Scientology controversy

I would like to thank Kat friend Chris Torrero for sending the link to this article. The Scientology community in New Zealand is being criticised for having used the term ANZAC for one of its fundraising campaigns to build a Scientology centre in Auckland. Every person donating $10,000 towards the project received the title ANZAC.  
The RSL and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) are outraged at the use of ANZAC in such a context and have described it as abuse. In Australia and New Zealand, ANZAC refers to the Australian New Zealand Army Corps, specifically to the soldiers who helped in World War I. 

The DVA said that they had not received any application from the Scientology community to use the word, but that even if they had, such a request would never have been accepted. The DVA launched an investigation into Scientology and demanded that they end their campaign. The Scientology community was at risk of a $50,000 fine in Australia and New Zealand for using the ANZAC mark without permission. 

Australia has passed laws to protect the word ANZAC. Protection of Word ANZAC can be found in the Statutory Rules 1921 No.2, which was passed in accordance to the War Precautions Act Repeal Act 1920. Amongst other things, they limit the use of the word for use in trade or as a street name.

The Church of Scientology explained that the word was only used for internal purposes, not to do trade. They said that they did not mean to disrespect anyone and apologised for offending anyone. They have now withdrawn the campaign. 
Scientology controversy Scientology controversy Reviewed by Unknown on Saturday, September 27, 2014 Rating: 5


  1. Since the religious group complied with the law, what is the controversy?

  2. Although they say that the word was only used for internal purposes, it seems that the IPKAT picture is an example of a flyer that was circulated to the public, and that is it the public use of the word without permission that was against the law.

  3. I am not saying what they starting doing did not violate the law.

    Clearly it did.

    I am saying that I just don't see the controversy since when it was brought to their attention, they stopped and complied with the law.

    Now if they continued, then - then - there might be a controversy.

    Did I miss something?


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.