What's new

On Human Rights, Fundamentalism and Scientology Fair Game


@IndieScieNews on Twitter
On Human Rights, Fundamentalism and Scientology Fair Game

Yes, the essay is from the South African Independent Scientology blog Scientologists back in comm, but the substance is far from limited to Independent Scientology.

UDHR = Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

On Human Rights and Fundamentalism


The essay is long, but is worth reading in its entirety. A (believe it or not) relatively brief excerpt.

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

It was all a PR show, I am afraid. Any old-timer who was in, knows this for a fact. “Fair Game” practices continued , “Overboardings” and “Chain lockers” continued. “Attacking the critics and dissenters by exposing their alleged crimes” continued , as well as the “Smashing the ‘squirrels’ practice”. Read the “Otto J. Roos story” and see it for yourself.

Right now, in present time, the Church is on an on-going all-out rampage of declaring people as “Suppressive Persons” (when per LRH they are anything but), and then then demanding their families, friends and loved ones disconnect from them or suffer the same fate. Many people are still being fair-gamed today – the internet is littered with these stories.

By just this policy on how to deal with alleged “SPs” , (the “Fair Game” policy), many Human Rights violations are committed. Just that policy is enough to heavily attack SCN as a cult(ish) movement. But when so attacked, and rightly so, then the “attakers” are only “SPs” to be squashed and not “Human Rights protectors” as many actually are.

Talking about “Propaganda by redefinition of words” from SCN “policies”.

According to LRH, “SPs” have no rights whatsoever. They can 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.”

L. Ron Hubbard, “PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS”, HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967.”

These “SPs” don’t have the “normal rights a Scientologists has” according to LRH. This is highly selective and exclusive. No wonder the bad repute SCN and LRH have worldwide.

And who is anyone to tell me that I need to refrain myself from talking derogatorily about the individual who WROTE those policies ?

The individual who wrote the policy that anyone “publicly departing Scn” would be declared an “SP”? The individual who wrote as well the policy about any PTS individual being guilty of a “Suppressive act” by failing to disconnect from the terminal making him PTS ?

No; I am afraid that the “Ethics Gradients” applied to LRH as much as they apply to any of us. He just can’t escape justice that easy. Not while I am still around in this planet. I fear no truth, never did; and I never seek or desire approval either.

It was LRH himself and not DM who planted the seed of discord. DM is just being a very incompetent robot to LRH , that’s all. And a lousy copy of him at that.

Let’s continue with point #18 of the UDHR :

“This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest this religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.

I have an inherent right to change my religion or beliefs without undue interference from others. Without being called a “squirrel” just because I differ from LRH as to procedures or technique is concerned. He was not an almighty God, right about everything he ever wrote about. This undeserved emphasis of “KSW #1? is very misguided. It robs us of free will and power of choice over data. But nonetheless, I grant the KSW supporters their right to believe in that, if that’s what gives meaning to their existence. If it is their conviction that KSW #1 is the only way to go, then I have no business invalidating that view. But I have the right to expect the same courtesy from them. Is that so much to ask ? Is that so hard to do?

It is rather funny that if this were any other religion promoting those suppressive policies like “Disconnection” or the “Suppressive Acts” list, the KSW adherents would probably be all over it heavily attacking those views. But because they came from LRH, then somehow there must be “some truth in them”.

How can anyone support and even admire an individual who created such policies totally escapes my understanding . True, LRH did create as well a VERY workable system for achieving higher spiritual awareness and abilities. But this in no way justifys his suppressive policies either. Those who confront truth make it, those who don’t live an incomplete life. I prefer to confront truth no matter how unpalatable.

The workability of SCN as regard its auditing procedures, Tech and Case Supervision training is not necessarily related to its destructive parts. One part need not have any relation with the other.

Now, let’s take up article 19 of the UDHR :

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

I was reading an article on another known blog a few days ago. It was heavily criticizing HBO’s coming documentary , “Going Clear : Scientology And The Prision Of Belief”. It was the opinion of the writer (an excellent one, by the way, and one of the best minds in the Field) that is was wrong somehow to air such a documentary as it would hurt the SCN image too much. As if this isn’t something that’s been happening for decades now. It was this writer’s opinion that the people involved in the creation of this documentary didn’t understand about “the life static” and thus couldn’t possibly understand what SCN was all about.

Really ? What does understanding about the spirit have to do with suppressive policies and plain fanaticism? What does it has to do with shattered lives and destroyed families? Instead of supporting any movement in the direction of the protection of Human Rights while at the same time explaining how it is that SCN has also been perverted by Church officials and made it more harmful , this writer chose to diminish the journalist’s work and research, letting down those hundreds souls who have been wronged, whose memories he should honour.

His views are clearly in opposition with point #19 above of the UDHR. Instead of “protesting” the showing of that documentary (which is only LRH’s style of not confronting attacks), he should have first seen the whole documentary, isolated the parts which were not factual, and then wrote about those exact parts , but offering the exact data with the proper evidence. That would have been more intellectually honest.

Let’s analyse some of the items of LRH’s list of “suppressive” acts which are clearly against article 19 of the UDHR. They also violate point #20 of the UDHR below :

UDHR:” (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.”

SCN: “Organizing splinter groups to diverge from Scientology practices still calling it Scientology or calling it something else”.

So according to LRH if anyone organizes any “splinter group” because he/she objects to some part of SCN, then he/she is an SP. No opinion against any part of SCN is allowed by LRH. It is a “black and white” proposition. You are either “with us” or “against us”. Formidable.

