Scientology is a religion, rules
Supreme Court
By
Alice Philipson and agencies 10:18AM GMT 11 Dec
2013
Scientology is a
religion, the UK's highest court has ruled, after a woman won a
battle to marry in a Church of Scientology chapel.
Scientologist Louisa
Hodkin took her fight to the Supreme Court after a High Court judge
ruled last year that services run by Scientologists were not "acts
of worship".
But five Supreme
Court justices ruled in her favour on Wednesday, announcing that
the Scientology church was a "place of meeting for religious
worship".
Miss Hodkin wants to
marry fiancé Alessandro Calcioli in a Church of Scientology chapel
in central London.
She took legal
action after the registrar general of births, deaths and marriages
refused to register the London Church Chapel for the solemnisation
of marriages under the 1855 Places of Worship Registration Act –
because it was not a place for "religious worship".
Supreme Court
justices said religion should not be confined to faiths involving a
"supreme deity".
They said the Church
of Scientology held religious services, therefore its church was a
"place of meeting for religious worship".
Miss Hodkin said: "I
am really excited. I'm really glad we are finally being treated
equally and can now get married in our church."
She said they hoped
to get married in the next few months but have yet to set a
date.
Mr Calcioli added:
"I think the court's definition of religion is excellent. I think
it's what most people today would understand 'religion' to be. I'm
ecstatic."
The justices
unanimously allowed Miss Hodkin's appeal against the High Court
ruling.
In 1970 the Church
of Scientology launched a similar case.
Then the Court of
Appeal ruled that Scientology did not involve religious worship
because there was no "veneration of God or of a Supreme
Being".
Miss Hodkin lost her
High Court fight in December 2012 when Mr Justice Ouseley said he
was bound by the 1970 Court of Appeal decision and therefore had to
dismiss her challenge.
But he said Supreme
Court justices should consider the question of whether
Scientologists worshipped.
He said that because
the Supreme Court was a more senior court than the Court of Appeal,
Supreme Court justices might take a different view.
Miss Hodkin argued
that the 1970 ruling should not be binding because Scientologist
beliefs and services had evolved during the past four
decades.
She said services
were "ones of religious worship" and likened Scientology to
Buddhism and Jainism.
Communities
Secretary Eric Pickles had welcomed Mr Justice Ouseley's
ruling.
Mr Pickles said the
Church of Scientology might have been entitled to "tax breaks" –
because of rules governing places of public worship – had a
decision gone in its favour.
He said taxpayers
would not want "such a controversial organisation" to get "special"
treatment.
Local government
minister Brandon Lewis said his department would be taking legal
advice following the ruling.
He said: "I am very
concerned about this ruling, and its implications for business
rates.
"In the face of
concerns raised by Conservatives in Opposition, Labour ministers
told Parliament during the passage of the Equalities Bill that
Scientology would continue to fall outside the religious exemption
for business rates. But we now discover Scientology may be eligible
for rate relief and that the taxpayer will have to pick up the
bill, all thanks to Harriet Harman and Labour's flawed
laws.
"Hard-pressed
taxpayers will wonder why Scientology premises should now be given
tax cuts when local firms have to pay their fair share.
"We will review the
Court's verdict and discuss this with our legal advisers before
deciding the next steps. However, it will remain the case that
premises which are not genuinely open to the public will not
qualify for tax relief."
Miss Hodkin added:
"My fiancé and I have always believed in the fairness of the
British legal process.
"It's been a long
and demanding journey, but the Supreme Court's decision today has
made it all worthwhile.
"We are really
excited that we can now get married, and thank our family and
friends for all of their patience and support."
Her solicitor Paul
Hewitt, a partner at law firm Withers, said: "The Supreme Court's
judgment is a victory for the equal treatment of religions in the
modern world.
"We are delighted at
the outcome – it always felt wrong that Louisa was denied the
simple right, afforded to members of other religions, to enjoy a
legal marriage ceremony in her own Church."