• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • HOME
  • ABOUT CHINA
    • NEWS
    • TESTIMONIES
    • OP-EDS
    • FEATURED
    • GLOSSARY
    • CHINA PERSECUTION MAP
  • FROM THE WORLD
    • NEWS GLOBAL
    • TESTIMONIES GLOBAL
    • OP-EDS GLOBAL
    • FEATURED GLOBAL
  • INTERVIEWS
  • DOCUMENTS AND TRANSLATIONS
    • DOCUMENTS
    • THE TAI JI MEN CASE
    • TRANSLATIONS
    • EVENTS
  • ABOUT
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • TOPICS

Bitter Winter

A magazine on religious liberty and human rights

three friends of winter
Home / From the World / Featured Global

Scientology, Secular Courts, and Disconnection/Fair Game Policies. 2. Suppressive Persons and Fair Game

11/11/2022Massimo Introvigne |

A suppressive person is a non-Scientologist who tries to destroy Scientology. The short-lived fair game policy meant that actions against them were not punished by Scientology’s ecclesiastical courts.

by Massimo Introvigne

Article 2 of 5. Read article 1.

Well beyond its historical meaning as a policy, “fair game” has now become a slogan used by the anti-cult opponents of Scientology.
Well beyond its historical meaning as a policy, “fair game” has now become a slogan used by the anti-cult opponents of Scientology. Credits.

Among the most controversial features of Scientology ethics are the notions of “suppressive persons,” “fair game,” and “potential trouble sources.” They are often misinterpreted and need to be clarified by putting them into historical context.

In the 1960, Scientology’s founder L. Ron Hubbard proposed a number of reflections on what was making the progress of Scientology more difficult than he expected. As all newly established religions, Scientology encountered external opposition from a variety of sources. Hubbard singled out these opponents who consciously tried to suppress Scientology and labeled them as “suppressive persons” (SP).

Hubbard wrote that, “A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts. SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist.”

These definitions were included in an HCO (Hubbard Communication Office) Policy Letter dated December 23, 1965, which in fact modified a similar Policy Letter of March 7, 1965 (originally misdated as March 1, 1965). The changes introduced are listed at the bottom of the December 23 document.

Although some of its provisions were later cancelled, the Policy Letter of December 23, 1965, remains of crucial importance for its theoretical content. Hubbard took a grim view of the SPs and their motivations. “The real motives of Suppressive Persons, he wrote, have been traced to quite sordid hidden desires—in one case the wife wanted her husband’s death, so she could get his money, and fought Scientology because it was making the husband well.”

L. Ron Hubbard in 1965. Source: lronhubbard.org.
L. Ron Hubbard in 1965. Source: lronhubbard.org.

Hubbard discussed two different problems: how to handle the SP and how to handle the Scientologists who were influenced and manipulated by the SP. As for the first problem, Hubbard’s letter instituted the policy of “fair game,” which would later become the source of innumerable controversies. “A Suppressive Person or Group becomes ‘fair game,’ Hubbard explained. By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist.” Additionally, “A truly Suppressive Person or Group has no rights of any kind as Scientologists and actions taken against them are not punishable under Scientology Ethics Codes.”

There is no doubt that Hubbard regarded SP as inherently dishonest persons, but two words in the last sentence are important. The first is “truly.” Declaring somebody “suppressive” should not be taken lightly. “A person or group may be falsely labelled a Suppressive Person or Group,” Hubbard noted in the same document. And he cautioned that, “The imagination must not be stretched to place this label on a person. Errors, misdemeanors and crimes do not label a person as a Suppressive Person or Group. Only High Crimes do so.”

By “High Crimes” Hubbard meant actions consciously aimed at destroying Scientology. The second key part of the sentence is that SP have no rights “as Scientologists.” Actions against them by Scientologists are not punishable by Scientology’s Ethical Committees. Obviously, this does not mean that SP lose their normal human rights as citizens. Nothing in the letter incites Scientologists to commit illegal acts against SP.

However, the term “fair game” was open to arbitrary interpretation and abuse, not to mention how it can be used by opponents to attack Scientology. Three years after it was introduced, the “Fair Game Law” was cancelled by another HCO Policy Letter dated October 21, 1968. Not unexpectedly, opponents of Scientology still mention the short-lived “fair game” policy to characterize any action taken by the Church of Scientology against them.

The use of “fair game” by the most vitriolic critics of Scientology continues. Screenshot.
The use of “fair game” by the most vitriolic critics of Scientology continues. Screenshot.