“Organizing a splinter group to use Scientology data or any part of it to distract people from standard Scientology”.

This sounds to me like a monopolistic approach to the subject. Just imagine Newton attempting to control the dissemination and use of his theories just because he discovered them. Nobody has a monopoly on TRUTH, nobody. Truth is for anyone who cares to observe it ; for anyone wanting to use it for the ethical expansion of his dynamics.

Scientology is a summation of the general agreements we committed to as beings a VERY long time ago. It is a discovery not an invention, and thus its use and application is a free choice and a right rather than a privilege.

I don?t see Christianity, for example, trying to control the use and dissemination of their basic text, “The Bible”. Even though the Bible might have undergone some alterations throughout the years due to translation errors the basic fundamentals have remained quite intact for many centuries. There were always those that made sure of that. So it would have been with SCN as well ; there will always be those with the hat to preserve the Tech.

Even though I can understand LRH’s intentions in trying to protect the trademarks, and that he probably only wanted to protect what he believed to be the only “route out” , his strategy to accomplish this was quite faulty and contaminated with many contradictions.

On the one hand you have the “Code of a Scientologist” that has, as point #10 , #11 #12 of it the following :

10. “To work for freedom of speech in the world”.

11. “To actively decry the suppression of knowledge, wisdom, philosophy or data which would help Mankind”.

12. “To support the freedom of religion”.

But on the other hand you have the list of “Suppressive Acts” denying you those same rights; an obvious contradiction. You cannot “publicly depart Scientology” without being declared. You cannot disagree with any part of Scientology and create a “splinter group” (they respectfully call it) based on your own discernment of what parts of the subject you find unworkable or against Human Rights. You can’t do this without being declared an SP.

You can’t practice Yoga, Spiritualism or any other -ism(s) that you may find useful as that would be “mixing practices”. Yet LRH compiled a big portion of what is Scientology based on the wisdom of many great individuals and religions. But try reading or quoting from any philosophy other than Scientology and see for yourself the reactions of KSW supporters. For them, it is only Scientology that has any value.

How about being a highly trained auditor and trying to improve any part of the Tech based on your own experiences and successful actions? You’ll be considered a “squirrel” as you are not supposed to have any mind of your own, and apparently you are not clever enough to establish any part where Scientology might be wrong or fell short.

If LRH didn’t write it then it is not true. We are indoctinated in this think.

All of those above points are in clear contradiction with the quoted points of the “Code Of A Scientologist” without even mentioning the famous “Creed Of The Church Of Scientology” that got so many of us to join in the “Battle For Freedom” as class V Org staff or as SO members. Let’s quote some of its points :


That all men of whatever race, color or creed were created with equal rights.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives.

That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense.

That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments.

That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others”.



Almost every point in this “Creed” is a violation of the list of “Suppressive Acts” – especially the last one.

Let’s examine others items from this list, shall we ?

“Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations”.

“Good standing according to who? Who gets to decide that? That “rule” is one of the reasons we have Mr. “Charlatan Of The Board” (COB) in “Power”. The adherence to that part of the SCN Codes implies giving up one or more of your inherent Human Rights : the right to have a divergent opinion and express it free from attacks upon your reputation or person.

“Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened.”

So if anyone tries to defend his/her Human Rights being violated by any terminal from the Church , after he has tried to handle it by the internal channels without any success, then seeking recourse from an external source like the Media or the “wog courts” as they call it , will be a sure way to get expelled. Now, where is the self-determinism in that ? How many points of the UDHR does this violate?

“Proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed toward the suppression of Scientology”.
So if LRH himself with his own hands wrote the “Fair Game” HCOPL stating that :

[Suppressive Person] 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.

It means that no legislation may be created or applied to protect these “SP’s” from obvious Human Rights violations? Gee, let’s torture the inmates then, let’s lie as witnesses to put behind bars some strong critic of Scientology. After all, they are only SPs. They have no rights whatsoever; they can be destroyed, lied about, tricked, deprived of property, beaten, etc, etc. I wonder where DM got his twisted idea that “beating others into obedience” was ok? It is well-known that he declared his own management team as a bunch of SP’s, and then he had Carte Blanche to fair-game, beat them and destroy them – just as laid out by LRH!

And for those of you who thinks I am going too far and that LRH cancelled the “Fair Game” PL, let me quote then from the modified PL :

(HCOPL 21 OCT ’68 , “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.“

So LRH cancelled the practice of “declaring someone Fair Game” as it was “bad public relations” according to him. Note that he found nothing wrong with the practice itself and its use. Just with “having it written”.

Does anyone remember the practice of “overboarding”? When the student failed to achieve a target, made an auditing error or apply something from the original class VIII course on The Apollo ? Does that sounds sensible to you ? Does it sounds like encouraging Human Rights ? Just imagine being carried by 2 big men and thrown over the side of the ship at a height of 25-35 feet as a means for others to “get the point of Standard Tech”. Just marvelous!

The fact is that the practice of “Fair Gaming” and “disconnection” never really ceased no matter the “PR speech” LRH gave in his famous and controversial RJ68. That’s a FACT any old-timer would be able to confirm for anybody. The list of “Suppressive Acts” was NEVER cancelled by LRH, period. Google search and read the “Otto J Roos Story”. Also the letter from one of the first whistle-blowers, Dane Tops in 1982.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *