Topic: 1st Amendment
Does the Church of Scientology Still Harass Its Critics? One Anonymous member examines if the Church of Scientology still practices fair game and harassment to silence its critics as it had in the past, or if things have changed over the years. Spoiler: Scientology is still a cultby Master Sandwich
(statist)
Friday, September 12, 2008
For the past 8 months I have been peacefully protesting against the Church of Scientology. My reasons for doing so run the gamut from horrible abuses like dispensing pseudo-scientific quackery, to simple things such as lying about their beliefs. Over time I hope to run through these issues in individual articles.
Before attending my first picket with Anonymous, I was warned that I should take every possible precaution to hide my identity to avoid harassment and "fair game" from the CoS. I had done my homework on "fair game" and knew of the atrocious crimes committed against Paulette Cooper during "Operation Freakout". I had seen videos of Mark Bunker and Ursula Caberta bullbaited and harassed on youtube, but these things all happened years ago. I remained highly skeptical of the likelihood a large international organization could honestly get away with such actions in this day and age; however I erred of the side of caution and donned a mask.
Arriving at my local Church of Scientology to the protest pen I mingled with the crowd some. There was an intense air of paranoia which seemed totally unjustified to me. Then I noticed a camera in the window of the org (Scientology "church"). They were filming us and snapping pictures. I doubt they wanted these tapes for their home video collection, but I do not want to speculate on the possible purposes behind their actions. Needless to say the camera in the window was the start of a big wakeup call which began to unfold over the course of several months.
The next big shock came the first time I was followed. That's right, the first time. I have been followed on at least three separate occasions by members of the CoS. Similar activities were happening all over the world. Many protesters had the good fortune to record these encounters for posterity and your own viewing pleasure. At current the link I just provided contains 15 cases of recorded video evidence of the stalking of anti-Scientology demonstrators. Furthermore, some of my local compatriots have started receiving cease and desist letters accusing them of things they clearly hadn't done, trying to intimidate them with the "Church's" legal muscle.
In one instance in California a man by the name of Sean Carasov was accused of making bomb threats against the CoS, and shortly was thereafter imprisoned and released on $50,000 bail. The case never even made it to court though, as it was discovered there was absolutely no evidence (or truth) to the claims against Carasov.
Nothing quite as dramatic as the Carasov case has happened since March, but I have witnessed increasingly abhorrent tactics used by the CoS to silence my local Anonymous cell. On several occasions we have had 911 called on us for grounds of making threats against Scientologists. These claims are outright lies, and in many instances we did not even exchange words, but were merely handing out fliers. This takes the police away from actual crimes where they are truly needed, and is an outright attempt to abuse the justice system to silence us for exercising our freedom of speech, and spreading information.
Based on the videos I have seen of other Anonymous members being followed, the bogus cease and desist letters, the incident of Sean Carasov's false "threats", and my own personal experiences I must conclude that the Church of Scientology is still harassing its critics. I don't know if I'd use the term "fair game" as it applied in "Operation Freakout", but the CoS is most certainly attempting to silence its critics in dubiously legal
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 77 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Master Sandwich only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Master Sandwich 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.
Since the beginning of Anonymous vs. Scientology in January, there have been no Anonymous people jailed, except Carasov, briefly, as the article mentions. A guy in Boston is being prosecuted for "disturbing a worship service", even though on the day in question, the Scientologists said that the protest didn't bother them, and the police said all was quiet. THAT'S IT. So, Scientologists, keep twisting yourselves into ever more contorted positions as you try to paint Anonymous as "criminals." If you want to see criminals, look no further than David Miscavige and Kendrick Moxon.
Shame on you Jeff. Using a article writen by another member of scientology to try to prove your point. The readers here won't fall for it.
The article you link tries very hard to link crimes commited that have nothing to do with scientology or anonymous to anonymous. It's a bad and misleading article short on the facts and truth.
Can you find me even one non scientology link to back up your claim that any member of anonymous has been jailed?
No anonymous havebeen convicted of ANYTHING, despite the COS spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on PIs and lawyers. I the meantime, two scientologists have been charged with battery , just in my location alone.
If you want to see more criminals, the following links is very telling:
"Do you still beat your wife?" "Do you still beat your dog?" What can you do but laugh at such a topic. The article might, conceivably have some substance if it used a less wishy-washy word than "critics". Because a "critic" can represent an opinion from a skeptical, barely informed opinion to a raving madman. I'm saying, the topic could be presented a little better.
Sorry, Scientology apologists - you continue to fail.
Unfortunately, the over 50 years of criminal history just will never go away. As you should be aware, this includes murder, rape, fraud, extortion, bribery, infiltration of government agencies, false imprisonment of members, impersonation of officials, practicing medicine without a licence, etc. This naturally is an incomplete list of Scientology's many offences, which are simply part of their standard operating procedure.
Alas, due to the freedom of information on the internet, L. Ron Hubbard's tried and true policies for suppressing the emergence of the truth will no longer work.They are the tactics of a police state and only thrive when there is little or no freedom of information. Scientology has worked so hard for so long to squash the emergence of the truth, but now technology has made that an impossibility.
It is sad to see people still trying to defend this criminal racketeering organization as though it were a legitimate social group, much less a 'religion'. And reports like this one just underscore the fact that any critic of Scientology is under real and ongoing threat of personal harassament and harm.
If Carasov was subjected to false claims at which court is he suing the Church of Scientology? What's the claim?
You are claiming a lot of things, none of which are free from bias and driven by an agenda, namely "to dismantle the Church of Scientology", which is the motto of Project Chanology. Your purpose is to destroy a religion and you are working on it since eight months. So please stop whining if the Church defends itself against it. You missed the chance for an open communication when the group you represent crashed the servers of the Church of Scientology (to prevent anyone to see their side of the story, not exactly in alignment with the 1st Amendment, amirite?) and send threats to their emails, fax and answering machines and letter boxes. Since months the group you defend is inciting hatred and to be part of an abusive movement it does not matter if you are PERSONALLY lighting the fuse, flicking the switch or slitting the throat.
It's actually been very nice having you on this forum. You've clearly had some experience, and you're well spoken, and that's a nice trait in a civil opponent! In other words, it's nice talking to you.
Re: "If Carasov was subjected to false claims at which court is he suing the Church of Scientology? What's the claim?"
Argument by ommission does not evidence make! in other words, because he didn't reply the way you would assume doesn't mean that "nothing" happened. Nor does that fact alone mean that "something" happened. That alone is not a usable argument.
Please clarify whether or not you actually believe that ANYONE here represents "Anonymous". Furthermore, what makes you believe that any member of anonymous is sending email, fax and answering machine threats?
>>"For the past 8 months I have been peacefully protesting against the Church of Scientology."
So if Scientologists would be peacefully protesting in front of your house for 8 months things would just balance out. :)
I don't think they did... so you owe Scientology several months of free "peaceful protesting" in front of your house or if you prefer in front of your office.
I'm having trouble catching your point... could you clarify, please?
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that there is no difference between protesting certain institutional practices at a facility and protesting someone at their own home?
For me or for a staff member, the church is like a home or a second home and who is protesting in front of a church should be willing to be "protested to".
Interesting point, frankg, and I can certainly understand that in terms of my own Church.
However, there is a significant difference, legally and emotionally, between ones private home and place of worship or solcialization.
You would note that private homes are protested quite often, when there is something to protest. For instance, people that are accused of killing their children often find themselves under protest. I wouldn't qualify "protesting" as a reason to retaliate, but if an individual is credibly accused (and, in many cases proven) of doing the things that the CoS has done, that person would deserve to be protested, and I would gladly lend my support.
"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."
Your link up there was what I was referring to, Louanne:
"
CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME 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."
The use of the term was cancelled, but the policy on the treatment or handling of the SP was specifically not cancelled.
mark, now, what is the "treatment of an SP"? You should define that or it again is misleading. Here, some "internal information", i.e. what Scientology says about it:
Suppressive Person (SP): a person who possesses a distinct set of characteristics and mental attitudes that cause him to suppress other people in his vicinity. This is the person whose behavior is calculated to be disastrous. Also called antisocial personality (defined here).
More extensively said, it is a person who suppresses other people in his vicinity. A Suppressive Person will goof up or vilify any effort to help anybody and particularly knife with violence anything calculated to make human beings more powerful or more intelligent.
The whole rationale of the Suppressive Person (SP) is built on the belief that if anyone got better, the SP would be for it as the others could overcome him then.
In relation to Churches of Scientology: A truly Suppressive Person or Group has no rights of any kinds as Scientologists.
In practice, an SP is a status of a member of Scientology. Someone who intentionally messed things up repeatedly or really badly violated internal rules gets "declared a Suppressive Person". That means he or she gets kicked out of the Church of Scientology and that's it. Nothing more or less. His or her membership is canceled and that person is given the boot. Peculiarly in Scientology is that anyone, also a declared SP, can come back to the Church. I know some people who came back after cooling down and they are Scientologists again.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV Remimeo
PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS
(Applies both Orgs and Sea Org)
LIABILITY Suspension of pay and a dirty grey rag on left arm and day and night confinement to org premises.
