EDITORIAL POLICY STATEMENT ORCRO MAGAZINE - 6th May 1990 As readers will be aware there wa

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

EDITORIAL POLICY STATEMENT ORCRO MAGAZINE - 6th May 1990 As readers will be aware there was quite a gap between ORCRO#4 and ORCRO#5. During that time the editor, Ms North and the rest of the ORCRO team had a considerable amount of time at their disposal, some of which was used to formulate a more coherent position as regards the many and several Christian groups who oppose Occultism in any shape or form. The following is a summation of these many discussions. The intent behind the foundation of ORCRO was non trivial and twofold: 1/. To provide hard evidence where none had previously been cited as to the truth, or no, of the many allegations of child abuse related to occultism. 2/. To determine the source of these allegations. The initial position of those associated with ORCRO was that the allegations made about occultism were the result of over enthusiastic amateurs letting their faith overbalance their capacity to reason and ask questions. Such events, after all, are not uncommon, and in time they tend to pass. When ORCRO was founded it was clear that: Many of the Christian experts comments as regards occultism indicated that they simply were not experts on occultism. That is their material was in many cases second hand, inaccurate, misquoted, and in general so full of holes that one could drive a bus through it. Court cases cited as examples of occult inspired crime turned out, upon investigation to be no such thing. Promised court cases somehow never materialised, and continue not to materialise. Much of the "evidence" against occultism finally depended upon the Bible for its validity. In short, those most frequently quoted in the media, and who made the allegations against occultism, were considered to be an interesting aberration, worth looking into, but not to be regarded seriously. This attitude was to some extent reinforced by several conversations with the likes of Maureen Davies, Kevin Logan, Dianne Core as well as with more mainstream representatives of the Christian religion. Without doubt they were sincere, but bright and well informed they were not, as the odd transcript or two would show. The question that remained was how could such people give out such inaccurate information, which just happened, to further their case? There were three possibilities: They might be plain stupid. That is, they refuse to consider evidence that will cast doubt upon their case, i.e. what does not fit their a priori theories is ignored. They might be deliberately lying in pursuit of religious / political / monetary / philosophical goals. They might be so persuaded of a particular religious framework that they have no difficulty in accepting anecdotal evidence that fits the framework, and acting on it. Lies about Occultism eminating from Christians are nothing new. In general every religion misrepresents every other religion. If one is given to charity one might say that this is because each religion tends to, indeed in exoteric religion, must, believe that it has the only handle on truth and thus is quite entitled to interpret any other religion from the context of that truth. It is however a different thing to move from the area of theological debate to that of criminal accusation and to set oneself up as judge, jury and executioner. ORCRO then began to look into the American situation. That is, what had happened in America as regards allegations of satanic abuse, court cases, movers and shakers etc. The theory being that the American situation would to some degree reflect what has happened here and what is going to happen. When America sneezes, Europe catches the black death etc.. As luck would have it this proved to be possible. Most of the ORCRO team work in the computer industry. This in turn means that some of us visit the States frequently, and that we have the facilities and the resources to have extensive data contacts with the States. What we discovered was not very nice. In America the satanic child abuse scare began in 1980, with the publication of the book "Michelle Remembers", and to some degree culminated with the McMartin child abuse trial. In the period between many stories have emerged along with many "anti-satanist" groups, many of whom will save your child, for a fee. It is very important to note that prior to the publication of "Michelle Remembers" there is not one documented account of religiously organised and motivated child abuse similar to the allegations now made by the "anti-satanist" lobby. There are no "satanic survivor" accounts prior to the publication of that book. It is also important to note that there have been several "occult scares" prior to the emergence of such allegations, most notedly in the U.S.A. by one John Todd Collins. In the United Kingdom, pre-1980 revelations can be found eminating from, amongst others, Doreen Irvine. John, is still widely accepted, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, by many of the "anti-satanist" lobby as an ex-witch and ex-mover and shaker in the "occult world takeover plan". Yet John, during the 70s never once mentioned "ritual child abuse". Neither did any "escapee" from Occultism mention it prior to 1980/81, including Doreen Irvine. Because a thing has not happened before, does of course not mean that it cannot happen. Yet the probabilities decrease. Think of what is implied by what the likes of Maureen Davies says. The general public is being asked to believe that there is a world wide conspiracy of occultists, who world wide sacrifice something of the order of 75,000 people a year, who are behind a number of major drug operations, have fingers in the entertainments industry, banking, and just about every powerful area of human activity. This conspiracy is, even as we speak, recruiting