But what about those inside Scientology who were controlled or manipulated by the SP? These were defined as Potential Trouble Sources (PTS). The category had been introduced before 1965. An HCO Policy Letter of October 27, 1964, referred in its title to “Troublesome Sources,” and distinguished between different categories of “Threatening Sources.”

The first of ten categories concerned “Persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology. In practice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to beat upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong.” “They, the Policy Letter continued, by experience, produce a great deal of trouble in the long run as their own condition does not improve adequately under such stresses to effectively combat the antagonism. Their present time problem cannot be reached as it is continuous.”

Hubbard’s reflection on how the PTS and their relationship with the SP should be handled within Scientology led to the policies about disconnection, which will be the subject matter of the third article of this series.

Tagged With: Church of Scientology

Related articles

  • L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 3. Art as Communication

    L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 3. Art as Communication

  • Hubbard, Scientology e le arti figurative. 8. Una spiritualità dell’arte

    Hubbard, Scientology e le arti figurative. 8. Una spiritualità dell’arte

  • Hubbard, Scientology e le arti figurative. 3. L’arte come comunicazione

    Hubbard, Scientology e le arti figurative. 3. L’arte come comunicazione

  • Scientology, tribunales laicos y políticas de desconexión/caza no vedada. 3. Los orígenes de la desconexión

    Scientology, tribunales laicos y políticas de desconexión/caza no vedada. 3. Los orígenes de la desconexión

Keep Reading

  • Hubbard, Scientology e le arti figurative. 7. Artisti Scientologist
    Hubbard, Scientology e le arti figurative. 7. Artisti Scientologist

    Tramite i suoi Centri delle Celebrità, Scientology coltiva consapevolmente il rapporto con gli artisti, che si tratti di superstar dell’arte o di pittori “commerciali”.

  • L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 6. Montage, Color, Integration
    L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 6. Montage, Color, Integration

    Hubbard believed that integration between the elements of a work of art is the true key to its success.

  • Scientology, weltliche Gerichte und Trennungs-/Fair-Game-Richtlinie. 4. Trennung: Eine sich entwickelnde Richtlinie
    Scientology, weltliche Gerichte und Trennungs-/Fair-Game-Richtlinie. 4. Trennung: Eine sich entwickelnde Richtlinie

    Das Abbrechen der Verbindung zu einer Person wurde von Hubbard 1968 aufgehoben, aber 1983 als Ausdruck der „Freiheit zu entscheiden, mit wem man kommunizieren möchte“ wieder eingeführt.

  • Scientology, weltliche Gerichte und Trennungs-/Fair-Game-Richtlinie. 5. Sind Scientology-Richtlinien „illegal“?
    Scientology, weltliche Gerichte und Trennungs-/Fair-Game-Richtlinie. 5. Sind Scientology-Richtlinien „illegal“?

    Keine der Ethikrichtlinien der Scientology Kirche kann als gegen die Gesetze eines demokratischen Landes verstoßend angesehen werden.

Primary Sidebar

Support Bitter Winter

Learn More

Follow us

Newsletter

Most Read

  • Blaming the Victims: The Hamburg Shooting and the Jehovah’s Witnesses by Massimo Introvigne
  • The Donnie Yen Fiasco: A Uyghur View by Rebiya Kadeer
  • More Uyghur Criticism of Donnie Yen: Wasn’t He More Guilty than Will Smith? by Kok Bayraq
  • The “Buddhist and Taoist Clergy Database,” Another CCP Imposture by He Yuyan
  • The Suicide of the Pink-Haired Girl: How the CCP Exploited a Tragedy by Zhou Kexin
  • Second-Generation Unification Church Believers Discriminated in Japan. 3. Media Slander Leads to Discrimination by Masumi Fukuda
  • Russia: Pastor Moskvitin Sentenced to 1.5 Years in Penal Colony for “Brainwashing” by Massimo Introvigne

CHINA PERSECUTION MAP -SEARCH NEWS BY REGION

clickable geographical map of china, with regions

Footer

EDITORIAL BOARD

Editor-in-Chief

MASSIMO INTROVIGNE

Director-in-Charge

MARCO RESPINTI

ADDRESS

CESNUR

Via Confienza 19,

10121 Turin, Italy,

Phone: 39-011-541950

E-MAIL

We welcome submission of unpublished contributions, news, and photographs. Each submission implies the authorization for us to edit and publish texts and photographs. We reserve the right to decide which submissions are suitable for publication. Please, write to INFO@BITTERWINTER.ORG Thank you.

Newsletter

LINKS

orlir-logo hrwf-logo cesnur-logo

Copyright © 2023 · Bitter Winter · PRIVACY POLICY· COOKIE POLICY