TREASON Suspension of pay and deprivation of all uniforms and insignia, a black mark on left cheek and confinement on org premises or dismissal from post and debarment from premises.
DOUBT Debarment from premises. Not to be employed. Payment of fine amounting to any sum may have cost org. Not to be trained or processed. Not to be communicated or argue with.
ENEMY 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.
LRH:jp L. RON HUBBARD Copyright (c) 1967 Founder by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Nope, policy is not open to interpretation. Besides which as has been widely discussed elsewhere:
Policy about Fair Game was cancelled 40 years ago. That cancelled the practice of declaring people fair game.
However, Fair Game concerned internal - to - the Church justice actions. The term had no relevance to people who were not members back then when the policy was in force.
Finally, to insure there could be no misunderstanding, about 10 or 12 years ago, policy came into force that specifically stated that no Scientologist should ever, for any reason, violate the laws of the land. Besides which, Policy is to be understood and followed when applied, not interpreted. Possibly other organizations interpret their policy. Heh.
It certainly is open to interpretation. As you know, the practice of "declaring" fair game was cancelled, but Hubbad specifically wrote that the treatment was unchanged.
Unless you're claiming to have seen a document clarifying the policy, how is it anything but interpretation, when you claim that it only applies to church justice matters. I have not ever seen anything that specifies this.
Lastly, regarding the "law of the land" policy- would you say that this is immutable and universally followed within the CoS? This would be necessary to be accepted as evidence of your above statement...
"Finally, to insure there could be no misunderstanding, about 10 or 12 years ago, policy came into force that specifically stated that no Scientologist should ever, for any reason, violate the laws of the land." - Terryeo
Please provide the actual source material for this claim, in context. If this is actual policy (and not weasel words as redefined by Scientologists), you got a whole lotta 'splainin' to do. But then it's not like you're not gonna do that anyway, right?
I should point out that there is at times a difference in written policy as opposed to what really happens in Scientology, especially when it comes to obeying the law. I firmly believe that most Scientologists would disobey the law if ordered to do so, and this policy is just a cover story.
Posted By: ex church of scientology
Date: 2008-10-11 22:08:25
While I agree in principal with terryeo and LouAnne regarding the "Fair Game" policy, it's cancelling and original intent, it has to be said I witnessed many members of the organisation using this policy to justfy actions that were at best immoral and at worse criminal.
LRH himself said it was never his intent to encourage members to break the law, but he had to make this statement publicly because members were breaking the law. Members of the organsation did and still do practice a mis-guided version of "Fair Game". A disclaimer was even added to the policy in the 90's stating it was in no way meant to encourage people to break the laws of the land in an attempt to address this problem but it still happens; indeed I believe it is worse today than it ever was when I joined in 1977. The phrase "Fair game" was also removed from the policy.
The fact is there are now a lot of people in the church of scientology who are contempteous of wogs. They believe their superiority* gives them the right to treat none members like animals; David Miscavige is like this as are many of the leaders in his favor. *These people are mis-guided and have misunderstoods, as such they are actually inferior.
Homo novis was never meant to be like that, we were meant to be responsible and lead by example. Those who believe this have joined the Freezone or become independant scientologists, not supporting the organisation which has become a corrupt and vile parody of what LRH intended.
The wording was removed, the intent was not. What people need to realize is that LRH did not make Scientology to help people, but to make himself assloads of money. These policies were invented by him. I don't care if he said oh I take it back. Evidence is that he did not. Scientology broke in the IRS and FBI in the biggest infiltration of the US government in history during operation Snow White. This was under the watch of LRH. LRH being L. Ron Hubbard not some other bloke with those initials. This was and has always been and still is a criminal racket. It is no less a racket than a protection scheme or a numbers racket. Scientology needs to face the full force of the RICO act in the US and to be procecuted elsewhere. It is going to trial in France. Was raided by Belgium and the FBI is waking up in the US again thanks to pressure from citizens. It is time for this empire of evil to die. If people want to enjoy reading LRH on their own, that is fine. But this racket built out of copyrights and private eyes and SLAPP lawsuits needs to be dismantled permanently. Only then will the suffering LRH brough upon the world be finally stopped.
Incoming news flash. Anonymous protestor punched by Scientologist on L Ron Hubbad way for simply peacefully protesting. The Scientologist was arrested for assault as shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLDvw2-2ZBI
As far as I can tell, Scientology is just a laughable cult that would be nothing if it had not been founded by a celebrity (L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer) and targeted celebrities for membership from the very beginning to enhance its credibility. I neither fear it nor do I respect it, I just laugh at it.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
