In 1967, L. Ron Hubbard issued a Policy Letter entitled "Penalties for Lower Conditions" (image here). In it he set out the punishments to be meted out to Scientologists who caused problems for organised Scientology. The four "lower conditions" in which a person could be found were: Liability, Treason, Doubt and Enemy. The punishment for being in a condition of "Enemy" was:
"SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
"SP Order" or "SP Declare" means a formal Ethics Order issued by the Church of Scientology declaring that a person is a "Suppressive Person", or an enemy of Scientology. For example, see Caroline Letkeman's Suppressive Declare (image here).
Before we continue, it's worth spending a moment to ask how it is that an organisation which claims to be a church could even conceive of robbing, injuring, tricking, suing (as a means of retribution), lying to and destroying people, let alone make such actions a formal matter of policy.
The formal public relations position of the Church of Scientology ([link edited for length]) is that Hubbard cancelled the "fair game" policy in 1968 by issuing a Policy Letter entitled "Cancellation of Fair Game" (image here). That Policy Letter stated:
"The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.
FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP."
That was the end of it, according to the Church of Scientology. A church Public Relations statement([link edited for length]) on Scientology's website puts the current Public Relations position:
"The term does not appear in the scriptures of Scientology and has not existed since 1968. In fact, its only use since then is not by the Church at all, but by a handful of anti-Scientology apostates and their attorneys who have exploited it in efforts to generate anti-Scientology prejudice in the media or courtroom."
Well, that's not quite true. In 1989, for example, 21 years after fair game was supposedly cancelled, the Church of Scientology argued before the California Court of Appeals that "Fair Game" was a "religious practice" and was protected by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California. Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 260 Cal.Rptr. 331 ([link edited for length])
The Church of Scientology would have us believe that the "fair game" direction issued by Hubbard - that Suppressive Persons "(m)ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed" - was misconstrued.
It's not easy to reconcile the terms of the original Policy Letter with the church's current position on what the "fair game" policy was. The Public Relations statement ([link edited for length]) says:
"The term meant that apostate members could not seek protection or refuge under the Church's internal ethics or justice codes. It had been intentionally and grossly misinterpreted by apostates, when all it meant was that those expelled from the Church could no longer take advantage of the internal ecclesiastical support and justice procedures churches of Scientology provide to resolve disputes and upsets among parishioners. They would have to make their own way, unaided, with the justice procedures of the society as their only recourse."
The statement goes on to say:
"The truth is that Church management never has and never would tolerate illegal or unethical actions to be committed in the Church's name. The scriptures of Scientology are replete with admonitions to its adherents to build their lives on foundations of honesty and integrity. The commission of dishonesties or harmful acts against another is the road to personal misery and destruction of positive interpersonal relationships."
Keep reading and decide for yourself whether Scientology's "fair game" policy was canceled in 1968 and whether the policy has been grossly misconstrued.
Gene Allard, a staff member in the Sea Organisation, told his superior in May or June 1969 that he wanted to leave the church.
"A chaplain of the Church came to see him. Lawrence Krieger, the highest ranking justice official of the Church in California, told (Allard) that if he left without permission, he would be fair game and 'You know we'll come and find you and we'll bring you back, and we'll deal with you in whatever way is necessary.'" Allard v. Church of Scientology 212 Cal.App.3d 889, (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 444, 129 Cal.Rptr.797 ([link edited for length])
Allard left the church, taking some financial documents directly to the Internal Revenue Service. The Church of Scientology falsely accused Allard of stealing money and travellers cheques. Allard was charged over the alleged theft, but the charges were later dismissed. Allard successfully sued the church for malicious prosecution.
"In 1968, I was a struggling New York freelance writer, searching for an investigative story that would make a difference. By choosing to expose a then relatively unknown organization called Scientology (and Scientology's companion, Dianetics), I ended up facing fifteen years in jail, had nineteen lawsuits filed against me, did fifty days of depositions, was the almost victim of a murder, the subject of five anonymous smear letters and endured almost constant and continual harassment for more than a dozen years." Paulette Cooper, Looking over my shoulder, The Inside Account of the Story That Almost Killed Me ([link edited for length])
A fair game operation enacted against Paulette Cooper, entitled "Operation Freakout",([link edited for length]) had as its major goal that she be "incarcerated in a mental institution or jail or at least to hit her so hard that she drops her attacks. (image here) Church staff framed Paulette for sending bomb threats to the Church of Scientology and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. She was subsequently indicted on three counts (two of sending two bomb threats through the mail and one for perjury for denying sending the threats). Read more about Operation Freakout. (link to about.com Paulette Cooper page)
Larry didn't come into contact with the Church of Scientology until 1969, after "fair game" was supposedly cancelled. The California Court of Appeals held in 1989: "Evidence was introduced that, at least during the time relevant to Wollersheim's case, "fair game" was a practice of retribution Scientology threatened to inflict on "suppressives," which included people who left the organization or anyone who could pose a threat to the organization. Once someone was identified as a "suppressive," all Scientologists were authorized to do anything to "neutralize" that individual -- economically, politically, and psychologically.
