Randomly Selected Article or Link

...but, because I think they are probably completely loopy, I'm not a Scientologist. But I'm damned sure that in a pluralist society where we accept as a Human Right the freedom to follow religions we don't agree with, that we ought not to let this happen without a fight:

Germany moves to ban Scientology:

Germany's federal and state interior ministers have declared the Church of Scientology unconstitutional, clearing the way for a possible ban.

There is probably much that can be said against the Church of Scientology and its strange beliefs and sometimes even stranger followers. But I'm not sure there's any specific charge that can be leveled against them in terms of exploitation and behaving like a cult that can't also be leveled at, say, Opus Dei or the Jesus Army. And I'm not sure how they get to this:

German intelligence agencies... claim the movement's structures and methods could pose a threat to the rule of law and "democratic order".

...any moreso than, say, Jehovah's Witnesses subvert democracy by refusing to participate in elections (indeed the greater charge might be leveled against them for holding up the processes of democracy by keeping canvassers talking for an hour and a half!). Indeed some of the activities of the Catholic church in Europe in response to the "moral relativism" of liberal democracy - demanding magistrates refuse to implement laws relating to gay partnerships and so on - could be said to pose a far bigger threat given the numbers of their adherents.

If it can be proven that they practice extortion, then sue them, but to ban them, presumably in order to protect people from their own folly, is a slippery slope that Europe would do well to remember the potential consequences of.

Most right-thinking people, and I hope all Lib Dems, have castigated this government for the provisions of the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act that restrict protests within 1km of parliament, which was the thing under which Maya Anne Evans was prosecuted for reading the names of Iraqi war dead out at the Cenotaph.

Some of us signed one of those vacuous Downing Street Petitions on the issue a while back and we received notice of an even more vacuous government response to that today, published at the Number 10 site. So I thought it was worth highlighting from it that the government have (quietly so far as I can see) snuck out a consultation paper called "Managing Protest Around Parliament" on 25th October, which you can read and submit comments on until 17th January if you're interested.

You know who you are. Those liberals (in particular) who always claim that "libertarian free markets" will result in a corporate plutocracy, or that the current turmoil in world financial markets (yes, it's still going on you know!) is a result of "libertarian free markets". Here, especially for you (but of interest to others I hope too), is a brilliant explanation of how this mutualist understands that free markets benefit people, not corporations.

CORPORATIONS VERSUS THE MARKET; OR, WHIP CONFLATION NOW

by RODERICK LONG - LEAD ESSAY - November 10th, 2008

Defenders of the free market are often accused of being apologists for big business and shills for the corporate elite. Is this a fair charge? No and yes. Emphatically no—because corporate power and the free market are actually antithetical; genuine competition is big business’s worst nightmare. But also, in all too many cases, yes —because although liberty and plutocracy cannot coexist, simultaneous advocacy of both is all too possible.

Read the rest...