children and adults into its ranks. "The world conspiracy of Occultists". That means you and me. To them the fact that ORCRO has taken the time and trouble to find out how fundies here are linked to fundies over the pond (and can prove it to the tune of names, places, dates, documents, tapes & videos) is evidence that they are right. The fact that you dear reader, are reading this, is also evidence of the conspiracy. I mean, anyone who casts doubt upon the word of the sword of the lord just has to be a minion of old Nick. Stands to reason, doesn't it? In the States Ken Lanning (Head of child-abuse investigations for the F.B.I.) who pointed out the lack of evidence and sloppy logic in the "anti-satanist" arguments has been accused of being a satanist, as has Robert Hicks (criminal justice analyst) of the Virginia Department of Justice. Anyone who doesn't agree is a tool of the Devil. Several anti-satanist bodies have produced detailed run downs of the aims and methods of these imaginary, all powerful, satanists. Maureen Davies herself has produced one, (see p18, ORCRO this issue), which despite the lack of facts and documentary evidence is even as we speak being used in the United States as "evidence" of a world-wide "satanic" conspiracy. Yet despite all this, uh, information, the "anti-satanists" all continue to produce no real evidence. They have yet to attempt a serious infiltration, they have yet to name one name that demonstrates the veracity of their case. We have absolutely no hesitation in stating that that the vast majority of the "anti-satanist" movement are liars and distorters of facts. We also have no hesitation in stating that they are liable to become responsible for starting more child abuse than they stop. In short the "anti-satanists" are dangerous. They are the new inquisition. Their victims are not (in the main) occultists, but children, and the poor disturbed "adult survivors" who have the ill fortune to fall into their hands. The New Inquisition? Sure. No torture, but keep on asking questions until you get the answer you want to hear, the answer you know is the truth, the answer you have already decided is the truth. The McMartin trial in the U.S.A. cost $30,000,000. Nobody was convicted. Some of the children were interviewed by police and social workers and "private interested agencies" upwards of 30 times. The only good thing to come out of the McMartin trial was a close examination of the legal procedures relating to child-abuse in California. The seven defendants have had their lives wrecked. The publicity was such that they will NEVER be able to loose the stigma of the accused. Mud, as they say, once thrown, sticks. Reachout are fond of stating that the accounts of "ritualistic" abuse they have dragged out of children are too awful not to be believed. One wonders where these people have been this last century or so, and what contact they have had with professionals, indeed what contact they have had with the world. "Too awful not to be believed". One presumes they have never heard of the Somme, Belsen, Riga, Pol Pot, Stalin, the popularity of child prostitution in Victorian England and a thousand other things. Nothing is too awful to be believed. Some things are though too awfully short of evidence to be believed. Reachout also use the glib phrase "believe the children", a deliberate distortion of the N.S.P.C.C. "listen to children" slogan. The presumption being that children never lie about abuse. Yet when, in "ritual abuse" cases, children are interviewed by interested parties upwards of 30 times, interested parties who use a mixture of persuasion and reinforcement and a presumption that abuse took place, is it any wonder that the children end up saying what the therapist wants them to say? ORCROs opinion? We refer you to the British legal system. From the decision of Mr Justice Scott Baker in the family division in "re E (a minor)", March 27 1990, in a matter relating to a particular child abuse court case: "The underlying theme permeating this investigation had been that the child must be believed. While it was crucial that children should be listened to, it was equally important that what they say should be examined critically. Blind acceptance of what a child said was liable to have a snowballing effect and generate a presumption that the alleged perpetrators were guilty. That had happened here." "It was difficult to analyse what had happened and why the children had said these things. There had been opportunity for transmission of ideas among the children. From the moment when the first child was questioned, E's parents were implanted in the childrens minds as "bad people". The line between fact and fantasy in a child's mind was a fine one, easily blurred. Anatomically explicit dolls were inappropriately used, and leading questions were asked by interviewers who were convinced the children had been abused." "Believe the children." Would that it were that simple. But is not, and when untrained, religiously based amateurs read a few books, attend a few conferences, and set themselves up as experts in a field that may not even exist and then start counselling children and adults who may have severe mental problems, it is time to start seriously worrying. They believed the children in Salem and I forget how many died because of that. Listen to children, but for the sake of the children and for the sake of the innocent do not check your critical faculties at the door. So, after all that, what is ORCROs position? Simple, stop them by any legitimate means. Stop them before we in the United Kingdom begin to relive the American experience. Stop them before they do someone serious harm. Stop them before they gain such a beach head they will never be finished. All well and good, but how? Well that dear reader is up to you.

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank