Talk:Kenja Communication

Top

Kenja Communication is an Australian communication training group. Its website describes it as non-political and non-religious.

This commentary relates to Kenja Communication, Australia. This group has had a strong effect on Australian social welfare. There will be a determined attempt to turn the article into a PR story, and complaints will continue untill that has been achieved. Please refer to the Wikipedia treatment of Scientology where there is acurate information allowed to remain on the site, while the Scientologists PR pages appear as wellLegalist 07:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

there are edits I have drawn attention to which have all been secreted into articles ranging from the annhialation of the Tasmanian Aborigine to European and American court cases involving sexual matters. The editor, Mbarry, has also accessed sites involved with the Kenja Communication Group.

The group's leader faces 22 charges of sexual misconduct with two minors.

Thier defence appears to rely on declaring the charges part of a 'witchhunt'. The group has had an associate member produce a report which they are marketing as 'independent', which claims to examine 'the misuse of allegations of a sexual nature, and the ugly legal ramifications' involved. ( they did the same thing in a previous court case with a published book, 'Our Australian Freedoms are Under Threat', which was supposedly independent, but was also authored by Kenja members). the article is being secreted into wikipedia articles which involve historical injustices by the police, the courts and the media.

this appears to be a subversive move to give credibility to thier 'independent report', and help them build a credible case for being the subject of a 'witchhunt'. Thier strategy seems to be to draw various peoples attention to the articles, and having them draw comparisons with the groups contemporary situation, helping develop thier defence story. By enlarging the issue to make it a great injustice against society they hope to garner support from political quaters, as well as academic support and assistance from the genral community. They seem to present it to followers as proof of a 'conspiracy' to 'get' the group.

it seems to me there is no witch hunt, just two young girls bringing charges before the courts. But that is irrelevant, this seems to be a misuse of the encyclopedia, and introduces biased and slanted information into the site for personal gain.

as this group is a Scientology off shoot, with the leader being a Scientologist of 11 years standing, they should be treated witht the same respect for honesty as shown the Scientologists. ie; they should be allowed to present thier version of events, but it must be viewed with the material and information as published in the Australian Media, Parlimentary documentation and through articles written by leading Academics, which appear to have thier links removed in edits by 'MBarry'. Legalist 03:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

- :excuse me, is there any reason why i am being called 'subversive' for editing articles? it is not 'my' 'independent' report. i am not trying to be 'credible', only 'reasonable'. where is your proof for the Scientology connection? i do not understand your insistance on this when the two organizations seem to be totally dissimilar. - :MBarry 05:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC

Removed for lack of sourcing

The group maintains a pyramidic financial structure where money is created as a resource, and then flows through to the leadership via a payments system for commodified spiritual experiences.

This model, originally conceived by L Ron Hubbard, after involvement with Jack Parsons, a disciple of Aliester Crowley, has proven successful for the leaders, although not always helpful to the members. It is a model which can be franchised easily, and can be set up in most areas with a large urban population, allowing for new recruitment to counter attrition.

In most cases, groups of this nature imply they have an altruistic nature and attempt to gain a tax free status to maximise profit. Whether through gaining a religious status from the government, or posturing as a social or sporting club, they conceal the profit's being funnelled through the group. Fundraisers appearing to be charitable, free up cash flow to then be liberated from the groups. Again, pioneered by L.Ron Hubbard, this is done primarily by suggesting the leadership is not in direct control of the group, but operates as a "consultant" only. The impression is of a hands off approach, for a one off fee. This is usually found to be false on closer inspection.

Please source these allegations TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 11:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, these are not directly about the group, so they should probably not be in this article. Zocky | picture popups 12:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

section removal

I removed a section and some additional text due to complaints and a lack of sources (see WP:LIVING for policy basis). Please do not re-add the material unless it can be sourced. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

The page needs more information on the philosophy of Kenja. The training section on the Kenja website looks to be the best source. At the moment the page doesn't say what Kenja actually is and what happens inside it in specific terms, so it's incomplete. RB972 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it seems quite unbalanced for an encyclopedia type article. Can someone put some quotes on about what the group is, to balance it a bit? Nomsky 07:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

yes will try to add some quotes, about the philosophy. Some parts may need work.

UBB449 07:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Be more specific in describing the philosophy. RB972 09:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that Kenja is a Scientology offshoot, and Mr Dyers was in the Org for 11 years, with Scientology present at several hearings during his pedophile case giving evidence, could we assume Nomsky and UBB449 may be unaware of the true origins of the group, themselves sourcing information from the website. This is an understandable error. we have his own statement coming which will give you much needed verification. Appreciate your efforts.[[[User:Legalist|Legalist]] 07:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)]

I look forward to seeing this verification. Is there a reference stating that Dyers was in Scientology for 11 years? if so it should be included. also where is the proof for 'Scientology present at several hearings during his pedophile case giving evidence'? or 'the true origins of the group'?

i think these are important points. unless we have some more references, we need to use the website because there is nothing else to represent this POV and the article becomes unbalanced. UBB449 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If sources are hard to find it usually means that the POV is less notable than easily sourced POVs. RB972 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what appears in Stephen Mutchs address to the NSW State Parliment

The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: I shall now refer to the connection between Kenja and the Church of Scientology. I am sure honourable members would be aware of the organisation the Church of Scientology, though one barrister I spoke to the other day asked, "What is Scientology?" I suppose we are not all that well-informed. The article I referred to earlier from the Concerned Christian Growth Ministries entitled "Kenja: the Science of Change" noted that Kenja's claim to uniqueness in the Western world is contradicted by its own statements and jargon. The article states at page 17:

Many of Kenja's buzz words are an integral part of the Scientology vocabulary including such terms as, "We have the technology; clear reactive mind thoughts; data; terminals; interbulate; processing; energy centre; reality level; ethics and research; standards and ethics; awareness; consciousness; causative" and more. The late Lafayette Ron Hubbard would not be pleased with Kenneth Dyers and company. He would regard their "technology" for living as definitely NOT "standard" tech.

I will read from a letter from yet another ex-Kenja member whom so far I have not quoted. I could read many more letters to the House. Those who wrote to me were concerned about a number of things. Parents, friends and relatives do not want to go public for fear that the person in Kenja will not want to contact them any more and will close off from them entirely, so that there will be even less contact than there is at present. Another concern relates to public ridicule. Most friends and relatives wish to be available if a person ever gets out of the organisation. This particular ex-Kenja member asked in the letter, as most correspondents have, that the name not be disclosed. I have asked most of these people to advise me if they do not want their names revealed. This letter states: This person said: One big lie is that Kenja is based on the research of Ken Dyers - over the last 40 years or so. In fact, it is based almost entirely on Scientology. Ken Dyers has stated that he was in Scientology and the implication was that he was in it for a number of years. On the first day that I started work in Kenja as a "professional" we had to go out and buy (from the Scientology bookshop) Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard and 0 - _ [Zero to Infinity] book. Also a copy of the "Tone Scale" and several other scales. Over the next month, we had to completely read "Dianetics" and the 0 - _ book. Daily, from then on, we had to read some of the 0 - _ book and at least daily, locate ourselves on the "Tone Scale". The Scientology material forms the core of Kenja Dyers lectures and seminars, yet they constantly deny that it has anything to do with Scientology (which is true in the literal sense that Kenja is not a branch of Scientology and that they pay money to Scientology. In fact Ken Dyers used to skite about how Scientology had labelled him a "squirrel" and tried to destroy him and Kenja - but, of course, had failed against the mighty powerful and evolved Ken Dyers. A number of so-called ex-Kenja professionals have given me books in which the name Scientology has been covered up. I have been given huge charts that are supposedly tone scales used by Scientology. They are very detailed charts. Apparently its members have to memorise details from the charts. It is another form of keeping people's brains so preoccupied with detail that they cannot think about anything else. I now seek to put on the record the contents of a letter written by Henry Bartnik entitled "Kenja not Scientology", of the Sydney Church of Scientology. The letter, which appeared in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader on 14th January, states:

(Legalist 12:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

POV section

The mental illness section needs more work, it is too POV at present. Can we get some references for the Michael Beaver paragraph? Also there is nothing to compare the size of the group to how many people have 'developed' mental illnesses. UBB449 07:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

reference is in the Steven Mutch parlimentary report (Legalist 07:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC))and in the Robert Manne report. Statistically acceptable mental health issues?, seems a funny approach for someone to take. [[[User:Legalist|Legalist]] 21:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]

i was merely pointing out that it might not show in this context what percentage of Kenja members have had a negative experience. UBB449 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

its fairly clear what you are doing(Legalist 00:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

Another POV section

I have removed the 'discharged with a disability' part because I think it takes the war records entirely out of context - I may be wrong but I seem to remember something like, most soldiers who fought in New Guinea in WWII came back with 80 or 90% instability due to the extremely inhumane conditions... therefore if someone came back only 10% unstable it would be supposed they are doing quite well. UBB449 08:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if the army thinks it s important enought to state it has validity. especially if we are talking about someone who practices executive mental health. It has relevance.[[[User:Legalist|Legalist]] 07:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)}

Suggested removal of some comments

I cannot see any actual proof that this group is connected with The Church of Scientology - they claim on their website to be non-religious, and I have never heard of a religion claiming to be non-religious, that would really be illogical and pointless - unless anyone can actually find any proof i think the references to Scientology should be taken off - I am unconvinced that Dyers being part of Scientology for an unknown period, however many years ago means that the group or their practices are connected - in fact the inclusion of dyers on an 'enemy list' seems to indicate that they are not connected. UBB449 00:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There are some media references to it being scientology-derived - for example in The Monthly - so i guess this could be taken as proof - but i agree that Scientology does come up surprisingly frequently in this article considering that there are not really any similarities in the claimed practices of each

Nomsky 01:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this whole Wiki thingymahjig but isn't it meant to be NPOV? and this article is kind of POV. a couple of editors write like POV - like MBarry might be Kenja-POV and Legalist is kinda Scientology-POV - see below for proof!!! like if this is suposed to be an encyclopedia this article is really not great - in fact as soon as i work out how i am going to nominate it for deletion. Askbeth 01:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved this comment from the top, "below" refers to Legalist's comment near the top. RB972 04:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What comments? Kenja is listed in the suppressive person/group list, which apparently proves it is a splinter group of Scientology (or at least Scientology thinks so...). From the suppressive person article:

"The Church of Scientology appears to maintain a central list of ex-members and splinter groups formally declared to be suppressive. In an executive directive of 1992, the Church's "International Justice Chief" lists over 400 groups and over 2,300 individual people considered to be suppressive."

It references a document with the same date/title/etc as the list Kenja is on. RB972 04:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, UBB449, Nomsky and now ASKBETH, and of course MBARRY have done very little more than continously water down the content. Thier goal is transparent and I must say, a little humorous when they prentend they don't know each other on the discussion pages. Mr Dyers is a well known Scientologist, he was in fact booted out of the Org for his temprament. His Sons were brought up in a Scientology House, and his wife paid for his mortgage, as he spent his money in Scientology, as testified to by Kaljo his long term friend. This is all sitting in court records, and these guys know this, so they are hoping none can be sourced. The Kenja cannon includes a study in all of Hubards teachings, from the 'tone scale' to 'Xenon' from the 'Communication Training' idea to "Clear Spirits and Entities". You have included information in your contributions which could only be sourced from Mr Dyers, I cite the inclusion " Mr Dyers said he wanted to be a Truck Driver" on his army application as a defence against his service as a transport driver, (which I might add carries no shame), as a possible reason for any confusion. Just to set the record straight, Mr Dyers put on his application, i have been reliably informed, " I want to be a Tank Driver".

And fellows, the minute you begin calling for statistically acceptable levels of mental illness, you expose your motivation.Need I recall some of the great crimes of the twentieth century, all based on the premise, " The ends justify the means". (Legalist 22:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

To that end, as Mr Dyers practices Executive Mental Health, (at least he says so on his website, do you think that section might be removed shortly, and our group might begin asking for verification), the results of his War Service are relevant. I question your motives for wanting to keep this fact hidden. It is an openly available piece of information which is freely available to anyone who would bother researching the topic.I initially called it simply a disablity so as to lessen the impact. Your refusal to allow that has led me to introduce the proper diagnoses, in the interests of watering down and dilution, would you like to return to the former(Legalist 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

Excuse me Legalist. Just reviewed this chat section and note above you say 'Mr Dyers practices Executive Mental Health, (at least he says so on his website..)'. Two points: He doesn't say so on his website. BecauseA. He didn't write it. And B. he doesn't practice Executive Mental Health - the site refers to the fact he did this in his career prior to Kenja. And yes, I know coz I helped put it together! Cheers Eatingslowly 03:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution 'eatingslowly'. clearly you have some involvement with Mr Dyers, otherwise he would not have let you put his webpage up on his site. Wikipedia records all entries on back pages, such as this one which you entered on Feb 16th in a dialoge with 'rb972'. Your interest in the Kenja group had just been questioned as a matter of course. this was your response..... "Got your first point - no probs. Re member or employee - nup. No conflict of interest. Know of them and thought article was just amazingly biased..." (Legalist)

Legalist, what I said in my earlier entry stands. I write web content professionally. In fact I research then write for a huge number of clients. So as I said, I'm neither a 'member or employee' of anyone but myself. Avoid my questions all you like, but don't question my professional integrity. Eatingslowly 03:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

well, as a paid contractor you are involved to a greater degree than you implied. you should have said..." Re member or empoyee - nup, but derive an income from Mr Dyers or his organisation...however completely dispassionate". that would have more clearly given an insight into your interest. thankyou for your clarification, appreciate your position. (Legalist 05:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)) ....another thing though.., you have never asked any questions of me, that was "MBARRY", who stopped editing around the time you showed up....are you related? (Legalist 06:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)) Not at all sure what your actual question is (re-read what you wrote without the benefit of inflection - it is hard to understand). Can only assume you are asking whether I am or I know MBARRY??? No to both. Further, I don't know anyone in this little cluster; only that I observed some nasty banter going back and forth between various parties. I never intended to become involved in any of it, other than to suggest it was getting a bit biased and inflammatory. In hindsight, I should have kept out of it! LOL. Eatingslowly 04:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• you seemed to understand, you never asked me any questions, so why say "avoid my questions", but 'MBarry', another member of the 'cluster' as you call them did ask questions, so i wondered wether you were indeed that person, which is something which happens on wikipedia( see sock puppets etc.). the article is a fair distillation of the current media, court and academic file on the group.It accurately reflects the writings of a large group of independant and unrelated writers. it is niether biased nor inflammatory, but simply accurate.(Legalist 06:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

• what's up 'eating slowly', you have removed the entire contents of this discussion. they can never be eradicated. I am happy with what is here, and again find myself questioning your odd behavior. (Legalist 06:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

AVO

I have been observing how this article was started and how it has been growing with the 'contribution' of basically 2 usernames (the last one being 'Legalist'). All content is highly biased, manipulative and presenting a single negative point of view towards Kenja Communication. This is propaganda by an individual or a small group of individuals against Kenja Communication. This article needs some balance to simply start to satisfy the fundamental principles of Wikipedia (NPOV).

I removed the last addition on AVO. This section is a misuse of the Wikipedia by 'Legalist' publishing what would be current court arguments (and again giving one sided viewpoint). Not only this is opposing the (WP:LIVING) by citing unsourced (very) contentious material about (several) living persons, but this is simply defamation. Legal action is not possible with Legalist hiding behind his username (making it a misuse of the Wikipedia to 'safely' write defamatory statements). If this was not enough, 'Legalist' is giving the name of fathers in case of an AVO, which will therefore be a 'Domestic Violence Order' (DVO). Naming the fathers means giving the name of the young people, which is possibly be a breach of the Australian 'Children and Young Person Act 2001'. But the important matter is that this article is defamatory and is damaging the reputation of several peoples including young peoples. This article is exposing on the public place family situations that should stay private and is trying to connect domestic issues with the involvement of some of its members to a so-called cult. In several countries, which already confronted these issues faced in Australia and where 'cult lists' have been established, this is already documented as a classical misuse of justice. A Wikipedia article is definitely not the place for this. But the purpose of 'Legalist' may not be to simply contribute to a free encyclopedia. Using the popularity of Wikipedia, 'Legalist' is probably trying to threaten various persons or worse influence current court arguments. This is what I call another serious misuse of Wikipedia. In conclusion and besides having this paragraph removed, I am requesting that the 'Wikipedia' authorities ban 'Legalist'. (Highestcourt (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

I am afraid the section on AVO's refers to an article published in the 'Daily Telegraph',a major daily newspaper in Sydney, in which names are included, and statments made about a current court case. this is information before the public. this article distils the public record regards Mr Dyers and his group. Therefore this is seen as a necessary inclusion.I appreciate your comments and will rewrite the article in a more thoughtful manner. I am removing the addition to Mr Dyers biography as it is an unashamed PR attempt. there is a link to the website where this information can be found. We will upload the link to the daily telegraph story for verification. in answer to a charge of 'propaganda by a small group of individuals', again, i am afraid the article is a distillation of the writings of a vast number of writers from senior public academics (The Monthly), senior writers for the 'SMH'(four in total), senior court reporters and reporters for the 'daily telegraph'(three in total), Television Reports, Documentarians, published records from The Government regards War Service, Speaches recorded in NSW Government (Hansard), Court Records and published testimony from individuals. It is not difficult to find. Hardly a small group of people. Keeping an accurate historical record is important, in all matters. We might add, it is a long bow to draw, suggesting the courts could be influenced. You seem to be throwing darts hoping something may stick. (Legalist (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)) (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)]

Another AVO court case has completed and the complaints against Kenja have been upheld. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cults-bizarre-ploy-to-initimidate-nonbeliever/2008/08/26/1219516472353.html 203.11.129.10 (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The group is a cult

Added links to cult, and added a link from the cult page to this group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.213.116 (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources http://www.rickross.com/ http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2008/07/kenja-communications-cult-abuse-case.html http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.213.116 (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MEDCAB mediation

Hello all. First off, I understand that it's been a few days since this was listed on MEDCAB. Apologies, I just saw it today.

I think that we should start off with firstly a review of what constitutes a reliable source. I think that we should also start by dropping personal experiences, points of view, and deal only that which can be verified to be a fact. Whether it's about a person or an entity information in an encyclopedia must be accurate.

As I understand it the gist of the matter is the word "cult". Correct me if I'm wrong. Any other arguments about what to include or not would seem to stem from that debate, essentially.

For something to be verified as a fact for inclusion into any encyclopedia, it must be able to be sourced by a neutral, reliable third-party source. The reason for this is because encyclopedias are not items of original research but are collections of reviews of evidence found elsewhere. The reason that this is important is because lay-people "pick up" an encyclopedia and rely on it as their source of fact. Therefore, it must be correct. So for evidence to be acceptable to us we have to make sure that other people we can trust and in who's opinion the average, reasonable person (not everybody) can rely on, have "peer-reviewed" the subject. Now for every article, the standards of evidence needed are the same; the acceptable sources might differ, but not the standards. For an article such as biomedical research the sources needed would be something like; peer-reviewed scientific journals, government health departments, research ethics committees or perhaps university researchers of note. For an article such as Reliable LCD televisions the sources would be; independent electronics reviews in reputable, national magazines, journals, independent TV shows, testing labs etc. What would not be acceptable, would be ; information from the manufacturer themselves. Who is to say that unit X has the fastest refresh rate? If it's been tested, then the lab should be referenced, if not then how can we rely on what the manufacturer claims. It is the same for what any entity says about itself, or any entities friends or opponents.

In this article, what is needed are reliable, independent & neutral, 3rd party sources that can be relied upon to label this entity as a cult. They would need to be in the form of; a major government department or ministry in the location of the entity (Australia) that has officially called them a cult in public documents more than once, by more than one person; or other official references of similar weight. This would give the lay reader an assurance that the label can be trusted. Claims of good would need to be referenced by third party reliable sources as would claims of harm.

What would not be acceptable is; sources from news-papers (they are opinions, unless they quote government sources and name them and even then they have to be national major papers), sources from TV (unless things like CSPAN coverage of hearings, (even then care should be taken to determine if the quote is the opinion of someone or the position of the government), references from court-cases (these are opinions of the judge and not official positions of a government), books or other such (unless they quote government or similar weight sources). At the end of the day, you all have to realize that this is a reputation thing (ours as much as theirs), and Wikipedia is about facts. An entity such as this can only be labeled a cult if it can be proved to be one. The onus is on the accuser, not the accused.

Similar positions have been taken here on topics such as Jehovah's witnesses, Morman's, Scientology and others. One thing is for certain, and that is that POV has no place in this issue. People can always find others to support their views. We could find 100 people to label them a cult and we could find 100 people to label them a church and 100 to label them a whatever. None of those peoples opinions matter, only facts. We have to deal only with the verifiable facts, especially in a situation such as this! Even if a reliable source can be found to label them a cult, a proviso should be added directly afterwards that the term cult is vague or that the organization objects to this term: providing a 3rd party source can be found that proves they do object.

Thanks for listening!

Fr33kman^{talk APW} 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note: I have made some changes to the article (remove cult for now etc.) that should be left in place until this dispute is resolved one way or the other. There are also some pretty serious allegations on the articles page, those will have to be sourced for legal reasons! Regards, Fr33kman^{talk APW} 04:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

---

In response to eatingslowly's accusations, I am not Legalist. I'd also like to point out that I have only made one minor change to this article in the last year and a half, except for cleaning edits made today.

In response to the above, I don't care whether Kenja is described as a cult or not. Also, I think the requested citations in the lead would be redundant since they are cited in the body. Not something I would argue about though.

I don't think the problem is the cult issue - it was only recently added by an IP editor. I believe the problem stems from misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, particularly by eatingslowly, and particularly of WP:V. For example, eatingslowly mentioned the lack of the 'Dyers Direction' precedent. But a google search finds only two articles that refer to it - a Kenja website that fails WP:RS and the medcab page. (So it's not verifiable.) The reliable secondary sources do, actually, refer to it as a technicality. I felt a couple of eatingslowly's criticisms were justified, and I removed the relevant sentences. RB972 10:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the correction. Where do you feel you are at the moment in the dispute? Fr33kman^{talk APW} 01:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no real issue with the cult word. as mentioned it is a late arrival. it is mentioned as a cult in NSW Hansard, and again by a highly respected academic in his comments regarding Cornelia Rau, although as Sect(same same in some circles), then by the High Court judges in the judgements leading to the Dyers Direction(sect again). the group is almost universaly reffered to as a cult in the media, and a documentary current at the moment calls it squarely a cult. As we know however, the word is highly contested. to be safe it should be reffered to only as an organisation as it is now. But the reasoning of the mediator, while setting guidelines for discerning credible information has inherent flaws. For instance, while the Department of Fisheries looks after fish, there is no department for Cults. The intersection of the cultic community and the Government does not exist, therefore there can be no Governmental commentaries on the matter.

Where would you go to find the Government Department which regulates the cultic industry, and there fore gives the required information? with embryonic religous movements, which kenja loosely fits into, the area is wholly unregulated. This is almost the crux of the problem with this type of industry. They do not fit into the highly developed systems regulating Phsychology and psychiatry. There is no authority which governs start up religions. the only place these groups are investigated and reported on are in the media, and in the courts. (with the exception of course of the Department of Fair Trade and the Taxation department). The entire argument over the word 'cult' calls to mind the debates surrounding tobacco when the health authorities were first discovering the adverse effects. The strategy: much confusion over terminology and conflicting reports, resulting of course in stagnation. But this has nothing to do with this page.

The Dyers Direction exists, it is a technicality. The Judges did not find the appelant was wrongly convicted, they just found the trial judge potentially mislead the Jury. I think the option for a retrial was put on the table, even though the appelant asked it not be.(Legalist (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

It'd be something like the Ministry of Justice of something equivilent in Auz. So where do we stand? Fr33kman^{talk APW} 04:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be the Attorney Generals Department I think, both State and Federal. There is a submission before them at the moment i think seeking an investigation into possible crimminal charges against Ms Hamilton, the leader and several other members. Maybe a new section illustrating the use of the word 'cult' and the word 'sect' across the media (only senior newspapers), university professors, high court judges, and then a statement syaing the group vigourously denies the being a cult, as the word has pejorative value. I think this is what eating slowly was asking for (Legalist (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

Agree that might be good. I guess my approach of biographies of any kind is to always keep in mind that if it were someelse talking about me, I'd want it to be factual: if that means negative things come to light, that's my problem. So with that in mind I always rely on three core principles of wikipedia WP:V, WP:RS & WP:NPOV :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 05:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have put it up. My moms calling so I will add references later. they are all at the bottom of the page, just need to link them.(Legalist (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

Kenja and Scientology

I have a passing acquaintance with Scientology, both through a previous minor involvement, knowing people who were in it, and reading about it. I knew nothing about Kenja except for the sensational press coverage of the sexual accusations made against Dyers, and his subsequent suicide. Then, I saw the documentary “Beyond our Ken” which aired on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) a couple of days ago. I was astonished that just about EVERYTHING taught and practiced by Kenja has quite obviously been ripped off from Scientology. In fact it is a sort of Scientology Lite. I was also surprised that, in a two-hour doco, no one mentions this. Perhaps the notoriously litigious Scientologists scared the producers off.

Obvious rip-offs were:

1. The teaching that our hang-ups and mental problems are the result of some attaching spirits

2. The belief in reincarnation, and a sort of Westernised karma.

3. The idea that many psychological problems are embedded when the unconscious mind is not aware of what is being done to the individual.

4. The notion that once these traumas are brought to the conscious mind, the individual will be freed from their noxious influence.

5. The practice of getting the individual to tell a church counsellor everything they can about their experiences in an effort to locate these traumatic episodes

6. The insistence that members of the group pay large sums of money to go through these procedures.

7. The use of word “clear” (used by BOTH Scientologists and Kenja) to describe both the procedure and the emergent individual.

8. The promise that the “cleared” individual will be almost a super-person, charismatic, powerfully willed, able to control other people and bend them to their wills, with vastly increased creative powers.

9. The vehement rejection of psychiatry and psychiatric drugs, even in extreme cases of schizophrenia and bipolar disease.

10. The pathetic lip service given to “world peace” and other liberal notions, for which they do nothing at all.

11. The control over members’ lives and the pressure placed upon them to sever ties with family members and friends who are perceived to be hostile to the organisation.

As for Kenja not being “a religion”, anyone who knows anything about Scientology knows that Hubbard quite cynically gave his theories a religious gloss—quite late in their development—in order to make his views more authoritative, and to gain the all-important tax-free status. To call Scientology a “church” is to make a travesty of the word. Scientology is a pyramid selling organisation which uses some simple confidence building exercises, and makes its members pay through their noses for it. Dyers learnt his lessons well and applied precisely the same tactics in Kenja.

Kenja was and is evil, not least because it takes people with significant mental problems and denies them psychiatric care. Then, when they really begin to disintegrate, they simply abandon them. As Ken said in the doco, these are problems they may have to sort out “in their next life”. Scientology does much the same thing. The real irony is that IF Dyers had been more powerful and had a massive organisation such as Scientology does, he would never have been so vulnerable to the Law and Public Opinion. Believe me, Hubbard got away with a lot worse then Dyers did, and he just laughed all the way to the bank. This material should be present in this article. Kenja is not the only offshoot of this toxic “Church” called Scientology. Myles325a (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

HI Myles325a

of course you are correct, but such a program clearly has time constraints. that Dyers was a Scientologist is no longer under question on this page, although it was vigorously denied by contributors earlier on. Plagarism is an essential element of the groups theories and practice, and as such it is equally important to discredit the source, which is Scientology. the irony here is rich, as Hubbard did precisely the same thing with the work of various phsychologists, phsychiatrists and quasi religous practitioners, notably Aliester Crowley. The Kenja processing is a Scientology TR, but Dyers clearly told his followers he had invented it and so they are stuck with that idea. this page however is subject to rigorous standards and requires these observations to be clearly spelt out in the public domain in legitimate organs before they can be included here. Hubbard has a lot to answer for by sending laymen out into the world with minimal knowledge to practice a hybrid and dysfunctional type of mental health program. if you buy the DVD, there are outtakes where Dyers is quized on Scientology, and he belittles them, as he was taught to do. apart from that, the Scientologists are keeping the Dyers creation at arms length. (Legalist (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

Resources

I've moved this list here, as the list isn't "popular culture", as it appeared in the article, but instead is a list of media coverage. As such it might be useful for developing the article, but doesn't fit within it as such. - Bilby (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Reviews and articles

• The Age Newspaper Jim Schembri review
• Empire Magazine review
• Inside Film article
• http://miff.meccamedialight.com.au/2007/film?film_id=8703
• http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1992310.htm
• Hot Docs critique
• "Beyond our Ken" home page
• Spirit of Things ABC Radio National: Australia
• Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Compass

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Media Watch:

• Media Watch: Television footage 6 August 2007 [1]

Compass:

• Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Compass

The Spirit of Things:

• Spirit of Things ABC Radio National: Australia

Commentators and Interviewees

• Luke Walker: Interview for MIFF The Truth is Out There [2]
• Tim Elliott: Article written: Sydney Morning Herald Fighting dirty against cult Busters [3]
• Bevin Hudson Interviewed on Spirit of Things [4]
• Annette Stevens Interviewed on Beyond our Ken
• Alex Tibbets: Sydney Morning Herald: Interview with Jan Dyers: Campaign to clear cult Leader [5]
• Alex Tibbets: Sydney Morning Herald: Interview with Jan Dyers and former executive: Abuse Case: Staff asked to Lie [6]
• Cornelia Rau Interviewed on Channel Nine: Sixty Minutes How Dare They [7]
• Robert Manne: The Monthly: The unknown story of Cornelia Rau [8]
• Christine Rau: The Daily Telegraph: Cult linked to Cornelia
• Annette Leape: Interviewed by the Daily Telegraph This is the face behind a Cult;Beyond our Ken
• David Milikan Interviewed Beyond our Ken; Sydney Morning Herald: Dedicated followers left rudderless in a sceptical World [9]
• Wendy Beaver Interviewed Beyond our Ken
• Suzanne Mostyn MPs told of cult leader's sexual and mental abuse Sydney Morning Herald 27 April 1993 p. 6
• Robert Wainright:Sydney Morning Herald: Tributes and Accusations.[10] & interview with Jan Dyers:Dance photos reminder of a troubled Trainee [11]
• Cindy Jones Sun Herald
• Danielle Teutsch: The Age Cult leader 'wont face Justice' [12]
• Suzanne Mostyn Sydney Morning Herald
• Nick Papadopoulos Sydney Morning Herald Founder of Kenja to seek no-bill after partial acquittal on sex charges
• Brad Clifton News Limited Secrets of sect in sex Case
• Lisa Davies News Limited The humiliation of Cornelia Rau
• Cindy Jones Sun Herald Kenja group 'destructive' and 'sinister' claims MP
• Kevin Naughton Sunday Mail
• Peter Mac The Guardian
• Tamara McLean Sydney Morning Herald
• Vera Devari News Limited
• Les Kennedy Sydney Morning Herald
• Vira Goldner News Limited
• Brad Clifton News Limited
• Leonie Lamont Sydney Morning Herald
• Dianne Kopae Sydney Morning Herald
• Linda Morris Sydney Morning Herald Evil forces drove husband to Suicide - Widow
• Katrina Gligorijevic News Limited
• Byron kaye: News Limited: Womans fake beard was Bogus [13]
• Adrian Norman Beyond our Ken
• Melissa McLean Beyond our Ken: Spirit of Things [14]
• Rachael Kohn Australia Broadcasting Casting Spirit of Things [15]
• Michael Pels Sydney Morning Herald; Beyond our Ken; ABC Media Watch [16]
• Alison Pels Media Watch [17] Sydney Morning Herald Cult leader warned off after 'bizarre' audition ploy[18]
• Mariannea Papadakis: St George leader Cult strikes back at Dyers Documentary[19]
• Peter Overton: Channel Nine: Sixty Minutes: How dare They [20]
• Belinda Kontominas: Sydney Morning Herald: Cult leader warned off after bizarre audition Ploy [21]
• Joe Hildebrand: News Limited: Sex cults final Outrage [22]
• Monica Attard Australian Broadcasting Corporation Media Watch: Paying to clear a Name [23]
• Jonathon Holmes Australian broadcasting Corporation: Media watch: Paying to clear a name - Again [24]
• Jenny Hodges Beyond our Ken
• Steven Mutch: NSW State Parliament: Cult activity in NSW [25]
• Mike Willisee Channel Nine
• Luke Walker Beyond our Ken

