual cooperation we have today.

Preaching

Government regulation of preaching the Christian gospel in the street should not include prohibition, for that would deny the practice of religion. Sensible conditions on the activity, for example, no use of electric amplification, to provide for public order would be consistent with the principle of freedom of religion.

Building Churches

Since 1998, when the “Article l8” report by HREOC was issued, it has become more difficult to obtain permission to build Christian churches.

Local Government in approving places of public worship generally imposes conditions. Sometimes these conditions deny freedom of religion by seeking to limit the times of services. Holy Communion celebrated at 6am on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) has Iong been a deeply held religious conviction by various Christians. Some Councils are seeking to prohibit this religious practice.

Religious dress

Manner of dress and deportment should not be discriminated against or regulated unless they are a clear and obvious threat to security or social order.

Sexuality

Diverse sexuality is contrary to the Holy Bible and therefore committed Christians cannot include it, but seek to help persons to repent and cease non-Biblical practices.

In the context of freedom of religion, a member of a religious group may well have to exclude a person from employment because of their sexuality, depending on the case. The law would have to allow for this if religious freedom is to be upheld.

Technologies

There are religious and moral implications in the development of the internet.

The new technologies have already been used by anti-Christian, and we could say anti-human, groups to spread their influence.

There should be no legal requirement to use the internet for purposes that would be contrary to a genuine conscientiously held belief.

The Media

The media has a negative impact on the balanced portrayal of religious beliefs and practice.

Media statements about faith communities are sometimes unfactual, biassed and expressive of intolerance.

Freedom to express our religion is certainly hindered by current media practices, especially in the intrinsic denial of the right of full and free reply, and in the immediate juxtaposition in TV presentations of statements made months apart in different contexts. This practice gives the viewer an unbalanced, and sometimes false, appreciation of the true situation.

[by Daniel Hales, John Myhill and David Stewart - 2009]

Original published document – click here for Word version

The Peebs.Net Community add their thoughts and commentary in the Peebs.Net Forums – ‘Guess who’s worried about Human Rights & Religious Freedom?’

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!

Source: Glenvale Education seek Business Teacher

Key phrases and their translation:

‘No out-of-school activities are required’

- please read you are not invited to out-of-school activities.

‘Our teachers enjoy small class sizes…’

- this is absolutely true – very small class sizes, rather exclusively so you could say. The Exclusive Brethren have created a dispersed ‘campus’ comprising intentionally small classes in order to gain $millions in educational grants. Some wonder why the Australian government is subsidising schools designed by a group that have been described by Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister as “an extremist cult and sect”.

‘… a congenial Staffroom’

- in other words, there is a place for you and a place for us – please remember your place.

‘…  and a high level of professional support in a successful partnership with parents’

- this is almost poetic! The parents will be watching your every move and hanging onto every word.  You will be working with older children and the parents and wider Brethren will be very alert. Apart from possible correspondance courses, this will be the final education that these teenagers will receive.  They have been protected from outsiders (such as you) since birth.

‘…excellent teaching skills’

- You are educated beyond what any EB in the last 50 years has been able to achieve, which is why they must recruit from the ‘outside’. Although this is deserving of respect, know that they will despise you as a non-EB. If you are a woman, you will feel the EB women and the teenage girls watching you in awe at your confidence in speaking to male EB.

‘The applicant should also have a vision, purpose, and commitment in his/her vocational life.’

- The flip side to this seemingly innoccuous request is that the EB consider themselves to have the ultimate vison, purpose and commitment. Bear this in mind at interview.

‘Glenvale School is dedicated to encouraging each individual to achieve their best within this small, caring family environment.’

- The ‘best’ does not extend beyond the conclusion of high school education. Exclusive Brethren children are banned from attending university. This is primarily a business decision – the EB worry that being taught to analyze and think at university level may well allow a young EB student to intellectually question their upbringing – and as a direct result, leave the cult. It is worth noting that all ‘caring’ ceases the moment someone leaves the Exclusive Brethren.

With the above in mind, we continue to welcome contact with any Teachers either currently employed or considering employment with an Exclusive Brethren school. Write to us in confidence at info@peebs.net

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.

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.

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.]

Australian Parliament Original document available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/estimates/add_0607/ag/qon_18.pdf

It would seem that Judge Brown not only followed the Exclusive Brethren tactical roadmap to the letter, she tightened it to an extent that it enables the Exclusive Brethren to now use the decision as an emotional hammer to ruthlessly suppress anyone who desires to think for themselves and demand a right for their families to be the best they can be.

It is also valid to wonder at the level of duplicity involved in a paper that underlines the importance of marriage by the voice of a group that force marriages to end and families to be ripped apart should one member exercise his/her right to question the harsh rules of the Exclusive Brethren.

Surely it is time to ensure that the background to the Exclusive Brethren representations are analyzed more carefully and for the judiciary to take care to educate themselves thoroughly in the real reasons the Exclusive Brethren go to such lengths and incur such expense in shoring up their defences?  The Law is the most powerful instrument of a democratic society, but when wielded without due diligence, discovery and wisdom, it can become a curtain that helps conceal abusive behavior.