4:10PM BST 24 Oct 2012
Louisa Hodkin, 23, was at the High Court flanked by her fiance as her QC, Lord Lester, attacked the refusal of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to allow the church's chapel in Queen Victoria Street, London, to be used for marriage ceremonies.
The registrar had declined to recognise the chapel as a "place of worship" - the necessary step before marriages can be solemnised - compelling Ms Hodkin to look elsewhere for her wedding venue.
Ms Hodkin is engaged to a fellow scientologist. Lord Lester said her own brother had been allowed to marry at a Church of Scientology chapel in Edinburgh five years ago, a right which was permitted under Scottish law but denied south of the border.
"She and her fiancee both volunteer at the Church of Scientology and seek to celebrate their marriage through a legally recognised scientology wedding, surrounded by their friends, families and fellow volunteers," he added.
The Church of Scientology was founded in 1953 by L Ron Hubbard whose theory of "dianetics" is said to have underpinned its first teachings.
Converts believe individuals have forgotten their true godly natures, which they can rediscover through years of study and meditation and the practice of spiritual "auditing".
Church of Scientology marriages are recognised in a range of different countries, including New Zealand, Canada, the United States and Australia, and church members claim the registrar's refusal is discriminatory and in breach of the 2010 Equality Act.
If the case is successful it would be a victory for the organisation, once described by a British judge as a 'cult', as it seeks political recognition.
Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, has previously urged councils not to grant Scientology branches rate relief granted to other religions, saying: "The Church of Scientology is not a registered charity, since the Charity Commission has ruled that it does not provide a public benefit. Nor are its premises a recognised place of worship."
"I do not believe the majority of the public would want their own council to be giving special tax breaks to such a controversial organisation."
The church, whose adherents include actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta, has been accused of mistreating its members.
Lord Lester took the judge, Mr Justice Ouseley, on an extensive trawl through jurisprudence and religious history which he said demonstrated the church's credentials and scientologists' rights to marry in their own places of worship.
He described scientology as a "theistic religion", in company with many of the major world faiths, and insisted that its chapels are used for "worship".
"It is a religion which believes in a supreme being," he told the judge, adding: "As all the evidence before the registrar shows it does so in a profound way."
Scientologists acknowledge the supreme being in their services, in the same way as Roman Catholics or Baptists or Muslims, he said, and so "should be treated the same as those groups".
Some of the church's tenets were similar to those of Buddhists, involving belief in a "cycle of birth and death" and a conviction that "one can realise one's true spiritual identity through spiritual exercise and training, and so eliminate the causes of suffering".
But James Strachan, for the registrar, insisted Miss Hodkin's challenge was "misconceived".
The decision not to recognise the chapel as a marriage venue had been made under the 1855 Places of Worship Registration Act, he said, and was exclusively focused on "whether the place in question is for use for religious worship".
"It is not a conclusion as to whether or not scientology is a religion, or whether it is inherently theistic or otherwise," he told the court, insisting that the "essential ingredients" of religious worship are absent from scientology meetings.
"There is also a sermon in which they listen to a pre-recorded speech by L Ron Hubbard, and then there's a group meeting," he explained.
The legal challenge is being brought by Ms Hodkin and the Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc.
Outside court, their solicitor, Paul Hewitt, said: "At present, members of the church are not allowed to marry in accordance with their religion in England and Wales and have their marriage given legal recognition, even though they are currently entitled to do so in Scotland and many other common law countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States.
"'We hope this case will rectify the position."
The hearing continues.
A member of the Church of Scientology has launched a High Court battle for the right to marry in a Scientology chapel.
Louisa Hodkin, 23, is challenging a refusal of the registrar general of births, deaths and marriages in England and Wales to register the chapel for the solemnisation of marriages on the grounds that it is not "a place of meeting for religious worship".
A judge heard Ms Hodkin wants to marry a fellow Scientologist at the church's chapel on the ground floor of its premises in Queen Victoria Street, central London.
Her lawyers say she is the victim of unlawful religious discrimination.
Under section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, the chapel has to be certified as a meeting place for religious worship to enable legally recognised religious marriages to take place.
Miss Hodkin and her fiance, who are both church volunteers, are challenging the legality of the registrar general's refusal to certify the London chapel for weddings in July last year.
The case is of general importance as Scientologists have previously unsuccessfully applied for certification at other premises in England they have claimed are for "religious worship".
Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, appearing for Miss Hodkin and the Church of Scientology Religious Education College, described how Miss Hodkin's brother, David, was married in a religious ceremony at a Church of Scientology in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 2007.
He said Miss Hodkin and her fiance wanted to similarly celebrate their marriage through a legally recognised Scientology wedding in London, surrounded by their families and fellow church volunteers.
But a casework manager for the registrar general said such a wedding could not be recognised because of the 1970 case of "Segerdal" in the Court of Appeal.
Judges in that case ruled that another Scientology chapel was not a meeting place for religious worship because its services involved "instructions in the tenets of a philosophy concerned with man" and were not concerned with religious worship.
Lord Lester argued the registrar general had unlawfully fettered her discretion or misdirected herself in law.
He told Mr Justice Ouseley, sitting at London's High Court, there had been a failure to have proper regard to evidence that the form of worship observed by Scientologists had continued to evolve and now was materially different from what it had been at the time of the Segerdal case.
Founded by L Ron Hubbard, it held in common with many of the world's oldest religions that people were here "to work out our own salvation" by reaching an understanding "of ourselves and the universe".
Only in that way "can we understand the Supreme Being and our relationship with the universe".
Lord Lester argued Scientology was being treated less favourably than Buddhism and Jainism, which were both non-theistic religions whose adherents did not worship a personal god or supreme being but were nonetheless allowed to register places of religious worship and hold marriage ceremonies.
He accused the registrar general of failing to comply with equal treatment laws.
He asked the court to order the registrar general to register the Queen Victoria Street chapel as a "place of meeting for religious worship" and to certify it for the solemnisation of marriages.
James Strachan, appearing on behalf of the registrar general, said there had been no unlawful discrimination and the court should not intervene.
He argued that the appeal court decision in Segerdal remained valid and binding - "the overall position remains that the fundamentals of scientology have not changed since Segerdal".
Mr Strachan said: "The important point in all this is the concept of worship and whether religious worship is taking place."
He argued that at the core of Scientology services was a process of auditing and instruction "that does not fall within the concept of worship as understood in the ordinary sense".
Reserving judgment at the end of a two-day hearing, the judge said he would give his decision at a later date.
0 comments:
Post a Comment