|
Member
|
Re: Starting point for May 10 press release
Quote:
Originally Posted by LurkingObesity
HCO PL 21 October 1968, "Cancellation of Fair Game" says:
The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may
not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
[i]This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an
SP.
^^^^
This part really needs to be stressed. As we've seen with Reconnect, Pat Harney will most definitely deny that this policy exists, and was canceled 40 years ago. It would be ideal if the press was educated enough to introduce this as a counterpoint during the interview. Many bricks would be shat by Harney, many lulz would be had by us.
|
Absolutely, Scientologists always mention that the policy was canceled, and EVERY protester needs to be familiar with this HCOPL as well as the earlier Fair Game Law definitions and examples of Fair Game.
Examples:
Quote:
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Paul Breckenridge, June 1984, in the Gerry Armstrong case:
"In addition to violating and abusing its own members' civil rights, the organization over the years with its 'fair game' doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the church whom it perceives as enemies."
Operation Clambake presents: Quotes about Scientology
California appellate court, 2nd district, 7th division, Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Civ. No. B023193 Cal. Super. (1986):
"Substantial evidence supports the conclusion Scientology leaders made the deliberate decision to ruin Wollersheim economically and possible psychologically.... 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." "Other testimony established Scientology is a hierarchal organization which exhibits near paranoid attitudes toward certain institutions and individuals---in particular the government, mental health professions, disaffected members, and others who criticize the organization or its leadership... “
Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven. July 18, 1989.] LARRY WOLLERSHEIM, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant (Opinion by Johnson, J., with Lillie, P. J., and Woods (Fred), J., concurring.)
“….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 [212 Cal.App.3d 880] organization. Once someone was identified as a "suppressive," all Scientologists were authorized to do anything to "neutralize" that individual -- economically, politically, and psychologically.
…..
Appellant argues these "fair game" practices are protected religious expression.
…..
We are not certain a delibgrate campaign to financially ruin a former member or the dishonoring of debts owed that member qualify as "religious [212 Cal.App.3d 891] practices" of Scientology. But if they do, we have no problem concluding the state has a compelling secular interest in discouraging these practices. (See pp. 884-886, supra.) Accordingly, we hold the freedom of religion guaranties of the United States and California Constitutions do not immunize these practices from civil liability for any injuries they cause to "targets" such as Wollersheim.”
Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989)
For writing this 1991 article on scientology for Time magazine:
TIME Magazine Cover: Scientology Exposed - May 6, 1991 - Religion
journalist Richard Behar became a target of “Fair Game”, the results of which he describes in 1992 while receiving an award for his article:
Author of the 1991 Time Magzine article, RICHARD BEHAR, 1992 LEO J. RYAN award recipient speaks
|
For the press release, it should be kept as concise as possible. Adding the entire cancellation quote would be too much text, but just pointing out that the cancellation was just a cancellation of the usage of the term rather than the policy is getting the point accross.
Maybe it can be included....rewrites anyone?
You is right...on May 10 there will be media and interested public everywhere, and all protesters should stress that the practice of "Fair Game" was never actually cancelled.
|