Questions in parliament about CoS
a.r.s., February 23, 1996

On Feb 8, member of parliament Bakker (for D66, a party that's somewhere in between the social democrats and the liberals) asked the following questions in parliament. He referred to a report on cults made in 1984, which was not very favorable on Scientology.

Bakker (D'66), to the Minister of Public Health, Social Affairs and Sports, February 8, 1996)

1. Do you remember the report of the subcommittee 'Cults' of the Committee for Public Health of July 1984? Do you specifically remember the opinion from this report that the organization and conduct of the Scientology Church Amsterdam is not entirely on terms with two constitutional rights, i.e. freedom of religion and respect for a person's private life, after which the committee concluded as follows: "If the Church would not be prepared to actually change this attitude, the question whether or not the organization might be within the legal definition of a forbidden legal entity should be considered"?
2. Has any contact or deliberation with Scientology taken place after this report was published and had been discussed in Parliament? If so, what was the outcome? If not, do you see cause to establish such a contact after all?
3. Are you prepared to investigate whether the subcommittee's conclusion from 1984 (that Scientology is an organization that is not entirely on terms with said constitutional rights) is still valid?

It is not known when the answers will be given. I spoke with the undersecretary shortly after these questions were asked, and told her that I had a great deal of material on Scientology. She replied that she had been a member of the afore mentioned committee, and proceeded to take down my address and phone number.

Copyright Karin Spaink.
This text is offered for personal use only. Any
other use requires the author's written permission.