After Wollersheim left the organization Scientology leaders initiated a "fair game" campaign which among other things was calculated to destroy Wollersheim's photography enterprise. They instructed some Scientology members to leave Wollersheim's employ, told others not to place any new orders with him and to renege on bills they owed on previous purchases from the business. This strategy shortly drove Wollersheim's photography business into bankruptcy. His mental condition deteriorated further and he ended up under psychiatric care."
The Court drew parallels between Scientology's "fair game" policy and the medieval Inquisition:
"We do not mean to suggest Scientology's retributive program as described in the evidence of this case represented a full-scale modern day "inquisition." Nevertheless, there are some parallels in purpose and effect. "Fair game" like the "inquisition" targeted "heretics" who threatened the dogma and institutional integrity of the mother church. Once "proven" to be a "heretic," an individual was to be neutralized. In medieval times neutralization often meant incarceration, torture, and death... As described in the evidence at this trial the "fair game" policy neutralized the "heretic" by stripping this person of his or her economic, political and psychological power." Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 260 Cal.Rptr. 331 ([link edited for length])
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V Criminal No. 78-401 MARY SUE HUBBARD, et al. STIPULATION OF EVIDENCE
Mary Sue Hubbard
sources:
1 [link edited for length]
2 John Sweeney Documentary: [link edited for length]
©2008 Gregg, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Thursday, September 11, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, September 11, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Gregg only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gregg is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Gregg of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Gregg |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: three
Date: 2008-09-11 17:00:16
God Bless all those who have been victims of scientology's actions
Posted By: Anonymous
Date: 2008-09-11 23:45:39
Anonymous is now at cause.
Posted By: Marc Abian
Date: 2008-09-12 04:43:27
Anyone who thinks fair game was canceled really hasn't done their homework. Video evidence is all over YouTube of it occuring today.
Posted By: Annnnooonnnomous
Date: 2008-09-12 05:12:18
If anyone thinks it doesn't exist, just show up at one of our protests and tell the scientologists your name. You'll find out soon enough how real fair game is.
Then again don't. It's not just you at risk. Scientology has shown that it will go after people's families too, as they have with Tory Magoo and Tommy Gorman and many others who have spoken out against them.
Come masked or as anonymously as you can. Observe how the scientologists react. Expect to have your picture taken and possibly be followed after the protest by scary looking people.
Posted By: CommentOpener
Date: 2008-09-12 05:15:54
From L. Ron Hubbard: "Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown.”
You will find Scientology clips related to that quote, where Scientologists Mary DeMoss and Dan Murnan will repeatedly ask Mark Bunker (owner of XENUTV) "What are your crimes?". Mark Bunker has been a victim of Fair Game when the Church of Scientology got him arrested while he was giving an interview to two dentists on a public street. Mark was arrested by TWO OFF-DUTY POLICY OFFICERS WORKING FOR THE CHURCH. Fortunately, the charges were dropped, but this is a fine example of corruption within the Church of Scientology. They have gotten away with too much ... and the Scientologists defending this article are a fine example of L Ron Hubbard's statement "The only way you can control people is to lie to them". Practiced by Scientology's upper level management, including David Miscavige and OSA, the Office of Special Affairs, it is the reason why Scientology's PR blatantly lie to the media and in court. It's a part of their training they receive called TR-L - Training Routine Lie.
Posted By: Louanne
Date: 2008-09-22 12:54:32
"Fair Game" is one of the key attack points for scientology critics. What they usually mean is that they feel inconvenient if someone checks out what they are actually doing and how this violates other people's rights. I understand that especially those who have something to hide so not like this approach, but it has nothing to do with "Fair Game". Here is what "Fair Game" was when L. Ron Hubbard used the term forty years ago:
What is "Fair Game"?*
There is a rumor around that a former member of Scientology could be declared "Fair Game", meaning that illegal actions could be taken against this person with Church officials closing both eyes. This is nonsense and has no evidence at all.
A policy of "Fair Game" does not exist within the Church. There was an early policy called "Fair Game" that was cancelled in 1968. The purpose of that policy was to make it known that a person who has left the Church was no longer entitled to the privileges of membership. L. Ron Hubbard himself testified on this in 1976 (link below), making clear that nothing of this meant to violate the law. And that did not happen either.
Scientology critics sometime interpret any lawful action the Church takes to defend itself against their claims or treatment as "harassment" and "Fair Game". The Church does use the same legal tools that anybody else can use, such as lawful information gathering and evidence collection, to defend themselves from unfounded suits, to enforce a legal right or to guard against infiltration and sabotage. This is so common amongst religious organizations as to be routine.
The Church is also within its rights to question the motives of people who would seek to destroy it and to defend itself with lawful means. Other religions also question the motives of those who would seek to destroy them, as well as taking lawful measures to protect themselves, as these examples illustrate.
Basically, Scientology defends itself from attack, by legal means. Just like any other religion would do.
And the misinterpreted policy of "Fair Game"? It is used as an attack method by apostates and hatemongers. It is not a policy used by the Church, it was cancelled 40 years ago. And when it was used, it was not used as is alleged.
Event adamant critics of the Church of Scientology have testified to that. For example, in a most interesting set of declarations an ex-Scientologist said:
"...it has become a routine practice of litigants to make accusations against the Church, including even false allegations of threats of murder, which would be summarily thrown out of court as unsupported and scandalous in other litigation. They do it because it works, and they do it by deliberately mischaracterizing the term "Fair Came". They do it as an intentional means to destroy the reputation of the Church in the context of litigation so that they can win money or force the Church to settle."
and
"The term "fair game" has become a catch phrase for those who attack the Church. When I was in the Church I never heard it referred to as a policy to be used, the only time it was discussed was in reference to litigation in which it was being alleged by Church adversaries. When I was in the Church, I knew that litigants opposing the Church were constantly making fair game allegations against us and that those allegations were nonsense. I also know the frustration those allegations caused because of the willingness of courts and juries to embrace them. From my experience in litigating against the Church, I can see that nothing has changed in this regard. I also know from my experiences in suing the Church and from my association with other litigation adversaries of the Church that they know that "Fair Game" as they portray it is not Church policy. "Fair Game" exists only as a litigation tactic employed against the Church."
(Source: Declarations of V. Azanaran, 19th May 1994)
DOCUMENTATION:
L. Ron Hubbard Affidavit 1976
"Fair Game Cancelled" Policy
"Fair Game" Comparisons to Other Religions*This question has more information on the Scientology Myths Blog.
Posted By: mark tomles
Date: 2008-09-22 21:40:13
Louanne,
Could you please clarify one small point? If the SP order only applies to Scientologists in bad standing, and hubbard said that approx 2.5% of the population is an SP, and the current world population is 6,725,388,317, would that mean that there are currently 168,134,708 active SP's at this moment?
And, if the world population is steadily growing, does that mean that the SP population is growing as well?
And, lastly, if fair game only applies to SP's, and SP's are Scientologists, does that mean that Adolph Hitler and Genghis Khan were scientologists? (as mentioned as SP's here: [link edited for length])
Mark
Posted By: Anonymous
Date: 2008-09-23 14:26:24
The last time I was picketing (peacefully), I was holding a sign (this was the reconnect month), and a Scientologist (name of Rene) came out of their building and took pictures of me (my state law doesn't allow masks), even though he claimed to be taking pictures of my sign.
Posted By: Terryeo
Date: 2008-09-23 19:39:55@Mark Tomles, Yes, your figures are accuarte. 2.5% means just what it sounds like. But SP's are not necessarily Scientologists. Indeed, the situation "a suppressive person" has nothing to do with one's faith. Yes, Hilter and Genghis Khan were people who, because of their cruel actions and thier uncaring attitude about other human beings, can be judged to have been Suppressive Persons.
The person who will happily destroy your job or marriage or your effort to educate yourself, who smiles in your face while destroying you behind your back is a suppressive person, he acts in a suppressive manner. Trouble and failures follow such people around like flies around dead meat. Nonetheless, they are people too, they are behaving as they are because of how they feel about life and living.
Posted By: mark tomles
Date: 2008-09-23 20:24:35Now that's odd, Terryeo, about SP's not meaning to be Scions, and it seems to disagree with what Louanne was saying. Are you saying that she's wrong?
So you are agreeing that the CoS could call non-scientologists "sp's", which would expose them to fair game?
