Saturday, 28 September 2013

Scientology from a Scientology perspective

This week I posted about a Panorama documentary on Scientology by John Sweeney. So to be fair to Scientology I decided to watch their rebuttal of the  Panaorama documentary and give some comments.

Firstly the don’t understand investigative journalism. It means you look at all sides of the story and don’t just listen to the authorities after all they only will show you the good.

The cult claims he barged in to try film a very important event on L.Ron's birthday, but all they show is him on a security camera with no audio and no time stamp. In response they give only their accounts of what happened. They said he would show it in the Panorama episode but he didn’t, so who am I to believe when he has not even commented on this incident. At another point they claim that the people he interviewed are frauds as they tried to extort money out of the church. But they cannot back this claim up with anything no documents, no audio or camera footage nothing.

The one point on which I cannot comment much is that they talk about a 1987 show which panorama made about Scientology. On this I cannot comment as John Sweeney didn’t make it and I have not seen it or studied up about the relevant court cases mentioned in the documentary. So here they could be correct, but I cant say they are correct.

They say Sweeney violated codes of OFCOM and the BBC, but they just say his reporting was biased. What code is that, I mean I can say anything is biased, so you need to be specific. So they try make Sweeney look like a criminal. On a side Sweeney admits he has been sued for libel, as an investigative journalist I am not surprised. I think most investigative journalists have been sued for libel, so lets say bad boy and slap his hand and realise he is the same as every other investigative journalist. Interestingly they also talk about Narcanon which is the Scientology drug rehabilitation program and how he was not interested in seeing the facilities. BTW, this program is so effective that it goes against scientific knowledge and has multiple deaths associated with it.

The one thing that really irritated me and which a huge portion of the show is dedicated too is that they claim he was harsh in his questions to celebrities. But please remember they were the ones that did not want him to put any of the celebrity interviews (apparently the only real Scientologists he interview) into his documentary. So again its their fault. This all comes down to the fact that he used the word "brainwashed" which apparently is slander and insulting.

Then the horror moment at the Citizens Humans Rights Museum is when he finally had his meltdown and screamed at them. Which he did not hide in his documentary and he apologised for it.  What I did find interesting throughout the documentary is that in all the interviews with ex-BBC employees, no one ever used Sweeney's name and criticised him. So who were these journalists speaking about? Then a huge claim is made, they claim that Sweeney staged events and did multiple takes. Now if this is true and they have this footage why did they not show it with time stamps?

They continue to make claims by saying that Sweeney organised a protest in London against Scientology. Here they finally show a letter that they say shows John Sweeney staged a protest, but it does not say that. All it is, is an e-mail asking for consent to film protesters. Then they talk about a terrorist threat against the church. Question, why is this brought up unless they are trying to imply Sweeney is a terrorist.... Just saying.

Finally they play the religious abuse card..... shame my heart bleeds for you. Poor filthy rich religion feels hurt, sorry no sympathy you believe in aliens with no proof you deserve criticism in vast amounts.

Part 1
Part 2