Thursday, 12 December 2013

Scientology is a Religion - Hodkin v Registrar-General

The Supreme Court in Hodkin v Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] UKSC 77 has decided that Scientology is to be regarded as a Religion and that its Chapels can be registered under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855.  The relevance of the 1855 Act is that premises registered under it can then be registered to perform Marriages under the Marriage Act 1949

The Claimants are Scientologists who wanted to be Married in the Scientology Chapel in London which was not however registered under either the 1855 or 1949 Acts.  This was because of the 1970 case of R v Registrar General, ex parte Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697 where the Court of Appeal had held that Scientology was not a Religion and its Chapels were not places of Religious Worship.  In Segerdal Lord Denning had memorably said of the definition of Religion and the concept of Religious Worship

'place of meeting for religious worship' as used in the Act of 1855. It connotes to my mind a place of which the principal use is as a place where people come together as a congregation or assembly to do reverence to God. It need not be the God which the Christians worship. It may be another God, or an unknown God, but it must be reverence to a deity. There may be exceptions. For instance, Buddhist temples are properly described as places of meeting for religious worship. But, apart from exceptional cases of that kind, it seems to me the governing idea behind the words 'place of meeting for religious worship' is that it should be a place for the worship of God.

"Religious worship means reverence or veneration of God or of a Supreme Being. I do not find any such reverence or veneration in the creed of this church. … When I look through the ceremonies and the affidavits, I am left with the feeling that there is nothing in it of reverence for God or a deity, but simply instruction in a philosophy. There may be belief in a spirit of man, but there is no belief in a spirit of God."

whilst Buckley LJ had said
"Worship I take to be something which must have some at least of the following characteristics: submission to the object worshipped, veneration of that object, praise, thanksgiving, prayer or intercession."

English Courts and the Registrar General were therefore bound by this definition until the Hodkin case came before the Supreme Court since only the Supreme Court has the power to overule a decision of the Court of Appeal.  

In considering the 1970 Segerdal case and its relevance in the rather different cultural and legal environment of 2013 the Supreme Court noted that the rather narrow definitions used in Segerdal had been rejected by the High Court of Australia in Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Vic) [1983] HCA 40; (1983) 154 CLR 120 (27 October 1983) , by the US Courts in the case of Malnak v Yogi 592 F.2d 197 (1979) and, to a rather more limited extent by the European Court of Human Rights in Kimlya  v. Russia

Lord Toulson gave the Judgment of the Supreme Court and noted the problems with the Segerdal definition

 51: Unless there is some compelling contextual reason for holding otherwise, religion should not be confined to religions which recognise a supreme deity. First and foremost, to do so would be a form of religious discrimination unacceptable in today's society. It would exclude Buddhism, along with other faiths such as Jainism, Taoism, Theosophy and part of Hinduism. The evidence in the present case shows that, among others, Jains, Theosophists and Buddhists have registered places of worship in England. Lord Denning in Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697, 707 acknowledged that Buddhist temples were "properly described as places of meeting for religious worship" but he referred to them as "exceptional cases" without offering any further explanation. The need to make an exception for Buddhism (which has also been applied to Jainism and Theosophy), and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for it, are powerful indications that there is something unsound in the supposed general rule.

52: Further, to confine religion to a religion which involves belief in a "supreme deity" leads into difficult theological territory. On the evidence of Mrs Wilks, Scientologists do believe in a supreme deity of a kind, but of an abstract and impersonal nature. Ideas about the nature of God are the stuff of theological debate.

 

 In Para 57 of the judgment Lord Toulson laid down what will undoubtedly now become the standard definition of religion in UK Law, despite his caveat at the end, 

57:  I would describe religion in summary as a spiritual or non-secular belief system, held by a group of adherents, which claims to explain mankind's place in the universe and relationship with the infinite, and to teach its adherents how they are to live their lives in conformity with the spiritual understanding associated with the belief system. By spiritual or non-secular I mean a belief system which goes beyond that which can be perceived by the senses or ascertained by the application of science. I prefer not to use the word "supernatural" to express this element, because it is a loaded word which can carry a variety of connotations. Such a belief system may or may not involve belief in a supreme being, but it does involve a belief that there is more to be understood about mankind's nature and relationship to the universe than can be gained from the senses or from science. I emphasise that this is intended to be a description and not a definitive formula.

 The decision of the Supreme Court to recognise Scientology as a Religion for the purposes of the 1855 Act will undoubtedly lead to Scientology being recognised as a Religion for the purposes of Charity Law and also clearly for Discrimination Claims under the Equality Act 2010 

What is also interesting in both this case and last weeks case of Mba v Merton Council the Courts have accepted that they should not allow themselves to be drawn into detailed theological arguments.  Personally I welcome the decision, even though the Church of Scientology is a controversial organisation I would be concerned at any attempt by legislature or Courts to determine what are "acceptable"  and "not acceptable" religions

3 comments:

Andrew T said...

Time to do what the French do, which is not something I often say. All marriages should be before the Registrar - after which you can have whatever ceremony you like wherever you like conducted by whomever you like.

But a "marriage" not before the Registrar would be a non-marriage, not even a void marriage, creating no legal rights and obligations between the parties or vis-a-vis the State.

And those concerned with running such a ceremony where there has not been a marriage by the Registrar should be prosecuted.

And if it happens twice in the same building the rate relief for that building should be withdrawn.

Reinhard Rieder said...

Scientology’s bona fides have been officially recognized by a number of governmental agencies and public authorities in the United Kingdom. These include: HM Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue and the ministry of defence. http://goo.gl/WRG1fE

Most significantly, the Italian Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the religiosity of Scientology. The Italian Supreme Court issued a decision in October 1997 regarding Scientology that is now recognized as the leading European judicial precedent regarding the definition of religion. The Court thoroughly analyzed the criteria for determining religion, concluding that Scientology is a bona fide religion whose activities, “without exception, [are] characteristic of all religious movements.” In reaching this determination regarding Scientology’s bona fides, the Court rejected the definition of religion applied below in the case by the Court of Appeals because it was drawn from Judeo-Christian con cepts:“a system of doctrines centered on the assumption of the existence of a Supreme Being, who had a direct relationship with men and whom they must obey and revere.” The Court found “[s]uch a definition of religion, in itself partial since derived – as asserted – exclusively from religions stemming from the Bible, is illegal under many viewpoints; it is based on philosophical and socio-historical assumptions that are incorrect.” Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that the lower court also erred because the definition used to exclude Scientology also excludes Buddhism, Taoism or any “polytheistic, shamanistic or animistic religions.”

David Brear said...


In his ruling, Lord Toulson made this extraordinary statement:

'I emphasise that this is intended to be a description (of religion) and not a definitive formula.'

Since Lord Toulson's non-definitive description of 'religion,' was then used as a formula to produce a definitive Supreme Court ruling, by his own admission, the ruling had to be fundamentally-flawed, and on various grounds.

In truth, Lord Toulson and his colleagues should have clearly stated that 'religion' (Latin religion is obligation, bondage, reverence) is not merely a word, but a vast and evolving phenomenon, and, therefore, it cannot be accurately defined.

Furthermore, any attempt to arrive at a brief legal definition/description of the ethnocentric word, 'religion,' but which fails to take into consideration the irrefutable historical fact that self-perpetuating, non-rational or esoteric ritual belief systems have been (and continue to be) established, and/or perverted, for the unlawful, clandestine purpose of human exploitation, is not just fundamentally-flawed, but also fundamentally-dangerous.

Thus, all Lord Toulson had to do to protect the British people, was to apply common sense, and add to his definition/description the following vital clarification:

Religion: 'a spiritual or non-secular belief system, held by a group of adherents, which claims to explain mankind’s place in the universe and relationship with the infinite, and to teach its adherents how they are to live their lives in conformity with the spiritual understanding associated with the belief system, but which has not been established, and/or perverted, for the unlawful, clandestine purpose of human exploitation.'

David Brear (copyright 2014)