copyedited

PaintedCarpet (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kenja Communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926001912/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LC19930422 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/v3ByKey/LC19930422
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121212073641/http://melbourne-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/dances-with-spirits/ to http://melbourne-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/dances-with-spirits/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Organisation vs Company

Thanks to Dorothyette for attempting to clarify this. Generally the word "company" is used to describe any form of business. On the other hand "organisation" (or organization, depending on your country of origin) is larger and comprises a number of companies. As the article already states, the Kenja Communication organisation has several businesses or companies in different cities and with different business names. This is a relatively minor point but I trust that this explanation should satisfy everyone. A Google search should verify these definitions. Banjo92 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi B, not really. Each of the individual groups appear to be separate legal entities - registered as companies with separate ACN's. There does not appear to be a overarching legal structure. I can't really see the issue with it being known the groups are company structures? there is nothing obnoxious about it. Dorothyette (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi D, it really is more useful to refer to it as an organisation. Apparently this minor point is important to you, but your argument doesnt really make sense. An organisation doesnt necessarily have a 'legal structure'. The organisation in question is a business yes, but the name Kenja Communication refers to more than a business entity, as it is an overarching structure that is used to refer to several 'businesses' as well as activities run by an association and other entities. Banjo92 (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi B, I have reviewed the available articles etc and am surprised the child molestation charges do not appear on this page, as they are very much part of Kenjas' complexion. With regard to the noting of company structure it is not such a minor point I think. You seem to want to whitewash any reference to company structure on this page. It would be in the public interest to know that ownership sits with the 'few' as there are several companies within the assemblage of entities. I am therefore left wondering to whom it would be 'more useful' to refer to the group as an organisation, rather than as a company with front of house entities? If there are companies with ACN numbers involved in the structure, they will be fundamental to organisation and as such should be known. Anything else is a deception. Dorothyette (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

User Banjo92 has asked for a 3rd Opinion - I think we can resolve this issue by simply removing that part of the sentence, as I dont think it's really necessary, if it's such a point of contention. Dorothyette, you seem to be a little riled up about this with your mentions of a 'complexion', whitewashing, front of house entities and deception. Seems a little over the top for a company and I can't see that actually happening here. TheresaF (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Guys User Banjo92 does not seem to have made such a request, at least not on wikipedia. That's cool, but they have already been warned about operating as a kenja entity and told that promotional editing will not be allowed. I take it you are both familiar with sock puppets and the like. TheresaF, you turned up at the same time as Banjo92, probably just a coincidence huh?, I think its fair to say you are not a Wikipedia editor, that is the proper method for reconciling issues, rather than what has occurred here. Ill put the offensive word 'company' back up, and we can ask Dorothyette to do something about calling in a Wikipedia editor. and I am now intrigued as to why you guys don't want it on the site Kripes (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)