Sorry for triple posts ... the website doesn't seem to work.
Anyway, I found this article about a speech by an Iron Lady in HK:
focus.scmp.com
Religious freedom 'alive and well'
Taking a position: Regina Ip gives a clear-cut explanation of the Government's stance on cults during a speech given to the Outstanding Young Persons' Association.
In the wake of appalling mass murder, suicide, or violent confrontation apparently instigated by cults, psychologists have undertaken extensive studies into "mind manipulation" techniques employed by cults. Notwithstanding the feeling in some quarters in Hong Kong that cults do not present any problem, shocking acts of brutal murder or mass suicide in the past few decades have led scholars and governmental authorities to explore and adopt different solutions to remedy the potential harm to society posed by cults.
The first is psychological deprogramming. Numerous studies have been done in the United States on the devastating impact certain cults have had on their followers - on their personalities, careers, families, and sometimes their mental welfare. It does not appear that Hong Kong has much experience or expertise, or indeed had the need so far, to help departing cult followers. But should problems become serious, I have no doubt there would be a groundswell of support among concerned groups to set up such help organisations.
The second is public education. Many governments, particularly those in Europe, in the light of their experiences in grappling with the ill-effects of cults, have identified public education as an ongoing solution. Germany, for example, established a committee of inquiry into "so-called sects and psycho-groups" in 1996. Belgium also set up a parliamentary commission to study the problem, and in 1998 passed legislation to establish a "Centre for Information and Advice on Harmful Sectarian Organisation". Earlier this year, the Austrian Parliament passed a new law to establish a similar observatory.
The third is legislation to outlaw cultic organisations. This is often seen as the most drastic measure, and frequently criticised as infringing the freedom of religion enshrined in the constitutions of democratic countries and international human rights covenants.
There is considerable divergence among Western countries on the appropriateness and lawfulness of such legislative remedy. In the case of the US, the First Amendment to its constitution expressly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Some scholars, such as Thomas and Jacqueline Keiser, point out that while religious belief is absolutely protected, religious conduct is only partially free from government scrutiny. In accordance with this constitutional principle, the US Supreme Court has ruled that certain practices - such as polygamy or handling poisonous snakes as part of a religious ceremony - are prohibited, notwithstanding their religious significance. At the same time, in successive rulings the US Supreme Court has moved towards expanding the notion of religion into the hazy area of conscientiously held personal beliefs, provided such beliefs are held with sufficient passion to become the matters of the highest importance to an individual.
Against this constitutional background, it is not difficult to understand the strong views the US has against legislation outlawing cultic organisations. It is interesting to note, nevertheless, that despite similar constitutional and legal provisions governing the separation between the State and the Church, the French National Assembly enacted a "Law Aimed at Reinforcing the Prevention and Repression of Sectarian Movements, which Threaten Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" on June 12 this year.
This legislation is highly instructive in shedding light on the principles espoused by a liberal democracy in framing laws against harmful cults. Among these principles is the fact that while freedom of thought, conscience and religion is absolute where privately held beliefs are concerned, the freedom to manifest one's religion may be subject to limitations, provided such limitations are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Legislation fighting dangerous cults should therefore target harmful actions of cults or cult leaders, not the spurious or controversial precepts advocated by a cult.
Another example of legislation can be found in Japan. In response to the Aum Shinrikyo terrorist attack in 1995, the Japanese Diet [parliament] passed the "Law to Control Organisations That Have Committed Indiscriminate Mass Murders" in 1999. The legislation empowers the monitoring of organisations identified as having committed indiscriminate mass murder in the past 10 years, and the entering of the facilities of such an organisation for inspection purposes. So far, this legislation has been enforced only once, with Aum Shinrikyo currently being monitored.
The Hong Kong Government's position on sects and cults is as simple as we hope it is clear. We are committed to the protection of fundamental human rights, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. As I have said before on other occasions, privately held views are entirely a matter for the individual concerned. It does not matter to others if a person is committed to the adulation of the sun, the moon or the stars. But if a sun worshipper preaches his or her faith by requiring followers to raise funds through prostitution, or to celebrate their faith by taking poisonous drinks, the authorities have good reason to be concerned. The authorities would need to assemble information and undertake analysis to determine whether a sect or cult might advocate or be engaged in actions which might undermine public safety, order, health, morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The authorities would also need to consider whether existing legislation and criminal sanctions are adequate to deter such actions, and if not, whether additional measures are necessary.
I hope you have noticed by now that what the Government has been doing so far - in observing the actions of cults; in examining how other jurisdictions have been dealing with the dangers posed by cults; in considering whether measures are necessary - is basically no different from the actions undertaken by other governments - French, German, Austrian, Belgian and Japanese. The Government has a duty to protect public safety and order, and to anticipate dangers. The Government also has a duty to issue warnings about the pernicious nature of cult teachings where evidence abounds that considerable injury to human life and public order has been caused by such teachings.
You will also have noticed that in keeping with the pluralistic and vibrant nature of our society, there has been no lack of voices of disagreement to the remarks made by government officials on the nature of a certain group. (Naturally, neither is there any lack of views expressed in support of the remarks made by some of us). The cut and thrust between public officials and their critics on topics of public interest is a well-established characteristic of Hong Kong's public life. It is indeed a welcome and healthy sign that freedom of thought and religion are alive and well in Hong Kong.
To date there does not appear to be any need to depart from our strategy on cults which the Chief Executive elaborated on in the Legislative Council in February and in June. Our own country has, of course, a long history of large numbers being victimised by superstitious groups. Even in our own backyard, we have seen cult followers seduced into prostitution, fooled into swallowing hydrogen peroxide for cancer treatment, or even threatening to commit suicide.
There remains a need to be vigilant, and we will not shy away from our duty to remind the public of the risks posed by cults. But as the Chief Executive made clear, we do not perceive at this stage a need to introduce new legislation. Nevertheless, we will continue to monitor the situation to ensure there is no risk to public safety and order from the activities of cults in Hong Kong.
This is an edited extract of Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee's speech to the Outstanding Young Persons' Association yesterday. |