Posted By: Terryeo
Date: 2008-09-24 14:18:14Mark, I don't understand your question. On one hand there are certainly people on our planet who take great delight in suppressing other people. Recognition of that situation is part of the Scientology philosophy. Hubbard's estimation of what portion of our planet's population is suppressive was about 2.5 %. To understand the significance of that figure, it would first be necessary to fully understand how a suppressive person acts, and helpful to understand why he acts as he does. This statement is not meant to pin anyone to the wall, not you, not anyone, I'm only pointing out what "suppressive person" means. It means an individual who suppresses others.
Now and then, but certainly not every day, someone is declared by the Church to be a suppressive person. Usually that is an internal matter, but if that person leaves the Church and doesn't persue their list of corrective actions, and makes their situation public then the situation becomes public. But the declare is not made to impress the public. There exists people who are suppressive. Whether they are "declared" or not, their day-to-day is suppressing other people. Fortunately, the greater portion of population (97.5 % in Hubbard's estimation) are not suppressive people. And membership in Scientology has nothing to do with it. The Church will recognize a suppressive person within it much more quickly than recognizing a suppressive person working in a mail room in Alasaka, but whether declared and recognized by the Church, or not, a suppressive suppresses other people.
And just to be as clear as possible, an opinion is not an attack. A 'critical opinion' is not an attack. Having an opinion and stating it does not mean that you are suppressing all other opinions, or even meaning to suppress any opinion.
Posted By: mark tomles
Date: 2008-09-29 20:22:04Still does not answer my very direct question:
You agree that 2.5 of the population is considered to be "sp's".
We have read that there was an order relating to SP's and fair game.
This policy did not state anywhere that the SP had to be a scientologist to be subject to fair game.
Can we agree on these items?
Posted By: Terryeo
Date: 2008-10-18 10:36:06mark tomles - I don't know if this thread is still active. Yes, Ron Hubbard's estimate was that 2.5% of our planet's population are suppressive persons. Yes, there was once a policy letter (policy letters guide Church personnal) that talked of SP's and Fair Game.
But your last statement is not accurate. The Fair Game policy talked about Church members who had been declared suppressive persons. It did not address itself to all suppressive persons, everywhere. But only to people within the Church who were declared suppressive persons and who were using the mechanism of the Church's justice. The Fair Game policy letter addressed those Church-declared suppressive persons, not all suppressve persons.
A guy is anti-social, okay? He starts Church services but can't make any gains. Also, he interrupts other people as they attempt to make gains. So you declare him suppressive, tell him go away, do his list of corrective actions, and then come back. This is a suppressive person declare and includes a corrective list. During the period of time when he is declared a suppressive person, he was not allowed Church justice, which service he could otherwise have. He was Fair Game in the sense, the Church's justice system was not to be applied to him although, of course, he would always be protected by the justice system where he lived. But not the Church's justice system. As it works out in reality, a declared suppressive person has but a single Church office through which any communication he makes to the Church, must flow. He has a dedicated office / person and can not appeal to the Church justice system.
Posted By: Solon
Date: 2009-02-02 15:07:38THE WORDS OF L. RON HUBBARD
"SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
How could this ever be considered "ethical" ? That Scientologists tout their organization as being "the most ethical on the planet" only highlights the insidious perversion of language that this criminal fraud uses to promote itself for profit. The brief version of their Orwellian redefinition of this common moral term includes the following:
"Ethics may be defined as the actions an individual takes on himself to ensure his continued survival across the dynamics. " and also " good can be considered to be a constructive survival action". Ron further said, "Ethics actions are often used to handle down individual statistics. A person who is not doing his job becomes an Ethics target."
Sorry, Ron. That's not ethics as it is commonly understood by the vast majority of the population of the planet. Scientology's corrupt notion of 'ethics' essentially means "that which is in Scientology's self interest". No wonder they had no problem with the Fair Game doctrine - for someone not actively participating (and continually ncreasing the profitability of) in their scam to end up being "tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed" is perfectly Ethical . . . .
. . . to a Scientologist, that is.
Posted By: Terryeo
Date: 2009-07-10 09:11:29Your opinion of the meaning of the word "ethics" contains an apology. May I assure you that you need not apologize? Ron Hubbard defined ethics with his philosophy, Scientology. Defined it both for the individual and for the group. Whether that works or not can known, by whether the group suceeds.
As you have futher said, you don\'t agree with that definition. Okay.
However, your understanding of the term "Fair Game", as was used by Hubbard, is still mistaken. You have confused a within-Scientology justice action, by suggesting:
A: It is still in effect today. And B: It applieds to people who have never been group members. And C: It applies to actions having nothing to do with justice meetings held within the Church. None of these apply to the term Hubbard created for the policy he long ago cancelled.